Washington Saves the Pope...Sort Of

Guy Fawkes Night (or "Pope Day" as it was called in colonial America) is coming up this Thursday. And as was commonly the case, Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated in colonial America with the ritual burning in effigy of the Catholic Pope, which most American Protestants embraced with glee.

That is, unless you were a member of George Washington's army. In his November 5, 1775 General Orders to the Continental Army, Washington strictly forbade the practice of burning the Pope in effigy or the mockery of Catholicism in general:

As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form'd for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope -- He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain'd, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.

Why Did the British Lose the American Revolution?

So, how exactly did the British lose the American Revolution? After all, the British army was the best trained, best equipped, and most professional army in the world. The Royal Navy was, at the time of the American Revolution, the undisputed ruler of the High Seas. Though economically strained by debt from the Seven Years War and soon by the expanding nature of the American Revolution, the empire's infrastructure was still stable and relatively sound. Not only that, the British Empire still retained the loyalty of at least a third, perhaps more, of the colonists living in the thirteen North American colonies which revolted.

By contrast, the American colonists were in economic and political disarray. The states were not effectively unified. The national government was largely impotent. Continental currency was practically worthless. The American army was poorly supplied, insufficiently trained (initially), and inconsistently paid.

Virtually all the advantages went to the British, and yet the American colonies won their independence. Why?

Why Did the British Lose the American Revolution?

How did the British lose the American Revolution? How did the strongest empire in the world lose thirteen fledgling colonies in North America?

The reasons Britain lost the American Revolution begin with an understanding of what the British had to accomplish militarily in order to win. King George III and Parliament bulled their way into a military confrontation with the colonies, when a political solution would've been far less costly and much more effective in retaining the loyalty of most American colonists.

Had the British government listened to some of its own members, like Edmund Burke, who counseled respect and conciliation toward "our English brethren in the Colonies," the war could have been avoided. This was not to be the case, however, as British Tories carried the day.

Once war broke out, the British had to suppress the American insurrection and restore their preeminence in North America. To accomplish this, they had to crush any American army in the field and win the loyalty or at least compliance (however reluctant or grudging) of a majority of the American colonists.

The British faced three significant obstacles to achieving those objectives:

1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.

2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.

3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion.

How the British Could Have Won the American Revolution

Even though waging war in the first place was not the best choice for the British, the British did have several opportunities to defeat the Americans:

1. New York and New Jersey Campaign - 1776

The New York and New Jersey campaign of 1776 afforded Britain its first opportunity to score a decisive blow against the American colonies.

By December 1776, the British had decimated the American Continental Army, humiliating and chasing them out of New York and into New Jersey. Had it not been for Howe pulling his punches a bit in New York and some freak weather conditions (dare we say "miraculous"?), the American army could've been destroyed in Long Island.

Even with a remnant of Washington's army escaping New York, however, the situation still looked bleak. Washington's army was on the run and literally disintegrating. Thanks to casualties, surrender, desertions, and expiring enlistments, the American army was down to a shadow of its former self in December 1776 and faced extinction.

Had General Washington not attacked the Hessians at Trenton on December 26, 1776 (and won), it's likely the American Revolution would've faded into oblivion. The United States of America would've been a short-lived dream. Washington did attack the Hessians, however, and followed up that victory with another at Princeton. Then, in addition to talking most of his troops into extending their enlistments, Washington positioned his army for winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey -- in a way that forced the British to withdraw from New Jersey and retreat back to New York.

While no one should forget the sacrifice and bravery of the Continental Army, it is not an exaggeration to say that the leadership of General George Washington saved the American Revolution.

2. Saratoga and Philadelphia - 1777

The next opportunity for Britain to end the American War for Independence was suggested by British General John Burgoyne. Burgoyne's plan was to invade America from Canada and split the colonies in half - isolating New England from the Middle and Southern colonies.

Had Burgoyne and General William Howe coordinated their efforts, the invasion could have been as devastating to the American colonies as General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was to the South in the American Civil War.

Due to poor communication and the enormous egoes of the British commanders, it was not to be! General Howe launched an attack on the American capital of Philadelphia, leaving Burgoyne to fend for himself against the northern American army, commanded by Horatio Gates.

Burgoyne's advance bogged down and was decisively repelled at Saratoga. His surrender to Gates at Saratoga was the turning point of the American Revolution.

Howe's attack on Philadelphia was militarily successful, but the capture of Philadelphia did little to stop America's resolve to continue the fight, especially given what had happened at Saratoga.

Eventually, the British army withdrew from Philadelphia and fought General Washington's better trained army in its march back to New York. The battle was a draw, and both sides knew the war would go on for much longer.

3. The Southern Front - 1778-1781

The British had perhaps their best chance at winning the American Revolution by rolling up the American colonies from the South. Things looked good for them, after capturing Savannah, Georgia (1778), Charleston, South Carolina (1780), and the utter destruction of the southern Continental Army at Waxhaws (1780) and Camden (1780).

Unfortunately for the British, the American Congress allowed General Washington to appoint the next American leader for the South. Washington's choice was Nathanael Greene, a remarkable American general who wore the British down in a series of battles, which set the stage for Yorktown (1781).

Had the British been able to crush Greene, Yorktown never would've happened and the British probably would've swept the entire South.

4. Benedict Arnold's Treachery

The last best chance for Britain to win the war was Benedict Arnold. Had Arnold's plan succeeded, he would've handed Britain the keys to West Point. This would have allowed the British to take control of the Hudson River, drive the Americans fully out of New York, and perhaps split New England off from the rest of the colonies (as Burgoyne hoped to accomplish before Saratoga).

Not only that, but Arnold came close to delivering General Washington to the British as well. The loss of America's Commander in Chief would have been devastating to the colonies both politically and militarily.

