Divining W : Inside the God that George Washington Worships ( Was he Deist or Christian ?)

National Review ^ | 02/20/2006 | Michael and Jana Novak

[stuartcr]

Those are fine quotes, thank you.

[Diamond]

Snowden did not know George Washington personally. He met him along with a group of others at a social gathering. His comment was refuted by Ashbel Green.

Perhaps you meant this comment for me, as I was the one who quoted Snowden. Does Ashbel Green's opinion about Washington's theology (perhaps what Green may have viewed as Washington's lack of Presbyterian orthodoxy, or possibly, his misapprehension of Washington's general reticence to speak about such matters) refute Snowden's assertion of fact that "When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones, administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye 1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the blessed Jesus."?

It is hard to imagine that Green, the Congressional Chaplain from 1792 to 1800 knew Washington any better than Nelly Custis-Lewis, Washington's adopted daughter, who lived with the Washingtons for twenty years, from the time of her birth in 1779 until 1799. She wrote:

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.

He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war.
[snip]...

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis
-----------------------------------------------------

"...[The]first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s... was prepared and published by Jared Sparks (1789-1866), a noted writer and historian. Sparks' Herculean historical productions included not only the writing of George Washington (12 volumes) but also Benjamin Franklin (10 volumes) and Constitution signer Gouverneur Morris (3 volumes). Additionally, Sparks compiled the Library of American Biography (25 volumes), The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (12 volumes), and the Correspondence of the American Revolution (4 volumes). In all, Sparks was responsible for some 100 historical volumes. Additionally, Sparks was America's first professor of history--other than ecclesiastical history--to teach at the college level in the United States, and he was later chosen president of Harvard.

Jared Sparks' decision to compile George Washington's works is described by The Dictionary of American Biography. It details that Sparks began . . .

. . . what was destined to be his greatest lifework, the publication of the writings of George Washington. ... In January 1827, Sparks found himself alone at Mount Vernon with the manuscripts. An examination of them extending over three months showed that years would be required for the undertaking; and with the owner's consent, Sparks carried off the entire collection, eight large boxes, picking up on the way to Boston a box of diplomatic correspondence from the Department of State, and the [General Horatio] Gates manuscripts from the New York Historical Society. Not content with these, he searched or caused to be searched public and private archives for material, questioned survivors of the Revolution, visited and mapped historic sites. In 1830, for instance, he followed [Benedict] Arnold's [1775] route to Quebec. The first of the twelve volumes of The Writings of George Washington to be published (vol. II) appeared in 1834 and the last (vol. I, containing the biography) in 1837.

In Volume XII of these writings, Jared Sparks delved into the religious character of George Washington, and included numerous letters written by the friends, associates, and family of Washington which testified of his religious character. Based on that extensive evidence, Sparks concluded:

To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible."
Was George Washington a Christian?

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Can you imagine the reaction of the left if President Bush did this? I'd give my husband's left gonad to be in the front row for that, LOL!

Your husband might have a different view of that last sentiment, but can you imagine the ACLU blowing a gasket over this quote from Washington?

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. (!!!)

George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

Cordially,

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

If I had my way my husband would be missing a pair! Good thing for him no one will take my offer.

[Trust but Verify]

I am reading a Lincoln biography and I too, find similarities in today's affairs. I have resolved to reading a biography on each US President. I expect it will take me a long time to read them all....

[Diamond]

Every time I read one of these threads, I picture debates a few hundred years from now, in which devotees of literal Christianity post the staged pictures of Bill and Hillary walking up to the entrance of a Church... "See, they were Church-going, Bible-believing Christians!".

I doubt it. God forbid that any right thinking person would ever conflate the character of those two exemplars of narcissistic, repulsive, nauseating, reprobate human depravity (notwithstanding the 30 lb Bibles) with the character of George Washington. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever write of Kwrinton,

"He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war."

