In 1751-1752 he accompanied Lawrence, who was suffering from tuberculosis, to Barbados. There he survived a slight case of small pox, becoming immune to the disease that plagued his troops during the Revolutionary War. Lawrence died soon after he returned to his Mount Vernon home and George inherited part of his estate.
At age 20, George obtained a commission as a Major in the Militia. He first gained public notice in 1753, when he was entrusted with a dangerous mission before the French and Indian War. He volunteered to deliver a message from Governor Robert Dinwiddie to the French in Ohio Country warning them to leave the British claimed territory. His two and one half months journey took him across hundreds of miles of unmapped wilderness to the shore of Lake Erie. When he returned, he was commissioned Lt. Colonel. He was then sent back to the frontier in command of a militia unit. In May 1754, he fought the first skirmish of the French and Indian War. He built Fort Necessity near the present day Uniontown Pennsylvania, but was forced to surrender it to the French on July 4th, 1754 (a date to become famous twenty-two years later). A year later, as an aide-de-camp to British General Edward Braddock in the disastrous expedition against Fort Duquesne, Washington established himself as a military leader by rallying the surviving troops for an orderly retreat. In 1758, he distinguished himself anew in the final capture of Fort Duquesne. Washington was not yet 27 when he retired to private life when peace returned. He was a tall, well built man. He was amiable, just, and immensely vital. In 1759, he married Mrs. Martha Custis, a wealthy widow with two children and settled down to the life of a Virginia gentleman on his plantation, Mount Vernon.
Washington was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1759-1774) where he became a leader in opposing British Colonial policy. He served in 1774-1775 as a delegate to the Continental Congress. After the Revolution began, he became Commander of the Continental Army, mainly because of the respect everyone had for him as a leader and his ability to organize. His appointment was largely due to the efforts of John Adams. He took command on July 3rd, 1775. His troops, unorganized and poorly disciplined, were mostly militia. Short terms of enlistment during the first years of the war kept his armies in a continuous state of disburdenment and retraining. Congress, who failed to provide essential equipment, supplies, and soldiers pay made his job more difficult.
He was also beset with jealousies and intrigues of insubordinate officers. However Washington’s strategy was successful in forcing the British evacuation of Boston in March 1776. He was then compelled by Congress to defend New York City. Due to the poor condition of his men and the tactical error of deploying part of his troops to Brooklyn, Washington met defeat. But he rescued his men in a withdrawal that eventually carried them to southeastern Pennsylvania. From there, on Christmas night in 1776, he and his men crossed the Delaware, a masterful move that led to the rout of the British at Trenton and Princeton. Washington’s efforts to defend Philadelphia ended in defeat at Brandywine in September 1777 and at Germantown in October.
Washington and his 9000 men wintered in Valley Forge Pennsylvania in 1777-1778. Seldom has a General and his army endured such extended deprivation and misery. Washington’s essential greatness matched every problem and intrigue and in the spring, he emerged with increased powers from Congress and a well trained force (despite 3,000 desertions).
When the British evacuated Philadelphia to return to New York, Washington attacked the British columns in the battle of Monmouth on June 28th, 1778. However, the battle was lost due to the cowardice of one of his officers, Major General Charles Lee.
Three years later, Washington trapped Charles Lord Cornwallis and his English army in Yorktown, Virginia with the support of French land and sea forces. Cornwallis surrendered on October 19th, 1781, virtually ending the Revolutionary War. In 1783, Washington retired from the army and returned to Mount Vernon. He and other patriots, becoming dissatisfied with the weakness of the Government under the Articles of Confederation, joined to reorganize it. In 1787, he presided over the Constitutional Convention, which wrote the Constitution of the United States. After the new government was organized, Washington was unanimously chosen as the first President. He took office on April 30th, 1789 in New York City.
Washington’s own views were federalist, but in staffing his administration, he was above partisanship. It was mainly his capacity for conciliation that kept the American Revolution free of terrorism purges and arbitrary seizures of power that have marked other revolutions.