Alas, it was not to be. Arnold's treachery was discovered, and West Point was saved. And with it, Britain's last best hope of winning the American Revolution evaporated.

The French Connection

French support of the American colonists was, of course, a significant factor in how the American Revolution turned out. Without French support, it's unlikely the Americans could've sustained a long war effort against the British Empire. Trapping Cornwallis at Yorktown certainly would not have happened, were it not for the French.

Once the French recognized the United States and entered the war, the American Revolution became a world war for the British. Losing the American colonies wasn't necessarily the "least of their problems," but it certainly wasn't their only concern.

Still, the Franco-American alliance had problems, and France too had more global than North American concerns. Had the British played their cards more effectively in the southern campaign and had Benedict Arnold's plan worked out better for them, it's still possible they could've won the American Revolution or at least ended it on more favorable terms.

Historians have long enjoyed asking "What if" questions about history, including the American Revolution. Whether the American Revolution could've turned out differently will likely continue to be a subject for such discussions.

A Heartbreaking Loss

On this day in 1775, the American forces under Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery were defeated in their late night attack on Quebec. Having arrived at the city almost a month prior, both Arnold and Montgomery were hopeful that they could force the British from their strongholds by surrounding the city and bombarding it with canon fire. Much to their dismay, the British were well supplied and entrenched, and the Canadian population was not eager to support the American cause of liberty as Arnold, Montgomery and even Washington had hoped. As a result, the "rebels" were forced to attack the city on December 31 with everything they had. With year enlistments coming up, along with a horrific shortage of food and supplies, both Arnold and Montgomery knew that they would not be able to hold out for long. Simply put, the attack became an all-or-nothing roll of the dice.

The outcome was disastrous for the Americans. Of the 900 American soldiers who participated in the assault, 100 were killed and another 400 were taken prisoner -- the British only lost 6 in the assault. Among the casualties was none other than General Montgomery, who was killed in the attack. Colonel Benedict Arnold was also severely wounded in the leg, which forced him to relinquish command -- albeit temporarily -- to Daniel Morgan, who had the presence of mind to call off a second assault on the city.

For Washington and the rest of the Continental Army the news of the defeat at Quebec was a terrible pill to swallow. Both Washington and his aides, along with several members of the Continental Congress had hoped that an assault on Quebec would inspire British Canadians to their cause and cut off the British in the north.

They were wrong.

Don't Forget Trenton!

Merry Christmas everyone! As you enjoy the festivities, keep in mind that today also carries a special American tribute that should not go forgotten.

232 years ago on this date George Washington and the Continental Army made their daring advance on Trenton to attack the Hessian soldiers encamped at the city. The move was risky to say the least. Trenton was defended by 1,500 Hessian mercenaries, who were expecting to pass through a relatively calm winter encampment at the city. Washington, however, saw an opportunity to gain a moral victory (moral because winning Trenton was not a major tactical victory) for his army. After all, this was the same army that had been thoroughly routed by the British at New York, where they were forced to flee on a number of occasions. As a result, the Continental Army was in extreme disarray and Washington himself was being questioned by the delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. In fact, some even suggested that the General should be replaced for his poor performance at New York.

It was under these tough circumstances that Thomas Paine wrote the words to his epic pamphlet, The Crisis, which was written just two days before the planned attack on Trenton:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

With such dire circumstances all around them, Washington decided to roll the dice. An attack on Trenton would secure a for the Continental Army a legitimate moral victory, one which would help to inspire the allegiance of more colonials to the cause of independence. Despite the benefits, Washington was not unaware of the tremendous risk he was taking. In a very real sense this was an all-or-nothing gamble (It is therefore no surprise that Washington would pen a note on his desk that read, "Victory or Death").

To make a long story short, Washington and the Continental Army won an astonishing victory at Trenton, capturing over 1/3 of the entire Hessian garrison. Since the Hessians expected a quiet winter encampment, they chose to enjoy the holidays by staying up late and drinking away their Christmas Eve. As a result, the army was caught asleep, hung over, and disorganized upon Washington's arrival. Here is a clip from the movie The Crossing, which captures the feel of that Christmas morning:



The Army then goes on to rout the Hessians at Trenton. In the process, only 2 continental soldiers lost their lives. In addition, only five were wounded (including James Monroe, who eventually became our 5th president).

So, Merry Continental Army Kicks Hessian Butt Day/Christmas!!!

A Merry Colonial Christmas

Being that we are only days from celebrating Christmas, I have chosen to look at how early colonial Americans understood this celebration, which has become so mainstream in our modern era. Contrary to what most of us might think, Christmas has not been the predominant American holiday throughout our history. In fact, it has been anything but that.

This bright and joyful holiday that we celebrate every December, which is no doubt the most popular holiday in modern day America, was seen in a very different light by the earliest Americans. Instead of lavishly decorating the town and cheerfully celebrating the holiday spirit, those of America's early years took a very indifferent stance on the celebration Christmas. As historian Nicole Harms put it:

Christmas in colonial America did not resemble the brightly lit festivities we celebrate today. In fact, many colonial religions banned celebrations of the holiday, claiming that it was tied to pagan traditions. The New England Puritans passed a law in Massachusetts that punished anyone who observed the holiday with a five-shilling fine. The Quakers treated Christmas Day as any other day of the year. The Presbyterians did not have formal Christmas Day services until they noticed that their members were heading to the English church to observe the Christmas services. This sparked the Presbyterian Church to start services of their own.

