So far as Washington was involved directly, one thing only remained for him to do. That was to collect what he could from those who had received their full bounty and had contributed meagrely or not at all. This task yielded scarcely enough to repay his trouble. Even so, Washington had not been rewarded poorly for pursuing the promise made in 1754, a promise which would never have been redeemed without his money, determination and persistence. On his own account, he had received 18,500 acres and at small expense he had bought up claims for an additional 5600, a total of 24,100 acres of good land on the Kanawhas and the left bank of the Ohio.
Back at length Washington went to Mount Vernon, by way of Fredericksburg, where he paid his mother £30 and took pains to note that he did so in the presence of his sister Betty. At home, December 9, he found himself at once subjected to a new plea—that Jack be not required to go back to college but be permitted to marry Nelly Calvert as soon as arrangements could be made. Determined as Washington was by nature, it was futile for him to attempt to resist the forces arrayed against him, Jack’s own inclination, the desires of his mother and the acquiescence of almost all his relatives.
Thus did the prospects of Jack’s marriage and increasing expenses make Washington more careful than ever about the frugal administration of the Custis trust. On his own account, though he was unrelaxing in his study of how he could acquire more land and drive off those who encroached on his new possessions, he continued to enlarge his benefactions. In his service to his neighbors he was so generous of his time he now was close to the limit of his resources, great as was his skill in ordering his days. Patsy’s death was both grief and relief in 1773; Jack’s unwillingness to remain at college was a distress; vexations had been numerous. The great events were the prospect of cancelling the debt to Cary & Co. and the completion of the patenting of the lands under the proclamation of 1754. A year of proud and profitable achievement ended before word came to Virginia of strange occurrences in Boston harbor on the night of December 16.
CHAPTER / 8
After repeal of all the Townshend duties except that on tea, the edge of the issue of taxation was dulled. Some Colonials gradually disregarded even their covenant not to use tea. By 1773, official silence might have produced public forgetfulness had not Lord North’s ministry approved a new policy to enforce the tax on tea and relieve financial distresses of the East India Company. The Company was authorized to ship tea directly to merchants in America. On entry, the produce was subject to the tax on 3d, a pound which had been in force since 1767. It did not seem a hopeless undertaking; tea shipped and taxed in this manner would be cheaper than it ever had been in the Colonies and far less expensive than in England.
The new plan did something besides reawaken Colonials to the tax which they had denounced as a tyrannical levy imposed without their assent. Previously, the East India Company, which alone could bring tea into Great Britain, had been required to offer it at public auction to merchants who then sold it to other dealers with agents in America or directly to distributors in the Colonies. None of these men could take a middleman’s profit under the new law. All organization in the trade might topple to ruin when the Company itself supplied the American dealer who dispensed the tea over the counter. To the citizen’s familiar cry of taxation without representation, the merchant class now added that of monopoly without recourse. Tea was denounced as the drug of the tyrant, the scourge of the master, the bane of health. To frustrate the changes in the trade merchants used New England “Sons of Liberty,” who demanded that the British government should not tax the Colonies; the champions of popular rights were glad to make common cause with the powerful mercantile class. As a result of their joint agitation, directed with skill and vehemence by Samuel Adams, a number of men carelessly disguised as Indians, clambered aboard three ships at a Boston dock on the night of December 16, 1773, and dumped into the waters of the harbor 342 chests of tea belonging to the East India Company.
Information of this affair reached Mount Vernon about New Year’s Day. It did not excite Washington greatly, nor did it produce any general stir in Virginia, where the merchants were not as numerous or influential as in Massachusetts. Resentment over the tea tax was revived somewhat in the Old Dominion, but the “Boston tea party” was not approved by Washington and apparently was not regarded by him as immediately serious. He was busy that January 1774, and for many weeks afterwards, with an accumulation of troubles over tenants and leases, land claims and controversies.