Washington brought both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, leaders of opposing factions into his cabinet. Washington’s poise, prestige and dignity made the new government of the United States respected at home and abroad. While Washington traveled extensively throughout the country, factions developed into political parties, and the strain upon Washington as conciliator led to his refusal to accept a third term.
In public life, Washington combined modesty with self-assurance. In his first inaugural address, he acknowledged “deficiencies” in natural endowments and administrative experience. Characteristically, he set about overcoming them by study, as he had fitted himself for managing his plantations by studying agriculture.
Many precedents were set during his terms of office. The “advise and consent” role of the senate evolved into the right of that body to approve or disapprove the Presidents actions, but were to give him formal advise beforehand.
Chief among the vigorously debated issues of his administration were taxation and banking policies, the assumption of state debts, and the jurisdiction of federal courts. During his second term, he was severely criticized by the Jeffersonians, especially for John Jay’s treaty with England and France. Washington claimed neutrality and urged it as a basic policy. In his farewell address he warned against “entangling alliances”.
Washington died on December 14th, 1799. Over 178 years later, on March 13th, 1978, in accord with a resolution of Congress, The U.S. Army promoted Washington to “General of the Armies of the United States” to preserve his seniority.
Martha Dandridge (Custis) Washington was born in 1731. At 18 she married Daniel Park Custis, a wealthy plantation owner who died in 1757. She married Washington two years later on January 6th, 1759. The Washington’s had no children of their own. However, Washington adopted Martha’s two children, John Park Custis and Martha Park Custis. Besides wealth and beauty, Mrs. Washington was noted for her common sense, charm and aristocratic graciousness. She was a devoted wife. She died in 1802 and was buried beside her husband at Mount Vernon.
In 1778-1779, Washington was Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22, AF & AM for 16 months during his Presidency. The Alexandria – Washington Replica Lodge Room, at the Washington National Monument contains the original furniture. There are other relics there that are associated with the memory of this magnificent man. One of these is the William Williams’ portrait of the General, which depicts him as he actually looked. Washington is said to have admonished the artist to “paint me as I am”. The artist finally complied. The Portrait clearly delineates the pockmarks, which he suffered when he was 19 years old and had smallpox. No other of Washington’s paintings are considered as authentic as this one.
At that time, the candidate receiving the second most Electoral votes became the Vice President. Washington made very good use of those men who were the most highly respected of that day. Choosing them as part of his cabinet and assuring that the U. S. was properly represented abroad as well as within the country.Washington’s Presidential Administration Congress in Session Vice President Secretary of State John Adams 1789-1797 Thomas Jefferson 1789-1793 Edmund Randolph 1794-1795 Timothy Pickering 1795-1797 Secretary of War Attorney General Henry Knox 1789-1795 Edmund Randolph 1789-1794 Timothy Pickering 1795-1797 William Bradford 1794-1795 James McHenry 1796-1797 Charles Lee 1795-1797 Postmaster General Samuel Osgood 1789-1791 Timothy Pickering 1791-1795 Joseph Habersham 1794-1797 Presidential Election 1789 The Continental Congress Chose Washington, the most popular man in the nation. Campaign issues in this first presidential election party division were at a minimum for only those who supported the new constitution took part. Most of the 11 states that had recently certified the constitution had their state legislators choose presidential electors. New York failed to do so. Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the new U. S. Constitution. Presidential Candidate Electoral Votes George Washington (No Party) 69 John Adams (No Party) 34 John Jay (No Party) 9 Other Candidates 26 Votes Not Cast 4 Presidential Election 1792 Washington and Adams, the incumbents, received the nomination of those who advocated a strong central government. Anti-federalist congressional leaders chose George Clinton. Issues: The fiscal policy and strong centralization advocated by Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, and a staunch Federalist, provided the issues. Washington’s popularity could not be eclipsed, The Anti-federalists had merely hoped to elect George Clinton as Vice President. (Clinton later served as Vice President under Jefferson, 1805-09 and James Madison, 1809-12) Presidential Candidate Party Electoral Votes George Washington Federalist 132 John Adams Federalist 77 George Clinton Anti-Federalist 50 Thomas Jefferson - 4 Aaron Burr - 1
A Congress of American Masons was convoked at the city of Washington in the year 1822, at the call of several Grand Lodges for the purpose of establishing a General Grand Lodge of the United States. The result was an unsuccessful one.