Nicole Harms is 100% right. The Puritans, whom we celebrate for their quest to establish a new religious community, utterly loathed the celebration of Christmas. Since their religious doctrine was predominantly based on strict adherence to the Bible, and since there is no mention of Christmas being celebrated in the Bible, the Puritans saw the holiday as a blasphemous heresy. Even the overwhelming majority of Puritan diaries reveal that December 25th was nothing more than an average day of work and worship in their corner of the New World. Not only could one be fined for celebrating Christmas, but in addition they could find themselves locked up in the stocks for up to eight hours!

As more Europeans began migrating to British America, many of their Christmas customs naturally made the journey as well. However, as these customs clashed with overwhelming religious opposition, the celebration of Christmas evolved into a more secular winter festival that was reminiscent of its original pagan roots. As a result, Christmas was detached from any major religious significance. The overwhelming majority of colonial preachers -- particularly in the Puritan lands of Massachusetts -- made little to no effort to preach the "pagan" or "papal" doctrine surrounding Christmas. For those various Protestants, the Reformation had taken care of those "vile," "hideous" traditions of the papacy, and Christmas was certainly seen as one of them.

A good example of this religious detachment from Christmas can be found in the first year of the American Revolution. As George Washington and his men limped away from their horrific defeat in New York at the end of 1776, the Continental Army was literally teetering on the brink of destruction. It wasn't until General Washington suggested a Christmas Day attack of the Hessian camps in Trenton that the "rebels" were able to gain a measure of success in the war's first year. And why did Washington choose Christmas for his attack? Because he knew that the Hessians, would be completely drunk and hung over from their Christmas celebration; a celebration that was completely secular in nature. After all, Washington wasn't counting on the Hessians being caught up in prayer. Instead he was sure they would be drunk off their mind from their holiday ale.

And such was the case for most colonial celebrations in America. Amongst the earliest settlers to the New World were the Jamestown explorers of 1607. And what did their first Christmas in the New World entail? Well, pretty much nothing but getting as drunk as possible. John Smith mentioned how the popular holiday drink that we call eggnog was the primary source for "jolliness" during their Christmas season. The Jamestown drink, known as "grog," was a slang for any beverage containing run. Later, the word was eventually changed to "nog," and has been present at every Christmas festival since.

In conclusion, there can be little argument that many of the festivities that we use to commemorate Christmas are deeply rooted in pagan tradition. In today's society this is hardly noticed, but in Colonial America it was a well known fact, which turned many Christians off to the holiday. It wasn't until the late part of the 19th century that Christmas took on its central role as the premiere American religious holiday. For literally centuries, Christmas was a quasi-holiday, often ignored by the masses. Christian churches were less zealous to see it celebrated than they are today. If our ancestors could only see us now!!!

Bon Voyage Britain!

On this day in 1783, the final remnants of British troops withdrew from New York, a city and harbor they had controlled for over seven years. The withdrawal came three months after the finalization of the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the war between Britain and her former American colonies.

After the final British soldiers left the harbor, General George Washington made his triumphant entry back into the city that he had failed to defend seven years earlier. The loss of New York was arguably the toughest pill to swallow for the General. Washington had always taken the loss of New York personally and had suggested leading an attack on the city numerous times over the next seven years -- a prospect that his aids and associates back in the Continental Congress did not share.

The History Channel website has the following comments on the importance of New York and what the withdrawal of British troops meant to the new infant nation:

Four months after New York was returned to the victorious Patriots, the city was declared to be the capital of the United States. In 1789, it was the site of Washington's inauguration as the first U.S. president and remained the nation's capital until 1790, when Philadelphia became the second capital of the United States under the U.S. Constitution.

New Yorkers shaped the history of two new nations. The British evacuated their New York Loyalists to remaining British territories, mainly in Canada. These families had been dispossessed of their land and belongings by the victorious Patriots because of their continued support of the British king and were able to regain some financial independence through lands granted to them by the British in western Quebec (now Ontario) and Nova Scotia. Their arrival in Canada permanently shifted the demographics of what had been French-speaking New France until 1763 into an English-speaking colony, and later nation, with the exception of a French-speaking and culturally French area in eastern Canada that is now Quebec.

In 1784, one year after their arrival, the new Loyalist population spurred the creation of New Brunswick in the previously unpopulated (by Europeans, at least) lands west of the Bay of Fundy in what had been Nova Scotia. In 1785, the Loyalists yet again made their mark on Canadian history when their combined settlements at Parrtown and Carleton of approximately 14,000 people became British North America’s first incorporated city under the name City of Saint John. The division between the Anglophile and Francophile sections was ultimately recognized by creating the English-dominant province of Ontario, west of Quebec, in 1867.

Yes, New York has always been the "City that never sleeps."

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Since the blog is on a holiday kick, I thought that this might be an appropriate way to continue the theme. After all, I don't want to be the one that breaks with tradition!

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 -- October 14, 1789 to be exact -- has been lauded by Christian nation sympathizers for decades as proof positive that America's first Commander-in-Chief was a devout believer in Jesus Christ. And while I am in 100% agreement with their assertion that Washington was a devout man of faith and prayer, I also recognize that the historical record -- as it applies to Washington's religion -- is far from concrete in labeling him a devout Christian.

Let us look at the Thanksgiving document itself for additional evidence on Washington's faith. First off, most anti-Christian nation advocates routinely point out the fact that the actual author of the proclamation was not President Washington, but William Jackson, the President's personal secretary. And while it is true that Washington did not himself pen the proclamation, it is reasonable to assume that he read and gave consent to the document's contents, thus the actual authorship of the piece has little to no relevance. What is relevant, however, is the wordage that was chosen to pay homage to God. Does Washington actually invoke the blessings of the Christian God as so many Christian nation apologists insist? Below is a copy of Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

As noted in bold above, Washington's proclamation contains five specific references to deity. Contrary to what many anti-Christian nation advocates claim, the document is clearly religious in its content and purpose. However, does it support the Christian nation crowd's assertion that Washington was a devout Christian? I would argue that it does not. With that said, it is more than clear from this document and others that Washington was a man of faith. What TYPE of faith is the real question we must endeavor to answer.

