Historian Henry Cabot Lodge questions the moral charge, but explains that both poverty and politics made the move to the New World for this noble family a good decision: “The rector had been ejected on the grounds that he was “scandalous” and “malignant.” That he was guilty of the former charge we may well doubt; but that he was, in the language of the time, “malignant,” must be admitted, for all his family, including his brothers, Sir William Washington of Packington and Sir John Washington of Thrapston, his nephew, Sir Henry Washington, and his nephew-in-law, William Legge, ancestor of the Earl of Dartmouth were strongly on the side of the king. In a marriage which seems to have been regarded as beneath the dignity of the family, and in the poverty consequent upon the ejectment from his living, we can find the reason for the sons of the Reverend Lawrence Washington going forth into Virginia to find their fortune, and flying from the world of victorious Puritanism which offered just then so little hope to royalists like themselves. Yet what was poverty in England was something much more agreeable in the New World of America. The emigrant brothers at all events seem to have had resources of a sufficient kind, and to have been men of substance, for they purchased lands and established themselves at Bridges Creek, in Westmoreland county. With this brief statement, Lawrence disappears, leaving us nothing further than the knowledge that he had numerous descendants.” Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington, (New Rochelle, NY, Arlington House, 1898), pp. 36-37.

3     WGW, vol. 32, 5-2-1792.

4     Colonial Families of the United States of America vol. II http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va/rappahannock/wills/w2520001.txtWill of Lawrence Washington, Rappahannock co, 1677 Submitted by Sandra Ferguson <ferg@intelos.net> for use in the USGenWeb Archives In several sources it is noted that John, George Washington’s great-grandfather, said in his will, “In the name of God, Amen. I, John Washington, of Washington parish, in the county of Westmoreland, in Virginia, gentleman, being of good and perfect memory, thanks be unto Almighty God for it, and calling to remembrance the uncertain state of this transitory life, that all flesh must yield unto death, do make, constitute, and ordain this my last will and testament and none other. And first, being heartily sorry, from the bottom of my heart, for my sins past, most humbly desiring forgiveness of the same from the Almighty God, my Saviour and Redeemer, in whom and by the merits of Jesus Christ I trust and believe assuredly to be saved, and to have full remission and forgiveness of all my sins, and that my soul with my body at the general resurrection shall rise again with joy. . . .through the merits of Jesus Christ’s death and passion to possess and inherit the kingdom of heaven prepared for his elect and chosen.”

5     Historian James K. Paulding shuns the historical records of earlier Washingtons who were military leaders and heroes in British history.

6     Grizzard, George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 26.

7     Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington, (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1898), p. 37.

8     We will highlight John Washington’s sense of justice in a story of his crossing the ocean to America in the Chapter on “George Washington and the Enlightenment.”

9     Joseph D. Sawyer, Washington (New York: MacMillian, 1927), vol. I. p. 53.

10   Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 53.

11   WGW, vol. 29, 10-1783, Biographical Memoranda. See Also David Humphreys, Life of General Washington (Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press) p.10.

12   Sawyer, Washington, vol. I. p. 53.

13   Ibid., p. 54.

14   Ibid., p. 53.

15   It is difficult to keep all of the Lawrence Washingtons distinct. Grizzard lists 11 Lawrence Washingtons from the years of George Washington’s great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave Manor (c.1500-1584) to Lawrence Augustine Washington (1775-1824), George’s nephew and son of his brother Samuel Washington. Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 409.

16   Grizzard lists six other George Washingtons beside the first. These date from 1758—a nephew, son of half brother Augustine Washington and the last, a grandnephew born in 1790. George’s adopted grandson (1781-1857) would unofficially be named Washington twice, George Washington Parke Custis Washington! Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, pp. 404, 408.

17   Ibid., p. 327.

18   Ibid., p. 326.

19   See, for example, the 39 Articles of the Church of England which can be found in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol. 3. p. 486. The Catalogue of Homilies are listed in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, pp. 509-511.

20   Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish p. 34ff.

21   Benson J. Lossing, Mary and Martha: The Mother and Wife of George Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886) p. 31.

22   Ibid.

23   Cited by Grizzard George Washington: A Biographical Companion, p. 327.

CHAPTER 6

1     WGW, vol. 35, 11-28-1796.

2     How much of Mason L. Weems’ biography is grounded in fact? Consider the following example of how scholars have interacted with a traditional Washington story from Parson Weems. It comes from the time of Washington’s early adult life as he was completing his service as a soldier and beginning to enter into politics. It well illustrates the difficulty in assessing the value for history of what Parson Weems preserved of Washington’s life for posterity. John Corbin, The Unknown Washington (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), pp. 44-45 gives the following summation: Washington Irving ignored the story. Bishop Meade offered local traditions that seemed to support Weems. Lodge utterly rejected it, declaring, “That Washington . . . allowed himself to be knocked down in the presence of his soldiers, and thereupon begged his assailant’s pardon for having spoken roughly to him, [is a story] so silly and so foolish impossible that [it does not] deserve an instant’s consideration.” Yet Rupert Hughes accepted it as authentic. John Corbin believes the evidence is available to prove that it is an authentic event in the life of Washington. Thus some historians consider Weems’ traditional stories to be historical, and others do not, and each judgment varies from case to case and author to author. It is here cited from Mason L. Weems, The Life of Washington, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 187-189.