Some of Washington’s duties of management had to be discharged immediately, but some of them fortunately could be deferred until the celebration of the event that most interested the entire Mount Vernon household—the marriage of Mr. Custis, as he now was respectfully styled. The date was February 3; the place was Mount Airy. Washington witnessed the ceremonies and shared in the celebration. Generously, as became the stepfather of the groom, he remained for the festivities of the “second day.” Then, leaving the bride, her husband and the friendly hosts, the Colonel returned to Mount Vernon, whence, in a few days, he sent to the young couple what Jack gratefully described as “many kind offers.” It was Martha’s hope and doubtless Washington’s expectation that Jack and Nelly would spend their time at Mount Vernon until a decision concerning a permanent home was reached.
A whirl of new and continuing business at Mount Vernon was rendered the more difficult because of daily coming and going of visitors whose entertainment consumed hours. Washington did not permit himself to engage in foolish hurry and he did not pass hasty judgment on weighty affairs, but he found himself fully occupied and often annoyed. In the spring of 1774 there was gain to offset loss, irritation to match satisfaction. Even to Washington himself, the detail must have been tedious—an accident that put the treasured chariot into the river whence it had to be fished, seizure of Captain Crawford by law officers while he was visiting Mount Vernon, forced abandonment of the dream of patenting Florida lands and so through time-consuming trifles to one matter of large moment—a calamitous frost on May 4. This appeared at the moment to have destroyed about half of the wheat on the thousand acres Washington had planted in that grain. It was fortunate for Washington in this discouraging situation that he had a large store of wheat on hand and that he did well with it when he marketed it as flour.
Along with the killing frost came evil news. John Connolly, on the authorization of Governor Dunmore, had seized Fort Pitt in the name of the Colony of Virginia. That meant strained relations between Virginia and Penn’s Colony and might jeopardize negotiations Washington was reopening for land on Chartier’s Creek. Worse still was threat of renewed Indian warfare. Connolly was expected to proceed against the Shawnees, but the result was uncertain. More immediately, so far as Washington was involved, the upstir caught at Redstone the expedition he was sending to “seat” his Kanawha lands.
Before the extent of this financial reverse was known, Washington made ready to go to Williamsburg for a meeting of the General Assembly, most inconveniently called for May 5. Remaining at home as long as he could, he set off on the twelfth for the capital. When he arrived May 16, he found little done but much dreaded. King, ministry and Parliament had made their first response to the action of the Boston mob in throwing tea overboard. No protest, no threat, no action of violence by the Colonials had so outraged their critics in England or had alienated so many of their friends. A majority even of those who had been firmest in defence of the rights of the Americans admitted that the people of Boston should be punished. Franklin had written in dejection: “I suppose we never had since we were a people so few friends in Britain. The violent destruction of the tea seems to have united all parties here against our province. . . .” A bill was introduced to close the port of Boston after June 1 until the town paid for the destroyed tea, gave “reasonable satisfaction” to injured revenue officers, and convinced the King “that peace and obedience to the laws shall be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade of Great Britain may be
safely carried on there, and his Majesty’s customs duly collected. . . .” The other Colonies were to be warned by that example. Lord North said: “Let us continue to proceed with firmness, justice and resolution: which, if pursued, will certainly produce that due obedience and respect to the laws of this country, and the security of the trade of its people, which I so ardently wish for.” Gov. George Johnstone replied: “I now venture to predict to this House, that the effect of the present bill must be productive of a general confederacy, to resist the power of this country.” He concluded that the bill “instead of quieting the disturbances of Boston . . . will promote them still further, and induce the inhabitants to cut off all communication with your ships of war, which may be productive of mutual hostilities and most probably will end in a general revolt.” This warning and even the thunderous logic of Burke were in vain.
