As the French and Indian War raged in Pennsylvania, the cloister, that is, the Ephrata community, became a hospital to meet the needs of the wounded and those dying from camp fever. The pacifists quietly bore the burdens of the war they had not started or believed in by caring for the dying and burying the dead. Washington likely was aware of the Ephrata community during the French and Indian War because of the medical care they provided for wounded and sick soldiers.
At any rate, the end of the world did not come, but the end of the war finally did. Miller’s printing achievement, as well as his insights into agricultural matters, such as the best way to grow peas, brought him an invitation to join the American Philosophical Society. In this context, Reverend Miller also became known to Philadelphia patriot and poet, Francis Hopkinson. The point here is that there is strong undeniable historical evidence of the life and ministry of Reverend Miller.
Years earlier, when Reverend Miller left the Reformed Church and joined the Dunkers, he unavoidably offended some of his former parishioners. One of those was a successful innkeeper named Michael Widman, who was an officer in the Reformed church that Miller had pastored. Thereafter, Widman seized opportunities to torment and ridicule his former pastor, the Seventh Day Baptist or “Dunker” pacifist clergyman, Reverend Miller.
The pattern of the Widman-Miller relationship had long been set when Washington came into contact with Reverend Miller, due to the movement of troops, and because of the need for the pacifistic Ephrata community to assist in alleviating the sufferings of Washington’s soldiers during the Revolutionary War.
There were other natural connections as well. The Reverend General John Peter Muhlenberg, of Washington’s army, was born in Tuplehocken, near Ephrata, and his Lutheran clergyman father still lived there. Records indicate that Gen. Muhlenberg visited his father during the Valley Forge encampment, so there was direct travel occurring on some occasions between Valley Forge and the region of the Ephrata Cloisters minister by Reverend Miller.
The need for hospital care became acute in the aftermath of the Battle of Brandywine in 1777, which brought many wounded soldiers there, including Marquis de Lafayette. This, in turn, brought several officers to Ephrata to visit the wounded in the military hospital there, including General Washington. As they had in the French and Indian War, so now again in the Revolutionary War, the Ephrata Cloister met the needs of the wounded and the soldiers who were dying from camp fever. The pacifists once again bore the burdens created by the War they had not started or believed in, caring for the dying to burying of the dead.
The pacifistic community also helped meet other needs of the patriotic cause. When Philadelphia was captured, Peter Miller’s publishing efforts provided a printing press. The paper industry provided the “wads” necessary for loading for the primitive rifles. Tradition says that Miller translated the Declaration of Independence into seven different languages, although there is no proof that he did. Apparently he could have, given his scholarly and European language mastery.
Letters show that Washington’s contacts in the area created friendships with other religious groups doing mission work in the area, such as the Brethren, Bishop Ettwein.13
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF WASHINGTON’S PARDON OF MICHAEL WIDMAN
As we consider the Michael Widman and Peter Miller story, it is clear that the account fits many of the known facts. There are historical records of both men from the places mentioned. Widman was a tavern owner. Turk’s Head existed and was the early name for West Chester, being so named by a sign at the tavern in the town. Widman had human reasons to be an enemy to Miller, given the facts of his conversion to a strange new sect, a fact that is affirmed by Church records on both sides of the ecclesiastical debate.
Washington would have had several reasons to have known Miller, as well as other church leaders from that area. Miller’s commitment to pursue clemency and leniency of prisoners was also recorded by contemporaries of Reverend Miller in other instances. We have also seen that, according to Washington’s military records, he was known to issue pardons and offer clemency. Thus, Washington’s change of mind toward Widman would not be inconsistent in itself with what is known about Washington’s personality and approach to prisoners.
Government records of the confiscation of Widman’s property have been found. Not only has a deed been found of Widman as owner of the tavern that preceded the Eagle Tavern in Ephrata, but historical records also reveal another tavern keeper named Widman in the Reading, Pennsylvania, area some years later. Given all of these facts, the story may not be summarily dismissed as lacking historical credibility.
So, in the context of Valley Forge, let us consider Douglas Harper’s objections to the historical credibility of the Miller-Widman story. His first and major problem is that the civilian Widman was tried in a military rather than a civilian court. But this, too, comports with circumstances at Valley Forge. On several instances, court martial dealt with civilians, inclusive of meting out the death penalty, as was looming for Widman. Valley Forge historian John Stoudt quotes sources stating:
• “Congress has resolved to try by Courts Martial any Civilian found carrying supplies to the Enemy.”14
• “William Maddock found guilty of trying to drive Cattle to the Enemy. Confin’d to a Gaol in Pennsylvania, and to have all his real and personal estate taken for the use of the United States of America.”15
• “The sentence of whippings for the citizens of this State convicted of intercourse with the Enemy was carried out today. A surgeon stopped several whippings because the culprit could stand no more.”16
• “The besetting of Mr Knox’s house is a matter of civil cognizance, but it appears that the prisoner has held correspondence with the enemy and supplied them with provisions, and he will probably suffer death for those offences by sentence of Court Martial.”17
Civilians were being tried by military courts, even facing capital punishment. So this objection by Harper is clearly specious.
A second objection by Harper is Reverend Peter Miller’s walking to rescue Widman, and Washington’s clemency being so little moved that he did not provide Reverend Miller with a horse. Why would Miller have walked and why would Washington not have offered a horse? The simple answer is that at Valley Forge there were no horses available to spare, scarcely being enough even for the troops or for the artillery. The horses were starving, dying, and in fact even being confiscated from Quakers traveling by.
