Washington practiced what Christianity affirms—that those who repent should be forgiven. He wrote to his adopted grandson, George Washington Parke Custis: “Your resolution to abandon the ideas which were therein expressed, are sincere, I shall not only heartily forgive, but will forget also, and bury in oblivion all that has passed.”2 One of Washington’s criticisms of King George was that he could neither forget nor forgive.3
Washington was magnanimous in showing forgiveness to those who had hurt him during the war. His childhood friend, Bryan Fairfax, turned Tory. Afterwards, George forgave him. Reverend Jacob Duché also rejected the patriot cause, even though he had led the first Congress in a moving prayer (September 7, 1774). Later, Washington forgave him. Reverend Jonathan Boucher, who was the tutor of Washington’s stepchildren, verbally attacked Washington, yet Washington forgave him. All of these made peace with Washington and he with them after the War.4
WASHINGTON SEEKS FORGIVENESS
An experience in his own life perhaps helped him learn to forgive. There seems to have been a moment in time when Washington needed to seek forgiveness and reconcile with a man with whom he had had a fight. Although the account has often been disputed, Washington scholar John Corbin has argued that it is authentic.5 Washington biographer Parson Mason Weems’ account puts it as follows:
In 1754, and the 22d year of his age...[Washington] 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 their 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.”6
Perhaps this episode, wherein Washington needed forgiveness, was a factor in his development as a leader known for clemency.7 Even the records from Martha Washington’s correspondence attest to Washington’s forgiving spirit as a military officer.8
FORGIVENESS OF AN ENEMY AT VALLEY FORGE: REVEREND PETER MILLER’S APPEAL FOR THE LIFE OF MICHAEL WIDMAN BEFORE GENERAL WASHINGTON
A classic story from Valley Forge tells of a moment when the Christian grace of forgiving one’s enemy became a reality under the command of General Washington. Washington, as we have seen, was given to mercy, pardon, and forgiveness of his army, when deemed appropriate.
James Baldwin in An American Book of Golden Deeds, tells the story:
While encamped at Valley Forge one day, a Tory who was well known in the neighborhood was captured and brought into camp. His name was Michael Widman, and he was accused of having carried aid and information to the British in Philadelphia. He was taken to West Chester and there tried by court-martial. It was proved that he was a very dangerous man and that he had more than once attempted to do great harm to the American army. He was pronounced guilty of being a spy and sentenced to be hanged. On the evening of the day before that set for the execution, a strange old man appeared at Valley Forge. He was a small man with long, snow-white hair falling over his shoulders. His face, although full of kindliness, was sad-looking and thoughtful; his eyes, which were bright and sharp, were upon the ground and lifted only when he was speaking. . . .
His name was announced.
“Peter Miller?” said Washington. “Certainly. Show him in at once.”
“General Washington, I have come to ask a great favor of you,” he said, in his usual kindly tones.
“I shall be glad to grant you almost anything,” said Washington, “for we surely are indebted to you for many favors. Tell me what it is.”
“I hear,” said Peter, “that Michael Widman has been found guilty of treason and that he is to be hanged at Turk’s Head to-morrow. I have come to ask you to pardon him.”
Washington started back, and a cloud came over his face.
“That is impossible,” he said. “Widman is a bad man. He has done all in his power to betray us. He has even offered to join the British and aid in destroying us. In these times we can not be lenient with traitors; and for that reason I cannot pardon your friend.”
“Friend!” cried Peter. “Why, he is no friend of mine. He is my bitterest enemy. He has persecuted me for years. He has even beaten me and spit in my face, knowing full well that I would not strike back. Michael Widman is no friend of mine.”
Washington was puzzled. “And still you wish me to pardon him?” he asked.
“I do,” answered Peter. “I ask it of you as a great personal favor.”
“Tell me,” said Washington, with hesitating voice,” why is it that you thus ask the pardon of your worst enemy?”
“I ask it because Jesus did as much for me,” was the old man’s brief answer.
Washington turned away and went into another room. Soon he returned with a paper on which was written the pardon of Michael Widman.
