This book is dedicated to accurately portraying Washington’s religion by a thorough examination of his own words. Through our studies of the man, we have come to the conclusion that part of the difficulty in understanding his religious views is due to his generally non-disclosing personality, coupled with the deep moral commitments that formed his character. Washington, both by temperament and by his personal principles, was a private man. How then can we accurately assess his personal religious views more than two centuries later?
In this chapter, we will explore Washington’s character and his emphasis on honor. His concern for character and honor contributed to his deep reluctance to speak of himself. Because Washington’s principled silence about himself was coupled with his natural shyness, there is a striking connection between Washington the man and the monument that bears his name—tall, majestic, silent, and seemingly impersonal. But did Washington’s inwardness and typical silence about the beliefs of his heart mean that he did not have a Christian faith? We believe that Washington’s character and personality have been misinterpreted by skeptics and secularists. They claim that his apparent silence on matters of personal religion implies that he did not believe nor live as a Christian. However, we are convinced that to interpret Washington in this way does injustice to the man and is an injustice to his character.
THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT AND ITS SYMBOLIC MESSAGE
It seems to us that the Washington monument is almost as much of a monument to our culture’s view of George Washington as it is to Washington himself. The 555-foot-high obelisk is a fitting symbolic declaration of the profound significance of our founding father. After all, Washington was the single dominating figure of our nation’s creation. But the statue’s towering, faceless height also seems to suggest a transcendent unknowable personality. The highest message of the monument at its very pinnacle declares, “Laus Deo” or “Praise to God!” Yet this lofty message at its crowning height is invisible to all who stand below looking on high. Similarly, the many inner messages of the monument that are found chiseled in stone along the ever-rising stairs, such as, “Search the Scriptures,” “Holiness to the Lord,” “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” are left unread, since the mandated way to the top is by speeding elevator, and the daunting and contemplative walk up the stairs is typically closed. All of this adds to the general ignorance Americans have of George Washington’s character, personality, faith, and values.
But Washington’s seeming unknowability has something to do with his own personality and character as well. Like his monument, he was strikingly attractive and toweringly tall for his day. Yet his quiet, shy, and other-focused demeanor, coupled with his elevated sense of the dignity of rank and office, typically kept his inner thoughts and feelings at a distance from many, if not most of those who occupied his life’s activities. But with careful study, we believe we can uncover a great deal of the heart and soul of the man, even though he has been and continues to be draped with the mantle of an almost impenetrable glory from the past and the calloused indifference of the present. In this book we seek to explore the inner staircase of Washington’s soul. By careful consideration of the many records of his life that he left for posterity, we plan to show that the highest aspirations of his heart were truly intended to offer Laus Deo!
THE PRIMACY OF CHARACTER IN WASHINGTON’S WRITINGS
A careful study of Washington’s use of the word “character” shows that it was profoundly important to his view of human conduct. The word itself appears almost fifteen hundred times in his writings. Even his strenuous critic, Loyalist Reverend Jonathan Boucher, tutor of Washington’s stepson, had to admit that Washington had a respectable character. “I did know Mr. Washington well, and though occasion may call forth traits of character that never could have been discovered in the more sequestered scenes of life, I cannot conceive how he could, otherwise than through the interested representations of party, have ever been spoken of as a great man. He is shy, silent, stern, slow and cautious; but has no quickness of parts, extraordinary penetration, nor an elevated style of thinking. In his moral character he is regular, temperate, strictly just and honest.”3
The breadth of Washington’s use of the word “character” is remarkable. It encompasses the character of officers4 and other army officials,5 militia men,6 prisoners,7 deserters,8 as well as the character of the entire Continental Army.9 It’s clear that to Washington, character mattered.10 His letters touched on the character of those to whom he was writing11 and extended to national character,12 the protection derived from a good character,13 the character of political divisions,14 the character of his employees,15 politicians,16 judges,17 governmental positions,18 and the defense of others from injurious aspersions.19 He addressed character in terms of business partners and business transactions,20 foreign affairs,21 wars,22 and schools.23
