The late Sam Blumenfeld, author, educator, homeschool pioneer, and instructor at Camp Constitution, left his library to Camp Constitution’s co-founder and director Hal Shurtleff. Hal told Sam on his deathbed that his legacy, and work will continue to influence future generations. To help make that statement a reality, Hal with the help of Bill McNally, director of the Samuel L. Blumenfeld Literacy Foundation, spend numerous hours going through Sam’s materials which included hundreds of his articles, books, copies of his speeches on cassettes, VHS tapes, reel to reels, unpublished manuscripts, and letters. Mark Affleck, the camp’s newspaper editor, and Eric Conover, the web master, created the Sam Blumenfeld Archives on the camp’s web site. This archives is an incredible tribute to Sam’s work and life.
The archive’s main feature is perhaps Sam’s most important work, “Alpha Phonics” in PDF format along with all 128 lessons in audio and video. While 137,000 views in two months is still a modest amount of views, we think it is an excellent start. Please help Camp Constitution share Sam’s important work and legacy.
http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/
Camp Constitution’s 2016 family camp at the Toah Nipi Christian Retreat Center was a huge success. We had over 100 people of all ages participate wit many first time families all of whom plan to return next year. Along with return instructors like Mrs. Krisanne Hall, and Rev Steve Craft, we had Dr. Punymurtula Kishore, John McManus, and Rev. Theo van Blerk. Mr Mert Melfa and Mike Smith did an amazing job videotaping the many classes and events. In addition to the excellent instruction, campers visited Lexington and Concord, MA, and many participated in a hike up Mt. Monadnock. On Saturday, the lasrt full day of camp, some campers visited business owners and residents of the Towns of Rindge and Jaffrey, NH to distribute U.S. Constitutions, and information on the dangers of an Article V Convention as well as visiting local police stations with material from the nation-wide Support Your Local Police campaign.
Winners of this year’s Super Camper Award goes to Campbell Egan of New York City , and Dominic Girard or Manchester, NH. Mrs. Edit Craft of Edison, NJ received the Super Staffer Award for her incredible efforts with our junior campers. Thanks to all who made this year’s camp possible. Mark your calendar for next year’s camp July 2-8, 2017.

WHEN JOHN ADAMS, stem New Englander, stood before the -Continental Congress to argue for independence from England, he put into words the thoughts that must have been in the minds of many of the supporters of the Declaration. “Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish,” thundered Adams, “I give my hand and my heart to this vote .. .. You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We may die ; die colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. “Be it so, be it so. “If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready .. .. But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country … “Sir, before God, 1 believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, 1 am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence now, and Independence forever.”
Determination and boldness were not Adams’ alone. John Hancock, President of the Congress, was a handsome young bachelor with a sizeable fortune and a price of five hundred pounds on his head. Do you know what a British pound was? If captured, Hancock would be tried in England for treason, and probably hanged. No pardon was possible, as it was for other rebels. YET, HANCOCK SIGNED the Declaration on July 4, 1776 – the day it was approved by Congress – without hesitation. In fact, Hancock’s name, as President of the Congress, and Charles Thomson’s, as Secretary, were the only signatures to appear on the original document. When the Declaration was engrossed on parchment and signed by all fifty-six of the Congressional delegates on August 2, Hancock joked about the large, shaded letters of his signature. “John Bull (meaning King George) ,” he said, “can read my name without spectacles, and may now double his reward of £500 for my head. That is my defiance!” All members of Congress who signed for independence were marked by the British for special vengeance. So were their families, their properties, and their businesses. The danger was greatest in New York where English troops were gathering for battle with Washington’s fledgling army. The four New York delegates – Francis Lewis, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, and Lewis M orris – had millions of dollars at stake. They were all wealthy businessmen with luxurious town houses and country estates. Putting their names to the Declaration would mean, for all practical purposes, signing away their property and endangering their families. This they knew and, yet, they signed.
