George Washington Cut Six Sentences From His Farewell Address. They're Haunting Me Now.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
In 1796, George Washington struck six pointed sentences from his Farewell Address. I'd largely forgotten about them—the final address contains enough wisdom to fill volumes—until, on a whim, I revisited the drafts. What I found was revelatory: a chilling prophecy of the constitutional crisis now threatening to engulf our nation. These excised lines from the Farewell Address serve not only as a warning but as a prescient prophecy of the political turmoil and factionalism that would later shape the nation's history. They reveal Washington's deep understanding of the fragile nature of democratic institutions and the ever-present threats of demagoguery and partisan strife. This Presidents Day, these rediscovered warnings serve not as a eulogy for our experiment in self-governance, but as a rallying cry for its reinvigoration.
'In Republics of narrow extent,' Washington cautioned in this purged passage, 'it is not difficult for those who at any time hold the reins of Power, and command the ordinary public favor, to overturn the established Constitution, in favor of their own aggrandisement.' Washington offered the blueprint of the modern demagogue, a Cassandra-like prophecy of executive overreach and populist fervor. His words eerily prefigure the rise of Andrew Jackson's 'spoils system,' Gov. Huey Long's Louisiana fiefdom, and our current era of autocracy amplified by social media. Washington, having spurned a crown himself, recognized the siren song that could bewitch even ostensibly democratic leaders, particularly in polities where checks on power are easily subverted.
'Partial combinations of men, who though not in Office, from birth, riches or other sources of distinction, have extraordinary influence & numerous adherents' would subvert the very foundations of the republic, Washington warned. To become a demagogue, a president would need more than a powerful political party; he'd depend on a cabal of powerful citizens—the wealthy puppet masters, media barons, and shadow influencers—who could provide the scaffolding for a president to dismantle democratic norms. The enablers of tyranny, Washington predicted, wouldn't be public servants, but private citizens who thought nothing of trading constitutional principles for a seat at the table of power.
Washington, who transitioned seamlessly from general to president and back to private citizen, could easily imagine a demagogue giving in to the perilous temptation to use martial power as a political cudgel. 'By debauching the military force, by surprising some commanding citadel, or by some other sudden & unforeseen movement, the fate of the Republic is decided,' he warned, intimating that the president could deploy troops for domestic political ends, quelling protests, rounding up people he deems undesirable, and undermining electoral processes.
But then, suddenly, there's good news. Washington's analysis in this excised section pivots to a cautious optimism about large republics—at a time when the United States territory extended only to the Mississippi River. 'But in Republics of large extent, usurpations can scarcely make its way through these avenues,' Washington writes to 'Friends & Fellow-Citizens,' in an address that was published in newspapers rather than delivered to Congress. 'The powers and opportunities of resistance of a wide extended and numerous nation, defy the successful efforts of the ordinary military force, or of any Collections which wealth and patronage may call to their aid.' Echoing James Madison in Federalist No. 10, he places faith in size as democracy's invisible shield. The American experiment, sprawling across half a continent, was to be a Gordian knot too complex for any would-be Alexander to slice through.
Notably, Washington's emphasis on 'resistance' suggests a populace capable of thwarting tyranny through its sheer diversity and geographic spread—a prescient nod to the grassroots movements and state-level pushback that would often serve as bulwarks against federal overreach in centuries to come.
The last line Washington omitted, however, qualifies that optimism with a sobering coda: 'In such Republics, it is safe to assert, that the conflicts of popular factions are the chief, if not the only inlets, of usurpation and Tyranny.' The Achilles' heel of large democracies—their very diversity, if channeled into blind factionalism—could become the instrument of their undoing. Washington had no crystal ball, and yet he vaguely described a country where political tribes hunker in digital bunkers, consuming and creating partisan journalism, lobbing grenades across an ever-widening chasm of mutual incomprehension.
Why did Washington strike these pointed lines from his Farewell Address? Alexander Hamilton, by then a New York lawyer who still played the president's éminence grise, wanted Washington to exit as he entered: a unifying figure optimistic about the 'infant nation.' He warned that Washington's draft, tinged with partisan bitterness, would not 'wear well.' In 2025, however, it's clear that Hamilton was being shortsighted. The irony stings: In preserving Washington's unifying legacy, perhaps those words that could have unified Americans in a more important way—against the very factionalism now threatening our republic—were erased.
Is it too late? Now that we've unearthed these lines, we can't unsee them. This Presidents Day, Washington's cuts serve as a clarion call, challenging us to prove that a republic can indeed survive the very pluralism that defines it. They demand action: confront divisive rhetoric, safeguard democratic institutions, and remain vigilant against fast and furious authoritarianism. The choice is ours. History awaits our answer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
A Welcome Expansion at the EPA
Kudos to President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. The EPA announced last month that it will reassign more than 130 agency scientists to clear the backlog of new chemicals and pesticides that need review before they can be sold. It's a giant step to protect the environment and human health—and there's more to do. Even as the White House pushes to reduce the size of government, some agencies need additional workers to get vital jobs done. That's certainly true at the EPA, which does more than try to keep air and water clean. It also evaluates chemicals in commercial and household products that prevent contamination in kitchens, infections in hospitals, public-health threats in pests and invasive species in nature.
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate
WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
