In this letter, Washington sets out a different standard for religious liberty, i.e., that the Jews (or any other group) deserved more than mere toleration; so long as they behaved as good citizens, they were welcome and deserved protection. This attitude toward religion set Washington apart, even from many of the other Founding Fathers.
GENERAL VARNUM’S LETTER, PAGES 138-39 (QUOTED IN APPENDIX B, PAGES 270-72)
Major General James Varnum referred to the low opinion the American public had of Congress with his statement “We are too young to govern ourselves.” In his letter, Varnum advocated for an absolute monarchy or a military state. “The Citizens at large are totally destitute of that Love of Equality which is absolutely requisite to support a democratic Republick: Avarice, Jealousy, & Luxury controul their Feelings, & consequently, absolute Monarchy, or a military State, can alone rescue them from all the Horrors of Subjugation” (Robert F. Haggard, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 146, no. 2, June 2002, 162).
In his reply, Washington was much milder than in his reply to Colonel Nicola. He opined that some credit was due to Congress and the states and that he did not “consent” to Varnum’s views, but he agreed that “the conduct of the people at large is truly alarming” and hoped that the “destructive passions, which I confess too generally pervade all Ranks, shall give place to that love of Freedom which first animated us in this contest.” This mildness of the General’s tone in response to Varnum’s suggestion of monarchy must have been noticed by Washington’s aides (Robert F. Haggard, ibid., 162).
TAVERNS AND OTHER SIGNS OF VENERATION FOR WASHINGTON, PAGE 140
Josiah reports a trip with the General where they saw a sign with King George III’s portrait lying on the ground outside a tavern and a sign with the General’s portrait raised in its place. This was highly likely as, even before the end of the war, Washington was idolized by many in our country. In 1783, Princeton University commissioned Charles Willson Peale to replace George III’s portrait with Washington’s. Congress commissioned an equestrian statue of Washington in 1783. Even earlier in the war, Cambridge, Williamsburg, Richmond, and Milton, Connecticut, were celebrating his birthday, and the army celebrated his birthday at Newburgh. Americans celebrated his birthday as early as 1779. (See John Ferling, The First of Men, 314, 319.) Counties and towns were named after Washington in four states during the war. A college was named after him in Maryland in 1782. (See Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 33.)
Nor was the idolization confined to America. In 1781, the French general Rochambeau proclaimed Washington’s birthday a holiday for French troops. Other American leaders may have been idolized, but the evidence of the idolization came after their deaths. With Washington, it came while he was alive. A Russian traveler noticed in the early 1800s that almost every American family had a likeness of Washington in its home, and this practice had started while Washington was alive. This veneration of a living person understandably made Josiah and others leery of Washington assuming greater power at Newburgh in 1783.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, PAGE 146-47
Today many colleges have intern programs in Washington, DC, for students to learn about their government. Every college in Washington, DC—Georgetown, American, George Washington, and others—has courses where congressmen, senators, and federal officials lecture to students to give them insights into how our government works. Many times when I served in Congress such students came to visit and talk with me. This was all envisioned by Washington—a national university where students from all over would attend congressional debates and learn about their new government. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 705.)
Josiah was correct about Washington’s enthusiasm for a national university. Sixteen years later, Washington devoted several pages in his last will and testament to laying out the case for a national university and bequeathing to such a project shares in inland water navigation companies given him by the legislature of Virginia, shares that Washington had previously declined as improper compensation for his services but that he now deemed appropriate if used for a public purpose such as a national university. Washington stated the purpose of such a university to be “to do away with local attachments and State prejudices” and offer an alternative to the great European universities that Washington believed were teaching “principles unfriendly to Republican Governmnt” (The Writings of George Washington, 1025–27). This dream of Washington’s in its exact form never came to pass, but when students visit our national capital from all over the United States to see their government in action, they do fulfill part of Washington’s dream.
FARMING, GARDENING, AND HOSPITALITY, PAGE 147
To say that General Washington was obsessed with farming and gardening would not be an overstatement. As Josiah notes, Washington believed it was his duty to advance American agriculture through experiments that ranged from herring to whiskey to textile mills to grapes to how to plant six different varieties of corn. For his neighbors, Washington tried to invent a grazing grass that would lead to a superior line of sheep and wool, and he also tried to breed a line of super mules with the gift of a Spanish jackass from the king of Spain and some other mules procured in Malta by Lafayette. (See James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 42–50.) Washington’s drill plough, which dispensed seed and corn through a twisting barrel as the plough moved forward, was used by neighbors and even later in the Midwest.