Sources that address the objection of Harper state:
• “We have lost a good many men, and horses, and have had hard fare in our present quarters.”18
• “Next Sunday the Quakers will be seeking to go to their General Meetings in Philada. This is an intercourse we should by all means endeavor to interrupt, as the plans settled at these Meetings are of a most pernicious kind. If any are riding Horses, these are to be seized and draughted for the Service and they are to be sent to the Quarter Master General.”19
• “Our horses, being constantly exposed to showers of rain and falls of snow, day and night, are in miserable condition. Many die. The rest are so emaciated as to be unfit for labor. If we be attacked now we shall have to leave our artillery behind for want of horses.”20
• “The carcasses of horses about the Camp, and the deplorable leanness of those which still crawl in existence, speak the want of forage equal to that of human food.”21
• “Forage is wanting. Our horses starve, as do their masters. If help does not arrive, and forage does not appear, we shall not have one horse left.”22
Washington simply could not make a horse available to Reverend Miller’s errand of mercy. It perhaps also may explain why Miller himself had not ridden to Valley Forge on a horse—all of the region’s available horses had already been seized, or would have been seized. Miller either did not have a horse, since it had already been taken, or, he chose not to risk riding in with a horse for fear of the seizure of one of the cloister’s horses. Whether the monastic community put a premium on pilgrimage by foot for mercy ministry is also a question worthy of investigation as well. So, contrary to Harper, the horses were starving to death like the soldiers, and there were none to spare. Harper’s second objection is specious as well.
Another problem with the historicity of this story raised by Harper is that there was no “blockhouse” in Turk’s Head or West Chester at that time, and why would a prisoner be sent to West Chester anyway? We have already seen that there was a civilian who was “Confin’d to a Gaol in Pennsylvania, and [had] all his real and personal estate taken for the use of the United States of America.”23 The general location of West Chester would have worked for keeping a prisoner, since it was away from British, and yet within traveling distance of Valley Forge. Further, American soldiers had been in the area for a fair amount of time only months before, preparing for the engagement with the British at Brandywine, and the residents there were not hostile to their fellow Americans.
Moreover, there was no way to keep a prisoner at Valley Forge, since there were no buildings, except the meager huts the soldiers had hastily built to survive the winter exposure. There was no food available for prisoners—the soldiers were starving. Given Washington’s commitment to humane treatment of prisoners, the closest safe place for a prisoner may well have been in a minor holding location, such as a house or barn used as a temporary “blockhouse” that has basically been lost to history. Washington, in his writings elsewhere, affirms that many records from the War were lost.24
So, as we conclude our response to Harper’s claim that the Widman-Miller-Washington story is “full of holes,” as we see it, the only uncertainties left are those that do not overturn the story.
It is true that the words that Washington spoke that refer to Jesus in the first of the accounts cited are not in the earliest written account. Since it is usually very difficult to establish the actual spoken words in an historical account if they were not immediately recorded, it is not surprising that storytellers have yielded to the temptation to embellish the facts. But we disagree with Harper’s claim that Peter Miller could not have made the parallel between Jesus seeking forgiveness for the sins of his enemies from God and his own seeking to have Widman pardoned by Washington.
While Harper calls this a “false parallel,” did not Jesus teach his followers to pray for their enemies? Moreover, the Lord’s Prayer that Washington, Miller, and Widman all prayed, presents the petition of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” And did not their Bibles teach, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” (Eph. 4:32.)?
Reverend Miller was not claiming to be the Messiah; he was attempting to intercede on behalf of his enemy. And interestingly, Washington used the term “intercede” in various pardon passages of his military letters as well.25 So, the words the later account attributed to Miller could have been spoken, and Washington would have understood, even though obviously there is no way to demonstrate that they were or were not spoken.
Finally, it is true that there is no known account of the Widman-Miller-Washington story of pardon coming from the West Chester area. We concur with Harper that a last minute rescue from the hangman’s gallows would have been newsworthy—had it been witnessed. We cannot prove or disprove the claim of the dramatic timing of the story. But for our purposes, the timing of the rescue is not the point. The point is that the pardon was given, and Widman lived to disappear in the west. The essential feature of the story is its claim that the pardon was issued by Washington to a clergyman for the clergyman’s worst enemy. This feature of the story comports with all the known facts.
CONCLUSION
All that we know about the history of the time and the character of the men supports that this event could have happened along the lines as reported. Miller’s involvement in the pardon of Widman reflected Washington’s great motto—deeds not words. Peter Miller’s deed of gracious intercession spoke to Washington, and Washington’s deed of clemency spoke to his sympathy for the Christian value of forgiving one’s enemies. Indeed, this is what Washington himself did with his own Anglican clergyman Reverend Fairfax, Reverend Boucher, and Reverend Duché, who as Loyalists had opposed him. Sometimes actions do speak louder than words.
So finally, we must disagree with Harper’s conclusion: “There may not be enough [holes] to consign the story to fiction, but there are enough to put it in serious doubt.” Rather, the facts show that the story has the hallmarks of an historical event, and, for our purposes here, the act reflects the character of a Christian and further undercuts the claim that Washington was a Deist, unless Deists accept the Gospel teaching of Jesus to forgive one’s enemies.
THIRTY THREE
George Washington’s Clergy and Their Sermons
“The Commander in chief thinks it a duty to declare the regularity and decorum with which divine service is now performed every Sunday, will reflect great credit on the army in general, tend to improve the morals, and at the same time, to increase the happiness of the soldiery, and must afford the most pure and rational entertainment for every serious and well disposed mind.”
George Washington, March 22, 1783