As I have pointed out in a previous post, the language used by Washington when speaking of deity can be seen as a good barometer of the General's personal religious creed. In his book, Sacred Fire author Peter Lillback successfully illustrates the fact that Washington was indeed a man of prayer and faith. However, his work falls short of conclusively proving that Washington was a devout Christian. In Appendix 3 of his book, Lillback lists all of Washington's public papers that mention God. As Lillback states at the beginning of his appendix:

One of the elements of the Christian faith that was suspect, and eventually abandoned by Deists, was the practice of prayer. This was logical since there was little purpose in speaking to a Deity who on principle had abandoned all contact and communication with his creation.

Given this understanding, Washington's lifetime practice of prayer, illustrated by these more than one hundred written prayers, is an undeniable refutation of his alleged Deism...The sheer magnitude of the umber of prayers, coupled with the expansive topics included in his prayers, give substantial credence to the universal testimony of Washington's contemporaries of his practice of corporate and private prayer.

This underscores how misplaced contemporary scholars have been in claiming that Washington was a man of lukewarm religious faith. (761).

With this in mind, I decided that it would be worthwhile to dissect the various "written prayers" that Peter Lillback sites in his book. After all, the language that Washington used in these prayers should be a valuable tool in determining Washington's actual beliefs.

Here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

And the same can be said of Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Instead of using words like "Messiah," "Savior," "Jesus Christ," etc., Washington chooses neutral phrases like, "Great Lord and Ruler of Nations," "Almighty God," and "great and glorious Being." As is evidenced from Lillback's work, Washington made it a habit to avoid using the language of a typical devout Christian of his day, which would logically seem to suggest that Washington was not the orthodox Christian so many wish him to be.

Long Live King Washington???

But the United States doesn't have a royal family...right? Well, we could have.

As the rumor states, a group of frustrated American colonists, fed up with the lack of productivity in the Continental Congress, actually considered a coup d' etat of the national government and the establishment of a monarchy, with George Washington as its king. A 1782 letter to Washington from Colonel Lewis Nichola is a perfect illustration of just how frustrated some colonists were beginning to feel with the infant American government. Colonel Nichola writes:

This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head...Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things are once adjusted I believe strong arguments might he produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantage. …Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterdox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire and fagots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast [my emphasis].

Washington, however, despised such suggestions, dismissing them as virtual heresies. In response to Colonel Nichola's letter, Washington wrote:

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. [my emphasis].

In his typically stern, yet gentlemanly style, Washington made it abundantly clear that he stood opposed to an American monarchy.

But what if he had embraced the idea of being King?

In a recent Newsweek web article, Kurt Soller discusses how genealogy buffs, for the past century, have been toying over the notion of a Washington monarchy and what it would have meant for America today.

Genealogists have been pondering the possibilities had President Washington been a bit more power-hungry. As early as 1908, newspapers published accounts of history buffs who worked their way through the Washington family tree using rules of succession to determine the rightful heir to the theoretical American throne. But without the Internet, branches of the Washington tree would be lost in Ohio, say, or forgotten by lineage sleuths who couldn't quite decipher a family tree made complicated because Washington himself didn't have any children.

But while brainstorming ideas for their election-themed coverage, Ancestry.com turned to their Chief Family Historian, Megan Smolenyak, for an answer to the historical mystery. Smolenyak first turned to Google where she figured out that, because kinship rules vary by country and because Washington was childless, there were four possible kings (or queens) among the nearly 8,000 descendants of Washington who are alive today.

So, who would be "King" of America today had Washington accepted such a position?

Eighty-two-year-old Paul Emery Washington of San Antonio, Texas, a relatively average American who spent his life climbing the corporate ladder of a building supply company would be your king. And what does Mr. Washington think of such a distinction? Well, the offer is flattering but not all that appealing. He states:

"I doubt if I'd be a very good king. We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision. He fought for eight years to do away with the monarchy, and I think he made the right decision. The idea of one individual having supreme power over all others is an antiquated idea -- to say the least."

The Religious Paradox of George Washington

Of all of the founding fathers, there is perhaps no individual that has caused more debate, argument or curiosity than George Washington. As the general of the Continental Army and the first man to head the executive branch of the American republic, Washington has become a larger-than-life figure in the pantheon of national heroes. Or as Washington biographer, Joseph Ellis put it, Washington is “the palpable reality that clothed the revolutionary rhapsodies in flesh and blood, America’s one and only indispensable character…the American Zeus, Moses and Cincinnatus all rolled into one” (Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, 121). As the “Father of our nation,” Washington’s legacy has grown to Herculean proportions. As a result, the task of sifting through the myth, legend and folklore that regularly surrounds Washington has proven to be a daunting task for every generation of historians.

There is no better example of this historical quandary, which surrounds virtually every aspect of Washington’s life, than that of his religious beliefs. For nearly two centuries, Americans have fought over Washington’s personal theological philosophy in an effort to “claim” him as their own. Whether in the form of a politician, historian, minister, etc., the religious beliefs of George Washington have been subjected to the fires of partisan debate and spiritual deliberation.

There are a number of reasons that Washington stands out from his fellow founders. First of all is the simple fact that most of the other mainstream founders -- Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. -- are relatively easy to understand in terms of their religious beliefs. Washington, however, is a different story. As a man who “developed the most notorious model of self-control in all of American history,” Washington has been dubbed “the original marble man” for his desire for personal privacy and mystery (Joseph Ellis, His Excellency, 37). Even Washington’s favorite guide, Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior, a book he recited throughout his life, contain insights into Washington’s reclusive nature:

35th Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comprehensive.

