The Man Who Could Be King: A Novel

by John Ripin Miller

  Josiah shared Adams’s appreciation and envy of Washington’s acting ability. Adams attributed the General’s hold on public audiences to “Shakespearean and Garrickal Excellence in Dramatic Exhibitions” and later described Washington as the “best actor of Presidency we have ever had.”

  PATRICK HENRY, PAGES 71-72

  Patrick Henry praised the oratory at the 1774 Continental Congress, but “if you speak of solid information, and sound judgment, Colonel Washington is by far the greatest man on the floor” (Richard Norton Smith, Patriarch, 12). Henry, the archenemy of executive tyranny, made one exception: he supported appointing Washington as a “near dictator” during the war (Beeman, 115). Washington remained a supporter of Henry until the end of their lives (Ellis, His Excellency, 267).

  Josiah states that Henry and several Founding Fathers opposed the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution has become so revered over the years that we assume all our Founding Fathers supported its adoption. Not so. Some opposed it outright. Others opposed it without amendments. (Supporters had already pledged a bill of rights by amendment if it was adopted.) Others opposed it in favor of extending the Articles of Confederation. Henry, Mason, Governor George Clinton of New York, and John Hancock all at one time or another opposed its adoption. And Thomas Jefferson was a late and lukewarm supporter.

  When a few of Jefferson’s republican allies in the news media and elsewhere criticized Washington during his second presidential term, Henry rose to Washington’s defense with phrases about such criticism inhibiting those seeking public service that have echoed down through the years: “If they slander General Washington, what must we expect when lesser men serve” and “If he whose character as our leader during the whole war . . . is so roughly handled in his old age, what may be expected of men of the common standard?” (Ron Chernow, Washington, 752).

  THE MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE, PAGES 73-78

  Lafayette’s admiration for Washington was so great that we cannot read his words today without believing Lafayette was a rock star “groupie” instead of one of the ablest and most distinguished soldiers and diplomats of his time, and one who, we will see, challenged Washington on issues such as slavery.

  To others, Lafayette spewed comments about the General such as: “Our general is a man formed, in truth, for this revolution which could not have been accomplished without him. I see him more intimately than any other man, and I see that he is worthy of the adoration of his country,” and “Every day, I learn to admire more his magnificent character and soul . . .”

  It is fortunate that Lafayette evinced such opinions because he spent millions in today’s currency of his own money on the Revolution, became one of the Continental Army’s ablest commanders, more than anyone convinced the French government to support the rebels, and further changed Washington’s views on slavery.

  Lafayette’s written comments on Washington to Washington were, if possible, even more glowing than his comments on the General to others:

  Everything that is great, and everything that is good were not hitherto visited in one man. Never did a man live whom the soldier, statesman, patriot, and philosopher could equally admire, and never was a revolution brought about, that in its motives, its conduct, and its consequences could so well immortalize its glorious chief. I am so proud of you, my dear general, your glory makes me feel as if it were my own—and while the world is gaping at you, I am pleased to think, and to tell, the qualities of your heart do render you still more valuable than anything you have done.

  While the words today may seem grandiloquent, Lafayette lived the life of a medieval knight whose cause was the American Revolution and whose hero was George Washington. He genuinely believed, as did thousands of others, that America’s advantage over Britain lay in “the superiority of George Washington.”

  Not surprisingly, Lafayette named his son after the General.

  Those interested in reading the above and other interactions of Lafayette and Washington may wish to consult Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger. This delightful biography describes how Lafayette, living the life of a romantic fourteenth-century knight, changed the shape of America and France in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

  SLAVERY, LAFAYETTE, THE BLACK POET, AND WASHINGTON’S LAST WILL, PAGES 74-77

  Lafayette may have been an avid admirer of the General, but he was not timid about advancing his views to Washington on many issues, including slavery.