WITHIN A MONTH British troops were at the door of Francis Lewis’ country estate, intent on hanging the signer who dared to defy England. Booted and spurred, they forced their way into the mansion, seized-Mrs. Lewis, and began a sweep of destruction. Everything of value – silver, clocks, clothing, china, food and drink – disappeared into British saddlebags. The furnishings that could not be carried away were mercilessly destroyed. All of Lewis’ books and papers were piled in a heap and set afire. Mrs. Lewis, forced to watch the destruction of her property, was handled with brutality and contempt. Imprisoned in a dingy, unheated room, she was not permitted to have a bed and for many weeks had no change of clothes. Even though General Washington arranged for her release in a prisoner exchange, her health had been broken and she died soon after. When Lewis returned to his estate after the war, nothing remained but rubble. The other New York signers also fared badly. Although the families of William Floyd and Lewis Morris escaped before the British arrived, their estates were looted, the houses stripped of everything, farm tools and livestock stolen and timberlands razed. All of Morris’ servants and tenants were driven from their homes; and the Floyd estate, used as British headquarters, was left in shambles. Morris, deprived of his property and income, left Congress and joined Washington’s army, serving as a militia brigadier. Three of his sons also served as officers, all with distinction. After the war, Morris used what remained of his property and fortune to pay his private debts to British citizens, an act he felt morally obligated to do despite the war. Philip Livingston had already given up much of his fortune before signing the Declaration. His business was imports – the buying and selling of British goods. When the colonists began to boycott British-made clothing, tea and furnishings, Livingston gave. his full support and lost much of his income. In the fall of 1 776, when the defeated American army was driven from New York, all of Livingston’s business properties were confiscated. His mansion was turned into a barracks for the British Army, his estate on Brooklyn Heights was made into a Royal Navy hospital. In the months that followed, he sold the properties he owned in other parts of the S tate to help maintain the credit of the United States. Two years later, in 1 778, he died, deplete of income and separated from his family.
THOMAS NELSON, JR. of Virginia was another of the wealthy merchants who did not hesitate to give whatever was required in the fight for independence. In 1 775 when the British Navy was threatening to bombard Yorktown, Nelson had property and family in the target area and vast sums of money in English banks, but his reaction to the threat was bold and decisive. “Let my trade perish,” he thundered to the delegates of the House of Burgesses. “I call God to witness that if any B ritish troops are landed in the County of York, of which I am Lieutenant, I will wait no orders, but will summon the militia and drive the invaders into the sea!” Nelson meant what he said. In October of 1 781, when the tide of the war turned in America’s favor, the British were cornered in Yorktown under bombardment from seventy colonial cannons. Nelson, knowing that the English were headquartered in his home, watched from the American lines as the firing began in his own neighborhood. “Why do you spare my house?” he demanded of a gunner. “Out of respect to you, sir,” the soldier replied. “Give me the cannon !” Nelson ordered. He directed the fire upon his own stately dwelling. Before the war, Nelson had been one of the richest men in Virginia. When it was over, his income was one of the most modest. In 1 778 he raised a company of Virginia cavalry to fight in Pennsylvania. He was its commander and banker, most of the funds for its food, uniforms, and ammunition coming out of his own pocket. In addition, he paid the bills for two other regiments, one in York and one in Williamsburg. He stripped his plantation of fine ‘ hunting and carriage horses to give to the army, fed hungry soldiers from his own granary, and neglected his tobacco crops to send slaves and tenants to harvest the crops of small farmers who were serving in the militia and had no hired help. When money was desperately short, Nelson raised two million dollars almost overnight by offering his own properties as a guarantee for the loans. These he forfeited when the loans came due. His government never reimbursed him. At war’s end, his health broken and fortune gone, Nelson retired to a small house in Hanover County, Virginia, with his wife and children. He died eight years later.
Concluding Thought Virtually all of the signers would have been better off financially and personally if they never had been in Congress. Of the fifty-six who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, sometimes brutally treated. The wives, sons, and daughters of others were killed, jailed, mistreated, and left penniless. The houses of twelve signers were burned to the ground. Seventeen lost everything they owned. One was driven from his wife’s deathbed. Every signer was proclaimed a traitor, and each was hunted by the British. Most were, at one time or another, barred from their families or homes. Most were offered bribes, pardons, rewards, or the release of loved ones if they would break their pledged word or take the King’s protection. But no signer defected or changed his stand through the darkest hour. What did their acts of sacrifice and courage gain? In the end, honor remained and a new nation was born. That was all they asked.
(This was originally published in June-July 1973 in a weekly newsletter entited “The Family Heritage Series.” A link to the Camp Constitution version:
https://www.scribd.com/document/59204946/Family-Heritage-Series-on-the-Declaration-and-Constitution
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor deserve, either one.” Those famous words, spoken by Benjamin Franklin, seem to have been lost on many in the United States. All too often, we see key parts of the Bill of Rights, not just violated for the sake of security, but also the “general welfare.” Our individual rights are under attack because of these violations.
Three of the rights that have been assaulted are privacy, freedom of religion and the right to life. These rights, among others, are necessary to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and they have been greatly compromised in the name of security and the general welfare.
