explore our nation's past. american history tv on c-span 3 created by america's television cable companies and today brought to you by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a service to viewers. up next on american history tv from the national constitution center in philadelphia, editor-in-chief of the daily beast discusses his book, washington's farewell, the founding father's warning to future generations. in a conversation with the constitution centers scholar and residents michael garhart he argues president washington warned about the future dangers of high partisanship, excessive debt and foreign wars. this is about an hour. >> we are enormously fortunate today to have as our guest john avalon who's the editor-in-chief of the daily beast and cnn

political analyst and he's here to discuss his new book which has already been praised as a fantastic contribution to our national hitture. and john will be with us afterwards for a book sale and signing of his book directly following our program. so please join me today in welcoming our wonderful guest john avalon. >> thank you. an honor to be here. >> well, it is a great thing to be talking about george washington. >> never a bad time to be talking about george, which in itself tells us a lot. how did you get interested in the project, and why is it of interest today to be thinking of washington's farewelldries? ç if the first founding father george washington sat down with alexander hamilton and james madison and wrote a memo to future generations, to us

specifically about the forceseu& feared could destroy our democratic republic rooted in the lesson of his life and his understanding of history. he did. that's the farewell address. and he wrote it just a block from here in what was then the philadelphia executive mansion on the corner of what is now market and 6th street. and he wrote it over a period of years as the autobiography of his ideas. and drawing on all the aspects of his life as a soldier, surveyor, farmer, statesman. and washington doesn't always get the respect he deserves as a thinker, as a man of great wisdom. and he wasn't the most brilliant of the founding fathers. he wasn't, you know, a shining whip. he was enormously insecure about his own capacities to serve as president as opposed to the great confidence he felt in

himself as a general, as a farmer. but he really did cultivate his character consciously in an attempt to cultivate a national character. and the farewell address is an enormous gift and understood as such for a long time. it was that foundational. that was consulted by presidents and statesman at pivotal moments in our history as a lens to which to judge and guide their own decisions. so the fact it fell out of favor and is now almost forgotten is itself a great opportunity for us to rediscover it at a pretty pivotal moment when i think a lot of folks are thinking about america as a civilization perhaps for the first time and trying to understand these larger forces of history that we sometimes recklessly play with and understand it as part of our birthright. this whole center is devoted to that. the city is devoted to that. but to recognizing that we the

people have responsibilities as citizens to understand our history, to apply that to the present so that we can pass it onto the future. that farewell address is an aspiring document that consciously aspires to do just that. it is durable wisdom, and that's why it was such an honor to write the book and have it get such a great rese. >> well, we're going to get into the real substance of the address in a moment. i want to put it into some context first. and maybe a good place to begin doing that is with recognizing that this isn't the first farewell address he gave. giving farewell addresses was something washington i won't say he liked to do but something he had thought about before. >> yeah, he had a genius for good-byes. he understood -- and i think it's a measure of both his innate modesty which was not effective, and he knew that the

person who's being pursued is always more desirable than the person doing the pursuing. and waug's first farewell address was when he resigned his commission as commander of the continental army. and you've got to understand that in a life full of firsts this was really the first decisive moment, and it was famous in its time. george iii in england allegedly said when confronted with the fact george was going to resign his position he said if he does that he'll be the greatest man in the world. because that was not the pattern. the pattern that history had provided over and over again was that the young rebellious leader would rise up against a tyrant, would topple the king and then become a tyrant himself. that was the pattern of history

almost sort of written into fairy tale and george washington consciously when there's an attempted coup, a mutiny of his officers, people are trying to get him to take control and become the new king, he decidedly steps off the stage. but when he does that, he's stationed in newburgh, new york. there's a fascinating hamlet on the hudson river near west point, and his headquarters at the end of the revolutionary war still stand. they were among america's first historically designated spaces. and the town itself has fallen into it disrepair but has a wonderful history but i recommend everyone visit it. washington writes in that spates in this little squat stone house his farewell address to the nation. and he doesn't do it as far as we can tell with any ghost writers. he writes a farewell address in a format called the circular

letter to the states and that was a letter going to be sent to the legislators of each state and would be disseminated that way. and he said, look, you all as citizens of this new republic may be celebrating and that's great. but this is a time of great peril, a time of crisis because now it falls to us to show that we can govern ourselves. and every other nation in the world is waiting for us to fail. ological the old colonial powers. and if we have all the advantages of geography -- and he spoke a lot about geography as a soldier and farmer often does about our great advantage of being separated by an ocean from the turmoils of europe, about being blessed by beautiful soil and climate, but it was going to be up to us to hang together because remember another bit of inherited wisdom was no democracy could exist on a scale such as ours. writers had said maybe democracy could exist but never 13

