and unjust criticism of his administration and of himself. And then note the spirit of good-will, concern for the public welfare, and dignified modesty where much personal credit might have been claimed. The first topic of the discussion (p. 38, 1. 16-p. 41, 1. 27) enjoins love of country, pride in the national union. There were still a great many Americans who remained in the colonial condition of mind, who took their politics from abroad, and thought politically as Frenchmen or as Englishmen rather than as Americans. There was also considerable unfriendliness and jealousy between North and South, East and West,-a feeling that appears to this day on occasion, usually showing itself in connection with tariff bills, or discussions of the money question, or the bank question. The logic of Washington's first topic will be keenly felt by the student who is informed about the attitude of different sections of our country towards the Assumption Bill, the National Bank, the Excise Bill, the Whiskey Insurrection, the Genet Affair, the Jay Treaty, the Spanish Treaty, the Proclamation of Neutrality. (See any of the larger histories: Hildreth, volumes III-V; Schouler, volume I; Sparks, Life and Writings of Washington, or the volumes in the American Statesmen Series on Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Jay.) That the warning was timely will be clear to those who recall the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and the rumors of secession in connection with these and with the Hartford Convention sixteen years later. Washington next takes up more specifically (p. 41, 1. 28—p. 45, 1. 3) the danger to the Union arising from political parties based on geographical lines, and here refers by name to the treaties with Spain and England, thereby recalling the agitation, based on sectional lines and on foreign affiliations, that was aroused by the proposal of these treaties. (See Lodge: George Washington, vol. II, pp. 135, 167, 180, 201, 205.) He next emphasizes the need of an adequate central government (p. 42, 1. 26) and of obedience to it (p. 43, 1. 9), warning against combinations and factions (p. 43, 1. 19) and against the spirit of innovation. (Lodge: Washington, II, 266-268.) The discussion of party spirit (p. 45, 1. 4-p. 46, 1. 23) recalls the fact that Washington entered upon the Presidency with the impossible expectation that parties could be eliminated from government. His cabinet, however, represented in Hamilton and Jefferson respectively, the two principles along which parties speedily formed. (Alexander Johnston: American Politics.) The Farewell Address is to be read as his final judgment that parties are inevitable, but excessive party spirit is forever to be repressed in a free country. (See chapter V, vol. II of Lodge's biography, on "Washington as a Party Man.") It is a corollary of this that a party when in power should proceed with moderation and not in a spirit of vengeance, and should keep well within constitutional limitations (p. 46, i. 24 -p. 47, 1. 17). The next section of the address (p. 47, 1. 18— p. 48, 1. 12) should recall the words of the Ordinance of 1787. On public credit and acquiescence in revenue laws (p. 48, 1. 13 -p. 49, 1. 4), the experience of Washington's administration with Hamilton's financial measures and with the Whiskey Insurrection, plainly speaks. (See Lodge: Washington, II, 122-128). The last topic of the discussion (p. 49, 1. 5—p. 55, 1. 7) deals with the principles that should govern our country's foreign policy. The inveterate antipathy against England and the passionate attachment for France are alike condemned (p. 49, 1. 22), though the countries are not named. Pages 50 and 51 recall the Genet Affair, with the attendant exhibitions of foolish popular affection for France and equally foolish popular hatred for England; and the disgraceful intriguing of one American faction with the French minister to the United States. (See Lodge: Washington, II, chapter IV.) The great rule of conduct (p. 51, 11. 24-28) in foreign affairs, as laid down by Washington, was nobly fulfilled in the diplomacy of the late John Hay, Secretary of State. In closing with a defense of the Proclamation of Neutrality, Washington reached a true climax, a fact not generally appreciated today; for that proclamation embodied, in effect, all the fundamental principles laid down in the Farewell Address. It meant national solidarity against the world, as opposed to a divided nation with conflicting sympathies running wildly in favor of one foreign country or another. The conclusion (p. 55, 11. 8-30) like the introduction, illustrates the highest use of personal reference. But the evidence of great and admirable personality is found not merely in the sentiments of the introduction and the conclusion. It appears in the magnanimous and perfectly adequate treatment of the principles announced one after another in the body of the discourse; in the final character and nobility of those principles; in the repression of the controversial spirit and the choice of the highest plane of discussion. If the address had been written in the spirit of controversy, it must have remained on the low plane of fact; it comes to us not on that plane, but on the plane of truth. The next speech in this volume, Webster on the Character of Washington, contains an exposition of the main truths of the Farewell Address. QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES. Make a complete outline of the address, following the form of the outline of Webster's Bunker Hill Monument Address as given in the introduction to this volume (p. 24). Are the topics of the address related to one another by the law of cause and effect, or by similarity and contrast, or by contiguity? What passages or maxims would you select for memorizing? What audience is Washington addressing? Do you find the appeal to community of interest anywhere plainly expressed? Does the persuasion arise from the subject, the method of treatment, or the speaker? What does Washington mean by the distinction between political and commercial in our dealings with foreign nations? Is there any ground for thinking that the principles of the address are in any respect obsolete? On the immediate effect of the Farewell Address, see Lodge's Washington, volume II, pages 248-251. DANIEL WEBSTER. THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. THE SPEAKER. on When this speech