Sunday, November 10, 2024

ARP333 Revolution and Slavery


Way back in Episode 58, we looked at the way slavery was seen in the colonial era.  The basic point in that episode was that slavery was pretty generally accepted.  The Quakers had begun to express moral reservations about the institution, but by and large, colonists did not question the institution and there was not much of any abolition movement.  The notion that one’s birth largely established one’s station in life was a generally accepted norm.  

Mum Bett
Slavery was practiced in all of the colonies, as well as Britain itself.  I know that people claim that Britain never allowed slavery, but a great many slave owners from various colonies traveled and even settled in Britain, bringing slaves with them.  British officials accepted this practice and did not try to liberate the slaves.  So even though, slavery was not officially sanctioned, officials, and almost no one else, saw it as the moral evil that is the common view today.

Since the revolution and independence were based on the ideals of inalienable rights and equality, the institution of slavery became much more suspect. While the Revolution had not really focused on ending slavery, people saw how incompatible the institution was with the principles of the revolution.

Vermont declared its own independence during the war.  Its constitution was the first to ban slavery explicitly in 1777.  But since none of the other states recognized Vermont as a sovereign state, it was debatable whether this prohibition even would be recognized.

Pennsylvania was the only state that took action to end slavery during the war.  Back in Episode 241 we covered the 1780 Pennsylvania law that set slavery in the state on a slow path to abolition.  The law did not free any slaves, but provided that their children would be free once they reached adulthood.  As the existing generation of slaves grew old and died, the institution would die with it.

Massachusetts Slavery

Along with Pennsylvania, Massachusetts was a center of the abolition movement in the decades leading up to the Civil War.  But during the Revolutionary War, slavery was still legal and well established in the state.  Slave owners had settled in the region even before the 1630 founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  Boston merchants had gotten involved early in the slave trade, carrying slaves from Africa to the West Indies, the Carolinas, and Virginia.

Although slavery in Massachusetts did not grow like it did in southern colonies, there was a substantial slave population throughout the colonial era.  The colony passed special laws regulating the behavior of slaves.  One early law which put limits on what slaves could do, prefaced its  law by saying the rules “which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such people, doth morally require.” In other words, slavery was sanctioned by the Bible. By the time of the Revolution, slaves made up about 2% of the population.

As the movement toward revolution evolved in Massachusetts, and words like liberty and freedom were being thrown about, those held in slavery naturally thought that such ideas should apply to them.  In 1773 a group of enslaved Bostonians drafted a petition to Colonial Governor Thomas Hutchinson, asserting they shared a common and natural right to be free, just as the white colonists demanded.

In 1774, two more petitions went to the new Governor Thomas Gage, asserting that they had a natural right to freedom.  They also called on the governor to recognize their basic rights.  In 1777, a similar petition made similar demands to the state legislature.  All of these petitions were ignored.  The government, for a whole range of reasons, was unwilling to deal with the issue of slavery.

When Massachusetts adopted its first State Constitution in 1780, Article I read: 

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.  

Those lines were not directed at the institution of slavery.  The thinking behind them really was that of the rights of the former colonists which had been threatened by Britain.  There was no mention of slavery or race in the Constitution.  Since slavery was still widely practiced within the state, one would think it would have been explicitly banned if that was the intent.  

After the adoption of the Constitution, people continued to hold others in bondage. This led to several court cases to determine if the language in Article I of the Constitution actually did mean that all men being born free and equal with certain unalienable rights meant that enslavement could not be legally enforced in the state.

Mum Bett

The first legal test was brought by a woman known to most as Mum Bett.  She was born a slave in New York in 1744.  Her owner gave her as a wedding gift to his son-in-law, John Ashley, who lived in Sheffield, Massachusetts.

Bett worked as a domestic servant for the family, but of course heard public readings of many documents during the Revolution that proclaimed liberty and equality for all.  Her owner, Colonel Ashley, had served as a local judge and had moderated the meeting that produced the Sheffield Resolves against British tyranny and in support of individual rights.  In part it declared that “mankind in a state of nature are equal, free, and independent of each other.” 

Inspired by such language, Bett believed those words also applied to her.  In 1781, she approached a local attorney, Theodore Sedgwick, who lived nearby.  

Sedgwick had served as a major in the Continental Army.  He had also held a seat in the state legislature and in 1780 had served as a delegate to the Continental Congress.

Sedgwick had been a slave owner himself, but was amenable to bringing this lawsuit. Bett and another male slave named Brom, also owned by Colonel Ashley, were named as plaintiffs in a suit against Ashley filed in May, 1781. 

Suits brought by slaves seeking freedom were not unprecedented.  In the past slaves had brought suits based on other legal issues such as the mother’s slave status, contractual agreements, or other technicalities.

This case was different, Sedgwick filed a writ of replevin, essentially demanding that the court order Ashley to turn over property that was not his.  Specifically, his ownership was not legal because Bett and Brom owned themselves as free people.  Sedgwick based his argument on Article I of the State Constitution.

It took several months for the case to go to trial.  On August 22, 1781, a jury agreed that Bett and Brom were free people.  In addition to their freedom, Ashley had to pay each of them 30 shillings in damages.

Quock Walker

Another case that was litigated in Massachusetts around the same time was that of Quock Walker.  The name derives from an African name: Kwaku in Akan, which means in Ghanaian “boy born on Wednesday.”  Although his parents were brought from Africa to America as slaves, Walker was born into slavery in America.  His owner, James Caldwell, had promised him his freedom at age 25.  This was actually rather common.  Many slave owners treated children of slaves as indentured servants, held until adulthood.

Caldwell died when the boy was only 10 years old.  His widow remarried Nathaniel Jennison.  Then she died when Walker was 19. When he turned 25, Jennison refused to free him. A few years later, in 1781, Walker ran away and began living on a farm that belonged to Seth and John Caldwell, the brothers of his original owner.  

Jennison found out where the runaway was staying.  He gathered several of his friends, went to the Caldwell farm, and found Walker. They beat the young man severely, and forcibly took him back to Jennison’s farm.