colonies along such a long period of land. and this was, therefore, a responsibility the citizens had and their representatives to show we could succeed as an american public. to do that we had to find common sets of purpose. already washington knew the continental congress had been almost hopelessly guided. they couldn't get their act together or find any sense of common purpose. they needed to focus on the responsibilities of civic people to be invested and use education and religion as a way of binding the nation together. he talked about the importance of paying your debts whether it was for the federal level, state level or crucially at that time to the soldiers and pensioners because that was a great source of pain leading to a sense of dissension. so already you saw washington laying out markers, a commitment to national unity, a focus on building national character, an idea that education and religion

could help that. a sense that paying down debts was important and also containing what we would call hyper-partisanship and they called faction. he also recommended strongly we have an independent executive which they didn't listen to during the articles of confederation and eventually would become washington's to enact that legislation. but then he left the stage. and that first farewell was call his farewell for a long time. that was almost as famous as his farewell address, but it predated his presidency. and that was a crucially important document that itself was largely forgotten, but it establishes crucially that the farewell address are washington's ideas. these are not, you know, hamilton ghost writing something washington sets his name to as many partisan critics claimed at the time, that washington was a man of deep ideas rooted in his experience and deep understanding of history.

and you get that continuity clearly from his first farewell. and of course once he's become president and this is discussed in this wonderful book, by the way, which i wish we could go through page by page. but we're not going to be able to do that. once he gets back to the stage he understands something he's got to do as president and that is set a series of precedents. and so this farewell address itself will become a precedent. and before we get to that, what are some of the other precedents he's trying to set as he moves through the first and second term? >> what's so fascinating is to do that close focus at the early days of the government because when you think about it as carefully written as the constitution was, as much of a masterpiece of compromise as it was and is and why places like this are invaluable to our civic education, it's essentially a framework. what you fill it with was largely up to the president and

the congress to create those precedents. and the first congress in lower manhattan -- and i'm proudly, you know, from new york city with a joint -- dual citizenship with charleston, south carolina, at times. but in those cramped city streets where there's not the kind of markers in history as exist in philadelphia because new york is a place that reinvents itself so deciduously. you had the first congress take place in the hall and they're making it up as they go along. they're debating how much a president should be considered a king. the city of new york kind of ponies up to spruce-up their city hall to make it appropriate for a congress. the congressional library i think fascinatingly the decline and fall of it roman empire, which shows how much the

precedent of ancient greek and roman history was on their minds. they were consciously both in writing the constitution and trying to setup those precedents, trying to learn the lessons of history so they didn't follow the path of all the failed republics before them. remember john adams says there hasn't yet been a democracy that didn't commit suicide. so all this is very much in their minds. and there's a lot of griping about the inefficiency and effect of congress. they're obviously focused on supporting the bill of rights, but this is before their political parties, folks. and washington himself is proudly not a member of a political party. he is an independent as a matter of principle. what's also fascinating ability that first congress without parties is this. first of all, the founders assumed that the balance of power setup would be enough of a check and balance and that peoples constituencies and personal beliefs would itself provide enough pervasive debate.

the other thing going back to the constitutional debate, there's a natural cleaving into two very recognizable groups. folks from more rural areas are tremendously concerned about the overreach of federal power. they oppose the ratification of the constitution as a result. because they felt that growth of federal power would infringe upon their freedom and way of life. then their folks who favor much stronger central government in the passage of the constitution who tend to come from cities. and they -- that division is obviously deeply reminiscent of democrats and republicans today, red states, blue states. i think it belies the fact really the divide is between urban and rural, not that the character of the countries changes when you cross state lines. and i think crucially washington sees himself as someone who can try to bridge that divide

because he recognizes people on both sides even though he's on the side of the central government he recognizes both groups believe they're fighting for freedom. and he really does want to bridge that. already az 3/st war is a real possibility 09gñ"vl trying to stop the growth of political parties. it puts him in enormous pain to see his most talented surrogate sons scheme to create political parties against his wishes under his nose through dueling partisan newspapers, by the way, which is a fascinating story. so washington is so conscious of the president, he's tight with madison, madison throws out when he throws in with jefferson. washington is trying to keep this as example and not have the office be too highfalutin shall we say. at the same time he's very self-monitoring. he has that distance he conflated with dignity of a

soldier. so that made him very unproachable by design, and that's one of the reasons he is not as warmly beloved as say as lincoln is today. but to see these folks as they were and as they saw themselves or as close as we can get, to understand them on a human scale makes the whole thing infuinantly more fascinating. it makes the whole exercise of reading history so much more accessible and i think much more inspiring. and of course he's moving through the presidency he's overseeing crises, he mentioned he's seeing in a sense but can't stop it the formation of political parties. and one of the things that's happening of course is he's trying to get out. yeah, he -- he's succeeding but