was delivered, in 1832, Webster had been United States Senator from Massachusetts about five years, and had previously served several terms in the House of Representatives. He had already enjoyed five great triumphs. As a lawyer he had won a favorable decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dartmouth College Case; he had gained fame also by four remarkable orations: one commemorating the landing of the Pilgrims, one at the laying of the corner stone of the Bunker Hill Monument, one Adams and Jefferson, and one in reply to Hayne. These had made Webster recognized as the leader of the Union sentiment, the national idea, in the country, just as Senators Calhoun and Hayne were already the recognized leaders of the confederation sentiment in the country, of the idea that the Constitution is merely a compact. Although he served twice as Secretary of State and was twice a candidate for the presidency, it was in the Senate, as the expounder of the Constitution on the national theory, that he performed his greatest service. His last great speech, March 7, 1850, was on the slavery question. He died in 1852 at the age of seventy. See Lodge: Daniel Webster (American Statesmen Series), especially chapter IV; Curtis: Life of Webster, especially chapter XI; Whipple: Essays and Reviews, Vol. I; Whipple: Webster's Great Speeches. KIND OF ADDRESS. An address which takes for its title the name of a great man may (1) be merely narrative and biographical. This it is likely to be, and needs to be, if the man whom it celebrates has but recently passed away, or if, though long celebrated, his life in many of its details has been forgotten. (2) It may be judicial, aiming at a careful estimate of the worth of the life and of its influence. (3) It may be appreciative and eulogistic, dealing not with the facts of the life but with the exemplary principles which guided the great man in his work. (4) It may take the life and the principles which governed it merely as a point of departure for discussion of present day problems and duties and of the spirit in which they should be met. In these days a Washington's Birthday address is likely to be of the type last named. Webster's address is not judicial and is only incidentally biographical. It is in the main an appreciation of Washington's character, and the appreciation is deepest when Webster speaks of Washington's devotion to the paramount idea of Union, to the country as one nation (pp. 69-71); for this was the idea to which Webster himself was supremely devoted during his whole life. THE THEME. The subject of this address is Washington; the theme, everywhere present, is the spirit of American Nationality as exemplified in Washington. The sentiment of nationalism, of an inseparable unity of states, of a supreme union as an essential of true liberty, was still not dominant in this country. Webster had given it a commanding utterance two years before in the Reply to Hayne. Now he recurs to it. At the opening of the speech (p. 56, ll. 9-11; p. 57, ll. 8, 21; p. 58, ll. 1-11) it is calmly assumed. In the body of the discourse, which begins on page 58, line 22, it is appealed to incidentally as the key to the proper appreciation of Washington's character (p. 60, 11. 3, 4, 14, 15; p. 61, l. 19; p. 62, ll. 12-17; p. 63, 1. 9; p. 64, 11. 5-15; p. 65, 11. 12, 16-25 [referring to the Proclamation of Neutrality], 32; p. 66, 11. 10, 11; p. 67, ll. 1, 10, 14, 32; p. 81, 1. 23), but finally (pp. 69-73) the sentiment of nationalism becomes the main object of the discussion. Thus the various topics of the address (beginning respectively on pages 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and C) are bound together by this pervading sentiment. QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES. Make an outline of the address. This address abounds in specimens of the climax; almost every one of the longer paragraphs affords a specimen. Note how each climax is approached. Webster does not often in his speeches use ex tended figures, but in this address such figures are numerous. See p. 57, 11. 9-12, 11. 26-32. Also see p. 58, 11. 17-21 (perhaps the finest of all), p. 64, 1. 26; p. 69, 1. 13; p. 71, 11. 22-30; p. 72, ll. 8-19. On p. 64, 11. 20-22, Webster adapts Goldsmith's lines referring to Burke: "Who, born for the universe, narrowed his mind, And to party gave up what was meant for mankind.’ -Goldsmith: Retaliation, 31. Note the large use of rhetorical questions in this address. Whence arises the persuasive element in the address, from the subject, from the method or from the speaker? THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. THE OCCASION. A monument to General Warren, whom Webster calls "the first great martyr" of the revolution, had been erected by King Solomon's Lodge of Masons, Charlestown, Massachusetts, and had been dedicated, in 1794. General Warren in his lifetime had been Grand Master of the Massachusetts Masons. But there came in the course of years a desire on the part of Congress, the Massachusetts legislature, and the people generally, for a grander memorial not only to Warren but also to the other patriots who had fought at Bunker Hill. An association, the Bunker Hill Monument Association, was formed, with Webster as President of the Board of Trustees. Funds were raised and on June 17, 1825, the ceremonies of laying the corner stone took place. The procession included the military, followed by two hundred veterans of the Revolution, in carriages, forty of the veterans being survivors of the battle of Bunker Hill. Then came the members of the Monument Association and of the Masonic fraternity, followed by Lafayette, who had arranged his progress through the country so as to be present on the occasion. Many civic societies followed and the procession was attended with great enthusiasm and a universal outburst of patriotism during its long progress from the State House to Breed's Hill. Thousands had come to hear the great Webster, whom the trustees of the Association had appointed orator. For this extraordinary occasion, Webster had made preparations that were unusual for him. He had written out the speech in full, whereas it was his custom to write out and commit to memory only the most important and striking passages of his speeches. It is known that this speech caused Webster great anxiety; especially, the portion to be addressed directly to the noble Lafayette raised |