This action kicked off two lawsuits.  First, Walker brought suit against Jennison for assault and battery in June, 1781.  The premise of his case was that he was a free man under the Massachusetts Constitution and that Jennison had no right to beat him and drag him away from the place that he chose to live.  Walker sued Jennison for 300 pounds in damages.

In his defense, Jennison produced paperwork proving that he owned Walker as a slave and that a disciplinary beating was well within his legal rights. Jennison also filed a lawsuit against the Caldwells.  His complaint accused the brothers of enticing Walker to desert his legal master so that they could benefit by employing him.

The two cases reached contradictory results.  The jury in the case brought by Walker determined that he was, in fact, a free man under the Massachusetts Constitution and awarded him 50 pounds in damages against Jennison for the assault on his person.  In the second case, the jury found for Jennison, awarding him 25 pounds against the Caldwells for luring away his slave.  For some reason, in this second case, the defense never raised the constitutional issue of Walker’s freedom.

Both parties appealed their cases.  That fall, an appeals court took up both cases.  Jennison’s appeal ended up being dismissed on technical grounds.  The Caldwells’ appeal of Jennison’s case did get heard.  While the lower court simply tried to look at the facts of whether the Caldwells had actually tried to entice Walker, the appeals court was more interested in taking up the issue of whether Walker was Jennison’s property in the first place.

The arguments on appeal became a great debate over the morality of slavery - each side citing the Bible and appealing to natural law.  The judge asked the jury to focus on the “free and equal” clause in the Constitution.  In the end, the jury found that Walker was a free man under the Constitution, and that therefore the Caldwells could not have illegally enticed him from his owner. He did not have an owner.

In June, 1782, Jennison petitioned the state legislature for a reinstatement of the appeal that he had lost on technical grounds.  By that time there were several petitions before the legislature demanding a clear declaration that slavery in Massachusetts was not legal.  One petition even argued that slavery had never been legal and that all slaves should be compensated for their past service.

The legislature was not sure what to do.  In the end, they did what they did best with the past petitions on slavery.  They took no action on any of the petitions, including Jennison’s.  This meant that he was liable to pay the damages to Walker for the assault.

That, however, was not the end of the matter.  The Massachusetts Attorney General Robert Treat Paine, brought a criminal indictment against Jennison for his assault on Walker.

The evidence of the assault was indisputable by this time.  Jennison had already testified about the beatings in earlier cases and had freely admitted to them.  The defense, once again, brought up the evidence that showed Walker had been Jennison’s slave and that the beating as part of a disciplinary punishment was permissible under the law.  The defense pointed out that there were still state laws on the books regarding the treatment of slaves and that the defendant had no way of knowing the Constitution would later be interpreted to have ended slavery in the state.

The judge’s instructions to the jury essentially said that the assault was not in dispute and that the Constitution had guaranteed that Walker was a free man. Therefore, the jury need not consider any arguments that the beating was a justifiable disciplining of a slave.  Unsurprisingly, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

These cases made clear to all that slavery was no longer legal in Massachusetts.  Courts would not enforce any such actions, and would punish anyone who attempted to hold a person in slavery.  This is not to say that all were free.  Many people, including many African Americans, continued to be held to indentures.  Poor people could indenture themselves or their children for many reasons, including payment of debts, and often these indentures were entered into involuntarily.  Indentures would allow many to be held to service for a period of years.  Chattel slavery, however that began at birth and that was passed on to children, had come to an end in Massachusetts.

Northern States Follow

The rest of the New England states also moved in the direction of ending slavery.  New Hampshire’s 1783 constitution used language very similar to that of Massachusetts: proclaiming all men free and equal and with natural rights.  However, there is not record of any court cases that applied these principles to slaves.  That said, slavery seemed to be on the way out.  In 1790, there were only 158 slaves reported to the Census.  By 1800 there were eight, and by 1810, it was zero.  Clearly slavery was being phased out, even without a specific statute or landmark case.

Antislavery sentiment in Connecticut also took hold. The colony had banned the importation of slaves in 1774.  It considered emancipation bills in 1777, 1779, and 1780, but none of these passed.  The owners of slaves were unwilling to take the financial loss. Finally, in 1784, a much more gradual bill passed, similar to the one that had passed in Pennsylvania.  Children born after March 1 of that year, would automatically become free at age 25.  This would allow slavery to die with the current generation of slaves.

Rhode Island had more slaves than any other New England state.  Slaves accounted for more than 6% of the population during the Revolutionary War.  There were several large plantations that ran on slave labor, and a large merchant fleet that engaged in the slave trade.  A fairly large Quaker population, however, provided a center for the growing movement for emancipation.

At around the same time Connecticut passed its emancipation bill, Rhode Island passed a similar one.  Any child of a slave born after March 1 would be an apprentice until age 21 for boys or 18 for girls.  This would force the existing generation of slaves to be the last.

New York addressed the slavery issue in 1785.  Aaron Burr led the fight for immediate emancipation of all slaves.  Instead, the Assembly passed a more gradual bill that granted freedom to the children of slaves born after 1785.  This bill languished in the Senate over fears of black people getting the right to vote.  It eventually passed but then died after a veto. A gradual emancipation bill in New York would not pass until 1799.

Similarly in New Jersey an abolition movement took hold during the war.  Governor Livingston proposed a gradual abolition bill in 1778, which failed.  A growing abolition movement in the 1780s kept the issue alive, but could not get a law passed.  It was not until 1804 until the state passed a gradual emancipation bill for the children of slaves.

Southern Slavery

The six southern states, of course, maintained slavery.  While support for abolition in the south gained a little ground during and immediately after the American Revolution, the economic importance of slave labor made any attempts, even at gradual emancipation, just about impossible. Succeeding generations, however, strengthened support for what became known and the peculiar institution until abolition was finally forced on these states after the Civil War.

For a time, many thought that Virginia might pass a law shortly after the Revolution that would outlaw slavery gradually, much like what happened in most northern states.  George Washington famously granted freedom to his slaves upon his death.  As early as 1786, Washington wrote letters in support of Virginia adopting a gradual emancipation law.  Despite his moral qualms, Washington never got to the point where he was willing to free his own slaves during his lifetime.  He also spent considerable time and money attempting to track down slaves who escaped his service.

