Humphreys again wrote,
...It seems not unreasonable to suppose (from the wonderful change of sentiments which has since taken place in France) that his death was ordained by Providence to happen exactly at the point of time, when the salutary influence of his example would be more extensively felt than it would have been at any other period....
In either extremity of life so immediately does the lot of Genl Washington appear to have been the charge of Heaven. Since the mortal as well as the natal hour if unchangeably fixed, it becomes our duty to acquiesce in the wise dispensation of the Deity. The illustrious father of his Country was long since prepared for that event. You will remember, when his life was despaired of at New York, he addressed these words to me: “I know it is very doubtful whether ever I shall arise from this bed and God knows it is perfectly indifferent to me whether I do or not.”—Amidst all the successes & all the honours of the world he knew “that no man is to be accounted happy until after death. Happy is it that the seal of immortality is set on the character of his, whose counsels, as well as his actions were calculated to increase the sum of human happiness.98
Jonathan Trumbull, the son of one of Washington’s closest political allies, Connecticut Gov. Jonathan Trumbull, wrote to Martha:
A second Father, as he has been, in many respects to me, -his Death has opened afresh the deeply impressed Wound, which the Loss of my first venerable parent had formerly occasioned. But he is gone and our Duty, however hard it may be at the first instance, is to Bow submissive to the Divine Will—His own words, written to me on a similar occasion (the Death of my Father) are so peculiarly consolatory at the moment, and are also so particularly applicable to my subject as well as to himself that I am impelled to give them to you without apology, etc99
This is the letter where Washington wrote of Governor Trumbull, “All these combining have secured to this memory universal respect and love here, and no doubt immeasurable happiness hereafter.”100 The point is that young Jonathan Trumbull is declaring that Washington’s words of his father’s immortality applied equally well to Washington. Martha Washington agreed. She wrote in return,
...the good Christian will submit without repining to the Dispensations on Divine Providence and look for consolation to that Being who alone can pour balm into the bleeding Heart and who has promised to be the widows God...your kind letter of condolence of the 30th of December was greatfull to my feeling. ...the loss is ours, the gain is his.
For myself I have only to bow with humble submission to the will of that God who giveth and who taketh away looking forward with faith and hope to the moment when I shall be again united with the Partner of my life. But while I continue on Earth my prayers will be offered up for the welfare and Happiness of my Friends among who you will always be numbered being. Dear Sir, your sincere and afflicted friend, Martha Washington...101
It is clear that Martha believed her husband was a Christian and had entered into the immortality of heaven. Her faith was “I shall be again united with the partner of my life.” Martha and her friends believed that Washington had lived and died as a Christian.
Scholars today may not accept that Washington believed in immortality, but it is clear that those who knew him were sure he was a true Christian.102
Washington clearly expressed a belief in everlasting life by the mercies of God’s grace. When scholars reject Washington’s belief in immortality, they do so in spite of the ample record of Washington’s faith in eternal life. A scholar’s unbelief in immortality, should that be the case, does not permit this conclusive evidence to be dismissed. There is indisputable evidence that Washington, as well as the Washington family as a whole, had a sincere belief in the hope of eternal life.
THIRTY FIVE
The Revenge of Parson Weems:
Washington’s Unparalleled Praise for an Unexpected Person
“For your kind compliment—‘The Immortal Mentor,’ I beg you to accept my best thanks. I have perused it with singular satisfaction; and hesitate not to say that it is in my opinion at least, an invaluable compilation. I cannot but hope that a book whose contents do such credit to its title, will meet a very generous patronage.”
George Washington to Parson Weems
1
The story of the Reverend Mason Locke Weems (1759 - 1825), or Parson Weems as he is usually titled, is a fascinating topic for Washington studies. The reason is evident: Weems’ biography of Washington was the first bestseller on Washington’s life. We have intentionally developed our study of the religious ideas of George Washington without dependence on Weems’ biography. Nevertheless, neither Weems’ life nor his writings can be entirely ignored. And once again, as in other aspects of Washington and religion, a deeper look at the existing evidence argues for the authenticity of our first president’s Christianity.
Born in Maryland, Mason Weems was the youngest of nineteen children. He first studied medicine. Later he pursued theology, and in 1784 he was one of the first two Americans to be ordained in the Church of England after the Revolutionary War. He preached for several years in Maryland churches and eventually added to his ministry the publishing and sales of religious books. He wrote several books, including such fascinating titles as: Hymen’s Recruiting Sargeant, or The New Matrimonial Tat-too for Old Bachelors; The Philanthropist, or a Good Twenty-Five Cents Worth of Political Love-Powder; God’s Revenge Against Dueling; God’s Revenge Against Gambling; God’s Revenge Against Adultery. He wrote a biography of Francis Marion—the famous “swamp fox,” (who was the chief inspiration for Mel Gibson’s The Patriot) as well as publishing other books aimed at producing good morals or answering the deistic views of Thomas Paine.
WEEMS’ LIFE OF WASHINGTON
But far beyond these titles, we must recognize the sheer impact Parson Weems’ The Life of Washington has had on the American historical consciousness of Washington. His biography became wildly successful and went through many printings. First published in 1800, it was so popular that some fifty-nine editions had appeared before 1850. Weems’ bestseller even made a significant impact on the youthful Abraham Lincoln. Weems’ masterwork is still in print as an important historical work.2
The first edition was being written while Washington was alive and began with Weems’ inscription:
Go thy way old George. Die when thou wilt,
We shall not look upon thy like again.
But Washington died on December 14, 1799, and accordingly, these opening lines were deleted. The most famous of all of his stories is the “cherry tree” incident. Weems’ version of the alleged historic anecdote follows:
When George was about 6 years old, he was made the wealthy owner of a hatchet, of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond; and was constantly going about chopping every thing which came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself by hacking his mother’s pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don’t believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning, the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favourite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken 5 guineas for his tree. Nobody would tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. “George,” said his father, “do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?”
This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself; and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, “I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.” “Run to my arms, you dearest boy,” cried his father in transports, “run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree, for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is worth more than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver and their fruits of purest gold.”3
Because of these sorts of unverifiable stories, as well as Parson Weems’ interest in presenting Washington as a model for virtue, he is believed—at least in the minds of most scholars—to have exaggerated elements of Washington’s life and to have added unhistorical details whenever it seemed appropriate to him to make his point. Thus, Weems is viewed with great suspicion by serious historians. There is good reason for this suspicion.
With all “honesty,” Weems does not score high marks as a careful historian, since he made many factual errors. In the first two chapters alone, he makes several misstatements: the maiden name of the first wife of George’s father, Augustine, was not Dandridge, but Butler; the age of Augustine at his marriage was not “at least 40,” but only thirty-six; the destination of the sea trip by George and Lawrence (his older stepbrother) was not Bermuda, but Barbados. Lawrence did not survive his struggle with tuberculosis long enough to see George’s successful military exploits at Fort Necessity in 1752, for he died in 1751; rather, his other stepbrother, Augustine Jr., lived to see it, since he did not die until 1762. Moreover, Weems created the wonderful dialogues of George and his family apparently from his own imagination, since there were no historical records kept of these early family dialogues.
Yet, we should also consider the assessment of Weems by Marcus Cunliffe, the historian who reissued Weems’ work on behalf of the Harvard Press in 1962. Cunliffe notes, “He gets his facts wrong, but not entirely wrong.”4 Weems also does something that creates the possibility that he was generally accurate. Namely, he quotes individuals by name, some of whom were still alive at the time of his writing. Thus we find John Fitzhugh, Esq. of Stafford, “who was, all his life, a neighbour and intimate of the Washington family.”5 There are also “Col. Lewis Willis, his play-mate and kinsman,” and “Mr. Harry Fitzhugh of Chotank.”6 These people actually existed. Col. Lewis (1734-1813, a cousin of George Washington) was still alive at the time of this book. John Fitzhugh of “Marmion in Stafford” appears in George’s diary.7 If Harry is a nickname for Henry, there also is a Henry Fitzhugh that appears in George’s diary.8 We are not aware of any of these men uttering any protest about what Weems had to say.
Weems explains that the anecdote he was about to present was “related to me twenty years ago by an aged lady, who was a distant relative, and when a girl spent much of her time in the family.”9 Since this ninth edition of Weems’ life of Washington was published in 1809, and it is the first version that offered the Washington childhood anecdotes, we would understand Weems to be relating stories he had heard around 1788, or just about when Washington was heading to be the first American president under the Constitution. This was a prime time for the appearance of the question, “Do you remember when?” which so often occurs when a local boy becomes famous.
Many of his claims could be checked by those in the region of Virginia, where Washington’s family and friends lived—the very ones to whom Weems sought to sell his books. Thus, it is plausible to assume that his claims based on such local, oral histories had some reliability, simply because of contemporaneous verifiability. Add to this the cover endorsement by Lighthorse Harry Lee (1756-1818), Major General in the U. S. Army as well as associate, neighbor, and friend of Washington. He was also the father of Robert E. Lee. Here is what he said about Weems’ book:
The author has treated this great subject with admirable success in a new way. He turns all the actions of Washington to the encouragement of virtue, by a careful application of numerous exemplifications drawn from the conduct of the founder of our republic from his earliest life. No biographer deserves more applause than he whose chief purpose is to entice the young mind to the affectionate love of virtue, by personifying it in the character most dear to these states.10
The point is that Lee understood that Weems’ biography was intended to be a call to virtue. It is Lee who says that these anecdotes were “drawn. . .from his earliest life.” Would such an illustrious Virginian and closely related friend of Washington fall for entirely unhistorical anecdotes of his hero, whom he himself knew and immortalized with the timeless words, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen”?
But these modest arguments for Weems’ reliability cannot withstand the subsequent scathing critique of scholars. Writing about the turn of the twentieth century, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote a withering criticism, which set the tone for the standard wholesale scholarly dismissal of virtually everything that Weems ever wrote about Washington:
Many are the myths, and probably few the facts that have come down to us in regard to Washington’s boyhood. For the former we are indebted to the illustrious Weems, and to that personage a few more words must be devoted. Weems has been held up to the present age in various ways, unusually, it must be confessed, of an unflattering nature, and “mendacious” [untruthful] is the adjective most commonly applied to him....Let us therefore consign the Weems stories and their offspring to the limbo of historical rubbish, and try to learn what the plain facts tell us of the boy Washington.11