at the same time he wants to leave. as you mentioned near the beginning he's already think of his farewell address at the end of his first term. >> it's fascinating. he's a genuinely elected president but we're very used to that pose in politic, the politicians always going no, no, no. and they're trying to set that up. washington genuinely was a reluctant president. and he -- and the only thing jefferson and hamtle wn could agree on at the end of the first term as washington retired the nation would revert to civil war. we were not strong enough to sustain the absence of a unifying figure that washington who preside said over the constitution, presided over the military and had a unique status as being above party as a unifying figure. he had that authority that none of the oertsz did. even as we believe the founding fathers and certainly their work

has inspired and the alchemy of the individuals was fascinating. i think that speaks to by design, by the way. the federalist party really forms around washington. he is not part of it. so washington -- at the end of his first term, he's exhausted. he's frustrated. he doesn't necessarily feel this job comports to his strengths. he really wants to go home to mt. vernon. god knows marketer wants him to. and martha doesn't even show up at the first inauguration. he makes that trip alone because she's not too thrilled having gibbon him up he's going to lose them again, it politics. but he really is convinced, he begins work on his first farewell address with james madison who it's fsinating plays a really interesting role in the first two congresses, the republic where he's both a leader of congress and washington's chief legislative

and lyrical aid in effect. so he's writing congressional statements and the president's response and vice versa, he's playing a fascinating role. washington confesses to him he wants to retire. madison tries to talk him out of it. washington hears him, says, you know, i appreciate it but i'm out of here. what's the best time, what's the best means. madison says you should publish it in a newspaper which he eventually does. and then basically a number of things occur. madison submits a draft. and basically washington becomes persuaded if he leaves the country could begin civil war. he feels enormously betrayed. jefferson of course lies to his

face when confronted about it. and when he confronts hamtleen about it hamilton cops a little easier because he's defending the administration. and he really just backs off the idea, doesn't formally announce it but the cabinet can sleep easy when he finally gives up the idea. and then he puts madison's draft on his shelf or in his roll-top desk and doesn't consul it again until really the spring of february 17. >> so he's now in a position he's not going to be persuaded to stay. he's prepared to leave, but he also perceives that there's a value in this farewell address. so i'm curious to know why he is so determined to -- to put this into form and at the same time consult with people whom he knows don't get along. he's consulting with hamilton

and madison so he's sort of double question to some extent. >> yeah, look partly he's consciously trying to build a document beyond faction, beyond parties. he's trying to create a document very consciously that can unite the nation. that really if you want to distill washington's wisdom, he's very focused on us becoming an independent nation. it's a phrase he uses a lot. it's partly how i came to the book, my title of my first book was independent nation. i didn't fully appreciate that was washington's. but the deeper wisdom was this, that our independence as a nation is inseparable from our interdependence as a people. that's our core wisdom. and he's entirely focused on national cunety, on creating a national character. and doing it through education, through religion, through policy

prescriptions, and that's what he chooses to do in the farewell. he brings together the greatest team of ghost writers in history. madison does the first draft, hamilton does the second and where he can really claim the line share of credit for the words, not the ideas. and then he brings in john j. at the very end. and to your point, he gets back to together the band of brothers who does the federalist papers. john j. had left being chief justice of the supreme court to become governor of new york. and there's a wonderful moment we found out where hamilton and j. did the final edit before sending it back to washington. it's july, 1786 and washington really trusted j. pfts advice and he kind of, he and hamilton had a complicated relationship, father and son, both pretty hotheaded and both could get angry, and washington really tried to restrien his anger much like eisenhower.

hamilton had a harder time doing that because he felt, you know he didn't have any advantages. he was really struggling. i will say the play hamilton, or the musical. i hope you all have seen it. the song last time is about the composition of the farewell address. we'll get to that. the important precedent is also this not just he sets the two term tradition and leaves power. there was an assumption by some folks the president could stay in office forever. that would have been perfectly logical, some sort of compromise between a monarchy and republic. he sets the constitution until we get an amendment and crucially also he decides to make a farewell address something carried on and carried forward by the power of his example. he could have easily done just a quick victory lap and said look at all the great things i've done, you know, less nobody

forget all these accomplishments, the country's stronger economically and militarily. he specifically writes it as a warning about the forces that he believed could destroy our democratic republic, and that tradition gets carried forward in almost every major farewell address most famously eisenhower's farewell address. even president obama's farewell address which quotes washington's farewell warns about threats to our democracy, right? but washington was really focused on paying it forward, and that's why he took such care. he's writing and rewriting the document, and the new york public library has the draft. and you can see the minute line edits. i was a speechwriter for new york city mayor giuliani, so i get the process and fascinated by it.

