Martha Washington

by Patricia Brady

  Martha Dandridge Custis was a lovely and sexually attractive woman. Her first husband defied his terrifying father—something he had never dared to do previously—to marry her. George Washington’s rival during their courtship confided to his brother about the happiness he expected to find in her arms. She was a woman confident of her own appeal. Whatever she may have guessed about Sally Fairfax (probably quite a lot), she doesn’t seem to have doubted her ability to secure her husband’s love.

  And she was certainly right. After they married, there is not a sign that George was a bored or unhappy husband. They shared a bed throughout their marriage (no separate bedrooms here), and he desired her companionship as often as possible when he was away from home during the war and the presidency. Washington was concerned, almost obsessed, with his wife’s comfort and safety. If money had been the only motive for their marriage, he needn’t have bothered. Once they were married, he controlled the money, and only their mutual love explains his care for her. All three of his extant letters to Martha begin “My dearest,” and there is no reason to doubt that she was indeed his dearest love.

  George admired his wife for many reasons besides her looks and sex appeal. Conversation was one of the prized social graces of the eighteenth century, and Martha could talk to anyone about anything, far outstripping her husband’s more serious approach. After a conversation with her, guests went away with the pleasant sense of being appreciated and admired. She was all motion, sparkle, and delight, never haughty, greeting visitors with her beautiful smile, radiating warmth and welcome. She was kind, concerned for the feelings of others, and charitable to an extreme.

  During George Washington’s public years, she screened callers for him and joined in their conversations. Martha Washington was her husband’s closest confidante, the person he could always trust to consider knotty problems, according to their family, aides, and secretaries. Trust Thomas Jefferson to get their relationship completely wrong. At a dinner at Monticello, he expounded on George Washington’s hardness in both public and private life, declaring the most uxorious of men “a hard husband.”

  No one could argue that Martha had a theoretical bent of mind or that she took the lead in her husband’s evolving political views. But she was an intelligent and concerned participant who moved along the path toward revolution and nationhood with him. She read newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets, discussing all the news of the day at dinner and in their evenings together.

  Very few of his southern contemporaries followed George Washington in his growing determination to free his slaves. Martha never reached his certainty that slavery was wrong, but she was no more likely to argue with him over the disposition of his human property than she was over his decision to leave Mount Vernon to a Washington. She recognized his property as his own to do with as he wished.

  Nor would he have tried to convince her to free the other slaves who labored at Mount Vernon, since she had no legal power to do so. They were part of her dower right to Daniel Custis’s estate—the widow’s third that she controlled throughout her lifetime. She could not sell, give away, or free the Custis slaves without accounting to the estate. At her death, they automatically became the property of the Custis heirs.

  Martha Washington was a brave woman, not the timid creature posited by many of her husband’s biographers. She wasn’t fearless, but she was brave enough to do things anyway. Boats made her nervous, but she made several hundred ferry crossings in her comings and goings. Smallpox inoculation frightened her. A gob of pus from a smallpox victim was inserted into a cut on her arm; all might be well, or her body might break out in a mass of pustules, leaving her scarred for life. To be with her husband, she didn’t hesitate for a moment to have the procedure. Despite the very real dangers of capture by the British during the Revolution, she stayed at Mount Vernon or joined her husband—no hiding in safety for her. Her strongest fears were for others—her husband and children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

  It’s almost impossible to write the biography of a woman before the twentieth century without writing a lot about daily life, especially for a woman as happily domestic as Martha Washington. To write only of high points and great deeds is to ignore most of human life and the things that give the greatest joy—whether riding around the fields to check on the progress of a new strain of barley for George or Martha’s knitting stockings and hemming hankies for her grandchildren.

  As L. P. Hartley wrote, “The past is another country. They do things differently there.” We stand at Mount Vernon and imagine that we are experiencing part of Martha Washington’s life. But her world didn’t sound the same, smell the same, or look the same. She didn’t move in a vacuum, nor did her husband. To understand her, we have to understand the customs of her country—eighteenth-century Virginia.

  George Washington was a very great man, essential to the formation of the American nation. But he was not the perfect man of marble, faultless, all wise, and self-controlled. Like everyone, he was a churning mass of contradictions. At times, he could be violently angry, nagging, censorious, insecure, indecisive, depressed, or obsessed with ill health. To ignore Martha’s role in the great man’s life is to ignore the emotional components of his character. She was essential to his sense of well-being, the one person with whom he could let down his guard and be himself. Both Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison are seen as essential to their husbands’ lives and careers because their letters were saved. Martha and George Washington spent as little time apart as possible, but when they were parted, they wrote weekly. By destroying those masses of letters, Martha maintained their privacy but completely obscured her own role in her husband’s life.

