Washington

Home > Other > Washington > Page 3
Washington Page 3

by Douglas Southall Freeman


  As a military man Washington did not burst upon the world as a genius nor did he ever achieve distinction deserving of the appellation, but he heeded his own advice written to his youthful captains on the frontier in 1757: “. . . devote some part of your leisure hours to the study of your profession, a knowledge in which cannot be obtained without application; nor any merit or applause to be achieved without a certain knowledge thereof. Discipline is the soul of an army.” So was self-discipline the soul of Washington’s success. In military matters, as in all things, he constantly improved himself. (It can be appropriately added that in self-discipline lay also much of the reason for the success of Douglas Freeman. It can be written of him, as he wrote of Washington: “He never could have finished all his duties—to say nothing of keeping his books and conducting his correspondence—had he not risen early and ordered his hours.”)

  Washington had a pragmatic view of history. “We ought not to look back,” he said, “unless it is to derive useful lesson from past errors and for the purpose of profiting by dear bought experience.” Certain it is that Americans have much to learn about their present and for their future by looking back on him and on his “dear bought experience.” There are lessons in the history of every day of the Revolution; there is wisdom in every line of Washington’s Farewell Address; there is example in almost his every act. There is advice for the present in the Count d’Estaing’s letter to Washington after rash moves on the part of Gen. John Sullivan had threatened a rupture of the Americans’ relations with their French allies:

  If during the coming centuries, we of America and France are to live in amity and confidence, we must banish recriminations and prevent complaints. I trust the two nations will not be forced to depart from moderation in their conduct but that they will reflect in all their public affairs that firmness and consideration for public interests necessary to unity between two great nations.

  And in the words Washington spoke to a minority group—in that case the Jewish Congregation at Newport—on his visit to Rhode Island in 1791:

  It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

  What “straight line” Washington would mark for America in a time of a foreign war longer than the Revolution, of unprecedented social unrest, and of a degree of personal danger to public figures never known to him is speculation. Would his admonishment against American involvement in European affairs in a period when a youthful America had much to fear from older and stronger powers be repeated in a world grown small and an America grown large; would it be extended into argument against involvement in Asia? “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations,” he wrote, “is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. . . . Here, let us stop.” Would he say, in the face of demands from the socially and economically disadvantaged, what he wrote “Light Horse Harry” Lee in 1786 concerning the malcontents led by Daniel Shays? He told Lee that grievances should be corrected, but that if the uprising in western Massachusetts represented no valid complaint the force of the government should be employed against it: “Let the reins of government . . . be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended: if defective let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.” Can public men any longer say what Washington said on his arrival at New York for his inauguration as President in April of 1789? He declared, when he met the officer in charge of a guard that had been arranged for him: “As to the present arrangement, I shall proceed as is directed, but after this is over, I hope you will give yourself no further trouble, as the affection of my fellow-citizens is all the guard I want.”

  * * *

  When Mrs. Ashworth and Dr. Carroll undertook Volume VII of George Washington, Wallace Meyer, their editor and long Dr. Freeman’s editor at Scribner’s counselled them: “Keep your sights on biography, holding hands with history.” The emphasis in this Washington is necessarily heavily on biography; to emphasize the story of Washington, the background descriptive of his time has been reduced as much as possible. Certainly the history of Washington’s time and those who worked with, or against, him is of importance. But if Freeman’s seven volumes were to be reduced to one, his text would manifestly (as he would say) require some major excisions, and a great many small ones. The text was compressed everywhere. Second and third examples of what Washington did, reiterative and corroborative quotations were dropped. Many details had to be omitted, especially those which, as Freeman noted of Washington’s tour of the Northeastern States, were “delightful to experience but dull to read about now.” Some details “dull to read about now”—and especially in their reduction to a bare-bones narrative—were retained because of their importance in the interlocking story of Washington’s life. All of the appendices, all of the footnotes were eliminated. Even style was altered in minor ways when doing so would save a few words. The total of changes is large; it had to be to reduce the original 3582 pages of narrative text to the present 754. I hope the abandonment of details has not distorted the record. I hope Dr. Freeman, who wrote carefully and did not waste words, would forgive me for creating from his words sentences he would never himself have written. At least the words are his—very few mine—even if they have sometimes been reordered. I have tried to retain Freeman’s interpretation as well as his words. In general his sections which evaluate Washington have been reduced less drastically than others. I hope most of all that I have done no disservice to the reader. This is a volume for the reader who had rather read one volume than seven. For the student who wants all the facts: The facts and all their substantiation are there in the seven-volume George Washington.