they're minute and he's cheerily writing he's aware posterity is going to judge it. he wants to avoid to the best he can any misinterpretation. but he's clearly writing for future generations. he's writing for us and writing about the big topics. they're rooted in his own experience. you see the frustrations of the french attacking him. you can see all the policies we can get into in greater depth. but the fact he writes the farewell address as a warning is one of his great gifts and one that gets carried forward. >> well, great speech requires in a sense a great outlet, and he chooses this local paper. so how does he end upsetling on the place he does end up choosing as the place to publish it? >> so this is kind of fun. he chooses the american daily advertiser which is one of several papers on what was then high street, what is now market street in philadelphia.

and basically with madison, i mean, the model for this to the extent there was a model was a european king bidding good-bye to an assembled parliament or legislature or house of lords. madison suggests he disseminates it in a newspaper because it's more little "r" republican. it doesn't have monarchal trappings. the president is directly addressing the american people. and there are around 100 newspapers at the time. and it took months for it to get to vermont and kentucky. so when hamilton is doing the major edits and advice and are corresponding between new york as hamilton is retired from the treasury at this point, comes down back and forth occasionally to argue cases in front of the supreme court which is kind of fascinating upon itself, washington asks his advice, what newspaper, and he suggests

dunlop's american newspaper. the federalist had a perfectly dependently pro-administration newspaper they could have given it to, and that would have made a lot of sense, right? you know, in thel)4,$+áá$p'd different papers picked up the mantel of different times but you would have had the places like the american aurora which administration, washington in particular an accusations of monarchy, incompetence and et cetera. and then you had papers brutally attacking jefferson and madison and the democratic republican party, and that would have made sense given to a partisan newspaper on your side. washington didn't want to do that because he explicitly was trying to send a message it was beyond party. now, a cynic would say that the reason for that is they had a

lot of congressional publishing contracts going back to the declaration and therefore it didn't make sense to throw in with one faction or the other. but i think there was a genuine philosophical point of view that that's where they felt a paper should be, that independence is key to the integrity of the news brand. the point is we've always had partisan papers and also always had folks who tried to rise above the fray, who believe that was closure to their mission as journalists and david claypool felt that. so claypool, washington sends out to five blocks from the executive mansion just down the road and all the papers are located just next to each other and they hate each others gutsch and he sends out their top aid to bring a note down to claypool and says the president would like to meet with you. comes down and meet on the second floor of the executive mansion. and he sort of angled sofas on

the fireplace. and incidentally washington always kept a framed portrait of kink louie of france as a sort of rebuke to among other things jefferson and madison for falling in love with the french revolution naively. and he basically delivers the greatest scoop in american history to david claypool. he says i'm going to retire, i'm writing a message, i'd like you to publish it. claypool is of course over the moon. and at that point the things had been written for five years, but things go very quickly over a period of and just, you know, in the shadow of independence hall. washington gets a draft, it's type set. washington makes final very minute edits but he's very hands on about the edits and rewritten the entire thing into his own hand which is rewritten by his stepdaughter. claypool comes over with the

final proof to say thank you. they decide they're going to publish it -- there's no like weekend edition. they're going to wait. it's an afternoon paper that costs 6 cents. claypool returns the document, and he expresses real reluctance to part with it sort of hemming and hawing. and washington sort of very oddly for him impetuously says fine, you can keep it. and washington keeps his documents meticiously at mt. vernon. he rewrites old letters sometimes. but he gives the original document to claypool who then sits on and refuses to sell it and it's believed to be lost for a long period of time. but that morning washington leaves philadelphia september 19, 1796. he leaves that morning and with martha and a green parrot and that afternoon the paper hits the streets and the news

explodes. it's republished in the papers, in philadelphia, then new york. it passes along, and washington in that really just fascinating way in his diary says almost nothing. i went home to mt. vernon, nounced resignation in the american daily advertiser, that's it. >> of course now we're here. we're at the speech itself. i would & you to get up and deliver it but i know we're going to save that for later. but share some of the substance with us. it has six pillars so to speak in it which are obviously with stood the test of time. >> i describe them as pillars of liberty becausethets a phrase washington and the founders used a lot. i believe the word liberty is worth unpacking just a little bit to understand why washington was focused on these core themes. we use the words independence and freedom and liberty

essentially as interchangeable today. but i think to the founders there are crucial differences and distinctions. the founders particularly washington who were alwaysed focused on responsibility that comes with freedom, he understood, they understood that freedom could be a state of nature. but liberty required responsibility, that self-government was a job for a citizen that they needed to be invested in, that citizens needed to be invested in the success of a democratic republic for it to function. and so that idea of pillars of liberty, these were things holding up the edifice of our democratic republic. washington as i pointed out these core dangers, and they were really rooted in their understanding of an ancient greek and roman history and were referred to in the constitutional debates and the federalist papers. you know, when washington's warning about the dangers of hyper-partisanship or what the founders would have called