  Once Martha and George Washington married and he became famous, it is difficult to see her clearly. She was completely bound up in his life, and her contributions to American history were made in support of his career. Her constant presence at winter camps allowed him to stay in the field throughout the American Revolution. As the nation’s hostess, she resisted all attempts to make her into a queen, as he had refused to become a king. Pulled far from her natural orbit, Martha Washington brought unself-conscious dignity and charm to the new role of First Lady of a new nation.

  Not elected and free of official oversight, presidents’ wives wield tremendous political and social influence. With their unique access to the nation’s leader, they are subject to constant scrutiny by allies and enemies, the press, and the general public. These women are expected to assume national responsibilities, willing or not, and their private lives are routinely examined, discussed, and criticized. There is no guidebook to help a new First Lady; she must look back at her predecessors to decide how to shape her role and to survive in the limelight. Martha Washington’s imprint on the position has been decisive. As the first in a long line, she invented the role while confronting with grace its inevitable quandaries, successes, and heart-aches. Admired and respected in her lifetime, Martha Washington set the standard for all First Ladies.

  Acknowledgments

  For anyone interested in Martha Washington, Mount Vernon is the starting point. Preserved by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association for a century and a half, it is both a patriotic shrine and a pathway for understanding the nation’s past. Whether touring the mansion, outbuildings, gardens, and exhibition areas, attending a symposium, or doing research in the library and curatorial collections, the Mount Vernon experience is remarkable. I owe heartfelt thanks to James C. Rees, executive director; Linda Ayres, associate director for collections; and Ann Phillips Bay, associate director for education, for ongoing help throughout the years. Barbara McMillan, librarian, and Carol Borchert Cadou, curator, exemplify research assistance at its best. They have helped me unstintingly in ways too numerous to spell out. Other staff members who were very helpful are Dawn Bonner, administrative assistant; John Payne, museum technician; and Melissa Naulin, former assistant curator.

  Mary V. Thompson, research specialist, is in a class by herself. She shares her
valuable research reports and insights about the Washingtons and their lives at Mount Vernon with great generosity and never hesitates to look in new directions. All her admirers look forward to seeing more of her work in print. Both she and Carol Cadou read and commented on portions of the manuscript.

  The research for this book was assisted materially by a Frances Lewis fellowship in women’s studies from the Virginia Historical Society. Members of the fine staff were uniformly supportive, and I wish to thank Charles F. Bryan Jr., president and CEO; E. Lee Shepard, director of manuscripts and archives; William M. S. Rasmussen, Lora M. Robins Curator of Art; Nelson D. Lankford, director of publications and scholarship, who first encouraged me to apply for a fellowship; Frances Pollard, director of library services, who always steered me right in working with the collections; and Gregory Stoner, library assistant.

  At Colonial Williamsburg, Linda H. Rowe, historian, guided me through early Williamsburg records and offered excellent suggestions on the finished manuscript. Thanks also to Cathleene B. Hellier and Patricia A. Gibbs, historians, and Louise Wrike, secretary, Department of Historical Research. During a Williamsburg symposium, my friend Nancy Carter Crump provided essential information on domestic life. Thanks also to Betty Leviner and Mary Wiseman.

  Despite their backbreaking schedule of publication, the staff of the George Washington Papers at the University of Virginia are always willing to help researchers. Thanks to Philander D. Chase, Frank E. Grizzard Jr., Edward G. Lengel, and Beverly H. Runge for making material available and checking unpublished material for me. Both Frank and Ed read portions of the manuscript and made valuable suggestions.

  I appreciate the support of Leslie L. Buhler, executive director; Melinda L. Huff, curator of collections; and Jill Sanderson, director of education, at Tudor Place in Georgetown, the home of Martha Custis Peter. Wendy Kail, archivist, was a delight to work with. My interest in the Custis family began with Wood-lawn, the home of Nelly Custis Lewis. Once again, thanks to my friends Ross G. Randall, director; Craig S. Tuminaro, former associate director for preservation programs; and former curator Margaret Davis and her husband, Max.

  Warren M. Billings gave me a crash course in early Virginia history, life, and legal matters and was an always available resource. Several distinguished Virginia historians read part or all of the manuscript. Many, many thanks to Thad W. Tate; Emory W. Evans; Mark F. Fernandez; Sandra Gioia Treadway, who also delved for information at the Library of Virginia; and Jon Kukla. Several nonhistorian friends read portions of the work to be sure that it would be clear to the general reader: Chris Alderman, Jane Brady, Louise Hoffman, Lynn Adams, Colin Schmit, and Harold Alderman. Of course, all remaining errors and ambiguities are my own.

  Sara B. Bearss, senior editor of the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, kindly brought the letters concerning Charles Carter’s courtship of Martha Custis to my attention. Her fellow editor, Brent Tarter, made the original transcription of Carter’s letter and read this manuscript, making essential suggestions. And they extended my deadline for the DVB. Thanks all around.