Even Washington's enemies praised his character and virtue, something the Clintons' friends cannot even bring themselves to do of them:

When an American-authored poem dedicated to Washington was reprinted in London in 1780, the dissenting Whig Monthly Review and traditionally Tory Critical Review expressed a rare consensus.4 They agreed that the poem was poorly written, and they praised its subject. Although the Critical Review described Bostonians as a wretched people "used to tarring and feathering those who have been so unhappy as to offend them," it described the rebel leader's character as "very respectable" and proclaimed "we have a high opinion of his hero." The Monthly Review concurred, describing Washington as "this modern Fabius"--a reference to the then well-known paragon of Roman republican virtue, Fabius Maximus.5
link

Cordially,

[GovernmentShrinker]

The kind of "evidence" being used to support the claim of literal faith in Christianity is virtually identical to my example. What a powerful public figure says/does in public is carefully crafted to be acceptable to that public. It is not evidence of the public figure's actual beliefs or opinions. I don't doubt for a moment that George Washington was of far higher character than Bill & Hillary Clinton, but the likelihood that any of them harbored a literal belief in Christianity beyond childhood is very, very remote.

[mugs99]

Snowden's assertion of fact

Snowden was not at Morristown. He got the Rev. Dr. Jones story from Isaac Potts. The Potts story was repeated by many Christian publishers. There is a major problem with his story. Potts did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. How did he witness the Rev. Jones administer the sacrament?

In 1918, the Valley Forge Park Commission refused a request by a patriotic organization for permission to erect a monument or marker on the spot where it was claimed Washington was seen kneeling in prayer. The Commission's report reviewed its examination of the thousands of pages of correspondence and diaries of the Commander-in-Chief and his staff; generals of divisions and brigades; officers and privates of regiments; the Congressional Committee who were at the camp; manuscripts in the Library of Congress and other institutions where Revolutionary matter is preserved. It concluded by observing "in none of these were found a single paragraph that will substantiate the tradition of the 'Prayer at Valley Forge.'" There is no documentation that supports any of the prayer stories at Morristown.

It is hard to imagine that Green, the Congressional Chaplain from 1792 to 1800 knew Washington any better than Nelly Custis-Lewis

Ashbel Green was a close friend of Washington's long before Nelly was born. Washington left all of his papers and personal belongings to Bushrod Washington, his nephew. That he left nothing to Martha's children or Nelly speaks volumes.

He attended the church at Alexandria when the

Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question: "I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point."

To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:
"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.
"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant. ... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.
"Your humble servant,
"WILLIAM WHITE."

He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services, however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!"

On the first Presidential inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution, but before taking his oath of office, a local Masonic Bible was hurriedly borrowed on which to take the oath. He would not swear the oath on the Christian Bible.

He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons.

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did

Jared Sparks persuaded Bushrod Washington to let him take Washington's papers to Boston. Sparks excised Washington's signature from documents, and sent them to friends. He tore pages from Washington's diary and sent them to friends. He sent Washington letters to friends. He trashed anything he, Sparks, judged to be of no historical value.
It was Sparks who cut Washington's draft of his first inaugural address into small pieces and so thoroughly disseminated this document of more than sixty pages that the efforts of several collectors have failed to reassemble more than a third of it. Even after he had supposedly returned all the papers to the Washington family, Sparks retained a supply to distribute. He was still mailing out snippets in 1861.
It is because of Jared Sparks that we are having this debate today.

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did

I'll have to agree with Bushrod Washington...Jared Sparks is a scoundrel!
.

[Diamond]

What a powerful public figure says/does in public is carefully crafted to be acceptable to that public. It is not evidence of the public figure's actual beliefs or opinions....

If the person is a hypocrite that is true, which amounts to saying that George Washington's repeatedly observed partaking of Communinion made him a hypocrite of the worst sort if he were not a Christian.

Cordially,

[mugs99]

What a powerful public figure says/does in public is carefully crafted to be acceptable to that public

True!
.

[mugs99]

If the person is a hypocrite that is true, which amounts to saying that George Washington's repeatedly observed partaking of Communinion

Repeating known fable from a scoundrel as fact would make one who claims to be a Christian a hypocrite...would it not?
.

[Diamond]

Potts did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. How did he witness the Rev. Jones administer the sacrament?

