The Man Who Could Be King: A Novel

by John Ripin Miller

  PROLOGUE

  JOSIAH RECALLING EVENTS SIXTY YEARS AGO FOR HIS GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, PAGES 3-4

  It is difficult for us to imagine the hold that the Revolutionary War had on Americans in the first half of the nineteenth century. World War II would be analogous today, but even World War II only arguably saved our democracy, while the Revolutionary War both created and saved it.

  In the nineteenth century, veterans who had served in the Revolutionary War were idolized, and in an age when books were scarcer and electronic media did not exist, children and grandchildren gathered around the hearth to hear their parents and grandparents tell their stories.

  Nonetheless, the period after Yorktown and before the peace treaty, 1781 to 1783, was not much better known in the 1800s than today. Already schools had started to simplify the story so that the surrender at Yorktown in 1781 then, as today, was portrayed as the end of the Revolutionary War. The process of forgetting or perhaps deliberately ignoring the period between 1781 and 1783 had already started. Why dwell on events like the subject of this novel, the nascent insurrection, which might have besmirched the narrative of the unceasing and heroic struggle to found our country? Such a focus, while actually deepening the appreciation of what our founders did, might have, albeit briefly, detracted from the imposing narrative of Josiah and his comrades. (For those wishing to learn more about this period between 1781 and 1783, there are two excellent books, The Perils of Peace: America’s Struggle for Survival after Yorktown 1781–1783 by Thomas Fleming and American Crisis: George Washington and the Dangerous Two Years After Yorktown, 1781–1783 by William M. Fowler, Jr.)

  WASHINGTON’S SCHOOLING AND HIS LETTERS, PAGE 4

  Washington’s early education, as Josiah’s comments and just about every early biography of Washington have noted, was skimpy. The General had very little formal schooling, probably the equivalent of one year in fourth grade from a private tutor.

  Washington was, however, like many in that era, a prodigious letter writer. Volumes of his letters and orders have survived, except for most of the letters to Martha, which, to the regret of historians, she burned. There are detailed editions of Washington’s writings, such as John C. Fitzpatrick’s The Writings of George Washington, but I have found the most readable, albeit selected, edition of Washington’s writings to be contained in Writings, edited by John Rhodehamel. I have therefore quoted that edition whenever possible. Many letters are quoted in this novel, and sometimes the quotations are contained in the conversations or views attributed to Washington.

  DIVIDED FAMILY LOYALTIES IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGE 5

  Divided loyalties of families such as Josiah’s were commonplace in the Revolutionary War, although by the 1840s when Josiah tells us his story, some families were already hiding their earlier fidelity to King George III. In Tories, Thomas B. Allen explains just how numerous Tory Americans were. Allen dismisses John Adams’s much-cited estimate that a third of the population had loyalist sympathies. Instead, he cites historians Henry S. Commager and Richard B. Morris for the estimate that if you added those who were either loyal to the crown or neutral, you probably had well over a third of the population (Thomas B. Allen, Tories, xiv–xxii). While no surveys were taken, it is generally recognized that percentages differed from area to area, e.g., New York City had a higher proportion of loyalists than Boston.

  BREAKING UP FIGHT BETWEEN SOLDIERS FROM VIRGINIA AND MASSACHUSETTS, PAGE 7

  The confrontation between General Washington and the Virginia and Massachusetts troops sounds like fiction, but it isn’t. There are numerous accounts, and the most vivid is by Massachusetts soldier Israel Trask:

  Together the general and William Lee rode straight into the middle of the riot. Trask watched Washington with awe as “with the spring of a deer he leaped from his saddle, threw the reins of his bridle into the hands of his servant, and rushed into the thickest of the melees, with an iron grip seized two tall, brawny, athletic, savage-looking riflemen by the throat, keeping them at arm’s length, alternately shaking and talking to them.” Talking was probably not the right word. The rioters stopped fighting, turned in amazement to watch Washington in action, then fled at “the top of their speed in all directions.” (See David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing, 25)

  This confrontation understandably enhanced General Washington’s reputation for physical prowess among the troops and left them in awe of their General.