The first of these liberties which has been violated is privacy, which is protected under the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act provides a specific example of how this right has been assaulted. It was passed 45 days after 9/11 and was said to be created to catch terrorists. While this may be true, it also made it much easier for the federal government to spy on ordinary American citizens by monitoring their phone, e-mail, banking and credit records by using National Security Letters (NSLs).
NSLs are issued by FBI agents, without the approval of a judge, to obtain personal information, much like the general warrants issued by the British to randomly search the colonists’ homes and businesses. They clearly violate the Fourth Amendment which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” NSLs fail to meet all of these requirements.
From 2003 to 2006, 192,499 NSLs were issued. Only one led to the discovery of a terrorist who would have been found regardless of the NSL. The Patriot Act, in the name of security, uses a form of prohibited general warrants to trade our Right to Privacy for security. Given the results, it would seem we are no safer for it.
Another right that has been compromised is the Freedom of Religion; a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. The Affordable Care Act commonly known as “Obamacare,” provides a startling example of how this right has been infringed upon.
Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010 with the promise of helping those who are uninsured to get health insurance to improve the “general welfare.” However, one of the things it does is it forces Christians into buying coverage which pays for sterilization, contraception, and abortion procedures and drugs whether they object or not. It also forces religious institutions and business owned by religious people to provide those coverages in their insurance plans, regardless of whether or not it violates their religious beliefs. By mandating the purchase or provision of services that violate their faith, even for the “general welfare,” Obamacare clearly violates the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Another right that the government has infringed on is the most essential and important right of all, the Right to Life. This right is primarily violated through abortions.
In 1973, the Supreme Court deemed that a woman had the right to abort a child. This is nothing short of murder and demonstrates a hideous disrespect for life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Though the Bill of Rights does not specifically mention the Right to Life, it is obvious that none of the rights it protects could exist without life. Also, the Ninth Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Clearly, this includes life. Without life, there can be no other right, so when the government denies it, it consequently denies all other rights as well.
Ronald Reagan once said “It is time we ask ourselves whether we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.” Our privacy has been compromised in the name of security. Our right to freely exercise our religion has been attacked in the name of the general welfare. The Right to Life has been sacrificed in the name of choice. Without the realization of these rights, the blessings of liberty cannot be secured to ourselves or our posterity.
Editors note: Dominic Girard is a camper at Camp Constitution’s Family Camp. His father is Richard Girard, host of the popular radio show Girard At Large.
Sam Blumenfeld, author, pioneer in the modern homeschool movement, Camp Constitution instructor, and friend died a year ago today but his work and legacy lives on thank in part to the Sam Blumenfeld Archives. Sam left his library to Hal Shurtleff, director of Camp Constitution, and with the help of William McNally of the Sam Blumenfeld Literacy Foundation, and the work of Mark Affleck, and Eric Conever, the Sam Blumenfeld Archives was created. The archives contain audio and videos of Sam’s numerous speeches, workshops, and presentation, his newsletters, books, articles, manuscripts, letters and correspondence , his Alpha-Phonics with all 128 lessons in video or audio, and much more
http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/
Sam’s important work will influence generations to come.
Camp Constitution’s 8th Annual Family Camp runs from Sunday July 10th to Sunday July 17th and takes place at the Toah Nipi Christian Retrteat Center in Rindge, NH. Guest instructors include authors Mrs. KrisAnne Hall, Mr. John McManus, and New Hampshire State Representative and artist, Paul Ingbretson.
