discusses his book, washington's farewell, the founding fathers warning to future generations. in a conversation with the constitution center scholar and residence, he argues that president washington warned future generations, excessive debt and foreign wars. this is about an hour. we are enormously fortunate to have as our guest john avlon, the editor and chief of the daily beast and the political analyst. he is here today to discuss his new book which is entitled, -- it has already been praised as a fantastic contribution to our national literature. john will be with us afterward for a book sale and signing of his book, directly following our program. so please join me

today in welcoming our wonderful guest, john avlon. >> thank you. honor to be here. it's a great thing to be talking about george washington. >> oh yeah [laughs] >> why do you get interested in the project and why is it interesting today to be talking about washington's farewell address. >> imagine if the first founding father, george washington, sat down with alexander hamilton in james madison, and wrote a memo to future generations. to us. specifically about the forces he feared could destroy our democratic republic. rooted in the lessons of his life, and his understanding of history. he did. that's the farewell address. he wrote it just a block from here, which was then the philadelphia executive

mansion. he wrote it over a period of years, as the out a biography of his ideas. and it really was the sum total of his hard won wisdom. drawing on all the aspects of his life. as a soldier, as a surveyor, as a farmer, as a statesman. washington doesn't always get the respect he deserves as a thinker. as a man of great wisdom. he wasn't the most brilliant of the founding fathers. he wasn't a shining wit, he was enormously insecure about his own capacities to serve as president. as opposed to the great confidence he felt he himself as a general, as a farmer. but, he really did cultivate his character consciously in an attempt to create the national character. and the farewell address is an enormous gift. it was understood as such for a d

time. for the first hundred 150 years of our republic, it was that foundational. it was[/(■ consulted by presidents and statesman at pivotal moments in our history as the lens to guide and judge their own decisions. the fact that it fell out of favor and is now almost forgotten is itself a great opportunity 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 to understand it as part of our birthright. this whole center is devoted to that. the city is devoted to that. but recognizing we the people have responsibilities as citizens to understand our history, to apply that to the present, so that we could pass it on to the future. that farewell address is an inspiring 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 to have it at such a great reception. >> we're gonna get into the real substance of the address in a moment, i want to put it into some context first. and maybe a first place to begin doing that, is recognizing that this is not the first farewell address he gave. giving farewell addresses is something washington, i won't say he liked to do, it's something he had thought about before. >> he had a genius for goodbyes [laughs] he understood, and i think it's a measure of his innate modesty, which was not effective, and his understanding of politics that he knew absence could be a higher form of presence. he knew the person who was being pursued, is always more desirable than the person doing the pursuing. washington's first farewell address was when he resigned from his commission as commander of the continental army. you have to understand,

in a life full of firsts, this was really the first decisive moment and it was famous and it's time, towards the third in england allegedly said when being confronted with the fact that washington was about to resign his commission and going to private life, he allegedly 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, is that the young rebellious leader would rise up against the tyrant, with topple the king, and become a tyrant himself. that was the pattern of history. almost sort of written into fairytale. george washington consciously, and against the advice of a lot of folks during that enormous discord after winning the war. there is an attempted coup a munity of his officers, people trying to get him to take control and become the new king, he steps off the stage. when he does that, he stationed in

newburgh, new york, that is a fascinating hamlet on the hudson river near west point, his headquarters at the end of the revolutionary war still stand. it was one of america's first historic or historically designated places. it's wonderful history, it's a kind of place we need to revive and rebuild. washington writes in that space in this squat stone house, his farewell address to the nation. he doesn't do with any ghostwriter. he cut his own quills. he was a voluminous writer of letters. he writes a farewell address in a circular letter to the states. it was gonna be sent to the state legislators of each state and sent organically that way. he says look, you all of citizens of this new republic may be celebrating, and that is great. this is a time of great peril.