  CURRENT ERRONEOUS IMAGE OF WASHINGTON AS A GRAY-HAIRED, PAUNCHY OLD MAN, 7

  The image we have today of Washington reflects Washington in later years, when he was painted by Gilbert Stuart years after the Revolutionary War. That image was already gaining currency at the time of Josiah’s old age. In contrast, Benjamin Rush’s view that “there is not a King in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his [Washington’s] side” was widely shared by Washington’s contemporaries and is reflected by the new sculptures of Washington in all his youth and vigor now found at Mount Vernon. These sculptures are based on modern forensic science and give us an accurate picture of how General Washington, a handsome six-foot-three inch, 209-pound physical specimen, really looked to others during the Revolutionary War.

  GENERAL WASHINGTON’S AIDES, PAGES 4-5, 6, 9-12, 16-18

  The aides mentioned here, except for Josiah, all existed, and their backgrounds and duties were as described. They were part of an evolving coterie of thirty-two who served the General during the Revolutionary War. (Those wishing to pursue the history of General Washington’s aides may want to read Washington and His Aides-de-camp by Emily Stone Whitely or the biography of one of Washington’s aides, Tench Tilghman, The Life and Times of Washington’s Aide-de-camp by L. G. Shreve.)

  GENERAL WASHINGTON’S HEADQUARTERS, PAGE 9

  General Washington’s headquarters and living quarters were in Hasbrouck House, which still stands in Newburgh, New York, and has been restored. Newburgh was a city of fifteen hundred people during the war, and the General, Lady Washington, and several of his aides lived and worked in Hasbrouck House, a seven-room stone house acquired from Catherine Hasbrouck, widow of a militia colonel who had died in 1780. Mrs. Hasbrouck went to live with relatives in nearby New Paltz. The rear of Hasbrouck House (which still exists today) looks down across a grassy hillside at the Hudson River. The most attractive room was Lady Washington’s parlor. For those interested in seeing the headquarters, you can visit Washington’s Headquarters State Historic Site in Newburgh year-round. It was the first publicly owned historic site in our country (acquired in 1850), and events commemorating Washington and the Revolution are held regularly.

  GENERAL WASHINGTON’S ACCOUNTING, 11-12

  The General’s handling of accounts was super careful to the point of being ridiculed. The congressional finding, which Josiah recounts, about Washington undercharging the taxpayers by one dollar for his expenses during the war, did take place. (See E. James Ferguson, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776–1790.)

  GENERAL WASHINGTON’S GUIDE TO CONDUCT, 13

  The Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation was, as Josiah noted, a constant guide and companion of the General’s. The full version has been translated by John T. Phillips II, who also provides a history of this guide to etiquette in the Compleat George Washington Series. Rules of Civility can also be found in many sources, including at the beginning of The Writings of George Washington cited above.

  Some of the rules may seem antiquated to modern eyes and seemed so even to Josiah reflecting back in the 1840s. The General took them seriously, however, and I have therefore quoted them exactly on many occasions in these pages.

  MARTHA WASHINGTON’S WEALTH, PAGES 14-15

  I assumed, like many, that Martha was the wealthy partner in the Washington marriage. This is true but with the caveat mentioned by Josiah: her wealth was largely inherited, and the inheritance was tied up for decades due to litigation by the heirs, many illegitimate, fat
hered by Martha’s first husband’s father. The lengthy litigation gave great business on both sides of the dispute to many of Virginia’s finest lawyers. While this litigation went on, the family’s main wealth derived from George.