Brissot, another famous French traveller, assures us, that, “throughout the continent, every body spoke of Washington as of a father.”

That dearest and best of all appellations, “the father of his country,” was the natural fruit of the benevolence which he so carefully cultivated through life. A singular instance of which we meet with in 1754, and the 22d year of his age.

He was stationed at Alexandria with his regiment, the only one in the colony, and of which he was colonel. There happened at this time to be an election in Alexandria for members of assembly, and the contest ran high between colonel George Fairfax, and Mr. Elzey. Washington was the warm friend of Fairfax, and a Mr. Payne headed the friends of Elzey. A dispute happening to take place in the courthouse-yard, Washington, a thing very uncommon, said something that offended Payne; whereupon the little gentleman who, though but a cub in size, was the old lion in heart, raised his sturdy hickory, and, at a single blow, brought our hero to the ground. Several of Washington’s officers being present, whipped out this cold irons in an instant, and it was believed that there would have been murder off-hand. To make bad worse, his regiment, hearing how he had been treated, bolted out from their barracks, with every man his weapon in his hand, threatening dreadful vengeance on those who had dared to knock down their beloved colonel. Happily for Mr. Payne and his party, Washington recovered, time enough to go out and meet his enraged soldiers; and, after thanking them for this expression of their love, and assuring them that he was not hurt in the least, he begged them, as they loved him or their duty, to return peaceably to their barracks. As for himself, he went to his room, generously chastising his imprudence, which had this struck up a spark that had like to have thrown the whole town into a flame. Finding on mature reflection, that he had been the aggressor, he resolved to make Mr. Payne honourable reparation, by asking his pardon on the morrow! No sooner had he made this noble resolution, than recovering that delicious gaiety which accompanies good purposes in a virtuous mind, he went to a ball that night, and behaved as pleasantly as though nothing had happened! Glorious proof that great souls, like great ships, are not affected by those little puffs which would overset feeble minds with passion, or sink them with spleen!

The next day he went to a tavern, and wrote a polite note to Mr. Payne, whom he requested to meet him. Mr. Payne took it for a challenge, and repaired to the tavern not without expecting to see a pair of pistols produced. But what was his surprise on entering the chamber, to see a decanter of wine and glasses on the table! Washington arose, and in a very friendly manner met him, and gave him his hand. “Mr. Payne,” said he “to err is nature; to rectify error is glory; I find I was wrong yesterday, but wish to be right to-day. You have had some satisfaction; and if you think that sufficient, here’s my hand, let us be friends.”

3     The following story entitled, “The Poisoned Dish” allegedly comes from the time of Washington’s military command of the revolutionary army. Yet it has all the signs of legend, even though it is in a book entitled, True Stories of the Days of Washington. It has no author, no source, and no other known record of the story occurring. It is, nevertheless, a valuable popular example of the fear of the possibility of Washington being assassinated.

The following story we also obtain from a communication to an old periodical. We have no reason to doubt its truth, although we do not find the circumstance mentioned elsewhere:

In the summer of 1776, when the American army was in New York, a young girl of the city went to her lover, one Francis, and communicated to him, as a secret she had overheard, a plan that was in operation among the government men to destroy the American commander-in-chief, by poison, which was to be plentifully mingled with his green peas, a favorite vegetable of his, on the following day, at Richmond Hill head-quarters, where he was to dine. Francis, who was a thorough Whig, although supposed to be friendly to the Royalists, went immediately to Washington and acquainted him with this diabolical plan for his destruction. Washington, having listened with attention said:

“My friend, I thank you; your fidelity has saved my life, to what reserve the Almighty knows! But, now, for your safety; I charge you to return to your house, and let not a word of what you have related to me, pass your lips; it would involve you in certain ruin; and heaven forbid that your life should be forfeited or endangered by your faith to me. I will take the necessary steps to prevent, and at the same time discover, the instrument of this wicked device.”

