Democracy and the Memory of George Washington, 1799-1865 Matthew Yar N Costello Marquette University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects "The rP operty of the Nation": Democracy and the Memory of George Washington, 1799-1865 Matthew yaR n Costello Marquette University Recommended Citation Costello, Matthew Ryan, ""The rP operty of the Nation": Democracy and the Memory of George Washington, 1799-1865" (2016). Dissertations (2009 -). 642. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/642 “THE PROPERTY OF THE NATION”: DEMOCRACY AND THE MEMORY OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1799-1865 by Matthew R. Costello, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2016 ABSTRACT “THE PROPERTY OF THE NATION”: DEMOCRACY AND THE MEMORY OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1799-1865 Matthew R. Costello, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2016 This dissertation explores how Americans personally experienced George Washington’s legacy in the nineteenth century through visits to his estate and tomb at Mount Vernon. By the 1820s many Americans had conflicting memories of the American Revolution and its most iconic figure, George Washington. As America grew more divided, so too did the memory of Washington. On multiple occasions, government factions and organizations attempted to claim his remains for political reasons. At the same time, Americans and foreign travelers journeyed to Mount Vernon to experience his tomb and forge a deeper personal connection with the man. These visitors collected objects such as sticks, stones, and flowers from his gravesite, mementoes that not only represented their visits but also served as a reminder of a nostalgic American past. African slaves, free blacks, and European gardeners greeted these visitors as the first historical interpreters of Washington history. These individuals not only shared anecdotes but they also wove themselves into the narrative to profit from their affiliation with Washington. The history of Washington’s tomb therefore illuminates the origins of an American celebrity culture, one that elevated Washington in significance and also ultimately transformed him into a democratic figure. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Matthew R. Costello, B.A., M.A. For the last seven years, I have had the distinct privilege to pursue my vocation in history. There were few graduate programs that were willing to take a chance on me, but the Marquette History Department welcomed me with open arms. Their financial, professional, and personal support shaped me into the scholar and person I am today. Thank you to the faculty who mentored me, and the staff who helped me along the way. I also want to thank my graduate colleagues who were vital to the shaping of this project and my professional development. This dissertation began as a research paper in Dr. James Marten’s graduate seminar. Whether it was an assignment or an entry for the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee Project, Dr. Marten’s editorial acumen improved my writing and clarity. I am deeply grateful for the support of Fr. Steven Avella, whose passion for the subject and high expectations compelled me to become a real historian. Finally, this project could not have happened without Dr. Kristen Foster. She encouraged me make the project my own and gave me the freedom to discovery my topic. Whenever I felt overwhelmed, conflicted, or unsure about the project’s direction, Dr. Foster’s invaluable advice always put things into perspective. I want to thank my family for their love and support during this process. My parents, Tim and Debbie, who encouraged me to pursue my dreams; my grandparents, Anthony and Patricia, who taught me the meaning of hard work; my brothers Dan and Jeff, who occasionally beat some sense into me; Dr. Robert Pettus Hay, whose love for George Washington has not only influenced my research but also forged our friendship; ii and finally, my amazing wife Kristen. Your love, reassurance, and patience saved me countless times, and we share this accomplishment together. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..i INTRODUCTION: GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEMOCRACY…………………1 CHAPTER I. “THE PROPERTY OF THE NATION”: THE MEMORY OF GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE POLITICS OF DISINTERNMENT………………………………………………………….26 II. THERE’S MONEY IN OLD GEORGE’S BONES: JOHN AUGUSTINE WASHINGTON III AND THE ADVENT OF HISTORICAL TOURISM…………………………………………………………………...84 III. CULTIVATORS OF LEGEND: WASHINGTON STORYTELLLERS AND THE SLAVE COMMUNITIES AT MOUNT VERNON…………………………………………………………………...142 IV. FRONTIERSMAN, SOLDIER, AND FARMER: THE DEMOCRATIC WASHINGTON IN POPULAR CULTURE………………………………………………………………….199 V. THE CIVIC PILGRIMAGE: WASHINGTON’S TOMB AND THE VENERATION OF WASHINGTON MEMENTOES……………………………………………………………...250 VI. “GUARDIANS OF A NATIONAL SHRINE”: THE MOUNT VERNON LADIES’ ASSOCIATION AND THE LEGACY OF WASHINGTON……………………………………………………………303 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………357 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………365 APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………..407 APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………..409 APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………………………..412 APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………..415 1 Introduction George Washington and Democracy While Americans in the nineteenth century linked George Washington to the advent of American democracy, he actually held no love for that particular form of government. His military and political experiences had shaped a much darker view of the people. After his surrender at Fort Necessity, Washington reported to Virginia Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie that he capitulated because of insufficient provisions and an inexperienced soldiery. His distaste for militia intensified when he took command of the Continental Army. Militias were composed primarily of small landowners, laborers, merchants, and farmers all with little military experience. Washington’s inability to build a professional army plagued him for most of the war, as these men lacked the training and knowledge needed to challenge the British army. As a result, Washington frequently found himself at odds with the men who enlisted to fight the British. He was appalled by their excessive drinking, fraternizing with women in camp, stealing from civilians, and disregard for the authority of officers. While not all soldiers engaged in these behaviors, Washington frequently wrote of a disturbing pattern of malfeasance and poor discipline amongst his men.1 1 Account by George Washington and James Mackay of the Capitulation of Fort Necessity, July 19, 1754, The Papers of George Washington, eds. William Abbot et al. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), Colonial Series, 1, 159-164; John Ferling, The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009), 23-24, 95-96; Edward Lengel, General George Washington: A Military Life (New York: Random House Books, 2005), 46-48, 63-65, 106-108; James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, June 2, 1780, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd et al (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), 3, 411-412; Harry Ward, George Washington’s Enforcers: Policing the Continental Army (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press, 2006), 30-44; Holly Mayer, Belonging to the Army: Camp Followers and Community 2 Washington’s frustrations with the common men under his command came to a head during the American defeats at Long Island and Manhattan in 1776. While Washington committed a number of tactical mistakes, he blamed the fall of New York on his naïve recruits. Writing to his cousin Lund after the defeats, Washington expressed his dissatisfaction: “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances—disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” As the war progressed, Washington constantly grumbled about the army’s shortcomings to officers, generals, and members of the Continental Congress. In addition to his frequent requests for supplies and provisions, Washington complained to Congress about “the general defective state of the Regiments which compose our Armies.” Writing to John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, he chastised states that sent meager militia forces whose presence “have been so severely and ruinously felt” on the battlefield. But Washington’s pleas were often ignored, as delegates lacked the funds and feared the possibility of one man commanding a standing army.2 during the American Revolution (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 30- 84; Caroline Cox, A Proper Sense of Honor: Service and Sacrifice in George Washington’s Army (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 73-117, 121-136; For an examination of the young men who served in the army, see John Ruddiman, Becoming Men of Some Consequence: Youth and Military Service in the Revolutionary War (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2014), 57-116; Stephen Brumwell, George Washington: Gentleman Warrior (London: Quercus, 2012), 213; John W. Hall, “Washington’s Irregulars,” in A Companion to George Washington, ed. Edward Lengel (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2012), 320-343; For more on the mutinies of the army, see John A. Nagy, Rebellion in the Ranks: Mutinies of the American Revolution (Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, 2007). 2 George Washington