WI Washington Had Included Anti-Slavery Remarks in his Farewell Address?

Anaxagoras

Banned
By the time he left the Presidency, George Washington had become convinced that slavery was an evil that needed to eventually be eradicated. He was already engaged in the complicated legal wrangling that eventually saw all of his own slaves freed in his will. Like Jefferson and Madison, Washington had never been an enthusiastic supporter of slavery (which didn't really come into fashion in the South until the 1830s) and he clearly saw that the continuation of the institution threatened the future of the republic.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington spoke of many things, including the need to avoid political partisanship, return to a balanced budget, avoid become bogged down in foreign conflicts, and promote morality in civic life. It instantly became, and remains, an important and influential public document.

What if Washington had also made a statement, perhaps a gentle and open-ended one, about the need to eventually deal with the slavery question? Perhaps he could have framed it within a call to abolish the slave trade in 1808 (the earliest date allowed under the Constitution), using that as a springboard to make an explicit statement that slavery was a negative thing that needed to eventually be done away with.

Would this have made any difference in the long run?
 
A split in the Southern pro-slavery Movement Perhaps?

This an excellent question. Washington's growing opinions on slavery date back to before he took command of the Continental forces during the Revolution. I know he would have liked to have freed the slaves on his estates after his death but he had to consider his wife Martha's reliance on their labors if she survived him (she did), and of course the inter-marrying, his slaves and hers (they actually belonged to her first husbands estate and thus her son Jack Custis' heirs from her first marriage,) caused problems with his wishes upon his and Martha's deaths.

Perhaps the slave owning rooted southern states of the original 13 states may have balked at this suggestion, especially since his "unofficial" critics included the new Democratic Republicans and slave owning James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who supported their agrarian leaning national policies. Those same agrarian policies in the South relied on slave labor.

Perhaps the big impact may come with the future border states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri. Who knows what influence may have occurred as a result of a George Washington call for the end of slavery in the foreseeable future.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Perhaps the slave owning rooted southern states of the original 13 states may have balked at this suggestion, especially since his "unofficial" critics included the new Democratic Republicans and slave owning James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who supported their agrarian leaning national policies. Those same agrarian policies in the South relied on slave labor.

But Madison and Jefferson were both like Washington in that they were, paradoxically, anti-slavery slave-owners.
 
But Madison and Jefferson were both like Washington in that they were, paradoxically,

True. Personally and philosophically they both would have preferred an end to slavery. But I was referring to the "political supporters" of both Jefferson's and Madison's, who together created the "less government", agrarian leaning Democratic-Republican Party that opposed the Hamilton led, and Washington leaning, Federalists Party that called for a more powerful central government. (Though Washington was never an official member of any political party.) The Democratic-Republicans were strongly supported by Southern Slave owners.

I don't recall what happened to Madison's slaves, but Jefferson only freed a few in his will as he either sold off before he died, or left slaves in his will to his daughters to pay off the huge debts he incurred at the end of his life to keep Monticello running.

Again I agree with you where their hearts lied, but I only meant to point out that the political supporters of both of them would have balked at a Washington Farewell speech plea to seek an end to slavery. Thus my thoughts that the future border slave states might have been a better bet to consider such a plea.
 
True. Personally and philosophically they both would have preferred an end to slavery. But I was referring to the "political supporters" of both Jefferson's and Madison's, who together created the "less government", agrarian leaning Democratic-Republican Party that opposed the Hamilton led, and Washington leaning, Federalists Party that called for a more powerful central government. (Though Washington was never an official member of any political party.) The Democratic-Republicans were strongly supported by Southern Slave owners.

I don't recall what happened to Madison's slaves, but Jefferson only freed a few in his will as he either sold off before he died, or left slaves in his will to his daughters to pay off the huge debts he incurred at the end of his life to keep Monticello running.

Again I agree with you where their hearts lied, but I only meant to point out that the political supporters of both of them would have balked at a Washington Farewell speech plea to seek an end to slavery. Thus my thoughts that the future border slave states might have been a better bet to consider such a plea.

The attitude we're talking about was rather...if not popular, at least not rare in the Upper South at the time. Prior to the cotton boom, slavery was seen as dieing a slow but inevitable death. It was only in the Deep South, where still very profitable cash crops like sugar or rice could be grown, that you had on-going support for and belief in the continuance of slavery as an article of faith.

Moreover, the support for Jefferson and Madison/The Democratic-Republican party came from other places than just the South. Pretty much everywhere that the local economy wasn't founded on seaborne commerce eventually broke for the Jeffersonians. The Federalists didn't die because a slave-holding South overturned them, they died because an elitist, aristocratic party pursuing the interests of wealthy merchants and financiers couldn't survive in the increasingly wide franchise of the early decades of the 19th century.

Washington including an anti-slavery remark in his Farewell Address would have interesting implications, but they wouldn't be as profound as you're suggesting. It would have influence later down the line, when anti-slavery politics started becoming more of a hot button issue in the antebellum era, but even then not anything total or completely history changing: The abolitionists and free soilers went mining in the writings and sayings of the Revolutionary and Founding eras for anti-slavery precedent in American history and found plenty to work with as is. Support from Washington would be another finger on the political scales, not a ten ton weight.
 
Top