Other writers claim Isaac Potts was a widower at the time of the Encampment and others that he did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. These claims would seem to be in error as substantiated by "The Potts Memorial" a worthy genealogical-historical account of the Potts family compiled in 1874 by Mrs. Thomas Potts (Isabella) James, after eleven years of painstaking work. In Mrs. James' record Isaac Potts is shown as marrying Martha Bolton at Plymouth Meeting December 6, 1770, that she lived with Isaac at Valley Forge in 1777 and 1778 and died April 39, 1798 at Cheltenham, Montgomery County.
link

I'll have to agree with Bushrod Washington...Jared Sparks is a scoundrel!

In his efforts concerning the Washington papers, Sparks wrote significantly to Bushrod Washington (1762-1829), the President's nephew and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Although Justice Washington initially declined to give Sparks the help he requested, he eventually consented to allowing Sparks access to his uncle's materials. (Justice Washington had inherited from his uncle the Mt. Vernon estate along with all of the President's writings and personal property.)

The correspondence with Justice Washington represents Sparks's attempt to logically take his search to one of the relatives of the President. Justice Washington only consented to help after Sparks had already traveled throughout the original thirteen Colonies (and to Europe) collecting copies of the President's writings and had proven he was serious in his effort. Justice Washington also felt more comfortable with the project once John Marshall was involved. Over twenty years earlier Justice Washington had urged Marshall to write a biography shortly after the President's death and provided Marshall with considerable access to the President's writings. Marshall's five volumes became the first major biography written and a one volume abridgement, which went through twenty editions by 1849, is still in print and available through Eastern National.

Justice Washington may have felt that he and John Marshall had fulfilled the obligation to write the "definitive" biography, and therefore rejected Sparks' initial overture. Nonetheless, Justice Washington, as mentioned, did consent to assist Sparks and Sparks published his twelve volume Life and Writings of General Washington in 1834-37, after almost ten years of work. Justice Washington did not live to see the publication, which represented the first scholarly attempt at collecting a historical figures works for public consumption. Sparks went on to become a professor of ancient and modern history at Harvard (and a colleague of Henry W. Longfellow, a professor of modern languages) and ultimately president of Harvard from 1849-1853.
link

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You forgot to include this part of the manuscripts saga:

Upon Washington's death in 1799, most of his papers still in his hands became the property of his nephew Bushrod Washington, an associate justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. We shall have more to say about the fate of these invaluable documents in the Introduction to Volume I of The Papers of George Washington.

Editor Jared Sparks gave away this page from a Washington diary in 1832. (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dreer Collection).

Destruction and dispersal of the papers began very early when Mrs. Washington reportedly burned all the correspondence she had exchanged with Washington during his lifetime--overlooking only two letters, we believe. There followed long years of careless handling by Bushrod, biographer John Marshall, and editor Jared Sparks. Indeed, what is most important in the story of Washington's papers is not such natural processes as fire, flood, mildew, and the tendency of paper to fall into dust. Rather, there has been an overabundance of stewardship by misguided caretakers, persons who thought they knew what was important and what was trivial, what should be saved and what given away to friends and autograph collectors.

The editor who laments the disappearance of so many Washington diaries can only sink into despondency upon learning that Bushrod gave many away. To diplomat Christopher Hughes, in 1825, he gave the 1797 diary and a sheaf of Washington's notes on agriculture; Hughes dispersed these among his friends in the United States and Europe. Two years later, Bushrod gave the diaries for 1795 and 1798 to Margaret and Robert Adams, of Philadelphia. Then he presented the 1767 diary to Dr. James W. Wallace, of Warrenton. These and certain other diaries once in private hands have been preserved; others apparently have not.