  * * *

  Gratitude to those who have helped in the course of this work is due many. First, of course, it is due the original work of Dr. Freeman and of Mrs. Ashworth and Dr. Carroll and to the editorial work of Mr. Meyer. I am particularly indebted to Mrs. Ashworth for advice and encouragement and to Mrs. Inez Goddin Freeman and the other members of Dr. Freeman’s family for their willingness that I should undertake this condensation. I am little less indebted to Mr. Charles Scribner, Jr., to Mr. Wayne Andrews, to Mr. Thomas J. Davis, III, and to Miss Elsie Koeltl at Charles Scribner’s Sons. They have been patient with my delays. To my sister Mrs. Marion B. Harwell of Greensboro, Georgia, thanks are due for a fast and massive job of typing. For other favors and help in the preparation of this volume I thank Mr. Stafford Kay of Madison, Wisconsin; Mr. Arthur Monke and Mrs. Lena E. Browne of Brunswick, Maine; Dr. James S. Coles of New York City, formerly President of Bowdoin College; Mr. Philip N. Racine of Atlanta; Mr. Roger E. Michener of Stilling, New Jersey; Dr. Wilbur Jacobs of the University of California, Santa Barbara; and the Henry E. Huntington Library and its staff, particularly its Director, Dr. James Thorpe, its Senior Associates, Drs. Allan Nevins, A. L. Rowse, and Ray Billington, its Librarian, Robert O. Dougan, and staff members Carey S. Bliss and Mary Isabel Fry.

  In writing this introductory note I have tried to avoid repeating what I said in my introduction to Lee, a similar one-volume version of Freeman’s R.E. Lee. I cannot forbear however, recalling once more how Dr. Freeman liked to speak of the pleasure of his years of work on R. E. Lee and George Washington as time spent in “the company of great gentlemen.” So has it been with me, but the great gentlemen have been three: LEE, WASHINGTON, and FREEMAN.

  RICHARD HARWELL

  Bowdoin College

  24 June 1968

  WASHINGTON

  CHAPTER / 1

 
It was amazing how the settlers between the Potomac and the Rappahannock Rivers in Virginia progressed. They had not come in any considerable number to that long peninsula until 1640 and after. A few were gentlemen of good descent; most were small farmers, artisans, clerks, tradesmen or adventurous younger sons of the middle classes who believed they would have a better chance in the new world than in the old. Many paid with their lives for their enterprise, but in spite of everything, the families increased fast and with no loss of vigor. The second generation began to buy luxuries from England and enjoyed larger leisure. Men of the third generation considered themselves aristocrats. Within seventy-five years a new and prosperous landed society had been organized.

  In every part of the development of the Northern Neck men named Washington had a modest share. The first was John Washington who came early in 1657 as mate and voyage partner, aged about twenty-five, in the ketch Sea Horse of London. The son of an English clergyman who had been ousted from his parish by the Puritans in 1643, John had received decent schooling and, on making the voyage to Virginia, saw possibilities of self-advancement on the Northern Neck. Circumstance favored him. When the time came for the ketch to start home with a cargo of tobacco she ran aground and a winter storm sank her. Her tobacco was ruined, but there was a chance she could be raised, and John helped in getting her above water. During the time he was sharing in this task he made new friends, among them Nathaniel Pope, a well-to-do Marylander who had a marriageable daughter Anne. For this or other persuasive reasons, John prevailed on Edward Prescott, the master of the Sea Horse, to allow him to remain in Virginia. Anne Pope and her father both approved him. The father, in fact, was so hearty in his blessing of the union that when his daughter married John he gave her seven hundred acres of land and lent him £80 or more, with which to get a start.

  In the autumn of 1659 a son was born to Anne and John Washington. The next spring Nathaniel Pope died and in his will cancelled the debt due him by John. John promptly began to acquire more land by importing servants whose “headrights” he could claim, by purchase, by original patent, and by taking up grants of deserted land. By 1668 he owned considerably more than five thousand acres. He sought and gained an ascending order of profitable offices and court appointments. His family increased with his honors and his acres, and in 1668, Anne, who had borne him five children, died. She was lamented, no doubt, but not so poignantly that John refused to seek a second wife, Anne Gerrard, who previously had married Walter Brodhurst and, after his death had been the wife of Henry Brett.

  John’s eldest son and principal heir, Lawrence Washington, was born in September 1659 on the farm his grandfather had given Anne Pope on her union with John Washington. Apparently the boy was schooled in England. Soon after his father’s death in 1677, Lawrence was back in Virginia and was taking up some of the public duties his parent had discharged. He was Justice of the Peace before he reached his majority; at twenty-five he was a Burgess; thereafter came service as Sheriff. He did not marry until he was approximately twenty-seven, but then he found in Mildred Warner a wife of character and established position. Mildred’s father was Augustine Warner of Gloucester, Speaker of the House of Burgesses and a member of the Council. Economically Lawrence Washington began at a higher level than his father; socially he went further, but it was for a few years only. In his thirty-eighth year, 1698, Lawrence died.

  At the time of his death, Lawrence Washington had three children, John, Augustine and Mildred. John was then almost seven years of age; Augustine was three; Mildred was an infant. Provision for them was not lavish but was adequate. Like his father, Lawrence had stipulated that his personal property be divided equally into four parts for his wife and the three children. During their minority, or until their marriage before they became of age, John, Augustine and Mildred were to remain under the care and tuition of their mother, who was to have the profits of their estates in order to pay for their support and schooling.

