George Washington’s Sacred Fire was written to answer the objections of scholars who claim that George Washington was not a Christian. We have already considered several arguments utilized to support the claim of Washington’s Deism. In this chapter, we will consider four other important objections to Washington’s Christianity. These are:

•   Washington’s ownership of slaves;

•   the question of Washington’s morality, or what we might call the question of Washington “slanders,” versus the Washington “scandals”;

•   Washington’s passionate temper; and

•   Washington’s alleged role in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Before we begin to consider these, let’s engage the classic objector to Washington’s Christianity—Washington historian Rupert Hughes,² a skeptical historian who wrote a generation before Professor Boller.

RUPERT HUGHES: THE PARSON WEEMS IN REVERSE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

In 1926, only six years before the bicentennial of Washington’s birth in 1932, Rupert Hughes wrote a substantive biography of Washington. His work, in many ways, began the reassessment of Washington’s religion that led to the wholesale acceptance of the thesis that Washington was a Deist. The vast majority of the scholars who had written on Washington up to that time had accepted the view that Washington was a Christian. To put it mildly, Rupert Hughes, and others in his perspective, have successfully persuaded subsequent scholars, including Paul Boller, Jr. and Joseph Ellis.

The arguments that Hughes put forward are worthy of a brief response at this point in our study, because we discover that each of his claims were made with dogmatic self-assurance and are clearly incorrect, based upon our analysis of Washington’s words and actions. We are reminded of an historian’s adage—“The living can make the dead do any tricks they find necessary.” The only way to guard against the scholarly slight of hand of historical revisionism is for serious historians to do the painstaking work of going to the original sources to verify their claims.

As we have sought to do that here, our conclusion is that Rupert Hughes can be considered the “Parson Weems in reverse” of the twentieth century Washington scholars. His unsubstantiated assertions, his uncritical acceptance of others’ unsubstantiated remarks (such as Dr. Moncure Conway’s) have simply been uncritically accepted and then quoted so often that everyone “knows” they are true. But Hughes’ claims have about as much support as Parson Weems had for his cherry tree story. However, Weems even had an advantage over Hughes; he knew Washington and at least claimed to have actually investigated the matter from living witnesses.

We don’t fault Hughes for not investigating his topic from living sources. That’s more than any historian can do 150 years after the fact. But we do fault Hughes for his dogmatic claims that were not based on serious investigation. Hughes’ assertions of Washington’s Deism were based solely on a biased, unsubstantiated perception. And sadly, an untested acquiescence to Rupert Hughes’ errant claims set the scholarly tone which allowed Boller to write what became a “definitive” argument for Washington the Deist.

To corroborate our criticisms of Hughes, we will cite several of his claims and respond to them briefly with the evidence we have uncovered in our investigation of Washington’s religion.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “Aside from such an instance [the childhood Christmas poem] and one reference to “the Divine author of our blessed religion” in 1783, there is no direct allusion to Christ, and the word Christ has been found in none of Washington’s almost countless autographs.” We have already seen that Hughes is incorrect about this, since Washington did write the name of Jesus Christ literally and indirectly through honorific titles on several occasions. We discussed this at length in earlier chapters.

     Washington also used various titles for Deity that are biblical titles for Christ. Further, his Trinitarian heritage included the Deity of Christ whenever he spoke of God. Washington was an avowed Trinitarian in his Anglican context. Jefferson, as a Unitarian, could not serve in a Christian context, as he himself said, because of his anti-Trinitarian views. Washington, whose conscience was of the strictest sort, had no scruple to serve in church and in worship in distinctive and open Christian roles.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “His refusal to take communion was admitted by his own clergyman, William White, Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America from 1787 to 1836. Colonel Mercer had written to ask if General Washington ‘occasionally went to the communion,’ or ‘if he ever did at all.’ Bishop White answered: ‘Truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the church of which I am parochial minister....’” We have seen in the three chapters on Washington and Communion how his experience in Philadelphia does not imply a Deist Washington, nor did it depict his whole life. The inference drawn from it is built not only on faulty logic, but incomplete facts. Evidence as strong as Washington’s non-communing in Philadelphia is available to show that he communed in Virginia, New York, and New Jersey. The only acceptable explanation is one that addresses all the facts. We have put Washington’s communing practices into the historical milieu in which they occurred.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “Jefferson said that Washington was a Deist.” We have also seen that Jefferson was not an intimate of Washington, and those who were closest to Washington simply disagree with Jefferson, whom Washington described as an opponent of his government after he resigned in protest from Washington’s cabinet.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “This [ Jefferson’s assertion that Washington was a Deist] would seem to be the truth. In his time the deist was a term of fierce reproach, almost worse than atheist, though a deist believed in an all-wise deity who cared for the world and provided a future reward for the good. This deity was not, however, the Israelitic Jehovah and was not the father of Christ, who was considered a wise and virtuous man, but not of divine origin.” Strange, that if Washington was a Deist, that he refused to correspond with Thomas Paine after Paine wrote the Age of Reason, and even though Washington had a large and well representative library, the Age of Reason was not found on his shelf, although several volumes in criticism of Deism and of Paine were. And if Washington’s Deity was not the “Israelitic Jehovah,” then why did he write to the Hebrew congregation in Savannah, and describe the God he trusted in that had delivered America in the revolution as the “same wonder-working deity” that the Jewish scriptures presented, and which Washington named, “Jehovah”? Is it possible that Rupert Hughes was wrong about Washington’s use of the name Jehovah, just as he was about Washington’s use of the name “Jesus Christ”? It appears so. But even though Hughes obviously had not done his scholarly due diligence on this topic, like many other scholars, that did not stop him from making definitive—albeit spurious—pronouncements on the subject. And if the term “Deist” brought fierce reproach, why did Paine get the brunt of all of that fierce reproach——so much so that a graveyard could scarcely be found where he could be buried when he died——but Washington was beloved beyond words? Was it that Washington simply pretended to be a Christian, as he called himself on several occasions, simply to hide the fact that he was really a Deist? Then what are we to make of all of his constant claims of candor, honesty, character, and truthfulness?

