committee of three. Curiously also none of these real committeemen appear in the personnel of the committee vouched for by Mr. Bew. His London pamphlet is ingenious in that it begins with a list of well-known patriotic names, and even the four manufactured ones have the sound and flavor of old New York; then follow some proceedings of the committee, which agree in general with those of the real conspiracy committee, showing that the real proceedings could not have been so secret as Bew, or his author, claimed. But before the pamphlet proceeds very far this agreement with the real proceedings quickly develops into fiction, and the greater part of the entire pamphlet is deliberate forgery. In the forged portion is the story of Mary Gibbons and George Washington. The cleverness displayed in approximating the correct record long enough to lull suspicion before introducing the manufactured matter is worthy of high praise from those whose credulity has been equal to the opportunity of blindly accepting such evidence. The testimony in which Washington's name occurs is given by two witnesses, who were manufactured, along with their testimony, for a special purpose, and that purpose was to create dissension between the northern and southern colonies. The first witness is William Cooper, a soldier, who testified that he overheard John Clayford (another fictitious character) inform the Tory company at the Serjeants-Arms Inn "that Mary Gibbons was thoroughly in their [the Tory] interest .. Mary Gibbons was a girl from New Jersey of whom General Washington was very fond, that he maintained her genteely at a house near Mr. Skinners at the North River; that he came there very often late at night in disguise . . . this woman was very intimate with Clayford and made him presents and told him what General Washington said." One of the things Washington was reported to have said often was that "he wished his hands were clear of the dirty New Englanders or words to that effect." William Savage is another mythical individual who testified. His story was that "Papers and letters were at different times shewn to the society which were taken from out General Washington's pockets by Mary Gibbons and given (as she pretended some occasion for going out) to Mr. Clayford who always copied them, and they were then put into his pockets again." These copies were said to have been sent to Governor Tryon. It would not be necessary to dwell upon such weak misrepresentations were it not for the fact that they have been accepted for truth so often in the past. No such persons as William Cooper and William Savage were examined by the New York committee, and even had there been such, the glaring absurdities of these statements are plainly evident. There is no mention in either Tryon's or Howe's despatches of obtaining information from the rebel commander-in-chief, a thing that would have been reported promptly to the home government in the official, confidential reports had it been true. There is no evidence anywhere to show that Washington carried important papers around with him in his pockets, either in 1776 or at any other time, and there is no evidence, beyond these mythical statements, that Washington was ever away from headquarters, while in New York, on secret or unexplained business. The main purpose of the fabrication lay in the alleged remark about "the dirty New Englanders." To stir up trouble between New England and the South was to weaken co-operation among the rebels, and the surest way to arouse suspicion and jealousy was to appeal to sectional prejudice. Once break the union of the colonies and Britain's victory was assured. This was the meat of the nut. The slur against Washington's personal morality was introduced for spice, and on the chance that New England Puritanism might react against this disclosed profligacy of the Southern commander-in-chief. There is no indication that Bew's pamphlet had the sanction or support of the British Government; it was a private venture, and is now of interest only as an indication of the feeling against America then existing in certain parts of England. John Bew was one of the Pater Noster Row publishers, a group of men who were at the forefront of British printing for years. Although he became one of the figureheads, his period was the beginning of the decline of the Row's prestige. He seems to have had a twentieth-century this time who knew of the little details of sense of the business value of sensational- Washington's family life which were given ism, for the very next year, 1777, he issued in these letters. This suspicion is now "Letters from George Washington to sev- conceded to have been justified, but there eral of his Friends in the year 1776, in is no evidence which connects Randolph which is set forth a fairer and fuller View in any way with Bew's other publication, of American Politics than ever yet tran- the "Minutes of the Trial etc." of 1776. spired. . . ." These are better known as These forged "Minutes" seem to have the "Spurious letters of Washington," been manufactured as a companion piece which were composed for Bew by John to the clumsy Tory farce entitled "The Randolph, the Loyalist attorney-general Battle of Brooklyn," which Rivington of Virginia. In these letters also Wash- published, in New York, in 1776. In this ington was made to insult New England libel of dramatic art precisely the same by accusing its delegates to the Conti- story is told as that of Mary Gibbons in nental Congress of letting his military Bew's "Minutes," though her name is not plans get to the British. The commander- mentioned. Washington is made to exin-chief was made to say that the struggle press dislike and disgust with the New was hopeless, "it is impossible we should Englanders, and to carry on a clandestine succeed." In some of these letters Wash- amour with a girl of Tory sympathies, ington protests loyalty to the king, and and Benjamin Harrison, who was not although there is nothing of a salacious overenthusiastic about New England, was character in any of them, a cunning touch cast in the farce as an associate with was given in the forged epistle of June 24, Washington in his amourettes. 