“My dear friend,” he said, as he placed it in the old man’s hand, “I thank you for this example of Christian charity.”9
E. Gordon Alderfer relates the story this way:
That Peter Miller was a forgiving man is demonstrated by the story of one of his appeals for clemency. Michael Widman, then tavern keeper at what later became the famous Eagle Hotel in Ephrata village, had on several occasions bedeviled the nonresistant prior, hitting him soundly on one occasion and spitting in his face on another. Michael was alleged to be one of the richest Tories in Lancaster County. He got caught expressing his political opinions, was arrested for treason, escaped through a window of his tavern, and fled to Bethania in Ephrata, where he hid. He was soon captured again and was sentenced to be hanged. Miller at once started off on foot to see his friend General Washington at Valley Forge, a grueling journey. The General at first refused to intercede, but when he discovered that his friend had walked sixty miles through snow on behalf of his worst enemy, he relented and granted a pardon. Miller than walked another fifteen miles with the pardon note to West Chester, arriving, it is said, just in time to see Widman being led to the scaffold. The Tory allegedly saw the prior arrive and insensible to the ways of the nonresistant Christian, assumed he had come from Ephrata to gloat. The pardon was pronounced in the nick of time, and Widman was released. It is said that the two men walked back to Ephrata together, Widman no doubt a chastened man. All of the Tory’s property was confiscated and sold at auction by orders of the new government. Widman’s political views did not change; he was jailed again, won a release, and thereafter disappeared in the west.10
A STORY FULL OF HOLES?
But not everyone, of course, is prepared to accept this story as historically valid. Author and Washington biographer Douglas Harper writes, “The story as it stands is full of holes, Why would Washington in Valley Forge send an Ephrata man to be hanged in West Chester, which was then a backwater crossroads with just a school and a tavern? There certainly never was any block house there, and except in the week after the Battle of the Brandywine there was no significant presence of American troops in the region. And why would the many detailed observers of the early West Chester scene (Joseph Townsend, Joseph J. Lewis, William Darlington, Philip Sharpless, etc.), make no mention of such a dramatic event as a near-hanging? Further, why would Washington, as commander in chief attempt to execute a private citizen for a crime that was handled by the civil authorities of the state, and why would those authorities make no complaint, or even mention of the event? The narrative makes it clear that Widman was a private citizen, not a British spy, at the time. And why, if Washington was touched enough to reverse himself and grant a pardon, was he not also touched enough to lend Miller a horse to get him to Turk’s Head before the execution? So what are the facts? There may not be enough of them to consign the story to fiction, but there are enough to put it in serious doubt....”11
The background of Peter Miller is important to understand in order to appreciate the story of his intercession on behalf of Michael Widman. Miller had come from Germany, having been trained in the Reformed tradition. When he arrived in America, he was ordained in the Presbyterian Church. He went to the Cocalico-Tuplehocken area (Berks County, Pennsylvania) to serve. While there he encountered the German Seventh Day Baptists, who had started the Ephrata Cloister—what amounted to a Protestant monastery.
The leader, Conrad Beisel, ultimately persuaded Miller to join the “Dunkers,” which included not only leaving his Reformed pastorate, but becoming a monk, taking a vow of celibacy, receiving believer’s baptism, and adopting the pacifist life of the cloister.
To further appreciate the elements of the historicity of the Miller-Widman story, we must go back earlier into the context of the French and Indian War.12 Braddock’s defeat resulted in the unopposed French and Indian raids on the English settlements. Col. Washington had to defend 350 miles of wilderness with little success against the Indians, resulting in constant reports of carnage and slaughter. The need for a safe haven became critical, which impacted the Ephrata community.
Reverend Peter Miller saw the French and Indian War as a possible end time scenario, or at least a season of imminent persecution. To prepare his people for such, he translated into German the massive Dutch work, Martyr’s Mirror, an Anabaptist equivalent of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. When he published it, it became the largest and lengthiest publishing project in colonial America—all accomplished on the frontier at Bethlehem-Ephrata. The entire project, from making paper, translating, printing, etc., was done by Miller and his fellow religionists. Tradition records that Miller only slept hours per night for months until the project was complete. The sheer magnitude of the project, as well as the quality of its finished product, prompted a high admiration for Miller by Philadelphia printer, Benjamin Franklin.
As the French and Indian War raged in Pennsylvania, the cloister, that is, the Ephrata community, became a hospital to meet the needs of the wounded and those dying from camp fever. The pacifists quietly bore the burdens of the war they had not started or believed in by caring for the dying and burying the dead. Washington likely was aware of the Ephrata community during the French and Indian War because of the medical care they provided for wounded and sick soldiers.
At any rate, the end of the world did not come, but the end of the war finally did. Miller’s printing achievement, as well as his insights into agricultural matters, such as the best way to grow peas, brought him an invitation to join the American Philosophical Society. In this context, Reverend Miller also became known to Philadelphia patriot and poet, Francis Hopkinson. The point here is that there is strong undeniable historical evidence of the life and ministry of Reverend Miller.
Years earlier, when Reverend Miller left the Reformed Church and joined the Dunkers, he unavoidably offended some of his former parishioners. One of those was a successful innkeeper named Michael Widman, who was an officer in the Reformed church that Miller had pastored. Thereafter, Widman seized opportunities to torment and ridicule his former pastor, the Seventh Day Baptist or “Dunker” pacifist clergyman, Reverend Miller.