73d Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly & distinctly.

88th Be not tedious in Discourse, make not many Digressigns, nor repeat often the Same manner of Discourse.

It therefore comes as no surprise that a man of such seclusion would prove very difficult to pinpoint on the religious spectrum.

In addition to Washington’s desire to cultivate privacy, the following factors have also made it very difficult to ascertain with any level of certainty Washington’s religious beliefs:
1.) As the most celebrated founding father, Washington has become a “holy grail” of sorts for both Christian enthusiasts and secular devotees. In essence, Washington is the Tiger Woods of founding fathers.
2.) The sheer lack of “smoking gun” evidence to support Washington’s Christian orthodoxy or devotion to deism makes any clear-cut classification of Washington into either camps look factually foolish.
3.) Current trends in American pop-culture seem to distort the historical record regarding Washington’s religious beliefs.

As a result, Washington's religious views have become an enigma or paradox of sorts for historians and theologians alike.

To pinpoint Washington on the religious spectrum, we must first eliminate deism as having any serious influence on Washington. To be considered a true deist, one must reject the belief that a supreme being intervenes in the affairs of men. Simply put, Washington does not meet this definition. In a number of his letters, Washington regularly pointed to the hand of providence as being regularly involved in the affairs of men. In a letter to Governor Trumball, Washington writes:

"Allow me to return you my sincere thanks for the kind wishes and favorable Sentiments express'd in yours of the 13th Instant. As the Cause of our common Country, calls us both to an active and dangerous Duty, I trust that Divine Providence, which wisely orders the Affairs of Men, will enable us to discharge it with Fidelity and Success" [my emphasis].

In his General Orders to the Continental Army, Washington insisted that "Next to the favour of divine providence, nothing is more essentially necessary to give this Army the victory over all its enemies, than Exactness of discipline" [my emphasis]. Other examples of Washington giving praise to providence can be found here and here.

With deism being eliminated as a possible definition for Washington's faith, we are left to ascertain to what level Washington embraced Christianity. To do this, it is important that we first define what orthodox Christianity would look like in Washington’s world. Having been born into the Anglican faith, Washington -- like every other Anglican of the 18th century -- was expected to adhere to certain creeds, which demonstrated his piety and devotion to God. Of course we cannot simply assume that Washington was a devout Anglican simply from his membership in that church because, after all, baptism was performed at infancy. This means that to resolve the "Paradox" of Washington's faith we must look at what he chose to do as an adult.

The Communion Debate
One of the first points that people look at to prove Washington's piety or the lack thereof is the practice of communion. The 39 Articles of faith of the Church of England are a perfect illustration of some of the basic beliefs that a devout Anglican was expected to embrace. When it comes to the practice of communion, the articles state the following:

Article XXV: Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Article XXIX: Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Article XXX: Of both kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people; for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Or as John 6:53 states:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

From the very doctrine of the Anglican Church, it is clear that communion was a divinely-sanctioned practice that was required of the orthodox believer.

Now, as most enthusiasts of early American religion know, Washington's participation in communion has been a hotly debated issue. Those who argue in defense of Washington's Christian orthodoxy will regularly dismiss this issue by claiming that an individual does not need to take the Lord's Supper to be a Christian. While this may be true, let us keep in mind that AS AN ANGLICAN, Washington had been raised to revere communion as a holy institution that was required of the devout believer. In other words, to be considered ORTHODOX in belief, an individuals participation in the Lord's Supper is a good barometer.

Unfortunately for historians, there are no surviving documents from Washington to help shed light on this issue. However, there are a number of documents from Washington's contemporaries, which prove very helpful in this debate. For example, Dr. James Abercrombie, who was the assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, stated the following in regards to Washington's participation in communion:

[O]n Sacrament Sundays, Gen'l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to sate the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the public, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never become a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sundays, tho', at other times, constant attending in the morning...

...That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace [my emphasis].

In another account, Bishop William White states:

In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that General Washington never received communion, in the churches of which I am a parochial minister.

From the noted evidence, Washington's participation in the Lord's Supper, an ordinance of great importance to the Anglican Church, is highly in doubt.

In defense of Washington, there are those who point out that Dr. James Abercrombie and Bishop William White were ardent loyalists during the American Revolution, and could have distorted the facts surrounding Washington's faith. In addition, some also suggest the possibility that Washington refused communion because of the political leanings of these ministers, or possibly because he did not feel worthy. As 1 Corinthians 11:29 states:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

In the end, the communion issue is a difficult one to pinpoint with any degree of certainty. Though the accounts of Washington's avoidance to take communion are quite strong, we will never be able to ascertain Washington's state of mind regarding this ordinance. Perhaps he avoided communion because he thought of it as a silly practice, or perhaps he felt personally unworthy to partake of Christ's flesh and blood. Whatever the reason, the fact that Washington purposely avoided communion is a significant component in determining his faith.

Washington and Prayer
Another issue that regularly comes up when discussing the faith of George Washington is prayer. Virtually every American has seen the infamous painting of the General on his knees in the snow of Valley Forge, humbly beseeching the God of heaven for his protection and blessings. As I have argued in a former post, the Prayer at Valley Forge is almost certainly as mythical a story as that of the Cherry Tree or the Silver Dollar. What is not disputed, however, is the fact that Washington was very much a man of devout prayer. In his 1200 page biography of Washington, author Peter Lillback provides a large collection of what he calls Washington's "written prayers." This collection in and of itself serves to prove the fact that Washington prayed on a regular basis. As a result, those who dispute Washington's devotion to prayer find their argument on very shaky ground. On the other hand, these "written prayers" still raise serious doubts about Washington being an orthodox believer. For example, here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

With such a large assortment of phrases, I find it amazing that Lillback does not provide a single example of where Washington prayed to Jesus specifically or directly.