1776, to Martha Washington. The general is there made to sign himself, "Your most grateful and tender Husband." This subscription, in the light of Cooper's and Savage's testimony, this same month, accusing Washington of clandestine visits to a Tory woman, was probably considered a clever exposition of his personal perfidy. Almost as soon as the letters appeared, the British newspapers expressed doubt of their authenticity. Bew's publication reached America in about three weeks, and was promptly reprinted, in New York, by Rivington. This drew from Washington a characteristic comment. From the bleak camp at Valley Forge, he wrote to Richard Henry Lee, February 15, 1778: "The enemy are governed by no principles that ought to actuate honest men; no wonder then, that forgery should be amongst their other crimes. I have seen a letter published in a handbill at New York, and extracts from it in a Philadelphia paper, said to be from me to Mrs. Washington not one word of which did I ever write. Those contained in the pamphlet you speak of are, I presume, equally genuine, and perhaps written by the same author." Washington himself suspected "Jack" Randolph to be the author, as he was about the only Virginian in England at Many variations of the Gibbons fairytale are at large. Mary is said to have lived in Jersey, and Washington was rowed across the Hudson at night by a devoted aide-de-camp; again it is the Passaic River that was crossed and the New Jersey Loyalists were to effect the capture of the rebel commander-in-chief. Both of these modifications are samples of the ignorant credulity of the scandalmongers. To cross the Hudson often, in a small boat at night, while British war-ships were in the river, would have been a remarkable series of feats, and as the Continental Army was rapidly retreating before the British from the moment it crossed into Jersey, the Passaic River boat crossings become even more remarkable. This Gibbons story was accepted as true and republished several times in the early part of the nineteenth century, and it gained credence in Europe by virtue of such versions as that given by P. V. J. Berthre de Bourniseaux in his "Histoire de Louis XVI avec les anecdotes de son regne" (Paris, 1829). Mary Gibbons, however, is plainly nothing but cheap political propaganda, manufactured entirely for the purpose of sowing discord among the revolted colonies, and the immoralities charged against Washington therein are merely incidental. Curiously enough, the Ameri can mind, or a portion of it, has seized upon the incidental and magnified it beyond the bounds of decency and common sense. The third root charge is that Washington was the father of a certain illegitimate boy-child. This charge rests upon such counts as the intimacy which existed between the family at Mount Vernon and the one to which the child belonged; the assumption, by Washington, of a part if not all of the expense of the boy's education; a claimed physical resemblance, and some apocryphal recollections. The boy is specifically named in the slander, but it is not deemed necessary to repeat this name here, as it is that of a worthy man, a firm patriot, and an officer of the Continental Army, with an honorable record both during and after the war. The date of the birth of the boy is one of the undisputed points in the story. According to it the lad was born when Washington was eighteen years old, and one insinuating raconteur interprets Washington's trip to Barbados, with his brother Lawrence, as necessary because of this unwelcomed paternity. The ridiculousness of such an inference is a fair sample of the method by which this charge is built up. The family of the boy were close neighbors to Mount Vernon, and there was visiting back and forth. The head of the family seems to have been an improvident, though likable Virginia gentleman who, despite his inability to maintain his establishment had little difficulty in holding the neighborly regard of the master of Mount Vernon. The boy was not the only member of this family who received financial assistance from Washington; the head of the family borrowed from him to a considerable extent, and Washington helped pay for the education of another son in addition to the one distinguished by the scandal. A daughter was the playmate of little Patsy Custis, and Washington paid her dancingschool fees so that she could attend the class, which met, at intervals, at Mount Vernon. His interest in the education of youth led him to undertake the expense of Bushrod Washington's law studies, under James Wilson; of placing two other nephews in school at Georgetown; of the offer of a substantial sum toward the training of George Washington Craik, the son of his friend Doctor James Craik, and to pay for the education of young John V. Weylie, a lad entirely unknown to him, simply because he had been properly recommended as a boy of unusual promise. If every child whose education was assisted by Washington were to be stigmatized, in consequence, as his natural offspring, the distinction of being the Father of His Country might take on a new meaning. But one particular lad has been selected from the many on account of an alleged physical resemblance, and in this we encounter the quintessence of inexcusable credulity. Wise shaking of heads appears at this point; old ladies and old men have remembered this and that; all of the familiar stage effects are present, and all of them, as usual, are worthless as proof. What is claimed to be the best evidence is a miniature likeness, which is said to resemble Washington with startling closeness. This miniature is ascribed to James Peale, because of the initials "J. P." or "I. P." found upon it. It is dated 1795, and we are asked to compare it with the portrait of Washington painted by Charles Wilson Peale, representing Washington at the age of forty-five. The absurdity of this is too obvious, and it is difficult to refrain from asking why the initials "J. P." might not be those of another member of the family whom the portrait miniature could fit just as readily. Some years