  MARTHA WASHINGTON’S INTERRACIAL RELATIVES, PAGES 14-15

  Regarding Josiah’s reference to Lady Washington’s mixed-race relatives, according to Helen Bryan’s Martha Washington, First Lady of Liberty, Martha’s half sister, Ann, was fathered by Martha’s father, John Dandridge, with an Indian-Negro woman. Similarly, Martha’s first husband, Daniel Custis, had a black half brother, fathered by Daniel’s father, John Custis.

  The financial, sexual, and interracial background of Martha’s family has been explored by Bryan, and so has Washington’s by Bryan, Henry Wiencek in An Imperfect God, and others. There were numerous rumors spread by the British about George Washington’s sexual activities outside his marriage to Martha, but there is little supporting evidence, particularly of interracial sex. What there is rests on a family legend about a slave at Mount Vernon, Wes Ford; speculation on a visit by Washington to his brother John Augustine’s plantation ninety-five miles from Mount Vernon (where the alleged slave mother resided); and a visit by his brother’s family and slave to Mount Vernon. If there was an interracial relationship, the evidence, weak as it is, points to John Augustine. While Josiah notes the contemporary discussion of Jefferson’s sexual relations with his slave Sally Hemings—it was then known that Jefferson lived in Paris for years with Hemings, and there is now DNA evidence supporting the relationship—there is no such evidence for such a relationship involving Washington. As Edward G. Lengel, editor of the Washington Papers Project at the University of Virginia, acknowledges, while you can never absolutely prove a negative, by this standard, “one might as well assume that half the population of the United States may be descended from Pocahontas.” (See Edward G. Lengel, Inventing George Washington, p. 191.) According to Lengel, and I agree, Washington was not only a prude but also too concerned with his public reputation to engage in what society then would have regarded as improper conduct.

  CHAPTER ONE: DAY ONE, MONDAY—THE FIRST ANONYMOUS LETTER

  THE FIRST ANONYMOUS LETTER, 20 (QUOTED IN FULL IN APPENDIX B, PAGE 272)

  MUTINIES DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGES 20-21

  Mutinies took place throughout the Revolutionary War, far more on the American side than on the British side. These had very little to do with the devotion of the sides to their respective causes. As described earlier, in the 1781 Pennsylvania mutiny, American troops were devoted to the cause of independence, but the devotion of the state authorities and Congress to paying, feeding, and clothing the troops was much less. The causes of the very first mutiny in 1775 described here were typical of the causes of all the American mutinies: lack of pay, food, and clothing. “Taxation without representation” may have inspired the Revolution, but sometimes the troops who fought the battles may have wondered if the Revolution was against all forms of taxation, as state legislatures and the Congress were far more diligent in raising troops than in raising the taxes to care for them. Committees and riots against taxation were common during the war. (See John Ferling, Almost a Miracle, 350, 351.)

  The corruption and incompetence of the authorities in buying and dispensing supplies compounded the deprivations suffered. These failures by Congress and the state legislatures were a constant concern to General Washington. One could almost compose a volume just of the letters Washington wrote to Congress and the governors pleading for relief. Later in this book, some of these letters are quoted, including allusions to the threat of mutiny. (For an overview of mutinies during the Revolutionary War, see John A. Nagy, Rebellion in the Ranks.)

  TRAVAILS OF AMERICAN COMMON SOLDIER, PAGES 20-22

  The quotation from General Greene’s letter to a South Carolina militia general that politicians think the army “can live on air and water” expressed the view typical of higher officers toward the Congress and the states. These officers saw months without pay, weeks without clothing, and days without food as the norm.

  There are very few firsthand accounts of the difficult lives led by enlisted men during the war. The best and most readable is A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier: Some Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of Joseph Plumb Martin by Joseph Plumb Martin. By contrast, British and Hessian troops were equipped, fed, and trained as well as any troops in the world. An average enlistment of a year for the American soldiers compared with fifteen years’ service and training for the average British private.

