0
What events happen before Washington left office that might have led to his warning against political parties?
It was the time of the writing of the Constitution. The Democrat-republicans wanted to hang onto the Articles of Confederation. They feared a larger, central powered federal government. Patrick Henry believed it was an attempt by the Federalists to do away with slavery. To a degree, he was correct.
Financially, the country was on the verge of bankruptcy, still having to pay the debt of the Revolutionary War and with no military to speak of, was being pressed further by the rampant piracy, kidnappings and demands for ransom taking place in the Mediterranean. Washington's hands were tied, all he could do was pay the demanded ransoms and hope that it would all end soon. As "President" he had very limited power and again, with no military, could not afford an international incident.
Hamilton suggested that the federal government fund a military to deal with such issues and also proposed that the country open itself up to foreign commerce. The Democrat-republicans balked. Jefferson, suggested that each state commit some of its militias to the cause of protecting our merchant ships. He was also opposed to the notion of foreign commerce. The states refused to commit troops. Jefferson then proposed (as if it were his idea) that the federal government produce a military.
When Jefferson finally realized the dire situation of the finances, he agreed that we should open trade negotiations. Hamilton pushed to do business with England. Jefferson was appalled. In his mind, the English were still our enemy. Instead, he suggested we do business with France. Trouble was, France was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Jefferson was willing to turn a blind eye to the wanton bloodshed and disregard for personal property.
Hamilton sent John Jay to England to negotiate a treaty to do business with them AND to get protection from the English Navy for U.S. merchant ships plying their trade in the Med.. What Jay returned with was far less than desirable. To say the least, it heavily favored the English. Jefferson openly accused Washington who signed off on the treaty, of treason. In fact, Jefferson REPEATEDLY openly accused Washington of treason.
The accusations wore him down and eventually, Washington announced that he would leave office. He wrote his Farewell Address to the nation and it was Hamilton who reworded it. In the original draft, Washington made clear mention of Jefferson, the accusations and the French (who had spies in this country looking to overthrow the fledgling government). Washington intended to warn the nation about Jefferson and his alliances with the French but Hamilton softened the rhetoric and reworded it so as to not come off as sour grapes. Instead of "...entanglements with the French" it became simply "foreign entanglements." And the same holds with his comments about political parties.
Source(s):BA in History"Dangerous Nation" by Prof. Robert Kagan, copyright 2006, Alfred A. Knopf (publisher)
It was the time of the writing of the Constitution. The Democrat-republicans wanted to hang onto the Articles of Confederation. They feared a larger, central powered federal government. Patrick Henry believed it was an attempt by the Federalists to do away with slavery. To a degree, he was correct.
Financially, the country was on the verge of bankruptcy, still having to pay the debt of the Revolutionary War and with no military to speak of, was being pressed further by the rampant piracy, kidnappings and demands for ransom taking place in the Mediterranean. Washington's hands were tied, all he could do was pay the demanded ransoms and hope that it would all end soon. As "President" he had very limited power and again, with no military, could not afford an international incident.
Hamilton suggested that the federal government fund a military to deal with such issues and also proposed that the country open itself up to foreign commerce. The Democrat-republicans balked. Jefferson, suggested that each state commit some of its militias to the cause of protecting our merchant ships. He was also opposed to the notion of foreign commerce. The states refused to commit troops. Jefferson then proposed (as if it were his idea) that the federal government produce a military.
When Jefferson finally realized the dire situation of the finances, he agreed that we should open trade negotiations. Hamilton pushed to do business with England. Jefferson was appalled. In his mind, the English were still our enemy. Instead, he suggested we do business with France. Trouble was, France was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Jefferson was willing to turn a blind eye to the wanton bloodshed and disregard for personal property.
Hamilton sent John Jay to England to negotiate a treaty to do business with them AND to get protection from the English Navy for U.S. merchant ships plying their trade in the Med.. What Jay returned with was far less than desirable. To say the least, it heavily favored the English. Jefferson openly accused Washington who signed off on the treaty, of treason. In fact, Jefferson REPEATEDLY openly accused Washington of treason.
The accusations wore him down and eventually, Washington announced that he would leave office. He wrote his Farewell Address to the nation and it was Hamilton who reworded it. In the original draft, Washington made clear mention of Jefferson, the accusations and the French (who had spies in this country looking to overthrow the fledgling government). Washington intended to warn the nation about Jefferson and his alliances with the French but Hamilton softened the rhetoric and reworded it so as to not come off as sour grapes. Instead of "...entanglements with the French" it became simply "foreign entanglements." And the same holds with his comments about political parties.
Source(s):BA in History"Dangerous Nation" by Prof. Robert Kagan, copyright 2006, Alfred A. Knopf (publisher)
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How well did the us listen to George Washington's advice on political parties?
no- for political parties. yes, in large part on foreign affairs. The US did not send any substantial number of troops outside of the Western Hemisphere for more than 100 years.
What warning did George Washington give before he left office?
Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars.
In his farewell address Washington urged Americans to do what?
He wanted the all the states to be under one government, he warns them about the dangers of political parties, he points out the need for education, and he advises the nation about foreign policy
What did Washington issue in 1793 warning Americans of any acts that would aid any of the nations at war?
I don't know figure it out yourself :P
What factors have kept third parties from emerging into viable stable political choices for the electorate?
In his farewell address, the first President of the United States, George Washington gave dire warnings against the rise of political party dominance. It is interesting indeed, how such a respected President, adored by his peers and many people of modern times, has been so cavalierly ignored. Washington had much to say about political parties and his language warning against them was strong and clear: "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." Washington is not so much warning against a two party system as he warns we the people to avoid having political parties all together. The consuming flames of party dominance in this country should be fairly evident by the heat of our Presidential elections and the insistence by both Republicans and Democrats that a vote for any third party candidate is just a wasted vote. Given that a popular vote of Presidential candidates is more ceremonial than practical since the President is elected by the electoral college, and given that both the Republican and Democratic parties have maintained such a stranglehold on that electoral college, it would seem that a vote for any party is a wasted vote, at least in terms of Presidential campaigns. It is also fairly evident that within the two party system of Democrats and Republicans it is the extremist of both parties that dictate the campaign process of not just the President but of all elected officials. Abortion, gay marriage, welfare and economies are the issues of today. Yet, in Washington's time the primary issue was liberty. Liberty today has been framed in terms of "civil rights" or "civil liberties" rather than just plain liberty which is a natural right belonging to the people. But, for more than two hundred years the American people have lived their lives satisfied that they are free to do as they choose, given those choices are within the parameters of the rule of law. Never mind that thanks to this two party system the people have been burdened with increasing taxation, intrusive regulation into their daily lives and have watched their natural rights to free speech stifled, their freedom of the press sequestered by two party corporations, their right to peacefully assemble monitored by administrative agencies, their right to own guns framed as a collective right belonging to militias only and their right to a speedy trial supplanted with plea bargaining. That the extremist of that two party system have taken control of both Democrats and Republicans does not diminish the fact that alternative parties tend to be even more extreme in their politics with parties such as the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the Libertarian Party and the amusing Republocrats. Extremism is hardly temperance and even though the Republicans and Democrats tend to allow their extremist to decide their party candidates, in the end, those elected by that party quickly discover that the people in general tend to stay comfortably in the middle and are not very forgiving of failed extremist politics. President Obama is quickly discovering this as George W. Bush discovered this as did President Clinton, and Bush' father. This extremism of "third party" candidates is perhaps one reason they tend to fail. The extremist of the two major parties can be subdued as they are often minorities among their parties but in alternative parties the majority are extremists. While the people are clearly frustrated with continually choosing the lesser of two evils, they are also quite comfortable in doing so as is evidenced not only by their voting patterns but by their consumption. While there are numerous soft drink companies that offer their product to the market place it is Coke and Pepsi that dominate this market. This dominance is mostly due to brand name recognition and the same most likely holds true for Democrats and Republicans. Today we have Democrats in power and one might argue this is the Pepsi generation. Yesterday it was the Republicans and one could argue then that Coke was the real thing. All of this is just empty rhetoric spoon fed to the gullible masses who, despite living in a country that imprisons more people than any other country in the world, believe the live in the freest country in the world.
Who thought political parties were bad for the government?
George Washington is noted for warning against political parties.
What organization called did the us join that went against Washington's warning to steer clear of permanent alliances?
Political parties
Americans should have listened to Washington warning about political parties?
Yes,
In washingtons farewell speech which parties was he talking about?
He was warning against political parties and that they would work for their own good and not the common good of the people. He was right.
What president gave a farewell address warning against foreign alliances and political factories?
George Washington.
How well did the us listen to George Washington's advice on political parties?
no- for political parties. yes, in large part on foreign affairs. The US did not send any substantial number of troops outside of the Western Hemisphere for more than 100 years.
What message was washinton trying to convey when he warned against dustructive spirit of polictical parties?
He was afraid that political parties would be more concerned with their survival than with the business of the people. Even though there weren't political parties in his administration he could see the results of the fractions of political philosophy and how they tried to work against each other for political power.
And Washington's warning against permanent foreign a lyses at his farewell address?
And Washington's farewell address he warned against permanent foreign I advise and
How you think Americans should have listened to washigton warning about political parties?
Yes, in retrospect. He was right, but it is human nature to take sides on issues and I don't know how we could have avoided having political parties. If there is any doubt about his observations all we have to do is look at the current situation we are in concerning political parties.
What warning did George Washington give before he left office?
Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars.
What warning did George Washington give the nation regarding political policies?
He warned them to stay out of European affairs.
In his farewell address Washington urged Americans to do what?
He wanted the all the states to be under one government, he warns them about the dangers of political parties, he points out the need for education, and he advises the nation about foreign policy