Other prominent Virginians like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison also continued to own slaves, even though each of them were conflicted in light of the principles for which they had fought.  The generation that fought in the Revolution, however, seemed to be the high water mark for the support of abolition in the southern states.

During this immediate post-war era, Virginia, at least, took the small step in a 1783 law that confirmed the emancipation of slaves who had fought in the Revolutionary War.  Many slave owners either permitted slaves to join the army or sent them as substitutes when drafted.  Virginia law prohibited slaves from enlisting, but as a practice did not prevent it.

When the war ended and the army disbanded, many owners attempted to force the returning veterans back into slavery.  The Virginia legislature prohibited this by statute, thus guaranteeing freedom for any soldier who had enlisted at the request of his owner or as a substitute for his owner and who had also completed his term of service. Virginia also passed a law around the same time providing for the voluntary manumission of slaves by their owners.  That was as far as it got.

In the deeper south, the Carolinas and Georgia, there was never any serious effort to abolish slavery during this period.  While southern patriots proclaimed the same rhetoric of freedom and equality, they seemed to have a harder time applying those principles to slavery.

Some veterans of the war came home with abolitionist ideals.  John Laurens, killed at the end of the war, was a good example of this.  Those who survived the war quickly accepted that they could not convince a majority, or even a sizable minority, to make any real changes to the institution of slavery in the south.

The opposition to ending slavery in the south was likely the result of the economic dependence on slave labor.  Large plantations with such a large investment in slave workforce could not see how that way of life could continue with paid labor.  There was also a great concern about free blacks.  Racist ideas that blacks were simply incapable of living unsupervised by owners became much more vocal during this period.  So while slavery did become more controversial, even in the south, the vast majority only grew in their determination to maintain the institution.

This north-south divide on the issue would only grow more stark over the next few generations.  It was only another decisive war, four score and seven years later that would resolve this debate by force, once and for all.

Next week: The Continental Congress looks west as it considers the establishment of the Northwest Territory.

- - -

Next Episode 333 Slavery and Revolution  (Available November 3, 2024)

Previous Episode 331 Washington Goes Home

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20) or Zelle (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"


Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Slavery in the North: http://slavenorth.com

The Struggle for Freedom: https://www.masshist.org/features/endofslavery/struggle

The Legal End of Slavery in Massachusetts https://www.masshist.org/features/endofslavery/end_MA

Massachusetts Constitution https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

Jennison v. Caldwell – Abolition and the Role of Courts in Eighteenth Century Massachusetts https://www.masshist.org/beehiveblog/2021/07/jennison-v-caldwell-abolition-and-the-role-of-courts-in-eighteenth-century-massachusetts

Cushing, John D. “The Cushing Court and the Abolition of Slavery in Massachusetts: More Notes on the ‘Quock Walker Case.’” The American Journal of Legal History, vol. 5, no. 2, 1961, pp. 118–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/844116

Commonwealth v. Jennison: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/commonwealth-v-nathaniel-jennison

Winthrop, Robert C., et al. “Special Meeting, April, 1874. Letter of Louis Agassiz; Description of the Washington Medals; The Commonwealth V. Nathaniel Jennison; Note by Chief Justice Gray; Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 13, 1873, pp. 282–304. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25079475?seq=11

Zilversmit, Arthur. “Quok Walker, Mumbet, and the Abolition of Slavery in Massachusetts.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, 1968, pp. 614–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1916801

Sesay, Chernoh M. “The Revolutionary Black Roots of Slavery’s Abolition in Massachusetts.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 1, 2014, pp. 99–131. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43285055

Spector, Robert M. “The Quock Walker Cases (1781-83) -- Slavery, Its Abolition, and Negro Citizenship in Early Massachusetts.” The Journal of Negro History, vol. 53, no. 1, 1968, pp. 12–32. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2716388

Blanck, Emily. “Seventeen Eighty-Three: The Turning Point in the Law of Slavery and Freedom in Massachusetts.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 75, no. 1, 2002, pp. 24–51. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1559880

Wiecek, William M. “Antislavery during and after the American Revolution.” The Sources of Anti-Slavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848, Cornell University Press, 1977, pp. 40–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt207g6m0.7

Virginia Act Freeing Enslaved People who served as Soldiers, 1783: https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/138

Virginia Slaves Freed After 1782: https://freeafricanamericans.com/virginiafreeafter1782.htm

The Virginia Manumission Act, 1782 https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/ls261/chapter/ch-5-3-the-virginia-manumission-act-1782

“From George Washington to John Francis Mercer, 9 September 1786,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0232.

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

[Archive.org has been offline due to hacking problems, therefore, I've been unable to find new resources there for this episode].

Moore, George H. Notes on the history of slavery in Massachusetts. New York City: D. Appleton & Co. 1866 (Google Books). 

The Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery and the Slave-trade, Worcester, Mass: Charles Hamilton, 1886.  

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Finkelman, Paul Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, Routledge, 2013. 

Larson, Edward J. American Inheritance: Liberty and Slavery in the Birth of a Nation 1765-1795, WW Norton & Co. 2023. 

MacLeod, Duncan J. Slavery, Race and the American Revolution, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975. 

Rose, Ben Z. Mother of Freedom: Mum Bett and the Roots of Abolition, Treeline Press, 2009. 

Tinucci, Malcolm Mum Bett: A Slave Who Won Her Own Freedom, self-published, 2022. 

Wiecek, William M. The Sources of Anti-Slavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848, Cornell University Press, 1977. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, October 27, 2024

ARP332 Society of the Cincinnati


Last week we covered the final breakup of the Continental Army in 1783.  During that final year, the officers and men not only suffered terrible deprivation, but also came to understand that promises made during the war involving pay, pensions, land grants, and other benefits, might not be kept.  The men were also looking for a way to maintain the bonds they had created during the war.

