APPEALS TO WASHINGTON BY CONGRESSMEN CORNELL AND HOOPER, PAGE 24
The calls by Congressmen Cornell and Hooper for Washington to expand his leadership went beyond Reverend Duché’s appeal, as the congressmen represented Americans who still believed the war could be won. (See John Ferling, Almost a Miracle, 471; Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 21.)
I have found no response by Washington to either Cornell or Hooper’s appeals. These appeals were typical of those Washington received throughout the war up to and through the week at Newburgh.
GENERAL WASHINGTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BRITISH BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGES 26-30
Washington’s antagonism toward the British did indeed, as Josiah surmises, go back to their treatment of him during the French and Indian War. Washington and other colonial soldiers believed, with good cause, that the British military held them in contempt. While this contempt was reflected in the British disregard for colonial (including Indian) knowledge of tactics and terrain, nothing highlighted their contempt more than the British practice of having British officers of inferior rank serve over more senior and experienced colonial officers of higher rank. That this practice specifically affected Washington’s rank and commands, as well as the British refusal to commission Washington to a high rank, has been documented by many of Washington’s biographers. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 39, 40.)
Nothing better sums up Washington’s antagonism toward British policies prior to the Revolutionary War—earlier than many American leaders—than his letter to neighbor George Mason in 1769 where he stated, “Our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom,” and “that no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing” (The Writings of George Washington, 129–32).
“HANDS IN MY POCKET,” PAGE 27
Washington’s “hands in my pocket” quote objecting to British taxation without representation appears in many sources, suggesting he stated this view many times, but the most complete version I have found is in a 1774 letter to a loyalist neighbor, Bryan Fairfax: “I think the Parliament of Great Britain hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for money” (The Writings of George Washington, 155, 156).
WASHINGTON’S SUPPORT OF RECRUITING BLACK RHODE ISLAND TROOPS AND ARMING SOUTH CAROLINA BLACKS, PAGES 30-33
Washington discreetly supported General Varnum’s proposal to have Rhode Island raise black troops. (See John Ferling’s Almost a Miracle, 342.) Some historians, including John Ferling, are dubious of Washington’s support of Laurens’s proposal to arm South Carolina’s slaves because there are no public statements by Washington stating his support. Other historians, such as Thomas Fleming, believe Washington supported Laurens’s proposal as evidenced by his writing to Laurens, “I know of nothing which can be opposed to them [British reinforcements going to Charleston] with such a prospect of success as the corps you have proposed should be levied in Carolina . . .”
While Washington may have had mixed feelings, I find it hard to believe that Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s trusted aide, would have written to John Jay as president of the Congress endorsing Laurens’s proposal to arm South Carolina blacks without Washington’s approval. Hamilton wrote in part:
The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticability or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires such a sacrifice. But it should be considered that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain by opening a door to their emancipation. (See Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 122)
Similarly, if Washington had not been supportive of the proposal, I find it difficult to believe that he would have written a letter to Laurens commiserating over South Carolina’s rejection of the proposal. Washington wrote in part:
The spirit of freedom which at the commencement of this contest would have gladly sacrificed everything to the attainment of its object has long since subsided, and every selfish passion has taken its place. It is not the public but the private interest which influences the generality of mankind nor can the Americans any longer boast of an exception. (See Thomas Fleming, The Perils of Peace, 127)
WASHINGTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN SOLDIERS IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGES 33-34
There are many stories of women in combat with the American army, including those described by Josiah here. The one of Deborah Sampson, whose alias was Robert Shurtliff, seems well founded. That Washington only discharged her after a surgeon, examining her wounds, discovered she was a woman indicates that Washington spent little time determining whether a recruit was a man or a woman. With regard to woman soldiers, there seems to have been a Revolutionary War version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The story of Mary Ludwig, a.k.a. Molly Pitcher, is less certain, although the story had great currency at the time and Congress gave Mary Ludwig a pension for her alleged service. (See Walter Hart Blumenthal, Women Camp Followers of the American Revolution, 69, 70; Holly Mayer, Belonging to the Army, 20, 21, and 144.)
WASHINGTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARD INDIANS IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PAGES 34-35
Washington frequently acknowledged to others, as he acknowledged to Josiah, the superior ability of Indians when it came to fighting in the woods. (See Ron Chernow, Washington, 88.) Washington understood the Indians’ suffering at the hands of the settlers but was not able to implement his dream of integrating the Indians into American civilization. (See Chernow, Washington, 666.) At no time did Washington’s feelings toward the Indians lead him to advocate restricting settlement of the colonists. To ban settlement anywhere in the promised land would have been as far-fetched to Washington as banning the Israelites from settling any part of the Holy Land.
WASHINGTON’S ORDER CALLING THE SATURDAY MEETING, PAGES 35-36 (QUOTED IN FULL IN APPENDIX B, PAGES 272-273)
CHAPTER TWO: DAY TWO, TUESDAY—THE SECOND ANONYMOUS LETTER