His reflections on character also reached to matters of the character of friends,24 of appropriate suitors of his family members,25 and of Christian conduct.26 In this light, one can understand why things that impacted his own character were of deep concern to him as well.27 This is especially well illustrated in his September 21, 1775, letter to Governor Jonathan Trumbull. Gov. Trumbull was also a clergyman. Washington’s response to the Governor shows that he considered one’s public and private character to be inseparable, and that they should both reflect the highest standards:
It gives me real concern to observe...that you should think it Necessary to distinguish between my Personal and Public Character and confine your Esteem to the former.28
After a careful explanation of the military realities facing the American army, Washington ended his letter to the Governor with this ironic conclusion: “I am, with great Esteem and Regard, for both your Personal and Public Character, sir, etc.”29 [emphasis added] As a result of this pointed exchange, Washington and Trumbull became fast friends, with deep, mutual respect for their public and private characters. This was evident when the Reverend Gov. died a few years after the War. Washington wrote to his son Jonathan Trumbull on October 1, 1785:
My dear Sir: ...You know, too well, the sincere respect and regard I entertained for your venerable father’s public and private character, to require assurances of the concern I felt for his death; or of that sympathy in your feelings for the loss of him, which is prompted by friendship.30 (emphasis added)
From his earliest years in the military, Washington had become deeply concerned for the continuity between one’s private and public character, because he believed that a man’s character ultimately made the difference in a crisis. He recognized this from his earliest military command in 1756. In his first command, he wrote to Gov. Robert Dinwiddie explaining, “I have been obliged to suspend Ensign Dekeyser for Misbehavior till your pleasure is known. See the proceedings of the enquiring Court. His Character in many other respects has been infamous.”31 His concern for character became even more apparent in the midst of the many trials of the American Revolution.
A TIME WHEN CHARACTER MATTERED
If there ever was a time when character mattered, it was in Washington’s role in the birth of America. If he had operated with a different set of moral values and a different personal character, America would have had a king or dictator instead of a federal Constitution and representative government.32 Perhaps even worse, America would never have begun at all.
Consider a pivotal incident where Washington’s character changed the direction of America. This occurred at the end of the Revolutionary War, when the American troops were at Newburgh in New York. Although overjoyed with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, the American troops were restive, since they had rarely been paid. Moreover, Congress’ ability to pay in the future was uncertain.
A treacherous solution to this fiscal crisis dawned on some of the officers and insinuated itself into the thinking of others. The army could simply seize power and rule. They had the organized firepower. They could make the great Washington their new King. If Washington were to refuse to accept the crown, the army could stubbornly refuse to disband until they had wrung the guarantees of payment from the impoverished Congress. Either way, the only true barrier to their plan was Washington.
On March 4, 1783, Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton of the looming dangers. He warned of an American civil war between Congress and the Army because of the financial crisis. Congress was even entertaining the idea of disbanding the unpaid Army to save expenses. Washington’s worries and the strength of his own character are both revealed as he reflected on “...the danger that stares us in the face on account of our funds.” In ominous language, he evaluated the solution contemplated by Congress:
Our finances are in so deplorable a state at this time . . . The danger, to which the Army has been exposed, to a political dissolution for want of subsistence, ... no observations are necessary to evince the fatal tendency of such a measure....It would...end in blood. Unhappy situation this! God forbid we should be involved in it.33
The weight of the possibility of yet another war put tremendous strain on Washington and his hope for America’s future.
The predicament in which I stand as Citizen and Soldier, is as critical and delicate as can well be conceived. It has been the Subject of many contemplative hours. The sufferings of a complaining Army on one hand, and the inability of Congress and tardiness of the States on the other, are the forebodings of evil,...but I am not without hope.34
What was Washington’s solution? His plan in the short term “as Soldier” was to prevent a civil war by simply continuing to do the right thing. Then, to truly resolve the problem, “as Citizen” he would seek a just solution for his soldiers from the financially strapped Congress. To do this, he began to call for a stronger and a more united Congress. Washington launched an idea that eventually resulted in the Constitutional Convention that finally met in Philadelphia in 1787.