Along with the actual wordage of Washington's prayers, a number of historians and skeptics point to the fact that Washington did not kneel in prayer. As Bishop White stated:

The father of our country, whenever in this city, as well as during the Revolutionary Was as during his presidency, attended divine service in Christ Church of this city...His behavior was always serious and attentive; but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to truth to declare, that I never saw him in the said attitude.

While this may seem like a mundane issue -- and I would agree with such an assessment -- a number of historians use this point to illustrate Washington's distrust of pious religion. Though this may be the case, I believe that the larger issue, the fact that Washington DID pray, is of far greater importance.

As was the case with his participation in communion, Washington's prayers are, at best, very contradictory evidence. The fact that he prayed should be obvious to anyone. However, to whom he was praying to is in question. Though he was not known to have knelt in prayer, Washington was, in the end, a devout man of prayer.

To be (a Christian) or not to be (a Christian). That is the question.

As noted above, any argument of Washington being a deist is historically inaccurate and, quite frankly, silly. On the other side of the coin, to what degree Washington accepted and embraced the Christian faith -- and more specifically his Anglican faith -- is difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. For example, Dr. James Abercrombie publicly questions Washington's Christianity when he writes:

I do not believe that any degree of recollection would bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation; further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance on Christian worship, in connection with the natural reserve of his character.

On the other hand, Washington's adopted daughter, Nelly Custis, had this to say regarding Washington's faith:

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." He communed with his God in secret.

Again, this religious paradox of George Washington makes it almost impossible to say conclusively what Washington's feelings towards Christianity actually were.

To add another level of complexity to this argument, Christian apologists, who argue for Washington's orthodoxy, regularly site his letter to the Delaware Indian chiefs in May of 1779. In the letter, Washington states that these Indian Tribes, would "do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." In contrast, those who favor the secularism of Washington counter with his 1796 letter to a group of Indian tribes, in which he invokes the "Great Spirit" of the Indian people. Yet again, an obvious contradiction prevents us from conclusively pinpointing Washington's view on Christianity.

One last thing to consider is the impact of unitarianism -- small u as Jon Rowe points out -- on the religion of our founding generation. Instead of making that argument here, I will simply refer you to an earlier posting that I did on this specific issue. You can find it by clicking here.

In conclusion, thought the religious paradox of George Washington prevents us from determining his exact beliefs, we are still able to make a few general conclusions:

1.) Washington was not a deist.
2.) It is virtually impossible to classify Washington as a Christian in the orthodox sense. The evidence available suggests otherwise. His lack of participation in communion, coupled with the absence of Christian supplication in prayer, creates more than a reasonable doubt on this matter.
3.) Washington was a man of prayer.
4.) At the very least, Washington maintained a deep appreciation and allegiance to Christianity. This is evidenced by his regular attendance and his devotion to Christian principles.
5.) Maybe most importantly, Washington's religion is the quintessential enigma of early American religious history.

So how should we classify Washington? Perhaps it would be smart, based on the body of evidence, to not classify him at all. However, in my opinion, I see Washington as a Christian-leaning Unitarian.

George Washington's Inauguration

As fellow blogger Ray Soller (of American Creation) has noted, there is a great deal of skepticism over whether or not George Washington uttered the phrase, "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath of office. To be honest, this is an issue that I have never before considered. Like most people, I probably just assumed that the historical record accurately accounted for the authenticity of this event. However, as Mr. Soller has pointed out in his excellent article (Freeman's Oath - reference), there is strong reason to not only question but to doubt the legitimacy of the "So help me God" claim.

Like most history nerds, I was a devout follower of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams. One of the most powerful scenes of the entire series is the inauguration of George Washington as the republic's first president. Not only does the scene attempt to recreate the oath of office -- including Washington uttering "So help me God," -- but the whole clip effectively arouses a sense of Christian patriotism, which I am sure was extremely effective in invoking a "spiritual" response from the average viewer.

To be perfectly honest, I have absolutly no idea if Washington did or did not conclude his oath of office with, "So help me God." I do believe, however, that Mr. Soller has shed light on some very important evidence that should be considered in detail. Hopefully we can continue this discussion, including the views of those who support the "So help me God" claim.

Here is the Washington Inauguration according to HBO's John Adams:

The God of Washington's Prayers

Perer Lillback, author of the book George Washington's Sacred Fire, makes the assertion that America's first President and Commander-in-Chief was, "an orthodox, Trinity-affirming believer in Jesus Christ" (27). Lillback, who received his Ph. D. in Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary, is only the latest in a series of religious figures who have crossed over into the field of history, in an effort to "restore" or "save" history from the hands of secularists.

In Sacred Fire, Lillback presents to the reader a large collection of primary sources, which he feels help to prove his thesis that Washington was a devout orthodox Christian. In addition, Lillback presents evidence to counter the argument that Washington was a Deist. While I am in complete agreement with Lillback's assessment that Washington was far from being a Deist, I still remain unconvinced of his orthodox Christian leanings.

In "Appendix Three" of Sacred Fire, Lillback puts together a collection that he calls "George Washington's Written Prayers." This collection contains an assortment of letters, general orders and presidential declarations, which Lillback believes helps to prove Washington's orthodoxy. As Lillback states at the beginning of this appendix:

One of the elements of the Christian faith that was suspect, and eventually abandoned by Deists, was the practice of prayer. This was logical since there was little purpose in speaking to a Deity who on principle had abandoned all contact and communication with his creation.