  The conversation with Washington reported by Lafayette to Josiah is imagined but does reflect the known views of each on slavery at that time. For example, in 1783, the same year as the eventful week at Newburgh, Lafayette sent a letter to Washington proposing that Washington join him in an effort to start removing the moral stain of slavery by buying an estate in the West Indies on which “we may try the experiment to free the Negroes.” Washington wrote in response that to “encourage the emancipation of the black people,” he would be “happy to join you in so laudable a work.” Lafayette, who admitted that it may be a “wild scheme,” apparently did not pursue the matter.

  How we evaluate Washington (or any other historical figure) on the slavery issue depends on whether we evaluate him against the standards of his time or ours. Abraham Lincoln, when he was inaugurated as president in 1861, denied that he was an abolitionist. (We recognize the political pressures Lincoln was under and honor him for what he did a few years later.) Washington, seventy years before Lincoln’s inaugural speech, was already stating his support for the gradual abolition of slavery, including in his own state of Virginia.

  In a 1786 letter to John Frances Mercer, Washington writes, “It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by the legislature by which slavery may be abolished by slow, sure & imperceptible degrees.”

  The evolution of Washington’s position on slavery is fascinating. He was born into a slaveholding family, inherited slaves, and in his early years and even later bought, sold, and recovered slaves. Something happened in his middle years, however, that distinguished him from his planter neighbors. Aside from realizing the economic inefficiency of slavery, he came to be repelled by the buying and selling of human beings, which he decided not to engage in, despite having an excess of slaves that for economic reasons he should have sold. Washington wrote of his refusal to buy or sell slaves “because I am principled against this kind of trafficking in the human species.”

  The experiences during the war undoubtedly hastened Washington’s evolution on the slavery issue, exhibited by his implicit support of Laurens’s proposal to arm South Carolina blacks as well as his observations of the performance of free black troops from New England. While some of the northern units were all black, others, with Washington’s approval, remained mixed or integrated. I was surprised to find that the first integrated US army units came into being not after President Truman’s order in 1946, nor after President Eisenhower’s implementation of that order in 1953, but under General Washington during the Revolutionary War.

  Washington’s actions, while not trumpeted around the land, were certainly known, particularly to the blacks affected. The best-known black intellectual and writer of the time, Phillis Wheatley, was a free Negro poet who had been published in London. Prior to her meeting with Washington described by Josiah in this chapter, a meeting which did indeed take place, Wheatley lauded America as “the land of freedom’s heaven-defended race!” and sent the General the following ode:

  Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side,

  Thy ev’ry action let the goddess guide.

  A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine,

  With gold unfading, Washington! Be thine.

  After receiving the ode in 1775 outside of Boston, Washington apologized for his delay in responding and stated, “I thank you most sincerely for your polite notice of me in the Elegant lines you enclosed. And however undeserving I may be of Such encomium and panegyric, the style and manner exhibit a striking proof of your great poetical talents . . . If you s
hould ever come to Cambridge or near headquarters, I shall be happy to see a person so favoured by the Muses and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her dispensations. I am with great respect your obedient humble servant.”

  This is hardly the response that either a slave or a free black would expect from a Southern slaveholder in the eighteenth century, and it shows Washington’s evolution on the slavery issue. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 220.)

  That Martha Washington did not attend Washington’s meeting with Wheatley is conjecture on my part but quite likely. Lady Washington’s views on slavery were probably askew from her husband’s and undoubtedly affected the General’s last will so it only applied to his and not her slaves. (See Ellis, His Excellency, 260.) In a letter upon hearing of the death of a slave child, she wrote, “Black children are liable to so many accidents and complaints that one is hardly sure of keeping them. I hope you will not find him much loss. The Blacks are so bad in their nature that they have not the least gratitude for the kindness that may be shewed to them” (Helen Bryan, Martha Washington, 335). Based on Washington’s letters, orders, and transcripts by others of his conversations, we can say with confidence that these are words that would never have come out of the General’s mouth.

