There are numerous and varied accounts of eyewitnesses to Washington’s speech on Saturday, March 15, 1783. All contain the basic facts outlined here, including the General’s use of his new spectacles, but the most well written and gripping is the Journals of Major Samuel Shaw, pages 101–5. Some artistic license is taken by the author; Josiah would have had access to his own and other accounts, and may well have received Major Shaw’s written account quoted herein, but he probably did not have access to the full Shaw journals since they were not published until 1847 by Shaw’s nephews Robert Gould Shaw and Josiah Quincy. Where Major Shaw’s account excels over other accounts is in capturing the difficulties the General faced in winning over his audience and the dramatic impact Washington had on his brother officers:
The meeting of the officers was in itself exceedingly respectable, the matters they were called to deliberate upon were of the most serious nature, and the unexpected attendance of the Commander-in-chief heightened the solemnity of the scene. Every eye was fixed upon the illustrious man, and attention to their beloved General held the assembly mute. He opened the meeting by apologizing for his appearance there, which was by no means his intention when he published the order which directed them to assemble. But the diligence used in circulating the anonymous pieces rendered it necessary that he should give his sentiments to the army on the nature and tendency of them, and determined him to avail himself of the present opportunity; and, in order to do it, with greater perspicuity, he had committed his thoughts to writing, which, with the indulgence of his brother officers, he would take the liberty of reading to them. It is needless for me to say anything of this production; it speaks for itself. After he had concluded his address, he said, that, as a corroborating testimony of the good disposition in Congress towards the army, he would communicate to them a letter received from a worthy member of that body, and one who on all occasions had ever proved himself their fast friend. This was an exceedingly sensible letter, and, while it pointed out the difficulties and embarrassments of Congress, it held up very forcibly the idea that the army should, at all events, be generously dealt with. One circumstance in reading this letter must not be omitted. His Excellency, after reading the first paragraph, made a short pause, took out his spectacles, and begged the indulgence of his audience while he put them on, observing at the same time, that he had grown gray in their service, and now found himself growing blind. There was something so natural, so unaffected, in this appeal, as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory; it forced its way to the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye. The General, having finished, took leave of the assembly, and the business of the day was conducted in the manner which is related in the account of the proceedings.
I cannot dismiss this subject [the General’s speech on Saturday, March 15, 1783] without observing, that it is happy for America that she has a patriot army, and equally so that a Washington is its leader. I rejoice in the opportunities I have had of seeing this great man in a variety of situations—calm and intrepid where the battle raged, patient and persevering under the pressure of misfortune, moderate and possessing himself of the full career of victory. Great as these qualifications deservedly render him, he never appeared to me more truly so, than at the assembly we have been speaking of. On other occasions he has been supported by the exertions of an army and the countenance of his friends; but in this he stood single and alone. There was no saying where the passions of an army, which were not a little inflamed, might lead; but it was generally allowed that longer forbearance was dangerous, and moderation had ceased to be a virtue. Under these circumstances he appeared, not at the head of his troops, but as it were in opposition to them; and for a dreadful moment the interests of the army and its General seemed to be in competition! He spoke—every doubt was dispelled, and the tide of patriotism rolled again in its wonted course. Illustrious man! What he says of the army may with equal justice be applied to his own character. “Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”
WASHINGTON THE “ACTOR” AT ANNAPOLIS, PAGES 166, 176
Earlier Josiah commented on how he agreed with John Adams that Washington was an actor. Whether Washington was an “actor” or, as Josiah now reflects, someone trying to mold his character to accentuate positive traits, Washington’s love of theater led him to inject theatrical references into his speeches. In resigning his commission to Congress in Annapolis in what Washington deemed his farewell to Congress, Josiah quotes Washington’s references to himself as an actor, retiring “from the great theatre of action.” Back in April 1783, in his last general order to the army, Washington resorted to similar theatrical rhetoric:
Nothing now remains but for the actors of this mighty Scene to preserve a perfect unvarying constancy of character through the last act; to close the Drama with applause; and to retire from the Military Theatre with the same approbation as Angells and men which have crowned all their former vertuous Actions. (See The Writings of George Washington, 513, 514.)
ADAMS AND MADISON’S LAUDING OF WASHINGTON AFTER NEWBURGH, PAGE 170-71
Josiah comments that congressmen such as Adams and Madison had doubts about whether the General would stop the insurrection but rushed to extol him after the fact, knowing that their congressional powers were secure. Josiah’s comments are well supported. James Madison, just two days after Washington’s speech at the Temple in Newburgh, wrote John Randolph: “The steps taken by the General to avert the gathering storm, and his professions of inflexible adherence to his duty to Congress and to his Country, excited the most affectionate sentiments toward him” (“Letter to John Randolph, March 17, 1783,” The Writings of James Madison, vol. 1, 407). For Madison, who had originally doubted that Washington would put down the mutiny, this was “an understatement, if there ever was one” (See Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 136).
In June 1783, three months after the showdown at Newburgh, John Adams wrote: “The happy turn given to the discontents of the army by the General, is consistent with his character, which, as you observe, is above all praise, as every character, whose rule and object are duty, not interest, nor glory, which I think has been strictly true with the General from the beginning, and I trust will continue to the end.” (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, 136; “Letter to Livingston, June 16, 1783,” Works of John Adams, vol. 8, 73.)
The events at Newburgh also undoubtedly influenced Thomas Jefferson’s comment in 1784 quoted earlier: “The moderation and virtue of a single character has probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish” (James Thomas Flexner, Washington, The Indispensable Man, 178).
EPILOGUE
A FURTHER MUTINY, PAGE 173
Josiah talks of a later spring Pennsylvania mutiny involving fifteen hundred troops put down by Washington. Such a mutiny took place, as well as still another mutiny in August 1783, leading Congress to plead with Washington to move his remaining troops to Rocky Hill, New Jersey, in order to protect Congress from soldiers still again asking for more back pay.