Given this understanding, Washington's lifetime practice of prayer, illustrated by these more than one hundred written prayers, is an undeniable refutation of his alleged Deism...The sheer magnitude of the umber of prayers, coupled with the expansive topics included in his prayers, give substantial credence to the universal testimony of Washington's contemporaries of his practice of corporate and private prayer.

This underscores how misplaced contemporary scholars have been in claiming that Washington was a man of lukewarm religious faith. (761).

With this in mind, I decided that it would be worthwhile to dissect the various "written prayers" that Peter Lillback sites in his book. After all, the language that Washington used in these prayers should be a valuable tool in determining Washington's actual beliefs.

Here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

With such a large assortment of phrases, I find it amazing that Lillback does not provide a single example of where Washington prayed to Jesus specifically or directly. In fact, the only time the word "Christian" is mentioned in all of appendix three is on page 775. In a letter to the king of France, Washington begins the letter by writing, "To our great and beloved Friend and Ally, his Most Christian Majesty." [My emphasis added].

Despite these obvious discrepancies in his argument, I must also point out the fact that Lillback provides AMPLE evidence to support his claim that Washington was NOT a Deist. The simple fact that these prayers exist is sufficient proof of this fact. Regardless of who Washington was praying to, the fact remains that he did, in the end, pray regularly.

In addition, there are a number of statements in Washington's "written prayers" that seem to suggest at least a possible allegiance to Christian philosophy. For example, Washington regularly issued thanksgiving and fasting proclamations, which seem to petition God for a forgiveness of sin. Phrases like, "we may unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions" (Source here). Or other instances where Washington states, "Instant to be observed as a day of 'fasting, humiliation and prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God' that it would please him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions" (Source here). Clearly there is AT LEAST a remnant of Christian belief, and possibly a sincere devotion to Jesus as the savior of mankind.

Regardless of what we may insinuate from these various statements, the fact remains that there are NO specific public or private records showing Washington in prayer to the Christian God. While I will agree that Washington is far from a Deist and that he did pray and believe in a great deal of Christian doctrine, I remain unconvinced that he was an ORTHODOX Christian as Lillback suggests.

Gordon Wood Destroys Michael Novak

In recent years, a number of self-proclaimed "scholars" have attempted to jump into the historical arena, in the belief that "true" history has been hijacked. Michael Novak is one of these individuals. Don't get me wrong, I believe that history is a big enough field for all to participate, but we must remember that when the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the historical community rallies against your claims (as has been the case with Novak's book on George Washington's faith), you know there is a problem.

In this audio clip, Novak presents his case, but is shot down by the foremost expert on the history of the American Revolution, Gordon Wood. Even Novak admists in this clip that Wood knows better than he. In light of the recent discussion of Washington, I thought this would be an appropriate way to keep the discussion going.

Here is the audio of this discussion. Click on Windows Media to access it once you get to the site.

Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?

Though we've discussed this before, I discovered some new evidence and thought it would be fun to bring this topic up yet again.

Nearly every American has seen this painting. In fact, it has become one of the best selling pieces of art in recent years. Thousands of homes, churches, office buildings, etc. have adorned their walls with this extremely powerful portrayal of America's first president kneeling in prayer. As is common with the legacy of our Founding Fathers, Americans today gain a sense of pride, reverence, and even patriotism when witnessing poignant recreations such as this painting.

But how accurate is it? Did Washington really pray at Valley Forge?

Officially known as The Prayer at Valley Forge, artist Arnold Friberg chose to capture what he called, "The spirit of 1776" by painting this picture for the American bicentennial festivities of 1976. Since then, Friberg's painting has become one of the top selling pieces of American art and has inspired a countless number of "copycat" artists, who have capitalized on creating similar pieces of art. The painting has also become a source of controversy between Christian conservatives and secularists, who seem to be caught up in a constant battle over America's founding legacy.

So what are the facts surrounding the "Prayer at Valley Forge?"

The original story of George Washington kneeling in prayer comes from a source that is questionable to say the least. The story allegedly originated from a young man named Isaac Potts, who is the supposed eyewitness to this event. It is said that Potts was riding along one day when he came across General Washington, hidden in the woods and caught up in deep prayer. Potts, who was originally against the war, stated that he experienced a change of heart upon seeing the General in prayer. The story then went unreported for roughly 40 years until Potts allegedly revealed his experience to his pastor, Reverend Nathaniel Snowden. Reverend Snowden then purportedly copied what Potts had told him in his journal, in the hopes that the story would be protected for posterity. Here is an excerpt from Snowden's journal:

I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world.

Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying. I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen & heard & observed. We never thought a man c’d be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause of God, & America could prevail.

The powerful imagery of General Washington beseeching God to bless and protect his army is moving to say the least. The problem with the story, however, is that there is little to no proof of its veracity. First off, it is highly unlikely that Reverend Snowden ever knew or associated with Isaac Potts. Family history records have proven that the Potts family did not move to the Valley Forge area until 1800 (Washington was dead by then). Also, it is worth noting that Reverend Snowden's journal account records the name of Potts's wife to be Sarah, when in fact her name was Martha. In addition, Snowden's journal states that he heard the story from a man named "John," not Isaac Potts. Simply put, Reverend Snowden's journal is too unreliable to support the Valley Forge story.

Along with the questionable journal entries, it is worth noting that Isaac Potts never had a change of heart when it came to the war. In addition, several critics of Snowden claimed that the Reverend recanted his story when presented with the evidence.

So why would Snowden lie?

It is a known fact that a number of religious leaders from several different churches attempted to "claim" George Washington as their own. After all, Washington was a living legend in his time. To have the religious endorsement of America's general and first president would be extremely impressive in the eyes of the common citizenry. As a result, scores of religious leaders of the 18th century have distorted the true nature of Washington's faith.