Washington, always conscious of appearances, was well aware that Southern hospitality was not a meaningless phrase and that Mount Vernon was becoming the most visited private residence in America. Many Virginia planters could be called “gentleman farmers,” but Washington was more. He talked of trees “which my hands have planted,” and it was not idle boasting as visitors noted with surprise that he did not just instruct his slaves but often, stripped to the waist, worked alongside his men. Washington could wax rhapsodic about seeing “the work of one’s own hands, fostered by care and attention, rising to maturity . . . which, by the combination of nature and taste . . . is always regaling to the eye, at the same time [that], in their seasons, they are . . . grateful to the palate” (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 43). Strangers so often stopped by for a day or two that Washington advised his mother that Mount Vernon was becoming a “well resorted tavern” (Andrea Wulf, Founding Gardeners, 27).
Citizens today may stop by and gaze at presidents’ private residences, but we do not stay overnight and have a few meals!
CHAPTER SIX: DAY SIX, FRIDAY—THE SHOWDOWN
THE EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR, PAGE 152-53
The General and the French ambassador shared some common beliefs: the war was approaching its end but was not yet over and could go on another year, and the war should be pursued until both the Americans and the French had achieved the maximum tactical military advantage prior to the final peace treaty. The General knew that the Americans and Congress were weary of war, but he also knew that peace would depend on where the forces stood on the battlefield. The General wanted to make sure that the final peace treaty gave the Americans New York City as well as Charleston, both then occupied by the British. Thus the General wanted the French to join him in an assault on New York. The French ambassador also knew that the Americans and the Congress were weary of war but wanted to make sure the French maintained their advantage in the West Indies. Thus, the ambassador wanted the Americans to join the French in pressuring the British along the coast to keep them from pushing the French out of the West Indies.
THE TEMPLE, PAGES 155-56
For those interested in seeing the Temple where the dramatic events of March 15, 1783, unfolded, you can visit the New Windsor Cantonment State Historic Site, which has been a New York State historical site since the nineteenth century.
The Temple has been reconstructed and mainly appears like the original Temple (only a cupola and a flagpole have been added), which was constructed
in three months. It is a 30-by-110-foot building with large sash windows, a small raised platform with four side offices, two of them for court-martials and administration, and other offices for supplies and the quartermaster. The French greatly admired the American troops’ craftsmanship with wood.
“Divine services” were held every Sunday during the months after Chaplain Israel Evans’s project came to fruition in December 1782. The wooden barracks, each housing eight soldiers, have yet to be reconstructed. The Temple, like Washington’s headquarters a few miles away, is open to the public.
WHERE DO WASHINGTON’S SPEECH AND THE RESOLUTIONS AND THE LETTERS QUOTED IN CHAPTER SIX COME FROM? PAGES 156 ET SEQ.
They do not come from the author’s imagination. Every quotation is real. Washington’s speech was transcribed by many in attendance, including the famous reference to his spectacles. (See The Writings of George Washington, 496.) Major Shaw’s description of the speech to Josiah is a verbatim quotation from a letter written by Shaw. The resolutions drafted by General Knox’s committee are quotes from the actual resolutions. (See the Washington Papers at the University of Virginia.) The letters to the president of the Congress and to Congressmen Jones and Hamilton and the thanks conveyed to the army were all written by Washington exactly as they are quoted. The toast by Washington to his officers at Fraunces Tavern and his speech to Congress in Annapolis resigning his commission are also exact quotations. (All these documents can be found in full in the Washington Papers at the University of Virginia. Most can be found in full in John Marshall’s The Life of George Washington, vol. 4, pages 75–97. And a few, such as Washington’s speech to his officers at the Temple, can be found in The Writings of George Washington, page 496. Portions or brief excerpts of these letters and speeches can be found in almost every biography of Washington. Even though the full power of these communications could only be experienced by those in attendance, the written versions are still, as the reader has already realized, quite compelling.)
THE GENERAL’S SPECTACLES, PAGES 161-62
Washington, a great, handsome, six-foot-three, 209-pound specimen at the beginning of the war (see earlier note on page 278 about the new lifelike sculpture of Washington at Mount Vernon), developed many physical infirmities during the war, among them a carbuncle on his leg, a paunch around the middle, graying hair, decaying teeth, and declining eyesight. His heavy correspondence led to increasingly blurry vision, which hampered the General’s reading ability. We know from a February 16, 1783, letter to a Philadelphia optometrist and leading American astronomer, David Rittenhouse, that the latter had prepared and delivered spectacles that month enabling the General to read smaller handwriting. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 432.)
