1 George Washington’s quotes are found in the original sources of Washington’s writings and also in the very helpful article by Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s Faith and the Birth of America, found in The American Enterprise, May 2006 issue, pages 20-27.
2 Ibid.
1 Paul F. Boller, Jr., George Washington & Religion (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963) p. 93.
2 John Clement Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources 1749-1799, 39 vols.(Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944). The writings of George Washington are now readily and easily available online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/washington/. Readers may find quotations by searching by word, date, or recipient. Further references to Washington’s writings will be referenced simply by WGW followed by the volume number and date. WGW vol. 2, 4-27-63.
3 Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 2004).
4 Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents From Washington to FDR (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995).
5 Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997).
6 Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington A Biography. 7 Vols (New York:, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948).
7 James T. Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (New York: Signet, 1984).
8 William Maclay, The Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania 1789-1791, (New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1927) p. 9.
9 WGW, Inaugural Address.
10 Ibid., vol. 37, 5-13-1776.
11 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
12 The eighteenth century in America was a remarkable time. This is not simply because of the political and international events surrounding the birth of our nation. It was remarkable, too, because of many aspects of the modern world that emerged from this period. One of the most important ingredients of the modern world is the elevation of human reason above scriptural revelation. In the 1700’s, this was beginning to take place among many of the educated. The movement during that time was called “The Enlightenment.” One of the central components of the Enlightenment era was a shift from biblical Christianity to a theological viewpoint called “Deism.” James Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man, p. 216, declares, “Washington subscribed to the religious faith of the Enlightenment: like Franklin and Jefferson he was a Deist. Although not believing in the doctrines of the churches, he was convinced that a divine force, impossible to define, ruled the universe, and that this ‘Providence’ was good.” If there is not a Providential God in Deism and Washington is claimed to have been a Deist, how then could he have believed in Providence? Let’s consider a historical definition of Deism given by America’s first lexicographer, Noah Webster. His personal experience argues that he understood the issues involved, given his own history of intellectualism and unbelief in the Gospel:
About a year ago an unusual revival of religion took place in New Haven, and frequent conferences of private meetings for religious purposes were held by pious and well disposed persons in the Congregational societies. . . .I closed my books, yielded to the influence which could not be resisted or mistaken, and was led by a spontaneous impulse of repentance, prayer, and entire submission and surrender of myself to my Maker and Redeemer. My submission appeared to be cheerful, and was soon followed by the peace of mind which the world can neither give nor take away. . . .You will readily suppose that such evidence of the direct operation of the divine spirit upon the human heart, I could no longer question or have a doubt respecting the Calvinistic and Christian doctrines of regeneration, of free grace, and of the sovereignty of God. I now began to understand and relish many parts of the scriptures, which before appeared mysterious and unintelligible or repugnant to my natural pride. . . .Permit me here to remark, in allusion to a passage in your letter, that I had for almost fifty years exercised my talents such as they are, to obtain knowledge and to abide by its dictates, but without arriving at the truth, or what now appears to me to be the truth, of the gospel. I am taught now the utter insufficiency of our own powers to effect a change of the heart, and am persuaded that a reliance on our own talents or powers is a fatal error, springing from natural pride and opposition to God, by which multitudes of men, especially of the more intelligent and moral part of society are deluded into ruin. I now look, my dear friend, with regret on the largest portion of the ordinary life of man, spent ‘without hope and without God in the world.’ I am particularly affected by a sense of my ingratitude to that Being who made me and without whose constant agency I cannot draw a breath, who has showered upon me a profusion of temporal blessings and provided a Savior for my immortal soul . . .In the month of April last I made a profession of faith.” (“Noah Webster: Founding Father of American Scholarship and Education” in Facsimile First Edition of American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) by Noah Webster (1989), p. 20-21).
His 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language provides the following definitions:
Deism: n. [Fr. Deisme; Sp. Deismo; It. Id.; from L. deus, [God]. The doctrine or creed of a Deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or Deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence Deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
Deist: n. [Fr. Deiste; It. Deista.] One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.
Deism in Washington’s day rejected divine revelation, affirmed the preeminence of human reason, but had not yet necessarily denied the validity of Providence. Clearly, Webster’s definition of Deism does not prohibit a belief in Providence. As we shall see, Washington did believe in the Providence of God in the affairs of human history. Later Deism may well have rejected this idea, but such was not the case in colonial America. On the basis of this, in the next chapter we will make a distinction between “hard” and “soft” Deism.
13 Ellen Sorokin, “No Founding Fathers? That’s Our New History,” Washington Times, January 28, 2002.
14 Brit Hume, “The Political Grapevine,” February 22, 2005, Fox News.
15 Boller, George Washington & Religion.
16 Ibid., p.86.
17 See for example Frank E. Grizzard, Jr., George Washington: A Biographical Companion (Denver: ABC-CLIO, 2002) pp. 268-273. The only scholarly source that Grizzard cites is Boller’s book on Washington’s religion.
18 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p.30.
19 Ibid.
20 See James Flexner quote in note 12 above.
21 Marvin Kitman, The Making of the President 1789: the Unauthorized Campaign Biography (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 73.
22 Benjamin Franklin, Information to Those Who Would Remove to America. (London: M. Gurney, 1794,) pp. 22, 23.
23 John Corbin, The Unknown Washington, (Charles Scribner’s sons, 1930), p. 36 writes, “… a tradition handed down in the countryside where he first surveyed land for Lord Fairfax and then, . . . endeavored to protect the settlers from savage butchery. Though not recorded until 1926, it is thoroughly in accord with what we know of the unlicked cub. Having ordered a drink at the bar of a tavern in what is now Martinsburg, West Virginia, he found that he had no money and tendered a coonskin. The change came in rabbitskins, said to have numbered one hundred and fifty-eight. Confronted by this unwieldy heap, and possibly warmed by his liquor, Washington stood treat to all comers until the last rabbit-scut disappeared behind the bar. An eighteenth-century diarist quotes Alexander Hamilton to the effect that Washington had a strong head for liquor—and exercised it daily. One visitor at Mount Vernon found him loquacious after champagne.” (WGW, vol. 33, note, 10-9-1794.) In preparation for president Washington’s riding to western Pennsylvania to address the “Whiskey Rebellion,” Bartholomew Dandridge wrote, “As the President will be going, if he proceeds, into the Country of Whiskey he proposes to make use of that liquor for his drink, and presuming that beef and bread will be furnished by the contractors he requires no supply of these Articles from you.”
24 WGW, vol. 36, 1-10-1798. To Burwell Bassett. “As you kindly offered to become the purchaser of Corn for me, in case I should need any for my Distillery, I now request the favour of you to procure, and send me (not of the gourd seed kind) a Vessel load, say from five to twelve hundred bushels, so soon as all danger of the River freezing, is over.”
25 Ibid., vol. 37, 1-20-1799.
26 Ibid., vol. 4, 12-5-1775.
27 Ibid., vol. 37, 5-13-1776.
28 Thomas Jefferson, “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” 1786, Bruce Frohnen, ed., The American Republic: Primary Sources (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), p. 330.
29 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p.16.
30 John Rhodehamel, ed., George Washington: Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 526.
31 Ibid., 351.
32 All of these quotes can be found in WGW, vol. XI, p. 343.
33 “The Rules of Civility” was a collection of 110 maxims for behavior for a young man. We will consider these rules more fully in the chapter on Washington’s childhood education. They are listed in their entirety in appendix 1.
34 WGW, vol. 36, 7-4-1798.
1 WGW, vol. 30, 9-28-1789.
2 Ibid., vol. 12, 8-20-1778.
3 Noah Webster, 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
4 “It seems as if parents of the Christian profession were ashamed to tell their children anything about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence, for the Christian mythology has five deities- there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature.” Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, Luxembourg, 8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible. January 27, O. S. 1794. Part I.
5 Crane Brinton in The Shaping of Modern Thought (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 137.
6 Thomas Paine’s criticism of prayer can be found in Age of Reason, Luxembourg, 8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible. January 27, O. S. 1794. Part I. “Yet, with all this strange appearance of humility and this contempt for human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions; he finds fault with everything; his selfishness is never satisfied; his ingratitude is never at an end. He takes on himself to direct the Almighty what to do, even in the government of the universe; he prays dictatorially; when it is sunshine, he prays for rain, and when it is rain, he prays for sunshine; he follows the same idea in everything that he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers but an attempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he does? It is as if he were to say: Thou knowest not so well as I.”
7 WGW, vol. 31, 6-19-1791. On June 19, 1791, Washington wrote to Tobias Lear showing his still high regard for Paine’s writings: “I should like to see Mr. Payne’s answer to Mr. Burke’s Pamphlet [ WGW note: This was Paine’s reply to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution, which constituted what was afterwards the first part of The Rights of Man.]; if it is to be had….”
8 For the friendship that Washington originally had toward Paine, see his letter to Richard Henry Lee on June 12, 1784: Dear Sir: Unsollicited by, and unknown to Mr. Paine, I take the liberty of hinting the services, and distressed (for so I think it may be called) situation of that Gentleman. That his Commonsense, and many of his Crisis’, were well timed, and had a happy affect upon the public mind, none I believe who will recur to the epochas at which they were published, will deny: that his services hither to have passed off unnoticed, is obvious to all; and that he is chagrined and necessitous, I will undertake to aver. Does not common justice then point to some compensation? He is not in circumstances to refuse the public bounty. New York, not the least distressed, or most able State in the Union have set the example. He prefers the benevolence of the States individually, to an allowance from Congress, for reasons which are conclusive in his own mind, and such as I think may be approved by others; his views are moderate; a decent independency is, I believe, the height of his ambition; and if you view his services in the American cause in the same important light that I do, I am sure you will have pleasure in obtaining it for him. I am, etc. WGW, vol. 27, 6-12-1784.
For his appreciation for Common Sense, see Washington’s letter to Joseph Reed, January 31, 1776, “A few more of such flaming arguments, as were exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning contained in the pamphlet Common Sense, will not leave numbers at a loss to decide upon the propriety of a separation.” WGW, vol. 4, 1-31-1776.
9 James Thomas Flexner, George Washington Anguish and Farewell (1793-1799) (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1969), p. 323.
10 Washington’s policy was not to answer a letter or charge that he believed to have the wrong “tenor.” See his July 28, 1795, letter to the Boston Selectmen. WGW, vol. 34, 7-28-1795.
“Gentlemen: In every act of my administration, I have sought the happiness of my fellow-citizens. My system for the attainment of this object has uniformly been to overlook all personal, local and partial considerations: to contemplate the United States, as one great whole: to confide, that sudden impressions, when erroneous, would yield to candid reflection: and to consult only the substantial and permanent interests of our country.
Nor have I departed from this line of conduct, on the occasion, which has produced the resolutions, contained in your letter of the 13 [instt.]
Without a predilection for my own judgment, I have weighed with attention every argument, which has at any time been brought into view. But the constitution is the guide, which I never will abandon. It has assigned to the President the power of making treaties, with the advice and consent of the senate. It was doubtless supposed that these two branches of government would combine, without passion, [and with the best means of information], those facts and principles upon which the success of our foreign relations will always depend: that they ought not to substitute for their own conviction the opinions of others; or to scorn expect truth thro’ any channel but that of a temperate and well-informed investigation.
Under this persuasion, I have resolved on the manner of executing the duty now before me. To the high responsibility, attached to it, I freely submit; and you, gentlemen, are at liberty to make these sentiments known, as the grounds of my procedure. While I feel the most lively gratitude for the many instances of approbation from my country; I can no otherwise deserve it, than by obeying the dictates of my conscience. With due respect, &c.”
The note of WGW on this date explains: Addresses of disapprobation of Jay’s Treaty, urging that it be not ratified, poured in upon the President from cities, towns, and counties in nearly every State. The earliest being that from the Selectmen of Boston, dated July 13, and the last coming from the citizens of Lexington, Ky., in their meeting of September 8 (forwarded September 10). To most of these addresses the same answer was returned as that to the Boston Selectman, July 28. The text of the addresses, with the president’s answers, are entered in the “Letter Book” in the Washington Papers. On the “Letter Book” copy of the resolutions of the citizens of Petersburg, Va., August 1, Washington has noted: “Tenor indecent. No answer returned.” On the “Letter Book” copy of the resolutions of the inhabitants of Bordentown, Crosswicks, Black Horse, and Reckless Town, N. J., Washington has noted: “No answer given. The Address too rude to merit one.” The copyist’s note to resolutions of the citizens of Laurens County, S. C., is “The foregoing Resolutions & ca.? were sent under a blank cover, by (it is supposed) Jno. Matthews Esqr. No notice has been taken of them.” On the “Letter Book” copy of the remonstrance and petition of the citizens of Scott County, Ky., August 25, Washington has noted: “The Ignorance and indecency of these proceedings forbad an answr.” On the “Letter Book” copy of the address from the citizens of Lexington, Ky., Washington has noted: “It would now [be] out of time to answr this address when reed Novr. Indecent besides.”
11 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p. 60.
12 We will address Washington’s many titles for “Deity” in a subsequent chapter, “Washington’s God: Religion, Reason and Philosophy.”
13 Washington wrote to Reverend Samuel Miller from Philadelphia on August 29, 1793, “Sir: It is but a few days since that I had the pleasure to receive your polite letter of the 4 instant, which accompanied the Sermon delivered by you on the 4 of July, and I beg you will accept my best thanks for the attention shewn in forwarding the same to me.” The Title page declares:
RESOLVED, That the Thanks of this Society by returned to the Reverend Mr. SAMUEL MILLER, for his elegant and patriotic Discourse, delivered by him, before the Society, this Day.
ORDERED, That Brothers Rodgers, Mitchell, and Ker, Be a Committee to wait on Mr. Miller, for this Purpose, and to request a Copy for the Press.
A true Copy from the Minutes, BENJAMIN STRONG, Secretary
ADVERTISEMENT
THE following Discourse is published, almost verbatim, as it was delivered, excepting the addition of the Notes. It was compiled on very short Notice – amidst many pressing Avocations – and, consequently, in great Haste. These Circumstances, together with the want of Abilities and Experience in the Author, must apologize for its indigested and defective Appearance.
14 Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998), vol. 2, pp. 1154, 1159, 1165, 1166, 1167.
15 See chapter 3, note 47 where a letter from Methodist Bishops Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury on behalf of the Methodist-Episcopal church is cited. This clearly shows that Washington’s language for Deity was that of the evangelical preachers of his day. Coke and Asbury write: “We have received the most grateful satisfaction, from the humble and entire dependence on the Great Governor of the universe which you have repeatedly expressed, acknowledging him the source of every blessing,….” Washington responded on the same day “It always affords me satisfaction when I find a concurrence of sentiment and practice between all conscientious men, in acknowledgments of homage to the great Governor of the universe,….”
16 In a subsequent chapter on Washington’s sermons, we will consider the collection of sermons that Washington stated in writing that he had read, enjoyed, or approved. An example presented there is “A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of the Honourable Sir William Pepperell etc.,” Boston, 1759, to which Washington gave his “approbation” (see WGW, letter to Reverend Joseph Buckminster, December 23, 1789). The terms for “God” that Stephens used in this sermon include: “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” “great Governor of the World,” “His Providence,” “Divinity,” “universal Sovereign,” “Definition of Infinite Wisdom,” “supreme Universal Monarch,” “universal Judge,” “Discerner of true Worth.” Such titles for deity used by Christian preachers of Washington’s era, which Washington also employed, are utterly absent from Thomas Paine’s deistic Age of Reason.
17 Boller, George Washington And Religion, p. 28-29, writes, “Parson Weems quoted him [Lee Massey] as saying: I never knew so constant an attendant at Church as Washington. His behavior in the House of God was ever so deeply reverential, and greatly assisted me in my pulpit labors. No company ever withheld him from church. I have often been at Mount Vernon, on Sabbath morning, when his breakfast table was filled with guests; but to him they furnished no pretext for neglecting his God, and losing the satisfaction of setting a good example For instead of staying home out of false complaisance to them, he used constantly to invite them to accompany him. But Massey’s statement was made many years after the period to which he referred and, as Paul Leicester Ford suggested, it was probably made “more with an eye to its influence on others than to its strict accuracy.” The same comment may be made of George Washington Parke Custis’ statement, some years after Washington’s death, that his step-grandfather “was always a strict and decorous observer of the Sabbath. He invariably attended divine service once a day, when within reach of a place of worship. If we examine Washington’s own record of what he did on Sunday before the Revolution, we find that he was considerably less conscientious about attending church than either Lee Massey or GWP Custis seems to have recollected. According to his diary, Washington went to church four times during the first five months of 1760, and in 1768 he went fifteen times; and these years seem to be fairly typical of the period from 1760 to 1773. It is true, as the pietists have noted, that bad weather sometimes made it impossible to make the trip to church, that illness occasionally kept Washington at home, and that Pohick Church did not hold services every Sunday because the rector had to preach elsewhere in Truro parish. But Washington, we know, also transacted business on Sundays, visited friends and relatives, traveled, and sometimes went fox-hunting, instead of going to church. . . . But at the most it does not seem to have exceeded an average of once a month.”
Boller’s use of Washington’s diaries here is methodologically unsound. His conclusions are non-sequiturs. Washington, for example, almost ignores political events. On this count, they were irrelevant too. (Historians have been frustrated by Washington’s seeming indifference in his own diary to the world-changing events that he often participated in.) Or by this same logic, church attendance could be construed as even more important than his attendance at the Constitutional Convention—for he never even said a word beyond bare attendance! Or as a reductio ad absurdum, by the same logic, consider then the profound significance of the fact that on a Saturday and Sunday at the end of July 1769, Washington chose to give so much detail concerning his hounds. With barnyard clarity, Washington records: “Chaunter again lind with Rockwood” and “The black bitch countess appeard to be going proud” and “was shut up in order to go to the same Dog.” And that the next day “Chaunter Lined again by rockwood.” By Boller’s logic, if importance is established by record and commentary, we are compelled to assume that the breeding of his dogs was the most important thing in his life, since Washington by far presents more on his dog’s historical actions than he does of his own actions on Sunday worship or at the Creation of a New American Government! Let it be noted, that a thorough search of Washington’s diaries shows that he did not fox-hunt on Sundays. Not being of the Puritan tradition, he had no scruple about traveling on Sunday. The few Sundays in his diaries that mention fox hunting show that he traveled to someone’s home to fox hunt. The next day’s entry then shows the typical recounting of the foxes that were chased and sometimes killed. While Boller’s logic diminishes the faithfulness of Washington’s attendance at church, a few other factors should be kept in mind. First, to make his point, he must, in essence, call Reverend Massey and Washington’s grandson, who grew up in Washington’s house, exaggerators or outright liars. Next, he has to disregard the fact that the trip to church took nearly all day, since it required an approximately nine mile carriage ride through unpaved country roads, and in the winter, it was to a church building that by law could not have a fireplace for heat, lest it be susceptible to catching fire. Further, Boller’s portrayal of the minimal attendance of Washington at church overlooks the written record and the physical evidence of Washington’s custom of reading a sermon to his family on Sundays. Finally, we will, in a subsequent chapter, consider the training the Washington family gave to their children through Episcopal tutors and that Washington himself received in childhood in regard to the regular use of The Book Of Common Prayer which provided a weekly spiritual experience, even when weather, health, distance, or lack of clergy prevented the family from attending worship. As strange as it may sound, in the rural countryside of Virginia, an average of once a month attendance at church gave one high marks for consistency. Consistent with this, when Washington lived in New York and Philadelphia as president, his attendance was far more convenient and far more frequent.
18 Rupert Hughes writes in George Washington the Human Being and the Hero 1732-1762 (New York: William Morow & Co., 1926), p. 555, “Dr. Conway, speaking of Washington’s Diaries, notes ‘his pretty regular attendance at church but never any remark on the sermons.’” The same flawed logic as Boller is reflected here by Hughes. Washington did, in fact, comment on the sermons, only rarely in his diaries, but in letters to the preacher/writers of the sermons, he did on some twenty different occasions. We will consider these in a later chapter.
19 Reverend John Stockton Littell, D.D. Washington: Christian – Stories of Cross and Flag No. 1 (Keene, N.H.: The Hampshire Art Press).
20 William Fairfax, Washington’s paternal advisor, had recently counseled him by letter to have public prayers in his camp, especially when there were Indian families there; this was accordingly done at the encampment in the Great Meadows, and it certainly was not one of the least striking pictures presented in this wild —- campaign the youthful commander presiding with calm seriousness over a motley assemblage of half-equipped soldiery, leathern-clad hunters and woodsmen, and painted savages with their wives and children, and uniting them all in solemn devotion by his own example and demeanor. Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence Addresses, Messages, and other Papers, Official and Private (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 138.
20 Washington Irving, Life of George Washington Part I, p. 203ff. Washington Irving writes, “Dr. Craik dressing his wounds, and Washington attending him with faithful assiduity….Captain Orme, who gave these particulars to Dr. Franklin, says that Braddock “died a few minutes after.” This, according to his account, was on the second day; whereas the general survived upward of four days. Orme, being conveyed on a litter at some distance from the general, could only speak of his mood from hearsay…..He died on the night of the 13th at the Great Meadows, the place of Washington’s discomfiture in the previous year. His obsequies were performed before break of day. The chaplain having been wounded, Washington read the funeral service. All was done in sadness, and without parade, so as not to attract the attention of lurking savages, who might discover and outrage his grave. It is doubtful even whether a volley was fired over it, that last military honor which he had recently paid to the remains of an Indian warrior. The place of his sepulture, however, is still known, and pointed out.”
It is undisputed tradition, according to the recounting of Washington’s soldiers, that he became chaplain at such times when there was no other to perform the service. The record that David Humphreys gives in his biography of George Washington is significant, because it is the only biography of his life that Washington read and approved: “General Braddock breathed his last. —- He was interred with the honors of War, and as it was left to George Washington to see this performed, & to mark out the spot for the reception of his remains to guard against a savage triumph, if the place should be discovered.” In David Humphreys, Life of George Washington (University of Georgia Press, 1991), pp. 15-20. Thus, Washington’s presiding over the burial service for General Braddock is not mere tradition. Braddock was buried with “the honors of war” and this ceremony would have included the use of the prayers from the Book of Common Prayer.