The name of Washington claims a place in Masonic biography, not because of services he has done to the institution either as a worker or a writer, but because of the fact of his connection with the craft is a source of pride to every American Mason, at least, who can thus call the “Father of his country” a brother. There is also another reason. While the friends of the institution have felt that the adhesion to it of a man so imminent for virtue was a proof of its moral and religious character, the opponents of Masonry, being forced to admit the conclusion, have sought to deny the premises, and, even if compelled to admit the fact of Washington’s initiation, have persistently asserted that he never took any interest in it, disapproved of its spirit, and at an early period in his life abandoned it. The truth of history requires that these misstatements should be met by a brief recital of his Masonic career.
Washington was initiated, in 1752, in the Lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia, and the records of that Lodge, still in existence, presents the following entries on the subject, The first entry is thus: “Nov. 4th, 1752. This evening Mr. George Washington was initiated as an Entered Apprentice”; and the receipt of the entrance fee, amounting to L2 3s., is acknowledged. On the 3rd, of March in the following year, “Mr. George Washington” is recorded as having been passed a Fellow-Craft; and on the 4th, of the succeeding August, the record of the transactions of the evening states that “Mr. George Washington” and others whose names are mentioned, have been raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason.
For five years after his initiation, he was engaged in active military service, and it is not likely that during that period his attendance on the communications of the Lodge could have been frequent.
Some English writers have asserted that he was made a Mason during the old French War in a military Lodge attached to the 46th regiment. The bible on which he is said to have been obligated is still in existence, although the Lodge was many years ago dissolved, at Halifax, Nova Scotia. The records of the Lodge are, or were, not long since, extant, and furnish the evidence that Washington was there, and received some Masonic degree. It is equally clear that he was first initiated in Fredericksburg Lodge, for the record is still in possession of the Lodge.
Three methods have been adopted to reconcile this apparent discrepancy. Bro. Hayden in his work on Washington and his Masonic Equals (pg 31), suggests that an obligation had been administered to him as a test oath when visiting the Lodge, or that the Lodge, deeming the authority under which he had been made to be healed and re-obligated. Neither of these attempts to solve the difficulty appears to have any plausibility.
Bro. C. W. Moore, of Massachusetts, in the Freemasons’ Monthly Magazine (vol. xi, p. 261) suggests that, as it was then the custom to confer the Mark Degree as a side degree in Master’s Lodges, and as it has been proved that Washington was in possession of that degree, he may have received it in Lodge No. 227, attached to the 46th, Regiment. This certainly presents a more satisfactory explanation than either of those offered by Bro. Hayden.
The connection of Washington with the British military Lodge will serve as some confirmation of the tradition that he was attentive to Masonic duties during the five years from 1753 to 1758, when he was engaged in military service.
There is ample evidence that during the Revolutionary War, while he was Commander-in-Chief of the American Armies, he was a frequent attendant on the meetings of military Lodges. Captain Hugh Maloy, a revolutionary veteran, then residing in Ohio, declared that on one of these occasions he was initiated in Washington’s marquee, the Chief himself presiding at the ceremony. Bro. Scott a Past Grand Master of Virginia asserted that Washington was in frequent attendance on the communications of the brethren. The proposition made to elect him a Grand Master of the United States, as will be hereafter seen, affords a strong presumption that his name as a Mason had become familiar to the Craft.
In 1777, the convention of Virginia Lodges recommended Washington as the most proper person to be elected Grand Master of the independent Grand Lodge of that commonwealth. Dove (a Writer-Historian) has given in his Text-Book the complete records of that convention; and there is therefore no doubt that the nomination was made. It was, however, declined by Washington.
Soon after the beginning of the Revolution, a disposition was manifested among American Masons to dissever their connection, as subordinates, with the Masonic authorities of the mother country, and in several of the newly erected States the Provincial Grand Lodges assume an independent character. The idea of a Grand Master of the whole of the United States had also become popular. On February 7, 1780, a convention of delegates from the military Lodges in the army was held at Morristown, in New Jersey, when an address to the Grand Masters in the various states was adopted, recommending the establishment of “one Grand Lodge in America,” and the election of a Grand Master. This address was sent to the Grand Lodges of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia; and although the name of Washington is not mentioned in it, those Grand Lodges were notified that he was the first choice of the brethren who had framed it.
While these proceedings were in progress, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania had taken action on the same subject. On January 13th, 1780, it had held a session, and it was unanimously declared that it was for the benefit of Masonry that “a Grand Master of Masons throughout the United States” should be nominated; whereupon, with equal unanimity, General Washington was elected to the office. It was then ordered that the minutes of the election be transmitted to the different Grand Lodges in the United States, and their concurrence therein be requested.
The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, doubting the expediency of electing a General Grand Master, declined to come to any determination on the question and so the subject was dropped.
This will correct the error into which many foreign Grand Lodges have fallen, of supposing that Washington was ever a Grand Master of the United States. The error was strengthened by a medal contained in Merzdorf’s Medals of the Fraternity of Freemasons, Which the editor states was struck by the Lodges of Pennsylvania. This statement is, however, liable to great doubt. The date of the medal is 1797. On the obverse is a likeness of Washington, with the device, “Washington, President, 1797.” On the reverse is tracing-board and the device, “Amor, Honor, et Justitia. G.W., G.G.M.” French and German Masonic historians have been deceived by this medal, and refer to it as their authority for asserting that Washington was a Grand Master. Lenning and Thory, (Historians) for instance, place the date of his election to that office in the year in which the medal was struck. More recent European writers, however directed by the researches of the American authorities, have discovered and corrected the mistakes.
We next hear of Washington’s official connection in the year of 1788. Lodge No. 39, at Alexandria, which had hitherto been working under the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, in 1788 transferred its allegiance to Virginia. On May 29th in that year the Lodge adopted the following resolution; “The Lodge proceeded to the appointment of Master and Deputy Master to be recommended to the Grand Lodge of Virginia, When George Washington, Esq., was unanimously chosen Master; Robert McCrea, Deputy Master; Wm. Hunter, Jr., Senior Warden; John Allison, Junior Warden.”
It was also ordered that a committee should wait on General Washington, “and inquire of him whether it will be agreeable to him to be named in the Charter.” What was the result of that interview, we do not positively know. But it is to be presumed that the reply of Washington was a favorable one, for the application for the Charter contained his name, which would hardly have been inserted if it had been repugnant to his wishes. And the Charter or Warrant under which the Lodge is still working is granted to Washington as Master. The appointing clause is in the following words: “Know ye that we, Edmund Randolph, Esquire, Governor of the Commonwealth of aforesaid, and Grand Master of the most Ancient and Honorable Society of Freemasons within the same, by and with the consent of the Grand Lodge of Virginia, do hereby constitute and appoint our illustrious and well-beloved Brother, George Washington, Esquire, late General and Commander-in-Chief of the forces of the United States of America, and our worthy Brethren, Robert McCrea, William Hunter, Jr., and John Allison Esqs., together with all such other brethren as may be admitted to associate with them, to be a first, true, and regular Lodge of Freemasons, by the name, title and designation of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22.” In 1805, The Lodge, which is still in existence, was permitted by the Grand Lodge to change its name to that of “Washington, Alexandria,” in honor of its first Master.
The evidence, then, is clear that Washington was the Master of a Lodge. Whether he ever assumed the duties of the office, and, if he assumed them, how he discharged them, we know only from the testimony of Timothy Bigelow, who in a Eulogy delivered before the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, two months after Washington’s death, and eleven after his appointment as Master, made the following statement; “The information received from our brethren who had the happiness to be members of the Lodge over which he presided for many years, and of which he died the Master, furnishes abundant proof of his persevering zeal for the prosperity of the institution. Constant and punctual in his attendance, scrupulous in his observance of the regulations of the Lodge, and solicitous, at all times, to communicate light and instruction, he discharged the duties of the Chair with uncommon dignity and intelligence in all the mysteries of our art.”
There is also a very strong presumption that Washington accepted and discharged the duties of the Chair to the satisfaction of the Lodge. At the first election held after the Charter had been issued, he was elected, or we should rather say re-elected, Master. The record of the Lodge, under the date of December 20, 1788, is as follows; “His Excellency, General Washington, unanimously elected Master; Robert McCrea, Senior Warden; Wm. Hunter, Jr., Junior Warden; Wm. Hodgson, Treasurer; Joseph Greenway, Secretary; Dr. Frederick Spanbergen, Senior Deacon; George Richards, Junior Deacon.” The subordinate officers had undergone a change: McCrea, who had been named in the petition as Deputy Master, an officer not recognized in this country, was made Senior Warden; William Hunter, who had been nominated as Senior Warden, was made Junior Warden; and the original Junior Warden, John Allison, was dropped. But there was no change in the office of Master. Washington was again elected. The Lodge would scarcely have been so persistent, without his consent; and if his consent was given, we know, from his character, that he would seek to discharge the duties of the office to the best of his abilities. This circumstance gives, if it were needed, strong confirmation to the statement of Bigelow. But incidents like these are not all that are left to us to exhibit the attachment of Washington to Masonry. On repeated occasions he has announced, in his letters and addresses to various Masonic bodies, his profound esteem for the character, and his just appreciation of the principals, of that institution into which at so early an age, he had been admitted. And during his long and laborious life, no opportunity was presented of which he did not avail himself to evince his esteem for the institution. Thus, in the year1797, in reply to an affectionate address from Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, he says; “My attachment to the society of which we are members will dispose me always to contribute my best endeavors to promote the honor and prosperity of the craft.”
Five years before this letter was written, he had, in a communication to the same body, expressed his opinion of the Masonic Institution as one whose liberal principles are founded on the immutable laws of “truth and justice”, and whose “grand object is to promote the happiness of the human race.” In answer to an address from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina in 1791, he says: “I recognize with pleasure my relation to the brethren of your Society,” and “I shall be happy on every occasion, to evince my regard for the Fraternity.” Also in the same letter he takes occasion to allude to the Masonic institution as “an association whose principles lead to purity of morals, and are beneficial of actions.”
In writing to the officers and members of St. David’s Lodge at Newport (R.I.) in the same year, he uses this language: “Being persuaded that a just application of the principles on which the Masonic Fraternity is founded must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the society, and to be considered by them as a deserving brother.”
And lastly, for I will not further extend these citations. In a letter addressed in November 1798, only thirteen months before his death, to the Grand Lodge of Maryland, he has made this explicit declaration of his opinion of the Institution: “So far as I am acquainted with the doctrines and principles of Freemasonry, I conceive them to be founded in benevolence, and to be exercised only for the good of mankind. I cannot therefore, upon this ground, withdraw my approbation from it.”
So much had been said upon the Masonic career and opinions of Washington because American Masons love to dwell on the fact that the distinguished patriot, whose memory is so revered that his unostentatious grave on the banks of the Potomac has become the Mecca of America, was not only a brother of the Craft, but was ever ready to express his good opinion of the Society. They feel that under the panoply of his great name they may defy the malignant charges of their adversaries. They know that no better reply can be given to such charges than to say, in the language of Clinton, “Washington would not have encouraged an Institution hostile to morality, religion, good order, and the public welfare.”