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “Such was probably Washington’s opinion on the subject, though there is little evidence either way. In spite of his incessant allusions to providence, Washington was persistently silent as to his dogmatic beliefs.” While Rupert Hughes here hedges his bets by saying “probably” and supports it with the claim that there is little evidence either way, the fact is that there is a vast amount of evidence, and Hughes, believing that there was none, never bothered to look for it. The religious themes and issues in Washington’s writings are full enough so that in this work we have been able to establish his Christian worldview, his perspective on the Gospel, his vast biblical literacy, his approval of many evangelical and anti-Deist sermons and writings, and his support for Christian missionary activities, as well as clear critical comments against Deism, to name but a few of our discoveries.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “The fanatically abused ‘atheist,’ Jefferson, was far more religious than Washington, and intensely interested in Jesus, whom he revered this side of divinity. ... The greatly reviled Thomas Paine believed in God as a loving father, though he denounced the Bible as not His word.” While Jefferson could not call Jesus God, Washington did call Jesus Christ “The Divine Author of our Blessed Religion,” “The Divine Author of Life and Felicity”; “The Great Lord and Ruler of Nations.” If Jefferson was far more religious than Washington, why did Jefferson refuse to be a sponsor in baptism and fail to actively serve as a vestryman, although elected? Washington, on the other hand, on eight occasions accepted the responsibility to sponsor a child in Christian baptism, and his service on the vestry and as warden for several years was exemplary and costly in terms of time, stress, and resources. Why did Washington repeatedly use the words “ardent,” “fervent,” “devout,” and “pious,” to describe his prayers, of which there are over one hundred in his own hand? If Paine did not believe the Bible to be God’s Word, Washington did, calling it in his own written words, “The blessed religion revealed in the word of God.” In so doing, Washington not only disagreed with Paine, he definitively distanced himself from Deism.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “The Reverend Doctor Moncure D. Conway makes a statement that is impressive in view of the emphasis unjustifiably laid on the imaginary doctrine that Washington was brought up in an atmosphere of intense religion: ‘In his many letters to his adopted nephew and young relatives, he admonishes them about their morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity.’” Actually, the facts are quite different than this, if we listen to the records given by these very same children who write of his Christianity, his sabbath keeping, his reading of the Bible to the family, his passionate prayer for the healing for his dying step-daughter, and his concern for religion and reverence in public and private life. Reverend Conway’s scholarship apparently never got around to a careful reading of Washington’s letters to his adopted grandson, where scripture is quoted and spiritual duties are addressed—duties to “God and man,” as he wrote to young George Washington Parke Custis—nor to the testimonies of Washington’s stepchildren.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “Washington had in his library the writings of Paine, Priestly, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, and other heretical works.” True enough, but Washington had books that critiqued Deism in his library as well. As can be seen in the chapter on “Washington’s Clergy and Sermons,” he wrote letters to clergymen who had written sermons against Deism, and commended them. He said that their teachings were both pleasing to him and sound in doctrine. Thomas Paine’s the Age of Reason was not in Washington’s library, nor was Paine, after writing The Age of Reason, any longer on Washington’s correspondence list.

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “Dr. Conway, speaking of Washington’s Diaries, notes ‘his pretty regular attendance at church but never any remark on the sermons.’” While it is true that remarks on sermons were scarce in Washington’s diaries, Dr. Conway is incorrect that Washington “never” makes any remark on sermons. But then, what he said about sermons in his diaries is more than what he wrote in his diaries about the discussions of the Constitutional Convention. However, Dr. Conway failed to observe, as has every writer on the Deist perspective of Washington since, that Washington’s vast correspondence included extensive writings with clergymen. In fact, Washington commented on several published sermons from these authors in his letters. If Dr. Conway or Rupert Hughes (or Professor Boller for that matter) had read these letters and these sermons, they would have found that Washington’s comments show again and again that he was a Christian and not a Deist. We thought this matter so important, we have devoted an entire chapter to it. (Please, see chapter 33 entitled “George Washington’s Clergy and Their Sermons”).

•   Rupert Hughes claimed: “If Washington were, indeed, so fervent a Christian as to deserve the name of ‘a soldier of the cross,’ often given to him by the clergy, it is puzzling that there should be such difficulty in finding a number of fervent proofs of his ardor.” We wish to reply to Rupert Hughes that we have had no difficulty in finding a “number of fervent proofs of his ardor.” The problem for us is to relate all the data that pertains to Washington’s “sacred fire” to our readers in the limited pages we have been allotted. Washington’s words about his own religion and spirituality are a vast and remarkably overlooked field of study. We do not intend to call Washington a “soldier of the Cross,” even though it would not be inappropriate to call him a “Christian Soldier,” since that was his own phrase for his army, and he did call on his men to attain the “highest glory of the character of a Christian.” But perhaps it would not be inappropriate for us to say here that the “fervent prayers,” the “ardent prayers,” and the “pious entreaties” that Washington described in his writings may well have fanned the “sacred fire” that ignited his love for liberty and put a spiritual dynamic into his motto—“My God and My Country.”

Since the objections by Rupert Hughes are without substance, we will proceed to address other arguments that skeptics have brought against the truth of Washington’s own claim that he was a Christian, as seen, for example, in his words from a private letter “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.”

HOW COULD A TRUE CHRISTIAN OWN SLAVES?

Indeed, another objection to the thesis of George Washington the Christian is that he owned slaves. Yes, that is the sad truth. If there is any good news in this sad fact, Washington freed his slaves upon his death, something Thomas Jefferson never did. Of the nine slave-owning presidents, Washington was the only one who freed them all, albeit at his death.

Meanwhile, the transformation of Washington, as he moved from being an indifferent slave owner to being a principled slave owner, one who would purchase no more slaves and one who would not break up slave families, to finally becoming an emancipator of slaves in his last will and testament, is a fascinating story. Early on, for example, in the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, George Washington and George Mason solemnly judged the slave trade: “After the first day of November next we will neither ourselves import nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, either from Africa, the West Indies, or any other place.” The Fairfax Resolves were early and strong declarations against slavery. But the British authorities kept these resolves from being implemented. (This was long before William Wilberforce and his evangelical comrades led their long, successful crusade to end the slave trade and slavery in the British Empire.)

This objection to Washington as a Christian that he owned slaves— obviously cannot be applied uniquely to Washington. The judgment here is against the entire practice of all slave owners, whether in the North or the South. (Indeed, in the colonial era, slavery was tolerated by all of the colonies from New York south.) To understand Washington’s complicity in this evil trading in human lives, we must recognize his historical context, and then see how Washington’s life began to change as he grew to understand the incongruity of his own quest for freedom, all the while that he owned slaves. Clearly, slavery was a moral wrong. It was, to put it in Christian terms, a sin against God and a sin against one’s neighbor. Nevertheless, Washington’s process of repentance from the wrong of slave-holding to the right of emancipating his slaves was also a remarkable sign of what Christian theology has termed repentance.

Slave quarters at Mount Vernon

George Washington grew up in a Virginia where, tragically, slaves had been part of the culture for generations. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to point out that slaves came to the New World a year before the Pilgrim fathers and mothers did. As we saw earlier, a European ship selling slaves came into Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, one year before the voyage of the Mayflower.

But the very change in attitude toward slavery in Washington’s life actually is an argument for his Christian identity. This is because he was willing to face a wrong in his life and in his culture and to begin the long hard struggle to make things right. Note the following progression in the attitude of the father of our country toward this terrible injustice that was there 150 years before he ever held a high position of leadership:

•   When Washington grew up, he already owned slaves as a child of a Virginia family with a large plantation. We find that early in his life, he actually sold some slaves to buy things like lemons and various products from the Caribbean. They were, for a time in his life, chattel property.³

•   As he became a young adult and began to be a person who cared about what was true and right, he began to write, “I will never again separate a family by selling my slaves.” In other words, he realized that they had a right to a family home, and he would not break up families.⁴

•   Later on in his life, he began to say, “Slavery is wrong, and we must do something to end it.”⁵ But the system was so deeply imbedded in his Virginian plantation culture that he could not entirely break free from the sad practices of slavery⁶—that is, until his death and his liberating will took force.