Be these things as they may, I shall pursue the same steady line of conduct which has governed me hitherto;...the prevailing sentiment in the Army is, that the prospect of compensation for past Services will terminate with the War... for it is clearly my opinion, unless Congress have powers competent to all general purposes, that the distresses we have encountered, the expence we have incurred, and the blood we have spilt in the course of an Eight years war, will avail us nothing.35
Alexander Hamilton knew Washington’s character well. In this context, he had opportunity to express his absolute confidence in Washington’s unwavering character to a gathering of political leaders who were concerned with the growing unrest of the army. In James Madison’s “Note of Debates in the Continental Congress,” February 20th, 1783, Hamilton’s remarks are summarized:
...it was certain that the army had secretly determined not to lay down their arms until due provision and a satisfactory prospect should be afforded on the subject of their pay; ...Mr. Hamilton said that he knew Genl. Washington intimately and perfectly, ...that his virtue his patriotism and firmness would, it might be depended upon, never yield to any dishonorable or disloyal plans into which he might be called; that he would sooner suffer himself to be cut to pieces; that he, (Mr. Hamilton), knowing this to be his true character, wished him to be the conductor of the army in their plans for redress, in order that they might be moderated and directed to proper objects, and exclude some other leader who might foment and misguide their councils;36
WASHINGTON’S EPIC-MAKING SPEECH “TO THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY”
Washington recognized the possibility of a military coup and of the anonymously called meeting of the officers. But he chose not to attend. Instead, Washington called his own meeting, where he gave one of the most important speeches he ever delivered. As the meeting of his officers began, a few simple words and gestures began to melt their hardened hearts of protest. Col. David Cobb recounted the scene:
When the General took his station in the desk or pulpit, which you may recollect, was in the Temple, he took out his written address from his coat pocket, and his spectacles, with his other hand, from his waistcoat pocket, and then addressed the officers in the following manner: “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country.”; This little address, with the mode and manner of delivering it drew tears from [many] of the officers.37
Washington’s March 15, 1783, speech was simply entitled, “To the Officers of the Army.” By his words of moral leadership and example of uncompromising character, Washington simultaneously gave birth to the American tradition of the peaceful transition of power and a civilian-led military. Bespectacled Washington reasoned:
Gentlemen: By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety! how unmilitary! and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the Army decide. 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 Address is drawn with great Art,...it is calculated to impress the Mind, with an idea of premeditated injustice in the Sovereign power of the United States, and rouse all those resentments which must unavoidably flow from such a belief....to take advantage of the passions, while they were warmed by the recollection of past distresses,...this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our Country in the extremest hour of her distress, or turning our Arms against it, has something so shocking in it, that humanity revolts at the idea....Can he be a friend to the Army? Can he be a friend to this Country? Rather, is he not an insidious Foe?38
Having exposed the treachery of the plan in view, Washington pledged himself to the cause of justice on behalf of the army:
... the sincere affection I feel for an Army, I have so long had the honor to Command, will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of compleat justice for all your toils and dangers, ...you may freely command my Services to the utmost of my abilities.39
In conclusion, Washington appealed to the lofty nobility of human conduct, when it is marked by the best of human character:
...let me entreat you, Gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; ...to express your utmost horror and detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our Country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood. By thus determining, and thus acting, ...You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings; And you will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, ‘had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”40
Had Washington not been the soldier of honor and the citizen of character that he was, “the world would had never seen the last stage” of personal and public leadership “to which human nature is capable of attaining.” Given Washington’s commitment to a character of moral integrity, we can understand why he strove to be characterized as a man of truth and honesty.
CHARACTER EXPRESSED BY HONESTY AND HONOR
Honesty, truth, and candor were important values to Washington, as we have already emphasized previously. As a young military officer writing to the Earl of Loudoun, in March 1757, he had described himself as without “guile.”
Do not think, my Lord, that I am going to flatter; notwithstanding I have exalted sentiments of your Lordship’s character and respect your rank, it is not my intention to adulate. My nature is open and honest and free from guile.41
As a man “free from guile,” truth was foundational to Washington throughout his life. As President, nearly forty years later in a letter on July 31, 1795, he declared to Secretary of State Edmund Randolph:
It is not to be inferred from hence that I am, or shall be disposed to quit the ground I have taken, unless circumstances more imperious than have yet come to my knowledge should compel it; for there is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.42
Similarly, in a letter to fellow Virginian, James Madison, Washington quoted an old proverb that he lived by, “It is an old adage, that honesty is the best policy.”43
Honesty was emphasized by Washington, because it was an inseparable part of honor. The General declared that an ensign had acted “inconsistently with honor and truth” when he violated an oath.”44 When an officer signed “a false return” he did so “to the Injury of his honor and contrary to good order and military discipline.”45 When the commander in chief delivered these verdicts, he was expressing his personal values, not just those of the court-martial of the Revolutionary Army.