a time of crisis. now it falls to us, to show that we could govern ourselves. and every other nation in the world is waiting for us to fail. all the colonial powers. we have all the advantages. the geography, you spoke a lot about geography as a soldier and farmer often does. about our great advantage of being separated by notion from the turmoil as of europe. by being blessed by beautiful soil and climate. it was going to be up to us to hang together. remember, a bit of inherent wisdom was no democracy can exist on scales such as ours. folks said maybe democracy could exist in the swiss can't on but not in the 13 colonies along such a large period of land. this is what americans had to show that we couldn't succeed as a republic. to do that we have to find extensive common purpose, to

focus on national unity, already washington you the continental -- they couldn't get funding to -- they need to really focus on the responsibilities of the civic people to be invested in the success of society, and use education and religion as a way to binding the nation together. he said about the importance of paying your debts, whether it was on the federal level, the state level, or crucially at that time to the soldiers and the pensioners. that was a great source of pain that was leading to a great sense of the session. 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 hyperpartisan ship and they called factions. all that core wisdom, was there in washington. he also recommended strongly that we have an independent executive, which way they didn't listen to the articles of confederation, and would become washington's to enact that recommendation. then

he left the stage. that first farewell, was called his farewell for a long time. i was almost is 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 the farewell address is washington's ideas. it's not hamilton writing something that washington puts his name to as many of the partisan critics claim by the time. it was a deep, he was a man of deep ideas and is rooted in his ideas of history. you get that continuity clearly and his first farewell. >> and of course, once he has 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 will be able to quite do that. once he gets in the sense brought back to the stage, he understands something he has to

do as president which you talk about a lot about in the book which is a series of precedence. this farewell address will become a precedent and before we get to that, what are some of the other presidents he's trying to set as he moves to the first and second term? >> what is so fascinating is to do that close focus of the early days of the government. we think about it as carefully written as the constitution was, as much of a masterpiece of principled compromise as such as it is. and why places like this are invaluable to our civic education, it's essentially a framework. would you fill it with is largely up to the president and the congress to create those precedents. and the first congress, in lower manhattan, i'm proudly from new york city with a joint dual citizenship with south carolina at times. in those cramped city streets where there is not the kind of

markers of history that exist in philadelphia, because new york is a place that reinvents itself. you had the first congress take place in federal hall, that building sadly no longer exists. they are making it up essentially as they go along. they're debating how much the president should be considered a king, john adams considers an elevated title. the city of new york ponies up to spruce up their city hall to make it appropriate for congress. the congressional library fascinatingly the most popular book at the congressional library is declined and follow the roman empire by givens. it shows how much the precedent of ancient greek and roman history was on their minds. both in writing the constitution running up those presidents is trying to learn the lessons of history so they didn't follow the path of all the failed republics beforethem. john adams says there has not been a democracy

that hasn't committed suicide. this is in their minds, and there's griping about the effectiveness of congress. enormous amounts of frustration about creating deadlocks. they're focused on supporting the bill of rights, but this is before they are political parties. washington himself is probably not a member of a political party. he is in an independent. as a matter of principle. what is also fascinating about that first congress without parties is first of all, the founders assume the balance of power setup would be enough of a check and balance. peoples constituencies and personal beliefs would provide enough of a basis of debate. you wouldn't need parties per se. as we could see them. you have thing is, for the constitutional debate, there is a natural cleaving into two very recognizable groups. folks for more rural areas are

tremendously concerned about the overreach of federal power. they impose a ratification of the constitution as a result. they thought it would impeach on their freedom and we way of life. and there are folks who favor him or sent more strong central government and intends to come from cities. that division is obviously deeply reminiscent of democrats and republicans today, red states, blue states. the divide is between urban and rural. and i think crucially washington sees himself as some one who could bridge that divide. because he recognizes the people on both sides, you know he's decidedly on the stronger central government. he believes both groups are fighting for freedom. he really does want to bridge that. already civil war is a real possibility, and washington is trying to forestall. he's trying to stop the growth of political parties. it puts them in

enormous pain to see his most talented surrogate sons scheme to make political parties under his nose, through dueling partisan papers which is a fascinating story. washington is so conscious of the precedent. he's tied with medicine, the night medicine falls out with him when he goes all in with jefferson. and washington is trying to keep this republican example and not have the office be too high shall we say. at the same time he's a man of, he's very self monitoring. he has that distance that he conflated with dignity of a soldier. that made him very unapproachable by design, and that's one of the reasons he has not as warmly beloved to say as lincoln is today. to see these folks as they were as they saw themselves, as close as we can get, to understand them on a human scale, makes the whole thing infinitely more fascinating. when you put the founding fathers particularly

