WASHINGTON’S LETTERS TO JONES AND HAMILTON, PAGES 62-63
Washington’s letters to Jones and Hamilton are, along with several others, almost identical in purpose: pleading the army’s cause, warning of the danger of mutiny, and urging action by Congress to satisfy the army’s claims. But beyond these themes was Washington’s unconfirmed suspicion that Gates and Armstrong may not have been acting alone and that they had allies in the Congress.
Historians have differed on this. Some believe that Congress’s role was minimal and that Gates and Armstrong acted largely on their own initiative. Some believe that a few congressmen were involved because they wished to strengthen the national government and pay off creditors. Others believe that, while a few congressmen may have been involved, they were bluffing. Still others believe that congressmen, seeking a strong national government that would pay its debts to creditors as well as the army, thought the threat of a mutiny would strengthen their hand with their colleagues either with or without a mutiny. (All these various theories were laid out in the 1970s in The William and Mary Quarterly, in articles by Richard H. Kohn, 1970, 187–220; Paul David Nelson, 1972, 143–58; and C. Edward Skeen and Richard H. Kohn, 1974, 273–98.) I incline to Kohn’s belief that Gates and Armstrong played the major role, and, regardless of the role of some congressmen, there is no doubt in my mind that Gates’s actions were real and the threat was real. None of the historians cited above speculate, as this novel and Josiah do, on the impact that all the pleas to Washington to lead a new government as a king or dictator must have had on the General.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, PAGES 64-65
While the Founding Fathers (and mothers) were plentiful in their praise and sparing in their criticism of Washington, whom they looked on as a father figure, the reverse was true when commenting on their fraternal colleagues. In a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adams described Alexander Hamilton as “a proud Spirited, conceited, aspiring Mortal always pretending to Morality, with as debauched Morals as old Franklin who is more his Model than any one I know.”
In later letters to her husband, Abigail described Hamilton “as ambitious as Julius Caesar . . . his thirst for fame is insatiable.” She stated further: “Beware of the spare Cassius [Hamilton], has always occurred to me when I have seen that cock sparrow” (Gore Vidal, Inventing a Nation, 133). While this correspondence took place later than Newburgh, such feelings by Hamilton’s military and political colleagues were commonplace, although they were definitely not shared by Washington, who always had a high opinion of Hamilton.
While the founders were sparing in their criticism of Washington, on occasion feelings of jealousy toward the man who dominated the revolutionary cause did emerge. Perhaps because Washington, for the most part, stood above the jealousy of others, he was immune from exhibiting jealousy in return. It does not seem to have been part of his nature. As this novel brings out, Washington seemed more concerned with what the public and history thought of him than what his colleagues thought of him. His admiration for Hamilton was so well known that he was referred to as Hamilton’s surrogate father and even ridiculously rumored to be Hamilton’s real father, sired on a teenage trip by Washington to the West Indies. Because modern science has proved Jefferson’s siring of children with his slave, Sally Hemings, it is tempting these days to believe every juicy sexual rumor. Unfortunately for the prurient, Washington’s visit to the West Indies took place years before Hamilton’s known birth, thus showing this rumor, like many rumors about Washington’s sex life, to be implausible. What is likely is that Washington, despite their different circumstances of birth, saw a similarity in their backgrounds: they both lacked formal schooling as youths (Hamilton attended King’s College, now Columbia) and, while both depended on more fortunate elders for early advancement, they both were largely self-made men (Hamilton in law and Washington in surveying), with both considering themselves, perhaps surprisingly, outsiders. (For more on this intriguing connection, see Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 86, 87.)
Although fulsome in his praise, Hamilton, while more immune from feelings of jealousy toward Washington than most of the Founding Fathers, did occasionally slip. In a letter to his father-in-law, Hamilton stated “all the world is offering incense” to Washington. (See Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 152.)
THOMAS JEFFERSON, PAGES 65-68
For a man of known broad tastes, Jefferson had some decidedly narrow views on certain subjects, which drew Josiah’s attention. According to Jefferson, permitting women to “mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men” could lead to a “depravation of morals” (Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty, 506). Women should not hold any government positions, including those they had already held, such as postmaster (see Rosemarie Zagarri, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic, 159). One should suspect that “blacks . . . are inferior to the whites in endowments both of body and mind” (Wood, 539). Sane people do not turn voluntarily from farming to manufacturing (Wood, 627). Treatment of patients was all right in hospitals; medical research was not (Wood, 723). Chemists should ignore deep discoveries and concentrate on producing better bread and butter (Wood, 724). It is natural that someone of Josiah’s Quaker background would have found Jefferson’s above views peculiar and offensive, even in those times.
Washington (or rather Josiah) was correct that the furor over Jefferson’s alleged cowardice as governor during the war would dissipate despite an attempt at censure by the Virginia Assembly. (For a sympathetic treatment of Jefferson’s woes as a wartime governor, which omits the alleged hiding by Jefferson in a tobacco barn, see Jefferson’s biography by Dumas Malone, Jefferson the Virginian, 357–68. For a more critical but balanced appraisal of Jefferson’s conduct, see John Ferling, Almost a Miracle, 478, 479.)