The pattern of the Widman-Miller relationship had long been set when Washington came into contact with Reverend Miller, due to the movement of troops, and because of the need for the pacifistic Ephrata community to assist in alleviating the sufferings of Washington’s soldiers during the Revolutionary War.
There were other natural connections as well. The Reverend General John Peter Muhlenberg, of Washington’s army, was born in Tuplehocken, near Ephrata, and his Lutheran clergyman father still lived there. Records indicate that Gen. Muhlenberg visited his father during the Valley Forge encampment, so there was direct travel occurring on some occasions between Valley Forge and the region of the Ephrata Cloisters minister by Reverend Miller.
The need for hospital care became acute in the aftermath of the Battle of Brandywine in 1777, which brought many wounded soldiers there, including Marquis de Lafayette. This, in turn, brought several officers to Ephrata to visit the wounded in the military hospital there, including General Washington. As they had in the French and Indian War, so now again in the Revolutionary War, the Ephrata Cloister met the needs of the wounded and the soldiers who were dying from camp fever. The pacifists once again bore the burdens created by the War they had not started or believed in, caring for the dying to burying of the dead.
The pacifistic community also helped meet other needs of the patriotic cause. When Philadelphia was captured, Peter Miller’s publishing efforts provided a printing press. The paper industry provided the “wads” necessary for loading for the primitive rifles. Tradition says that Miller translated the Declaration of Independence into seven different languages, although there is no proof that he did. Apparently he could have, given his scholarly and European language mastery.
Letters show that Washington’s contacts in the area created friendships with other religious groups doing mission work in the area, such as the Brethren, Bishop Ettwein.13
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF WASHINGTON’S PARDON OF MICHAEL WIDMAN
As we consider the Michael Widman and Peter Miller story, it is clear that the account fits many of the known facts. There are historical records of both men from the places mentioned. Widman was a tavern owner. Turk’s Head existed and was the early name for West Chester, being so named by a sign at the tavern in the town. Widman had human reasons to be an enemy to Miller, given the facts of his conversion to a strange new sect, a fact that is affirmed by Church records on both sides of the ecclesiastical debate.
Washington would have had several reasons to have known Miller, as well as other church leaders from that area. Miller’s commitment to pursue clemency and leniency of prisoners was also recorded by contemporaries of Reverend Miller in other instances. We have also seen that, according to Washington’s military records, he was known to issue pardons and offer clemency. Thus, Washington’s change of mind toward Widman would not be inconsistent in itself with what is known about Washington’s personality and approach to prisoners.
Government records of the confiscation of Widman’s property have been found. Not only has a deed been found of Widman as owner of the tavern that preceded the Eagle Tavern in Ephrata, but historical records also reveal another tavern keeper named Widman in the Reading, Pennsylvania, area some years later. Given all of these facts, the story may not be summarily dismissed as lacking historical credibility.
So, in the context of Valley Forge, let us consider Douglas Harper’s objections to the historical credibility of the Miller-Widman story. His first and major problem is that the civilian Widman was tried in a military rather than a civilian court. But this, too, comports with circumstances at Valley Forge. On several instances, court martial dealt with civilians, inclusive of meting out the death penalty, as was looming for Widman. Valley Forge historian John Stoudt quotes sources stating:
• “Congress has resolved to try by Courts Martial any Civilian found carrying supplies to the Enemy.”14
• “William Maddock found guilty of trying to drive Cattle to the Enemy. Confin’d to a Gaol in Pennsylvania, and to have all his real and personal estate taken for the use of the United States of America.”15
• “The sentence of whippings for the citizens of this State convicted of intercourse with the Enemy was carried out today. A surgeon stopped several whippings because the culprit could stand no more.”16
• “The besetting of Mr Knox’s house is a matter of civil cognizance, but it appears that the prisoner has held correspondence with the enemy and supplied them with provisions, and he will probably suffer death for those offences by sentence of Court Martial.”17
Civilians were being tried by military courts, even facing capital punishment. So this objection by Harper is clearly specious.
A second objection by Harper is Reverend Peter Miller’s walking to rescue Widman, and Washington’s clemency being so little moved that he did not provide Reverend Miller with a horse. Why would Miller have walked and why would Washington not have offered a horse? The simple answer is that at Valley Forge there were no horses available to spare, scarcely being enough even for the troops or for the artillery. The horses were starving, dying, and in fact even being confiscated from Quakers traveling by.