faction, madison's obsessed with addressing this in the federalist papers because he talks about how ancient greek republics were torn apart by faction. and washington in particular really understands when these self-interested factions hijack a democracy and also by the way the english civil war is very much in the memory of living founder fathers and that doesn't always get the credit it deserves in terms of impacting their thinking and the writings of george washington in particular. washington understood basically these factions could hijack democracy, it would create a very deadlocked legislature that would create such fustration on the part of average citizens, that it could open a door to a demagogue with authoritarian ambitions. washington and the founders were acutely aware of that pattern in human history, and they wanted

to counteract it as best they could. they could do it institutionally to some extent, but they also needed to lead by the strength of their example and setting forth clear wisdom. excessive debt was also a major danger, something that i think is more associated with the conservative side of the aisle as a focus. although when our conservative friends take control of the legislature they seem to forget when it actually comes to passing a bill on such measures. washington and hamilton, here's when hamilton's effort crucially was involved understood debt was a force that could topple empires. it always had. and washington and jefferson experienced that danger especially during the revolution because the continental congress couldn't raise money to pay for their soldiers and the itbrish tried to use inflation as a weapon to devalue local

currency. so washington and robert morris, a local who was ultimately imprisoned in a very poignant story i write about washington visited him in prison. but he was really the screenious of the american finance system as much as alexander washington really grew to understand the importance of a degree of set in funding a society but that excessive debt could topple an empire in part because it violated the precept of generational responsibility. you should pay your own debts and not pass them on to the next generation. and finally foreign wars and foreign entanglements. folks know the farewell address today, they probably know the phrase, "entangling alliances" which doesn't appear in the farewell address. that phrase appears in jefferson's first inaugural which basically re-articulates washington's farewell advice after jefferson has basically spent his domestic political career fighting washington over policy and philosophy. he becomes a worn again washingtonian once he becomes president. but, you know, keep in mind that washington as a young soldier gets involved in the first

skirmish that starts not only the french and indian wars in america but the seven years war in europe. the dangers of these sort of interconnected fates are very clear to him. and one of the great blessings of the united states is the atlantic ocean. and he's constantly saying don't throw in with these foreign powers. we will become a proxy, we will become a satellite, they will don't actually care about our national interests and they never will. so he's guarding against that. will rogers, by the way, had a great line about that. he said no nation ever had a better friend than ours. you know who the two best friends of the america was? the atlantic and the pacific ocean. and the tendency of foreign nations to try to meddle in the domestic affairs and elections of our own. an this, too, was something that ancient greeks and romans have warned about. vladimir putin didn't make this up on his own, folks. in the federalist papers they

referred to the fact that king phillip of macedon tried to cozy up to the greek city states and give them foreign donations and then buy off a couple of politicians and sow seeds of discords and then make the state so weak and divided that he could easily conquer it. even during washington's own time, poland admiring the mimicry of us, creates the first constitutional monarchy but the russians end up buying off members of parliament and basically get to poland to disastrously agree to a series of partitions that reduce it to a skeletal state between russia and prussia until it is easily sort of absorbed and that's a contemporary example that washington's contending with. most viciously, it's france. france sends an ambassador, the revolutionary government, to foment rebellion against the administration to try to convince washington and his administration to back away from the proclamation neutrality that washington issues in the latest war between france and england and jefferson and madison are

all in on the french side. there are riots in the street. jon jay is burned in effigy. there are riots in the streets right around the constitution center outside the executive mansion. john adams actually calls for guns and weaponry to be brought to his house. because these folks are being fomented by the french, the country is inflamed. the birth of the partisan system is partly based around allegiance to the french revolution because washington's proclamation on neutrality is seen as a complete traitorous move against the french who supported us and being seen as de facto pro-british. of course, hamilton was accused of trying to mimic the british economic system, et cetera, et cetera. what washington understood that they didn't, we needed to walk a middle line between monarchy and the mob. that we couldn't throw in with the british. and hamilton understood that anarchy was also the quickest path to tyranny. and so he's really fierce when he writes the farewell address about the attempt of the french to undermine the integrity of our system and his government. and that seemed like a distant

concern when i wrote the book. but of course it's ripped out of the headlines today. and then i'll just say that while washington focused on warnings, he was too much a man of action to simply point out problems. so he pointed out very clearly in these pillars of liberty sources of strength that we should always focus on going forward. national unity. right? it's obvious now part of the danger of hyperpartisanship he warned was regional-based political parties that could lead to civil war. and he called those folks who would try to divide us as americans in political debates q■ remember that.÷sqrwñ he talks about the importance of political moderation as a source of strength in a democracy, not weakness. not a mushy middle. but, in fact, a great tradition that's rooted in classical wisdom. take it from the ancient greeks and romans. we've forgotten that as well that political moderation is a source of strength and democracy as the founding fathers

