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

So, as we attempt to look at the Reverend Mason Weems and to evaluate if there is anything of historical value in his bestselling story of Washington, we must begin by looking at the hard data. What exactly do we know about this person who wrote of George Washington?

BACKGROUND OF PARSON WEEMS

Mason Locke Weems (1759–1825) was born in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, spent part of his youth in England, where in 1784 he was ordained a priest of the Anglican Church, returning to Maryland to be rector (1784–89) of All Hallows Parish at South River in Anne Arundel County. Weems supported his wife and their ten children by traveling the east coast promoting and selling popular books, preaching in various sanctuaries (including Pohick Church), and writing moral essays and biographies of American heroes, including his book on Washington.¹²

Thus, we know that he was an itinerant bookseller and preacher in the Anglican Episcopalian tradition and that he had the opportunity to travel through the Mount Vernon region where Washington lived, about fifteen miles south of Washington, D.C. As he traveled to the different churches to fill vacant pulpits, he would preach and share his ministry of books. The book salesman in that day was called a “colporteur,” and his efforts were a well understood way of advancing the Christian faith in rural areas during the colonial era and long after.

His claim made on the title page of his bestseller, namely, that he was “Rector of Mount Vernon Parish,” has led many to scoff and to declare his utter historical unreliability, since there never was a Mount Vernon Parish in Virginia. However, as we saw in the chapter on George Washington the vestryman, Mount Vernon actually fell between two parishes. So while Weems’ title was inaccurate technically, it was not inaccurate ecclesiastically. Mount Vernon had been the central concern in the division of the old Truro parish into the new parishes of Truro and Fairfax. Therefore, while it is true that there was no literal Mount Vernon Parish, there are records that show that Reverend Weems was an Episcopalian minister who preached in the Pohick church where Washington worshiped. Washington biographer Phillip Slaughter writes,

Towards the close of the century, some say in 1798, the eccentric Mason L. Weems appears upon the scene. There is no proof of his precise relations to the Parish. In his popular Life of Washington he calls himself “Late Rector of Mount Vernon Parish,” as if he did not know its name. It is certain however that he was officiating there about the beginning of this century. Mr. Davis, a teacher in that section, published a work dedicated to Jefferson, and entitled, Four and a Half Years in America. In it he says: “About eight miles from Occoquan Mills is a place of worship called Poheek [sic] Church. Thither I rode on Sunday and joined the congregation of Parson Weems, a Minister of the Episcopal persuasion, who was cheerful in his mein that he might win men to religion.... the discourse of Parson Weems calmed every perturbation, for he preached the great doctrines of Salvation as one who had experienced their power.¹³

Apparently, Weems was an evangelical and eccentric preacher who had the ability to make people laugh. Bishop Meade mentions that whenever Parson Weems preached, he unleashed “the risible qualities” in people’s souls.¹⁴

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND WEEMS

The general misunderstanding of the relationship between Weems and Washington is reflected by the following comment excerpted from the 1975 People’s Almanac, “Footnote People in U.S. History,” “Although Weems boasted that he had preached for Washington at Mount Vernon, in truth they had never met.”¹⁵

Not so. In spite of such scholarly assaults on Weems’ integrity, not just on his reliability as a historian, we know that Weems had direct encounters with George Washington himself. It is clear that Washington and Weems had met, and that this likely occurred in the years between the War’s conclusion in 1783 and before his election to the presidency in 1789. The source for this fact is a 1792 letter from Weems to Washington. Weems explains to Washington that he had been “introduced to your Excellency by Doctor [ James] Craik [ Jr.] . . . some Years ago at M. Vernon.”¹⁶

The encounter between them is also substantiated by Washington’s diary entry for Saturday, March 3, 1787, which is most likely the encounter mentioned in his letter:

The Revd. Mr. Weems, and yg. Doctr. Craik who came here yesterday in the afternoon left this about Noon for Port Tobo.¹⁷

The younger Dr. James Craik that Washington mentions was the son of Washington’s closest friend, Dr. James Craik, who served as surgeon general in the Revolutionary War, and had also been with him in the French and Indian War. Dr. Craik was also with George Washington when he died. Thus, Washington’s diary tells us that he entertained the two men and that Weems and Craik spent the night. But why did Reverend Mason Weems, together with the younger Dr. Craik, visit Washington at Mount Vernon in the first place?

The answer is that Weems was married to the cousin of James Craik’s wife. The editors of Washington’s diaries, Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig “In 1785 Weems married Frances Ewell (1775-1843), a cousin of Dr. Craik and daughter of Col. Jesse Ewell of Bel Air, Prince William County, where the Weems family later made their home.”¹⁸ Thus, the Weems’ family connection to one of Washington’s closest friends brought him into contact with Washington himself. That explains why the younger James Craik as well as Weems visited Washington’s house together.

So we know that Weems and Washington knew each other; were connected not only by region, but also by friends; and that Weems even had spent the night with Washington at Mount Vernon.

