Christian History Magazine Collection

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington argued that religion and morality were essential pillars of the new republic.

by Gary Scott Smith from Christian History magazine no. 99

As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army and the first president of the United States, George Washington played an indispensable role in achieving American independence and safeguarding the infant republic. Risking his reputation, wealth, and life, he commanded an undermanned and poorly supplied army to a victory over the world’s leading economic and military power. As president, he kept the new nation from crashing on the shoals of anarchy, monarchy, or revolution.

But he longed to return to his beloved Mount Vernon. In September 1796 he published his “Farewell Address” in a Philadelphia newspaper to make clear he would not consider a third term and to offer his prescription for how best to preserve the fragile republic. To prevent their nation from unraveling or being conquered by England, France, or Spain (which still laid claim to land in North America), he warned, Americans must avoid political factions and entangling alliances.

Moreover, the nascent republic could flourish only if it were grounded on religion and morality. These were the “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity” and human happiness. “Virtue or morality,” he maintained, “is a necessary spring of popular government.”

Under the Constitution framed in Philadelphia in 1787, Americans had embarked on what Thomas Jefferson labeled “the fair experiment”: Was freedom of religion “compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws”? The First Amendment mandated that the United States could not establish a national church. Could such a nation endure? If the government did not provide financial and political support for Christianity, as had been done in the West since Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 391, would it still be a vital force in public life? If religion was voluntary, would citizens still act in the morally upright ways that were crucial to a republic’s success?

Washington argued that popular government depended on virtuous citizens and that only religion, which in the American context meant Christianity, could inspire such selfless behavior. He frequently asserted that religion helped promote virtue, order, and social stability, and praised the efforts of churches to make people “sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.” He maintained that “general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry and economy” were necessary to America’s happiness and success. God had so designed the universe that there was “an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.” Religion and morality “are the essential pillars of Civil society.”

In his Farewell Address, Washington urged his countrymen to “observe good faith and justice toward all nations.” “Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?” The president sought to promote harmony and positive exchanges with all nations, which prudent policy, American self-interest, and concern for humanity all recommended. In voicing these arguments, Washington spoke for many founders and for almost all his successors as president.

Enigmatic saint

To a certain extent during his life and even more after his death, Washington was elevated to sainthood. An American civil religion arose that revered him as God’s instrument and a larger-than-life mythological hero. He has been seen as “the deliverer of America,” the savior of his people, the American Moses, and even a demigod. For more than 200 years, Washington’s faith has been closely scrutinized, distorted by folklore, endlessly debated, and used by various groups to support their own positions. Many of the hundreds of books, articles, sermons, and essays published about his faith since 1800 have advanced ideological agendas and recounted pious fables about Washington that have little basis in historical fact. Unlike some other founders, Washington was very private about his faith, so unearthing what he believed is very challenging.

Many have extolled the first president as “a Christian hero and statesman,” “the founder of a Christian republic,” “Christ’s faithful soldier and servant,” and a “man of abiding faith.” Mason Locke “Parson” Weems, the pastor of the Pohick Church near Mount Vernon which Washington sometimes attended, as well as other enthusiasts insist that he regularly attended church services, said grace before all meals, actively participated in church work, and filled his public and private statements with religious exhortations.

These authors argue that Washington served diligently as a vestryman, contributed liberally to churches, had private devotions habitually, strictly followed biblical moral principles, and relied strongly on God’s providence. They emphasize his exemplary prayer life, extensive knowledge of Scripture, and repeated calls for public and private piety. They add that Washington served as a godfather for eight children and often led projects to improve the church. Others counter that Washington’s faith was not very deep or meaningful. They label his interest in religion as perfunctory and insist that his practice of Christianity “was limited and superficial because he himself was not a Christian.” They stress that he refused to take Communion during the last 25 years of his life, frequently used deistic terms for God such as “the Grand Architect,” and seldom referred in his public addresses or private correspondence to Christianity and almost never to Jesus. They argue that Washington never mentioned that Christ was his savior or redeemer and did not even call Jesus a great moral teacher.

Although Washington offered substantial advice to his stepchildren and nephews on moral subjects, he said nothing about religion. Moreover, the Virginian expressed no hope of eternal life and on his deathbed did not call for a minister to pray. Scholars also disagree sharply about the level and nature of his involvement with Freemasonry.