understood it. talked about the importance of paying down debts, fiscal responsibility that taxes are always going to be unpopular, but you need to pay them because it's immoral to pass off debts to another generation. but that some debt could be a good thing for a society. he talked about the importance of religion and morality to a self-governing people. this is the part that reagan always loved to use to quote. and i think it illustrates the way that the disparate messages of the farewell address resonate with different communities and can still unify us. but while washington was not an orthodox believer in christianity, he took grief from a local preacher for not taking communion and kneeling during prayer. but he really understood the importance of religious pluralism and religious tolerance and religion in undergirding a self-governing society. was very utilitarian. religion was a great way of communicating morality and getting people to be ethical citizens. education, washington was the least educated founding father. because of that he was the most focused on education on a national level. he wanted to build a national

university in washington where the vice president's house now stands. he actually donated money to that. he was so focused on it that hamilton kept trying to take it out of the farewell address, and washington kept putting it back. hamilton ultimately said save most of your verbiage of that for your farewell address to congress. so right now there's only one line but it's fascinating and washington's point that is enlightened opinion is necessary to a self-governing society. the reason he wanted a national university also was to try to bridge the divides between states, to create a common culture and common character. and civic education, which this organization is devoted to is something that we need to take much more seriously as a country. and finally, the importance of a foreign policy of independence. washington's advice on foreign policy has been mischaracterized throughout the ages as endorsement of isolationism. it's not. what he was focused on is a period of at least 20 years where we could build an economic and military strength so that we could be respected as an independent nation on the world

stage and pursue our own interests and not confuse our own interests with that of another nation. so all these pillars of liberty that washington focuses on, national unity, he talks about citizens of birther choice, which is a beautiful phrase we should remember. all these pillars are things that were intended for us to focus on going forward. and they can unite us across our disparate political tribes still today. and it's just one of the fascinating gifts at the heart of this address. >> well, there's so many of those -- i mean, all the pillars of course still resonate with us. i want to come back to them in a moment. >> sure. >> but several questions in the audience touch on something that's absent from the pillars. and that's any mention of slavery. >> yep. >> so, what do we make of that? >> the well, look, i mean, obviously slavery is the original sin in our society and in the constitution.

as you will appreciate even the constitutional debates, the founders basically kicked the can. they basically said this is too contentious, we're not going to be able to get a constitution if we deal with this issue. washington's relationship with slavery is of course notoriously complex. and this is actually the subject of when i interviewed lin-manuel miranda who is the playwright in the play, "hamilton." we talked at length about it. it's understandable but i think dangerous to view the founders solely through our contemporary lens. and lin-manuel miranda's point was we need to embrace the contradiction that this is a man who speaks beautifully about freedom who owned other human beings. you need to confront that contradiction, can't ignore it. but then you need to transcend it. that's the sand in the oyster, he said.

and i do think that while washington sidesteps the question of slavery, because, remember, here too he's still trying to forestall the civil war. and the founders understood washington in particular that the fault lines of the north and south and slavery were the most likely lines for civil war. washington, as president, is a fascinating example. a conversation he has with attorney general randolph where he says if there's a civil war i'm going to go in with the north. he feels captive to its cruel economy in a way that seems sort of ironic today. but he understands it's a problem not only for the country but for himself. and what's fascinating is is that the coda to the farewell address is his last will and testament. and that's a point i make in the book a great deal. i think washington's last will and testament needs to be understood as the coda to his farewell address. he releases his slaves upon his

death and his wife martha's death. many of them he inherited. most of them he inherited from his wife martha and her first husband. now you can easily argue that's too little/too late. but it's worth remembering first of all that he's consciously trying to send a message to the nation about the direction we need to move and the side of this debate he's truly on. that nine subsequent presidents owned slaves and bought slaves when they were in office and didn't release them at their death or at the end of their life. washington did. it was against the grain. and he was clearly sending a message. and, again, understandable for folks to say it's too little/too late, but he was writing for posterity even up until that last moment. and so i think he does deal with it belatedly outside the immediate text of the farewell. >> well, we've already started talking about something that of course that's a big focus in your book, and that is the afterlife of washington's farewell address. i want to touch on different

aspects of that afterlife. it's no great surprise that every generation's going to want washington on their side also to harken back to lin-manuel miranda. but i want to see how the farewell address is fair in a sense through history. for example, during the civil war, what difference, what do they make of it during the civil war? >> this is fascinating to me, too, in particular because, again, the farewell address is almost a rumor to many of us today. the play "hamilton" is the first time it's gotten a real shoutout in a long time. you got to understand the centrality it has. it was more widely reprinted in the declaration of independence. the farewell address is bandied about because washington in it warns us against secession. warns us against disunity. andrew jackson's entire farewell

address is basically a rumination on washington's wisdom in the farewell address saying when washington wrote that we didn't know the constitution would work, we know it does now, don't be seduced by the claims of succession. which were being advanced by people such as former vice president john c. calhoun. daniel webster and other folks are arguing both sides of it. abraham lincoln uses the farewell address as part of his core 1860 stump speech. justifying or defending the newly formed republican party against attacks. that's not a regional party. that's a national party. and that, you know, this is a party of progress. which i think is sometimes lost. and then during the civil war, the confederates try to claim washington as one of their own, too. right? you know, they say that washington was a southerner and a plantation owner and a slave owner and a rebel.