washington, on a pedestal, we make their wisdom so much less accessible. we understand them as what people, in pain, fighting against themselves, full of doubts whether they could succeed. it makes theéñf whole exercise of reading history so much more accessible and much more inspiring. >> and of course as he is moving through the presidency, he is overseeing crises, he's seeing but can't stop the formation of political parties. one of the things that is happening of course is he is trying to get out. >> yes. he succeeding at the and at the beginning, you think about his farewell address at the end of his first term, so what happens? >> it's fascinating. he is a genuinely reluctant president. we are very used to that pose in politics. as the politicians

say oh no no no no no no. they're trying to set that up. washington genuinely was a reluctant president. the only thing that jefferson and hamilton could agree on at the end of his first time, if washington retired, the nation would go into civil war. we were not strong enough -- will presided over the constitutional convention, presided over the military, and had a unique status of being above party as a unifying figure. he had that authority that none of the others that. even as we believe the founding fathers, certainly their work as inspired and the alchemy of the individuals is fascinating. they were seen as leaders a parties at the time in washington was not. that speaks to, by design by the way. the federalist party forms around washington, he's not a part of it. washington's at the end of his first term, he is exhausted, he is frustrated. he doesn't

necessarily feel this job goes to his strengths. he really wants to go home to mount vernon. god knows martha wants him to. she doesn't even show up at the first inauguration. he makes that trip alone, because she is not too thrilled after giving him up for the time of the revolution that he's gonna lose him again to politics. but he begins work on his first farewell address with james madison, whose fascinating plays a really interesting role in the first to congress of the republic. he is both a leader of congress, and washington's chief legislative and lyrical aid in effect. he is writing congressional statements and the presidents response and vice versa. he's played a fascinating role. washington confesses to him, there's some notes on medicine that he wants to retire, madison tried to

talk him out of it. washington hears him, says you know and 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 eventually does. and then basically, a number things occur. medicine submitted a draft, and the real dramas occur in the second term. basically washington becomes persuaded that if he leaves, the country could degenerate into civil war. he becomes very aware that madison and jefferson have been attacking his administration through newspaper in philadelphia the national gazette. he feels enormously betrayed, jefferson lines to a space when confronted about. when he confronts hamilton about it, he cops up to him because he's defending the administration. he backs off the idea. doesn't formally announce it but the cabinet could sleep easy when he finally gives up the idea. and he puts madison's draft on the

shelf, or in his desk. and doesn't consult it again until nearly the spring from february 1796. >> when it moves to that period at this point where he is now, he's in a position where he's not gonna persuaded what's to say. he has prepared to leave. but he also perceives that there is a value in his farewell address. i'm curious to know why he is so determined 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, madison. it's a double question to some extent. >> i think partly, he is consciously trying to build a document beyond faction, beyond parties. he's trying to create a document that could be consciously unite the nation--that if you want to

distill washington's with wisdom, he's very focused on us becoming an independent nation. it's a phrase he uses a lot. it's partly how it came to the book the title of my first book was independent nation i didn't fully appreciate that was washington's mantra. the deeper meaning was this, our independence as a nation is inseparable from our inter dependence as a people. that is the core wisdom. he is entirely focused on national unity. on creating a national character. and doing it through education, through religion, through policy prescriptions. that's what he choose to do in the farewell. he brings together the greatest thing about ghost writers in history. medicine

does the first drop, hamilton does the second place in office politics we could really claim the line sheriff credit for the words, not the ideas. and then he brings john jay at the very end. to your point, he gets it back together the band of brothers who do the federalist papers. john j had left being chief justice of the supreme court to become governor of new york. it's a wonderful moment where hamilton and jade the final at it before sending it back to washington. it's july of 1796. jay is kind of the elder pair of eyes washington really trust jay's advice. he and hamilton had a complicated relationship, there's a bit father son, they're both pretty hot headed, they could both get angry. and washington really tries to restrain his anger, much like eisenhower. hamilton had a hard time doing that, he would really struggle. hamilton,