Formation

In the spring of 1783, many of the officers formed the Society of the Cincinnati.  The Society is named after the Roman leader: Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.  According to his legend Cincinnatus was a farmer who left his farm to accept an appointment as a leader of Rome during a war.  After victory in battle and restoring peace, Cincinnatus restored power to the Senate and returned to his farm.  This personified the ideal of the civilians who had taken up service during the war, but were expected to return to civilian life and make sure all political power remained with the civilian government when the war ended.

Cincinnati Badge
Inspiration for the society is largely credited to General Henry Knox.  While the army was killing time in West Point, waiting for the war to come to an end, Knox proposed the establishment of a society that would allow the officers to continue to associate with one another after the war.  Knox had apparently been thinking about such an organization for some time, as had other officers.  News of the peace treaty, which reached the army in April, probably made the plan a priority if they were going to put anything into place before the army disbanded.

The first organizational meeting took place on May 10 at the Temple of Virtue, the same building that the Continental Army had built as a meeting hall only a few months earlier, and where General Washington gave his famous Newburgh Address only a few weeks prior.  General Friedrich von Steuben presided as the senior officer at the meeting for the formation of the Society. 

At the meeting, the officers present voted for Steuben, General Knox, Knox’s aide-de-camp Major Samuel Shaw, and General Jedediah Huntington to form a committee to put together a formal resolution about the society to circulate to the rest of the army.

Three days later, the officers met at Steuben’s headquarters.  The committee formally adopted the resolution thus creating the Society on May 13.

The society established itself with three basic goals in mind: 1) to protect the rights that they had  secured during the war, 2) to promote the continuation of a union between the states, and 3) to assist members in need, as well as their widows and orphans.

Membership would be limited to officers who were still serving at the war’s end, or who had served at least three years during the war in the Continental Army or Navy.  It was not open to enlisted men. It was not open to officers who had served only in state armies or militia.  The Society did permit certain high ranking officers in the French Army and Navy to join the society as well.

Officers who had died during the war were granted membership.  Their membership would be inherited by their oldest son.  Going forward, only the oldest son of any member of the Society could inherit membership.  A society would be set up in each state, with states given the authority to subdivide into districts within their state. Each state society would meet annually and set its own rules.  They would have the power to expel any member who acted dishonorably or against the interests of the community.  There would also be a national or general meeting every three years that all the states would attend.  The General Society would elect officers and also establish a fund for operations.

There was also a provision for honorary memberships to men who had proved eminent in their abilities and patriotism in some way other than service as a Continental officer.  Honorary memberships, however, could not be inherited, and were limited to one quarter of the total membership.

Each officer agreed to donate one month’s pay to their state society, so that the society could establish a fund and use the interest to cover any operating costs.  Anyone was also free to make donations to the state society or the national one.  Since none of the officers had actually been paid, they could pay the signup fee by directing the paymaster general to direct one month’s worth of pay to the Society once the army was ready to make those payments.

They also established a badge to identify members, a gold medal on a blue ribbon with white edging.  The medal would depict Cincinnatus receiving his powers on one side, and returning to his farm on the other side.  This was later amended so that there would be an eagle hanging on the ribbon, with the images of Cincinnatus appearing on the chest and back of the eagle.

The officers made an effort to get as many of their fellow officers to join as quickly as possible, spreading word of the Society to all of the regiments to establish a society in each state.  They had to work quickly.  The Society only really began recruitment after its organizational meeting on May 13.  On June 1, Washington announced that most of the army would be going home on furlough.

As the army was breaking up, the popular idea of the Society spread through the officers.  A committee consisting of Generals Heath, Von Steuben, and Knox met with General Washington to request that he lead the Society.  Washington agreed.  As second in command of the army, General Heath reached out to armies still in place in other parts of the country to inform them of the new Society.  General Alexander McDougall was elected Treasurer General, and Henry Knox as Secretary General.

The establishment of the Society nationwide grew quickly.  By November, there were state committees set up in all 13 states.

The group prepared to hold its first general meeting or all state leaders in May, 1784.  Almost all top officers who were eligible for membership in the society joined.  Among the founding members were George Washington, the Marquis de Lafayette, John Paul Jones, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, Generals Anthony Wayne, Arthur St. Clair, Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox, Benjamin Lincoln, Daniel Morgan, Lachlan McIntosh, Baron von Steuben, and Horatio Gates.  By the 1784 national meeting about half of the 5500 former Continental officers who were eligible for membership had joined and paid their membership fees.  

Opposition

Almost from the beginning, the Society had its critics.  General Heath, who had participated in the establishment of the Society, expressed some concerns about it.  Many of the comparisons to knightly orders in Europe made it seem unamerican and perhaps contrary to republican values.  Colonel Timothy Pickering, who was the army’s quartermaster general, also expressed concerns about the elitist nature of the society.  Despite their reluctance, both men joined the Society.

There had never been a veterans organization before, certainly not one at the national level.  The only historical reference people had were European orders where leading warriors formed orders of knighthood after serving together in battle.  These orders were seen as the basis of nobility and aristocracy.  After all, aristocrats were descended primarily from military leaders of the past who had performed some valuable service to the king.  

Many of the features of the Society of the Cincinnati shared features with the knightly orders of Europe.   The creation of such a group in America seemed, to many, to threaten the ideals of an equal citizenry without separate classes defined by accident of birth.  Aristocratic orders controlled Europe and were seen as a tool to keep commoners down.  That was antithetical to the goals of the Revolution.  For many Americans who had not served, the Society looked like it would become the tool of a counter-revolution that would undermine and eventually end the universal freedoms for which they had fought and sacrificed.

By the fall of 1783, the larger civilian population was learning about the Society and expressing its concerns.  A town meeting in Connecticut feared that the organization would be used to lobby on behalf of veterans benefits, which would mean they would have to pay higher taxes to support them.  General Arthur St. Clair wrote that he delayed forming a Pennsylvania chapter for fear that just creating it would have a negative impact on state considerations of passing veterans benefits.