But we also find that Weems had further correspondence with Washington. Weems actually had the opportunity to sell one of the books he had published to Washington. In one of Washington’s cash accounts we discover that he purchased a book called Blair’s Sermons.¹⁹ In 1795, Weems wrote to Washington:

Highly honored Sir: Herewith I send your Copy of the American Edition of Blair’s Sermons, which you were so good as to patronize; and for which you paid. I have taken upon me to circulate moral and religious books among the people, with which I know that your Excellency as the Father of the People, is not displeased. Bishop Maddison, Mr. John Dickinson and Doctor Wharton have set me on a good work, i. e. to reprint, if possible a large and cheap American edition of the good old Bishop Wilson’s works. I am not ignorant of the services which your Excellency has had the happiness to render to my county, and hope you will not be angry with me for saying that I have gratitude enough earnestly to wish to make your Excellency a present of an Elegant Copy of the above very valuable Work. Your Excellency’s name will greatly help our undertaking, and so render a real blessing to our country as well as a lasting obligation on your Excellency’s Well Wishing, Mason L. Weems.²⁰

While very little is known about the Bishop Thomas Wilson referred to in Weems’ letter, so far as we can tell, Washington did not write back to Weems concerning Bishop Wilson’s works, but we do know from his library that he possessed them and that they came to him in 1794 as part of the estate of Bishop Wilson’s family. This occurred a year before Weems’ letter. Also accompanying the Bishop’s works was the three-volume study Bible that had been written by Bishop Wilson as well.²¹ Clearly, scholarly clergy on both sides of the Atlantic understood that Washington had a true interest in the Bible.

The topics of the book indicate that the book purchased by Washington from Weems was thoroughly orthodox in perspective. It begins with “View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” by Soame Jenyns of the British Parliament.²² Next, Weems’ book presents twenty-one of Blair’s sermons, with titles such as “On the Union of Piety and Morality,” “On the Death of Christ,” “On the Government of the Heart,” and “On the Compassion of Christ.”

Thus, the selling and buying of religious books brought Washington and Weems in contact. Historians today so often dismiss Weems as an eccentric, clerical book peddler and a deficient historian. We have yet to find one who acknowledges the evidence that George Washington himself was an occasional beneficiary or even customer of Christian book-seller Parson Weems! There are at least three other letters in the Washington correspondence that further illuminate the relationship between Weems and Washington. On March 26, 1799, Weems needed a character reference on a potential customer. The parson wrote on behalf of a wealthy friend, concerning a man (James Welch) to whom Washington had sold a piece of property. Weems wanted to know whether Welch had fulfilled his financial obligations, since Welch was now attempting to make a large order on credit from his friend.²³

Washington’s answer was swift, being dated March 31, 1799. He explained his real estate contract with James Welch, concluding with words that likely caused a denial of the extension of credit: “PS. It may not be amiss to add that the first years Rent (due in Jan. last) is not yet paid.”²⁴

Thus, the need to verify a friend’s customer’s credit brought them together. Six months later, on August 29, 1799, Washington wrote another letter to Reverend Weems. It was in response to Reverend Weems’ printed sermon that called for an end to the divisive, political spirit that had appeared in the political process surrounding the presidential election.

Reverend Sir: I have been duly favored with your letter of the 20th. instant, accompanying “The Philanthropist”

For your politeness in sending the latter, I pray you to receive my best thanks. Much indeed is it to be wished that the sentiments contained in the Pamphlet, and the doctrine it endeavors to inculcate, were more prevalent. Happy would it be for this country at least, if they were so. But while the passions of Mankind are under so little restraint as they are among us. And while there are so many motives, and views, to bring them into action we may wish for, but will never see the accomplishment of it. With respect etc.²⁵

Washington’s view was that even though Weems’ “philanthropist” (charitable) proposal was really wishful thinking, he could also wish that “the doctrine it endeavors to inculcate, were more prevalent.”

Thus, not only Virginian family and friends, the purchasing of religious materials, and the assisting of business relationships brought Washington and Weems together, but so did a common concern for the divisive, political spirit that was beginning to take root in the young republic’s elections. On top of all of this, there apparently was an even deeper reason that Washington and Weems had a common bond.

WASHINGTON’S PRAISE FOR THE IMMORTAL MENTOR

To attempt to understand the bond of the Washington and Weems relationship, we might ask, what prompted Weems to send The Philanthropist to Washington in the first place? The answer appears to be the response the retired president had sent just weeks before to Weems on July 3, 1799, concerning a publication he had sent. This book was a compilation of writings entitled The Immortal Mentor. The full title is sometimes given as The Immortal Mentor; or Man’s Unerring Guide to a Healthy, Wealthy and Happy Life.²⁶

The third letter, then, which highlights the relationship between Washington and Weems’ concerns Washington’s views of The Immortal Mentor. Washington’s letter to Weems is most important for our purposes. Washington, expressing his thanks for the gift of The Immortal Mentor, says to “The Reverend Mr. Weems”:

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.

Should that patronage equal my wishes, you will have no reason to regret that you ever printed the Immortal mentor.

With respect I am Reverend Sir,

Your most obedient

Humble Servant,

George Washington.²⁷ (emphasis in the original.)

In all of the many letters of Washington, there is no commendation that compares with Washington’s affirmation of this work. He not only declares that he “perused” the book, but he showers upon it his “best thanks,” his “singular satisfaction,” his declaration of his “opinion” that it is “an invaluable compilation” and a wish for a “generous patronage.” In other words, Washington hoped that the book would sell well. Given that he regularly, for consistency’s sake, turned down dedications and endorsements from many authors for things that he truly favored, the mere fact that he made such a statement is remarkable.²⁸

Washington’s endorsement appeared as a recommendation in subsequent editions of the

Immortal Mentor.

It should be noted that while in today’s conversation, the verb “to peruse” tends to mean to give something a brief look-through, in Washington’s day, the word had a very different, in fact, its accurate meaning. Even a current Webster’s Dictionary defines to “peruse” as “to examine with great care; to read intensively.” Thus, when Washington claims to have perused Weems’ book, he did so with great care, and most likely read it cover to cover.²⁹