Camp Constitution Schedule 2016
Sun
3PM–Staff Orientation Cafeteria—Mr. Hal Shurtleff (w/ all grown-ups)**
5:30 Dinner
630–Placement–Mrs. Ruth Harper, Mr. Norman Tregenza & Staff** Hebron Cafeteria
7:20 PM Flag Lowering
745–Orientation Mr. Shurtleff, Mr. John Hoderny
9:00 PM Camp Fire
10:30 In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 Lights Out
Mon
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50: Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 Breakfast
9AM–Conspiracy—Mr. John F. McManus**
10–The Great Debate: History of the Bill of Rights–Mrs. KrisAnne Hall
11–The United Nations–Mr. McManus**
12:00 Lunch
1PM–Camp Photo
1:30—Nutrition—A Discussion with Mrs. Harper Optional Workshop
1:30: Recreation: Mr. Kalis
5:30 Dinner
630–The Declaration of Independence!—Mrs. Catherine White Advance Class: The Communist Manifesto vs “The Law Mr. McGonigle
7:20 Flag Lowering
745—Freedom & Morality: America’s Dynamic Duo—Rev. Steven L. Craft
9:00 PM Campfire
10:30 In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 PM Lights Out
Tue
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50 Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM–Sound Money—Mr. McManus
10:00–The Preamble & Article I—Mrs. White
11:00 AM—Class–State Sovereignty–Mrs. Hall
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:00 PM —Climb Mt. Monadnock Optional or Recreation with Mr. Kalis
5:30 Dinner
6:30—Articles II & III—Mr. Mark Affleck
7:20 PM Flag Lowering
745— The Revolutionary War Alex Hale
9:00 PM Camp Fire
10:30 In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 PM Lights Out
Wed
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50 AM Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00–Bus to Lexington & Concord–All Day Field trip-Mr. Moor, & Mr. Tregenza
5:30 Dinner
6:30 Black Patriots of the Revolutionary War– Rev. Craft and Mr Shurtleff
7:20 PM Flag Lowering
745–The Moral American—Mr. Hoderny
9:00 PM Camp Fire
10:30 In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 Lights Out
Thu
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50 AM Flag Pole Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM—Death by Government–Mr. Kalis
10:00 AM Articles IV-VII—Mrs. Harper & Mr. Shurtleff
11:00 AM-Revolutionary Art-Mr. Paul Ingbretson
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:00 PM Firearms Safety/Air Rifle Training with Dr. Long and Mr. Seron Optional or Recreation with Mr Kalis
5:30 PM Dinner
630—South Africa Rev. Theo van Blerk
7:20 Flag Lowering
745—Creation or Evolution—Mr. Earl Wallace
9:00 PM Camp Fire
Thursday Continued:
10:30 PM In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 PM Lights Out
Friday
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7;50 AM Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM—The Bill of Rights—Mr. Moor
10:00 AM-Treaties–Mr. Affleck
11:00-Monumental: Rev Craft
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:00 PM Recreation with Mr. Kalis
5:30PM Dinner
6:30 PM -Global Warming: Fact of Fiction-Mr. Ron Peik
7:20 PM Flag Lowering
7:45 PM -Exit Quiz–Mrs. Harper, Mr. Tregenza & Staff
9:00 Camp Fire
10:30 In Cabins/Rooms
11:00 PM Lights Out
Saturday
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swim/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50 AM Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM-Round Robin, Community Outreach
10:00 AM Round Robin, Community Outreach
11;00 AM Politics Polluting Paradise—Mr. Wallace Advanced: God is Not Dead Rev Craft
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:00 PM Recreation with Mr. Kalis Wiffle Ball Tournament
5:30 PM Dinner
630–Test Review-Mrs. Harper and Mr.. Tregenza
7:20 PM Flag Lowering
745—Closing Ceremonies:-Mr. Shurtleff, Rev Craft
Sunday
6:30 AM Polar Bear Swiw/Run Optional
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:50: Flag Pole Morning Devotions
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM to 12:00 Clean Up, Pack Up and Head Home
We still are accepting applications. For more info., please call (857) 498-1309 
Camp Constitution held a breakfast meeting at the Best Western in Marlboro, MA Saturday May 14. Camp Director Hal Shurtleff conducted a presentation explaining the camp program, its plans for the future, and its vision. Ian Smith, a former camper who now serves as a camp counselor made spoke to the group on his experiences, and Rich Seron remarked about his visit to last year’s camp. This year’s camp runs from July 10-17. Readers who are interested in attending or supporting this program are may visit the camp’s website www.campconstitution.net
New Hampshire Conservatives and the Article V Convention
by NHTPC Staff
The New Hampshire Senate recently passed two resolutions — SCR 3 and SCR 4 — both calling for an Article V Convention. SCR 3 is sponsored by WolfPAC, an organization that can charitably be called left of center. It was founded by Cenk Uygur, of The Young Turks, who among other things, denies the Armenian Holocaust, and openly advocates a runaway Article V Convention, as he says in this interview with Harvard Professor Larry Lessig.
WolfPAC’s top lobbyist is Ryan Clayton, the organization’s executive director. When he testified in NH last year, he angrily denounced opponents of an Article V Convention as “conspiracy theorists” for their concerns of a “runaway convention”. Yet, its founder is on record supporting a runaway convention. While WolfPAC isn’t registered as a lobbyist organization in NH, Mr. Clayton certainly shows all the signs of being a lobbyist. He comes across as professional and polished when he makes his rounds in the NH statehouse, but shows his true colors as seen in this picture where he is making an obscene gesture at opponents of an Article V Convention at the Indiana State House a few years ago.
Larry Lessig, another supporter of SCR 3, is a left-wing Harvard Professor, a former advisor to President Obama, and openly advocates a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution. He is one of the key leaders in this modern day call for an Article V Convention. He is involved with the groups New Hampshire Rebellion, and Move to Amend. He denounces big money in politics yet started MayDay PAC and raised $12M. MayDay PAC spent close $2M supporting Jim Rubens’ bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2014. So much for getting big money out of politics! Oh yes, Larry likes to mock Christianity Amazingly, only two Republicans out of 14 voted against HCR 3 in the New Hampshire Senate.
Here is a link to an excellent summary against SCR 3. Objections to NH SCR 3
The organization behind SCR 4 is The Convention of States Project.
This lobbyist group has the support of many conservatives, but few know the background of its founder Mark Meckler who testified at the Senate hearing a few months ago. Meckler is affiliated with an organization called Living Room Conversations which employs the Delphi Technique to promote its agenda. This group also enjoys the participation of Van Jones and JoAnne Blades of the Soros-funded MoveOn.org
Here is a link to a short video from Living Room Conversations with Meckler, Jones and Blades.
If you visit the organization’s website you will find a quote from Mark Meckler endorsing Living Room Conversations where he makes the claim that elites run Washington, D.C. and state capitals.
Here are the quotes from the Living Room Conversations web site:
Mark Meckler, co-founder of (2009 co-opted GOP) Tea Party Patriots ~ “I am enthusiastic champion for Living Room Conversations because over the last several years I’ve come to realize that the largest divide in this country is not between the citizens of one party or another, but between the citizens and the Ruling Elite in Washington, DC and the state capitols. Those in power want us to hate each other, neighbor against neighbor, city against city and state against state. They like conservatives to hate liberals, Democrats to hate Republicans and they want us hating each other over any issue where they can foment discord. They do this because it is profitable for them. While the majority of Americans say that Washington, DC and government in general are broken, the majority of those in office think things are working well because they gain money, power and prestige from the division they sow. The status quo does not serve the people of this country, and Living Room Conversations is a critical step in helping people to see that they have a lot in common with those they’ve been told by the politicians and the media that they should hate. Only by learning to respect each other, and work together in this way is real change possible.”
Here is a quote from Meckler’s colleague Van Jones from the same site:
Van Jones ~ “Living Room Conversations highlight substantial common ground around the need to reform our criminal justice system. We have a moral imperative to fix the broken system. Living Room Conversations are a powerful tool for empowering local communities and for overcoming partisan dysfunction as we tackle these challenges.”
And finally, bio for JoAnne Blades:
Joan Blades is a founding partner of Living Room Conversations, co-founder of MomsRising.org and MoveOn.org as well as co-author of The Custom-Fit Workplace: “Choose When, Where and How to Work and Boost the Bottom Line” and “The Motherhood Manifesto”. Trained as an attorney/mediator, 10 years as a software entrepreneur and always a nature lover, she is also an artist, mother and true believer in the power of citizens and our need to rebuild respectful civil discourse and embrace our core shared values.
Living Room Conversations partners with New Hampshire Listens, a facilitation group for the Carsey Institute, an NGO based at the University of NH which steers the agenda of NH’s unelected commissions. Together, these groups promote the concept of regionalism around the state. NH Listens trains the “facilitators” who help towns conduct Delphi sessions for public input on plans that never came from the public in the first place, but which seek to plan every aspect of our lives.
As reported a few months ago, Convention of States New Hampshire, whose lobbyists delight in trashing any and all who oppose their agenda, was caught in a lie back in February. In an email to its supporters in the state, a COS official accused NH Senator Kevin Avard of taking a bribe from The John Birch Society. When it was exposed, a tepid apology was offered to the Senator, but it took another two months before an apology was made to The John Birch Society. Convention of States lobbyist Ken Quinn of Maine, who once denounced an opponent of an Article V Convention as an out-of-state operative who only opposed an Article V because he was paid to do so, comes across as a conservative who only wants to pass a few reasonable amendments that will restore our republic. But like his colleagues on the Left, Quinn claims that the U.S. Constitution is the problem, and like Convention of States leaders Michael Farris and Mark Meckler, calls for “structural change” of the U.S. Constitution. This is not exactly a position held by most conservatives.
We certainly hope that the New Hampshire House Republicans who call themselves conservatives see through these two well-funded lobbyist organizations, and reject any new calls for an Article V Convention. We ask that they repeal the one call that it already has.
Camp Constitution’s motto is “Honoring the Past..Teaching the Present…Preparing the Future,” and keeping with our motto, we want to honor the memory of the greatest American that ever lived by publishing his “Farewell Address.”
Friends and Citizens:
The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitutiondesignates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.
The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.
The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
Geo. Washington.