the musical i hope you have all seen it, the song one last time is about the composition of the farewell drops. we'll get to that. well important precedent is this. it's not that he just sets the two term tradition at least power. which wasn't given. there was an assumption from some folks president could stay in office forever. that would be perfectly logical, some comprimise between monarchy in the republic. he set the two-term president, which becomes part of the constitution until fdr violates it and we get an amendment. he decides to make the federal address something that is carried on and carried forward in his example. he could very easily done a victory lap, and said look at all the great things that i've done. let nobody forget all the accomplishments, the country is stronger, economically better, militarily stronger. but he

doesn't do that. he specifically writes it as a warning about the forces that he believes could hurt the democratic republic. and that tradition gets carried forward, and almost every future farewell address, specifically eisenhower's farewell address. even obama's farewell address were warnings about threats to our democracy. but washington was really forced to playing it forward. that's why he took such care. he is rewriting and rewriting the document, and the new york public library has the draft, and you can see this cripples out. informal life, i was a speech writer for mayor rudy giuliani, so i get the process, and i'm fascinated by it. you see the line outs that mashing tin is making, and they are minute. he's clearly writing that and where that posterity's gonna judge. so he is clearly writing for future generations. he is writing for us and he is writing about the big topics. they are rooted in

his own experience. you see the french attacking him over the neutrality. you see all the policies that he can get into in greater depth. but the fact that he writes a farewell address as a warning is one of his greatest gifts and that's gets carried forward. >> that great speech requires a great sense of outlet, so he challenges this local paper. how does he end up settling on the place that he does and choosing his 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 that high street, which is now market street in philadelphia. basically, with madison, the model for this to the extent

that there was a model, was a european king bidding goodbye to an assembled parliament, or the house of lords. madison suggests that he disseminates it in a newspaper because it's a little more republican. it doesn't have trappings, the president is directly addressing the american people. and there are 100 newspapers in america at the time. and it would disseminate organically and it did. we took months to reach and vermont and kentucky. so hamilton has retired from treasury at this point, it comes down back and forth occasionally to argue cases in front of the supreme court which is fascinating upon itself. washington asks his advice, which newspaper? and he

suggests dunlop newspaper. one problem, it wasn't dunlop's newspaper anymore, who is david claypool who would be in his assistant. because the advertiser had a personally that would've made a lot of sense. in the broad and different papers picked up the mantle at different times you had places like the aurora which was run by benjamin franklin's grandson, brutally attacking the administration in washington. then you had coral papers that were brutally attacking jefferson and madison and the democratic republican party and that would've made sense, given to a partisan newspaper that was on your side. washington didn't want to do that, because he explicitly was trying to do that to send a message to a nation that wasn't partisan. and this newspaper was uniquely committed to that perspective. some would say that they had a lot of congressional rip publishing contracts, so it would make sense to throw in with one faction or another, but i think there was a genuine philosophical point of view that that was where they felt the paper should be.

independents is key to the integrity of a new spread. the, thing is we have always had partisan newspapers. and david claypool felt that. claypool, washington sends out to walk five blocks from the executive mansion down the road, and all the newspapers are located next to each other and they hated each other's guts. (laughter) he sends his copy to send a note to david claypool and says />lñ president woulo meet with you claypooñkg[&#u$en be in the second floor of the executive mansion. angled sofas on by the fireplace. and also incidentally washington always kept a frame portrait of louis on the floor even after he had been beheaded in the french revolution, to rebuke medicine and others for having fallen in

love with the french revolution. he basically delivers the greatest scoop in american history to david claypool, which is, i'm going to retire, and writing a message and i'd like you to publish it. claypool is of course over the moon and at that point, it had been written for roughly five years, and it was the anniversary of the constitution. in the shadow of independence all, washington gets a draft, it's typeset, he makes very finally new edits, but he's very hands on about the edits, and he's re-written the entire thing in his own hand which is witness by his step granddaughter nearly. claypool comes over over with the final proof to say thank you, they decide they're gonna publish it, there's no weekend edition, it's an afternoon paper, i think it's six cents,