  REVEREND DUCHÉ’S APPEAL TO WASHINGTON TO LEAD A COUP D’ÉTAT, 24 (QUOTED IN APPENDIX B, 257-262)

  Jacob Duché was a Philadelphia clergyman whose prayer at the First Continental Congress helped sparked the revolutionary cause. Duché, however, had become a “defeatist” who believed the American cause under congressional leadership had grown hopeless. Duché wrote to Washington that “’tis you Sir, and you only, that support the present Congress.” The American people, according to Duché, supported General Washington rather than the Congress and “the whole world knows that its [the army’s] very existence depends upon you, that your death or captivity disperses it in a moment.” If Congress could not negotiate an end to the war, argued Duché, Washington should lead a coup d’état.

  In his reply, Washington is reported to have rejected the suggestion as “ridiculous” and immediately sent on copies of Duché’s letter the next day to Congress. This action, as we will see, enhanced Washington’s standing with Congress. (See Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 133.)

  APPEALS TO WASHINGTON BY CONGRESSMEN CORNELL AND HOOPER, PAGE 24

  The calls by Congressmen Cornell and Hooper for Washington to expand his leadership went beyond Reverend Duché’s appeal, as the congressmen represented Americans who still believed the war could be won. (See John Ferling, Almost a Miracle, 471; Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 21.)

  I have found no response by Washington to either Cornell or Hooper’s appeals. These appeals were typical of those Washington received throughout the war up to and through the week at Newburgh.

  GENERAL WASHINGTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BRITISH BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGES 26-30

  Washington’s antagonism toward the British did indeed, as Josiah surmises, go back to their treatment of him during the French and Indian War. Washington and other colonial soldiers believed, with good cause, that the British military held them in contempt. While this contempt was reflected in the British disregard for colonial (including Indian) knowledge of tactics and terrain, nothing highlighted their contempt more than the British practice of having British officers of inferior rank serve over more senior and experienced colonial officers of higher rank. That this practice specifically affected Washington’s rank and commands, as well as the British refusal to commission Washington to a high rank, has been documented by many of Washington’s biographers. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 39, 40.)

  Nothing better sums up Washington’s antagonism toward British policies prior to the Revolutionary War—earlier than many American leaders—than his letter to neighbor George Mason in 1769 where he stated, “Our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom,” and “that no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing” (The Writings of George Washington, 129–32).

  “HANDS IN MY POCKET,” PAGE 27

  Washington’s “hands in my pocket” quote objecting to British taxation without representation appears in many sources, suggesting he stated this view many times, but the most complete version I have found is in a 1774 letter to a loyalist neighbor, Bryan Fairfax: “I think the Parliament of Great Britain hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for money” (The Writings of George Washington, 155, 156).

  WASHINGTON’S SUPPO
RT OF RECRUITING BLACK RHODE ISLAND TROOPS AND ARMING SOUTH CAROLINA BLACKS, PAGES 30-33

  Washington discreetly supported General Varnum’s proposal to have Rhode Island raise black troops. (See John Ferling’s Almost a Miracle, 342.) Some historians, including John Ferling, are dubious of Washington’s support of Laurens’s proposal to arm South Carolina’s slaves because there are no public statements by Washington stating his support. Other historians, such as Thomas Fleming, believe Washington supported Laurens’s proposal as evidenced by his writing to Laurens, “I know of nothing which can be opposed to them [British reinforcements going to Charleston] with such a prospect of success as the corps you have proposed should be levied in Carolina . . .”

  While Washington may have had mixed feelings, I find it hard to believe that Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s trusted aide, would have written to John Jay as president of the Congress endorsing Laurens’s proposal to arm South Carolina blacks without Washington’s approval. Hamilton wrote in part:

  The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticability or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires such a sacrifice. But it should be considered that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain by opening a door to their emancipation. (See Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 122)

  Similarly, if Washington had not been supportive of the proposal, I find it difficult to believe that he would have written a letter to Laurens commiserating over South Carolina’s rejection of the proposal. Washington wrote in part: