ADULTERY?

First of all, passion was not foreign to Washington’s experience, even though he was always known as a man under the greatest personal control. His passing comments in various letters give us a hint of his understanding of human nature and its passions.

•   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.”¹⁶

•   To John Jay, August 1, 1786, “We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”¹⁷

•   In a humorous letter referring to poetry, Washington wrote to Mrs. Richard Stockton, September 2, 1783, “When once the woman has tempted us, and we have tasted the forbidden fruit, there is no such thing as checking our appetites, whatever the consequences may be.”¹⁸

Did George Washington commit adultery? We know that Martha Washington burned their letters after George’s death. Critical authors have read much into such a burning. Could it be, they speculate, that she was covering up an alleged affair between the father of our country and some wife of the Revolution? Tongue-in-cheek author, Marvin Kitman, makes fun of this bonfire incident:

No one has ever explained the motive behind this wild letter-burning episode. Martha Washington knew at the time—indeed, the whole world knew—that George Washington was a superstar in the field of history, and that every scrap of his writing would be treasured and printed. Did she feel, as Woodward [W. E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man, 1926] suggests, that his letters to her were so sacred in their intimacy that posterity had no right to read them?

....Perhaps Lady Washington did not want to cast her husband’s pearls before us swine.

“Privacy,” explains historian Richard B. Bernstein. “There. You have your explanation.”

....Martha was not as dumb as historians make her seem. She knew something was going on between those two [George Washington and Kit Greene, wife of Nathanael].¹⁹

With all of his teasing, Kitman never declares Washington committed adultery. Instead, he notes: “I have read a thousand history books, and there is not a single case of an unnatural act—that is, [Washington] sleeping with somebody, not even Molly Pitcher.”²⁰

Washington-biographer James Thomas Flexner describes George Washington and Sally Fairfax this way:

Washington’s existence at Mount Vernon was being troubled and made fascinating by the woman to whom he wrote, when he was old and celebrated, that none of the subsequent events of his career ‘nor all of them together have been able to eradicate from my mind those happy moments, the happiest of my life, which I have enjoyed in your company.’ What surely was the most passionate love of Washington’s life had dark overtones: Sally was married, married to his neighbor and close friend George William Fairfax. Washington’s love was no flash fire that burns away quickly. He had first met Sally when she was eighteen and he was sixteen, and she had come to Belvoir as a bride. Her two years’ seniority must then have created a significant gap, but the sixteen-year-old grew into the impressive giant whose physical and military adventures electrified all Virginia. The exact nature of their relationship cannot be defined. Washington was to write Sally that he recollected “a thousand tender passages”; and a mutual female friend admonished Washington, just before his defeat at Fort Necessity, to seek “some unknown she that may recompense you for all your trials” and make him abandon “pleasing reflections on the hours past.” Whatever transpired did not break Washington’s friendship with Sally’s husband; the suitor remained welcome at Belvoir.²¹

We believe there is no evidence of an adulterous affair between George Washington and Sally Fairfax. The charge is baseless. But, may we suggest that Washington may well have wrestled with romantic feelings for Sally in his youthful years? In his teen years, Washington admitted his struggle with his romantic feelings—what he called his “chaste and troublesome passion.”²¹ He did his best to keep his passions under control.

Speaking of yet another young lady he had known as a teenager whose name has been lost to history, he wrote the following.

...but as that’s only adding Fuel to fire, it makes me the more uneasy. For by often and unavoidably being in Company with her revives my former Passion for your Low Land Beauty. Whereas was I to live more retired from young Women I might in some measure eliviate my sorrows by burying that chast and troublesome Passion in the grave of oblivion or etarnall forgetfulness. For as I am very well assured that’s the only antidote or remedy that I ever shall be releivd by, or only recess than can administer any cure or help to me. As I am well convinced was I ever to attempt any thing I should only get a denial, which would be only adding grief to uneasiness.²³

The same kind of “chaste and troublesome Passion” seems to have been the case here with Sally as well, since careful research points to no evidence of an incident of unfaithfulness on their part. Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is that in a moment of weakness, facing loneliness and possible death, Washington allowed himself to write words of romantic force to a close friend for whom he had felt romantic emotions.