claypool returns the document, and he expresses real rowlands to part with it. he's having an hang. watching washington, very oddly for him, he says ok you can keep it. washington keeps his documents meticulously. he notice he knows that this matters in history. he writes old letters sometimes. but he gives the oil original document to claypool. with emphases disallowed and it's believed to be lost for some period of time. that morning washington leaves philadelphia, december 19th, 1796. he leaves that morning with martha and a green parrot to go to mount vernon,. that afternoon the paper hits the streets and the news explodes. it's republished in papers in philadelphia, then new york. it passes along and washington in his diary in a

fascinating way, says nothing. went to mount vernon, regulation in daily paper. >> okay so we're at the speech itself, i would ask you to get up and deliver it but we're gonna say that for later. share some of the substance with. this it has six pillars which were of obviously stood the test of time. >> i describe them as pillars of liberty because that's the phrase that washington and the founders used a lot. the word liberty is worth unpacking just to understand why washington was focused on these core themes. we use the words independence and freedom and liberty essentially is interchangeable today. but i think for the founders, there were crucial distinguishing differences. washington is always focused on responsibility. the responsibility that comes with freedom. 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 dramatic democratic republic to function. so these pillars of liberty, these were things that were holding up the edifice of our dramatic democratic republic. washington pointed out these dangers, and they were really rooted in their understanding of ancient greek enrollment of history, and they were referred to and constitutional debates. when washington is warning about the dangers of hyperpartisan ship,

madison is 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 that when the selfish factions hijack a democracy, and incidentally the english civil wars were very much in the memory of these people. washington understood that basically these factions could hijack democracy, it would create a very deadlock legislature, and it will create such frustration on the part of average citizens that the effectiveness of democracy could open the 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 as they could. they can do it institutionally to some extent, but they also had to lead by the strength of their example and their wisdom.

excessive debt was also a major danger. i think it's something that's more can associated with the conservative side of the aisle as a focus. when our conservative friends take control of the legislature, they seem to forget it when it comes to actually passing a bill on such measures. but washington and hamilton, here's where hamilton's effort is crucial involved. understand that a debt was a force that could topple empires, it always had been. therefore, and washington and hamilton experienced that danger during the revolution, because the content of congress could not some of the will to pay for soldiers, not just pay, but bullets, shoes basic stuff. and the british tried to use that as a basic weapon. washington really grew to understand the importance of a degree of debt was necessary in society, but excessive debt to topple an empire, because it you should pay your own that's 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 of tangling alliances which does not appear in the farewell address. that appears in jefferson's first inaugural which articulates washington's farewell advice after jefferson as basically spent its domestic career fighting washington. he begins a born again washingtonian once he becomes president. keep in mind, washington as a young soldier gets involved in a skirmish during the french american indian wars here in america, but this seven year war over in europe. 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, a satellite, they don't actually care about our national

interests and they never will. so he's guarding against that. here's a great line about that by the way. no nation ever had a better friend than ours, you know the two best friends of america, the atlantic and the pacific ocean. and that is something that we forget, but it really was a buffer. the other thing that he was aware about was bitter experience to try to meddle in domestic affairs of our own. this is something that the ancient greeks and romans had warned about. vladimir putin did make this up on his own folks. in a federal papers, he refers to the masses on tried to try to cozy up to the greek city states, give them foreign donations, by off a couple of politicians, sew seeds of discourse and then make the state so we can divided that he could easily conquer. even in

washington's own time, no makes the first constitutional monarchy, but the russians end up buying of members of parliament. and basically, get poland into disastrously agreeing to a series of partitions that reduce it to a skeletal state -- until it's easily absorbed. that's a contemporary example that washington is contending with. most viciously, it's france. france sends an ambassador, the revolutionary government to format rebellion to convince washington administration to back away from the issue -- in the latest war of france. england jefferson and madison are all in on the front side. i riots in the street, there are riots in the street right around the constitution center. right outside the executive mansion. john adams actually calls for guns and weaponry to be brought to his house. because these folks are being fragmented by the french, the country's inflamed, --

washington's proclamation of neutrality is seen as a complete traderous move along against the french, it's de facto pro british. washington understood that they didn't have to walk a middle line between monarchy and the mob. we cannot throw in with the british, and hamilton also understood in washington did with the whiskey rebellion anarchy is the quickest path to tyranny. he is really furious when you read the farewell address about the attempt on the french to undermined the integrity of our system and his government. that seems like a distant concern when i wrote the book. and of course is ripped out of the headlines today. and i'll just say, washington focused on warnings, too much of a man of action to just point out problems. he points out sources of strength that we should always focus on