21 See WGW, vol. 2, Oct 12, 1761; vol. 3, July 18, 1771, July 15, 1772. Under the date of July 18, 1771 is found: “INVOICE OF GOODS TO BE SHIPD BY ROBERT CARY & CO. FOR THE USE OF GEO. WASHINGTON, POTOMACK RIVER, VIRGINIA, A Prayr. Book with the new Version of Psalms and good plain type, covd. with red Moroco., to be 7 Inchs. long 4? wide, and as thin as possible for the greatr. ease of caryg. in the Pocket.”
22 The Apostles’ Creed was to be said in both the morning and evening prayer as outlined by the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer, as well as the 1789 revision. This historic Christian creed declares: “I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell, The third day he rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the Life everlasting. Amen.”
23 The Lord’s Prayer, as given in the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer says, “ Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Amen.” It was to be used daily both in the morning and evening prayer.
24 The Ten Commandments were an essential part of the catechism in the1662 Book Of Common Prayer. The public corporate reading of the Ten Commandments provided for in the Communion Service of the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer was as follows:
“Then shall the Priest, turning to the people, rehearse distinctly all the TEN COMMANDMENTS; and the people still kneeling shall, after every Commandment, ask God mercy for their transgression thereof for the time past, and grace to keep the same for the time to come, as followeth.
Minister.
God spake these words, and said; I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other gods but me.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his Name in vain.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt do no murder.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not steal.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.”
25 The Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 provides the answer to the catechism in the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer: “Question. What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour? Answer. My duty towards my Neighbour, is to love him as myself, and to do to all men, as I would they should do unto me….”
26 Washington’s code of conduct learned as a child, entitled “Rules of Civility,” was relevant in regard to his conscience. As a child, Washington had written down rule 110th that said, “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little celestial fire called conscience.” Washington’s concern for his character will be considered at some length in chapter three.
27 WGW vol. 7, 2-4-1777, see Fitzgerald’s note.
28 This was long before the Oxford movement of the 1830s impacted the Anglican Church and placed the sacramental and Eucharistic life at the front of the churches’ life. Sir Matthew Hale, for example, an exemplar of Anglican piety whose books were used by Mary Washington in the spiritual nurture of her children, wrote that a serious minded believer should commune three times per year. The early Virginia colony only held Communion three times per year, “It was the custom in the colonial churches to administer communion only at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide [Pentecost Sunday], and it was not an uncommon practice for communicants to receive only once a year.” (William Johnson, George Washington the Christian (Arlington Heights: Christian Liberty Press, 1919), (p.58) A 1631 pamphlet describes early Virginian Anglican worship, “… yet we had daily Common Prayer morning and evening, every Sunday two sermons, and every three months the holy communion, till our minister died.”) When one remembers the lack of clergy in the colonial Anglican churches, even this ideal may have been difficult to achieve.
29 Bishop Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia vol. 2 (Philadelphia: J.B.Lippencott & Co., 1857) p. 495.
30 Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington; XII, pp. 405ff.
31 Ibid., p. 409.
32 John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Diaries of George Washington (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925) “Sunday October 11, 1789 ‘At home all day – writing private letters.’ (p. 19); For another example consider November 1, 1789 “Attended by the president of the State (Genl. Sullivan), Mr. Landon, and the marshal, I went in the forenoon to the Episcopal church, under the incumbency of a Mr. Ogden; and in the afternoon to one of the Presbyterian of Congregational Church, in which a Mr. Buckminster Preached. Dines at home with the marshal, and spent the afternoon in my own room writing letters.” (p. 43)
33 Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.
34 Ibid., vol. 2, 4-27-63.
35 We will detail this story in a later chapter.
36 WGW, vol. 3, 6-19-1775.
1 Hughes, George Washington the Human Being and the Hero, p. 554.
2 WGW, vol. 15, 5-13-1779.
3 Hughes, George Washington the Human Being and the Hero, p. 554.
4 WGW, vol. 15, 5-13-1779.
5 Boller, George Washington And Religion, p. 69.
6 Ibid., p. 74.
7 Ibid., p. 74. C
8 Rupert Hughes, p. 554. (Unfortunately, Rupert Hughes’ only source for this claim is Dr. M. D. Conway’s monograph, “The Religion of George Washington.” The Open Court, Oct. 24, p. 1889, p. 1895. For other relevant texts, see Boller, George Washington And Religion p. 85,
9 As an illustration of this, a private letter to Gov. Henry Lee, dated August 26, 1794, is pertinent. According to the WGW Note on that date: “Lee had written (August 27): ‘… very respectable gentleman told me the other day that he was at Mr. Jefferson’s, and among enquirys which he made of that gentleman, he asked if it were possible that you had attached yourself to G Britain and if it could be true that you were governed, by British influence as was reported by many. He was answered in the following words: ‘that there was no danger of your being biassed? by considerations of that sort so long as you were influenced by the wise advisers, or advice, which you at present had. ‘ I requested him to reflect and reconsider and to repeat again the answer. He did so, and adhered to every word. Now as the conversation astonished me and is inexplicable to my mind as well as derogatory to your character, I consider it would be unworthy in me to withhold the communication from you. To no other person will it ever be made.’” President Washington addressed “what Mr. Jefferson is reported to have said of” him as follows: “With respect to the words said to have been uttered by Mr. Jefferson, they would be enigmatical to those who are acquainted with the characters about me, unless supposed to be spoken ironically; and in that case they are too injurious to me, and have too little foundation in truth, to be ascribed to him. There could not be the trace of doubt on his mind of predilection in mine, towards G. Britain or her politics, unless (which I do not believe) he has set me down as one of the most deceitful, and uncandid men living; because, not only in private conversations between ourselves, on this subject; but in my meetings with the confidential servants of the public, he has heard me often, when occasions presented themselves, express very different sentiments with an energy that could not be mistaken by any one present.”
10 In the context of the preparation of his farewell address, Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton on May 15, 1796, calling Jefferson and Madison “ two of those characters who are now strongest, and foremost in the opposition to the Government; and consequently to the person Administering of it contrary to their views.” See WGW, vol.35, 5-15-1796. Washington originally had considered retirement from the presidency at the end of his first term. Madison and Jefferson were aware of his plan as well as his first draft of a farewell address from their assistance to the president when they were closer to him. Ultimately Jefferson resigned his post as Secretary of State. The relationship between Washington and Jefferson continued to deteriorate as their political differences began to be increasingly evident. Washington had attempted in vain to keep Jefferson on his cabinet. This is seen in the following letter that he wrote on October 18, 1792 to Jefferson just before Jefferson resigned. The four years of Washington’s second term had elapsed between Washington’s heartfelt effort to keep Jefferson on the Cabinet and his painful letter to Hamilton referring to Madison and Jefferson as those “foremost in the opposition to the Government.” Washington unsuccessfully sought to mediate between Hamilton and Jefferson with these gracious words: “I did not require the evidence of the extracts which you enclosed me, to convince me of your attachment to the Constitution of the United States, or of your disposition to promote the general Welfare of this Country. But I regret, deeply regret, the difference in opinions which have arisen, and divided you and another principal Officer of the Government; and wish, devoutly, there could be an accommodation of them by mutual yieldings. A Measure of this sort would produce harmony, and consequent good in our public Councils; the contrary will, inevitably, introduce confusion, and serious mischiefs; and for what? because mankind cannot think alike, but would adopt different means to attain the same end. For I will frankly, and solemnly declare that, I believe the views of both of you [Hamilton and Jefferson] are pure, and well meant; and that experience alone will decide with respect to the salubrity of the measures wch. are the subjects of dispute. Why then, when some of the best Citizens in the United States, Men of discernment, Uniform and tried Patriots, who have no sinister views to promote, but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting are to be found, some on one side, and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations, shd. either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowances for those of the other? I could, and indeed was about to add more on this interesting subject; but will forbear, at least for the present; after expressing a wish that the cup wch. has been presented, may not be snatched from our lips by a discordance of action when I am persuaded there is no discordance in your views. I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both, and ardently wish that some line could be marked out by which both of you could walk.” WGW, vol. 32, 10-18-1792.
11 Hughes goes on to say of Jefferson’s claim that Washington was a Deist, “This would seem to be the truth. In his time the ‘deist’ was a term of fierce reproach, almost worse than atheist, though a deist believed in an all-wise deity who cared for the world and provided a future reward for the good. This deity was not, however, the Israelite Jehovah and was not the father of Christ, who was considered a wise and virtuous man, but not of divine origin. Such was probably Washington’s opinion on the subject, though there is little evidence either way. In spite of his incessant allusions to providence, Washington was persistently silent as to his dogmatic beliefs.” Rupert Hughes, George Washington The Human Being, p. 554.
12 For The Definition of Chalcedon written in 451, see Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom 6th edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), vol. 2, pp. 62-63. The foundational language concerning Christ is “…consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ….”
13 See Schaff, Creeds Of Christendom, vol. 1, 651-52.
14 Thomas Jefferson was a critic of the theology of the Athanasian Creed: “The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere lapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.” — Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 1820. Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1903-04), 15:288. And Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813 “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.” Ibid., 13:350.
15 Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 66-71, also JMD Kelly, The Athenasian Creed (New York: Harper & Row) 1963.
16 This principle well explains the alleged incident where Boller claims that Washington “avoids” speaking of Jesus Christ in an exchange of letters between Gouverneur Morris and Washington. Boller writes, “Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any connection whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. Gouverneur Morris once wrote him to say: “Had our Saviour addressed a Chapter to the Rulers of Mankind, I am perswaded his good Sense would have dictated this Text: Be not wise overmuch.” In his reply, Washington avoided speaking of the “Saviour.” “Had such a chapter as you speak of,” he said, “been written to the rulers of Mankind, it would, I am persuaded, have been as unavailing as many others upon subjects of equal importance.” Paul Boller, George Washington And Religion, p. 75. The problem with Boller’s claim that Washington “avoids” referring to the “Saviour” and that it is thus an argument for Washington’s Deism is that his remark in no way implies disbelief in the Saviour. What Washington avoids is the unnecessary and potentially profane use of the name of the “Saviour” in a discussion of the ponderous workings of government. Consider the actual letter of Washington to Morris on May 29, 1778: “Had such a chapter as you speak of been written to the rulers of mankind it would I am persuaded, have been as unavailing as many others upon subjects of equal importance. We may lament that things are not consonent with our wishes, but cannot change the nature of Men, and yet those who are distressed by the folly and perverseness of it, cannot help complaining, as I would do on the old score of regulation and arrangement, if I thought any good would come of it.” Fitzpatrick, editor of the WGW, provides more of Morris’ letter: “Gouverneur Morris wrote (May 21) to Washington: ‘Had our Saviour addressed a Chapter to the Rulers of Mankind as he did many to the Subjects I am perswaded his Good Sense would have dictated this Text: Be not wise overmuch. Had the several Members which compose our multifarious Body been only wise enough Our Business would long since have been compleated. But our superior Abilities or the Desire of appearing to possess them lead us to such exquisite Tediousness of Debate, that the most precious Moments pass unheeded away like vulgar Things.’” See WGW, vol. 11, 5-29-1778. Given that the discussion between Morris and Washington is full of “complaining” and “vulgar Things,” Washington’s sense of honor prevented him from repeating the “Saviour’s” name in what in itself could also be viewed as a profane act— proposing another chapter to the Gospels left untaught by Christ. But even beyond this, Boller’s thesis does not stand the test of examination. If Washington operated under the principle advanced by Boller, he should never have mentioned the “Redeemer” either. Yet he does so as he writes to his military associates in his General Orders of November 27, 1779, speaking of “the merits of our gracious Redeemer.” In the first instance he appropriately avoids repeating the profane use of the “Saviour’s” name from Gouverneur Morris’ letter dealing with complaints about government business. In the second instance he chooses to repeat the “Redeemer’s” name from the call for prayer by the Continental Congress, since it is a worship context, and thus an appropriate use for Christ’s sacred name.
17 Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March 7-October 1788 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1956): “I am truly sensible, Sir, of the honour you do me in proposing to me that of become one of the Sponsors of your child, and return you my sincere thanks for it. At the same time I am not a little mortified that scruples, perhaps not well founded, forbid my undertaking this honourable office. The person who becomes sponsor for a child, according to the ritual of the church in which I was educated, makes a solemn profession, before god and the world, of faith in articles, which I had never sense enough to comprehend, and it has always appeared to me that comprehension must precede assent. The difficulty of reconciling the ideas of Unity and Trinity, have, from a very early part of my life, excluded me from the office of sponsorship, often proposed to me by my friends, who would have trusted, for the faithful discharge of it, to morality alone instead of which the church requires faith. Accept therefore Sir this conscientious excuse which I make with regret, which must find it’s apology in my heart, while perhaps it may do no great honour to my head.”
18 Building on a study begun while president in 1804, and pursued in earnest in the summer of 1820, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English, the so-called Jefferson’s Bible was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to summarize the teaching of Jesus, without being encumbered by the miraculous and the false additions to his teaching that he believed had been made to Jesus’ historic word. Former President Jefferson wrote of his project to uncover the real words of Jesus from the faulty Gospel history in which they were contained. Jefferson explained that his project was a process of “abstracting what is really his [i.e., Christ’s] from the rubbish in which it is buried [i.e., the Gospel history], easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.” — Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819. Jefferson’s work has no mention of the beginning and the end of the Gospel story. There is no annunciation, virgin birth or appearance of angels to the shepherds. The resurrection of Jesus is entirely missing. Simply put, Jefferson’s Jesus of Nazareth is not the Jesus Christ of Christianity. Nor is Jefferson’s Jesus of Nazareth Washington’s “Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.” When Washington refers to “the religion of Jesus Christ” it is clearly not the Deistic and truncated religion of Thomas Jefferson. As a Deist, Jefferson had no scruple in frequently using Jesus’ name:
“But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object.” Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820
“The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever more dangerous. Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.” — Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.” — Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
“The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” — Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
19 The radical unbelief in Jesus Christ expressed by Thomas Paine the Deist makes him very free to speak of Christ. The following passages of which there is not a shred of parallel with Washington are illustrative of Paine’s deistic rejection of Christianity: “EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
“Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all….It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. …The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud….” Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, Part One,
Chapter two;
“It is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all religions agree. All believe in a God, The things in which they disagree are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and therefore, if ever a universal religion should prevail, it will not be believing any thing new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed at first. Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a Deist; but in the mean time, let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and worship he prefers.” Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, Part One, Recapitulation.
20 The Nicene Creed was to be said in the morning prayer, the evening prayer, or the Communion service as a possible alternative to the Apostles Creed, according to the rubric of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer. This Trinitarian Creed declares: “I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.”
21 WGW vol. 16, 7-29-1779.
22 Ibid., vol. 9, 9-19-1777 Note: “His Excellency General Washington was with the troops who passed us here to the Perkiomen. The procession lasted the whole night, and we had all kinds of visits from officers wet to the breast, who had to march in that condition the cold, damp night through, and to bear hunger and thirst at the same time. This robs them of courage and health, and instead of prayers we hear from most, the national evil, curses.” —- Muhlenberg’s Diary, Sept. 19, 1777.
23 Ibid., vol. 17, 11-27-1779.
24 Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.
25 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
26 Ibid., vol. 3, 9-14-1775.
27 Ibid., vol. 35, 3-3-1797.
28 Ibid., vol. 4, 3-6-1776.
29 Ibid., vol. 5, 5-15-1776.
30 Ibid., vol. 37, 9-22-1799.
31 Our founders were sometimes explicit in their use of the name of Jesus Christ in their public proclamations for prayer and fasting or thanksgiving, and at other times they were implicit in their Christian understanding. For examples of the explict use of Christ’s name in a public yet holy context consider the following (which all can be found in Journals of the Continental Congress, on the dates specified):
In March 1776, the Congress said for a day of prayer and fasting, “. . . it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity. . . .Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; . . .That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.”
A Congressional Thanksgiving Proclamation on November 1, 1777 declared: “Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; . . .they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favour, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the governments of these states respectively. . . and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth “in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Yet most often there is only an implict use of the name of Jesus Christ in such public proclamations. But they clearly do not imply a deistic intent since they either use honorific titles for Jesus Christ, or, they make clear that they are referring to Christianity.
The Congressional Proclamation in March 1782 is most remarkable because of the interest of the Congress in the expansion of the Christian religion. It says, “. . .that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas.”
In other Congressional Thanksgiving Proclamations, one can find a clear emphasis upon Christianity: In 1779, “. . .and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory. . . .prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States; to beseech him. . .that he would grant to his church the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth. . . .” In 1780, “. . .to cherish all schools and seminaries of education, and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth.” In 1783, “. . .and above all, that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the blessed gospel, and secured to us in the fullest extent the rights of conscience in faith and worship… to smile upon our seminaries and means of education, to cause pure religion and virtue to flourish.” In 1784, “And above all, that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of gospel truths, and secured to us, in the fullest manner, the rights of conscience in faith and worship.”
Reverend Dr. John Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister from New Jersey, President of the College of New Jersey in Princeton, and a member of Congress. He was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. In 1782, he composed one of the Continental Congress’ national calls for a day of thanksgiving: “. . . to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.” Note that in his mind as an orthodox minister in the Presbyterian tradition, “true and undefiled religion” was a synonym for Christianity. Also, following the common custom of the day, Witherspoon did not directly mention the name of Jesus Christ in his proclamation, but this clearly had no anti-Christian or deistic intent.
A similar example of the implicit reference to Christianity is in the Reverend Dr. Jedidiah Morse’s brief history of Washington. Morse was an orthodox Christian New England clergyman who published America’s first scholarly geography text. Not only did he correspond with Washington about this scholarly enterprise, but he also shared his sermons, which Washington read and approved, which we will consider in the chapter on Washington’s sermons. He also published a brief history of Washington’s life, which was actually the anonymous version of David Humphrey’s notes on Washington. On p. 36 of Morse’s “Life of Washington,” we find the following “Federal Prayer” which reflects the “implicit” Christianity as just considered in Witherspoon’s call for thanksgiving. It says, “FATHER of all! Thou who rulest the armies of Heaven above; look down upon us we beseech thee, and bless all orders of men in this lower world. In a particular manner we pray for our own country: Bless the Congress of these United States, and all our rulers; May they rule wisely, love mercy, and do justice at all times. Unite us more and more we beseech thee; lead us in the right way, and make us a great and a happy people. Bless all religious orders of men, O our heavenly Father! Enlighten their minds, subdue superstition, and grant that they may all unite to worship thee in truth, with one heart and one voice. Send discord far from us, we beseech thee, both from church and state, and give us hearts of unity and peace. Hasten the happy time when thy will shall be done here on earth, as it is done in Heaven: When sin and sorrow shall be no more: When all the inhabitants of the earth shall be blessed; and join in songs of praise to thee the only wise God, for ever and ever. Amen.”
32 The dates on the title pages of the Almanacks that are extant are 1761, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1771, 1772, 1774. Each of them states “in the year of our Lord God.” See these dates in Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig, ed. The Diaries of George Washington (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976-79) [online] [http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html].
33 This was likely due to protest over the Stamp Act which was passed in 1765, and the additional cost this added to almanacs (See A Tale of the Huguenots, or Memoirs of a French Refugee Family. Translated and compiled from the original manuscripts of James Fontaine, by one of his descendants, with an introduction by F. L. Hawks. (New York: John S. Taylor, 1838), P. 257: “But what hath given a most general alarm to all the colonists upon this continent, and most of those in the islands, and struck us with the most universal consternation that ever seized a people so widely diffused, is a late Act of the British Parliament, subjecting us to a heavy tax by the imposition of stamp duties on all manner of papers requisite in trade, law or private dealings, on pamphlets, newspapers, almanacks, calendars, and even advertisements, etc. etc.;”). It is also possible that the Virginia Almanack was only sold with the stamp, and Washington may have chosen not to buy it with a tax stamp affixed. It is clear that the Washington family was opposed to the Stamp Act. Four Washington family members signed a resolution in protest of the Stamp Act. Bishop Meade writes:
The following address and resolutions of the patriots of the Northern Neck of Virginia, in the year 1765, immediately after the passage of the Stamp Act, properly belongs to the article on Washington parish, Westmoreland. It was drawn up by Richard Henry Lee, whose name is first on the list. It is said to have been the first public association in the land for the resistance to the act.
Roused by danger, and alarmed at attempts, foreign and domestic, to reduce the people of this country to a state of abject and detestable slavery, by destroying that free and happy constitution of government under which they have hitherto lived,— We, who subscribe this paper, have associated, and do bind ourselves to each other, to God, and to our country, by the firmest ties that religion and virtue can frame, most sacredly and punctually to stand by, and with our lives and fortunes to support, maintain and defend each other in the observance and execution of these following articles.
First. – We declare all due allegiance and obedience to our lawful Sovereign, George the Third, King of Great Britain. And we determine to the utmost of our power to preserve the laws, the peace and good order of this colony, as far as is consistent with the preservation of our constitutional rights and liberty.
Secondly. – As we know it to be the birthright privilege of every British subject, (and of the people of Virginia as being such,) founded on reason, law, and compact, that he cannot be legally tried, but by his peers, and that he cannot be taxed, but by the consent of a Parliament, in which he is represented by persons chosen by the people, and who themselves pay a part of the tax they impose on others. If therefore any person or persons shall attempt, by any action or proceeding, to deprive this colony of those fundamental rights, we will immediately regard him or them as the most dangerous enemy of the community; and we will go to any extremity, not only to prevent the success of such attempts, but to stigmatize and punish the offender.
Thirdly. – As the Stamp Act does absolutely direct the property of the people to be taken from them without their consent expressed by their representatives, and as in many cases it deprives the British American subject of his right to trial by jury; we do determine, at every hazard, and paying no regard to danger or to death, we will exert every faculty to prevent the execution of the said Stamp Act in any instance whatsoever within this colony. And every abandoned wretch, who shall be so lost to virtue and public good, as wickedly to contribute to the introduction or fixture of the Stamp Act in this colony, by using stamp paper, or by any other means, we will, with the utmost expedition, convince all such profligates that immediate danger and disgrace shall attend their prostitute purposes.
Fourthly. – That the last article may surely and effectually be executed, we engage to each other, that whenever it shall be known to any of this association, that any person is so conducting himself as to favour the introduction of the Stamp Act, that immediately notice shall be given to as many of the association as possible; and that every individual so informed shall, with expedition, repair to a place of meeting to be appointed as near the scene of action as may be.
Fifthly. – Each associator shall do his true endeavour to obtain as many signers to this association as he possibly can.