  Washington has been criticized for not being consistent or public enough on the slavery issue. He did not, for example, fight to keep slaves from being returned from British control to their owners after the war. He did not make public declarations on the issue, at least until his will. While as president in 1794 he introduced into the Senate a Quaker petition from New England calling for the immediate abolition of American participation in the international slave trade, Washington, like some other Founding Fathers, seemed to rely on the 1789 constitutional provision calling for the abolition of the slave trade in 1808 to bring about the end of slavery.

  Washington and Lafayette’s conversation about the former providing for the freedom and welfare of his slaves after his death is imagined, like the conversation on Lafayette’s proposed estate for free slaves, but again it is also perfectly plausible and consistent with Washington’s recorded views and his later actions prior to his death. Washington’s last will and testament is an extraordinary document. Not only did he provide the opportunity for freedom for his slaves, but, consistent with his belief that effective abolition must include education, he provided money—money not easily available to him—for his slaves’ education, training, and welfare if they chose freedom. And this at a time when Virginia law banned the education of blacks.

  Some modern historians think that if Washington really believed in freeing his slaves, he would have done so sooner. Again, we are confronted with the question of what standard you use to judge a historical figure, the standard of his own times or ours. Yes, Washington only freed his slaves after his death, but I am not aware of any other Virginia planter who freed his slaves in his will in 1799.

  Other Founding Fathers, such as Franklin and Hamilton, were abolitionists, but they were not born into slaveholding families with large numbers of slaves. Other Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, were born in similar slaveholding circumstances as Washington but refused to free their slaves. Henry Wiencek’s article “Master of Monticello” brings out the differences in how these two Founding Fathers treated their slaves, including how Jefferson turned down a gift in 1817 from the Polish noblemen Tadeusz Kosciuszko (the equivalent of $280,000 in today’s dollars) to free his slaves. Wiencek shows how Washington, in his last will and testament, rebuked his era and showed “that if you claim to have principles, you must live by them” (Smithsonian magazine, October 2012). To the complaint of those historians who wish Washington had been more public in his opposition to slavery, Washington’s last will and testament certainly attracted public notice. Abolitionist groups held their annual meetings in the early 1800s on Washington’s birthday. They, like the black poet Phillis Wheatley, and many others, had no doubt where Washington stood.

  Why Washington evolved from slaveholder to abolitionist is not totally clear. Josiah would probably say that, while moral and economic factors played a role, Washington, as usual, had his eye on history and what later Americans would think of him. But as Josiah would also likely observe, if one does the right thing, what difference do the reasons make?

  CHAPTER FOUR: DAY FOUR, THURSDAY—COUNCILS OF WAR, REFLECTIONS ON GENERALSHIP

  CONSPIRACIES AGAINST WASHINGTON, PAGES 81-84

  Looking back, it is hard for us to imagine that other generals and political leaders wanted to replace Washington. We must remember that Congress appointed many of the top generals so that almost every major general had the support of a congressional faction. Further, the war stretched on for over seven years, and in such a lengthy struggle there were ups and downs. One of the most depressing periods was after the defeat in New York and during the retreat across New Jersey. With thousands pledging allegiance to the king at that time, as Josiah notes, it was only natural that many should seek new leadership. Josiah comments on Generals Lee and Gates wanting to replace Washington, and there were probably others who harbored similar ambitions.

  The so-called Conway Cabal was the best known of these conspiracies. It reached fruition in 1777 during the encampment at Valley Forge. There were three leading characters: General Thomas Conway, an Irish-born French general seeking fortune and promotion in the French army, who received his appointment from Congress and was the organizer of the effort; General Thomas Mifflin, the quartermaster general under fire for corruption and incompetence; and General Horatio Gates, the victor at the Battle of Saratoga, whose role was more ambiguous. The creation of an independent Board of War, which was chaired by Gates and had Mifflin as a member, and the appointment of Conway as the army’s inspector general were the tools for replacing Washington with Gates or Mifflin, but a trail of letters and comments exalting Gates and demeaning Washington undermined the plotters’ efforts. A letter from Conway to Gates fell into Washington’s hands with incriminating language, and it soon circulated: “Heaven has been determined to save your [Gates’s] country, or a weak General [Washington] and bad counsellors would have ruined it” (Douglas Freeman, George Washington, vol. 4, 593).