ergo, he's one of us. washington's entire political life after the revolution was focusing on national unity. there's a debate in the run-up to the civil war, too, about whether the farewell address should be bought because they, you know, john david claypool finally kicks the can and his executors put it up for sale. and jefferson davis, future president of the confederacy, then-mississippi senator, says this is a really waste of federal dollars. of course, what he's trying to do is denigrate the message of the farewell. one of the reasons it's in the new york public library is it's bought by a private entity because congress was dissuaded from trying it because it was seen as profulgate during the time. jefferson has it read aloud to troops to remind them. what they're fighting for. and after the civil war it becomes part of standard curriculum in american schools as a way of binding the nation's wounds. and there's amazing literature. there are all these contests

that occur in the late 19th century which i've got examples of in the book where students would commit it to memory. they would win awards for oratory. this is a 6,000-word address and they're memorizing this. and this was a standard part of the curriculum. and the explicit point was is that maybe if we'd remembered the wisdom of washington's warning, we wouldn't have had the civil war. that's the idea. and it is a mainstay of debate right up and through world war i. and that's sort of the key pivotal moment. and what's fascinating is you've got a great debate around america's involvement in world war i and the league of nations conducted by two washington biographers. woodrow wilson and henry cabot lodge. woodrow wilson, of course, is the democratic president. they are debating whether we should get involved in our first overseas war. it was a total violation of

everything washington says. and what wilson tries to do is basically says, well, you know, the wisdom of washington's warning needs to be updated even if it's not totally outdated, that it's really about expanding freedom and securing freedom and we should be in that business as well. we need to be a good friend on the world stage and makes that case. henry cabot lodge is arguing more sort of, you know, we have never done ourselves a disservice by following washington's wisdom and be very careful of ditching tradition. a classic true conservative perspective. after the war it's about joining the league of nations. obviously wilson wins that debate, by the way. and after the war, which the worst does not occur. america gets in and it's a relatively quick win. then it's the question of the league of nations. and henry cabot lodge & co says it's committing us to a potential war.

but at that moment washington starts to seem less infallible because we had violated one of the clear presets. and the end did not come. in fact america seemed to be rising on the world stage. and even though there's a fascinating period after world war i where there's great doubts about why we got involved in the war and there's these senate commissions looking at who compelled us and was it in our real national interest. the farewell address and washington, himself, starts to take a ding. the gettysburg address rises in prominence as a civic scripture. and the farewell address startâv to fall out of favor.so6t it's a fade. one of the most surreal moments that i think in the book surrounds the rise of a group called america first, which was a group of folks who informed by world war i brandished the legacy of washington and the farewell saying that we should

not get involved in world war ii, and this is the late 1930s and 1940. this is charles lindbergh, henry ford, a pretty wide group of folks basically saying that that's not our fight. they use the farewell address as an argument for why we shouldn't get involved in a foreign war. and some of them are clearly motivated by anti-semitism. other folks just by saying that world war i was actually a mistake, let's not squander our advantage on the world stage. and this is where the farewell address starts to get ahead of being synonymous with isolationism, which it never did. but there's a surreal dark moment that i think is fascinating, that just to discover it itself was kind of stunning. in february 1939, there's a rally of the german-american bund at madison square garden. and it's 20,000 america nazis show up. and it's ostensibly about ethnic pride.

but there's a 30-foot banner of washington flanked by swastikas. and the keynote speech is all about recasting and re-appropriating the farewell address, saying that washington warned us against excessive debt and the new deal has been too free-spending. he warned us that we should focus on religion as the mainstay of our national identity. and he warned us foreign entanglements and being involved in foreign wars. now, what's fascinating about this odious misappropriation in addition to just the photos look like an outtake from dark mirror of the twilight zone, is that of course washington warned against these exactly these kinds of pretend patriots who would manipulate his wisdom and the founding wisdom and argue that dividing the country was representing the founder's vision for the country when nothing could be further from

the truth. and in particular the dangers of a foreign government trying to influence our own elections and our own internal decisions, and the german-american bund was eventually exposed as taking money from adolf hitler. but washington's farewell really takes a hit between world war i and that association with isolationists and anti-semites. and unfairly it starts to fall out of favor. it's briefly revived during the vietnam war when gary wills and other folks make a very high-minded argument for why involvement in vietnam is not consistent with the founding father's vision for america while nixon and co was saying it did. it pops up regularly. reagan loves quoting it about religion. johnson loves quoting it for education. reagan loves quoting it for religion. it's got this fascinaing history. it was so central to american debates. and then it faded away. but that doesn't mean its wisdom is any less applicable. it's just a fascinating guide to how historical memory can ebb and flow.