Sixthly. – If any attempt shall be made on the liberty or property of any associator for any action or thing done in consequence of this agreement, we do most solemnly bind ourselves by the sacred engagements above entered into, at the utmost risk of our lives and fortunes, to restore such associate to his liberty, and to protect him in the enjoyment of his property.
In testimony of the good faith with which we resolve to execute this association, we have this 27th day of February, 1766, in Virginia, put our hands and seals hereto.
In Bishop Meade, Old Churches And Families of Virginia, vol. II, p. 434, appendix No. VI.
34 Boller, George Washington and Religion pp. 74-75 says, “Unlike Thomas Jefferson—and Thomas Paine, for that matter—Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.”
35 Washington mentions Christmas 41 times. His special love for Christmas reflects his victory at the Christmas Day surprise attack on the Hessians in New Jersey (WGW, vol. 6, 12-28-1776, “I have the pleasure to inform you of the success of an enterprize, which took effect the 26th. Instant at Trenton; On the night of the preceding day, I cross’d the Delaware with a detachment of the Army under my Command, amounting to about 2400.) It also shows the impact of his final return from the war to Mount Vernon at the end of the war on Christmas Eve. (WGW, vol. 27, 2-1-1784, “I did, on the 23d. of December present them my commission, and made them my last bow, and on the Eve of Christmas entered these doors an older man by near nine years, than when I left them, is very uninteresting to any but myself.”) But it also highlights an emphasis of his childhood education, which we will explore in the chapter on Washington’s childhood education.
36 WGW, vol. 30, 4-1789. This text from Washington seems to refer to man’s depravity seen in the abuse of a divinely given religious organization—the temple worship—which resulted in the crucifixion. See Matt. 26:57-68; 27:1-10, 41-44. Washington’s childhood training, which we will consider in the chapters on Washington’s childhood and Washington’s childhood education, included an understanding of the redemptive sufferings of Christ.
37 In a later chapter, we will see that Easter and the Resurrection appear in his childhood training. We will also consider his Anglican tradition’s teaching on the Resurrection, and how that manifested itself in Washington’s adult life.
38 WGW vol. 4, 12-8-1775; 24, 4-21-1782; 26, 6-8-1783; 35, 12-19-1796.
39 Ibid., vol. 30, 4-30-1789.
40 Ibid., vol. 28, 6-30-1786; 37, 4-25-1799.
41 Ibid., vol. 32, 1-27-1793; 3-6-1793.
42 Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.
43 Ibid., vol. 6, 12-6-1776; 37, 11-22-1799.
44 Ibid., vol. 30, 4-30-1789.
45 Ibid vol. 37, 8-28-1762.
46 Ibid., vol. 28, 6-30-1785; 29, 5-2-1788; 30, 7-6-1789, note;.
47 Ibid., vol. 29, 8-15-1787.
48 Ibid., vol. 35, 5-15-1797.
49 Ibid., vol. 36, 7-4-1798.
50 Ibid., vol. 21, 3-26-1781; 27, 2-1-1784.
51 Ibid., vol. 2, 7-1-1757; 15, 5-12-1779. In the second, “Ways of life” is paralleled with “the religion of Jesus Christ.”
52 Ibid., vol. 29, 8-15-1787.
53 Ibid., vol. 17, 11-27-1779.
54 Ibid., vol. 17, 11-27-1779; 30, 10-23-1789.
55 Ibid., vol. 3, 1-31-1770-; 8, 7-28-1777; 12, 7-4-1778.
56 Ibid., vol. 4, 4-23-1776; 10-11-1777; 35, 5-15-1796.
57 Ibid., vol. 8, 6-17-1777; 15, 5-12-1779; 27, 7-10-1783; 37, 3-26-1762.
58 Ibid., vol. 1, 4-20-1756; 7, 1-21-1777; 21, 3-2-1781, note.
59 Ibid., vol. 35, 6-4-1797.
60 Ibid., vol. 10, 11-21-1777; 28, 7-25-1785.
61 Ibid., vol. 28, 7-25-1785.
62 Ibid., vol. 12, 9-6-1778; 17, 11-27-1779.
63 Ibid., vol. 29, 4-28-1788.
64 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-23-1789.
65 Ibid., vol. 25, 1-5-1785.
66 Nineteen times in all. Examples: WGW, vol. 3, 7-20-1770; 26, 1-15-1783; 26, 3-31-1783; 35, 11-15-1796.
67 WGW vol. 28, 7-26-1786.
68 Ibid., vol. 35, 11-28-1796.
69 Ibid., vol. 15, 7-4-1779; 37, 3-25-1799.
70 Ibid., vol. 1, “To the Speaker and Gentlemen of the House of Burgesses”; 31, 6-15-1791; 35, 3-5-1797.
71 Ibid., vol. 5, 5-31-1776; 27, 2-18-1784.
72 Ibid., vol. 28, 8-22-1785.
73 Ibid., vol. 28, 12-1-1785; 29, 2-5-1788; 31, 4-29-1790.
74 Ibid., vol. 16, 8-10-1779; 17, 11-25-1779; 1-23-1780; 24, 5-14-1782; 34, 2-7-1796.
75 Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.
76 Ibid., vol. 4, 3-31-1776.
77 Ibid., vol. 29, 4-25 to 5-1-1788.
78 Ibid., vol. 1, 5-28-1755.
79 Ibid., vol. 1, 9-6-1756.
80 Ibid., vol. 3, 8-10-1775; 4, 12-28-1775; 9, 9-4-1777; 23, 12-15-1782; 25, 11-13-1782.
81 Ibid., vol. 6, 9-30-1776.
82 Ibid., vol. 30, 2-5-1789.
83 Ibid., vol. 31, 6-4-1790.
84 Ibid., vol. 7, 2-22-1777.
85 Ibid., vol. 26, 4-18-1783.
86 Ibid., vol. 17, 11-27-1779.
87 Ibid., vol. 23, 9-3-1781, 82-83. Washington refers to heaven over 200 times. One such example is “I will only add that as I am fully persuaded that your Excellency will anticipate the fatal Consequences to the Interest of the States, which must arise from a failure in our Operations; so you will as fully accord with me in Sentiment, that, a Reflection on the Cause of Failure, should it prove to be the one in which I have my strongest Fears, the Article of Supplies, will not fail to fill us with the most mortifying Regret, when we consider that the bountifull hand of Heaven is holding out to us a Plenty of every Article, and the only Cause of Want, must be placed to the Acco. of our Want of Exertion to collect them.”
1 WGW, vol. 35 5-15-1796.
2 See Peter A. Lillback, Proclaim Liberty, (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum, 2001), p. 11, n. 29. Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Vir., Providence Press, 1989), p. 81.
3 Bishop Meade, Old Churches, vol. 1, p. 64
4 Mark A. Beliles & Stephen K. McDowell, America’s Providential History, p. 81.
5 “ … When there was no service at the chapel or we were prevented from going, my father read the service and a sermon; and whenever a death occurred among the servants he performed the burial service himself, and read Blair’s Sermon on Death the following Sunday. Of the character and conduct of the old clergy generally I have often heard them speak in terms of strong condemnation. My father, when a young man, was a vestryman in Price George county, Virginia, but resigned his place rather than consent to retain an unworthy clergyman in the parish.” Meade, Old Churches, vol. I p. 22.
6 William W. Sweet, Religion In Colonial America (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1965), pp. 55-56.
7 “…Governors, Commissaries, and private individuals, in their communications with the Bishops of London and the Archbishops of Canterbury, all declare that such was the scanty and uncertain support of the clergy, the precarious tenure by which livings were held that but few of the clergy could support families and therefore respectable ladies would not marry them. Hence the immense number of unmarried, ever-shifting clergymen in the colony.” Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. p. 92.
8 “The reigning vice among the clergy at that time was intemperance; as it probably has been ever since both among the clergy and laity of all denominations, having given great trouble to the Church of the every age. The difficulty of proof is stated in one of these schemes for reformation; and the following mortifying tests of intoxication are proposed to the Bishop of London, for the trial of the clergy in Virginia. They were these: “Sitting an hour or longer in company where they are drinking strong drink, and in the mean time drinking of healths, or otherwise taking the cups as they come round, like the rest of the company; striking, and challenging, or threatening to fight, or laying aside any of his garments for that purpose; staggering reeling, vomiting; incoherent, impertinent, or rude talking. Let the proof of these signs proceed so far, till the judges conclude that the minister’s behaviour at such a time was scandalous, indecent, unbecoming the gravity of a minister.” Bishop Meade, Old Churches, vol. I pp. 163-164.
9 Allan Nevins, The American States: During and After the Revolution 1775-1789 (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1969) p. 429-230. “Every Anglican clergyman in Maryland had his house and glebe, or farm; he was guaranteed a tax, settled by law and collected by the sheriffs; and he had various fees, as those for performing marriages. Secure in his emoluments, and since he was appointed by the Proprietary of Governor, virtually free from fear of dismissal, the ordinary cleric was no model of virtue. The term “a Maryland parson” was a byword farther north. In 1753 Dr. Chandler, a frank American minister, wrote home that “the general character of the clergy is wretchedly bad,” and that it would “make the ears of a sober heathen tingle to hear the stories” told of some of them. A contemporary tells us that a current couplet ran:
Who is a minister of the first renown?
A lettered sot, a drunkard in a gown.
There was no proper disciplinary authority, and favoritism entered into the appointments; so that the majority of the ministers had the brains, education, and moral elevation of Parson Trulliber. Yet the people were taxed heavily, as taxes went in America, for his clerical crew. The quarrel between the Legislature and Governor Eden which came to a head in 1770 involved, among other factors, the question whether every poll should pay thirty or forty pounds of tobacco to the Church, the Governor insisting on the latter amount. Since the price of tobacco was high, and they had other sources of income, the Maryland clergy were rated the best-paid in America. In 1767 one parish was worth about £500 a year. The people also had to pay special taxes for church-building, for fencing graveyards, and other purposes, and even in wartime beneficed clergymen were exempt from the general taxes. “I am as averse to having religion crammed down my throat,” wrote Charles Carroll of Carrollton on July 1, 1773, “as to a proclamation”—Governor Eden having usurped certain legislative rights by proclamation. The burdens under which the Calvinists, Catholics, and Quakers lay were one of the real if minor causes of the Revolutionary spirit.”
10 Peter Marshall & David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (Old Tappan, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell 1977), pp. 80-105.
11 In 1733, for example, the Reverend Lawrence De Butts was called to preach three times a month in various churches, one of those times being “old Pohick Church,” the church where Washington was baptized. His salary was to be “the sum of eight thousand pounds of tobacco clear of the Warehouse charges and abatements.” Reverend Philip D. D. Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish in Virginia (Philadelphia: Geroge Jacobs & Co., 1907) p. 5. Washington was Church Warden in 1764. One of his duties was to auction tobacco at the Court House for the Vestry which is described in the Vestry minutes, “Ordered that 31,549 lb. Of tobo. In the hands of the Church Wardens for the year 1764, to wit, George Washington and George Wm. Fairfax Esqrs. be sold to the highest bidder, before the Court House door of this County on the first day of June Court next between the hours of 12 and 4, and that publick notice be given of the sale.” Ibid., p. 51.
12 Sanford H. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America (New York: Macmillan Company, 1902) p. 479, N. 3.
13 The Diaries of George Washington. vol. 1. Donald Jackson, ed.; Dorothy Twohig, assoc. ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976). “A Journal of my Journey over the Mountains began Fryday the 11th. of March 1747/8.” Vol, 1, p. 7. 1748, “Wednesday March 23d. Rain’d till about two oClock & Clear’d when we were agreeably surpris’d at the sight of thirty odd Indians coming from War with only one Scalp. We had some Liquor with us of which we gave them, Part it elevating there Spirits put them in the Humour of Dauncing of whom we had a War Daunce. There Manner of Dauncing is as follows Viz. They clear a Large Circle & make a great Fire in the Middle then seats themselves around it the Speaker makes a grand Speech telling them in what Manner they are to Daunce after he has finish’d the best Dauncer Jumps up as one awaked out of a Sleep & Runs & Jumps about the Ring in a most comicle Manner he is followd by the Rest then begins there Musicians to Play the Musick is a Pot half of Water with a Deerskin Streched over it as tight as it can & a goard with some Short in it to Rattle & a Piece of an horses Tail tied to it to make it look fine the one keeps Rattling and the other Drumming all the While the others is Dauncing.”
14 WGW, vol., 37, Last Will And Testament.
15 “And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which have befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, which shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; and this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.” Ibid.,
16 Bishop Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. 14.
17 Ibid., p. 122.
18 Ibid., p. 66.
19 Ibid., p. 67.
20 Ibid., p. 63.
21 Ibid., p. 63
22 Ibid., p. 62.
23 WGW, vol. 29, 5-2-1788. Washington’s letter began “Reverend Sir: I have received your obliging letter of the 28th of March, enclosing a copy of some remarks on the Customs, Languages &c. of the Indians, and a printed pamphlet containing the stated rules of a Society for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen for which tokens of polite attention and kind remembrance I must beg you to accept my best thanks.”
24 Ibid., vol. 29, 5-2-1788.
25 One of the documents that accompanied Ettwein’s letter to Washington read as follows:
Extract from the instruction or rules for the Society of the United Brethren as are used as missionaries or assistant in propagating the gospel among the Indians.
God our Saviour will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1st Timothy 2:4. He wills therefore in these our days as well as in the times of the apostles that the Gospel be preached to the heathen.
The United Brethren have undertaken to preach the Gospel to the heathen, firmly believing they thereby serve the will of God.
It is an undertaking of great importance to preach the gospel to the heathen that they be turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Acts 26:18.
And it is likewise no light thing when heathen are converted and become sheep of Christ to exercise the faithfulness of a shepherd and servant of Christ.
It appeared in process of time and experience that the missionaries could not be of sufficient effectual service without the assistance of some sisters among the heathen women. To prevent some inevitable if not hurtful consequences, it was determined the sisters should accompany their husbands as helpers among the female heathen congregations of God, gathered among the heathen through the gospel.
When several brothers are engaged together in a mission among the heathen, they ought to be very careful to preserve and maintain in particular brotherly love among themselves, for nothing is more hurtful and shameful in a mission among the heathen then discord among those who are to preach peace and love and good will towards all men.
The more the lives of most people called after Christ, Christians, prove a scandal to the heathen, the more should our brethren be induced to God an unblameable life among them, for not withstanding all sins and abominations are generally practiced among the heathen. Yet they know they ought to do the very reverse, hence if they see people walking in love to God and their neighbors, they receive a good impression.
Our brethren are to take all possible pains to learn the language of those heathen with whom they have to do. They must be very careful what interpreter they use at public services, until they shall be able to express themselves intelligently to the heathen, they must rather be contented with preaching by their walk and conversation.
That custom to delay the baptism of the heathen until they have learned by heart so many questions and answers, which they are to repeat previous to their being admitted to baptism, is not to be recommended, but yet some instruction is required.
Those heathen who have the favor to be the first among their nation who become obedient to the gospel, should be to her care of with the utmost attention and faithfulness.
The baptized are to receive frequently further instructions; the more they are made acquainted with the doctrine of the Gospel, the more they lose those ideas which arose from the former heathenish ways. They are to be taught to observe all things, whatsoever Jesus has commanded his disciples and us.
As to morality, we are among other things, firmly to maintain 2 points: First, that everyone may arrive at such a personal connection with God our Saviour, that nothing in the whole world be dearer, yea not so dear and precious to him as he is. The second point is contained in the words of Christ: All things whatsoever you would that man should do unto you, do ye ever so to them. Matthew 7:12. Stated Rules of a Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, lately incorporated by an Act of Assembly of this State. Reverend John Ettwein, Bethlehem, March 28, 1788
George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799. George Washington to John Ettwein, March 28, 1788, with Enclosures on Indian Languages and Cultures image 699ff.
26 The Preface to these Rules for the United Brethren’s Missionary work was written by Bishop Ettwein himself. Stated Rules of the Society of the United Brethren, For Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, Philadelphia: Printed by Charles Cist, in Race-Street Between Front and Second-streets, Nov. 1ft. 1787.
“Preface: Beloved Reader,
“The word of God, the bible, full of the most precious promises for the propagation and extension on the kingdom of God among the Heathen nations, (which we in a great measure for fulfilled in the different tongues and nations from which we come) with a feeling for the unhappy state of all such who live in heathenish darkness, has from the beginning of Christianity, caused in believers a heart desire, to help and to assist in that blessed work of preaching the gospel among all nations.
Such a pious desire, that Jesus Christ and his salvation might also be made known to the Indians in North America, moved the directions of the ancient Episcopal Church, called Unitas Frantrum or United Brethren near fifty years ago to begin a mission in this country, by which a number of Mahikans, Wampanos, Delawares, a few Shawanos, Nanitkoks and others, have been brought to the knowledge of the truth, and thereby collected into the Christian-church, in which they lived a civil, moral Christian life, under the care and tuition of the missionaries as a shining light to the wild Indians, until their towns on Mutkingum-river were unhappily destroyed in the last war.
“Above one thousand fouls have been received into the Christian-church by holy baptism from these Indian nations, more than six hundred of them departed this life in faith, and about three hundred more live yet with the missionaries near Lake Erie, or are dispersed among their different tribes, on account of the sufferings and manifold troubles, which befel the Indian-congregation; the rest either died or live yet as apostates in the wilderness.
“In the history of the Brethren’s mission among the Indians, (which is preparing for the press) the reader will find a true account of the losses, persecutions, and great sufferings of the Indian converts to Christianity and a regular civil life, and what obstacles and difficulties the missionaries had to combat with in their calling; if faith, hope and love had not been their armour, they would have deserted the field long ago.
“The unavoidable expenses of the work were provided by charitable collections in the Brethren’s congregations, made some but once, and in others twice a year, & the defect made up by our Brethren abroad.
“The change of government, the increase of the expenses by the local situation of the Indian-congregation, and great distance of the Indian nations, suggested a new arrangement, and the forming of a regular society for the support of the missions was proposed and resolved, upon the plan here subjoined.
“The holy scriptures teaches us to consider the whole race of men, as one great family. God created us all. We come all from one blood. We are all sinners. Jesus Christ died for us all, and commanded to preach the gospel to all nations, kindred and tongues, be they friend or foe.
“These are strong and solid reasons for true philanthropy, and for suppressing that inveterate, malicious hatred against the Indian nations. If you can think so, and you do moreover love our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, let your prayers and best wishes be for the success & prosperity of this society, and all gospel missionaries, that God may be praised among all the nations of this continent. John Ettwein, Epifc. Frrm. Bethlehem George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799 Society of United Brethren, November 1, 1787, Pamphlet on Propagating the Gospel among Indians Image 319ff.
27 Stated Rules of the Society of the United Brethren, For Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen (Philadelphia: Printed by Charles Cist, in Race-Street Between Front and Second-streets). George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799. Society of United Brethren, November 1, 1787, Pamphlet on Propagating the Gospel among Indians Image 319ff.
28 See under WGW, vol. 30, 7-6-1789. The letter is dated July 10, 1789. Washington also encountered the United Brethren of Wachovia in North Carolina during his tour of the south. See the letters between them and their address to Washington dated 5-31-1791 as well as his diary for 6-1-1791. George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks. George Washington to Wachovia, North Carolina, United Brethren, May 31, 1791 Letterbook 39 Image 97ff. Donald Jackson, and Dorothy Twohig, ed, The Diaries of George Washington. vol. 6., p. 153.
29 Meade, Old Churches, Vol I. p. 69.
30 Ibid.
31 The day of fasting was observed throughout the colony. “The people met generally with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day, through the whole colony, was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man, and placing him erect and solidly on his center.” (See Jefferson’s Works, vol. I, p. 7.) “The fast was obeyed throughout Virginia with such rigor and scruples, as to interdict the tasting of food between the rising and setting sun. With the remembrance of the King [Ministry?], horror was associated; in churches, as well as in the circles of social conversation, he seemed to stalk like the arch-enemy of mankind.” (See Moncure D. Conway’s Biography of Edmund Randolph.) WGW, vol. 3, DIARY May 12, May 16
32 Meade, Old Churches, Vol I. p. 69.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., vol. I. p.73.
36 WGW, vol. 15, 5-12-1779.
37 It is under Whittaker’s ministry that the remarkable events surrounding the Indian princess Pocahontas occurred. The evidence suggests that Pocahontas was the daughter of Powhatan, the dominant native king of the Indians inhabiting the Virginian forests. She first appears in history in the record of Captain Smith, who explains that as a twelve- or thirteen-year-old she rescued him from impending destruction. The captured Captain had not been released even though the young princess pleaded to her father for his life. As Smith’s head was placed upon a rock and her father raised high a wooden club to crush his skull, she instantly interposed herself, placing her head upon Smith’s head, while tightly embracing the doomed Captain with both arms, “hazarding’ as Smith himself put it, “the beating out of her own brains instead of mine.” (Meade, I.81.) Her father’s heart melted, and the Captain’s life was spared.
The hostilities did not end immediately, and Pocahontas, on another occasion, brought a warning of an imminent attack to the English settlement. Smith wrote, “the dark night could not affright her, but, coming through the irksome woods, with watered eyes gave me intelligence.” Meade, Old Churches, vol. I.81.
Pocahontas’ friendship with the English, however, did not keep her from being used as a pawn in negotiations to secure some captured settlers and confiscated goods from Powhatan’s warriors. On one of her visits to the village, she was welcomed on board ship only to become a hostage, to begin the bargaining for the release of the other colonists. But unexpectedly to all, her stay aboard ship with the colonists produced an interest in Christianity and her engagement to John Rolph.
While the order and the significance of the events in her life are still debated, the facts generally speaking are: having adopted Christianity, she was baptized in the Anglican Church; married an English settler named Mr. Rolph, had a child, and traveled with her family to England in 1616, where she died before the family returned to Virginia. Smith said, “She was the first Christian of that nation; the first who ever spake English, or had a child in marriage.” She always spoke of Captain Smith as “father.” When Pocahontas unexpectedly met him later in England, having been told before her voyage to England that he was dead, she joyfully greeted him again with her accustomed appellation of “father.” But to her chagrin, the title of “daughter” that Smith had addressed her with in Virginia, he would not use in England.