As an example, earlier in his career as a young officer in the French and Indian War, Washington had determined to resign from the military. In response, the officers of his Virginia Regiment wrote an address to reveal their deep respect for Washington and his ability to instill “genuine sentiments of true Honor and Passion for Glory”:
Your steady adherance to impartial Justice, your quick Discernment and invariable Regard to Merit, wisely intended to inculcate those genuine Sentiments of true Honor and Passion for Glory, from which the great military Achievements have been deriv’d, first heighten’d our natural Emulation, and our Desire to excel...Judge then, how sensibly we must be Affected with the loss of such an excellent Commander, such a sincere Friend, and so affable a Companion. How rare is it to find those amable Qualifications blended together in one Man?...Adieu to that Superiority, which the Enemy have granted us over other Troops, and which even the Regulars and Provincials have done us the Honor to publicly acknowledge. Adieu to that strict Discipline and order, which you have always maintained. Adieu to that happy Union and Harmony, which has been our principle Cement!...our unhappy Country will receive a loss, no less irreparable, than ourselves. Where will it meet a Man so experienc’d in military Affairs?...Who has so great knowledge of the Enemy we have to deal with?...Who so much respected by the Soldiery?46
Washington had won the respect and honor of his inferior officers. But being honored by his superiors truly mattered to Washington. As a young officer, he wrote to Francis Fauquier on December 9, 1758, “If I easily get the better of my present Disorder, I shall hope for the honor of kissing your hand, about the 25th. instant...I shall think myself honored with your Esteem: Being, with the greatest Respect....”47
During these same years, he was faced with a dilemma. Having served in the British military in the war against the French and Indians, he was now confronted with a change of leadership in the British command. The new leader was willing to keep Washington on, but in what technically resulted in a demoted capacity. This was not because of poor performance on the young colonel’s part, but because of military politics. In the colonial context, a commission to be a military officer given by the King was automatically viewed by British officers as a higher rank than an equivalent rank given by a colonial Governor. Because honor was so important to him, Colonel Washington felt compelled not to serve under such terms—precisely because he loved the honor of military service. So he wrote to Colonel William Fitzhugh, November 15, 1754:
You make mention in your letter of my continuing in the service, and retaining my colonel’s commission. This idea has filled me with surprise; for, if you think me capable of holding a commission, that has neither rank or emolument [i.e. privileges of office] annexed to it, you must entertain a very contemptible opinion of my weakness, and believe me to be more empty than the commission itself.
Besides, Sir, if I had time, I could enumerate many good reasons, that forbid all thoughts of my returning; and which to you, or any other, would, upon the strictest scrutiny, appear to be well founded. I must be reduced to a very low command, and subjected to that of many, who have acted as my inferior officers. In short, every captain, bearing the King’s commission. . . would rank before me. . . .
I herewith enclose Governour Sharpe’s letter, which I beg you will return to him, with my acknowledgements for the favour he intended me. Assure him, Sir . . . of my reluctance to quit the service . . . Also inform him, that it was to obey the call of honour, and the advice of my friends, I declined it, and not to gratify any desire I had to leave the military line. My inclinations are strongly bent to arms.48
Young Colonel Washington had an equally strong commitment to honor as to his calling to serve in the military.