While it is true that Washington was known for attending church with some regularity, and that he held organized religion "in high regard," it is important to recognize the fact that Washington was far from being an orthodox believer. First off, though Washington attended several religious services over the course of his life, he refused to be confirmed a member of any one denomination. Washington strongly opposed an orthodox allegiance in religious affairs (as he did in political affairs as well). It is also an established fact that Washington refused to take communion of any kind when attending church services. In fact, a number of religious leaders expressed disappointment at the fact that Washington would not participate in communion. During communion, it was common of Washington to simply walk out of church in the middle of the ceremony.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Valley Forge painting is the simple fact that George Washington refused to pray on his knees. Historians and biographers of Washington have pointed out the fact that Washington would choose to stand instead of kneel when praying. In fact, Washington made it clear to his military advisers that he detested anything that brought a man to his knees.

Despite these facts, the "Prayer of Valley Forge" has received incredible publicity and attention over the years. In 1866, artist John McRae was commissioned by the United States to create an engraving of this event.

Later, the Valley Forge Park Commission was given a grant to create a statue of McRae's engraving, which was to be placed at the entrance to Valley Forge Park. The Park authorities refused, stating that there was ample evidence to suggest that the Washington prayer story was a hoax. Despite the decision of park authorities, tours were conducted until roughly 1930, which took travelers to various locations where Washington had allegedly knelt in prayer.

Despite your personal feelings, the Prayer at Valley Forgehas become an important symbol for millions of Americans. Even though the story behind the painting is an utter fraud, it is important to recognize the fact that Washington was, in the end, a man of prayer. As a revolutionary leader it would be natural for a man of Washington's status to refuse kneeling in prayer. Though not an orthodox follower of Christianity, Washington should be remembered as religious individual.

Washington Orders Inoculation

One of the most stirring scenes in HBO's new miniseries John Adams is the inoculation of Abigail and her children. Instead of today's modern inoculation methods (which still cause many to squirm and even pass out), colonial inoculation was much more barbaric. The process involved the cutting of the flesh accompanied by the introduction of the smallpox virus. As can be imagined, many within the colonial community saw inoculation as an insane method of treatment. There were even debates amongst medical practitioners as to its effectiveness.

What most people don't know when it comes to inoculation during this time period is that General George Washington actually ordered the soldiers of the Continental Army to be inoculated. Washington was a strong supporter of inoculation, believing that the medical procedure would greatly reduce the chances of infection. Though the procedure had many skeptics, Washington firmly believed that the benefits of inoculation far outweighed the risks. In fact, Washington became so paranoid about the spread of smallpox during the early years of the war that he literally became obsessed with inoculating the troops. During the seige of Boston, Washington's concern about the spread of smallpox caused him to issue an order stating that no soldier could enter the city unless he had been infected with smallpox in the past.

Washington's experience with smallpox during his youth was probably the primary determining factor in shaping his opinion on inoculation. During a trip to the Caribbean, Washington was infected with smallpox. In fact, Washington carried a few pockmark scars on his face to remind him of this nearly fatal encounter. His experiences during the French & Indian War had also confirmed to Washington that inoculation was essential for any army. During the war, Washington witnessed several British raids that were unsuccessful, due to the depleted manpower of the British Army.

In his highly acclaimed biography His Excellency, historian Joseph Ellis makes the claim that Washington's decision to inoculate the Continental Army was one of his finest moments:

Washington understood the ravaging implications of a smallpox epidemic within the congested conditions of the encampment, and he regularly quarantined patients that were infected with the virus...And although many educated Americans opposed inoculation, believing that it actually spread the disease, Washington strongly supported it...When historians debate Washington's most consequential decisions as commander in chief, they are almost always arguing about specific battles. A compelling case can be made that his swift response to the smallpox epidemic and to a policy of inoculation was the most important strategic decision of his military career.

In today's modern world we enjoy the benefits of understanding the scientific advancements of modern medicine. In today's world the decision to be inoculated is a "no-brainer" of sorts because of our understanding of infectious diseases. For colonial Americans, however, this was very much a roll of the dice. Fortunately for the Continental Army, Washington was brave enough to take the gamble.

Happy Colonial St. Patrick's Day

The holiday known throughout the western world as St. Patrick's Day is most commonly associated with Catholicism and Irish pride. After all, the holiday was created to commemorate the death of the Catholic Saint, Patrick, in 493.

So why is this such a popular holiday in the United States?

The origins of St. Patrick's Day in the United States date back to colonial times. Protestant Irish immigrants brought the festival over to the American colonies during the initial years of colonization. These early Irish Protestants were seeking refuge from the traditional Catholic rituals of Ireland, and therefore found refuge in the New World.

The first St. Patrick's Day celebration in America was held in 1737, in Boston. Most English colonists embraced the holiday as a Protestant day of worship (not to mention as an excuse to get drunk). In 1775, Irish-Americans celebrated St. Patrick's Day with a large number of British soldiers that had arrived to suppress the rebellion in the colonies. In New York, British soldiers celebrated St. Patrick's Day after their siege of the city was complete. In fact, many loyal colonists commemorated St. Patrick's Day as a day to celebrate Britain's "liberation" of the colonies.

As a gesture of appreciation to the many Irish soldiers of the Continental Army, General George Washington proclaimed March 17 as a holiday for the entire Army during their stay at Morristown. It was reported that this was the first holiday granted the troops in over two years.

Though the holiday is celebrated with much more gusto and extravagance today, the origins of America's St. Patrick's Day festivities are very much rooted in our colonial history. One can only wonder if a leprechaun or two helped in America's quest for independence!

Are you all wearing green today?