In the year 1796, George Washington made a decision not to run for a third term as the president of the United States, which eventually paved way for the election of his successor. His farewell speech – addressed to his cabinet – was delivered on September 17, and was published on September 19 in the then Philadelphia newspaper. In the address, he stressed on the three major threats that were facing the United States. The first was linked to the emergence of political parties and he supposed could the basis of splitting Americans as well as destroying the mutual cooperation required within the government. The second threat was based on the aspect of sectionalism, or political divisions founded on geographic loyalties. In addition, there was the fear of taking part in European rivalries that constantly drove those countries to war. The very last one served as a foundation stone of American foreign strategy until the country's participation in World War I. He was also in support of the preservation of morality and religion as “the large pillars of human contentment” in addition to the education institutions for the wide-ranging dissemination of knowledge
However, George Washington’s farewell address was not delivered verbally and therefore cannot be viewed as an actual speech. Rather the address was issued as a form of warnings, which according to his perspective, was meant to be great advice for the nation that he had served so conscientiously and faithfully. In particular, Washington had the feeling that the future of the nation revolved around a sturdy federal government. He said that the “The unity of government is the main pillar in the edifice” of tranquillity, independence and peace of America.
From the perception of the uniting leader that he was, Washington visualized the party system as disturbing and acting only to "enfeeble the Public Administration," in addition to encouraging "the animosity of one against another," a situation that Washington could not stand for. Given the elementary differences in both the role of the government and policy between the existing parties of his day -the Federalists and the Republicans- Washington's caution was idealistic and unrealistic. At the moment, the two-party structure is the substratum of the current structure of federal government.
On the other hand, Washington strained the significance of morality and religion.
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life," Washington enquired, "if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths" we create when we trail integrity in our courts? Even in the contemporary secularism of America, Washington's counsel is still pursued in the "so help me God" part of public oaths. As part of the address, Washington also advocated for a stable civic credit. Washington sought after no needless accrual of public debt devoid of the revenue to support it up. This was a fragment of very sound recommendation, which to our disgrace, have not honoured.
In addition, the address warned in opposition to lasting distant alliances. In the situation of the world condition throughout Washington's time, this was excellent counsel, for the reason that the United States was weak. However, in the modern perspective, and in the countenance of increasing globalism, Washington may possibly by no means have predicted the forces that have made the United States dependent on its energy sources, alliances, treaties, as well as economic ties with other countries.
George Washington had also warned in opposition to an over-powerful armed forces establishment. Upcoming from a career combatant whose frantic efforts throughout the world-shattering struggle caused him incessant aggravation with an unsupportive, stingy Continental Congress, Washington's observations in this consideration seemed to have advanced somewhat. Washington cautioned against "overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty." nevertheless, considering his individual callous repression of the Whiskey Rebellion, which was fundamentally a taxpayer's upheaval, this counsel in some way rings a bit contradictory, if not inadvertently hypocritical.
Washington will be remembered not only as a great soldier but also as an indispensable leader to his nation who ascended to fame and prominence at the specific time the United States needed him the most. His parting address following his 45 years of devoted service was well-meant and unquestionably genuine.