•   By the end of his life, Washington determined in his will that he would free all the slaves that belonged to him and actually provided for them financially. He also freed one of his closest friends, Billy Lee, a slave that was his body servant. Remembering him by name, Washington gave him a bequest that enabled him to live the rest of his life very comfortably.

So what we see in Washington is what Christianity calls forth from all who follow Christ: a growth in what is right, the beginning to change until, finally, right actions become normative. It took Washington a lifetime. It took America a different generation and a bloody war to get it right, but Washington was one of the leaders that called for the ending of slavery in America.

If we remember that future generations often can see the flaws of the past far more clearly than those who were living in the midst of the struggles, we can understand that Washington’s conduct, although slow and over a lifetime, was significant progress for a slave-holding Southern plantation owner. He understood the evils of slavery without the need of a war to point it out to him. Slavery was one of Washington’s sins, or moral failures, but the standard for being a Christian is not perfection, it is honestly dealing with one’s sin and failures in light of God’s life-changing grace. It appears that is exactly what Washington did, and so, even Washington’s sin of slavery and how he dealt with it, is an argument for his Christian identity.

WASHINGTON SLANDERS OR WASHINGTON SCANDALS?

A great deal of discussion has occurred on Washington’s possible scandals. It appears, however, that when all of the evidence is in, the alleged moral failures turn out to be slanders rather than scandals. The most thorough debunking of the allegations of Washington’s promiscuity was by John Fitzpatrick in his article, “The George Washington Slanders.”⁷ The essence of his research is that not only is there no evidence to support the claim of promiscuity or of an illegitimate Washington child, there is direct, hard evidence that these accusations were part of the spurious letters that were circulating in Washington’s lifetime to discredit him as a leader in order to make it easier to undermine his leadership in the revolution. In other words, the slanders were part of a British propaganda smear campaign that failed. These accusations can be dismissed with confidence as being unfounded and thereby disproved.

Not so easily answered, however, is the question of Washington’s alleged lifelong love for Sally Fairfax, who was married to his older friend, George William Fairfax.⁸ So next, we will consider Washington’s relationship with Sally Fairfax.

WASHINGTON’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SALLY FAIRFAX

The evidence with regard to Washington’s relationship with Sally Cary Fairfax and his letters to her are more compelling and must be considered with some care.⁹ On September 12, 1758, unmarried, but engaged Col. Washington wrote to Mrs. George William Fairfax from his lonely post in the wilderness of Pennsylvania in the midst of the French and Indian War,

‘Tis true, I profess myself a votary of love. I acknowledge that a lady is in the case, and further I confess that this lady is known to you... I feel the force of her amiable beauties in the recollection of a thousand tender passages that I could wish to obliterate, till I am bid to revive them. But experience, alas! Sadly reminds me how impossible this is, and evinces an opinion which I have long entertained, that there is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of Human Nature.

You have drawn me, dear Madame, or rather I have drawn myself, into an honest confession of a simple Fact. Misconstrue not my meaning; doubt it not, nor expose it. The world has no business to know the object of my love, declared in this manner to you, when I want to conceal it . . . Adieu to this till happier times, if I ever shall see them. The hours at present are melancholy dull . . . I dare believe you are as happy as you say. I wish I was happy also.¹⁰

Some have tried to explain this letter away by claiming this and similar letters are counterfeit, but scholars have satisfactorily shown them to be genuine.¹¹

Mrs. George William Fairfax was eighteen and a newlywed when she met George as a sixteen-year-old at Belvoir, the Fairfax estate. From letters that have survived, it is clear that they became lifelong friends.

Sally’s letters to George have not survived, but George’s intriguing letters to Sally in 1758 have aroused great interest and have been interpreted in several ways. What makes the letters alluring is that they were written to Sally Cary Fairfax, George William Fairfax’s wife, by the lonely, unmarried Col. Washington, who was now engaged to Martha Custis, soon to be Mrs. Martha Washington. (While it is startling to realize that Washington was engaged and writing such letters, the facts are that Washington had met his fiancée Martha only twice, while his friendship with Sally Fairfax had developed over many years). The range of interpretations include: (1) a cryptic expression of a past love affair, ¹² (2) a deeply emotional attachment that was morally contained due to their (or Sally’s) commitment to honor, (3) a warm, personal relationship that continued as a lifelong friendship between the Washingtons and the Fairfaxes,¹³ to (4) a role-playing exercise based upon George’s and Sally’s love of the theater and courtly romance.¹⁴ As we begin our assessment, we wish to make clear that we accept the authenticity of the letter and its timing of an engaged Washington writing to a married friend’s wife, who was also Washington’s friend.