The text of the law reached Boston May 10 and both angered and appalled. A town meeting showed a determination to resist to the utmost. All the Colonies were to be asked to break off trade with Britain and Ireland till the act was repealed. Virginians did not learn of the precise terms of the act until shortly before May 19. Then the universal comment, in varying phrase, was that if one port could be closed in this manner, all could be—to the complete destruction of American rights. “The Parliament of England,” wrote Landon Carter, “have declared war against the town of Boston and rather worse.” He recorded the force being mustered and affirmed, “This is but a prelude to destroy the liberties of America. . . .”
In Virginia’s General Assembly May 24, when petitions had been presented and referred in the usual order, the grave and religious Treasurer, Robert Carter Nicholas, took the floor and presented a paper that began: “This House, being deeply impressed with apprehension of the great dangers to be derived to British America from the hostile invasion of the city of Boston in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose commerce and harbor are, on the first day of June next, to be stopped by an armed force, deem it highly necessary that the said first day of June be set apart, by the members of this House, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition, for averting the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil rights and the evils of civil war; to give us one heart and one mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper means, every injury to American rights; and that the minds of his Majesty and his Parliament, may be inspired from above with wisdom, moderation and justice, to remove from the loyal people of America all cause of danger from a continued pursuit of measures pregnant with their ruin.” The remainder was an order for the House to assemble June 1 and proceed, with the Speaker and the mace, to the church where prayers were to be said and a sermon delivered. Publication of the resolutions was directed in order that the public might share in the services and in the fast.
The resolutions of Nicholas were adopted on Tuesday the twenty-fourth; Wednesday week would be June 1. Burgesses expected they would be dissolved, but not until they had completed their major legislation the latter part of June. The House went on at its usual pace on the twenty-fifth. Much the same order of business was in progress between 3 and 4 P.M. on the twenty-sixth when the Clerk of the General Assembly brought the familiar message, “The Governor commands the House to attend his Excellency immediately, in the Council Chamber.” In a few minutes the life of the legislature was ended in a single sentence from Dunmore: “Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House of Burgesses, I have in my hand a paper published by order of your House, conceived in such terms as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain; which makes it necessary for me to dissolve you; and you are dissolved accordingly.”
It had happened that way in May 1769. Burgesses remembered how they had gone from the Capitol to Raleigh Tavern and there had begun the discussion that led to the first Association. They flocked to the same building on the twenty-seventh and took counsel for the future. A basis of action was suggested in resolutions Richard Henry Lee had drafted. One of these called for the non-use in Virginia of the tea of the East India Company so long as the tax remained. Another denounced the Boston Port Act as “a most violent and dangerous attempt to destroy the constitutional liberty and rights of all British America.” Then came a paragraph for the appointment of Deputies to meet with like representatives from other Colonies in order to consider means of stopping exports and securing the constitutional rights of America.
A paper containing substantially these ideas was adopted without haggle or hesitation. The central conclusion was this: “We are further clearly of opinion, that an attack, made on one of our sister Colonies, to compel submission to arbitrary taxes, is an attack made on all British America, and threatens ruin to the rights of all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied. And for this purpose it is recommended to the Committee of Correspondence, that they communicate, with their several corresponding committees, on the expediency of appointing deputies from the several Colonies of British America, to meet in general congress, at such place annually as shall be thought most convenient; there to deliberate on those general measures which the united interests of America may from time to time require.” The proclamation of a common cause and the suggestion of an annual Congress were revolutionary developments.
On the twenty-eighth most of the Burgesses went home, but Washington stayed in Williamsburg to complete private business. Several other members of the dissolved House remained to attend a meeting of the Committee of Correspondence. This body took up the duty assigned it of communicating with the other Colonies on the “expediency” of an annual Congress of Delegates from all the Colonies. The Virginians approved a circular letter in which the dissolution of the House was explained. Then the committee wrote: “The propriety of appointing deputies from the several Colonies of British America to meet annually in general Congress, appears to be a measure extremely important and extensively useful, as it tends so effectually to obtain the united wisdom of the whole, in every case of general concern. We are desired to obtain your sentiments on this subject which you will be pleased to furnish us with.”