A few months later when General Braddock arrived in America and personally recruited Washington, he immediately reconsidered and signed on to serve with the General. But his motives had changed. Having no hope for a military commission that would allow him a real future in the King’s Army, his ambition now was to merit the respect of his countrymen. Washington wrote to William Byrd, a Virginian friend and leader on April 20, 1755:
I am now preparing for, and shall in a few days set off, to serve in the ensuing campaign, with different views, however, from those I had before. For here, if I gain any credit, or if I am entitled to the least countenance or esteem, it must be from serving my country without fee or reward; for I can truly say, I have no expectation of either. To merit its esteem, and the good will of my friends, is the sum of my ambition, having no prospect of attaining a commission.49
WASHINGTON’S EMPHASIS ON THE HONOR AND CHARACTER OF LEADERS
The importance that Washington placed on honor is indicated by the sheer magnitude—more than 4,000 instances in all—of his use of the variants of the words containing “honor” or with the older spelling of “honour.” General Washington emphasized the far-reaching consequences of officers who were concerned with honor and moral character. This was so important that he claimed that the very existence of the army was at stake. Writing to Gov. Nicholas Cooke on October 12, 1776, he explained,
The Advantages arising from a judicious appointment of Officers, and the fatal consequences that result from the want of them, are too obvious to require Arguments to prove them; I shall, therefore, beg leave to add only, that as the well doing, nay the very existence of every Army, to any profitable purposes, depend upon it, that too much regard cannot be had to the choosing of Men of Merit and such as are, not only under the influence of a warm attachment to their Country, but who also possess sentiments of principles of the strictest honor. Men of this Character, are fit for Office, and will use their best endeavours to introduce that discipline and subordination, which are essential to good order, and inspire that Confidence in the Men, which alone can give success to the interesting and important contest in which we are engaged. 50
Washington consistently underscored his view of the “immense consequence” of having “men of the most respectable characters” as the officers surrounding the commanderin chief. He wrote years later to Secretary of War, James McHenry as a new army was being contemplated to address the post-French Revolutionary government:
To remark to a Military Man how all important the General Staff of an Army is to its well being, and how essential consequently to the Commander in Chief, seems to be unnecessary; and yet a good choice is of such immense consequence, that I must be allowed to explain myself.
The Inspector General, Quartermaster General, Adjutant General, and Officer commanding the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers, ought to be men of the most respectable characters, and of first rate abilities; because, from the nature of their respective Offices, and from their being always about the Commander in Chief who is obliged to entrust many things to them confidentially, scarcely any movement can take place without their knowledge. It follows then, that besides possessing the qualifications just mentioned, they ought to have those of Integrity and prudence in an eminent degree, that entire confidence might be reposed in them; without these and their being on good terms with the Commanding General his measures if not designedly thwarted may be so embarrassed as to make them move heavily on.51
When character and honor were operative among the officers, daily operations ran smoothly.52 Character enabled an officer, as Washington himself had learned years earlier, to set aside personal advancement for the well-being of the country.53 Character and honor were at the heart of military discipline. Unbecoming conduct tarnished the honor and character of the troops.54 But because an officer’s character was sacred, caution had to be exercised in bringing charges.55 Washington’s Army had its share of “unbecoming and unsoldierly conduct.”56 Incidents of soldiers who were “lost to every sense of honor and virtue” included American soldiers plundering civilians,57 leaving the army in its time of need,58 misappropriating recruiting funds by diverting them to soldier’s salaries59 and even for gambling.60 The quality of one’s past character made a difference in the process of military discipline. Past bad character took away the leniency of the court.61 Past good character, however, disposed the court to be lenient.62
HONOR, INFAMY, AND THE PURPLE HEART
Character has the power to create a legacy that survives one’s death. And the American Revolution left us with the legacy of two of Washington’s officers whose names, due to their character or lack thereof, still survive. The first was Maj. Gen. Lord Stirling. In spite of the fact that he carried the British hereditary title of “Lord,” he served faithfully as an officer under Washington’s command until his death near the end of the Revolutionary War. In a happy play on words, General Lord Stirling was an officer of “sterling character” (a phrase from Middle English meaning a “silver penny” implying something of the highest quality.) This was so much so that at his death, a congressional honor was afforded Major General the Earl of Stirling. Congress reported to Washington:
On motion, Resolved, That the President signify to the Commandr. in Chief, in a manner the most respectful to the memory of the late Major General the Earl of Stirling, the sense Congress entertain of the early and meritorius, exertions of that general in the common cause; and of the bravery, perseverance and military talents he possessed; which having fixed their esteem for his character, while living, induce a proportionate regret for the loss of an officer who has rendered such constant and important services to his country. 63
Washington had written near the end of his life about the qualifications of general officers. Stirling had fulfilled Washington’s views cited above that ranking officers “ought to have...Integrity and prudence in an eminent degree, that entire confidence might be reposed in them; without these and their being on good terms with the Commanding General his measures if not designedly thwarted may be so embarrassed as to make them move heavily on.”
