LINCOLN’S VENERATION OF WASHINGTON, PAGE 178
Josiah observes that his congressman, Abraham Lincoln, claimed that the gold ring he wore contained a piece of Washington’s hair. A later president, William McKinley, claimed that a ring given to him by Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay, was embedded with several strands of Washington’s hair. Today, this may all seem unlikely or bizarre, but we must remember the hold that Washington had on the American populace in the nineteenth century. (For a description of such practices, including rings containing relics of Washington, see Stanley Weintraub, General Washington’s Christmas Farewell, 66, 67.)
THE QUOTES FROM KING GEORGE III AND NAPOLEON, PAGES 179
For years, the quote from George III that if Washington turns down the kingship, “he will be the greatest man in the world” has survived and embellished Washington’s reputation. (See Ellis, His Excellency, 139. Recently the Washington Papers at the University of Virginia explored the background of this quote. It was originally attributed to a conversation between American artist Benjamin West and George III.)
We now know that the heavily-used conversation between King George III and West gained its foothold in history because Joseph Farington (1747–1821), a second-tier British artist, met West on December 28, 1799, and then wrote in his diary entry for that date West’s recollection of an exchange with the King during the early summer of 1782 . . . Despite the gap of some seventeen years from the time of the actual event and West’s recollection, it is plausible to believe its authenticity and veracity . . . Farington definitely knew West very well and was a faithful diarist. If only such a level of confidence could be felt about all anecdotes and stories concerning George Washington in wide circulation! (See the Washington Papers at the University of Virginia Newsletter, no. 12, Spring 2011.)
THE TRIBUTES TO WASHINGTON, PAGES 179-81
In addition to the tributes to Washington from Abraham Lincoln and King George III, the tributes from Fisher Ames, Gerald Vogel, Lord Byron, Philip Freneau, and others are accurately quoted here. It is impossible for us today to appreciate the outpouring of encomiums while he lived and the eulogies after his death. Not even the eulogies for President Kennedy come close in their depth and variety. “Some clergymen wanted to insert his [Washington’s] farewell address into the Bible as an epilogue. ‘Every American considers it his sacred duty to have a likeness of Washington in his home, just as we have images of God’s saints,’ observed a European traveler” (Ron Chernow, Washington, 813).
DID WASHINGTON CONSIDER LEADING A COUP?, WHOLE NOVEL
This question is, of course, at the heart of this novel. Historians have differed over whether a coup would have succeeded with Washington’s leadership or even without it. But I am not aware of many historians who have focused at length on whether Washington considered the possibility and, if so, how seriously. Given the evidence adduced in this novel of actual letters from Nicola, Duché, Varnum, etc., urging Washington to take power (we do not know how many other letters there were, but we can assume there were many), the constant oral urgings that aides such as Josiah witnessed and we know took place, and the whole climate of the country, how come this question has received so little emphasis from historians?
I believe the answer lies not with historians ignoring the evidence but with the reasonable assumption that since Washington rejected the offer at Newburgh, that since we know him to be so dedicated to setting up a republic, and that since we believe him to be a man of impeccable integrity and character, it is just beyond us to consider possibilities that would substantially reshape the narrative of our nation’s founding or our Founding Father. But as I’ve alluded to in the Afterword and as Josiah observes in the Epilogue, rather than detract from Washington’s character or his commitment to our republic, Washington’s wrestling with whether to become king or dictator, and then turning away from those outcomes, only enhances both his character and the nation’s commitment to civilian supremacy over the military. (See Ellis’s His Excellency, 140–44.)
And why shouldn’t Washington have considered accepting a crown? Would you not consider such a possibility when, everywhere you turn, you read letters from officers suggesting it is your duty to save the nation by becoming king, you hear toasts to yourself instead of George III, and you see signs such as the one outside the tavern the General and Josiah observed? As Josiah says, Washington should be honored (and was honored in the eighteenth century) less for what he did and more for what he did not do. This is something that is outside our twentieth-and twenty-first-century frame of reference. We judge leaders, whether they be generals or presidents, by what they do or promise to do. But can we name one great American leader whom we honor for what he or she did not do? This is what makes Washington the truly unique American leader.
APPENDIX B
DOCUMENTS LEADING UP TO AND INCLUDING THE WEEK OF MARCH 9, 1783, AT NEWBURGH, NEW YORK
(Some Corrections Are Made to Make the Documents Understandable in Modern English)
LETTER FROM REVEREND JACOB DUCHé OF PHILADELPHIA, FIRST CHAPLAIN OF FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, TO GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON ON OCTOBER 8, 1777
IF this letter should find you in council, or in the field, before you read another sentence I beg you to take the first opportunity of retiring and weighing it’s important contents.—You are perfectly acquainted with the part I formerly took in the present unhappy contest . . .
[Reverend Duché here alludes to his role as the first chaplain of the First Continental Congress and describes his reluctance to join the War for Independence.]
And now, dear Sir, suffer me, in the language of truth and real affection, to address myself to you. All the world must be convinced you are engaged in the service of your country from motives perfectly disinterested. You risked every thing that was dear to you, abandoned the sweets of domestic life, which your affluent fortune can give the uninterrupted enjoyment of . . .