The record of the story of Pocahontas’ conversion was written in 1614 by Sir Thomas Dale, the High-Marshall of Jamestown:
Powhatan’s daughter I caused to be carefully instructed in the Christian religion, who, after she had made some good progress therein, renounced publicly her country’s idolatry, openly confessed her Christian faith, was, as she desired, baptized, and is since married to an English gentleman of good understanding, (as by his letter unto me, containing the reasons of his marriage of her, you may perceive,) another knot to bind this peace the stronger. Her father and friends gave approbation to it, and her uncle gave her to him in the Church. She lives civilly and lovingly with him, and I trust will increase in goodness, as the knowledge of God increaseth in her. She will go into England with me; and, were it but the gaining of this one soul, I will think my time, toil, and present stay well spent. (Meade, Old Churches, vol., I:79.)
The spiritual rationale that motivated John Rolf is evident in his extended letter on the topic:
Meade, I:126-129 Rolph’s Letter to Sir Thomas Dale
“Honourable Sir, and Most worthy Governor:—When your leisure shall best serve you to peruse these lines, I trust in God the beginning will not strike you unto greater admiration than the end will give you good content. It is a matter of no small moment, concerning my own particular, which here I impart unto you, and which toucheth me so nearly as the tenderness of my salvation. Howbeit, I freely subject myself to your great and mature judgment, deliberation, approbation, and determination; assuring myself of your zealous admonition and godly comforts, either persuading me to desist, or encouraging me to persist therein, with a religious fear and godly care, for which (from the very instant that this began to root itself within the secret bosom of my breast) my daily and earnest prayers have been, still are, and ever shall be poured forthwith, in a sincere a godly zeal as I possibly may, to be directed, aided, and governed in all my thoughts, words and deeds, to the glory of God and for my eternal consolation; to persevere wherein I had never had more need, nor (till now) could ever imagine to have bin moved with the like occasion. But (my case standing as it doth) what better worldly refuge can I here seek, than to shelter myself under the safety of your favourable protection? And did not my care proceed from an unspotted conscience, I should not dare to offer to your view and approved judgment these passions of my troubled soul; so full of fear and trembling is hypocrisy and dissimulation. But, knowing my own innocency and godly fervour in the whole prosecution hereof, I doubt not of your benign acceptance and element construction. As for malicious depravers and turbulent spirits, to whom nothing is tasteful but what pleaseth their unsavory palate, I pass not for them, being well assured in my persuasion by the often trial and proving of myself in my holiest meditations and praises, that I am called hereunto by the Spirit of God; and it shall be sufficient for me to be protected by yourself in all virtuous and pious endeavors. And for me more happy proceedings herein my daily obligations shall ever be addressed to bring to pass to Good effects, that yourself and all the world may truly say, ‘This is the work of God, and it is marvelous in our eyes.’
“But to avoid tedious preambles, and to come nearer the matter: first, suffer with your patience to sweep and make clean the way wherein I walk from all suspicions and doubts, which may be covered therein, and faithfully to reveal unto you what should move me hereunto.
“Let, therefore, this my well-advised protestations, which here I make before God and my own conscience, be a sufficient witness at the dreadful day of judgment, when the secret of all living harts shall be opened, to condemn me herein, if my deepest intent and purpose be not to strive with all my power of body and mind, in the undertaking of so mighty a matter, for the good of this plantation, for the honour of our country, for the glory of God, for my own salvation, and for the converting to the true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ an unbelieving creature, - viz. : Pokahontas. To whom my hearty and best thoughts are and have a long time bin so entangled and enthralled in so intricate a labyrinth, that I was even awearied to unwind myself thereout. But Almighty God, who never faileth his that truly invocate his holy name, hath opened the gate and led me by the hand, that I might plainly see and discern the safe paths wherein to tread.
“To you, therefore, (most noble sir,) the patron and father of us in this country, do I utter the effects of this my settled and long-continued affection, (which hath made me mighty war in my meditations;) and here I do truly relate, to what issue this dangerous combat is come unto, wherein I have not only examined, but thoroughly tried and pared my thoughts, even to the quick, before I could find any fit, wholesome, and apt applications to cure so dangerous an ulcer. I never failed to offer my daily and faithful prayers to God for his sacred and holy assistance. I forgot not to set before mine eyes the frailty of mankind, his proneness to evil, his indulgence of wicked thoughts, with many other imperfections, wherein man is daily ensnared and oftentimes overthrown, and them compared to my present estate. Nor was I ignorant of the heavy displeasure which Almighty God conceived against the son of Levi and Israel for marrying strange wives, nor of the inconveniences which may thereby arise, with other the like good notions, which made me look about warily and with good circumspection into the grounds and principal agitations, which thus provoke me to be in love with one whose education hath been rude, her manners barbarous, her generation accursed, and so discrepant in all nurtreture from myself, that oftentimes with fear and trembling I have ended my private controversy with this : - ‘Surely these are wicked instigations, hatched by him who seeketh and delighteth in man’s destruction;’ and so with fervent prayers to be ever preserved from such diabolical assaults (as I took those to be) I have taken some rest.
“Thus when I thought I had obtained some peace and quietness, behold, another but more gracious temptation hath made breaches into my holiest and strongest mediations, with which I have been put to a new trail, in a straighter manner than the former; for besides the many passions and sufferings which I have daily, hourly, yea, and in the my sleep endured, even awaking me to astonishment, taxing me with remissness and carelessness, refusing and neglecting to perform the duties of a good Christian, pulling me by the care, and crying, ‘Why dost not thou endeavor to make her a Christian?’ And these have happened to my greater wonder even when she hath bin furthest separated from me, which in common reason (were it not an undoubted work of God) might breed forgetfulness of a fare more worthy creature. Besides, I say, the Holy Spirit hath often demanded of me, why I was created, if not for transitory pleasures and worldly vanities, but to labour in the Lord’s vineyard, there to sow and plant, to nourish and increase the fruits thereof, daily adding, with the good husband in the gospel, somewhat to the talent, that in the end the fruits may be reaped, to the comfort of the labourer in this life and his salvation in the world to come? And if this be, as undoubtedly this is, the service Jesus Christ requireth of his best servant, woe unto him that hath these instruments of piety put into his hands, and willfully despiseth to work with them! Likewise adding hereunto her great appearance of love to me, her desire to be taught and instructed in the knowledge of God, her capableness of understanding, her aptness and willingness to receive any good impression, and also the spirituall, beside her own incitements hereunto stirring me up. What should I do? Shall I be of so untoward a disposition as to refuse to lead the blind into the right way? Shall I be so unnatural as not to give bread to the hungry, or uncharitable as not to cover the naked? Shall I despise to actuate these pious duties of a Christian? Shall the base fear of displeasing the world overpower and withhold me from revealing unto man these spiritual works of the Lord, which in my meditations and prayers I have daily made known unto him? God forbid! I assuredly trust he hath thus dealt with me for my eternal felicity and for his glory; and I hope so to be guarded by his heavenly grace, that in the end, by my faithful prayers and christianlike labour, I shall attain to that blessed promise pronounced by that holy prophet Daniel unto the righteous that bring many unto the knowledge of God, - namely: that ‘They shall shine like the stars forever and ever.’ A sweeter comfort cannot be to a true Christian, nor a greater encouragement to him to labour all the days of his life in performance thereof, to be desired at the hour of death and in the day of judgment. Again, by my reading and conference with honest and religious persons, have I received no small encouragement; besides mea serena conscietia, the cleanness of my conscience, clean from the filth of impurity, quoe est instar muri ahenei, which is to me a brazen wall. If I should set down at large the perturbations and godly motions which have striven within me, I should make but a tedious and unnecessary volume. But I doubt not these shall be sufficient, both to certify you of my true intent, in discharging of my duties to God and to yourself, to whose gracious Providence I humbly submit myself, for his glory, you honour, my country’s good, the benefit of this Plantation, and for the converting of one unregenerate to regeneration, which I beseech God to grant for his dear Son Christ Jesus his sake. Nor am I in so desperate an estate that I regard not what becometh of me; nor am I out of hope but one day to see my country, nor so void of friends, nor mean in birth, but there to obtain a match to my great content; nor have I ignorantly passed over my hopes there, nor regardlessly seek to lose the love of my friends by taking this course: I know them all, and I have not rashly overslipped any.
“But shall it please God thus to dispose of me (which I earnestly desire to fulfill my end before set down) I will heartily accept of it, as a godly tax appointed me, and I will never cease (God assisting me) until I have accomplished and brought to perfection so holy a work, in which I will daily pray God to bless me, to mine and her eternal happiness. And thus desiring no longer to live, to enjoy the blessing of God, than this resolution doth tend to such godly ends, as are by me before declared, not doubting your favourable acceptance, I take my leave, beseeching Almighty God to rain down upon you such plenitude of his heavenly graces as your heart can wish and desire; and so I rest, ‘At you command, most willingly to be disposed off, “John Rolph.” (Bishop Meade, Old Churches Vol I, pp. 126-129.)
38 The legacy of Pocahontas has become a permanent part of the American story as can be seen in Washington, D.C.. In the rotunda of our Capitol Building, one of the four majestic paintings commemorating America’s colonial era is the scene of the baptism of Pocahontas in an Anglican Church. In “The Baptism of the Indian Princess Pocahontas in 1613,” she kneels in the presence of family members, including her father Chief Powhatan. Her brother Nantequaus turns away from the ceremony. By this the artist may be implying the future hostility that will break out between the Native Americans and the Virginian colonists. The man behind here is her future husband, John Rolfe. Theirs became the first recorded marriage of a Native American and a European. Her story, while subject to all the interpolations and variations that often distort traditional stories especially those with potentially romantic themes, is nevertheless at the heart of the story of Virginia.
39 “On weekdays, early in the morning, the captain sent for tools, for which a receipt was given; the companies assembled, with the tools, in the place of arms, where “the serjeant-major, or captain of the watch, upon their knees, made public and faithful prayers to Almighty God for his blessing and protection to attend them in this their business the whole day after-succeeding. The men were divided into gangs, who worked on alternate days. The gang for the day was then delivered to the masters and overseers of the work appointed, who kept them at labour until nine or ten o’clock, according to the season of the year; then, at the beat of the drum, they were marched to the church to hear divine service. After dinner, and rest till two or three o’clock, at the beat of a drum, the captain drew them forth to the place of arms, to be thence taken to their work till five or six o’clock, when, at beat of drum, they were again marched to church to evening prayer: they were then dismissed,—those that were to set the watch with charge to prepare their arms, the others unto their rest and lodgings. After order given out for the watch, the captain had to assemble his company, except his sentinels, upon his court of guard, and there “humbly present themselves on their knees, and, by faithful and zealous prayer to Almighty God, commend themselves and their endeavours to his merciful protections.” Again, in the morning, an hour after the discharge of the watch, were they to repair to the court of guard, and there, “with public prayer, to give unto Almighty God humble thanks and praises for his merciful and safe protection through the night, and commend themselves to his no less merciful protection and safeguard for the day following. It was also the special duty of the captain to have religious and manly care over the poor sick soldiers or labourers under his command; to keep their lodgings sweet and their beds standing three feet from the ground, as provided in the public injunctions.” (Meade, Old Churches vol. I. pp. 119-120.)
40 The London Chronicle in the September 21 to 23, 1779 edition (no. 3561, p. 288) carried an article that affirmed Washington’s religious nature. It was entitled, “Character of General Washington, by an American Gentleman now in London, who is well acquainted with him.” It states, “General Washington, altho’ advanced in years is remarkably healthy, takes a great deal of exercise, and is very fond of riding on a favourite white horse; he is very reserved and loves retirement. . . . He regularly attends divine service in his tent every morning and evening, and seems very fervent in his prayers.”
41 Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. pp. 74-75.
42 For the history and text of the Calvinistic “Lambeth Articles” see Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom vol. 3, p. 523.
43 Meade, Old Churches vol. I. pp. 77. We gain insight into the missions efforts of Whittaker from his “Tractate by Master Alexander Whittaker,” written at Henrico in 1613.
“They (the Indians) acknowledge that there is a great good God, but know him not, having the eyes of their understanding as yet blinded; wherefore they serve the Devil for fear, after a most base manner, sacrificing sometime (as I have heard) their own children to him. I have sent one image of their god to the Council in England, which is painted on one side of a toadstool, much like unto a deformed monster. Their priests (whom they call Quickosoughs) are no other but such as our English witches are. They live naked in body, as if their shame of their sin deserved no covering. Their names are as naked as their body: they esteem it virtue to lye, deceive, and steal, as their master the Devil teacheth them.
“Their men are not so simple as some have supposed them, for they are of body lusty, strong, and very nimble; they are a very understanding generation, - quicke of apprehension, sudden in their dispatches, subtile in their dealings, exquisite in their intentions, and industrious in their labour. I suppose the world hath no better marksmen than they be: they will kill birds flying, fishes swimming, and beasts running. They shoot also with marvelous strength: they shot one of our men, being unarmed, quite through the body and nailed both his arms to his body with one arrow: one of their children also, about the age of twelve or thirteen years, killed a bird with his arrow, in my sight. The service of their god is answerable to their life, being performed with great fear and attention, and many strange dumb shews used in the same, stretching forth their limbs and straining their body, much like to the counterfeit women in England, who fancy themselves bewitched or possessed of some evil spirit. They stand in great awe of the Quickosoughs or priests, which are a generation of vipers, even Satan’s own brood. The manner of their life is much like to the Popish hermits of our age; for they live along in the woods, in houses sequestered from the common course of men; neither may any man be suffered to come into their house, or speaks to them, but when the priest doth call him.
“He taketh no care for his victuals; for all such kind of things, both bread and water, &c., are brought into a place near his cottage and there left, which he fetcheth for his proper needs. If they would have raine, or have lost any thing, they have recourse to him, who conjureth for them and many times prevaileth. If they be sick, he is their physician; if they be wounded, he sucketh them. At his command they make war and peace, neither do they any thing of moment without him. Finally, there is a civil government among them which they strictly observe, and show thereby that the law of nature dwelleth in them; for they have a rude kinde of commonwealth and rough government, wherein they both honour and obey their king, parents, and governors, both greater and lesser. They observe the limits of their own possessions. Murder is scarcely heard of; adultery and other offences severely punished.” (Meade, Old Churches vol. I. pp. 134-135.)
44 The intermarriage of the Indian princess and the English settler brought on an era of peace in Virginia. But there were storm clouds brewing both in the mother country and secretly in the council fires of Powhatan’s chiefs. The Reverend Peter Fontaine, corresponding with his brother in England while defending intermarriage with the Indians as a means of their civilization and Christianization, explains why the practice had ceased among the Virginians:
But this, our wise politicians at home put an effectual stop to at the beginning of our settlement here, for when they heard that Rolph had married Pocahontas, it was deliberated in Council whether he had not committed high treason by so doing, that is, marrying an Indian princess; and had not some troubles intervened, which put a stop to the enquiry, the poor man might have been hanged up for doing the most just, the most natural, the most generous and politic action, that ever was done on this side of the water. This put an effectual stop to all intermarriages afterwards. (Meade, Old Churches Vol I. p. 82.)
Pocahontas died while in England, although her family returned to America. Pocahontas’ family legacy has included many illustrious American descendants, most notably, President Woodrow Wilson. But the frowns of the English leaders on the intermarriage of Virginians and Indians ended this form of “generous” diplomacy. Nevertheless, the good news of the gospel’s advance in the wilds of the new world prompted responses of joy. Plans began to establish a University in Virginia. Gifts flowed in for the building up of the church across the ocean. In 1622, a clergyman was requested to bring a Thanksgiving message in London for all of God’s mercies to the Virginian colony.
45 The struggle to Christianize the Indians was captured in a letter by Colonel Byrd: “The whole number of people belonging to the Nottoway Town, if you include women and children, amounts to about two hundred. These are the only Indians of any consequence now remaining within the limits of Virginia. The rest are either removed or dwindled to a very inconsiderable number, either by destroying one another, or else by smallpox or other diseases; though nothing has been so fatal to them as their ungovernable passion for rum, with which, I am sorry to say it, they have been but too liberally supplied by the English that live near them. And here I must lament the bad success Mr. Boyle’s charity has hitherto had toward converting any of these poor heathen to Christianity. Many children of our neighboring Indians have been brought up in the College of William and Mary. They have been taught to read and write, and have been carefully instructed in the Christian religion till they came to be men; yet after they returned home, instead of civilizing and converting the rest, they have immediately relapsed into infidelity and barbarism themselves. And some of them, too, have made the worst use of the knowledge they acquired among the English, by employing it against their benefactors. Besides, as they unhappily forget all the good they learn and remember the ill, they are apt to be more vicious and disorderly than the rest of their countrymen. I ought not to quit this subject without doing justice to the great prudence of Colonel Spottswood in this affair. This gentleman was Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia when Carolina was engaged in a bloody war with the Indians. At that critical time it was thought expedient to keep watchful eye upon our tributary savages, whom we knew had nothing to keep them to their duty but their fears. Then it was that he demanded of each nation a competent number of their great men’s children to be sent to the College, where they served as so many hostages for the good behaviour of the rest, and, at the same time, were themselves principled in the Christian religion. He also placed a schoolmaster among the Saponi Indians, at a salary of fifty pounds annum, to instruct their children. …I am sorry I cannot give a better account of the state of the poor Indians with respect to Christianity, although a great deal of pains has been taken and still continues to be take with them. For my part, I must be of the opinion, as I hinted before, that there is but one way of converting these poor infidels and reclaiming them from barbarity, and that is charitably to intermarry with them, according to the modern policy of the most Christian King in Canada and Louisiana. Had the English done this at the first settlement of the Colony, the infidelity of the Indians had been worn out at this day, with their dark complexions, and the country had swarmed with more people than insects. It was certainly and unreasonable nicety that prevented their entering into so good-natured an alliance. All nations of men have the same natural dignity, and we all know that very bright talents may be lodged under a very dark skin. The principal difference between one people and another proceeds only from the different opportunities of improvement. The Indians by no means want understanding, and are in figure tall and well proportioned. Even their copper-coloured complexions would admit of blanching, if not in the first, at the furthest in the second generation. I may safely venture to say, the Indian women would have made altogether as honest wives for the first planters as the damsels they used to purchase from aboard ships. It is strange, therefore, that any good Christian should have refused a wholesome straight bedfellow when he might have had so fair a portion with her as the merit of saving her soul.” (Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. pp. 283ff.)
46 The marriage of the Princess to the Englishman created a sense of peace and well being between their formerly warring peoples. But things forever changed for the worse on March 22nd of that year. Unbeknown to the settlers that began to spread out without fear along the James River, a massacre had been secretly planned for a period of years. Bishop Meade describes this as “one of the most unexpected and direful calamities which had ever befallen the Colony”:
On one and the same day the attack was made on every place. Jamestown, and some few points near to it, alone escaped, having received warning of the intended attack just in time to prepare for defenses. Besides the destruction of houses by fire, between three and four hundred persons were put to death in the most cruel manner. (Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. p. 85.)
The previous spiritual calls by the clergy and the crown for the evangelization of the Indians were instantly silenced by clamorous demands for merciless revenge to protect the devastated and vulnerable colonists. The East India Company that had strenuously worked to build the colony and good relationships with the Native Americans expressed the outrage that gripped the betrayed Anglicans:
We condemn their bodies, the saving of whose souls we have so zealously affected. Root them out from being any longer a people,— so cursed a nation, ungrateful for all benefits and incapable of all goodness,—or remove them so far as to be out of danger or fear. War perpetually, without peace or truce. Yet spare the young for servants. Starve them by destroying their corn, or reaping it for your own use. Pluck up their weirs (fishing-traps.) Obstruct their hunting. Employ foreign enemies against them at so much a head. Keep a band of your own men continually upon them, to be paid by the Colony, which is to have half of their captives and plunder. He that takes any of their chiefs to be doubly rewarded. He that takes Opochancono (the chief and brother of old Powhatan, who was now dead) shall have a great and singular reward.
Later an order was given, “The Indians being irreconcilable enemies, every commander, on the least molestation, to fall upon them.” The tragic blueprint for dealing with the Indian tribes of North America was thus first written by the devastated colonists. What then was to become of the colony’s vision, said so well by the King’s patent?:
So noble a work may, by the Providence of God, hereafter tend to the glorie of his divine majestie, in propagating of Christian religion to such people as sit in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages (living in those parts) to human civility and quiet government. (Meade, Old Churches Vol I. p. 63.)
Bishop Meade describes the sense of the mother country at this nadir of despair,
The missionary effort was considered as a failure; the conversion, or even civilization, of the Indian, was regarded as hopeless. . . . The Indians were now objects of dread, of hate, of persecution. A sentiment and declaration is ascribed to one of the last of the ministers who came over, “that the only way to convert the Indians was to cut the throats of their chief men and priests.” (Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. p. 87.)
47 Although the numbers of settlers continued to grow, there was a clear decline in the spiritual health of the clergy in the post-Pocahontas era. This historical reality was written in laws aimed at the clergy. “Laws now seem to be required to keep the ministers from cards, dice, drinking, and such like things; and even to constrain them to preach and administer the communion as often as was proper,— yea, even to visit the sick and dying.” Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. p. 92.
48 See Alan Harding, The Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion: A Sect in Action in Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford University Press, 2003). This summary is dependent on the BBC’s Making History: The Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist7_prog5d.shtml. Lady Huntingdon appointed evangelist George Whitefield (1714-70) to be her chaplain. Whitefield began preaching in the fields to miners at Kingswood near Bristol after being prevented from preaching in the churches. When Whitefield’s ministry brought him to America, he became the first nationally famous preacher. James Hutson, the current Chief of the Manuscript Division of he Library of Congress, has compared the impact of Whitefield’s coming to America in the mid-1700’s to the British invasion of the Beatles in the1960’s. After her husband’s death, the Countess was called the “Elect Lady” of Methodism. She hoped to evangelize the upper class but when opposed by Anglicans she created her Connexion which Whitefield led from 1748. She developed chapels in connection with her residences, which she could accomplish because of her noble position. When she opened them for public evangelistic preaching, the Anglican Church resisted. So in 1781 her new movement left the Anglican fold.
The Countess proceeded to appoint evangelical ministers, but her determined efforts to win the souls of the nobility were not always welcomed. The Duchess of Buckingham declared that Lady Huntingdon’s doctrines were “strongly tinctured with impertinence toward their superiors. It is monstrous to be told you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches who crawl the earth.” Ultimately, Whitefield’s Calvinist theology led to a division between Lady Huntingdon’s Connexion and John Wesley, the Arminian (Anti-Calvinist) founder of the Methodist Church.