Washington also remembered the legacy of another officer with a different character. He had discovered, by a close call with disastrous treason, just how true his words were. The danger of bad character in a military officer echoes through history. Most Americans still recognize the name Benedict Arnold, for it has been a synonym for “traitor” for over two centuries. Washington’s General Orders of September 26, 1780, revealed the treachery that could be perpetrated when officers lost their sense of honor:
Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered! General Arnold who commanded at Westpoint, lost to every sentiment of honor, of public and private obligation, was about to deliver up that important Post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab. Happily the treason has been timely discovered to prevent the fatal misfortune. The providential train of circumstances which led to it affords the most convincing proof that the Liberties of America are the object of divine Protection.
At the same time that the Treason is to be regretted the General cannot help congratulating the Army on the happy discovery. Our Enemies despairing of carrying their point by force are practising every base art to effect by bribery and Corruption what they cannot accomplish in a manly way.
Great honor is due to the American Army that this is the first instance of Treason of the kind where many were to be expected from the nature of the dispute, and nothing is so bright an ornament in the Character of the American soldiers as their having been proof against all the arts and seduction of an insidious enemy.
Arnold has made his escape to the Enemy but Mr. André the Adjutant General to the British Army who came out as a spy to negotiate the Business is our Prisoner. His Excellency the commander in Chief has arrived at West-point from Harford and is no doubt taking the proper measures to unravel fully, so hellish a plot.64
In light of the deadly impact of Arnold’s betrayal and its violation of the character of honor required of officers, it is clear why Washington desired to encourage the highest character in his army. He wanted all his soldiers to be men of honor. In that spirit, Washington created the Badge of Merit,65 originally intended not for officers but for enlisted men. Today, it is known as the Purple Heart.66 It was granted to “suitable characters” who were worthy of “that honorary distinction.”67 In his General Orders of August 7, 1782, he explained that recipients of this Badge of Merit would be “enrolled in the book of merit which will be kept at the orderly office. Men who have merited this last distinction to be suffered to pass all guards and sentinels which officers are permitted to do.” And further, every other soldier should know, “The road to glory in a patriot army and a free country is thus open to all. This order is also to have retrospect to the earliest stages of the war, and to be considered as a permanent one.” All of Washington’s soldiers were to seek “the road to glory.” And just what was the highest glory on this road to glory? Washington had told his soldiers when they were at Valley Forge.
OUR HIGHEST GLORY: THE DISTINGUISHED CHARACTER OF CHRISTIAN
Was the “Purple Heart” or “Badge of Military Merit” the highest glory that could be afforded to Washington’s soldiers who were being trained to be men of character and honor in pursuit of military glory? Washington didn’t think so. At the conclusion of the severe hardships of Valley Forge, Washington declared what he believed was the highest glory for his soldiers. It had to do with character. But it was not just the character of a patriot. That was a high glory to be sure, but not the highest. The highest glory was having the character of a Christian: “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”68 For Washington the “road to glory” led to the “Character of Christian.”
CONCLUSION
All Deists, past or present, would deeply disagree with General Washington. But doesn’t this tell us something about Washington’s views of religion? As a man of candor, honor, character, and strict military discipline and leadership, who was daily pursuing glory on the field of military engagement, it would have been impossible for him to say these words of Christian commitment as a mere rhetorical flourish to rally his men. While perhaps an unscrupulous Deist could have done so, the character required for such deception would have been closer to the character of Benedict Arnold than to Washington’s. Let us here emphasize an important point: Washington nowhere, ever even once claimed to be a Deist, in spite of all that skeptics and secularists have written. But on several instances he identified himself as a Christian. His words here from Valley Forge are certainly important, for in his words written for all to read, since they were after all, “General Orders,” he declared, “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”69 (emphasis added) A man of honor would never have publicly said the words in bold if he had not meant them.