MAJOR SAMUEL SHAW’S JOURNAL, PAGE 163
There are numerous and varied accounts of eyewitnesses to Washington’s speech on Saturday, March 15, 1783. All contain the basic facts outlined here, including the General’s use of his new spectacles, but the most well written and gripping is the Journals of Major Samuel Shaw, pages 101–5. Some artistic license is taken by the author; Josiah would have had access to his own and other accounts, and may well have received Major Shaw’s written account quoted herein, but he probably did not have access to the full Shaw journals since they were not published until 1847 by Shaw’s nephews Robert Gould Shaw and Josiah Quincy. Where Major Shaw’s account excels over other accounts is in capturing the difficulties the General faced in winning over his audience and the dramatic impact Washington had on his brother officers:
The meeting of the officers was in itself exceedingly respectable, the matters they were called to deliberate upon were of the most serious nature, and the unexpected attendance of the Commander-in-chief heightened the solemnity of the scene. Every eye was fixed upon the illustrious man, and attention to their beloved General held the assembly mute. He opened the meeting by apologizing for his appearance there, which was by no means his intention when he published the order which directed them to assemble. But the diligence used in circulating the anonymous pieces rendered it necessary that he should give his sentiments to the army on the nature and tendency of them, and determined him to avail himself of the present opportunity; and, in order to do it, with greater perspicuity, he had committed his thoughts to writing, which, with the indulgence of his brother officers, he would take the liberty of reading to them. It is needless for me to say anything of this production; it speaks for itself. After he had concluded his address, he said, that, as a corroborating testimony of the good disposition in Congress towards the army, he would communicate to them a letter received from a worthy member of that body, and one who on all occasions had ever proved himself their fast friend. This was an exceedingly sensible letter, and, while it pointed out the difficulties and embarrassments of Congress, it held up very forcibly the idea that the army should, at all events, be generously dealt with. One circumstance in reading this letter must not be omitted. His Excellency, after reading the first paragraph, made a short pause, took out his spectacles, and begged the indulgence of his audience while he put them on, observing at the same time, that he had grown gray in their service, and now found himself growing blind. There was something so natural, so unaffected, in this appeal, as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory; it forced its way to the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye. The General, having finished, took leave of the assembly, and the business of the day was conducted in the manner which is related in the account of the proceedings.
I cannot dismiss this subject [the General’s speech on Saturday, March 15, 1783] without observing, that it is happy for America that she has a patriot army, and equally so that a Washington is its leader. I rejoice in the opportunities I have had of seeing this great man in a variety of situations—calm and intrepid where the battle raged, patient and persevering under the pressure of misfortune, moderate and possessing himself of the full career of victory. Great as these qualifications deservedly render him, he never appeared to me more truly so, than at the assembly we have been speaking of. On other occasions he has been supported by the exertions of an army and the countenance of his friends; but in this he stood single and alone. There was no saying where the passions of an army, which were not a little inflamed, might lead; but it was generally allowed that longer forbearance was dangerous, and moderation had ceased to be a virtue. Under these circumstances he appeared, not at the head of his troops, but as it were in opposition to them; and for a dreadful moment the interests of the army and its General seemed to be in competition! He spoke—every doubt was dispelled, and the tide of patriotism rolled again in its wonted course. Illustrious man! What he says of the army may with equal justice be applied to his own character. “Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”
WASHINGTON THE “ACTOR” AT ANNAPOLIS, PAGES 166, 176
Earlier Josiah commented on how he agreed with John Adams that Washington was an actor. Whether Washington was an “actor” or, as Josiah now reflects, someone trying to mold his character to accentuate positive traits, Washington’s love of theater led him to inject theatrical references into his speeches. In resigning his commission to Congress in Annapolis in what Washington deemed his farewell to Congress, Josiah quotes Washington’s references to himself as an actor, retiring “from the great theatre of action.” Back in April 1783, in his last general order to the army, Washington resorted to similar theatrical rhetoric:
Nothing now remains but for the actors of this mighty Scene to preserve a perfect unvarying constancy of character through the last act; to close the Drama with applause; and to retire from the Military Theatre with the same approbation as Angells and men which have crowned all their former vertuous Actions. (See The Writings of George Washington, 513, 514.)
ADAMS AND MADISON’S LAUDING OF WASHINGTON AFTER NEWBURGH, PAGE 170-71
Josiah comments that congressmen such as Adams and Madison had doubts about w
hether the General would stop the insurrection but rushed to extol him after the fact, knowing that their congressional powers were secure. Josiah’s comments are well supported. James Madison, just two days after Washington’s speech at the Temple in Newburgh, wrote John Randolph: “The steps taken by the General to avert the gathering storm, and his professions of inflexible adherence to his duty to Congress and to his Country, excited the most affectionate sentiments toward him” (“Letter to John Randolph, March 17, 1783,” The Writings of James Madison, vol. 1, 407). For Madison, who had originally doubted that Washington would put down the mutiny, this was “an understatement, if there ever was one” (See Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 136).
In June 1783, three months after the showdown at Newburgh, John Adams wrote: “The happy turn given to the discontents of the army by the General, is consistent with his character, which, as you observe, is above all praise, as every character, whose rule and object are duty, not interest, nor glory, which I think has been strictly true with the General from the beginning, and I trust will continue to the end.” (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 136; “Letter to Livingston, June 16, 1783,” Works of John Adams, vol. 8, 73.)
The events at Newburgh also undoubtedly influenced Thomas Jefferson’s comment in 1784 quoted earlier: “The moderation and virtue of a single character has probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish” (James Thomas Flexner, Washington, The Indispensable Man, 178).
EPILOGUE
The Man Who Could Be King: A Novel Page 25