Sources that address the objection of Harper state:
• “We have lost a good many men, and horses, and have had hard fare in our present quarters.”18
• “Next Sunday the Quakers will be seeking to go to their General Meetings in Philada. This is an intercourse we should by all means endeavor to interrupt, as the plans settled at these Meetings are of a most pernicious kind. If any are riding Horses, these are to be seized and draughted for the Service and they are to be sent to the Quarter Master General.”19
• “Our horses, being constantly exposed to showers of rain and falls of snow, day and night, are in miserable condition. Many die. The rest are so emaciated as to be unfit for labor. If we be attacked now we shall have to leave our artillery behind for want of horses.”20
• “The carcasses of horses about the Camp, and the deplorable leanness of those which still crawl in existence, speak the want of forage equal to that of human food.”21
• “Forage is wanting. Our horses starve, as do their masters. If help does not arrive, and forage does not appear, we shall not have one horse left.”22
Washington simply could not make a horse available to Reverend Miller’s errand of mercy. It perhaps also may explain why Miller himself had not ridden to Valley Forge on a horse—all of the region’s available horses had already been seized, or would have been seized. Miller either did not have a horse, since it had already been taken, or, he chose not to risk riding in with a horse for fear of the seizure of one of the cloister’s horses. Whether the monastic community put a premium on pilgrimage by foot for mercy ministry is also a question worthy of investigation as well. So, contrary to Harper, the horses were starving to death like the soldiers, and there were none to spare. Harper’s second objection is specious as well.
Another problem with the historicity of this story raised by Harper is that there was no “blockhouse” in Turk’s Head or West Chester at that time, and why would a prisoner be sent to West Chester anyway? We have already seen that there was a civilian who was “Confin’d to a Gaol in Pennsylvania, and [had] all his real and personal estate taken for the use of the United States of America.”23 The general location of West Chester would have worked for keeping a prisoner, since it was away from British, and yet within traveling distance of Valley Forge. Further, American soldiers had been in the area for a fair amount of time only months before, preparing for the engagement with the British at Brandywine, and the residents there were not hostile to their fellow Americans.
Moreover, there was no way to keep a prisoner at Valley Forge, since there were no buildings, except the meager huts the soldiers had hastily built to survive the winter exposure. There was no food available for prisoners—the soldiers were starving. Given Washington’s commitment to humane treatment of prisoners, the closest safe place for a prisoner may well have been in a minor holding location, such as a house or barn used as a temporary “blockhouse” that has basically been lost to history. Washington, in his writings elsewhere, affirms that many records from the War were lost.24
So, as we conclude our response to Harper’s claim that the Widman-Miller-Washington story is “full of holes,” as we see it, the only uncertainties left are those that do not overturn the story.
It is true that the words that Washington spoke that refer to Jesus in the first of the accounts cited are not in the earliest written account. Since it is usually very difficult to establish the actual spoken words in an historical account if they were not immediately recorded, it is not surprising that storytellers have yielded to the temptation to embellish the facts. But we disagree with Harper’s claim that Peter Miller could not have made the parallel between Jesus seeking forgiveness for the sins of his enemies from God and his own seeking to have Widman pardoned by Washington.
While Harper calls this a “false parallel,” did not Jesus teach his followers to pray for their enemies? Moreover, the Lord’s Prayer that Washington, Miller, and Widman all prayed, presents the petition of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” And did not their Bibles teach, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” (Eph. 4:32.)?
Reverend Miller was not claiming to be the Messiah; he was attempting to intercede on behalf of his enemy. And interestingly, Washington used the term “intercede” in various pardon passages of his military letters as well.25 So, the words the later account attributed to Miller could have been spoken, and Washington would have understood, even though obviously there is no way to demonstrate that they were or were not spoken.
Finally, it is true that there is no known account of the Widman-Miller-Washington story of pardon coming from the West Chester area. We concur with Harper that a last minute rescue from the hangman’s gallows would have been newsworthy—had it been witnessed. We cannot prove or disprove the claim of the dramatic timing of the story. But for our purposes, the timing of the rescue is not the point. The point is that the pardon was given, and Widman lived to disappear in the west. The essential feature of the story is its claim that the pardon was issued by Washington to a clergyman for the clergyman’s worst enemy. This feature of the story comports with all the known facts.
CONCLUSION
All that we know about the history of the time and the character of the men supports that this event could have happened along the lines as reported. Miller’s involvement in the pardon of Widman reflected Washington’s great motto—deeds not words. Peter Miller’s deed of gracious intercession spoke to Washington, and Washington’s deed of clemency spoke to his sympathy for the Christian value of forgiving one’s enemies. Indeed, this is what Washington himself did with his own Anglican clergyman Reverend Fairfax, Reverend Boucher, and Reverend Duché, who as Loyalists had opposed him. Sometimes actions do speak louder than words.
So finally, we must disagree with Harper’s conclusion: “There may not be enough [holes] to consign the story to fiction, but there are enough to put it in serious doubt.” Rather, the facts show that the story has the hallmarks of an historical event, and, for our purposes here, the act reflects the character of a Christian and further undercuts the claim that Washington was a Deist, unless Deists accept the Gospel teaching of Jesus to forgive one’s enemies.