In October, South Carolina Judge Aedanus Burke published a Pamphlet: Considerations on the Society or Order of the Cincinnati.  Burke expressed concerns that a hereditary organization of military leaders was the establishment of a class of nobles that threatened the idea of a democratic republic.  This permanent organization of military leaders and their descendants would threaten the idea of a government established by and for all the people.  It would establish an aristocratic class.

Burke’s pamphlet, which was originally targeted simply for South Carolina politics, was soon republished across the continent.  Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts wrote numerous letters to other leaders, saying he believed that the Society would become an instrument of tyranny.  Others, including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, were all highly critical of what Franklin called the “hereditary knights” of America.

Public editorials and articles attacked the society.  One accused it of establishing a parallel power structure that was independent of elected government and one that would soon dominate the political system.  In February, the Massachusetts legislature began an inquiry to consider measures against any plans to “promote undue distinction among the citizens of this free state and tending to establish an hereditary nobility.”  A month later, the committee report condemned the Society. South Carolina Governor Benjamin Guerard expressed similar concerns, telling a joint session of the legislature that if left unchecked, the Society would endanger the success of the revolution.

Washington Concerned

The wave of criticism over the Society of the Cincinnati seemed to take some officers by surprise.  George Washington, who certainly kept up with the editorials and pamphlets on this topic, worried about his own reputation.  He had agreed to lead the Society, thinking it was an appropriate way for the officers to maintain the fraternal bonds they had established during their time in the army through a private organization.  He certainly did not want to be seen as leading an organization that threatened the results of the Revolution.

Washington wrote privately to many men whose opinions he valued, including Thomas Jefferson.  In response, Jefferson told him that the popular opinion believed that the Society was unconstitutional and subversive of the ideals of equality and liberty in the young republic.  He thought it should be abolished and recommended that Washington separate himself from it.

Personally, Washington was torn.  He was concerned about his reputation as a stalwart in favor of republicanism.  He did not want to be seen as a threat to that, even though he was not convinced the Society actually represented any such threat.  Beyond that, Washington did not want to resign, which might be seen as a betrayal to his fellow officers.

Washington remained as leader of the Society.  He traveled to Philadelphia to attend the first general meeting in May 1784.  At the meeting, Washington proposed a series of radical changes.

He called for the removal of anything political in its writings.  The Society should be seen as a fraternal organization.  Its involvement in politics, or even potential involvement, was a big source of criticism.

It should also discontinue the idea of hereditary memberships.  The hereditary nature of the society led to the comparisons to hereditary aristocracies in Europe.  There was no need for that. The society should also stop admitting honorary members.  Allowing powerful political figures to join the organization only heightened fears that it was becoming some sort of shadow government outside of elected leaders.

The Society should also reject donations from non-citizens.  Fears that outside interests might try to gain influence in America through such donations had been another expressed concern.  Any funds raised to assist veterans in need should be put in the hands of the state legislature for dissemination.  The creation of some sort of private pension system could be seen as a way to maintain influence through the use of the money.

Washington also called for an end to the general meeting.  In the original plans, the various state organizations would meet at an national event every three years, this being the first.  The national meetings made the organization appear to be more powerful and would probably only end up sowing dissension between the various state organizations.

The General Meeting began on May 4 at City Tavern in Philadelphia.  On the second day, Washington presented his recommendations on reform to the entire group of those meeting.  The leaders were reluctant to make the changes, but Washington suggested that he might resign if the changes were not made.  The group met in committee for about a week before presenting their response.  The members adopted some of the reforms but seemed to want to water them down.  Again, Washington pressed the issue, not wanting to be part of a group that would be seen as controversial and a threat to the principles of the Revolution.

By the end of the two week meeting, the assembly adopted Washington’s reforms and sent them to the state committees.  Since the men at this meeting were the leaders of the state committees one would have thought that would have been the end of it.

As Washington had hoped, his reforms did seem to reduce national criticism of the Society.  However, most of the state committees ended up not adopting the reforms.  The leaders did not want to make the changes and only agreed to carry them back to their state committees out of deference to Washington.  In the end, the society ended up continuing much as it had originally been established.

Some states agreed not to accept foreign donations.  Originally, the members expected to wear their medals at all times.  This changed so that they were only worn on special occasions.  Overall though, the controversial features such as hereditary memberships, national meetings, and private funds largely continued with all the state societies.

Criticism Continues

Failure to enact these reforms only invited more attacks on the Society.  Some states considered adding a prohibition that members of the Society would be ineligible to run for public office.  In 1785, John Adams announced that he was considering retiring from public life because he believed the Society threatened to transform the republic into an aristocracy, thus destroying everything he had worked for.

That same year, The French Count de Mirabeau published a revised version of Burke’s critical pamphlet, including new criticisms by Franklin and others.  It reaffirmed the idea that the Cincinnati were attempting to transform America into a hereditary aristocracy.  Thomas Jefferson publicly joined the argument a year later, writing that the Society posed a threat to the political stability of the United States.

Some critics believed that the Society was part of a French plot to spread its influence in America.  The Society had a chapter of French officers who met in France.  The King of France permitted officers to wear the order of the Society of the Cincinnati on their uniforms.  Although France had been a close ally of America during the war, many American leaders were still wary of French influence on America and the dangers of a monarchical government’s influence on the new republic.  The Cincinnati were accused of being a tool of that influence.

Burke, whose pamphlet had been the first very public criticism, continued to rail against the Cincinnati.  He argued that the attempt to establish itself as a fraternal and charitable organization was simply a front.  Its secret hidden purpose was the establishment of a noble order that would rule over America.  As a hereditary peerage, it would slowly and secretly destroy the democratic reforms of the revolution and establish a class of nobles who would become quite separate from the commoners who made up the bulk of the population.

The Confederation Congress, which contained members opposed to the society, as well as society members, refused to recognize the Society in any way.  In a 1785 land ordinance for making land available in the Ohio territory, an initial draft prohibited bearers of hereditary titles from residing in Ohio.  The prohibition was dropped before the final version passed, but it did show that even Congress had grave concerns about a potential threat 

The controversy remained strong enough in 1787 that when it came time to hold the second triennial meeting in Philadelphia, Washington sent his regrets.  Always trying to avoid controversy or insulting either side, Washington used vague excuses of his health and personal finances for not attending.  He remained an officer in the state society and as titular president of the general meeting, but at the same time seemed to want to distance his association with it.