In all, Lady Huntingdon built sixty-four churches, targeting the aristocratic rich as well as a college for the education of her ministers. Most of the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion chapels that remain are now part of the United Reform Church, though more than twenty chapels remain outside that Church, partly because they were owned by local trusts and could go the way trustees wanted. The Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion still exists as a small denomination with twenty-five chapels in this country and is affiliated with the Evangelical Alliance.
49 Jackson & Twohig, The Diaries of George Washington. vol. 3..[November] 1774, November 5.
50 WGW, vol. 27, 8-10-1783. For the full range of correspondence and strategic plan development of the mission, see the Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series vol. 2 (W. W. Abbot ed, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992) pp. 200, 205-218; 330-332; 386, 392-396.
51 Ibid., 27, 8-10-1783, note.
52 Ibid., vol. 37, 1-20-1799. To Reverend Bryan, Lord Fairfax, Washington wrote on January 20, 1799, “Lady Huntington as you may have been told was a correspondent of mine, and did me the honor to claim me as a relation; but in what degree, or by what connexion it came to pass, she did not inform me, nor did I ever trouble her Ladyship with an enquiry. The favourable sentiments which others, you say, have been pleased to express respecting me, cannot but be pleasing to a mind [ sic ] who always walked on a straight line, and endeavoured as far as human frailties, and perhaps strong passions, would enable him, to discharge the relative duties to his Maker and fellow-men, without seeking any indirect or left handed attempts to acquire popularity.”
53 WGW, vol. 27, 8-10-1783.
54 The letter continues: “I have been induced from this great object before me, to accept the obliging offers of Mr. James Jay (who was upon the point of embarking for America) to convey the outline of my design to each of the governors of those states, in which from nearest access to the Indian Nations and from soil and climate, a situation for many hundred families for the services of the Indians and the establishment of a people connected with me, should appear best. And whose object would be to support the Gospel, and render those missionaries sent by me for the Indians and their various ministrations among themselves, the more consistently useful for all.
“Should I be able to obtain a sufficient quantity of land suitable for such purposes, my intentions would be to transfer both my trust estate with all my own property in Georgia for this more extensive prospect, and which from the extreme heat of the climate renders the labours of missionaries there of little advantage. This with the poor and little, all I have to give on earth, has been long devoted to God, should so ever a happy a period arrive as in his tender mercy to us. We might be made the fortunate and honoured instruments in that great day approaching for calling the heathen nations as his inheritance, to the glorious light of the Gospel. Or should this offer any little prelude to so important an event, the hearts of all men for this purpose will be made subject. And as certainly no interested motives can appear, but on the contrary, a ready willingness to do and suffer his righteous will as his servants, so none can feel any effect from the accomplishment of the design but the increase of order, wealth, and the pure protestant faith, carrying the glad tidings of peace and Christian love over the earth.
“I indulge myself with the hope of your forgiveness for an openness so due to you on a subject that interesting in its views to me and also considering it as so great an honour done me by you admitting a representation for your attention, tho’ but for an hour.
“My kind and most excellent friend Mr. Fairfax undertakes the care of this packet for me. His noble just and equitable mind renders him the friend of my highest regard and his ever willing and important services engage me as are under the greatest obligation to him and who on all occasions has my first confidence.
“You must yet bear with me by the liberty I take in sending the copy of the letter to the governor and outlines of the plan, as no reasons to you on the subject is compatible with the just honour and respect you must ever claim from me.
“Could my best compliments and best wishes to Mrs. Washington be rendered acceptable, she would help to plead my pardon with you to this unreasonable long letter but which does certainly contain in meaning the truest and most faithful regard, from Sir, Yours and Mrs. Most devoted obedient and most humble servant S. Huntingdon’
March 20, 1784. George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799 Selina S.
Hastings to George Washington, March 20, 1784, Image 324ff.
55 WGW 28: 2-27-1785.
56 Ibid., vol. 28, 1-25-1785.
57 Ibid., vol. 28, 2-8-1785.
58 Ibid., vol. 28, 6-30-1785.
59 Ibid., vol. 31, 10-25-1791. In Washington’s Third Address To Congress on October 25, 1791, he wrote: “… the Executive of the United States should be enabled to employ the means to which the Indians have been long accustomed for uniting their immediate Interests with the preservation of Peace. And that efficacious provision should be made for inflicting adequate penalties upon all those who, by violating their rights, shall infringe the Treaties, and endanger the peace of the Union. A System corresponding with the mild principles of Religion and Philanthropy towards an unenlightened race of Men, whose happiness materially depends on the conduct of the United States, would be as honorable to the national character as conformable to the dictates of sound policy.”
Compare President Washington’s letter to Reverend John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Bishop in the United States, on April 10, 1792. “Sir: I have received and duly considered your memorial of the 20th. ultimo, on the subject of the instructing the Indians within, and contiguous to the United States, in the principles and duties of Christianity.
The war now existing between the United States and some tribes of the western Indians prevents, for the present, any interference of this nature with them. The Indians of the five nations are, in their religious concerns, under the immediate superintendence of the Revd. Mr. Kirkland; and those who dwell in the eastern extremity of the United States are, according to the best information that I can obtain, so situated as to be rather considered as a part of the inhabitants of the State of Massachusetts than otherwise, and that State has always considered them as under its immediate care and protection. Any application therefore relative to these Indians, for the purposes mentioned in your memorial, would seem most proper to be made to the Government of Massachusetts. The original letters on this subject, which were submitted to my inspection, have been returned to Charles Carroll, Esq. of Carrollton.
Impressed as I am with an opinion, that the most effectual means of securing the permanent attachment of our savage neighbors, is to convince them that we are just, and to shew them that a proper and friendly intercourse with us would be for our mutual advantage: I cannot conclude without giving you my thanks for your pious and benevolent wishes to effect this desirable end, upon the mild principles of Religion and Philanthropy. And when a proper occasion shall offer, I have no doubt but such measures will be pursued as may seem best calculated to communicate liberal instruction, and the blessings of society, to their untutored minds. With very great esteem etc.” WGW, vol. 32: 4-10-1792.
60 WGW, vol. 31, 1-11-1792. See also The Papers of George Washington, W. W. Abbot, Ed., Dorothy Twohig, Assoc. Ed., Presidential Series (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia), vol. 9, pp. 394-395.
61 Ibid., vol. 35: 5-16-1796.
62 Ibid., vol. 35:11-14-1796.
63 Ibid., vol. 28, 12-8-1784.
64 Ibid., vol. 35: 5-16-1796.
1 Rule 108 of the “Rules of Civility,” copied by George Washington in his school paper 1746. The “Rules of Civility” are a part of the George Washington Papers and can be read on line at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:1:./temp/~ammem_LB9I:: George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a George Washington, Forms of Writing, and “The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,” ante 1747. They have also been recently released in contemporary form. See: George Washington, George-isms (New York: Athenaeum Books for Young Readers, 2000). See also the appendix I.
2 Frank E. Grizzard Jr., George Washington: A Biographical Companion (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc. 2002) p. 331. Grizzard notes: “The Reverend Lawrence Washington, M.A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, and later a country rector allegedly ousted by the Puritans for drunkenness.”
Historian Henry Cabot Lodge questions the moral charge, but explains that both poverty and politics made the move to the New World for this noble family a good decision: “The rector had been ejected on the grounds that he was “scandalous” and “malignant.” That he was guilty of the former charge we may well doubt; but that he was, in the language of the time, “malignant,” must be admitted, for all his family, including his brothers, Sir William Washington of Packington and Sir John Washington of Thrapston, his nephew, Sir Henry Washington, and his nephew-in-law, William Legge, ancestor of the Earl of Dartmouth were strongly on the side of the king. In a marriage which seems to have been regarded as beneath the dignity of the family, and in the poverty consequent upon the ejectment from his living, we can find the reason for the sons of the Reverend Lawrence Washington going forth into Virginia to find their fortune, and flying from the world of victorious Puritanism which offered just then so little hope to royalists like themselves. Yet what was poverty in England was something much more agreeable in the New World of America. The emigrant brothers at all events seem to have had resources of a sufficient kind, and to have been men of substance, for they purchased lands and established themselves at Bridges Creek, in Westmoreland county. With this brief statement, Lawrence disappears, leaving us nothing further than the knowledge that he had numerous descendants.” Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington, (New Rochelle, NY, Arlington House, 1898), pp. 36-37.
3 WGW, vol. 32, 5-2-1792.
4 Colonial Families of the United States of America vol. II http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va/rappahannock/wills/w2520001.txtWill of Lawrence Washington, Rappahannock co, 1677 Submitted by Sandra Ferguson <ferg@intelos.net> for use in the USGenWeb Archives In several sources it is noted that John, George Washington’s great-grandfather, said in his will, “In the name of God, Amen. I, John Washington, of Washington parish, in the county of Westmoreland, in Virginia, gentleman, being of good and perfect memory, thanks be unto Almighty God for it, and calling to remembrance the uncertain state of this transitory life, that all flesh must yield unto death, do make, constitute, and ordain this my last will and testament and none other. And first, being heartily sorry, from the bottom of my heart, for my sins past, most humbly desiring forgiveness of the same from the Almighty God, my Saviour and Redeemer, in whom and by the merits of Jesus Christ I trust and believe assuredly to be saved, and to have full remission and forgiveness of all my sins, and that my soul with my body at the general resurrection shall rise again with joy. . . .through the merits of Jesus Christ’s death and passion to possess and inherit the kingdom of heaven prepared for his elect and chosen.”
5 Historian James K. Paulding shuns the historical records of earlier Washingtons who were military leaders and heroes in British history.
6 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 26.
7 Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington, (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1898), p. 37.
8 We will highlight John Washington’s sense of justice in a story of his crossing the ocean to America in the Chapter on “George Washington and the Enlightenment.”
9 Joseph D. Sawyer, Washington (New York: MacMillian, 1927), vol. I. p. 53.
10 Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 53.
11 WGW, vol. 29, 10-1783, Biographical Memoranda. See Also David Humphreys, Life of General Washington (Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press) p.10.
12 Sawyer, Washington, vol. I. p. 53.
13 Ibid., p. 54.
14 Ibid., p. 53.
15 It is difficult to keep all of the Lawrence Washingtons distinct. Grizzard lists 11 Lawrence Washingtons from the years of George Washington’s great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave Manor (c.1500-1584) to Lawrence Augustine Washington (1775-1824), George’s nephew and son of his brother Samuel Washington. Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 409.
16 Grizzard lists six other George Washingtons beside the first. These date from 1758—a nephew, son of half brother Augustine Washington and the last, a grandnephew born in 1790. George’s adopted grandson (1781-1857) would unofficially be named Washington twice, George Washington Parke Custis Washington! Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, pp. 404, 408.
17 Ibid., p. 327.
18 Ibid., p. 326.
19 See, for example, the 39 Articles of the Church of England which can be found in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol. 3. p. 486. The Catalogue of Homilies are listed in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, pp. 509-511.
20 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish p. 34ff.
21 Benson J. Lossing, Mary and Martha: The Mother and Wife of George Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886) p. 31.
22 Ibid.
23 Cited by Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 327.
1 WGW, vol. 35, 11-28-1796.
2 How much of Mason L. Weems’ biography is grounded in fact? Consider the following example of how scholars have interacted with a traditional Washington story from Parson Weems. It comes from the time of Washington’s early adult life as he was completing his service as a soldier and beginning to enter into politics. It well illustrates the difficulty in assessing the value for history of what Parson Weems preserved of Washington’s life for posterity. John Corbin, The Unknown Washington (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), pp. 44-45 gives the following summation: Washington Irving ignored the story. Bishop Meade offered local traditions that seemed to support Weems. Lodge utterly rejected it, declaring, “That Washington . . . allowed himself to be knocked down in the presence of his soldiers, and thereupon begged his assailant’s pardon for having spoken roughly to him, [is a story] so silly and so foolish impossible that [it does not] deserve an instant’s consideration.” Yet Rupert Hughes accepted it as authentic. John Corbin believes the evidence is available to prove that it is an authentic event in the life of Washington. Thus some historians consider Weems’ traditional stories to be historical, and others do not, and each judgment varies from case to case and author to author. It is here cited from Mason L. Weems, The Life of Washington, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 187-189.
Brissot, another famous French traveller, assures us, that, “throughout the continent, every body spoke of Washington as of a father.”
That dearest and best of all appellations, “the father of his country,” was the natural fruit of the benevolence which he so carefully cultivated through life. A singular instance of which we meet with in 1754, and the 22d year of his age.
He was stationed at Alexandria with his regiment, the only one in the colony, and of which he was colonel. There happened at this time to be an election in Alexandria for members of assembly, and the contest ran high between colonel George Fairfax, and Mr. Elzey. Washington was the warm friend of Fairfax, and a Mr. Payne headed the friends of Elzey. A dispute happening to take place in the courthouse-yard, Washington, a thing very uncommon, said something that offended Payne; whereupon the little gentleman who, though but a cub in size, was the old lion in heart, raised his sturdy hickory, and, at a single blow, brought our hero to the ground. Several of Washington’s officers being present, whipped out this cold irons in an instant, and it was believed that there would have been murder off-hand. To make bad worse, his regiment, hearing how he had been treated, bolted out from their barracks, with every man his weapon in his hand, threatening dreadful vengeance on those who had dared to knock down their beloved colonel. Happily for Mr. Payne and his party, Washington recovered, time enough to go out and meet his enraged soldiers; and, after thanking them for this expression of their love, and assuring them that he was not hurt in the least, he begged them, as they loved him or their duty, to return peaceably to their barracks. As for himself, he went to his room, generously chastising his imprudence, which had this struck up a spark that had like to have thrown the whole town into a flame. Finding on mature reflection, that he had been the aggressor, he resolved to make Mr. Payne honourable reparation, by asking his pardon on the morrow! No sooner had he made this noble resolution, than recovering that delicious gaiety which accompanies good purposes in a virtuous mind, he went to a ball that night, and behaved as pleasantly as though nothing had happened! Glorious proof that great souls, like great ships, are not affected by those little puffs which would overset feeble minds with passion, or sink them with spleen!
The next day he went to a tavern, and wrote a polite note to Mr. Payne, whom he requested to meet him. Mr. Payne took it for a challenge, and repaired to the tavern not without expecting to see a pair of pistols produced. But what was his surprise on entering the chamber, to see a decanter of wine and glasses on the table! Washington arose, and in a very friendly manner met him, and gave him his hand. “Mr. Payne,” said he “to err is nature; to rectify error is glory; I find I was wrong yesterday, but wish to be right to-day. You have had some satisfaction; and if you think that sufficient, here’s my hand, let us be friends.”
3 The following story entitled, “The Poisoned Dish” allegedly comes from the time of Washington’s military command of the revolutionary army. Yet it has all the signs of legend, even though it is in a book entitled, True Stories of the Days of Washington. It has no author, no source, and no other known record of the story occurring. It is, nevertheless, a valuable popular example of the fear of the possibility of Washington being assassinated.
The following story we also obtain from a communication to an old periodical. We have no reason to doubt its truth, although we do not find the circumstance mentioned elsewhere:
In the summer of 1776, when the American army was in New York, a young girl of the city went to her lover, one Francis, and communicated to him, as a secret she had overheard, a plan that was in operation among the government men to destroy the American commander-in-chief, by poison, which was to be plentifully mingled with his green peas, a favorite vegetable of his, on the following day, at Richmond Hill head-quarters, where he was to dine. Francis, who was a thorough Whig, although supposed to be friendly to the Royalists, went immediately to Washington and acquainted him with this diabolical plan for his destruction. Washington, having listened with attention said:
“My friend, I thank you; your fidelity has saved my life, to what reserve the Almighty knows! But, now, for your safety; I charge you to return to your house, and let not a word of what you have related to me, pass your lips; it would involve you in certain ruin; and heaven forbid that your life should be forfeited or endangered by your faith to me. I will take the necessary steps to prevent, and at the same time discover, the instrument of this wicked device.”
The next day, about two hours before dinner, he sent for one of his guard, told him of the plot, and requested that he would disguise himself as a female, and go to the kitchen, there to keep a strict watch upon the peas, until they should be served up for the table. The young man carefully observed the directions he had received, and had not been long upon his post of duty, before a young man, another of the guard, came in anxiously to the door of the kitchen, looked in, and then passed away. In a few moments after, he returned and approached the hearth where the peas stood, and was about to mingle in the deadly substance, when suddenly he shrunk back as though from the sting of the fork-tongued adder, his color changing to the pale hue of death, and his limbs apparently palsied with fear, evidently horrorstruck with his own purpose; but soon, however, the operation of a more powerful incitement urged forward his reluctant hand, that trembling strewed the odious bane, and he left the kitchen, overwhelmed with conflicting passions, remorse and confusion.
“Harold sleeps no more; the cry has reached his heart ere the deed be accomplished,” said the youth on duty, in a voice not devoid of pity, as he looked after the self-condemned wretch.
“What, Harold!” said the commander-in-chief, sorrowfully, upon receiving the information; “can it be possible – so young, so fair, and gentle! He would have been the last person upon whom a suspicion of that nature could have fallen, by right of countenance. You have done well,” said he to the youth before him. “Go, join your comrades and be secret.”
The young man went accordingly, and Washington returned to the piazza, where several officers were assembled, among whom was the hero of Saratoga, who was waiting for further instructions from Congress before he departed for Canada. In a few moments dinner was announced, and the party was ushered into a handsome apartment, where the sumptuous board was spread, covered with all the delicacies of the season.
The commander-in-chief took his seat, placing General Gates on his right hand, and General Wooster on the left. When the remainder of the officers and company were seated, and eager to commence the duties of the table, the chief said, impressively:
“Gentleman, I must request you to suspend your meal for a few moments. Let the guard attend me.” All was silence and amazement. The guard entered and formed in a line toward the upper end of the apartment. Washington, having put upon his plate a spoonful of peas, fixed his eyes sternly upon the guilty man, and said: “Shall I eat of this vegetable?”
The youth turned pale and became dreadfully agitated, while his trembling lips faintly uttered, “I don’t know.”
“Shall I eat of these?” again demanded Washington, raising some upon his knife.
Here Harold elevated his hand, as if by an involuntary impulse, to prevent their being tasted.
A Chicken was then brought in, that a conclusive experiment might be made in the presence of all those witnesses. The animal ate of the peas and immediately died, and the wretched criminal, overcome with terror and remorse, fell fainting, and was borne from the apartment.
“The Poisoned Dish” in True Stories of the Days of Washington (New York: Phinney, Blakeman & Mason, 1861), p. 51-55.
4 A paradigm of authenticity might move in the direction from lesser reliability to greater reliability, beginning with myth, then moving consecutively to legend, to tradition, to verifiable historical event. Sometimes the only difference in actual history between tradition and historical event is verifiability. But the mere fact of the reality of historical occurrence is not the same as historical validity. Thus, there is a strong wall of distinction between tradition and verifiable historical event. The recognition of this wall of separation between tradition and historical event, and the frustration and limitations it sometimes imposes on the historian, has encouraged the development of the study of oral history, as a legitimate attempt to utilize tradition without compromising the necessity of high standards for verifiable history. Oral history, then, is a preserver of tradition, a tradition that may in fact be a real event, yet an event not possessing the capability of independent verification by written record or other evidence. To overcome the inherent weakness of oral history’s preserving of historical data without external corroboration, various factors and standards have been conceived. Such factors to assess the strength and reliability of oral tradition include matters such as the reliability and credibility of the historical informants, the frequency of reports as well as the number of distinctive reporters, the extent of confusion in the story as to major or minor details, and as to whether the details are expressions of augmentation, or of contradiction. Thus, a largely uniform and frequently reported oral story expressed by several highly competent individuals is an expression of tradition that although falling short of the highest standards of verifiable historical fact, cannot be utterly dismissed as irrelevant. It is this intuitive understanding that causes the historian to frequently report an insightful anecdote that otherwise may not be able to stand on its own. In our study here, we will on occasion pursue the importance of certain potentially significant oral historical records, since there is no other data on which to build certain events, given the exigencies of the time and circumstances in which the event occurred.
So, as an example of a myth, consider “An Unknown Speaker Swayed Colonials to Sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776” in The Justice Times (Publishers Ajay Lowery & Anita Lowery, no date, no city.). The story here presented is historically situated, but it adds elements of the supernatural and of the impossible and historically unrecorded in any other setting.
Faced with the death penalty for high treason, courageous men debated long before they picked up the quill pen to si[g]n the parchment that declared the independence of the colonies from the mother country on July 4, 1776.
For many hours they had debated in the S[t]ate House at Philadelphia, with the lower chamber doors locked and a guard posted.
According to Jefferson, it was late in the afternoon before the delegates gathered their courage to the sticking point.
The talk was about axes, scaffolds, and the gibbet, when suddenly a strong, bold voice sounded:
“Gibbet! They may stretch our necks on all the gibbets in the land; they may turn every rock into a scaffold; every tree into a gallows; every home into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die!”
“They may pour our blood on a thousand scaffolds, and yet every drop that dyes the axe a new champion of freedom will spring into birth!”
“The British King may blot out our stars of God from the sky, but he cannot blot out His words written on that parchment there.”
“The works of God may perish: His words never! The words of this declaration will live in the world long after our bones are dust. To the mechanic in his workshop they will speak hope: to the slave in the mines, freedom: but to the coward kings, these words will speak in tones of warning they cannot choose but hear.”
“Sign that parchment!”
“Sign, if the next moment the gibbet’s rope is about your neck! Sign, if the next minute this hall rings with the clash of falling axes!”
“Sign, by all your hopes in life or death, as men, as husbands, as fathers, brothers, sign you names to the parchment, or be accursed forever! Sign, and not only for yourselves, but for all ages, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible the rights of man forever.”
“Nay, do not start and whisper with surprise! It is truth, your own hearts witness it: God proclaims it. Look at his strange band of exiles and outcasts, suddenly transformed into a people; a handful of men, weak in arms, but mighty in God-like faith; nay, look at your recent achievements, your Bunker Hill, your Lexington, and then tell me, if you can, that God has not given America to be free!”
“It is not give to our poor human intellect to climb to the skies, and to pierce the Council of the Almighty One. But methinks I stand among the awful clouds which veil the brightness of Jehovah’s throne.”
“Methinks I see the recording Angel come trembling up to the throne and speak his dread message. ‘Father the old world is baptized in blood. Father, look with one glance of Thine eternal eye, and behold evermore that terrible nations lost in blood, murder, and superstition, walking hand and hand over the graves of the victims, and not a single voice of hope to man!’”