The next day, about two hours before dinner, he sent for one of his guard, told him of the plot, and requested that he would disguise himself as a female, and go to the kitchen, there to keep a strict watch upon the peas, until they should be served up for the table. The young man carefully observed the directions he had received, and had not been long upon his post of duty, before a young man, another of the guard, came in anxiously to the door of the kitchen, looked in, and then passed away. In a few moments after, he returned and approached the hearth where the peas stood, and was about to mingle in the deadly substance, when suddenly he shrunk back as though from the sting of the fork-tongued adder, his color changing to the pale hue of death, and his limbs apparently palsied with fear, evidently horrorstruck with his own purpose; but soon, however, the operation of a more powerful incitement urged forward his reluctant hand, that trembling strewed the odious bane, and he left the kitchen, overwhelmed with conflicting passions, remorse and confusion.

“Harold sleeps no more; the cry has reached his heart ere the deed be accomplished,” said the youth on duty, in a voice not devoid of pity, as he looked after the self-condemned wretch.

“What, Harold!” said the commander-in-chief, sorrowfully, upon receiving the information; “can it be possible – so young, so fair, and gentle! He would have been the last person upon whom a suspicion of that nature could have fallen, by right of countenance. You have done well,” said he to the youth before him. “Go, join your comrades and be secret.”

The young man went accordingly, and Washington returned to the piazza, where several officers were assembled, among whom was the hero of Saratoga, who was waiting for further instructions from Congress before he departed for Canada. In a few moments dinner was announced, and the party was ushered into a handsome apartment, where the sumptuous board was spread, covered with all the delicacies of the season.

The commander-in-chief took his seat, placing General Gates on his right hand, and General Wooster on the left. When the remainder of the officers and company were seated, and eager to commence the duties of the table, the chief said, impressively:

“Gentleman, I must request you to suspend your meal for a few moments. Let the guard attend me.” All was silence and amazement. The guard entered and formed in a line toward the upper end of the apartment. Washington, having put upon his plate a spoonful of peas, fixed his eyes sternly upon the guilty man, and said: “Shall I eat of this vegetable?”

The youth turned pale and became dreadfully agitated, while his trembling lips faintly uttered, “I don’t know.”

“Shall I eat of these?” again demanded Washington, raising some upon his knife.

Here Harold elevated his hand, as if by an involuntary impulse, to prevent their being tasted.

A Chicken was then brought in, that a conclusive experiment might be made in the presence of all those witnesses. The animal ate of the peas and immediately died, and the wretched criminal, overcome with terror and remorse, fell fainting, and was borne from the apartment.

“The Poisoned Dish” in True Stories of the Days of Washington (New York: Phinney, Blakeman & Mason, 1861), p. 51-55.

4     A paradigm of authenticity might move in the direction from lesser reliability to greater reliability, beginning with myth, then moving consecutively to legend, to tradition, to verifiable historical event. Sometimes the only difference in actual history between tradition and historical event is verifiability. But the mere fact of the reality of historical occurrence is not the same as historical validity. Thus, there is a strong wall of distinction between tradition and verifiable historical event. The recognition of this wall of separation between tradition and historical event, and the frustration and limitations it sometimes imposes on the historian, has encouraged the development of the study of oral history, as a legitimate attempt to utilize tradition without compromising the necessity of high standards for verifiable history. Oral history, then, is a preserver of tradition, a tradition that may in fact be a real event, yet an event not possessing the capability of independent verification by written record or other evidence. To overcome the inherent weakness of oral history’s preserving of historical data without external corroboration, various factors and standards have been conceived. Such factors to assess the strength and reliability of oral tradition include matters such as the reliability and credibility of the historical informants, the frequency of reports as well as the number of distinctive reporters, the extent of confusion in the story as to major or minor details, and as to whether the details are expressions of augmentation, or of contradiction. Thus, a largely uniform and frequently reported oral story expressed by several highly competent individuals is an expression of tradition that although falling short of the highest standards of verifiable historical fact, cannot be utterly dismissed as irrelevant. It is this intuitive understanding that causes the historian to frequently report an insightful anecdote that otherwise may not be able to stand on its own. In our study here, we will on occasion pursue the importance of certain potentially significant oral historical records, since there is no other data on which to build certain events, given the exigencies of the time and circumstances in which the event occurred.

So, as an example of a myth, consider “An Unknown Speaker Swayed Colonials to Sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776” in The Justice Times (Publishers Ajay Lowery & Anita Lowery, no date, no city.). The story here presented is historically situated, but it adds elements of the supernatural and of the impossible and historically unrecorded in any other setting.

Faced with the death penalty for high treason, courageous men debated long before they picked up the quill pen to si[g]n the parchment that declared the independence of the colonies from the mother country on July 4, 1776.

For many hours they had debated in the S[t]ate House at Philadelphia, with the lower chamber doors locked and a guard posted.

According to Jefferson, it was late in the afternoon before the delegates gathered their courage to the sticking point.

The talk was about axes, scaffolds, and the gibbet, when suddenly a strong, bold voice sounded: