14. Passions of Men
a) To JOHN BANISTER, April 21, 1778.
“We must take the passions of men as nature has given them, and those principles as a guide, which are generally the rule of action.”
B. Media
1. Newspapers
a) To JAMES MCHENRY, April 3, 1797.
“We get so many details in the gazettes, and of such different complexions, that it is impossible to know what credence to give to any of them.”
b) To OLIVER WOLCOTT, May 15, 1797.
“There is so little dependence on newspaper publications, which take whatever complexion to the editors please to give them, that persons at a distance, who have no other means of information, are oftentimes at a loss to form an opinion on the most important occurrences.”
c) To EDMUND RANDOLPH, August 26, 1792.
“If the government and the officers of it are to be the constant theme for newspaper abuse, and this too without condescending to investigate the motives or the facts, it will be impossible, I conceive, for any man living to manage the helm or to keep the machine together.”
2. The Influence of the Media
a) To JAMES MADISON, May 20, 1792.
“However necessary it may be to keep a watchful eye over public servants, and public measures, yet there ought to be limits to it; for suspicions unfounded, and jealousies too lively, are irritating to honest feeling; and oftentimes are productive of more evil than good.”
b) To EDMUND PENDLETON, January 22, 1795.
“It is well known, that, when one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.”
VIII. SLAVERY
A. Washington’s Early View on Slavery
1. To CAPTAIN JOSIAH THOMPSON, Mount Vernon, July 2, 1766. “With this letter comes a negro (Tom), which I beg the favor of you to sell in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return from him
One hhd (Hogshead—a cask containing from 63 to 140 gallons)
One ditto of best rum
One barrel of lymes, if good and cheap
One pot of tamarinds, containing about 10 lbs.
Two small ditto of mixed sweetmeats, about 5 lbs each.
“And the residue, much or little, in good old spirits. That this fellow is both a rogue and a runaway (tho’ he was by no means remarkable for the former, and never practiced the latter till of late) I shall not pretend to deny. But that he is exceeding healthy, strong, and good at the hoe, the whole neiborhood can testify, and particularly Mr. Johnson and his son, who have both had him under them as foreman of the gang; which gives me reason to hope he may with your good management sell well, if kept clean and trim’d up a little when offered for sale.
“I shall very cheerfully allow you the customary commissions on this affair, and must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him handcuffed till you get to sea, or in the bay, after which I doubt not but you make him very useful to you.”
B. Washington’s Mature View on Slavery
1. To ROBERT MORRIS, April 12, 1786.
“There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted, for the abolition of slavery. But there is only one proper way and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and this by legislative authority.”
2. To LAFAYETTE, May 10, 1786.
“To set the slaves afloat, at once would I believe be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but, by degrees, it certainly might and assuredly ought to be effected, and that, too, by legislative authority.”
3. To JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, September 9, 1786.
“I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery, in this country may be abolished by law.”
4. To ALEXANDER SPOTSWOOD, November 23, 1794.
“With respect to the other species of property, concerning which you ask my opinion, I shall frankly declare to you that I do not like even to think, much less talk of it. However, as you have put the question, I shall, in a few words, give you my ideas of it. Were it not then, that I am principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle at a market, I would not in twelve moths from this date, be possessed of one, as a slave. I shall be happily mistaken, if they are not found to be very troublesome species of property ere many years pass over our heads.”
5. To GEORGE LEWIS, November 13, 1797.
“The running off of my Cook, has been a most inconvenient thing to this family; and what renders it more disagreeable, is, that I had resolved never to become the Master of another Slave by purchase ; but this resolution I fear I must break. I have endeavoured to hire, black or white, but am not yet supplied.”
APPENDIX NINE
George Washington and the Anglican
Theology of Latitudinarianism
Our study of George Washington has sought to be accurate and scholarly, but also accessible. So we decided that our discussion of Washington’s place in the detailed theological movements of the Anglican tradition did not fit into the main story that we have sought to tell. Nevertheless, an accurate understanding of the theological current in which Washington found himself is a critical link in the argument to establish his Christianity and his non-deistic approach to religion. Accordingly, we’ve included this discussion as an appendix. The following comparison between the theological school of thought called Latitudinarianism and Washington’s writings will establish this point. This discussion, however, necessarily encompasses some theological jargon, and therefore, we must offer some historical and theological background.
A DEFINITION OF LATITUDINARIANISM
As we saw in an earlier chapter discussing Washington’s partaking of Christian Communion, Washington was willing to participate in the Eucharist outside of his own Anglican Communion. Washington’s personal willingness to commune with those of the Presbyterian tradition reflected his Low Church attitude. This was part of a stream of Anglican theology and practice that had come to be known as the “Latitudinarian” perspective.1 This movement received its name because it sought to give more theological room—latitude—to those who disagreed with the established church, such as the non-conformists who were often Presbyterians, Congregationalists or Independents. It sought to give more latitude in doctrinal controversy within the church as well. It attempted to soften the hostility against Roman Catholicism, without yielding on historic Christian Orthodoxy or basic Protestant theology. So as a result of this effort at a more gracious spirit of Christian community and theology, “a more Christian-like spirit,” to use one of Washington’s phrases,2 the Latitudinarians had the dishonor of being seen as heretics by the stalwarts of nearly every tradition. As a result, the word “Latitudinarian,” at first, became a word of contempt, or theological name-calling.
Martin I. J. Griffin Jr., church historian, explains:
From the beginning, the term “Latitudinarian,” or its occasional early variant “Latitude-Man,” denoted heterodoxy or religious laxity. One of the most common charges, often expressed, was that a “Latitude-Man . . . being of no religion himself, is indifferent what religion others should be of.” The Latitudinarians, it was said, took no trouble to profess any particular religion, because they considered all religions almost equally saving. Did they not outstrip “a very heathen” in preaching that “a good life will carry men to heaven, though they be Jews, Turks, Antichristians, or never such damnable heretics in point of faith”?3
This movement was accused of being Presbyterian,4 Calvinist,5 Socinian,6 Arminian,7 Pelagian,8 and Erastian.9 Some of these beliefs are mutually exclusive. This kind of misunderstanding is what happens when criticism is based only on impressions and not careful study. Griffin, continues,
Such were the common acceptations of the word “Latitudinarian” in the seventeenth century. Stripped of the confusing inessentials always attendant upon name-calling, the charges against the Latitudinarians can be reduced to three which reflect the main sources of contemporary alarm about their teachings. One was that they tried to make religions too “reasonable.” A second was that their doctrine of grace and their scheme of salvation were Pelagian. A third was that they were too permissive and lax in their opinions on Church government and liturgy. The basic theme of the accusations from the side of doctrinaire Calvinism was that the Latitudinarians gave too much to reason, not enough to revelation; too much to nature, not enough to grace. From High Church Anglicans and Roman Catholics came the charge that they were but Presbyterians in Anglican surplices, and that they gave insufficient importance to the doctrinal teaching authority of the Church.10 (emphasis ours)
Later, however, “Latitudinarian” was replaced by the word “Broad church”11 that has for many come to be synonymous with the “Low Church.”12 The theologian who identified most with this movement was Bishop Gilbert Burnet, the author of the study of the Thirty-Nine Articles that Washington had purchased in March 1766. It is important to remember that Washington had taken a vow to uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles, there is no evidence that he ever changed his mind. This is a strong argument in favor of his Christian Orthodoxy. Probably the best summary of the Thirty-Nine Articles’ distinctives, especially as it made itself known as a theological expression in Washington’s Virginia, comes again from Griffin:
