So many today know very little about the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to preserve the important freedoms enshrined in that document. Their legacy, in the form of the Declaration, has lasted throughout the centuries as America has grown and prospered and that legacy deserves to be remembered! Below we’ve collected some resources so that you can become better acquainted with these brave men.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was involved in many professions throughout his life. He was a lawyer, a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1769-1775), served in the Continental Congress (1775-1776) where he drafted the Declaration of Independence, was governor of Virginia (1779-1781), and the U.S. minister to France (1785-1789). Jefferson also served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington, was Vice President under John Adams, and was the nation’s third President. During his time as governor of Virginia, Jefferson issued the following proclamation on November 11, 1779 calling for a statewide day of thanksgiving and prayer on December 9, 1779.
The text of this proclamation can be found in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julia P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 3:177-179.
Whereas the Honourable the General Congress, impressed with a grateful sense of the goodness of Almighty God, in blessing the greater part of this extensive continent with plentiful harvests, crowning our arms with repeated successes, conducting us hitherto safely through the perils with which we have been encompassed and manifesting in multiplied instances his divine care of these infant states, hath thought proper by their act of the 20th day of October last, to recommend to the several states that Thursday the 9th of December next be appointed a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer, which act is in these words, to wit.
“Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise, for the wonders which His goodness has wrought in conducting our forefathers to this western world; for His protection to them and to their posterity, amidst difficulties and dangers; for raising us their children from deep distress, to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty Princes in our deliverance; and especially for that He hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labours of the husbandman, and spreading plenty through the land; that He hath prospered our arms and those of our ally, been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory, and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that He hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that He hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that He hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he Hath diffused the glorious light of the Gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of His eternal glory. Therefore,
George Washington, Patrick Henry, and members of the First Continental Congress join with Rev. Jacob Duché in prayer.
Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to appoint THURSDAY the 9th of December next, to be a day of publick and solemn THANKSGIVING to Almighty God, for his mercies, and of PRAYER, for the continuance of His favour and protection to these United States; to beseech Him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our publick Councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness and success; that He would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that He would grant to His church, the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out His Holy Spirit on all Ministers of the Gospel; that He would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that He would smile upon the labours of His people, and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance, that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that He would take into His holy protection, our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him finally great, as the father of his people, and the protector of the rights of mankind; that He would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispence the blessings of peace to contending nations.
That he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon all our sins, and receive us into his favour; and finally, that he would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety.”
I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th day of December next, a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending to all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the said day for those purposes, and to the several Ministers of religion to meet their respective societies thereon, to assist them in their prayers, edify them with their discourses, and generally to perform the sacred duties of their function, proper for the occasion.
Given under my hand and the seal of the commonwealth, at Williamsburg, this 11th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1779, and in the fourth of the commonwealth.
We always appreciate our moms, but Mother’s Day is a special time set aside to honor them. Throughout history, leaders have acknowledged and honored the importance of mothers.
It is agreeable to observe how differently modern writers and the inspired author of the Proverbs describe a fine woman….The one is admired abroad; the other is honored and beloved at home. “Her children arise up and call her blessed, her husband also, and he praiseth her.” There is no fame in the world equal to this; nor is there a note in music half so delightful as the respectful language with which a grateful son or daughter perpetuates the memory of a sensible and affectionate mother. (Benjamin Rush)1
Among the first things you are to learn are your duties to your parents. These duties are commanded by God, and are necessary to your happiness in this life. The commands of God are, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” – “Children, obey your parents in all things.” These commands are binding on all children; they cannot be neglected without sin. Whatever God has commanded us to do we must perform, without calling in question the propriety of the command. (Noah Webster)2
American history abounds with examples of women that have been inspirational to previous generations, and Mother’s Day is a great opportunity to discover their stories and make them an inspiration for mothers today.
One such example is Elizabeth Lewis3–wife of Declaration of Independence signer Francis Lewis4 and the mother of three. British soldiers were dispatched to capture her and destroy their home.5 As they shelled the house, a cannonball struck right beside where Elizabeth stood but she refused to yield. The British seized her and made her a prisoner of war, holding her for several months in deplorable conditions. Her health was destroyed, and after her release, she never recovered, dying in 1779.
Another amazing woman is Abigail Adams–wife of Declaration signer and second President John Adams and the mother of six. A sickly child with little formal education, she became self-taught and rose to the highest levels of knowledge and leadership. She also taught her children to love God and their country, and her son John Quincy Adams (sixth President of the United States) clearly recalled the religious and patriotic lessons she taught him.6 Abigail fully lived up to the example of the virtuous wife in Proverbs 31.
Be sure to honor the mothers in your life and encourage your family to learn about heroic mothers of the past.
October 25th, is the wedding anniversary of John and Abigail Adams. They were married on this date in 1764 when John was 29 years old and Abigail 20.
After an initial rocky start at their first meeting in 1761 (John was not impressed with Abigail or her sisters, and Abigail’s mother was not impressed with him), they would court over the course of the next three years and then marry.
The numerous letters between them (over 1,100) has left us a wonderful and heart-touching record of their life and times. The letters cover topics from their love for each other to everyday life, from politics to raising their children (they had 6 children, with 4 living to adulthood)–they talked about it all!
Here are just a few examples of their lasting loving relationship:
Dear Miss Adorable, I hereby order you to give [me] as many kisses and as many hours of your company after 9 o’clock as [I] shall please to demand, and charge them to my account. (John to Abigail: October 4, 1762)
I dare not express to you at 300 miles how ardently I long for your return. I have some very miserly wishes and cannot consent to your spending one hour in town till, at least, I have had you twelve. The idea plays about my heart, unnerves my hand whilst I write, [and] awakens all the tender sentiments that years have increased and matured. (Abigail to John: October 16, 1774)
[I] pray you to come on [as] soon as possible….As to money to bear your expenses, you must, if you can, borrow of some friend enough to bring you here. If you cannot borrow enough, you must sell horses, oxen, sheep, cows, anything at any rate rather than not come on. If no one will take the place, leave it to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. (John to Abigail: May 14, 1789)
s The John Birch Society, an advocacy group for a more limited and constitutional government, released a video concerning Thomas Jefferson called Myth v. Fact, narrated by the Society’s CEO Art Thompson. They argue that Thomas Jefferson was actually an anti-American traitor who tried to take down the American government. This charge is that it is just not true.
The John Birch Society’s argument is founded upon half-truths—not only are key statements clearly taken out of context but they also ignore all evidence that contradicts the conclusion they want to prove. One of the most laudable features of American government and culture is that our Founders wisely created a system that enables justice and truth to prevail.
In fact, the Due Process clauses of the Bill of Rights exist to help achieve this singular objective: the accused has the right to present evidence in his or her behalf. These indispensable protections in our American system are built upon the simple Biblical principle that declares “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). The John Birch Society made its case by excluding key pieces of evidence that actually disprove the point they seek to make. You will get to see what they excluded, and look at Jefferson’s own actual word and will see that far from being anti-American, he was a lifelong patriot who strove for American advancement throughout his life.
Against Jefferson
Art Thompson’s primary evidence against Jefferson is an infamous 1796 letter to an Italian friend of Jefferson, Philip Mazzei. Jefferson’s letter is primarily about routine business transactions and general small talk. The anti-Jefferson party in America, however, seized upon one paragraph; Thomas also relies on this paragraph to reach his conclusions. (Interestingly, though, he never actually reads any section of that paragraph). Anti-Jeffersonians have used this letter against Jefferson ever since it was originally written, and Thompson does the same. Significantly, the charges Thompson makes here are no different than what Jefferson’s political rivals made over 200 years ago.
The paragraph on which Thompson relies for his errant conclusions relates to Jefferson’s private reflections about the bitter factionalism that was then breaking out in American politics. This letter was written at the end of George Washington’s presidency, at a time when the first political parties were developing in America: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (also known as Republicans, or Democratic-Republicans). Jefferson, the Anti-Federalist, was then engaged in a presidential campaign against John Adams, the Federalist.
It was perhaps the bitterest, nastiest, and most divisive political campaign in the history of American politics. Jefferson saw the contest as the elitists against the people. He was concerned that many new politicians working their way into American government were far too sympathetic to the high-handed British system that the American people had thrown off during the American War for Independence.
During the campaign, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents made outrageous claims against him, including that he was a murderer, an atheist, a thief, and aiding foreign convicts. Reports alledged that he was secretly plotting the destruction and overthrow of the Constitution. His critics also accused him of defrauding a widow and her children, and said he planned to abolish the navy and starve the farmers.1 And if that wasn’t enough, citizens were warned that if Jefferson were elected, he would confiscate and burn every Bible in America.2
Thomas Jefferson’s 1796 Letter
Of course, all of these claims were false—all of them, but these attacks were swirling around Jefferson at the time he wrote his French friend—this was the atmosphere in which his comments were made. In that letter, Jefferson told his friend:
The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party [i.e., the Federalists] has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is with them and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all of the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption and for assimilating us in all things, to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.
It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve them, and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors.3
Notice that there is absolutely no anti-American sentiment embedded within the text. The Jefferson critics from the 1700’s and of today both try to twist it to say that Jefferson is some kind of undercover French operative trying to undermine the government, but what in the letter suggests that? Nothing. (This is likely why critics such as Art Thompson summarize their view of the letter rather than actually quoting direct text from it.)
To the contrary Jefferson is bewailing that there are some who actually are trying to undermine the republican form of government by making America a monarchy, or at the very least more British—that is, more of an elitist system where the people themselves have little actual power or voice. Jefferson, in fact, actually attacks the very thing which he is being accused of doing by Mr. Thompson. Jefferson, from the Declaration, to his Presidency, and to his passing, always stood against monarchism and boldly defended republicanism. (By the way, “republicanism” was defined in the dictionaries of that day as being rooted in a government “in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.”4 It is what President Abraham Lincoln later described as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”5)
Analysis of the Letter
The portion of the letter, along with several paragraphs of French commentary, was printed in French papers after being delivered to them by Jefferson’s friend, and the recipient of his letter, Philip Mazzei. (Mazzei was an Italian who helped Virginia obtain arms during the American War for Independence, and become a friend of Jefferson at that point. He later spent time in France as the French sought to throw off their monarchal political system and free the people.) This French paper, with its own spin of Jefferson’s words, was then sent to America and translated back into English. At this point, the anti-Jefferson media picked up the twice translated piece and with the excerpt they lifted from the letter, viciously attacked Jefferson.
According to his personal policy, Jefferson never publicly responded to the name-calling, preferring instead to let the insults die out on their own. He based this strategy off of three considerations. First, he felt that responding to outrageous claims appeared to justify them.6 Second, Jefferson trusted that in the end his virtue would triumph over his enemies’ lies.7 And lastly, he believed that the people would eventually see through the lies and side with the truth.8
Jefferson even acknowledged that he could have successfully pursued legal action against many of his enemies who made such false allegations in the press, remarking:
I know that I might have filled the courts of the United States with actions for these slanders, and have ruined perhaps many persons who are not innocent. But this would be no equivalent to the loss of [my own] character. I leave them, therefore, to the reproof of their own consciences. If these do not condemn them, there will yet come a day when the false witness will meet a Judge [God] Who has not slept over his [the false accusers’] slanders [cf Proverbs 19:5].9
This mode of action, however, did not work entirely, and even 30 years later (not to mention now 200 years later) some of his most bitter enemies resorted to drudging the false claims out to throw renewed insults at Jefferson.10
Other Attacks on Jefferson
Timothy Pickering
One such example is a libelous attack by Timothy Pickering, an Alexandrian Federalist with a long-standing grudge against Jefferson.11 An ardent lifelong Federalist, Pickering always fought against anything Jefferson did and religiously supported English policies. At one point, Pickering even attempted to lead a secessionist movement in New English but failed miserably, effectively ending his political career at the same time.
Pickering parroted the tone of arguments the anti-Jefferson media made then and the John Birch Society makes now. In effect, imagine if someone based their history exclusively on CNN’s view of Trump, or Fox’s view on Obama. It is remarkably bad historical practice to get information exclusively from the person’s enemies, but that is exactly what the video does. Thomson today uses the same letter, the same ad hominem, and the same vitriol which was used over 200 years ago.
Jefferson, in response to Pickering attack, eventually broke his silence on the Mazzei letter. He wrote to Martin Van Buren on June 29, 1824, explaining the details of the letter. In his typically systematic fashion, Jefferson walked through every objection to his words and conduct.
In his original letter, Jefferson had stated that “men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council…had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” Jefferson’s critics at the time claimed that this clause was a clear attack on George Washington, with whom Jefferson had so closely served throughout the Federal Era (that is, from 1760 until Washington’s death in 1799). Jefferson directly denied that he criticized Washington in the Mazzei letter, saying that:
The other allegation respecting myself is equally false.…I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or verbal, directly or indirectly, between General Washington and myself, on the subject of that letter. He would never had degraded himself so far as to take to himself the imputation in that letter on the ‘Samsons in combat.’ the whole story is a fabrication, and I defy the framers of it, and all mankind to produce a scrip of a pen between General Washington and myself on the subject, or any other evidence more worthy of credit than the suspicions, suppositions and presumptions.12
After calling out the complete lack of evidence for the claim that he was attacking Washington, Jefferson flatly declared that those who had launched these attacks were those who were:
Boiling with party passions, and—under the dominion of these—readily welcoming fancies for facts. But come the story from whomsoever it might, it is an unqualified falsehood.13
Thomas Jefferson’s Explanation
Having dismissed the whole affair in general terms, Jefferson then turned his attention to the specific nature of the Mazzei letter. He denied that anything in his statements were either false or treasonous, and pointed out the context of those short remarks in the otherwise lengthy letter:
This letter to Mazzei has been a precious theme of crimination for federal malice. It was a long letter of business in which was inserted a single paragraph only of political information as to the state of our country. In this information there was not one word which would not then have been, or would not now be approved, by every republican in the U.S. looking back to those times.14
Jefferson then noted that when the French had reprinted a few clauses taken out of context from the letter, that an additional paragraph of their own commentary was added as if Jefferson himself had written that commentary. American papers later reprinted that section as if it were Jefferson’s own words (which they were not), and that it was this section what had caused most of the criticisms and attacks against him. He explained that only a short portion of his original letter was:
extracted and translated [and] got into a Paris paper at a time when the persons in power there were laboring under very general disfavor, and their friends were eager to catch even at straws to buoy them up. To them, therefore, I have always imputed the interpolation of an entire paragraph additional to mine, which makes me charge my own country with ingratitude and injustice to France. There was not a word in my letter respecting France or any of the proceedings or relations between this country and that. Yet this interpolated [that is, added or inserted] paragraph has been the burthen [grievous weight] of federal calumny [slander and defamation], has been constantly quoted by them, made the subject of unceasing and virulent abuse, and is still quoted…as if it were genuine and really written by me.15
Letter Lost Its Meaning
Even today, critics such as Thompson fail to realize that much of the animosity against Jefferson stemmed from that fake paragraph, and they use it to condemn Jefferson—but he did not write it! In their defense, however, it is at least understandable that some confusion might still persist because, as Jefferson notes, even other distinguished patriots and friends, such Chief Justice John Marshall, had believed the false reports.16
Jefferson further noted that in the translation of his letter from its original English, into Italian, then into French, and then back into English, the letter itself became so mutated and transformed that in many cases the anti-Jefferson newspapers were able to make it mean whatever they wanted it to. He focused specifically on one single word which significantly affected the interpretation of the letter:
The genuine paragraph, retranslated, through Italian & French into English, as it appeared here in a Federal paper, besides the mutilated hue which these translations and retranslations of it produced generally, gave a mistranslation of a single word which entirely perverted [changed] its meaning, and made it a pliant and fertile text of misrepresentation of my political principles. The original [paragraph in my letter], speaking of an Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical party which had sprung up since he had left us, states their object to be “to draw over us the substance, as they had already done the forms of the British government.”
Now the forms here meant were the levies, birth-days, the pompous cavalcade to the State house on a meeting of Congress, the formal speech from the throne, the procession of Congress in a body to re-echo the speech in an answer, etc., etc., but the translator here, by substituting form in the singular number for forms in the plural, made it mean the frame or organization of our government, or it’s form of legislature, executive, and judiciary authorities, co-ordinate and independent, to which form it was to be inferred that I was an enemy. In this sense they always quoted it, and in this sense Mr. Pickering still quotes it…and countenances the inference.17
While Jefferson loved America, he did not appreciate the more extreme wing of the Federalist party which looked back longingly at the monarchical institutions of England. He was concerned that soon a faction might gain power and undo the Revolution, murmuring like the Israelites did after being brought up out of Egypt [Exodus 16:2-3].
Conclusion
As his life and letters clearly prove, Jefferson wasn’t some anti-American operative controlled by the French, the Jacobins (radical French political party responsible for the atrocities in the French Revolution), the Illuminati (a secret fraternal organization originally similar to Freemasonry), or another group of suspicious intent. Jefferson was the patriot of the Declaration, espousing the limited nature of government, the inalienable rights of citizens, and the sovereignty of the people under God, and was unwavering in his support of a republican vision of America. He made it clear that his dominate principle in government was that, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”18
The errors in the video produced by the John Birch Society are unfortunate. They are the same errors made today by many who judge a person, group, movement, or event based upon the accusations of their opponents alone. If Mr. Thompson wishes to make Jefferson a traitor, he must do more than vaguely reference a single letter—a letter taken completely out of context, and a letter openly rebutted by Jefferson himself. Jefferson wrote over 19,000 letters, and to charge the writer of the Declaration of Independence with treason based upon only 7 sentences out of the millions he wrote is laughable at best, insidious at worst.
Endnotes
1 See, for example, Charles Warren, Odd Byways in American History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942), 127-128; Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962), 3:481; Charles O. Lerche, Jr., “Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear,” The William and Mary Quarterly (October 1948), 3rd Series:V:4:466-491. 2 Wilburn E. MacClenny, The Life of Rev. James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South (Suffolk: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company, 1910), 171-173. 3 Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, 24 April 1796, Founders Online. 4 Noah Webster, Webster’s American Dictionary, 1828, s.v., “republic.” 5 Abraham Lincoln, “Address at the Dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery”, November 19, 1863, Complete Works (New York: The Century Co., 1907), 2:439. 6 Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Logan, June 20, 1816, The Works of Thomas Jefferson (1905), XI:366. 7 Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, February 11, 1807, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, XI:155. 8 Thomas Jefferson to Wilson C. Nicholas, June 13, 1809, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, IV:129. 9 Jefferson to Uriah McGregory, August 13, 1800, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, III:439, here. 10 For more information see, Jefferson’s Letter to Philip Mazzei The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, (Princeton University Press, 2002), 29:73-88. 11 See, “Timothy Pickering,” , accessed December 11, 2018. 12 Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 13 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 14 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 15 Thomas Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 16 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 17 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press). 18 Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, December 23, 1791, Founders Online.
From the $1 Bill to the capital of America, George Washington’s name appears more often than probably any other name in American history. Being the most prominent Founding Father, everyone learns how Washington led the Continental Army against the British during the War for Independence and eventually became the first President of the United States. But there are plenty of stories and facts that are rarely taught in schools today. Watch the video and then read below about ten facts you probably do not know about George Washington.
1. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree.
“I cannot tell a lie,” a young George Washington is reported to have said—but his biographers sure can! The famous story originates from the 5th edition of the popular biography The Life of Washington the Great by Mason Weems.1 Published in 1806, seven years after Washington’s death, there are no primary sources attesting to its truthfulness. All things considered, its late appearance and the complete lack of evidence has led most to consider it apocryphal.
2. He was most embarrassed about his lack of education and his bad teeth.
The most persistent enemy to Washington were not his political or military opponents, but his teeth. By the time he was sworn in as the first President of the United States he only had a single original tooth left.2 Over the course of his life he had a number of dentures made from a wide variety of materials.3 The dentures of the time were large, bulky, and burdensome which worked together to make Washington quite self-conscience about them leading him to be more introverted than perhaps he might have been.4
On top of this, George Washington did not have the same high level of education his older brothers received due to the death of their father when he was only eleven years old. This tragedy led Washington to become a surveyor (which incidentally provided the exact education he needed to accomplish the amazing things God had planned for him). When standing next to the genius level intellects of Jefferson, Adams, and others it was easy for Washington to feel at an embarrassing disadvantage to his more educated peers.5 That said, Washington was still incredibly intelligent on account of his extensive reading throughout his life in order to make up for his perceived lack of formal education.
3. He was nominated to be commander of the colonial army by John Adams.
“I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.”6 It was with these words that the ever-humble George Washington accepted the unanimous appointment to command the soon-to-be-created Continental Army. The official vote happened on June 15, 1775, with John Adams credited as being the one who recommended and nominated Washington to the position.7 On the occasion, Adams wrote to his wife explaining how Congress elected the, “modest and virtuous, the amiable, generous and brave George Washington,” and solemnly proclaimed that, “the Liberties of America, depend upon him.”8
4. George Washington was described as being taller than the average man.
In an era when the average man stood at 5’7″, noted early biographer Jared Sparks clocked Washington in at an impressive 6’3″ tall.9 John Adams, later in life, wrote to fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush, that Washington had, “a tall stature, like the Hebrew sovereign chosen because he was taller by the head than the other Jews.”10
A military observer repeatedly called attention to the vast stature of Washington, explaining, “it is not difficult to distinguish him from all others; his personal appearance is truly noble and majestic; being tall and well proportioned.”11 He continues to write that Washington, “is remarkably tall, full six feet, erect and well proportioned…This is the illustrious chief, whom a kind Providence has decreed as the instrument to conduct our country to peace and to Independence.”12 George Washington was a tall man with an even bigger purpose.
5. He encouraged his troops to go to church.
As General, Washington would issue orders throughout the army instructing them on daily operations. On June 23, 1777, he issued the following order:
“All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every other succeeding Sunday, with their respective brigades and regiments, when their situations will admit of it, and the commanding officers of the corps are to see that they attend. The Commander-in-Chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice, and every neglect will not only be considered a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue, and religion.”13
Being a man of great piety and sincere religion himself, it is no surprise that Washington placed such an extraordinary emphasis on his soldiers’ corporate worship. In fact, when Washington believed the chaplains were not making regular church services a proper priority, he required all the chaplains to come to a meeting to address the issue and then report back to him.14
Washington’s devotion to Christ was so apparent in the camp that the Rev. Henry Muhlenberg, father of Major General John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, remarked:
“His Excellency General Washington rode around among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God, to put away the wickedness that has set in and become so general, and to practice the Christian virtues. From all appearances this gentleman does not belong to the so-called world of society, for he respects God’s Word, believes in the atonement through Christ, and bears himself in humility and gentleness. Therefore the Lord God has also singularly, yea, marvelously, preserved him form harm in the midst of countless perils, ambuscades [ambushes], fatigues, etc. and has hitherto graciously held him in His hand as a [chosen] vessel. II Chronicles 15:1-3.”15
6. He forbade his officers to swear.
Along the same lines as the previous fact, Washington focused on making the American military not only righteous but also respectable. To this end, on July 4, 1775, he issued the following order:
“The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner requires and expects, of all officers, and soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service, to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.”16
7. He was the only President elected unanimously.
After the ratification of the Constitution, the first order of business was to fill the newly created positions of government. The most important question was, “who will be our President?” For the Americans of 1789, that was apparently an easy answer. “George Washington of course!” With that resolution, Washington, “by no effort of his own, in a manner against his wishes, by the unanimous vote of a grateful country.”17 In the history of the United States, there has been only one other unanimous vote for President — Washington again for his second term.18
8. George Washington added “So help me God” to the Presidential Oath of Office.
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution states that when the President is sworn into office, he is to say the following oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
With his hand laid upon the open Bible, Washington repeated the oath. He then sealed the oath by with a solemn, “so help me God,” and reverently bowed down and kissed the Bible.19 One eyewitness to the event recalled that, “it seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once.”20
9. He was elected to be a vestryman at local churches.
In early American Episcopalian churches, vestrymen were, “a select number of principal persons of every parish, who choose parish officers and take care of its concerns.”21 This included making sure the poor, widows, and orphans were taken care of, and even extended to major decisions about the church as a whole.
George Washington was elected (perhaps his first election) to be a vestryman in two different parishes. In March of 1765, he was chosen in Fairfax Parish with 274 votes, and then four months later he was again chosen in Truro Parish with 259 votes.22 Washington was extremely active as a vestryman.23
On one occasion, Washington even went toe-to-toe with George Mason (fellow future delegate to the Constitution Convention) about relocating the church to a new site. After an impassioned speech by Mason which seemingly settled the question, Washington unassumingly rose and used a surveying map to show where the new site would be and how it would be better for each parishioner. This sudden recourse to sound reason and just sensibilities restored the council to their senses and they voted with Washington to move the church to the new site.24
10. George Washington was killed by his doctors.
This characterization might be a little uncharitable—the doctors were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had—but it doesn’t mean it’s not true. The old General fell sick after riding out on Mount Vernon during the cold rain. Soon, he was struggling to breathe. The following is taken from the journal of George Washington’s lifelong friend and physician, James Craik:
“The disease commenced with a violent ague, accompanied with some pain in the upper and fore part of throat, a sense of stricture in the same part, a cough, and a difficult rather than paint deglutition, which were soon succeeded by fever and a quick and laborious respiration. The necessity of blood-letting suggesting itself to the General, he procured a bleeder in the neighborhood, who took from his arm, in the night, twelve or fourteen ounces of blood.”25
Medical science at the time thought that a number of sicknesses were caused because of some issue with the person’s blood itself. To fix the disease, therefore, a common “solution” would be to bleed a patient out in order to get rid of the bad blood.
Once more doctors had been called to the scene, Craik continues:
“In the interim were employed two copious bleedings; a blister was applied to the part affected, two moderate doses of calomel were given, and an injection was administered, which operated on the lower intestines—but all without any perceptible advantage; the respiration becoming still more difficult and distressing.”26
Even more blood was taken, and now the doctors applied hot irons to his throat because they thought that an accumulation of blood in Washington’s throat was what caused the difficulty breathing. Calomel is a kind of mercury chloride, which, we now know to be quite toxic! This, along with the bleedings and the injections were a long way off from helping Washington recover. But the doctors weren’t done yet:
“Upon the arrival of the first of the consulting physicians, it was agreed… To try the result of another bleeding, when about thirty-two ounces of blood were drawn, without the smallest apparent alleviation of the disease… ten grains of calomel were given, succeeded by repeated doses of emetic tartar, amounting, in all, to five or six grains, with no other effect than a copious discharge of the bowels. The powers of life seemed now manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder. Blisters were applied to the extremities.”27
More blood-letting, more toxic calomel, more blisters. The biggest variation in this round of treatments is that they gave Washington another poisonous substance—emetic tartar. Altogether, it served only to give the dying President diarrhea.
Finally, Dr. Craik relates the end to his friend’s suffering:
“Speaking, which was painful from the beginning, now became almost impracticable; respiration grew more and more contracted and imperfect, till… when retaining the full possession of his intellect, he expired without a struggle.”28
A contemporary doctor estimated the total amount of blood drawn to be, “the enormous quantity of eighty-two ounces, or above two quarts and a half of blood in about thirteen hours.”29 The same doctor goes on to accurately explain that:
“Very few of the most robust young men in the world could survive such a loss of blood; but the body of an aged person must be so exhausted, and all his power so weakened by it as to make his death speedy and inevitable.”30
The average amount of blood in someone of Washington’s size and stature is around 210 ounces. If, as the doctor estimates, somewhere around 82 ounces were taken, then Washington lost nearly 40% of his blood. This amount is nearly tantamount to exsanguination (death by bleeding out), and when combined with the blisters, calomel, emetic tartars, and the various vapors, it appears to be the unfortunate conclusion that the doctors killed George Washington.31
Below is an original letter in WallBuilders’ collection, from George Washington, dated February 1, 1785. This letter was written during a short period of retirement for Washington, following the War for Independence and before the Constitutional Convention. After resigning his military commission, he settled back in Mount Vernon following an almost continuance absence of eight years.
Mount Vernon 1st Feb. 1785
Gentleman,
You may think me very troublesome – and the reason I assign for being so (that I am of the opinion you can serve me better than any other) no good apology for the liberty I take.
My Miller (William Roberts) in now become such an intolerable serv, and when drunk so great a madman, that he never unwilling I am to part with an old servant (for he has been with me 15 years) I cannot with propriety on common justice to myself bear with him any longer.
I pray you once more, therefore, to engage & forward to me, a miller as seen as you may have it in your power; and whatever engagement you shall enter into on my behalf I will religiously fulfil. I do not stipulate for the wages at altho’ my Mill (being on an indifferent stream & not constant at work) can illy [sic] afford high wages.
My wishes to procure a servant who understands the manufacturing business perfectly – and who is sober and honest, that I may even at the expense of paying for it, have as little trouble as possible with him. If he understood the business of a Mill _____ and was obliged by his attitude to keep the Mill works in repair, so much the better. Whatever agreement you may enter into on my behalf, I pray you to have it reduced to writing, & specially declared, that there may be no misexception [sic] or disputes thereafter.
The House in which such Muller will live, is a very comfortable one, within 30 yards of the Mill (which works two pairs of stones one pair of them french Burns) – it has a small Kitchen convenient thereto and a good garden properly paled it. There is a Coopers shop within 50 yards of the Mill, with three Negro Coopers which will also be under the direction of the Miller. Whose allowance of meat, flour, & privileges of every kind, I would have ascertained, to prevent after claims. I do not object to the Mans having a family (a wife I could wish him to have) but if it was a small one, it would be preferable.
At any rate be so good as to let me hear from you, that I may know on what to depend, as it is no longer safe for me to entrust my business to the care of Willi’m Roberts. It only remains now for me to ask your sanguineness for this trouble & to assure you of the esteem with which I am
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered one of the most famous speeches in American history. While some of his words are still familiar today, many Americans are unaware of the turbulent times preceding his celebrated address.
In the 1760s, Parliament passed numerous laws directly violating the rights of the colonists, including the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and many others. Patrick Henry, a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, was one of many who objected. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, the joy was so widespread that a Boston minister preached a notable sermon celebrating the event!
But the repeal of the Stamp Act was only a temporary reprieve. In 1767 came the hated Townshend Revenue Acts, which led to additional boycotts and protests. When the British sent troops to America to enforce these acts, it led to the shooting down of five Americans in what became known as the Boston Massacre. The Townshend Acts were finally repealed, but in 1774 they were replaced by even worse laws known as the Intolerable Acts.
The British became more hard-fisted, and following the Boston Tea Party, they closed almost all commercial shipments, effectively ended self-government in Massachusetts, and required the people to house British troops in private homes. It was against the backdrop of this turmoil that Patrick Henry rose to speak.
Some had argued that the American Colonies were too weak to do anything against the British (one of the world’s greatest powers at that time), but in his March 23, 1775 speech, Henry replied:
Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God Who presides over the destines of nations, and Who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. . . .Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! . . . . Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Significantly, Henry’s speech was heavily punctuated with quotations from numerous Bible verses. (See the commentary surrounding Matthew 12 in the Founders’ Bible for more about this, also showing how Bible verses appeared throughout numerous famous speeches by our Founding Fathers.) Not long after his speech came the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War for Independence. So March 23rd marks the anniversary of one of the most famous speeches heralding American independence! (You can even purchase a parchment reprint of this famous speech from WallBuilders.)
Below is an interesting item from WallBuilders’ collection — the first federal budget of the United States, dated July 9, 1789. This budget takes up only about 1/2 page of the newspaper it’s printed in, The Gazette of the United States (July 18, 1789).
Here’s the complete front page, the budget is on the top right.
The 1789 inauguration of George Washington as the first President of the United States under the Constitution was a very important event. It established several precedents for inaugurations that have withstood the test of time, including many religious activities. Congress had set up a basic procedure for the inauguration but there were some of the details that Washington added in himself during this historic event — such as the phrase “so help me God” after the oath and the practice of giving an inauguration address. Below, from WallBuilders’ collection, is a May 3, 1789 excerpt of an eyewitness account of the inauguration that was printed in the newspaper, Gazette of the United States (May 9-May 13, 1789).
Philadelphia, May 8.
Extract of a letter from New-York, May 3.
“I was extremely anxious to arrive here, in order to be present at the meeting of the President and the two Houses. That event, however, did not take place til Thursday last, when The President was qualified was qualified in the open gallery of the Congress House, in the sight of many thousand people. The scene was solemn and awful, beyond description. It would seem extraordinary, that the administration of an oath, a ceremony so very common and familiar, should, in so great a degree excite the public curiosity. But the circumstances of his election—the impression of his past services—the concourse of spectators—the devout fervency with which he repeated the oath—and the reverential manner in which he bowed down and kissed the sacred volume—all these conspired to render it one of the most august and interesting spectacle ever exhibited on this globe. It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once, Upon the subject of this great and good Man, I may, ‘perhaps, be an enthusiast; but I confess, that I was under an awful and religious persuasion, that the gracious Ruler of the universe was looking down at that moment with peculiar complacency on an act, which to a part of his creatures was so very important. Under this impression, when the Chancellor pronounced, in a very feeble manner, “Long live George Washington,” my sensibility was wound up to such a pitch, that I could do no more than wave my hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the repeated acclamations which rent the air.”
American liberty is being eroded, and our Biblical foundation is under constant attack. Here at WallBuilders, we provide education, training, and resources to equip people to know and defend the truth to protect our freedom.
It is agreeable to observe how differently modern writers and the inspired author of the Proverbs describe a fine woman….The one is admired abroad; the other is honored and beloved at home. “Her children arise up and call her blessed, her husband also, and he praiseth her.” There is no fame in the world equal to this; nor is there a note in music half so delightful as the respectful language with which a grateful son or daughter perpetuates the memory of a sensible and affectionate mother. (Benjamin Rush)
Among the first things you are to learn are your duties to your parents. These duties are commanded by God, and are necessary to your happiness in this life. The commands of God are, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” – “Children, obey your parents in all things.” These commands are binding on all children; they cannot be neglected without sin. Whatever God has commanded us to do we must perform, without calling in question the propriety of the command. (Noah Webster)
One such example is Elizabeth Lewis
October 25th, is the 
Dear Miss Adorable, I hereby order you to give [me] as many kisses and as many hours of your company after 9 o’clock as [I] shall please to demand, and charge them to my account. (
The portion of the letter, along with several paragraphs of French commentary, was printed in French papers after being delivered to them by Jefferson’s friend, and the recipient of his letter, Philip Mazzei. (Mazzei was an Italian who helped Virginia obtain arms during the American War for Independence, and become a friend of Jefferson at that point. He later spent time in France as the French sought to throw off their monarchal political system and free the people.) This French paper, with its own spin of Jefferson’s words, was then sent to America and translated back into English. At this point, the anti-Jefferson media picked up the twice translated piece and with the excerpt they lifted from the letter, viciously attacked Jefferson.
Jefferson further noted that in the translation of his letter from its original English, into Italian, then into French, and then back into English, the letter itself became so mutated and transformed that in many cases the anti-Jefferson newspapers were able to make it mean whatever they wanted it to. He focused specifically on one single word which significantly affected the interpretation of the letter:
1. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree.
3. He was nominated to be commander of the colonial army by John Adams.
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution states that when the President is sworn into office, he is to say the following oath:
Medical science at the time thought that a number of sicknesses were caused because of some issue with the person’s blood itself. To fix the disease, therefore, a common “solution” would be to bleed a patient out in order to get rid of the bad blood.
In the 1760s, Parliament 