“He stands there, the Angel, trembling with the record of human guilt. But hark! The voice of God speaks from out the awful cloud: ‘Let there be light again!”
“Tell my people, the poor and oppressed, to go out from the old world, from oppression and blood, and build My alter in the new.’”
“As I live, my friends, that to be His voice! Yes, were my soul trembling on the verge of eternity, were this hand freezing to death, were this voice, implore you to remember this truth— God has give America to be free!”
“Yes, as I stare into the gloomy shadows of the grave, with my last faint whisper I would beg you to sign that parchment for the sake of those millions whose very breath is now hushed in intense expectation as they look up to you for the awful words: ‘You are free.’”
The unknown speaker fell exhausted into his seat. The delegates, carried away by his enthusiasm, rushed forward. John Hancock scarcely had time to pen his bold signature before the quill was grasped by another… and another… and yet another.
It was done.
The delegates turned to express their gratitude to the unknown speaker for his eloquent words. He was not there.
Who was this strange man, who seemed to speak with a divine authority, whose solemn words gave courage to the doubters and sealed the destiny of the new nation?
His name is not recorded: none of those present knew him; or if they did, not one acknowledged the acquaintance. How he had entered into the locked and guarded room is not told, not is there any record of the manner of his departure.
5 R.T. Haines Halsey, Pictures of Early New York on Dark Blue, Staffordshire Pottery (New York: Dover Publications, 1974), pp. 302-306. See photograph of the mug facing page 3.
6 Note that G.W.P.Custis, George’s adopted grandson, accepts this story as true. See G. W. Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington (Bridgewater: American Foundation Publications, 1999), pp. 132-34.
7 WGW, vol. 30, 12-23-1788
8 Writing to the Learned Professions of Philadelphia, Washington spoke of “a higher and more efficient Cause” and “the greatest and best of Beings” (WGW, vol. 27, 12-13-1783); To mathematician Nicholas Pike, he spoke of how the tight logic of mathematics led one to even more sublime meditations: “the investigation of mathematical truths accustoms the mind to method and correctness in reasoning, and is an employment peculiarly worthy of rational beings. In a clouded state of existence, where so many things appear precarious to the bewildered research, it is here that the rational faculties find a firm foundation to rest upon. From the high ground of mathematical and philosophical demonstration, we are insensibly led to far nobler speculations and more sublime meditations. (WGW, vol. 30, 6-20-1788).
9 WGW, vol. 27. 12-13-1783.
10 Lodge claims that the cabbage seed story is untrue: “This tale is bodily taken from Dr. Beattie’s biographical sketch of his son, published in England in 1799 and may be dismissed at once.” Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1898) p. 45.
11 Although Paulding does not give his source for the following alleged sayings of Washington, and therefore they cannot finally be historically established, the documented quotes we have just shared from Washington to the Philosophical Society (“the task of studying the works of the great Creator, inexpressibly delightful”), the Learned professions (“a higher and more efficient Cause” and “the greatest and best of Beings.”), and the mathematician Nicholas Pike (“it is here that the rational faculties find a firm foundation to rest upon. From the high ground of mathematical and philosophical demonstration, we are insensibly led to far nobler speculations and sublimer meditations.”) suggest that the following statements attributed to Washington by Paulding are within the realm of the possible: James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1858), Vol II p. 208, 210. William J. Johnson, George Washington The Christian, (Arlington Heights: Christian Liberty Press, 1919), p. 263-64: “It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.” “It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.” “It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.” The possibility of the authenticity of these statements is further buttressed by Washington’s profound emphasis upon the activity and causation of providence in history as well of his use of “Supreme Being” as a title for deity. Also add to this the fact that Washington’s view of religion maintains the compatibility of reason and faith as can be seen below in the Chapter entitled “George Washington’s God: Religion, Reason, and Philosophy.”
12 1731 by the Old (Julian) Calendar, 1732 by the New (Gregorian) Calendar. The New Calendar was adopted by Great Britain and the colonies in 1752. To bring the calendar in line with the solar year, it added 11 days and began the new year in January rather than March. Tobias Lear, secretary to Washington, to Clement Biddle, February 14, 1790, on the new calendar and Washington’s birthday (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwtime.html)
13 “Pa brought me two pretty books full of pictures. he got them in Alexandria. they have pictures of dogs and cats and tigers and elephants and ever so many pretty things. Cousin bids me send you one of them. It has a picture of an elefant and a little Indian boy on his back like uncle jo’s Sam. Pa says if I learn my tasks good he will let uncle jo bring me to see you will you ask your ma to let you come to see me. Richard Henry Lee.” Washington’s reply: “Dear Dicky: I thank you very much for the pretty picture book you gave me. Sam asked me to show him the pictures and I showed him all the pictures in it; and I read to him how the tame Elephant took care of the master’s little boy, and put him on his back and would not let any body touch his master’s little son. I can read three or four pages sometimes without missing a word. Ma says I may go to see you and stay all day with you next week if it not be rainy. She says I may ride my pony Hero if Uncle Ben will go with me and lead Hero. I have a little piece of poetry about the picture book you gave me, but I mustn’t tell you who wrote the poetry. ‘G.W.’s compliments to R.H.L., And Likes his book full well, henceforth will count him his friend, And hopes many happy days he may spend’ Your good friend, George Washington. I am going to get a whip top soon, and you may see it and whip it.” Lossing, Mary and Martha: p. 37-38. Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 187, says that these letters are “undoubtedly apocryphal”.
14 William Johnson writes about George during that period: “In that town [Fredericksburg] he went to school, and as Mrs. Washington was connected with the church there, her son no doubt shared, under her own eye, the benefits of divine worship, and such religion instruction as mothers in that day were eminently accustomed to give their children. It was the habit to teach the young the first principles of religion according to the formularies of the church, to inculcate the fear of God, and strict observance of the moral virtues, such as truth, justice, charity, humility, modesty, temperance, chastity, and industry.” Johnson, George Washington The Christian, p.22.
15 See Custis, Recollections pp. 482-83. Also see Humphreys, The Life of General Washington p. 7.
16 The entries in the index of his Diaries include numerous instances of foxhunting, duck hunting, hunting, gunning, fishing, canoeing, and horseback riding.
17 See Custis, Recollections, pp. 483-84.
18 See Diaries under the entries of “balls.” For Washington’s dancing skills and remarkable horsemanship, see Custis, pp. 143-44, 386-87. As Jefferson said of Washington, “the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback.” (See Chapter 3 above)
19 See J. D. Sawyer, George Washington, (New York: MacMillian, 1927) vol. I. p. 104-05. Van Braam was also with Washington in the battle at Great Meadows in the French and Indian War, and was one of the interpreters whose knowledge of French was apparently not quite sufficient to prevent the infamous signing of the capitulation agreement that unwittingly affirmed the “assassination” of the French Ambassador.
20 Washington’s relationship with Humphreys was very close, as can be seen in the following letter to David Humphreys WGW, vol. 27, 1-14-1784:
“My Dear Humphrys: I have been favored with your Letter of the 6th. Be assured that there are few things which would give me more pleasure than opportunities of evincing to you the sincerity of my friendship, and disposition to render your services at any time when it may be in my power.
Altho’ all recommendations from me to Congress must now be considered as coming from a private character, yet I enter very chearfully into your views; and as far as my suggesting of them to that Honorable body, accompanied by my testimonial of your competency to the execution of the duties of either of the offices in contemplation will go, you have them freely; and the enclosed Letter, which is a copy of the one I have written to Congress on the occasion, will be an evidence of my good wishes, whatever may be the success.
I cannot take my leave of you, without offering those acknowledgments of your long and zealous services to the public which your merits justly entitle you to, and which a grateful heart should not withhold: and I feel very sensibly the obligations I am personally under to you for the aid I have derived from your abilities, for the chearful assistance you have afforded me upon many interesting occasions, and for the attachment you have always manifested towards me. I shall hold in pleasing remembrance the friendship and intimacy which has subsisted between us, and shall neglect no opportunity on my part to cultivate and improve them; being, with unfeigned esteem and regard My Dear Humphrys Yrs. Etc”.
21 See Humphreys, The Life of General Washington p. 6-8.
22 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 109.
23 E.C.M’Guire, Religious Opinions and Character of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836), p. 15.
24 Hughes, George Washington The Human Being, p. 33.
25 Ibid., p. 33.
26 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion p. 331.
27 Benson J. Lossing, Mary and Martha: The Mother and Wife of George Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886) p. 39.
28 Benson J. Lossing, The Home of Washington or Mount Vernon and Its Associations Historical, Biographical, and Pictorial (New York: Virtue & Yorston, 1870) p. 45.
29 Lossing, Mary and Martha, p. 41.
30 See the chapter below on George Washington and Providence that deals extensively with his view of God’s actions in history.
31 WGW, vol. 33, 5-25-1794.
32 A letter to Richard Henry Lee, WGW, vol. 22, 7-15-1781 note:, June 12, 1781. In this letter Lee enclosed a copy of one which he had written to James Lovell, Theodorick Bland, and Joseph Jones, in Congress, in which he proposed that Washington should “be immediately sent to Virginia, with 2 or 3000 good Troops. Let Congress, as the head of the federal union, in this crisis, direct that until the Legislature can convene and a Governor be appointed, the General be possessed of Dictatorial powers, and that it be strongly recommended to the Assembly when convened to continue those powers for 6.8 or 10 months: as the case may be. And the General may be desired instantly on his arrival in Virginia to summon the members of both houses to meet where he shall appoint, to organize and resettle their Government.” These letters are in the Washington Papers.
34 WGW, vol. 27 2-14-1784.
35 Ibid., vol. 35, 11-28-1796.
36 Ibid., vol. 7, 4-15-1777. Washington’s younger brother also had interest in the military and finally got Mary Washington’s consent, as is seen in Washington’s letter on his behalf to Robert Dinwiddie on April 16, 1756 (WGW, vol. 1, 4-16-1756): “I have a brother that has long discovered an Inclination to enter the Service; but has till this been dissuaded from it by my Mother, who now, I believe, will give consent. I must, therefore, beg that if your honour should issue any new Commissions before I come down, that you will think of him and reserve a Lieutenancy. I flatter myself that he will endeavour to deserve it as well as some that have, and others that may get [them].” WGW, however, notes: Dinwiddie answered this (April 23): “I have not the least objection to your broth’s being a Lieut.” The appointment, however, does not seem to have been made, as Washington’s brother’s name does not appear on any of the surviving returns of the Virginia Regiment
37 Johnson, George Washington The Christian, p, 21.
38 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March 7-October 1788 (Julian P. Boyd, Editor, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1956): “I am truly sensible, Sir, of the honour you do me in proposing to me that of become one of the Sponsors of your child, and return you my sincere thanks for it. At the same time I am not a little mortified that scruples, perhaps not well founded, forbid my undertaking this honourable office. The person who become sponsor for a child, according to the ritual of the church in which I was educated, makes a solemn profession, before god and the world, of faith in articles, which I had never sense enough to comprehend, and it has always appeared to me that comprehension must precede assent. The difficulty of reconciling the ideas of Unity and Trinity, have, from a very early part of my life, excluded me from the office of sponsorship, often proposed to me by my friends, who would have trusted, for the faithful discharge of it, to morality alone instead of which the church requires faith. Accept therefore Sir this conscientious excuse which I make with regret, which must find its apology in my heart, while perhaps it may do no great honour to my head.”
39 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 11 - April 13, 1748, Image 2 of 70. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1b/gwpage481.db&recNum=1
1 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 93.
2 Washington’s library has been fully catalogued by Appleton P.C. Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum (Cambridge: University Press, 1897).
3 WGW, vol. 28, 12-15-1784. To George Chapman, “Sir: Not until within a few days have I been honor’d with your favor of the 27th. of Septr. 1783, accompanying your treatise on Education. My sentiments are perfectly in unison with yours sir, that the best means of forming a manly, virtuous and happy people, will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail; and it gives me pleasure to find that Gentlemen of your abilities are devoting their time and attention in pointing out the way.” WGW, vol. 27, 8-29-1784,
4 WGW, vol. 37, Last Will and Testament of George Washington, “ give and bequeath in perpetuity the fifty shares which I hold in the Potomac Company (under the aforesaid Acts of the Legislature of Virginia) towards the endowment of a UNIVERSITY to be established within the limits of the District of Columbia, under the auspices of the General Government, if that government should incline to extend a fostering hand towards it; and until such Seminary is established, and the funds arising on these shares shall be required for its support, my further Will and desire is that the profit accruing therefrom shall, whenever the dividends are made, be laid out in purchasing Stock in the Bank of Columbia, or some other Bank, at the discretion of my Executors..”
5 WGW vol. 35, 12-7-1796 Eighth Annual Address to Congress. “I have heretofore proposed to the consideration of Congress, the expediency of establishing a National University; and also a Military Academy. The desirableness of both these Institutions, has so constantly increased with every new view I have taken of the subject, that I cannot omit the opportunity of once for all, recalling your attention to them.”
6 History of the George Washington Bicentennial Celebration, p. 34, vol. 1 (United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission, 1932)
7 Johnson, George Washington the Christian, p. 269.
8 History of the George Washington Bicentennial Celebration, p. 34 vol. 1 (United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission, 1932
9 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 93.
10 Sawyer, Washington vol. 1, p. 112.
11 For the story of one of the Huguenot families that made their way to Virginia and left a legacy of Christian faith, church leadership and patriotism, see A Tale of the Huguenots, or Memoirs of a French Refugee Family. Translated and compiled from the original manuscripts of James Fontaine, by one of his descendants, with an introduction by F. L. Hawks. (New York: John S. Taylor, 1838). The appendix is a letter written by Reverend James Maury on December 31, 1765, to Mr. John Fontaine, of South Wales, Great Britain. This is likely the son of the Reverend Marye, who opened the school that Washington attended. His letter shows how the descendents of this Huguenot family were among those who instinctively protested the Stamp Act: “But what hath given a most general alarm to all the colonists upon this continent, and most of those in the islands, and struck us with the most universal consternation that ever seized a people so widely diffused, is a late Act of the British Parliament, subjecting us to a heavy tax by the imposition of stamp duties on all manner of papers requisite in trade, law, or private dealings, on pamphlets, newspapers, almanacks, calendars, and even advertisements, etc. etc.; and ordaining, that the causes of delinquents against the Act, wheresoever such delinquents may reside, shall be cognizable and finally determinable by any court of admiralty upon the continent, to which either plaintiff or defendant shall think proper to appeal from the sentence either of the inferior courts of justice or the supreme. The execution of this Act was to have commenced on the first of the last month all over British America; but hath been, with an unprecedented unanimity, opposed and prevented by every province on the continent, and by all the islands, whence we have had any advices since that date. For this ’tis probable some may brand us with the odious name of rebels; and others may applaud us for that generous love of liberty, which we inherit from our glorious forefathers; while some few may prudently suspend their judgment, till they shall have heard what may be said on either side of the questions. If the Parliament indeed have a right to impose taxes on the colonies, we are as absolute slaves as any in Asia, and consequently in a state of rebellion. If they have no such right, we are acting the noble and virtuous part, which every freeman and community of freemen hath a right, and is in duty bound to act. For my own part, I am not acquainted with all that may be said on the one part or the other, and therefore am in some sort obliged to suspend my judgment. But no arguments that have yet come in my way, have convinced me that the Parliament hath any such right.” pp. 257-58.
12 Meade, Old Churches, vol. 2 p. 89. Bishop Meade notes in regard to Reverend James Marye, Jr.: “Mr. Marye was a worthy exception to a class of clergy that obtained in Virginia in olden time. So far as we can learn, he was a man of evangelical views and sincere piety. We have seen a manuscript sermon of his on the religious training of children, which would do honour to the head and heart of any clergyman, and whose evangelical tone and spirit might well commend it to every pious parent and every enlightened Christian…”
13 WGW, vol. 2, 5-30-1768.
14 See the later chapter on Washington and the clergy for the extensive correspondence that passed between these two.
15 Jonathan Boucher, Reminiscences of an American Loyalist, ed. J. Bouchier (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1967) p. 113
16 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish 25.
17 In our research for this book, we discovered an old note in the back of Washington’s volume entitled Dissertations on the Mosaical Creation, Deluge, Building of Babel, and Confusion of Tongues by Simon Berington. It is clear that this was a book that Washington procured as a late teenager: the editors note “Autograph of Washington written at the age of 17 or thereabouts on the title-page.” In Appleton P.C. Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum (Cambridge: University Press 1897) p. 23. The faded and difficult to read note says: “I was running Hobby’s dogs. .Says, as he has suffic. prov’d the swine begot of horses, a man of reason would soon distrust his own judgment, than question the truth of the mosaic law. Let it seemingly be efver so irrational and absurd.” Whatever the precise meaning of this note might intend in regard to the origin of the species or the reliability of the Mosaic writings, should the note be authentic, it seems to substantiate the existence of someone named Hobby whom the apparently young Washington knew and accepted as an instructor.
18 M.D. Conway, Washington and Mount Vernon (Brooklyn, Long Island Historical Society, 1889) p. 500 n. 14.
19 Lossing, Mary & Martha, p. 29. Parson Weems says the following about Master Hobby: “The first place of education to which George was ever sent, was a little “old field school” kept by one of his father’s tenants, named Hobby; an honest, poor old man, who acted in the double character or sexton and schoolmaster. On his skill as a gravedigger, tradition is silent; but for a teacher of youth, his qualifications were certainly of the humbler sort; making what is generally called an A. B. C. schoolmaster. Such was the preceptor who first taught Washington the knowledge of letters! Hobby lived to see his young pupil in all his glory, and rejoiced exceedingly. In his cups – for, though a sexton, her would sometimes drink, particularly on the Gneral’s birth-days – he used to boast, that “’twas he, who, between his knees, had laid the foundation of George Washington’s greatness.’” (Mason Weems, The Life of Washington, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1962) p. 8.
20 Johnson, George Washington The Christian, p. 18.
21 Ibid., p. 18, Hughes, George Washington The Human Being, p. 16.
22 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol 3 pp. 517-522.
23 Ibid., pp. 517-522.
24 See WGW, vol. 35, 12-19-1796 letter to George Washington Parke Custis.
25 See Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum, p. 52 concerning Thomas Comber’s work Short Discourses upon the Whole Common-Prayer published in London 1712. In the photo of the signatures, there are 3 different handwritings. The first is the original signature of Augustine and Mary Washington; the second is that of youthful George Washington and his own writing of his mother’s signature. Under George’s signatures a later family member has written 2 explanatory notes which read “the above is Genl. Washington’s autograph when 13 years of age”. Under Washington’s rendition of his mother’s signature it reads: “The above name of his mother is in the handwriting of Genl. Washington at 13 years of age – which will be seen by comparing with his writing at that as in Sparks’ work.” Since he is called General Washington, it is presumed this was written before his presidency in 1787.
26 Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum, p. 52.
27 Ofspring Blackall, D.D., The Sufficiency of a Standing Revelation (London: H. Hills, 1708) Sermon dated Feb. 15, 1700, p. 2.
28 Chevalier Ramsay, The Travels of Cyrus (London: James Bettenham, 1745) We know this book dates from his early days as it bears Washington’s signature. The Travels of Cyrus to which is annexed a Discourse upon the Theology and Mythology of the Pagans by The Chevalier Ramsay printed in London in 1745, which was then in its seventh edition. Both of these were in Washington’s library with dates that fall in the era of his early teen years, the time of study with his tutor and teachers. The Travels of Cyrus clearly bears the youthful form of his signature on the cover page. (Griffin/Lane, p. 170) What Ray was attempting to do in the scientific arena, so Ramsay was pursuing in the study of ancient cultures. The Travels of Cyrus is the story of the imaginary travels of the great monarch of the ancient world wherein he interacts with the worldviews and religions of the many different nations around him: Zoroaster, Hermes, Pythagoras, tradition, philosophy, Orientals, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. In the process of encountering these divergent views, he will finally encounter the Old Testament prophet Daniel and learn of the Judeo-Christian views that were in the scriptures. Simultaneously a travelogue, a philosophical debate and cultural experience of ancient civilization through the eyes of Cyrus, Ramsay’s work had a distinct purpose. In answering the charge against his work, “far from doing homage to religion he degrades it.”
He should think himself very unhappy to have produced a work so contrary to his intentions. All that he advances upon religion may be reduced to two principal points: the first is to prove against the Atheists the existence of a Supreme Deity, who produced the world by his power, and governs it by his wisdom. . . that the primitive system of the world was that of one supreme Deity.
The second point is to show, in opposition to the Deists, that the principal doctrines of revealed religion; concerning the state of innocence, corruption and renovation, are as ancient as the world; that they were foundation of Noah’s religion; that he transmitted them to his children; that these traditions were thus spread thought all nations; that the Pagans’ disfigured, degraded, and obscured them by their absurd fictions; and lastly, that these primitive truths have been no where preserved in their purity except in the true religion. (pp. 13-14.) Reason in Ramsay’s work is most important, but it is the divine reason that must be given final sway. The prophet Daniel explains to the young Cyrus,
All the systems that can be imagined are either dangerous or defective. The curiosity of seeing into every thing, explaining every thing, and adjusting it to our imperfect notions, is the most fatal disease of the human mind. The most sublime act of our feeble reason is to keep itself silent before the sovereign reason; let us leave to God the care of justifying one day the incomprehensible ways of his providence. Our pride and our impatience will not suffer us to wait for the unraveling; we would go before the light and by so doing we lose the use of it. (pp. 257-58.)
Ramsay’s concluding discourse explains his views of ancient theology and mythology:
“In the first. . . the most celebrated Philosophers of all ages and all countries have had the notions of a supreme Deity, who produced the world by his Power and governs it by his Wisdom. From the second it will appear, that there are traces of the principal doctrines of revealed religion, with regard to the three states of the world, [the states of innocence, corruption and renovation] to be found in the Mythology of all nations. (p. 271.)….Thus much at least is plain, that the Chaldeans and Egyptians believed all the attributes of the Deity might be reduced to three, Power, Understanding and Love. In reality, whenever we disengage ourselves from matter, impose silence on the senses and imagination, and raise our thoughts to the contemplation of the infinitely infinite Being, we find that the eternal Essence presents itself to our mind under the three forms of Power, Wisdom and Goodness. These three attributes comprehend the totality of his nature, and whatever we can conceive of him.” (p. 276.)