His fiancée, Martha Custis, was the perfect wife, but he had only met her twice. On the second meeting he proposed and she accepted. But then Washington had to return to war. In that distant place, a young adult and unmarried Washington apparently let his “troublesome Passion” become less than emotionally “chaste.” But the true point of the story is that they both conquered the passion. It must have been at least, in part, mutual, for Sally kept the letter all her life, and it was only found years later after her death in England, and then brought to America. But Sally, George, and their spouses became close friends as couples after the French and Indian War. They lived joyfully as neighbors until the Revolutionary War became imminent and the Fairfaxes left for England, never to return again to America. Who then was Sally Fairfax to George Washington? She was a youthful flame that Washington contained. Washington certainly must have been intentionally, although clandestinely autobiographical, as he wrote to his adopted granddaughter, Nelly Custis,

Love is said to be an involuntary passion, and it is, therefore, contended that it cannot be resisted. This is true in part only, for like all things else, when nourished and supplied plentifully with ailment [i.e., that which troubles, or, Washington’s “troublesome Passion”], it is rapid in its progress; but let these be withdrawn and it may be stifled in its birth or much stinted in its growth. For example, a woman (the same may be said of the other sex) all beautiful and accomplished, will, while her hand and heart are undisposed of, turn the heads and set the circle in which she moves on fire. Let her marry, and what is the consequence? The madness ceases and all is quiet again. Why? not because there is any diminution in the charms of the lady, but because there is an end of hope. Hence it follows, that love may and therefore ought to be under the guidance of reason, for although we cannot avoid first impressions, we may assuredly place them under guard.²⁴

Did not Washington say as much in his letter to Sally?

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.²⁵

Francis Rufus Bellamy has put it this way,

Added to these social and religious considerations was the friendship already existing between George Washington and George William, Sally’s husband and Lawrence’s brother-in-law. Under no circumstances could a man of honor coldly contemplate stealing the wife of his friend and next-door neighbor. Nor if he could, would an intelligent woman permit him. What then was left for two people in such a situation? Surely only inner denial and outward friendship. That something like this was what happened to Washington in his youth seems clear; and that it was not easy goes without saying. For he was in his tumultuous twenties at the time, and he was not born with control over his feelings; he achieved mastery by conscious effort.²⁶

As we assess this youthful episode in Washington’s life, we see what is again, the authentic struggle of a Christian life. A Christian is not perfect. A Christian will struggle with temptations and desires that are wrong. But in the midst of the duty to do what is right, the temptation can be conquered, and the sin can be forgiven. And as a result, relationships can be maintained. The lifelong friendship and relationship that was marked by honor between the Fairfaxes and the Washingtons is a testimony to the Christian faith that both families practiced.

As we’ve already seen, even secular Washington historian James Thomas Flexner had to admit: “Whatever transpired did not break Washington’s friendship with Sally’s husband; [Washington]... remained welcome at Belvoir.”²⁷

WASHINGTON AND ANGER–A MAN OF PASSION UNDER CONTROL

Just as Washington learned to control his romantic passions, so Washington also learned to control his temper. He was known for occasional flashes of great anger. For example, he was so angry at General Charles Lee’s retreat at the Battle of Monmouth that Washington determined to have him court martialed.

Washington was a man who knew the power of passion and had learned to exercise a spiritual control over his powerful emotions. Washington’s comments on human passion are not only instructive, but they are reflective of his own spiritual struggles:

•   To Gouverneur Morris, May 29, 1778, “We may lament that things are not consonant with our wishes, but cannot change the nature of Men, and yet those who are distressed by the folly and perverseness of it, cannot help complaining.”²⁸

•   To Lafayette, September 1, 1778, “It is the nature of man to be displeased with everything that disappoints a favorite hope or flattering project; and it is the folly of too many of them to condemn without investigating circumstances.”²⁹

•   To a Committee of Congress, January 28, 1778, “A small knowledge of human nature will convince us, that, with far the greatest part of mankind, interest is the governing principle; and that, almost, every man, is more or less under its influence.”³⁰

•   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.”³¹

•   To John Laurens, July 10, 1782, “It is not the public, but the private interest, which influences the generality of mankind, nor can the Americans any longer boast an exception.”³²

•   To John Jay, August 1, 1786, “We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”³³

•   To John Marshall, December 4, 1797, “Unfortunately the nature of man is such, that the experience of others is not attended to as it ought to be. We must feel, ourselves, before we can think or perceive the danger that threatens.”³⁴

•   To John Jay, May 18, 1786, “Ignorance and design are difficult to combat. Out of these proceed illiberal sentiments, improper jealousies, and a train of evils which oftentimes in republican governments must be sorely felt before they can be renewed.”³⁵

As we have already seen in the chapter on George Washington’s personality, he had a powerful, passionate temper that he faithfully sought to keep under control. Francis Rufus Bellamy shares a fascinating anecdote from the Washington family in this regard:

Incidentally, the painter’s [Gilbert Stuart’s] daughter, Jane Stuart, also supplies a sidelight on Washington’s reputation as the possessor of a fiery disposition even then. Talking one day to General Harry Lee, her father happened to remark that Washington had a tremendous temper but held it under wonderful control. Light Horse Harry reported the remark to George and Martha at breakfast a few days later. “I saw your portrait the other day, a capital likeness,” said Lee, “but Stuart says you have a tremendous temper.” “Upon my word,” said Mrs. Washington, coloring, “Mr. Stuart takes a great deal on himself, to make such a remark” “But stay, my dear lady,” said General Lee, ‘He added that the President had it under wonderful control.’ With something like a smile, General Washington remarked, “He’s right.”³⁶

Such growth in self-control is a mark of spiritual maturity, a goal of the Christian life.³⁷

THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI

The last matter that we will consider here is Washington’s alleged involvement in the treaty that the United States established with Tripoli. The Treaty of Tripoli came about because Muslim ships dispatched from the Barbary coast of Africa were attacking American vessels and turning the captors into slaves. This treaty put on paper an agreement to stop this terrible practice.

The relevance of the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli for our discussion is how its text related to Washington’s religion, as well as how it reflects our founders’ view of the relationship of Christianity and the American Constitution. For example, does it matter for our interpretation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, whether or not Washington said to the Muslims in Tripoli, “These United States are not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”³⁸

We believe that it does matter if Washington said this. If we are to understand the original intent of the Constitution that the founders wrote, we must understand Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention.

Did Washington write, “America is in no way founded upon the Christian religion” in the Treaty with Tripoli? Scholars on both sides of the debate regarding Washington’s Deism—even Boller, who rejects Washington’s Christianity—have concurred that this is a myth,³⁹ although not everyone has gotten the word.⁴⁰ Thus, frequently and unfortunately, it is still stated as though it were a fact.

In fact, there is ambiguity surrounding the authenticity of this phrase in the treaty itself that was signed by President John Adams. Charles I. Bevans states in Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United Sates of America,

This translation from the Arabic by Joel Barlow, Consul General at Algiers, has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since it first appeared in 1797 in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session. In a “Note Regarding the Barlow Translation” Hunter Miller stated: “. . .Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey [Governor] of Algiers to the Pasha [ruler] of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”⁴¹

Is it possible that Joel Barlow’s explorations of atheism may have induced him to interpolate this phrase into the treaty?⁴² At any rate, Washington never wrote nor signed the disputed words of the Treaty of Tripoli. In stark contrast to this dubious statement from the Treaty of Tripoli, Washington wrote on September 19, 1796, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.”

CONCLUSION

What the objections of this chapter demonstrate is that Washington was not a perfect man. In Christian terms, he was a man who sinned. But the definition of a Christian is not perfection, and being a sinner does not make a man a Deist. If that were the case, then every Christian would be a Deist, since Christianity affirms the universality of sin.

Perhaps a more appropriate definition of a Christian is a person who practices faithful and faith-filled repentance. Washington’s repentance of slavery at the end of his life, his repentant control over the misplaced passions of temptation, and his self-control over his explosive anger are each indicative of a spiritual life. While Washington never wrote, “America is in no way founded upon the Christian religion” in the Treaty with Tripoli, it is clear to us that the Christian religion is what Washington’s spiritual growth was founded upon.