As consideration of government reforms came out, particularly consideration of a new Constitution in 1787, many critics accused the Society of the Cincinnati of being a conspiratorial force that planned to use such reforms to take over the new country.  It was only after the actual establishment of the new Constitution, that many of the fears of the Cincinnati creating a new aristocracy in America finally began to fade.  

Next week, we take a look at the state of slavery in America at the end of the war.

- - -

Next Episode 333 Slavery and Revolution  (Available November 3, 2024)

Previous Episode 331 Washington Goes Home

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20) or Zelle (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"


Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Society of the Cincinnati: https://www.societyofthecincinnati.org

Society of the Cincinnati: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/society-of-the-cincinnati

George Washington and the Society of the Cincinnati: https://washingtonpapers.org/resources/articles/george-washington-and-the-society-of-the-cincinnati

Considerations on the Society or Order of the Cincinnati (1783), by Aedanus Burke: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;cc=evans;rgn=main;view=text;idno=N14115.0001.001

Benjamin Franklin and the Society of Cincinnati https://www.societyofthecincinnati.org/benjamin-franklin-and-the-society-of-the-cincinnati

Once in Every Three Years: The Triennial Meetings of the Society of the Cincinnati https://www.societyofthecincinnati.org/once-in-every-three-years-the-triennial-meetings-of-the-society-of-the-cincinnati

“From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 8 April 1784,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-01-02-0204

“To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 16 April 1784,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-01-02-0215

“I. Observations on the Institution of the Society, c.4 May 1784,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-01-02-0236-0002

“Appendix V: To the State Societies of the Cincinnati, 15 May,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-01-02-0236-0008

“II. Winthrop Sargent’s Journal, 4–18 May,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-01-02-0236-0003

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

[Archive.org has been offline due to hacking problems, therefore, I've been unable to find new resources there for this episode].

The Institution and Proceedings of the Society of the Cincinnati, Boston: Thomas B. Wait and Co. 1812 (Google Books). 

Fostern, Francis Apthorp The Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati, Boston: Caustic-Flaflin Co. 1923. 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Hünemörder, Markus The Society of the Cincinnati: Conspiracy and Distrust in Early America, Berghahn Books, 2006.

Moore, Alexander The Fabric of Liberty: The Society of the Cincinnati of the State of South Carolina, Home House Press, 2012.

Myers, Minor Liberty without Anarchy: a History of the Society of the Cincinnati, Univ. of Vriginia Press, 1983. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.



Sunday, October 20, 2024

ARP331 Washington Goes Home


Last week we covered the British evacuation of New York.  At the same time that the British were leaving, the Continental Army continued its process of disbanding.  As we discussed in Episode 327, the Continental Congress furloughed most of the army in June, 1783.  The furloughs allowed the soldiers to return home, but avoided the issue of settling their back pay and other things owed to them.  It also permitted Congress to recall the army if some unforeseen events happened requiring the army to react.

Washington’s Farewell

In October, Congress made the furloughs permanent and discharged everyone on furlough.  It also discharged all Continental soldiers except for a small contingent at Fort Pitt, and the few hundred officers and men still in New York.

General Washington Resigns his Commission
By Jonathan Trumbull
Washington, who was in Princeton with Congress at the time, had been lobbying for a standing army to remain during the peace.  Part of Washington’s concerns were over western forts, such as Detroit that were supposed to be turned over to the Americans, but were still held by the British.  Washington had sent an officer to discuss the turnover pursuant to the terms of a peace treaty.  The commander in Canada Friedrich Haldimand refused to discuss any turnover until he received orders from London, which he had not.  Without an army to force the issue, the British garrisons remained on US territory.

Despite such matters, the cost of such an army, combined with the general notion that standing armies in peacetime were not necessary, prevented Congress from accepting Washington’s arguments.  Congress ordered the final discharge of the army.  It also accepted the resignation of Secretary of War, Benjamin Lincoln, who wished to return to Massachusetts.

Washington himself was eager to get home.  He wrote to a former officer in France, 

“I, who am only waiting for the ceremonials, or till the British forces shall have taken leave of New York, am placed in an awkward and disagreeable situation, it being my anxious desire to quit the walks of public life, and under the shadow of my own vine and my own fig tree to seek those enjoyments and that relaxation, which a mind, that has been constantly upon the stretch for more than eight years, stands so much in need of. I have fixed this epoch to the arrival of the definitive treaty, or to the evacuation of my country by our newly acquired friends.”

On November 2, Washington issued his farewell orders of the army.  He announced Congress’ decision to discharge virtually all of the army.  He took a moment to reflect on the amazing accomplishment of defeating the British Army.  He called it “little short of a standing Miracle.”

Entry into New York
He admitted that he could not begin to describe in this address, all of the hardships they had faced over the course of the war.  He hoped they all would acknowledge the “prospect of happiness opened by the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty.”

He called on the officers and men to be as virtuous and as useful as citizens as they had been persevering and victorious as soldiers.  The general acknowledged the frustrations over the debts owed to them, but called up them to remain honorably supportive of the government, and even called on them to support a stronger federal government that would be capable of paying off all of the war debts.

Washington concluded by offering his thanks to all, professing his attachment and friendship, and called on heaven’s blessings as he concluded his own military service.

Dutch Ambassador

During this same time period, an embarrassing diplomatic incident occurred.  In October. The new Dutch Ambassador to the US arrived in Philadelphia.  Peter John Van Berckel had been the mayor of Rotterdam.  His brother had played a role in the draft treaty that caused Britain to go to war with the Netherlands.  The ambassador arrived, not only to establish formal diplomatic relations, but also with much needed cash from a loan that had been arranged in Europe.