The Chevalier Ramsay summarizes the plan of the whole work,
. . . it is as follows: Each philosopher speaks to Cyrus the language of his own religion and country. The Orientals, Egyptians; Greeks and Tyrians all agree in the original purity, present corruption and future restoration of mankind, but they wrap up these truths in different fables, each according to these truths in different fables, each according to the genius of their nation. Eleazar clears their system from the Pagan fictions, but retains in his own the opinions of his sect. The errors which prevail at this day resemble those of former times. The mind of man sees but a small number of ideas, reviews them continually, and thinks them new only because it expresses them differently in different ages The Magi in Cyrus’s time were fallen into a kind of Atheism like that of Spinoza; Zoroaster, Hermes and Pythagoras adored one sole Deity, but yet were Deists; Elcazar resembled the Socinians, who are for subjecting religion to philosophy; Daniel represents a perfect Christian, and the Hero of this book a young Prince who began to be corrupted by the maxims of irrelgion. In order to set him right, the different philosophers with whom he converses successively unfold to him new truths mixt with errors. Zoroaster, confutes the mistakes of the Magi; Pythagoras those of Zoroaster; Eleazar those of Pythagoras ; Daniel rejects those of all others, and his doctrine is the only one which the author adopts. The order of conversations shews the progress of the mind, the matter being so disposed, that the Atheist becomes Deist, the Deist, Socinian, and the Socinian Christian, by a plain and natural chain of ideas. The great art in instructing is to lead the mind gradually on, and to take advantage even of its errors to make it relish truth. That Cyrus might thus be conducted step by step, it was necessary to introduce a person of the religion of the Hebrews, who should confute by reason, all the objections drawn from reason; Daniel could not act this part, it would not have become him to solve difficulties by uncertain conjectures; the philosopher might prepare the Prince by bare hypotheses, to submit and to distrust his understanding: but is was necessary that the prophet should disengage Cyrus from all bold speculations, how refined and bright soever they might appear, and lead him to the belief of a supernatural religion, not by a philosophical demonstration of its doctrines, but by proving them to be divinely revealed.” (pp. 15-16.)
29 The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle (London: Printed for J.F.Dove, Piccadilly).
30 Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum, p. 23. “Washington’s autograph, written when a youth, probably at the age of seventeen or eighteen.”
31 Ibid., p. 555.
32 WGW, vol. 27, 12-13-1783, in an address to The American Philosophical Society. For examples of Washington’s interest as a naturalist, see Washington Diaries, March 13, 1748; December 22, 1751; October 13, 1770; October 15, 1770; October 25, 770
33 These can be found at: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwseries1.html.
34 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a., George Washington, Forms of Writing, and The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, ante 1747 http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1a/gwpage001.db&recNum=25
TRUE HAPPINESS
These are the things when once possessed
Will make a life that’s truly blessed
A good estate on healthy soil
Not got by vice nor yet by toil
Round a warm fire a pleasant joke
With chimney over free from smoke.
A strength within, a sparkling bowl.
A quiet wife, a quiet soul.
A mind as well as body whole
Prudent simplicity, constant friends.
A diet which no art commends,
A merry night without much drinking
A happy thought without much thinking
Each night by quiet sleep made short.
A will to be but what thou art
Possessed of these all else defy
And neither wish nor fear to die
These are things when once possessed
Will make a life that’s truly blessed.
35 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion p. 94.
36 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a.: http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1a/gwpage001.db&recNum=24.
37 Hughes, George Washington the Human Being, p. 554. Also see Grizzard, George Washington: p. 94.
38 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a, George Washington, Forms of Writing, and The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, ante 1747, Image 25 of 36. (may be found online at www.loc.gov). The authors have not yet had the opportunity to examine the poem from the source from which Washington copied it, since his manuscript is illegible in the last 2 lines, the words used in its construction are based upon hints from the meter of the poem the logic of its conclusion and the few random stokes of Washington’s pen that indicate certain letters.
39 To Robert Morris he wrote: Monday, December 24, [1781].
“Dear Sir: Knowing full well the multiplicity and importance of yr. business, it would give me more pain than pleasure if I thought your friendship, or respect for me did, in the smallest degree, interfere with it. At all times I shall be happy to see you, but wish it to be in your moments of leizure, if any such you have.
Mrs. Washington, myself and family, will have the honor of dining with you in the way proposed, to morrow, being Christmas day. I am etc.”
To david Humphreys: “Peace and tranquillity prevail in this State. The Assembly by a very great majority, and in very emphatical terms, have rejected an application for paper money, and spurned the idea of fixing the value of military Certificates by a scale of depreciation. In some other respects too the proceedings of the present Session have been marked with justice and a strong desire of supporting the foederal system. Altho’ I lament the effect, I am pleased at the cause which has deprived us of the pleasure of your aid in the attack of Christmas pies: we had one yesterday on which all the company, tho’ pretty numerous, were hardly able to make an impression. Mrs. Washington and George and his wife (Mr. Lear I had occasion to send to the Western Country) join in affectione regards for you, and with sentiments, WGW, vol. 29 12-26-1786.
To John Bannister, April 21, 1778. vol. 11in general cases, any of the ties, the concerns or interests of Citizens or any other dependence, than what flowed from their Military employ; in short, from their being Mercenaries; hirelings. It is our policy to be prejudiced against them in time of War; and though they are Citizens having all the Ties, and interests of Citizens, and in most cases property totally unconnected with the Military Line. If we would pursue a right System of policy, in my Opinion, there should be none of these distinctions. We should all be considered, Congress, Army, &c. as one people, embarked in one Cause, in one interest; acting on the same principle and to the same End. The distinction, the Jealousies set up, or perhaps only incautiously let out, can answer not a single good purpose. They are impolitic in the extreme. Among Individuals, the most certain way to make a Man your Enemy, is to tell him, you esteem him such; so with public bodies; and the very jealousy, which the narrow politics of some may affect to entertain of the Army, in order to a due subordination to the supreme Civil Authority, is a likely mean to produce a contrary effect; to incline it to the pursuit of those measures which that may wish it to avoid. It is unjust, because no Order of Men in the thirteen States have paid a more sanctimonious regard to their proceedings than the Army; and, indeed, it may be questioned, whether there has been that scrupulus adherence had to them by any other, [for without arrogance, or the smallest deviation from truth it may be said, that no history, now extant, can furnish an instance of an Army’s suffering such uncommon hardships as ours have done, and bearing them with the same patience and Fortitude. To see Men without Cloathes to cover their nakedness, without Blankets to lay on, without Shoes, by which their Marches might be traced by the Blood from their feet, and almost as often without Provisions as with; Marching through frost and Snow, and at Christmas taking up their Winter Quarters within a day’s March of the enemy, without a House or Hurt to cover them till they could be built and submitting to it without a murmur, is a mark of patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarce be parallel’d.
40 See Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion p. 242, pp. 93-94 as an example. “Charles Moore, who traced these 110 Maxims back through various English and French versions to the sixteenth century in his 1931 book on the subject, rightly summed up the long-held view on the subject: ‘These maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.’”
41 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a.George Washington, Forms of Writing, and “The Rules of Civility” and “Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,” ante 17: http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1a/gwpage001.db&recNum=26: George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a. George Washington, Forms of Writing, and “The Rules of Civility” and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, ante 1747; http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage (pages 24 and 36)
42 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, pp 361-365; For a contemporary take, see : George Washington, Georgeisms (New York: Atheneum Books for young Readers, 2000)
43 William H. Wilbur, The Making of George Washington (Caldwell: Caxton Printers, 1970 & 1973), p. 107.
44 Ibid., pp. 113-118.
45 WGW, vol. 28, 6-30-1786; 37, 4-25-1799.
46 Kitman, The Making of the President, p. 108
47 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 94.
48 Sawyer, Washington, vol. I. p. 109.
49 Mather, The Young Man’s Companion, p. 310
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., p. 5b.
52 See images from: George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a, George Washington, Forms of Writing, and “The Rules of Civility” and “ Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,” ante 1747.
53 Image 9 in George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 1a, George Washington, Forms of Writing, and “ The Rules of Civility” and “Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, ante 1747
54 Appleton P.C. Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum (Cambridge: University Press 1897), p. 554-555.
55 Ibid., p. 554-555.
56 Ibid., p. 554.
57 Francis Osborn, Advice to a Son or Directions for Your Better Conduct through the various and most important Encounters of this Life. (Oxford: H.H. for Tho: Robinson, 1658) p. 148.
58 Ibid., p. 157.
59 Ibid., p. 162.
60 James Hervey, Meditations and Contemplations (London: J. Walker & Co., 1816), A facsimile of the title page of Hervey’s work which Mary Washington signed four times can be seen in Joseph Dillaway Sawyer, Washington (New York: MacMillian, 1927), vol. I p. 56 and the history of the book’s sale listed in Appleton P.C. Griffin, A Catalogue of the Washington Collection in The Boston Athenaeum (Cambridge: University Press 1897), p. 503.
61 Joseph Dillaway Sawyer, Washington (New York: MacMillian, 1927), vol. I, p.57; Benson J. Lossing, Mary and Martha: The Mother and Wife of George Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886), p. 28.
62 James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1858) vol. I. 24.
63 Ibid., vol. 24-25.
64 Ibid., vol. 25.; Verna M. and Dorothy Dimmick Hall Comp. and Ed. George Washington: The Character and Influence of One Man (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1999), pp. 125-143 prints “The Great Audit” in full, this can be found in Sir Matthew Hale, Contemplations Moral and Divine (London: William Shrowsbery at the Bible in Duke-Lane, and John Leigh at Stationers-Hall, 1685) vol. 1 pp. 271-276.
65 Paulding, A Life of Washington, vol. I p. 31. Sir Matthew Hale, Contemplations Moral and Divine (London: William Shrowsbery at the Bible in Duke-Lane, and John Leigh at Stationers-Hall, 1685), I. 315.
66 The listing of the articles written by Chief-Justice Hale reveal the biblical character of his thought:
Of the Consideration of our Latter End, and the Benefits of it.—Duet. 32:29.
Of Wisdom and the Fear of God, That that is true Wisdom—Job 27:28.
Of the Knowledge of Christ Crucified—1 Cor. 2:2.
The Victory of Faith over the Word—1 John 5:4
Of Humility—Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5
Jacob’s Vow—Gen. 28:20-21
Of Contentation—Phil. 4:11
Of Afflictions—Job 5:6-7
A good Method to entertain unstable and troublesome times
Changes and Troubles: A Poem
Of the Redemption of time—
The Great Audit, with the Account of the Good Steward
Directions touching the Keeping of the Lord’s Day, Letter to his Children
Poems upon Christmas Day
An Inquiry touch Happiness
Of the Chief End of Man
Upon Eccles. 12:1, Remember thy Creator
Upon Psalm 51:10
The Folly and Mischief of Sin
Of Self-Denial
Motives to Watchfulness, in reference to the Good and Evil Angels
Of Moderation of the Affections
Of Worldly Hope, and Expectation
Upon Hebrews 13:14; We have here no continuing City
Of Contentedness and Patience
Of Moderation of Anger
A Preparative against Afflictions
Of Submission, Prayer, and Thanksgiving
Of Prayer, and Thanksgiving, on Psalm 116:12
Meditations upon the Lord’s Prayer
A Paraphrase upon the Lord’s Prayer.
Sir Matthew Hale, Contemplations Moral and Divine (London: William Shrowsbery at the Bible in Duke-Lane, and John Leigh at Stationers-Hall, 1685)
67 Ibid., p. 94.
68 Stephen DeCatur, Private Affairs of George Washington From the Records and Accounts of Tobias Leer, Esquire, His Secretary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1933), p. 90.
1 WGW, vol. 28, 8-18-1786.
2 Paul M. Zall, Washington on Washington (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), pp. 9-23.
3 Saul K. Padover, ed. The Washington Papers, (Harper Brothers, 1955)
4 Benson Lossing, Mary and Martha, p. 304
5 William Johnson, George Washington the Christian (Arlington Heights: Christian Liberty Press, 1919), p. 247.
6 Ibid., p. 247.
7 WGW, vol. 29, 3-26-1788.
8 Jackson and Twohig, ed, The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 5 [July 1788] The Diary entry for Tuesday July 29, 1788, says, “A Mr. Vender Kemp—a Dutch Gentn. who had suffered by the troubles in Holland and who was introduced to me by the Marquis de la Fayette came here to Dinner.” The note provided therein says, “Francis Adrian Van der Kemp (1752-1829), Dutch soldier, scholar, and Mennonite minister, had been imprisoned in his homeland during a part of the previous year for revolutionary activities connected with the Patriot party, a group of Dutch liberals who wished to implement the republican ideals of the American Revolution in their country. Upon being freed in December, Van der Kemp found himself much reduced in fortune and faced with further political repression in the Netherlands. For some time he had thought of going to America to become a farmer, and in Mar. 1788 he sailed with his wife and children for New York. To ease his way, Dutch friends obtained for him several letters of introduction to prominent Americans, including a letter from Lafayette to GW (6 Mar. 1788, PEL). Soon after his arrival in New York on 4 May, Van der Kemp dispatched the letters to their intended recipients (Van der Kemp to GW, 15 May 1788, DLC:GW). GW’s reply of 28 May contained a cordial invitation to visit Mount Vernon when convenient, an invitation that Van der Kemp could not decline, having a great desire “to know that man, to whom America so much was indebted for her liberty. Van der Kemp became an American citizen in 1789 and lived the remainder of his life in upstate New York farming and pursuing his scholarly interests.
9 WGW, vol. 35, 7-15-1796 has the following quote from an extract of Benjamin H. Latrobe’s diary, July 16, 1796, describing his visit to Mount Vernon: “The President came to me. He was dressed in a plain blue coat, his hair dressed and powdered. There was a reserve, but no hauteur, in his manner.… Washington has something uncommonly commanding and majestic in his walk, his address his figure and his countenance, His face is characterised by more intense and powerful thought than by quick and fiery conception. There is a mildness about his expression and an air of reserve in his manner covers its tone still more. He is about 64 but appears some years younger, and has sufficient apparent signs to his many years. He was sometimes entirely silent for many minutes, during which time an awkwardness seemed to prevail in every one present. His answers were sometimes short and approached to moroseness. He did not, at anytime, speak with any remarkable fluency. Perhaps the extreme correctness of his language which almost seemed studied produced this effect. He appeared to enjoy a humorous observation and made several himself. He laughed heartily some times and in a very good humored manner. On the morning of my departure he treated me as if I had lived years in his house with ease and attention. But in general I thought there was a slight air of moroseness about him as if something had vexed him.” The original of this extract by J. H. B. Latrobe was made for President Hayes in November, 1878, and is now in the Hayes Memorial Library, Fremont, Ohio.
10 The Journal of William Maclay: United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791 (New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1927), p. 364. Maclay’s unflattering comments from his 1791 journal states, “I have now, however, seen him for the last time, perhaps. Let me take a review of him as he really is. In stature about six feet, with an unexceptionable make, but lax appearance. His frame would seem to want filling up. His motions rather slow than lively, though he showed no signs of having suffered by gout or rheumatism. His complexion pale, nay, almost cadaverous. His voice hallow and indistinct, owing, as I believe, to artificial teeth before his upper jaw, which occasioned a flatness of—[The following leaf, on which the rest of this description was written, has been torn out and is lost.]”
11 Custis, Recollections, p. 175. This incident adds a fair amount of incredibility to Gouverneur Morris’ claim that he knew Washington well, and so was able to declare that Washington was not a believer. Paul Boller, George Washington and Religion, p. 85, writes, “‘I know,’ Jefferson had written, in concluding his entry, ‘that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.” Washington did write to the French later recommending the virtues of Morris to the French. See two letters written on the same date, one to Marquis de Chastellux and the other to Joseph Mandrillon, WGW, vol. 30, 11-27-1788.
12 Jackson and Twohig, ed, The Diaries of George Washington. vol. 4. The diary entry for Thursday May 26, 1785, says, “Upon my return Found Mr. Magowan, and a Doctr. Coke & a Mr. Asbury here—-the two last Methodest Preachers recommended by Genl. Roberdeau—-the same who were expected yesterday… After Dinner Mr. Coke & Mr. Asbury went away.” The note provided therein says, “Thomas Coke (1747—1814) and Francis Asbury (1745—1816) were sent to America by John Wesley as missionaries to superintend the Methodist movement in this country. Asbury came shortly before the Revolution and Coke in 1784. They were at Mount Vernon to ask GW to sign an antislavery petition which was to be presented to the Virginia legislature. Coke later wrote that GW informed them that “he was of our sentiments, and had signified his thoughts on the subject to most of the great men of the State: that he did not see it proper to sign the petition, but if the Assembly took it into consideration, would signify his sentiments to the Assembly by a letter”
13 Elmer T. Clark, ed., The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury in 3 Volumes (Nashville: Abingdon Press 1958) vol. 1, p. 489.
14. Journals of Dr. Thomas Coke (London, G. Paramore 1793.)
15 Just about four years later on May 29, 1789, in New York, Bishops Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury wrote a letter on behalf of the Methodist-Episcopal church. Their letter of congratulations to the new president expressed “the warm feelings of [their] hearts” but also thanked Washington for his dependence upon God. George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, image 41, image 42. Coke and Asbury wrote as the Methodist Episcopal Bishops to George Washington on May 29, 1789, “We have received the most grateful satisfaction, from the humble and entire dependence on the Great Governor of the universe which you have repeatedly expressed, acknowledging him the source of every blessing, and particularly of the most excellent constitution of these states, which is at present the admiration of the world, and may in future become its great exemplar for imitation: and hence we enjoy a holy expectation that you will always prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital religion—the grand end of our creation and present probationary existence. And we promise you our fervent prayers to the throne of grace, that God Almighty may endue you with all the graces and gifts of his Holy Spirit, that may enable you to fill up your important station to his glory, the good of his church, the happiness and prosperity of the United States, and the welfare of mankind.” This letter makes it clear that Coke had not ceased praying for Washington for the gift of the “witness of the Spirit.” Washington responded on the same day with his written answer, and his words imply that he was not only pleased with their prayer but promised to reciprocate: “…I hope, by the assistance of the Divine Providence, not altogether to disappoint the confidence which you have been pleased to repose in me. It always affords me satisfaction when I find a concurrence of sentiment and practice between all conscientious men, in acknowledgments of homage to the great Governor of the universe, and in professions of support to a just civil government. After mentioning that I trust the people of every denomination who demean themselves as good citizens will have occasion to be convinced that I shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine vital religion, I must assure you, in particular, that I take in the kindest part the promise you make of presenting your prayers to the throne of grace for me; and that I likewise implore the Divine benediction on yourselves and your religious community.” It seems that Coke and Washington had made a true spiritual connection after all. When Washington died in 1799, Francis Asbury wrote in his journal, “Washington, the calm, intrepid chief, the disinterested friend, first father, and temporal saviour of his country, under divine protection and direction.. . . the expressions of sorrow. . . the marks of respect paid by his fellow-citizens to this great man. I am disposed to lose sight of all but Washington. Matchless man! At all times he acknowledged the providence of God, and never was he ashamed of his Redeemer. We believe he died not fearing death. . . .”
16 Paul M. Zall, Washington on Washington (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), p. 12.
17 WGW, vol. 3 6-16-1775.
18 Honor was so important to Washington that he chose not to receive any pay for his services to our country during the war. After the war, he reminded his fellow Virginian, Patrick Henry, of his continuing commitment to this practice in a letter in 1785: “When I was first called to the station, with which I was honored during the late conflict for our liberties . . . I thought it my duty to . . . shut my hand against every pecuniary recompense. To this resolution I have invariably adhered, and from it, if I had the inclination, I do not feel at liberty now to depart.” WGW, vol. 28, 10-29-1785. Instead of pecuniary compensation, Washington sought the approval of his country through his humble service: “The approbation of my country is what I wish; and, as far as my abilities and opportunities will permit, I hope I shall endeavor to deserve it. It is the highest reward to a feeing mind; and happy are they, who so conduct themselves as to merit it.” WGW, vol. 11, 3-28-1778.
19 WGW, vol. 2, 7-20-1758 states, “A granddaughter of Mrs. Washington is authority for the statement that Martha Washington, shortly before her death, destroyed the letters that passed between George Washington and herself.” Washington refers to Providence in the only two known letters from Washington to his wife Martha that have survived. Emphasis is added to the relevant lines. The first letter is WGW, vol. 3, 6-18-1775. Washington wrote, “My Dearest: I am now set down to write to you on a subject, which fills me with inexpressible concern, and this concern is greatly aggravated and increased, when I reflect upon the uneasiness I know it will give you. It has been determined in Congress, that the whole army raised for the defence of the American cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take upon me the command of it. You may believe me, my dear Patsy, when I assure you, in the most solemn manner that, so far from seeking this appointment, I have used every endeavor in my power to avoid it, not only from my unwillingness to part with you and the family, but from a consciousness of its being a trust too great for my capacity, and that I should enjoy more real happiness in one month with you at home, than I have the most distant prospect of finding abroad, if my stay were to be seven times seven years. But as it has been a kind of destiny, that has thrown me upon this service, I shall hope that my undertaking it is designed to answer some good purpose. You might, and I suppose did perceive, from the tenor of my letters, that I was apprehensive I could not avoid this appointment, as I did not pretend to intimate when I should return. That was the case. It was utterly out of my power to refuse this appointment, without exposing my character to such censures, as would have reflected dishonor upon myself, and given pain to my friends. This, I am sure, could not, and ought not, to be pleasing to you, and must have lessened me considerably in my own esteem. I shall rely, therefore, confidently on that Providence, which has heretofore preserved and been bountiful to me, not doubting but that I shall return safe to you in the fall. I shall feel no pain from the toil or the danger of the campaign; my unhappiness will flow from the uneasiness I know you will feel from being left alone. I therefore beg, that you will summon your whole fortitude, and pass your time as agreeably as possible. Nothing will give me so much sincere satisfaction as to hear this, and to hear it from your own pen. My earnest and ardent desire is, that you would pursue any plan that is most likely to produce content, and a tolerable degree of tranquility; as it must add greatly to my uneasy feelings to hear, that you are dissatisfied or complaining at what I really could not avoid. As life is always uncertain, and common prudence dictates to every man the necessity of settling his temporal concerns, while it is in his power, and while the mind is calm and undisturbed, I have, since I came to this place (for I had not time to do it before I left home) got Colonel Pendleton to draft a will for me, by the directions I gave him, which will I now enclose. The provision made for you in case of my death will, I hope, be agreeable. I shall add nothing more, as I have several letters to write, but to desire that you will remember me to your friends, and to assure you that I am, with the most unfeigned regard, my dear Patsy, your affectionate, &c.” The second letter is WGW, vol. 2, 7-20-1758. Washington wrote to Martha, “We have begun our march for the Ohio. A courier is starting for Williamsburg, and I embrace the opportunity to send a few words to one whose life is now inseparable from mine. Since that happy hour when we made our pledges to each other, my thoughts have been continually going to you as another Self. That an all-powerful Providence may keep us both in safety is the prayer of your ever faithful and affectionate friend.”