and these civic scriptures really retain their wisdom and we shouldn't accept that they're diminished by name. >> a couple of other questions from the audience also ask about the parallel between washington's farewell address and eisenhower. and you talk about this in the book. can you talk briefly about how eisenhower himself is influenced by it? >> i really was a washingtonian. he was a reluctant politician. he thought of himself as an independent. he really threw in with the republican party because he felt that one party ruled the democrats and ruled since 1932 and it was bad for democracy. he was constantly at war. when his time for farewell address comes by, and i found some memos that hadn't been published before saying you should really go back and look at the farewell address again.

he focuses deeply on it. and his warning is to -- that the military-industrial complex, although originally it was the congressional military industrial complex. and then he thought he would be alienating more people than he would attract. but the entire speech and much of eisenhower's career is focused on these same pillars of wisdom. the virtue of moderation. eisenhower was deeply focused on that. the importance of avoiding excessive debt, excessive generational responsibility. that distrust of hyperpartisanship, the focus on national unity, the focus on civic education. and then identifying a new emerging threat that couldn't have been on washington's radar. that was his great gift. but the speech itself and much of the political career is based solely on the foundation of washington and washington's farewell. >> john, and our time is growing a little bit short here, and there are so many other things i

want to touch on. one thing i'm sort of curious about is whether or not given our technological advancements we could even have something like the farewell address today. could we have some -- is it unique to washington himself? or is that special opportunity kind of lost? or no longer possible. >> look, obviously, you're dealing with a set of uniques. a precedent without precedent in a time when there wasn't the fragmentation of our media environment and that everything washington did had outside impact and he knew it. so, no, of course, a presidential address any kind of message is not going to stand out in the same way, it's not going to have the same historical gravity. what i think we can do is to first of all recognize that we have those first principles articulated by the founding fathers, that they're not simply dusty old relics, but it's our responsibility as new generations of americans to dust

them off and to make the old stories new again. because those principles don't age. principles are not rigid requirements. they're going to have different degrees of implicability at different times in our history. washington couldn't have foreseen the growth of technology that would shrink the distance of the ocean or would give rise to the military-industrial complex. but as we've seen, certainly his warnings about the dangers of hyperpartisanship, foreign powers trying to influence our domestic debates and elections and the dangers of excessive deficits and debt retain applicability. and i think that's what we really need to focus on because washington is beyond partisan debates and because politics is the thing we have -- perspective is the thing we have least of in our politics. i think refocusing on washington and the other founding fathers is especially important for us right now, because it can recenter our debates, it can provide a sense of common ground

and common purpose where very little is evident and that liberals and conservatives can find different bits of wisdom that comfort their own political faith and other places that can challenge it. and i think ultimately, we're living in a challenging time. this is a civic stress test. and more citizens recognizing, as washington did, that we the people are the backstop in a democracy. ultimately, there is no president by design of our system who can be expected to come save us. that we've got a balanced system, we've got checks and balances and balanced power, but ultimately it's about we the people really guarding that gift that's been given to us from the founding fathers. and taking that responsibility seriously and understanding that i think it's probably time for a new generation of washingtonians to try to transcend the political divides, to focus on first principles in an inclusive

way along these foundational lines. because this speech, we don't need a new farewell, we can focus on the original wisdom and then update it for a new generation. we can do that amazing thing washington did, consciously trying to bridge the past, the present, and the future. that's our responsibility as well. and we have this amazing rosetta stone from the first founding father. and its applicability is still relevant. it is timeless, but it is timely. and i would argue urgently timely. so this is a great time to re-discover the farewell address. and i think for a new generation of washingtonians to rise up and try to recenter our politics, to try to refocus on civic foundations and then move the country forward again, not left to right but forward again. and that balance, the internal wisdom of individual liberty and generational responsibility can really help focus our debates in a constructive way going forward. so we don't need a new farewell.

i think we need to re-discover it and move it forward again. [ applause ] >> i know better than to try and do better than that. but i do want to remind you that john will be downstairs talking further about this wonderful book. and there's no greater place to be talking about civic education and constitutional history and to have a guest of such enormous quality. thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much. it's an honor to be here. thank you. [ applause ] weeknights this month, we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span3. tonight on the eve of joe

biden's swearing in as the nation's 46th president, we look at past presidential inaugurations beginning with john f. kennedy's from january 20th, 1961. our lineup also includes inaugural ceremonies with franklin roosevelt and ronald reagan. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span3. you're watching american history tv. every weekend on c-span3 explore our nation's past. american history tv on c-span3, created by america's cable television companies. and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a public service. ♪♪ up next, president dwight eisenhower delivers his farewell address from the oval office on january 17th, 1961. the speech is best remembered for the president's warning about the influence of what he called the military industrial complex.