going forward. national unity, it's obvious now. part of the danger of hyperpartisanship is regional based political parties that could lead to civil war. those folks that would try to divide us as americans in political debates, pretending patriots. remember that. he talks about the importance of political moderation as a sort of strength in a democracy not weakness. not a mushy middle but a great tradition that's rooted in classical wisdom what's rooted in the ancient greeks and romans. we forgotten that as well that it's a source of strength of democracy as the founding fathers understand it. talk about the importance of paying down debt. fiscal responsibility. taxes are always gonna be unpopular, we need to pay them because it's immoral to pass off that's to another generation. some debt could be a good thing for society. he talked about the importance of religion and morality to a self governing

people. this the part that reagan always used to love to quote. i think it illustrates the way the messages or resonates with different communities and still unify us. why washington was not an orthodox belief in christianity to grief with a local preacher for not taking kneeling for a prayer. he understood religious pluralism and religious colorism. it was very utilitarian. religion was a great way to communicate morality and getting people to be ethical citizens. and education, washington was the least educated founding father. because that he was the most focused on education on a national level. you want to build a national university in washington where the vice president's house now stands, he put money to that. he was so focused hamilton was trying to take it out of the farewell address, washington kept putting it back. hamilton saidjñ save most of your verbiage that■ farewell address to congress.

it's fascinating. it is pointed in light in the opinion is necessary for self governing society. the reason he wanted a national university, he also wanted to bridge the divide between states. to create a common culture and common character. and civic education, which this organization is devoted to, is something 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 is mischaracterized as isolationism, it's not. but he was focused on was a period of 20 years, where we could build an economic and military strength so we could be respected as an independent nation on the world stage, and pursue our own interest and not confuse our own interests of that of another nation. all these pillars of liberty that washington focuses on, national

unity which we speak about birth or of choice. so beautiful phrase we remember, all these pillars are intended for us to repair to. for us to focus on going forward. and they can unite us still today. it's one of the fascinating gifts of the heart of this address. there's some >> there's so many of those. all the pillars still resonate with us. i want to come back to them in a moment, several questions in the audience touch on something that is absent from the pillars and that's any mention of slavery. >> yes. >> what do we make of that? >> obviously slavery is the original sin in our society. and in the constitution. as you will appreciate, even the constitutional debates, the founders basically kick the can. they said this is too contentious, and i don't want to get a constitution we deal with this issue. washington's relationship with slavery is of course, notoriously complex. exactly the subject of when i

interviewed -- the playwright of the play hamilton. we talked at length about this. it's understandable but dangerous to view the founders solely through our contemporary lens. and more on this point was, we need to embrace the contradiction. 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 whilel washington sidesteps the question of slavery, remember here too he is still trying to forestall the civil war. founders understood washington in particular, front frontlines -- washington as president is a fascinating example,

conversation he has with attorney general randolph if there's a civil war, i am going to go in with the north. he feels captive to its economy in a way that seems ironic today. he understands it's a problem. not only for the country, but for himself. what's fascinating is dakotato his farewell address last willing testament. that's the point i make in the book. washington's last will and testament needs to be understood to the quota to his farewell address. he releases his slaves upon his death, and his wife's death. many, most of them he inherited from his wife and her first husband. you could easily argue it is too

little too late. it's worth remembering that first of all he's constantly trying to send a message to the nation, but the direction we need to move, and the side of this debate he's truly on. that nine subsequent presidents own slaves and bought slaves and didn't release them at the end of their life. washington did. it was against the grain. and he was clearly sending a message. and again, it's understandable for folks to say it's too little too late. he was running for posterity here up until the last moment. he does feel with it outside of the immediate text. >> we already started talking about something of course a big focus and that's the afterlife of washington's farewell address. i wanna touch on different aspects of that after life. it's no great surprise that every generation is going to want washington on their side to harken back to miranda, on see how the farewell address was has fared throughout

history. an example throughout the civil war. what do they make of it during the civil war. >> this is fascinating to me too in particular. again, farewell address is almost a rumor to many of us today. the play hamilton is the first time it has gotten a real shout out in a long time. you gotta understand the central it has. it was more widely printed than the declaration of independence and it spiked throughout national crisis. and the war of 1812. in the run up to the civil war, because washington warned us against the session, warns us against disunity, andrew jackson's entire farewell address is basically a rememberance on washington's wisdom in the farewell address. we don't know the constitution would work, we know works now. don't be seduced by succession. daniel webster and other folks are arguing both sides of it.

abraham lincoln, uses -- part of his stump speech. justifying or defending the newly formed republican party against the attacks. it's not a regional party. it's a national party. there's a party of progress, which i think is sometimes lost. during the civil war, the confederates trying to claim washington as one of their own too. they say washington was a southerner, on a plantation owner, and a slaveowner, and a rebel. therefore he's one of us. but washington's entire life after the revolution was focusing on unity. there is a debate if the farewell address should be bought. john david claypool finally kicks the can as executors put it up for

sale. jefferson davis, future president of the confederacy, and says this is a really waste of federal dollars. of course when you try to do is denigrate the message of the farewell. one of the reasons it's in the new york public private library is by private entity, because congress was dissuaded from buying it. after the civil war, or during the civil war washington read to troops to remind them for what they are fighting for. after the civil war, and becomes part of standard curriculum in american schools as a way of binding the nations wounds. it is amazing literature there's all these contests in the late 19th century that i got examples out in the book. students were committed to memory, did win awards for oratory. this is 6000 word address. you are memorizing this in school. this is a standard part of the curriculum. and the explicit

point was maybe if we remember the wisdom of washington's warning, we would not have had the civil war. that's the idea. and it's a mainstay of debate right up in through world war i. that is the key pivotal moment. what's fascinating is you have a great debate around america's involvement in world war i in the league of nations, conducted by to washington biographer's. wilson and and recap it lodge. the head of the republican senate and wilson as the democrat president. they are debating whether we should get involved in our first overseas war. which is a total violation of everything washington says. and what wilson tries to do basically says the wisdom of washington's warning needs to be updated, even if it's not totally outdated. 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. he makes that

case. henry lodge is arguing more 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, the worst does not occur, america gets in and it's a relatively quick win. that is the question of the league of nations. henry lodge wins that debate invoking washington's farewell. we don't pass the league of nations, because it's entangling to a potential war. but at that moment, washington starts to seem less infallible. because we had violated one of the clear precepts. and the end did not come. in fact america seems

to be rising on the world stage. now there's a fascinating period after world war one, where there is great doubts about why we got involved in the war, senate commissions are looking at who compelled us, was there a real national interest. the farewell address, washington himself starts to take a ding. the gettysburg address rises in prominence as a civic scripture. farewell address starts to fall out of favor. it's a fake 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 brandished the legacy of washington and the farewell, saying we should not get involved in world war ii. it's the late 1930s and early forties. 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 foreign or. some of them are clearly motivated by antisemitism. others were saying that world war i was a mistake and not squander it on the world stage. this is where the farewell address starts to get ahead of isolationism. but there's or surreal, dark moment that i think is fascinating just to discover it itself was kind of stunning. in february, 1939, there is a rally of the german american group madison square garden. it is 20,000 german american nazis show up. it's extensively about national pride, but there's a 30 foot banner of george washington flanked by swastikas. and the keynote speech is all about re-casting and reappropriate-ing the farewell address, saying that washington warned us against excessive

debt and the new deal has been to free spending. he warned us that we should focus on religion as the mainstay of our national identity, and hewú warned us against foreign entanglements and getting involved in foreign wars. now, what's fascinating about thiso'■ odious misappropriation, in addition to that the photos looked like it outtake from dark black mirror or the twilight zone, is that washington warned against exactly these kind of interest groups, who would any argue that dividing the country was warning against found his vision for the country. in particular, the dangers of a foreign government trying to influence our own elections and our own internal decisions, and the german group was exposed is as taking money from adolf hitler, and many of those folks were thrown in the poking, but

