The Man Who Could Be King
John Ripin Miller
FOREWORD
In his wonderfully evocative The Man Who Could Be King, John Ripin Miller succeeds in telling two important stories simultaneously. An attempt near the close of the Revolutionary War by officers in the Continental Army to organize a military coup to seize power from the elected Congress is the story in the foreground. In the incident—known to history as the Newburgh Conspiracy because it occurred at the army’s cantonment at that place in New York—General George Washington stymied the officers disgruntled over delinquent pay and a perceived lack of appreciation through a stunning theatrical display that highlighted his immense personal sacrifices for the cause of the nation’s independence under a free government. The second story that Miller tells with admirable clarity and economy is how Washington persevered and prevailed over the course of seven years as commander in chief. Through vivid flashbacks, readers learn the essentials of Washington’s triumphs at Boston, Trenton, Princeton, and Yorktown, and his composure during the struggles that characterized a series of defeats around New York City in 1776.
The people in Miller’s work pop from the pages as three-dimensional figures. Some—like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Marquis de Lafayette, Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, and Benedict Arnold—are famous or notorious in the annals of the war and United States history. Others—like John Armstrong Jr., John Laurens, Joseph Reed, Alexander McDougall, Horatio Gates, and Benjamin Lincoln—exist on the periphery of memory but deserve to be better known. Miller makes discovering all these people a painless exercise.
Some readers may balk at Miller’s deployment of a fictional military aide named Josiah as the narrator. No reason exists for worry or concern. Josiah is a faithful composite of the more than twenty-five men who served Washington as aides-de-camp or secretaries over the years of the Revolutionary War. Moreover, being an imaginary character, Josiah can speak unburdened by the contentions of actual historical relationships or the arguments among historians. In short, his voice is ideal for communicating impressions of General Washington’s appearance, demeanor, and actions as well as probing the murkier world of his thoughts. Josiah casts a neutral eye on the world that is consistently plausible. While a bias emerges that is decidedly favorable toward Washington, it is a perspective that the great man earns through meritorious conduct.
Miller grounds his portrayals and words in authentic historical documents. He has researched extensively and impressively. These efforts make his story accurate as well as accessible. John Ripin Miller’s The Man Who Could Be King is both good history and a good read for all interested in George Washington, the Revolutionary War, and how military subordination to civilian authority became an enduring principle in the United States.
William M. Ferraro
Research Associate Professor and Acting Editor-in-Chief (Managing Editor) Washington Papers (Papers of George Washington) University of Virginia
PROLOGUE
NOTES FOR MY GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN
JOSIAH PENN STOCKBRIDGE, 1843, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS (EDITED AND REVISED)
The dawn is overcast, the morning low’rs,
And heavily in clouds brings on the day,
The great, th’ important day, big with the fate
Of Cato and of Rome.
—Portius, Cato, Act I, Scene 1
Ioften cannot recall recent events. And yet I do recall that week almost sixty years ago, and I remember it more vividly than any time in the eight years I served the General. You may wonder at my ability to write today in the early 1840s about events so long ago, but as I write now, I realize that outside of the important times recorded on the flyleaf of our family Bible, there is no period I remember better.
Of course I can’t be sure of all the details of the nascent mutiny that almost changed our country forever. While I kept copies of much of the General’s correspondence and many of my notes, perhaps I’ve got some of the names or the exact sequence of events wrong. I hope my great-grandchildren will excuse me for that, just as I also hope they will excuse me for recalling so many of my random thoughts that week. But February 22, the General’s birthday, is a month from now; their school has already started its annual study of the General’s life, and they want to come over and ask questions about him. It seems their schoolteacher believes the General had plenty of flaws. He did, but I probably know them better than anyone else, and I believe I can explain them better than any schoolteacher who wasn’t there.
That brings me back to Monday, March 10, 1783, in Newburgh, New York, and the extraordinary events that followed over the next several days. I just don’t understand why everyone writes about what was right and wrong about his generalship and presidency, and you never hear about that week. Maybe it’s partly because of the way history is taught in our schools now. My great-grandchildren tell me the War for Independence ended with the surrender at Yorktown in 1781. No one teaches them that the Revolutionary War went on for almost two more years after Yorktown, albeit with very limited fighting, until a peace treaty was signed. We rarely talk about the conflicts during those two years and the consequences for our country, but the greatest conflict then, I believe, was within the heart and mind of our commanding general.