ago a supposedly important point was brought forward in the shape of a letter, in Washington's handwriting, written to this young man, which was stated to commence "My dear Son." The text of the letter was entirely devoid of anything of a personal nature, and it concluded with the usual, formal Washington phraseology "Your most obdt. & humbl. Servt." It was a military letter, written during the Revolution, and except for the startling superscription would not merit a second thought. But because the letter was advanced in all seriousness as evidence, and because it has, undoubtedly, contributed its share of so-called proof, it must be considered. The trouble lies, not with Washington, but, as usual, with the industrious individuals who have been trying to bolster up a theory. The matter was nothing but unfamiliarity with one of Washington's pen characteristics. It is, at times, puzzling to distinguish several of Washington's word-ending letters. The final n's and final r's are among these. "My dear Son" was, in reality, "My dear Sir." Such is the material, collected by sen should be remembered that in this particular case the storm did not set in nor become severe for some hours after he had left the Mansion House. As to the charge itself, there seems to be nothing tangible about it beyond the direct indictment, Fauquier My Dear Sin D'Sin I am Sin sation-loving minds years ago, and with which they sought to convince by an overwhelming quantity of data, when the data itself was weak in quality. The last charge is that the fatal illness of December 13, 1799, was the result of an assignation with an overseer's wife. It seems to be based entirely upon the inclement weather of that day, and to be buttressed by the general assumption that all the other stories are true. It is the most nebulous of all the slanders, and seems to date back to 1778, where its foundation will be found in the jealous rage of that saturnine eccentric MajorGeneral Charles Lee. Bursting with spleen over his court martial for an unnecessary and shameful retreat from the field of Monmouth, he charged Washington with cruelty to his slaves, and that he used them immorally, though, with Leelike absurdity, he stated that it was so very secretly done that it was difficult to detect. Lee's crudities and the general effect of the Bew and Rivington publications seem to account for this overseer's wife creation; certainly there is no documentary evidence. Washington's diaries show that his daily ride around his farms was in utter disregard of the weather or season; snow-drifts that stopped his horse did not always stop the rider, who at times abandoned the animal and plunged forward on foot. If Washington is to be accused of liaisons every time he disregarded the weather in visiting his farms, the accusations become ridiculous by the mere total of them. As special pains seem to have been taken to use the weather as an argument in pressing this charge, it and the story has gathered its strength from mere repetition. In some of the later diaries, after Washington's retirement from the presidency, there is an untranslatable record on the margins of the printed almanac page in which the diary was entered. It consists of dots and sometimes tally strokes and minute circles, followed by the names of various female slaves, or vice versa. This, because it cannot now be explained, has been viewed with suspicion; but the appearance and grouping of these marks strongly suggest some plantation-work record, while the number of them, in any given period, make it physically impossible to sustain an immoral inference. Plausible theories are easy to manufacture, but substantial proofs are quite another matter. Men do not permit the rehearsal of slanderous attacks, without proof, upon the reputation of a friend, and George Washington has certainly made himself the friend of every American. Some of these stories may have come to his attention; it is certain that he knew of General Lee's vituperations, as he mentions them in letters to his friends, but, publicly, he maintained silence. Since Washington's death the slanders have gradually revived, and have not always met with proper rebuke; now, by reason of long immunity from question, they have acquired a certain appearance of truth with far too many people. Even the house that Washington built for his business convenience in Alexandria, and in which he occasionally stayed overnight with Mrs. Washington when they journeyed up to town together, has been made the excuse for innuendo and slanderous whisper. One other point has been made occasionally, that a certain well-known and wealthy American bought an incriminating letter, some years ago and, from a mistaken sense of patriotism, destroyed it. This, if true, was most unfortunate, for there are a considerable number of forgeries of Washington's autograph letters in existence, a great many of which pass current for originals, even among socalled experts, and it is not inconceivable that this suppressed letter may have been one of the prize pieces of that exceedingly clever forger Robert Spring, whose best work is by no means easy to detect. There is no need to apologize for Washington. Such weakness and fault as is attributed to him by the individual viewpoint does not, and cannot, detract in the slightest from the tremendous work he accomplished for America, and solely in the light of this work he should be judged. But if it be insisted upon that his private morals be scrutinized, it is submitted that, no matter what may be the challenge of the future, the slanders of the past, those old and worn stories that have been bandied about for years, are not and cannot be proven. The charges, here briefly reviewed, plainly show themselves based upon an ignorant credulity that accepts forgery without question, and repeats baseless tales without stopping to investigate. The obligations of the people of the United States to the First American have not yet been lessened. One of these obligations, quite properly, is to reprehend and check with rebuke the loose, unfounded, and despicable slanders directed against George Washington. |