Pieter Van Berkel
Ambassador Van Berckel was shocked to find that there was no official in Philadelphia to greet him.  Congress had left for Princeton months earlier, an event about which he was unaware.  The Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Robert Livingston, had resigned and gone home to New York by this time.

The Ambassador managed to rent a room at City Tavern, figured out that Congress had moved to Princeton.  He  sent a letter announcing his arrival.

It took several days from Congress to receive the letter.  President Elias Boudinot immediately dispatched his secretary to Philadelphia with apologies.  When Van Berckel made his way to Princeton, a cavalry escort and various officials finally turned out to greet him.  It was an inauspicious beginning to diplomatic relations, and a sign that Congress still had a long way to go in establishing a functioning government.

Washington in New York

As I discussed last week, Washington traveled from Princeton to West Point in mid November to await the final British evacuation. When he left Princeton, he forwarded the bulk of his baggage to Virginia, anticipating that he would be on his way home after his ceremonial entry into New York.  When the British Army finally pulled out on November 25, Washington and the Continentals rode into town that same day.

New York City was a wreck.  It had suffered two major fires during the British occupation.  No one bothered to rebuild anything.  The British simply used burned out lots and areas for camping. The occupying army also had burned most of the fences and other combustible materials, particularly in their final months.  Many of the civilians, both those who had remained and those returning, appeared emaciated and with frayed clothing, owing to years of deprivation and hard living.  Many witnesses contrasted the neat polished uniforms of the departing British with the bedraggled look of the Continentals and militia who took back the city.

Despite the appearances of the town or the people, the event was a joyful one.  Washington had been focused on retaking New York for most of the war, and was pleased that the matter was finally complete.

That evening Governor Clinton hosted a party at Fraunces Tavern, which Washington and his officers attended.  The guests drank 13 toasts, the first being “To the United States of America.”  Fireworks and bonfires continued the celebrations into the night.

Washington made his quarters in the house across the street from the tavern.  For the next few days, he received visitors there, many of whom were returning NY patriots who had fled the city years earlier.  Washington also gave several public addresses, and attended various banquets and parties in the evenings. 

On his second day in the city Washington and Alexander Hamilton paid a morning visit to Hercules Mulligan, an Irish tailor.  They shared a breakfast with the local.  Mulligan and Hamilton had been college roommates before the war.  Mulligan had been involved in some of the early activities by the Sons of Liberty before the war.  But when the British captured the town, Mulligan remained a civilian in the city, under British rule.  

Farewell at Fraunces Tavern
The reason that Washington visited him was to thank him publicly for his services during the war.  Unbeknownst to almost anyone, Mulligan had been a member of the Culper Spy ring, and had provided invaluable intelligence to Washington during the war. The commander-in-chief wanted to make a public call to make sure everyone knew that Mulligan was not the British collaborator that he appeared to be during the occupation.

After a week and a half in the city, on December 4, the British fleet finally sailed out into open sea.  Washington held a final party for his officers at Fraunces Tavern that began at noon that day.  The only account of the event comes form Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge, who wrote about it in his memoirs decades later: 

We had been assembled but a few moments when his excellency entered the room. After partaking of a slight refreshment in an almost breathless silence the General filled his glass with wine and turning to the officers said, “With a heart full of love and gratitude I now take leave of you. I most devoutly wish that your latter days may be as prosperous and happy as your former ones have been glorious and honorable.

After the officers had taken a glass of wine General Washington said, “I cannot come to each of you but shall feel obliged if each of you will come and take me by the hand.” General Knox, the closest officer to Washington, walked up to the General and the two hugged and kissed with tears running down their faces. In the same affectionate manner every officer in the room marched up and parted with the general in chief. Such a scene of sorrow and weeping I had never before witnessed and fondly hope I may never be called to witness again.

When the lunch ended, the officers escorted their commander to the wharf, where a ferry carried him to New Jersey.  The officers then took their leave of each other and returned home to their new lives as civilians.

Move to Maryland

Before he could return home, Washington would have to submit his formal resignation to Congress.  He could no longer go to Princeton to do that, because Congress was gone.  

We discussed several weeks ago how Congress had to flee from Philadelphia after the city failed to protect Congress from mutinous Continental soldiers.  Congress had remained in Princeton for months, but the delegates found it unsuited to their needs. The small college town had few taverns and no real social life. Living quarters were also rather cramped. During most of the time Congress was there, it only had delegations from six states, meaning it did not even have a quorum to conduct business.

Washington Leaves NY
In October, after finally getting enough delegates for a quorum, Congress decided that it was going to need its own capital.   It resolved to build a federal town somewhere on the banks of the Delaware River, where buildings suitable for Congress could be built.  The southern states felt neglected by this resolution.  So a few days later, Congress passed another resolution calling for an alternate federal town also be established on the bank of the Potomac River.  At the time, Congress anticipated moving back and forth between these two capitals.  As it would take years to build these new capitals, Congress resolved to meet in Annapolis, Maryland and Trenton, New Jersey, in alternating years.  Congress then adjourned on November 12, agreeing to meet again in Annapolis a couple of weeks later.

The move to Annapolis did not do much for attendance. It took several weeks for delegates from seven states to show up, giving Congress a quorum.  This was a concern because there was one issue on which the clock was ticking. 

Just before Congress departed Princeton at the end of November, it received the final Peace Treaty from Paris.  The final article of the treaty required that both countries ratify and exchange copies of the treaty within six months of the initial signing in early September.  Nearly three months had passed until the treaty arrived before Congress.  It could take another three months for a return voyage to complete the exchange. So it was critical that the treaty be ratified as soon as possible.  If not, Britain could reopen the negotiations.  With France and Spain now having agreed to peace, and since Britain had given the Americans so many concessions solely so that the war with France and Spain would end, Britain could simply take back many of the provisions and demand more concessions from the United States before it agreed to a new treaty.

Congress thought it should avoid that possibility, even if it was a remote one, by complying with the six month deadline.  Unfortunately, when they received the treaty, there were only six state delegations in attendance, meaning Congress could do nothing.