Jared Sparks's turn to mishandle the papers came in 1827, when he persuaded Bushrod to let him take large quantities to Boston, where he was to prepare his twelve-volume edition, The Writings of George Washington (Boston, 1837). Sparks decided that carefully excising a Washington signature from a document, and sending it to a friend, did not really damage the manuscript as a piece of history; that a page torn from a Washington diary, or an entire Washington letter, could safely be given away if he, Sparks, judged it to be of no historical value. It was Sparks who cut Washington's draft of his first inaugural address into small pieces and so thoroughly disseminated this document of more than sixty pages that the efforts of several collectors have failed to reassemble more than a third of it. Even after he had supposedly returned all the papers to the Washington family, Sparks retained a supply to distribute. He was still mailing out snippets in 1861. link

Besides the fact that Bushrod was dead by the time Sparks' massive documentation was published, are John Marshall, Hughes, Adams and Wallace and all these others to whom Bushrod gave away the documents scoundrels, too?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I forgot Mrs. Washington. She reportedly burned all the correspondence she had exchanged with Washington during his lifetime, save possibly two letters. Is she a scoundrel, too? My point is, ad hominum attacks on Sparks do nothing to refute or discredit his massive study of the correspondence of Washington.

Cordially,

[mugs99]

My point is, ad hominum attacks on Sparks do nothing to refute or discredit his massive study of the correspondence of Washington.

It's not an ad hominum attack on Sparks. It is historical fact, attested to by Bushrod Washington. His massive study is worthless because we do not have the historical documentation that could be used to verify his study. He threw it out!
.

[mugs99]

Besides the fact that Bushrod was dead by the time Sparks' massive documentation was published, are John Marshall, Hughes, Adams and Wallace and all these others to whom Bushrod gave away the documents scoundrels, too?

They have made no claims and then destroyed the documents that could be used to verify those claims.
You want to claim hearsay as fact. Let me repeat, there is no historical documentation, from friends, generals, soldiers or clergy that verify these communion stories. In fact, all documentation from clergy who actually knew him refute that claim.

Let me put it in another light. There are many who think of Washington much the same as you think of Jesus...They are called Deists.

I can post quotes from historical figures that claim that Jesus was a Pagan. Would that please you?
.

[GovernmentShrinker]

There's a difference between hyprocrisy and accepting reality. The most famous and powerful leaders in a country are usually (not always, as certain 3rd World hellholes often demonstrate) a whole lot smarter, better educated, and better informed than the great masses they govern. A few centuries ago, in some countries, it was necessary for public figures to publicly agree with Catholic Church teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Many of them, including many of the Church officials who promulgated it, knew better. But the clueless masses believed because the Church made such a big deal out of declaring it "heresy" to believe or say otherwise. And leaders who had more important objectives, weren't "hypocrites" for sidestepping the pointless debate with the corrupt Church and the clueless masses, and getting themselves overthrown or even tossed in prison. No, they were just dealing with reality, and accepting the things that they obviously weren't in a position to change.

Today, leaders of several Islamic countries are in the same position, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The leaders of those countries don't for a second believe all the literal Islamic nonsense, but they know what would happen if they came out and said so. So they keep making a show of practicing Islam themselves, and keep their open criticism limited to the most extreme expressions of Islamic fanaticism. They're not being hypocrites, they just know they'd get themselves killed and replaced with true-believing fanatics if they said what they really think, and that that would end up get a lot of other people killed.

The Clintons are certainly hypocrites on many counts. But a lot of fine non-hypocritical political leaders in our country's past and present have made the same show of practicing an "acceptable to the masses" religion, because it's simply impossible to get elected otherwise, and they correctly believe that their other objectives (fighting terrorism, trimming the bloated federal government, or whatever their chief policy objectives are) are more important than telling the masses what they really believe in the area of religion.

[Pharmboy]

The Washington Family Coat of Arms

Freepmail me to get ON or OFF this RevWar/Colonial History/General Washinton ping list

[metesky]

Q: Who is Washington's God?

A: The Great God Jehovah who led the people of Israel long ago, the same benevolent Providence that led the way through many dark times to the independence of the United States. That is the God Washington described in his letter to the Synagogue in Savannah, after the war.

I've always preferred the Hairy Thunderer over the Cosmic Muffin.

[Zavien Doombringer]

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe." Washington continued: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." --George Washington

[Pharmboy]

I believe only one Catholic, Charles Carroll of Maryland, was a Signer. If you know of another, please let me know. Thanks.