That was on Saturday. The next day, Washington in grave mood went to church for both the morning sermon and the afternoon prayers. It perhaps was during churchyard conversation following the second service that Washington heard of the arrival of important dispatches from Maryland, with enclosures of serious moment from Philadelphia and Boston. Soon word spread that Peyton Randolph asked that all the Burgesses in Williamsburg assemble the next morning. Calls were dispatched, also, for those nearby. Washington of course responded and, on the morning of the thirtieth, found that twenty-four of his former colleagues had done likewise. The paper from Maryland was read to them. With it were a letter and a notice of a meeting held in Philadelphia. These, in turn, had been prompted by a communication Samuel Adams had addressed to the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence to cover resolutions adopted in Boston.
Some of the resolutions of the Colonies above the Potomac were enough to make even the calm eyes of Washington flash. Adams reported that Boston alone could not “support the cause under so severe a trial.” He went on: “As the very being of each Colony, considered as a free people, depends upon the event, a thought so dishonorable to our brethren cannot be entertained, as that this town will now be left to struggle alone.” Maryland’s Committee, writing May 25, was in favor of ascertaining what the people thought of a drastic plan of resistance—commercial non-intercourse, an association “on oath” to assure compliance, refusal of lawyers to enter suits for debts due in Britain and abandonment of all dealings with any Colony that declined to join with a majority of the others.
The argument quickly centred on a severance of trade with Britain. Washington could not endorse this. He favored cutting imports to absolute necessities, but he did not believe Virginians should refuse to pay their debts to Britain, and he reasoned that if planters and merchants were to pay, they had to export their goods. In this stand he was by no means a
lone. It was argued, also, that where so small a part of the subscribers to the existing Association were present, they should not undertake to modify the agreement. The decision was to invite the members of the former House to meet in Williamsburg and to consider what should be done. A date two months later, August 1, was set, in order that ample time might be given to arrange private business in advance of the gathering. Meantime, members would “have opportunity of collecting the sense of their respective Counties.” The meeting adjourned with the understanding that the names of those present were to be signed to a letter that would be dispatched to the entire membership of the House.
Washington intended to seek re-election to the House of Burgesses and do his full part in the name of his constituents and on his own account, but he had hoped that a deft writer, such as George Mason or Bryan Fairfax, would be a candidate for the seat vacated by John West. When Bryan declined because he was out of step with his neighbors, Washington renewed his appeal to Mason. Mason’s declination left Charles Broadwater the only new candidate. The Fairfax election was held July 14 and completed in about two hours. There was a hogshead of punch for all comers, but if Washington furnished this, he was not so informed. He paid for the cakes served freely, and he left the details of the ball that evening to Capt. John Dalton, who computed Washington’s share of the cost at approximately £8.
During the preliminaries of the election, and on election day itself, no resolutions on the Boston Port Act were passed. The reason probably was a desire the leading men of the county had expressed that Mason prepare for a selected committee a paper that would set forth the principles at stake. When Mason had completed a draft of resolutions and a designated committee had approved them, the final text was to be presented at a meeting over which Washington was to preside. On July 17, Mason brought to Mount Vernon his resolutions, which he doubtless discussed with Washington that evening. The next day the two rode to Alexandria and reviewed with the other committeemen the long statement Mason had fashioned. With no acrimony and little debate various amendments were made. Then the party went to the Court House, where Washington and the other members of the Committee mounted the bench. The proceedings had been opened when someone handed Washington a bulky letter. He broke the seal and found the contents to be a lengthy argument by Bryan Fairfax for petition and reconciliation, rather than for protest and reprisal. After looking over the paper, Washington passed it down the bench. One only of those who examined Fairfax’s appeal was favorable to it. All the others were for ignoring it as unlikely to have the slightest support.
Washington Page 36