  Impatient members of Congress, particularly the newer delegates, were receptive to criticism of Washington for not ending the war quickly. Eventually, however, Washington’s supporters rallied to his defense. His practice of appointing officers on the basis of merit served him well as scores of officers from many states petitioned Congress against appointing Conway, a French major general, over American officers with greater experience and qualifications. Lafayette implicitly threatened Congress to cut off French aid and wrote Washington that “stupid men . . . without knowing a single word about war, undertake to judge you, to make ridiculous comparisons; they are infatuated with Gates” (Ron Chernow, George Washington, 316).

  A committee of the Congress visited Valley Forge and gained appreciation for Washington’s strategy for outlasting the British. The president of the Congress, Henry Laurens (who just happened to be the father of Washington’s aide John Laurens), and luminaries like Patrick Henry stepped forth. Finally, the troops made their wishes known. As one observer noted, their views were clear: “The toast among the soldiers, Washington or no Army” (Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington, vol. 4, 606).

  Ultimately, Conway overplayed his hand, threatening to resign so many times that Congress eventually took him up on his offer. Mifflin also resigned while Gates hastened to disavow his role. Washington, meanwhile, remained calm and dignified, letting others wage the fight. Eventually Conway ended up in a duel with one of Washington’s aides, John Cadwalader. After being severely wounded, and before returning to France, a beaten and humiliated Conway wrote an apology to Washington:

  I find myself just able to hold the pen during a few minutes, and take this opportunity of expressing my sincere grief for having done, written, or said anything disagreeable to your Excellency. My career wil
l soon be over. Therefore justice and truth prompt me to declare my last sentiments. You are, in my eyes, the great and the good man. May you long enjoy the love, veneration, and esteem of these states whose liberties you have asserted by your virtues. (See Ron Chernow, George Washington, 322.)

  No one in the ranks or in Congress ever challenged Washington’s authority again. In Henry Laurens’s words, this saved the revolutionary effort from “ruin.” It also left Washington so triumphant that many wondered what he would decide coming out of that week in Newburgh five years later.

  (For those interested in reading more about the Conway Cabal, see Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington, vol. 4, pages 586–612; Ron Chernow, George Washington, pages 316–22; and James Flexner, Washington, The Indispensable Man, pages 111–16.)

  WASHINGTON AND DUELING, PAGE 83

  Washington’s aides—Laurens, Cadwalader, and others—challenging the General’s detractors to duels was indeed, as Josiah observes, ironic, given Washington’s disapproval of duels, which were then a common practice. While his disapproval was based on sound moral principles, that disapproval, surprising coming from this battle-tested general, produced huzzahs. I suspect it was a position Washington took after considerable thought. And if he had been a slight, craven-looking figure, I don’t doubt Washington would have participated in duels. But Washington was a strapping physical specimen known to have faced great tests in battle and to have taken lessons in dueling. Since no one could doubt his courage or his skill, what was to be gained? By refusing to duel, as in many aspects of Washington’s life, Washington won accolades by doing the unexpected.

  In 1755, Washington got into a political argument with a man of small physical stature, William Payne. Payne knocked Washington down with a stick. Washington was restrained by friends from assaulting Payne, but a challenge to a duel under the customs of the day was soon expected. Instead, Washington retired, thought the matter over, and invited Payne to a meeting the next day where he apologized for being in the wrong. Where a duel was expected with Washington victorious, none took place, leaving Payne and others astonished and impressed with Washington’s display of character. (See Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington, vol. 2, 146.)