AN INQUIRY, ETC.

FROM the first publication of Washington's Farewell Address, in September, 1796, it has never been universally agreed, that the paper was written altogether by the illustrious man whose name is subscribed to it.

The first intimations of doubt on this point, were confined to private conversation or society, and with the admission that the paper spoke Washington's well-known sentiments, and was not above the high intellectual capacity he had uniformly exhibited; but the doubt was excused by suggestions, that the paper wanted the presence of Washington's characteristic forms of expression and construction, and that it manifested more systematic arrangement and connection, with fuller argumental supports, than were usual in his writings.

This language was confined, also, to comparatively few persons, as only a few were, at that time, familiar with Washington's writings. But in subsequent years, as this familiarity was enlarged, and as rival or unfriendly sentiments towards Washington and some of his confidential friends, were more disposed to reveal themselves, the doubts grew stronger; and, as special facts bearing upon the question

came out from time to time, they became more general. At length there arose a popular repugnance to the opinion, which in some degree suppressed further curiosity and inquiry. The deep and undivided reverence of the people for Washington, was unwilling to learn, that, even on an occasion of ceremony, he had worn any vesture but his own. It was, perhaps, a prejudice; but it was a natural one, in such a country as ours was, and some of it may still remain. The lapse of more years, however, and the express mention of Alexander Hamilton's name as an assistant in the work, opened the inquiry again,-always in the most deferential manner towards Washington, but with new features, tending to diversify opinions upon the matter, and in a certain degree to embitter them; until finally three varieties of opinion were found to prevail, none of them strictly accordant with the absolute truth, yet all of them professing the most elevated respect for Washington. They probably divide the country at the present time. It has been a remarkable test of the universal admiration and love of Washington among us, that no one of these opinions has ever disclosed or involved the least abatement in the love of any of his countrymen towards this immortal man, whose priority in all hearts has become the established heritage of his name forever.

One of these varieties of opinion, existing perhaps as early as any, among persons in immediate proximity to Washington, but not then revealed to any extent, and which had no special basis of fact whatever for it, was, that the Farewell Address was a transcript by Washington of Hamilton's thoughts as well as language. Those who entertained this opinion, derived it, probably, from what they

erroneously thought was Washington's frequent practice in his public writings.*

Another variety, with more, but still incomplete, knowledge of the facts to sustain it, and with a natural partiality to incline it to assign the largest contribution of every ingredient to Washington, though without undervaluing either the talents or the direct contributions of Hamilton, regarded the Address as the joint work of both, but the preponderant work of Washington in all respects-Washington's style in its language, as much as his judgment in the plan, or his sentiments in the principles. It conceded to Hamilton a considerable share, but left the contributing shares of each of the parties perfectly indefinite.

The third variety of opinion was that of a very eminent and excellent man, from whom it passed to others, with a result as erroneous as the opinion first noticed, and more erroneous than the second, being at the same time more definite in the wrong direction.†

"This eminent man, perfectly acquainted with one important fact in the case, bearing upon Hamilton's connection with the Address, and entirely unacquainted with all the rest, reasoned from this fact as if it had been the only fact in the case, and closely restricted the bearing of it, by an opinion of his own, which certainly was not Washington's, that the Farewell Address was in some emphatic way, “a personal act—of choice, not of official duty-and was so

66

* This thought may be seen in a remarkable letter by the elder President Adams, to Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated 28th August, 1811. "Works of John Adams," vol. ix, p. 639. † John Jay. Letter to the Hon. Richard Peters, 29th March, 1811. Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. ii, p. 336.

"connected with other obvious considerations, that he (Washington) only, could with propriety write it."

66

This positive and explicit opinion, which resulted in the conclusion, not directly expressed, but necessarily implied by the whole letter from which the above extract is taken, that Washington was the only writer of the Farewell Address, and Hamilton no more than the corrector or emendator of Washington's original draught, has had decisive weight with a great many persons; and from the character of the writer, and the solemnity with which he expressed his opinion, and gave the details of his personal knowledge, could not but have such weight. It inclined the scale, before the opposing evidence could be fairly weighed against it; and it will incline it, until that evidence is exhibited and deliberately weighed.

From the time that this letter was published, in 1833, and, in only a less extensive degree, from the time of its date, in 1811, the question assumed an invidious bearing towards Alexander Hamilton, and on the other hand, towards the principal party also; and has at length become almost a moral question, involving a breach of faith or honor on Hamilton's part, and of some assumption of another's merit on the part of Washington, without the countenance of any other circumstance in their respective lives to justify or excuse an imputation of this nature.

In a certain state of opinion respecting the authorship of the Farewell Address, it would have been agreeable to concur in a part of Mr. Sparks's remarks on this subject, in the twelfth volume of Washington's Writings, of which he was the editor; "that the manner in which that Address origi"nated is one of small moment, since its real importance

66

"consists in its being known to contain the sentiments of Washington, uttered on a solemn occasion, and designed "for the benefit of his countrymen." There is no reason to question the propriety of this remark; nor would there be any indisposition to stop there, if Mr. Sparks and others had stopped there. But Mr. Sparks has proceeded in the same place to examine the question of origin to some extent, and has expressed his opinions upon the whole subject, generally with candor, and always with a fair estimate of Hamilton's intellectual powers, and of his special aid in the preparation of this Address; but without making all the discriminations which the evidence supports, and with rather a measurable valuation of the Address itself as a literary composition, so as to leave the merits of it on a less elevated grade than they ought to occupy, and the relative contributions of both Washington and Hamilton to the work, in greater obscurity than, now at least, there is any necessity for. Mr. Sparks also has explained, or excused, this obscurity, by an implication that in some degree tarnishes the honor of Hamilton; for, as Hamilton did preserve, that is to say, did not destroy, the original draught of the address he had prepared for Washington, and did likewise preserve the original letters of Washington upon that subject, as well as upon others, it is certainly a tacit reflection upon Hamilton's honor, for having done this, to say, "that in a case of so "confidential a nature, and in which his honor was so much “concerned, it may be supposed that Hamilton would not "preserve every communication that he received." All this on the part of Mr. Sparks has been, perhaps inadvertently and unconsciously, colored or promoted, by reflections from another paper previously published, to which he refers, the