20 WGW, vol. 6. 12-20-1776.
21 Ibid., vol. 3, 6-20-1775.
22 Zall, Washington on Washington, p. 10.
23 Ibid., p. 10.
24 Ibid., p. 16, James Hutton, ed., Letters and Correspondence of Sir James Bland Burges (London: John Murray, 1855).
25 WGW, vol. 37 1-27-1799.
26 Ibid., vol. 26, 1-15-1783.
27 Ibid., vol. 2, 4-5-1758.
28 Sparks, Writings of George Washington, vol. 12, p. 405-408.
29 WGW, vol. 17, 12-15-1779.
30 Ibid., vol. 37, 1-15-1799.
31 Ibid., vol. 36, 12-21-97. In his “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs, Washington said, “Brothers: I am a Warrior. My words are few and plain; but I will make good what I say.” WGW, vol. 15, 5-12-1779. Writing to Richard Henry Lee, however, Washington was forced to explain his words: “Dear Sir: By your favor of the 22d ultimo, I perceive my letter of the 17th has been expressed in too strong terms. I did not mean by the words, “to get rid of importunity,” to cast the smallest reflection; indeed the hurry with which I am obliged to write the few private letters I attempt, will not allow me to consider the force and tendency of my words; nor should I have been surprised, if the fact had really been so, if I am to judge of their, I mean foreigners’ applications to Congress, by those to myself; for it is not one, nor twenty explanations, that will satisfy the cravings of these people’s demands.” WGW, vol. 8, 6-1-1777. But Washington’s deeds were sometimes misunderstood as well: “Conscious that it is the aim of my actions to promote the public good, and that no part of my conduct is influenced by personal enmity to individuals, I cannot be insensible to the artifices employed by some men to prejudice me in the public esteem.” WGW, vol. 1, 4-14-1779.
32 Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 51.
33 On the western frontier, somewhere in the wilderness of Pennsylvania, Colonel George Washington, barely in his twenties, led an expedition on behalf of the British Governor of Virginia to counter the claims of the French. The Indians were on both sides of this conflict between Britain and France, concerning the possession and control of North America. He and his men, including several Indians, came across a hidden French military encampment. They opened fire killing and captured several French soldiers. To Washington, they were intruders and spies. The French, however, claimed they were a diplomatic military escort simply protecting an unarmed French ambassador who was one of the killed. This was the incident that triggered the French and Indian War. Without this shot by Washington, “the shot heard round the world” at the “rude bridge” of Lexington and Concord may not have been fired. The French retaliated with a larger force and forced Washington and his men to surrender, after a battle at Washington’s hastily built Fort Necessity. As part of the terms of surrender Washington, who did not read French at all with the assistance of his translator who did not read French well enough, signed a French document in which he unwittingly confessed to having “assassinated” the ambassador! This agreement of capitulation was later called “the most infamous a British Subject ever put his Hand to.” The French never forgave the British for this “outrage.” Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997), p. 103ff.
34 Ibid., p. 107.
35 WGW, vol. 1, 5-31-1754 Washington wrote to John Augustine Washington, “ Since my last arrived at this place, where three days ago we had an engagement with the French, that is, a party of our men with one of theirs. Most of our men were out upon other detachments, so that I had scarcely 40 men remaining under my command, and about 10 or 12 Indians; nevertheless we obtained a most signal victory. The battle lasted about 10 or 15 minutes, with sharp firing on both sides, till the French gave ground and ran, but to no great purpose. There were 12 killed of the French, among whom was Mons. de Jumonville, their commander, and 21 taken prisoners, among whom are Mess. La Force and Drouillon, together with two cadets. I have sent them to his honour the Governor, at Winchester, under a guard of 20 men, conducted by Lieutenant West. We had but one man killed, and two or three wounded. Among the wounded on our side was Lieutenant Waggener, but no danger, it is hoped, will ensue. We expect every hour to be attacked by superior force, but, if they forbear one day longer, we shall be prepared for them. We have already got entrenchments, are about a pallisado which I hope will be finished to-day. The Mingoes have struck the French and I hope will give a good blow before they have done. I expect 40 odd of them here tonight, which, with out fort and some reinforcements from Col. Fry, will enable us to exert our noble courage with spirit. P.S. I fortunately escaped without any wound, for the right wing, where I stood, was exposed to and received all the enemy’s fire, and it was the part where the man was killed, and the rest wounded. I heard the bullets whistle, and, believe me, there is something charming in the sound. WGW Note: “From the London Magazine (August, 1754). Horace Walpole’s Memoirs of George the Second relates that the King, on hearing that Washington described the sound of whistling bullets as ‘charming,’ said: ‘He would not say so, if he had been used to hear many.’”
36 Zall, Washington on Washington, p. 11.
37 The spurious letters were in essence forged letters intended to weaken Washington by damaging his character. WGW, vol. 5, 6-12-1776. Note: “The first of the “Spurious Letters.” They were published in London in 1776 by J. Bew in a small pamphlet under the title of “Letters from General Washington, to several of his Friends in the year 1776,” etc. Handbills of one of the letters therefrom to Mrs. Washington were struck off by Rivington, in New York, as soon as the pamphlet reached America. A photostat copy of one of these bills is in the Library of Congress (Manuscripts Division). A complete reprint of the London pamphlet was also issued in America in 1778, and Hildeburn claims it as a Philadelphia imprint. The letters were plainly political propaganda put out by the London publisher, as much, it seems, for profit as for mischief-making, though the influences behind the move have not been traced. In America the reprint was made in the hope of creating discord between the New England and Southern Colonies. Washington attributed them to John Randolph, the last royalist attorney general of Virginia. The English magazines of 1776 expressed doubt of the authenticity of the letters and their hoped-for effect fell flat. In 1796 these letters were printed again, in New York, under the title “Epistles, Domestic, Confidential and Glacial from General Washington,” to injure Washington’s political standing, and he then took the trouble to refute their authenticity in a letter to Timothy Pickering, pointing out their discrepancies at some length. (See Mar. 3, 1797, post.)”
38 WGW, vol. 21, 3-26-1781.
39 Ibid., vol. 27, 3-25-1784.
40 Ibid., vol. 32, 5-20-1792. Madison’s notes of these conversations, May 5 and 9, are in the Madison Papers in the Library of Congress. They are printed in Victor Hugo Paltsits’s, Washington’s Farewell Address (New York Public Library: 1935).
41 David Humphreys, Life of General Washington with George Washington’s “Remarks” (London: The University of George Press, 1991).
42 WGW, vol. 28, 7-25-1785.
43 WGW, vol. 28, 8-18-1786.
44 Zall, Washington on Washington, p. 13.
45 Ibid., p. 13.
46 Jackson and Twohig, ed, The Diaries of George Washington, Volume 5, November, Sunday 8th, 1789. “It being contrary to Law & disagreeable to the People of this State (Connecticut) to travel on the Sabbath day and my horses after passing through such intolerable Roads wanting rest, I stayed at Perkins’s Tavern (which by the bye is not a good one) all day—-and a meeting House being with in a few rod of the Door, I attended Morning & evening Service, and heard very lame discourses from a Mr. Pond.
1 GW correctly interpreted New England attitudes toward travel on the Sabbath. The Pennsylvania Packet, 3 Nov. 1789, noted with approval that Tristram Dalton and John Adams, on their way to Boston, broke their journey at Springfield in order not to travel on Sunday. “How pleasing the idea, that the most venerable and respectable characters of our Federal Legislature, pay such strict attention to the Sabbath.” See also Mass. Centinel, 24 Oct. 1789.
47 Jackson and Twohig, ed, The Diaries of George Washington, Friday Feb. 15th, 1760. “Went to a Ball at Alexandria—where Musick and Dancing was the chief Entertainment. However in a convenient Room detachd for the purpose abounded great plenty of Bread and Butter, some Biscuets with Tea, & Coffee which the Drinkers of coud not Distinguish from Hot water sweetned. Be it remembered that pocket handkerchiefs servd the purposes of Table Cloths & Napkins and that no Apologies were made for either. I shall therefore distinguish this Ball by the Stile & title of the Bread & Butter Ball.” Editors add additional note: “The Proprietors of this Ball were Messrs. Carlyle Laurie & Robt. Wilson, but the Doctr. not getting it conducted agreeable to his own taste woud claim no share of the merit of it. A man named Robert Wilson voted for GW in the 1758 Frederick County election for the House of Burgesses. GW apparently played cards at the ball, because on the following day he recorded the loss of 7s. ‘By Cards’”
48 Zall, Washington on Washington, pp. 13-14.
49 WGW, vol. 1, 7-18-1755.
50 Washington humorously criticizes a family member for missing church due to having a baby by using Christian language. WGW, vol. 37, 8-28-1762. Writing to Burwell Bassett on August 28, 1762, Washington writes with tongue in cheek, “ Dear Sir: I was favoured with your Epistle wrote on a certain 25th of July when you ought to have been at Church, praying as becomes every good Christian Man who has as much to answer for as you have; strange it is that you will be so blind to truth that the enlightning sounds of the Gospel cannot reach your Ear, nor no Examples awaken you to a sense of Goodness; could you but behold with what religious zeal I hye me to Church on every Lords day, it would do your heart good, and fill it I hope with equal fervency; but heark’ee; I am told you have lately introduced into your Family, a certain production which you are lost in admiration of, and spend so much time in contemplating the just proportion of its parts, the ease, and conveniences with which it abounds, that it is thought you will have little time to animadvert upon the prospect of your crops &c; pray how will this be reconciled to that anxious care and vigilance, which is so escencially necessary at a time when our growing Property, meaning the Tobacco, is assailed by every villainous worm that has had an existence since the days of Noah (how unkind it was of Noah now I have mentioned his name to suffer such a brood of vermin to get a birth in the Ark) but perhaps you may be as well of as we are; that is, have no Tobacco for them to eat and there I think we nicked the Dogs, as I think to do you if you expect any more; but not without a full assurance of being with a very sincere regard etc.”
Washington humorously writes a thank you note for a poem written in his honor by taking on the role of a spiritual confessor. WGW, vol. 27, 9-2-1783. Washington laughingly writes to Mrs. Annis Boucinot Stockton, “You apply to me, My dear Madam, for absolution as tho’ I was your father Confessor; and as tho’ you had committed a crime, great in itself, yet of the venial class You have reason good, for I find myself strangely disposed to be a very indulgent ghostly Adviser on this occasion; and, notwithstanding “you are the most offending Soul alive” (that is, if it is a crime to write elegant Poetry) yet if you will come and dine with me on Thursday and go through the proper course of penitence, which shall be prescribed, I will strive hard to assist you in expiating these poetical trespasses on this side of purgatory. Nay more, if it rests with me to direct your future lucubrations, I shall certainly urge you to a repetition of the same conduct, on purpose to shew what an admirable knack you have at confession and reformation; and so, without more hesitation, I shall venture to command the Muse not to be restrained by ill-grounded timidity, but to go on and prosper.
“You see Madam, when once the Woman has tempted us and we have tasted the forbidden fruit, there is no such thing as checking our appetites, whatever the consequences may be. You will I dare say, recognize our being the genuine Descendents of those who are reputed to be our great Progenitors.
“Before I come to the more serious Conclusion of my Letter, I must beg leave to say a word or two about these Fine things you have been telling in such harmonious and beautiful Numbers. Fiction is to be sure the very life and Soul of Poetry. All Poets and Poetesses have been indulged in the free and indisputable use of it, time out of Mind. And to oblige you to make such an excellent Poem, on such a subject, without any Materials but those of simple reality, would be as cruel as the Edict of Pharaoh which compelled the Children of Israel to Manufacture Bricks without the necessary Ingredients. Thus are you sheltered under the authority of prescription, and I will not dare to charge you with an intentional breach of the Rules of the decalogue in giving so bright a colouring to the services I have been enabled to render my Country; though I am not conscious of deserving any thing more at your hands, than what the purest and most disinterested friendship has a right to claim; actuated by which, you will permit me, to thank you in the most affectionate manner for the kind wishes you have so happily expressed for me and the partner of all my Domestic enjoyments.”
51 Washington humorously describes the very different world of a retired president laboring as a farmer than that of a busy Secretary of War. WGW, vol. 35, to the Secretary of War on May 29, 1797 “Dear Sir: I am indebted to you for several unacknowledged letters; but ne’er mind that; go on as if you had them. You are at the source of information, and can find many things to relate; while I have nothing to say, that could either inform or amuse a Secretary of War in Philadelphia.
“I might tell him that I begin my diurnal course with the Sun; that if my hirelings are not in their places at that time I send them messages expressive of my sorrow for their indisposition; then having put these wheels in motion, I examine the state of things further; and the more they are probed, the deeper I find the wounds are which my buildings have sustained by an absence and neglect of eight years; by the time I have accomplished these matters, breakfast (a little after seven Oclock, about the time I presume you are taking leave of Mrs. McHenry) is ready. This over, I mount my horse and ride round my farms, which employs me until it is time to dress for dinner; at which I rarely miss seeing strange faces; come, as they say, out of respect to me. Pray, would not the word curiosity answer as well? and how different this, from having a few social friends at a cheerful board? The usual time of sitting at Table; a walk, and Tea, brings me within the dawn of Candlelight; previous to which, if not prevented by company, I resolve, that, as soon as the glimmering taper, supplies the place of the great luminary, I will retire to my writing Table and acknowledge the letters I have received; but when the lights are brought, I feel tired, and disinclined to engage in this work, conceiving that the next night will do as well: the next comes and with it the same causes for postponement, and effect, and so on.
“This will account for your letter remaining so long unacknowledged; and having given you the history of a day, it will serve for a year; and I am persuaded you will not require a second edition of it: but it may strike you, that in this detail no mention is made of any portion of time allotted for reading; the remark would be just, for I have not looked into a book since I came home, nor shall I be able to do it until I have discharged my Workmen; probably not before the nights grow longer; when possibly, I may be looking in doomsday book. On the score of the plated ware in your possession I will say something in a future letter. At present I shall only add, that I am always and affectionately yours.”
52 Zall, Washington on Washington, pp. 12.
53 Saul K. Padover, ed. The Washington Papers (Harper Brothers, 1955), p. 3.
54 WGW, vol. 26, 4-18-1783.
55 Ibid., Note in vol. 26, 4-18-1783, quoting Heath’s Memories.
56 Ibid., vol. 11, 4-21-1788.
57 Washington’s writings use the words passion and passions nearly ninety times. For the following, see above, note 35 In his Speech “To the Officers of the Army”, he wrote, “In the moment of this Summons, another anonymous production was sent into circulation, addressed more to the feelings and passions, than to the reason and judgment of the Army.” “…the secret mover of this Scheme (whoever he may be) intended to take advantage of the passions, while they were warmed by the recollection of past distresses….”
58 In a subsequent chapter, we will address objections to Washington’s Christianity. This will deal with in part the question of his attitudes toward swearing and sexual ethics.
59 John E. Ferling: The First of Men, (The University of Tennessee Press, 1988) pp. 84-85.
60 Padover, The Washington Papers, p. 2 and beyond.
61 G.W.P. Custis writes of the events at Monmouth, “… by Lee’s order, a general retreat commenced, without any apparent cause. The British pursued; a panic seized the Americans, and they fled in great confusion. These were the fugitives met by Washington. The chief was surprised and exasperated, and on this occasion, his feelings completely controlled his judgment for a moment. When he met Lee, he exclaimed in fierce tones, “what is the meaning of all this, sir?” Lee hesitated a moment, when, according to Lafayette, the aspect of Washington became terrible, and he again demanded—“I desire to know the meaning of this disorder and confusion!” The fiery Lee, stung by Washington’s manner, made an angry reply, when the chief, unable to control himself, called him “a damned poltroon.” “This,” said Lafayette, when relating the circumstance to Governor Tompkins, in 1824, while on his visit to this country, “was the only time I ever heard General Washington swear.” Lee attempted a hurried explanation, and after a few more angry words between them, Washington departed to form his line….After the battle, Lee wrote insulting letters to Washington. He was arraigned before a court-martial, because of his conduct on the twenty-eighth, and was suspended from all command, for one year.”. Custis, Recollections, pp. 218-19. Washington’s letter to Lee, WGW, vol. 12, 6-30-1778, says: “Sir: I received your Letter (dated thro’ mistake the 1st. of July) expressed as I conceive, in terms highly improper. I am not conscious of having made use of any very singular expressions at the time of my meeting you, as you intimate. What I recollect to have said was dictated by duty and warranted by the occasion. As soon as circumstances will permit, you shall have an opportunity, either of justifying yourself to the army, to Congress, to America, and to the world in General; or of convincing them that you were guilty of a breach of orders and of misbehaviour before the enemy on the 28th. Inst in not attacking them as you had been directed and in making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat.” Note: The phrase, “justifying yourself to the army, to Congress, to America, and to the world in General,” was an exact repetition from Lee’s letter.
62 There is some evidence that Lee, who also had been “captured” by the British earlier in the war, may have been acting as a traitor to the cause. See Benson J. Lossings’ note in Custis, pp. 292-93.
63 Padover, The Washington Papers, p. 2.
64 Zall, Washington on Washington, pp. 17-18.
65 Richard Rush, Washington in Domestic Life, From Original Letters and Manuscripts 1857 (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) p. 65.
66 WGW, vol. 1, 1749-1759. We will address the question of Washington’s alleged passionate interest in Mrs. Sally Fairfax in the Chapter dealing with “Objections to Washington’s Christianity.” See WGW, vol. 2, 9-12-1758. Washington allegedly wrote to Mrs. George William Fairfax, on September 12, 1758, expressing his emotions for her as he was facing another military mission. While Fitzpatrick was not sure it was authentic (see his note at this letter’s date), recent scholars have concluded that it is. (See Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997), p. 179. We will address George Washington’s letter to Sally Fairfax in the chapter on objections to Washington’s Christianity as well as the broader consideration of Washington’s sexual ethics.
67 Ibid., vol. 35, 11-28-1796.
68 In his will, Washington writes, “To my compatriot in arms, and old and intimate friend Doctr. Craik, I give my Bureau (or as the Cabinet makers call it, Tambour Secretary) and the circular chair, an appendage of my Study.”
On July 3, 1789, Washington wrote to James McHenry, “The habits of intimacy and friendship, in which I have long lived with Dr. Craik, and the opinion I have of his professional knowledge, would most certainly point him out as the man of my choice in all cases of sickness. … in justice to Dr. Bard, who has attended me during my late indisposition, declare, that neither skill nor attention has been wanting on his part, and, as I could not have the assistance of my good friend Dr. Craik, I think myself fortunate in having fallen into such good hands.”
69 Washington spoke of “our good friend Colo. Fairfax,” to Robert Carter Nicholas on November 7, 1780, and to the Countess of Huntingdon on February 27, 1785. On October 1, 1777, he had demonstrated his friendship to Bryan Fairfax when he gave him a passport to cross all military lines so he could get to New York and go to England because of his loyalist views. Washington never broke his friendship with Fairfax in spite of their different views. Gen. George Washington wrote out the following passport for his friend…” The bearer hereof Bryan Fairfax, Esqr. together with his son Mr. Thomas Fairfax and their baggage has permission to pass all guards on their way to New York and the Commanding Officer at any advanced post is requested to furnish a Flag and give any other assistance to effect this purpose. Given under my hand, etc.”
70 See WGW, vol. 15, 7-4-1779; WGW, vol. 18, 5-8-1780; WGW, vol. 28, 12-8-1784.
71 Ibid., vol. 29, 5-28-1788: “I embrace you, my dear Count, with all my heart.”
72 Ibid., vol. 24, 8-10-1782, “I look forward with pleasure, to the epocha which will place us as conveniently in one Camp, as we are congenial in our sentiments. I shall embrace you when it happens with the warmth of perfect friendship.” vol. 30, 11-27-1788: “with sincere wishes for the felicity of you and yours, I embrace you, my dear Marqs. and am now, as ever With Sentiments of esteem and Friendship.”
73 Ibid., vol. 27, 12-23-1783. Washington wrote to Baron Steuben from Annapolis finally on the way home to Mount Vernon on December 23, 1783, “I beg you will be convinced, My dear Sir, that I should rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you more essentially than by expressions of regard and affection; but in the meantime, I am perswaded you will not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere friendship and esteem for you. This is the last Letter I shall ever write while I continue in the service of my Country; the hour of my resignation is fixed at twelve this day; after which I shall become a private Citizen on the Banks of the Potomack, where I shall be glad to embrace you, and to testify the great esteem and consideration…”
74 Ibid., vol. 23 9-20-1781. “I hope ere long to have the happiness to embrace you again with the like Cordiality and Sincere Affection, on the Reduction of Lord Cornwallis and his Army, an Event, which I am sure will convey the greatest Pleasure to each of us.”
75 Ibid., vol. 27, 1-14-1784. Washington wrote to David Humphreys on January 14, 1784, “Be assured that there are few things which would give me more pleasure than opportunities of evincing to you the sincerity of my friendship,…I shall hold in pleasing remembrance the friendship and intimacy which has subsisted between us, and shall neglect no opportunity on my part to cultivate and improve them.”
76 WGW, vol. 30, 10-3-1788.
77 WGW, vol. 29, 5-31-1787, Washington wrote to Henry Knox: “…assurances of the sincerest friendship…” Ibid., vol. 30, vol. 4-1-1789, “With best wishes for Mrs. Knox, and sincere friendship for yourself.” Ibid., vol. 36, 7-14-1798, In a “Private and confidential” letter to Alexander Hamilton, he wrote: “my friend General Knox, whom I love and esteem.” Ibid., vol. 36, 9-25-1798, to President John Adams, “With respect to General Knox, I can say with truth, there is no man in the United States with whom I have been in habits of greater intimacy; no one whom I have loved more sincerely, nor any for whom I have had a greater friendship.”
78 Ibid., vol. 37, 12-25-1798.
79 Ibid., vol. 27, 12-1-1783.