  Mildred Washington probably remained a widow longer than was customary, but in the spring of 1700 she married George Gale. He took his wife, her children, and some of their possessions and migrated to England. Mildred was pregnant at the time and, following her arrival at White Haven, Cumberland, was stricken with a serious malady. A few days after her child was born, she made her will, January 26, 1701, and bequeathed £1000 to Gale. The balance of her estate she divided among him and her children. Care of the three young Washingtons was entrusted to the husband. Upon her demise, George Gale duly filed bond for the proper custody of the children and sent the boys to Appleby School, Westmoreland. There they might have remained, to be reared as young Englishmen, had not questions been raised across the Atlantic. Some of the Washingtons disputed Mildred’s will. They insisted that Lawrence had left to his children estates in which Gale had no legal interest. John Washington, Lawrence’s cousin and executor, put the question to counsel. The opinion of the lawyer was that Mildred could not bequeath the property, the income, or the custody of the children to her husband. As a result, within slightly less than twenty-four months, they were in the custody of the court and under the care of John Washington, the executor to whose diligence may be due the fact that they grew up as Virginians and not as residents of White Haven.

  Augustine came of age in 1715. Gus, as he was called, was blond, of fine proportions and great physical strength and stood six feet in his stockings. His kindly nature matched his towering strength. Together, they made it easy for him to select a wife from among the daughters of the planters of Westmoreland. The girl who filled his eye returned his affection, and he was married, in 1715 or 1716, to Jane Butler. With Jane’s lands and other property to supplement his own holdings, Augustine began his married life as proprietor of more than 1740 acres. Like his father and his grandfather, he soon became a Justice of the Peace and took his seat on the bench of the county court; in the energetic spirit of the immigrant John, he began forthwith to trade in land.

  Augustine was in the first heat of this acquisition of new land when the reappointment of Robert Carter as agent of the proprietary was followed by the Treaty of Albany. Not only “King” Carter himself, but also George Turberville, Mann Page, who was Carter’s son-in-law, Charles Carter, Robert Carter, Jr., George Eskridge and others of like station and speculative temper, took out patents for large acreage. Washington did not venture as far westward as these rich planters did, nor could he hope to equal the size of the tracts they acquired, but he caught so much of the speculative spirit that he extended himself to the limit of his means and perhaps beyond his resources.

  First in interest to Jane and Augustine was the purchase in 1717 of land to add to the farm John the immigrant had acquired. Five years later, Augustine was prepared to build a new residence on the enlarged tract. The structure, finally occupied in 1726 or 1727 and later known as Wakefield, must have been a simple abode. Augustine Washington had too many uses for his money to build extravagantly. Next, a bargain seemed to be offered Augustine in the 2500 acres of land that represented Grandfather John Washington’s share of the land patented at the “freshes” of the Potomac opposite the Indian village of Piscataway. John had bequeathed this to Lawrence; Lawrence had left his holding to his daughter Mildred. Mildred and her husband were willing to sell this “Little Hunting Creek Tract” for £180 sterling. On May 17, 1726, the agreement was signed. By this purchase Augustine advanced his landed interests to a point within twenty-four miles, as the river ran, of the Great Falls of the Potomac, then the dividing line between the old and the new settlements.

  The improvement of the Pope’s Creek property and the purchase of the Little Hunting Creek tract were by no means the end of Gus Washington’s enterprises. He bought more land to cultivate or to resell in the region of Potomac shore known as Chotank. More particularly, he began to share in the development of ore-bearing lands and iron furnaces. These were the backward children of Colonial industry and they never had thriven; but they had the attention of several companies of adven
turous Marylanders and Virginians, who would not permit themselves to be discouraged. The solid results had been achieved in Maryland. There, as early as 1718, at what later became the Principio Iron Works, John Farmer had produced and sent to England three and a half tons of the metal. England was then at odds with Sweden, whence came the greater part of the island’s best iron. To replace this, Colonial furnaces were encouraged. The Principio partners did their utmost to supply the needed iron and to reap a coveted profit, but they did not have in Farmer a man of requisite vigor and ability. To spur or to succeed him, they sent to Maryland an experienced ironmaster, John England.

  Either England’s wide prospecting or Augustine Washington’s own search brought to light what appeared to be rich iron deposits on land patented in part by Washington along Accokeek Creek, about eight miles northeast of Fredericksburg. England was eager to use this ore. By January 1725 he reached an informal agreement for its use with Augustine who was to receive a share in the Principio works as his compensation. This preliminary bargain seemed to England to be so advantageous to Principio that he was anxious the partners across the Atlantic sign at once to bind Augustine Washington. In urging on them promptness and legal care, England suggested that they send the Virginian a small present of wine as evidence of their approval. Augustine, for his part, quickly acquired on Accokeek 349 acres that were desired for the enlargement of the mining enterprise.

 

‹ Prev