washington's farewell really takes a hit between world war i and that association with isolationist and antisemites and it unfairly starts to fall out of favor. it's briefly revived during the vietnam war when gary walsh and other folks make a very high argument for why involvement in vietnam is not consistent with the founding fathers vision for america, while next and said it did. nixon said it did. reagan loves quitting it for religion, johnson loves quoting it for education, and it's got this fascinating history. then it faded away, but it doesn't mean its wisdom is any less inexplicable and applicable. it's a fascinating guide for the historical ebb and flow in the specific scriptures really

retain their wisdom and we shouldn't omit them. >> couple of questions that the audience ask of the parallel between washington's farewell address in that of eisenhower? can you talk about this briefly how eisenhower shaped this? >> i really was a washingtonian ike was not a washingtonian. he thought of himself as an independent. he ultimately threw in with the republican party in part because he felt that one party ruled, the democrats rule since 1932, and it was bad for democracy. he was constantly at war with conservatives in his own party. when his time for farewell address comes by, and i found some memos that hadn't been published before from speech writers, that said you should really look at the farewell address again. he focuses deeply on. and his warning is, that the military industrial congress, although originally was the congressional military industrial congress (laughter) and that he was warned that he

would be alienating more people than he could influence. its fate featured on these four pillars of wisdom, the virtue of moderation, eisenhower's deeply focused on that. the importance of avoiding excessive debt, that's a generational responsibility. the mistrust of hyperpartisan ship, the focus on civic education and national unity, and emerging and focusing on a new emerging threat the country have been on his radar, that was his great gift of the speech itself, and most of his political career is based on washington. >> john, our time is growing a little bit short and there's so many other things i would like to touch on. one thing i was curious about was is whether or not given our technological advancements, we could even have something like the farewell address today? could -- is unique to washington himself? >> obviously, you are dealing

with a set of unique situations, a precedent without precedent in a time when there was no fragmentation of our immediate environment. everything that washington did had outside impact any new. it so no, a presidential address, any kind of message is not going to stand in the same way, it's not gonna have the same historical gravity. what i think we can do is first of all recognize that we have those first principles articulated by the founding fathers. that they are not simply dusty old relics, but it's our responsibility as new generations of americans to dust them off and make the old stories new again, because those principles don't age. principles are not rigid requirements, they're gonna have different degrees of applicability over different times in our history. washington cannot have foreseen

the rise of technology which would shrink the oceans, but certainly dangers of hyperpartisanship, foreign powers try to influence our debates in elections, and the difference between deficits and debt, retain their applicability. i think that's what we really need to focus on, because washington is beyond partisan debates and because politics is a thing, perspective is the thing that we have the least of in our politics. i think we focusing on washington and the other founding fathers is especially important for us right now, because it can re-center our debates. it can give a sense of common ground and common purpose. were liberals and conservatives can find different bits of wisdom that comfort their own political faith and other places that can challenge it. i think

ultimately, we are living in a challenging time. this is a civics stress test. and more citizens are recognizing as washington did, that we the people are the backstop of a democracy. ultimately, there is no president, by design of our system who can be expected to come and save us. we have a balanced system, we have checks and balances, and balance power, but ultimately it is about we the people, really guarding that gift that has been given to us by the founding fathers. and taking that responsibility seriously, and understanding that 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 foundation alignments. because this speech, we don't need a new farewell, we can focus on the original wisdom and then updated for a new generation. we can do that amazing thing that washington did,

consciously trying to bridge the past, the present and the future. that's our responsibility as well. we have this amazing rosetta stone from the first founding father, and it's applicability is still relevant. it is timeless, but it is timely, and urgently timely i would argue. so this is a great time to rediscover the farewell address, and for a new generation of washingtonians to wise up, and re-center on politics, to try to re-center civic foundations, and move the country forward again. not left or right but forward again. and that balance, the eternal wisdom of liberty and generational responsibility can really help focus our debates and move forward. so we don't even need a new farewell, i think we need to rediscover it and move forward again. (applause) >> i know better than to try to 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, constitutional history and to have a guest with such an enormous quality with us. >> thank you very much. (applause)

up next, president dwight eisenhower delivers his farewell address from the oval office on january 17, 1961. the speech is best remembered for the president's warning about the influence of what he called the military industrial complex. dwight eisenhower served two terms as president, from 1953 to 1961. >> three days from now, after half a century, in the service