When Congress reconvened in Maryland in mid-December, only seven state delegations were present.  This was enough for a quorum, but the Articles of Confederation required that nine states approve all important matters, and the treaty ending the war was an important matter.  Congress anxiously awaited the arrival of two more state delegations.  It took about a month, before the delegates from Connecticut arrived.  A few days later, Richard Beresford of South Carolina allowed the South Carolina delegation to vote, giving Congress nine votes to ratify the treaty. On January 17, 1784.

It was unclear if a ship could get to London by the March 3 deadline.  Congress sent three copies on different ships, hoping one would arrive in time.  One copy went to New York where a French Packet ship was about to leave.  The ship left with the treaty a few days later, but ran aground and had to return to harbor.  The other two copies could not find a ship headed for Europe for more than a month.  So Congress missed its deadline.

Fortunately, Britain was in no mood to reopen negotiations.  When the treaty arrived in London two months past the deadline, the diplomats exchanged ratifications, thus formally ending the war with some finality on May 12, 1784.

Washington Resigns

Washington was going to have to go to Annapolis to complete his military service.  After leaving New York, he stopped in Trenton, where he met with the Governor and other state officials, spending two days there.  He then traveled to Philadelphia, where he met with State President John Dickinson, Robert Morris, and two of his old generals: Arthur St. Clair and Edward Hand.  Once again he was celebrated with parties and public celebrations.  He also addressed the state assembly, groups of merchants, and the public.  He also attended a ball at City Tavern.  When he left Philadelphia more than a week later, French Ambassador Luzerne, President John Dickinson, and Robert Morris, all escorted him out of the city.

The following day, he paused again in Wilmington, Delaware to accept the honors of officials there.  Two days later he sat for a public dinner in Baltimore.  Every wanted a moment with the conquering hero, appreciating what he had done, and basking in this moment of victory.

Washington leaves Annapolis after resigning
Finally, on Friday the 19th Washington rode into Annapolis.  As he had come to expect, he was met by an honor guard several miles before he entered the city.  Among them were Generals Horatio Gates and William Smallwood.  The following day, Washington sent a letter to Congress, announcing his intention to resign and asked whether Congress would prefer it in writing or in person.  Congress resolved to see him, but only three days later on Tuesday, December 23. Washington spent the rest of the weekend and Monday visiting with others in Annapolis.  On Monday night, Congress gave him a public dinner with about 200 people in attendance.

Finally, on Tuesday, Washington was admitted to Congress, which met in the Senate Chamber in the Maryland State House. The new President of Congress, Thomas Mifflin, received him along with the seven state delegations who were in attendance.  Mifflin was the only delegate present who was in Congress when they first granted Washington his commission in 1775.  If Washington still held a grudge against Mifflin over the Conway Cabal, he did not give any indication of it at this time.  Washington had the Congressional Secretary Charles Thompson read his farewell address

Like most of Washington’s speeches, it was a short one, perhaps two or three minutes long.  He formally resigned his commission.  Interestingly, he referred to the United state in the singular form: 

“Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the opportunity afforded the United States, of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the appointment I accepted with diffidence.”

He included a brief plea that Congress make good on the promises of pay and pensions to the army.

It's also interesting from the notes for his speech, he also made a few last minute changes to his address, changed “a final farewell” to “an affectionate farewell” and changed “take my ultimate leave of all the employments of public life” by removing the word “ultimate.”  Perhaps he was already thinking this would not be the final act in his public life.

When the speech concluded, Washington bowed and left the room for his formal exit. He then came back in to chat with some delegates and with other prominent members of Maryland society who were present.  One witness reported: 

the General seemed so much affected himself that everybody felt for him, he addressed Congress in a short Speech but very affecting many tears were shed...I think the World never produced a greater man & very few so good.

That evening, Congress hosted one more dinner in Washington’s honor with 13 toasts and 13 canons.  After that, Maryland Governor William Paca hosted a grand ball in the statehouse.  Months later, when the tavern keeper who hosted the dinner submitted a rather large bill, noting “the entertainment was given to a numerous assemblage of guests, was exceedingly plentiful, and the provisions and liquors good in their kind.”  Congress later struck out the explanation for the bill, not wanting their constituents to see the extravagant cost of food and liquor at the party.

With his service complete, Washington, still with a retinue in tow, rode for Mount Vernon.  They arrived on Christmas Eve.  Two of their grandchildren, Nelly and Wash were there to greet them, as were the staff and a host of other visitors and well-wishers.  A young girl who was present wrote “The General and Madame came home on Christmas Eve and such a racket the servants made, for they were glad of their coming.  Three handsome young officers came with them.  All Christmas afternoon people came to pay their Respects and Duty…. The General seemed very happy.”

The general was, in fact home and ready to enjoy the peaceful comforts of domestic life for the first time in nearly nine years.  George Washington was content to be home with a job well done.

Next Week, The establishment of The Society of the Cincinnati creates a new controversy for a country that finally ended the war.

- - -

Next Episode 332 Society of the Cincinnati (Available October 27, 2024)

Previous Episode 330 Evacuation of New York

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20) or Zelle (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"


Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

“Washington’s Farewell Address to the Army, 2 November 1783,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-12012

Washington’s Resignation Speech December 23, 1783 https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/pdf/webversion.pdf

Proclaiming Peace, Jan. 14, 1784 https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/ratification.html

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Riker, James Evacuation Day, 1783, New York: 1883. 

[Archive.org has been offline due to hacking problems, therefore, I've been unable to find new resources there for this episode].

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Fleming, Thomas The Perils of Peace: America's Struggle for Survival After Yorktown, Harper Collins, 2007.  

Fowler, William H. Jr. American Crisis: George Washington and the Dangerous Two Years after Yorktown, 1781-1783, Walker & Co. 2011. 

Glickstein, Don After Yorktown: The Final Struggle for American Independence, Westholme Publishing, 2015. 

Head, David A Crisis of Peace: George Washington, the Newburgh Conspiracy, and the Fate of the American Revolution, Pegasus Books, 2019. 

Weintraub, Stanley General Washington's Christmas Farewell: A Mount Vernon Homecoming, 1783, Free Press, 2003. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.