  Mary H. Manhein, director of the LSU Faces Lab, arranged for the age regression of Charles Willson Peale’s miniature of Martha Washington. N. Eileen Barrow, forensic imaging specialist, did the sensitive and accurate work of going back in time and showing us the youthful Martha Custis. Michael Deas created the beautiful portrait that should have been painted in 1757 but wasn’t.

  Thanks to Michael Sartisky, president and CEO of the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities, a great supporter of the literary life of New Orleans, for providing a fine writer’s office; to Florence M. Jumonville, chair of the Louisiana and Special Collections Department, Earl K. Long Library, University of New Orleans, for obtaining microfilms of period newspapers; and to David G. Spielman, a photographer who specializes in making writers look good.

  Wendy Wolf is an editor whose brief comments and subtle directions improve a manuscript without changing its essential character; she was able to lure a born procrastinator over the finish line. My agent, Jonathan Dolger, knows how to match an author with the right editor. Thanks to the Tennessee Williams/ New Orleans Literary Festival, where I met both these sterling characters.

  The people at Viking Penguin worked with consummate professionalism to produce a handsome book on the shortest of deadlines. Paul Buckley art directed a book jacket that I imagine Martha Washington would have admired: I certainly do. He worked closely with artist Michael Deas to ensure that her portrait was both beautiful and true to the subject. The jacket design by Maggie Payette and the interior design by Nancy Resnick are graceful and easy to read. Sona Vogel was the perfect copyeditor, and Susan Groarke very accurately proofed the galleys. Production editor Kate Griggs coordinated everyone’s efforts diligently, while Sandra Maffiore saw the book through the press. Clifford J. Corcoran, Wendy Wolf’s assistant, was always available to answer questions, take care of snafus, and hold the author’s hand when needed.

  At the celebration of the bicentennial of the White House in 2000, I decided to write this book. My friends John C. Riley, associate director of the White House Historical Association, who invited me to attend; Clare Edwards, vice regent of Mount Vernon for Connecticut; and Ellen McCallister Clark, library director, Society of the Cincinnati, encouraged me to do it, and then there was no going back. John and Ellen also read portions of the manuscript.

  Last, thanks to three terrific women. Chris Wiltz and Susan Larson told me years before I dared that I had to give up my day job and write full-time. When I finally made the leap, they encouraged me every step of the way. My executive assistant, Elizabeth Schmit, besides working on this book and other projects, kept my real life going. I couldn’t have done it without them.

  Notes

  Abbreviations

  PROLOGUE: On the Road to History

  1 “domestic enjoyments”: James T. Flexner, George Washington, 4 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965-1972), 1:229.

  2 “I am truly sorry”: Joseph E. Fields, “Worthy Partner”: The Papers of Martha Washington (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994), 213.

  3 “for we are extremely desirous”: PGWPS, 2:248.

  3 “all the girls” and all quotes on page 4: Robert Lewis, “A Journey from Fredericksburg, Virginia, to New York,” May 13-20, 1789, MVLA, 2-3.

  5 “All was silent melancholy”: Ibid., 4.

  5 “the dreaded hour appeared”: Ibid.

  6 “unimproved” country: PGWPS, 2:205.

  6 “the most dangerous and difficult”: Ibid., 2:419.

  7 “the children were very well”: Fields, 215.

  7 “shifted herself”: Lewis, 6-7.

  8 “the great parade”: Fields, 215.

  9 “my dear Mrs. Washington”: PGWPS, 1:461.

  9 “scenes of bustle & trouble”: Ibid., 2:3.

  9 “harass[ing] her with company,”: Ibid., 2:382.

  9 “any parade that might be intended.”: Lewis, 10.

  10 “an excellent Band of Music”: J. Thomas Scharf, Chronicles of Baltimore (Baltimore: Turnbull Brothers, 1874), 254.

  10 “without the least accident”: Fields, 215.

  12 “Dear little Washington” and all other quotes on this page: Ibid.

  13 “The paper will tell you”: Ibid.

  CHAPTER ONE: Little Patsy Dandridge

  16 “howling wilderness” and “foule noise”: Richard Cullen Rath, How Early America Sounded (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003), 147, 151.

  16 “William Woodward, the Indian Interpreter”: “Biographical and Genealogical Notes and Queries,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 4 (April 1934): 174-79.

  20 “To name generation after generation”: DGW, 1:l.

  CHAPTER TWO: Courtship

  28 “an agreeable young Lady”: Edmund S. Morgan, Virginians at Home: Family Life in the Eighteenth Century (Williamsburg, Va.: CWF, 1952), 31.

  28 Daniel Custis recorded his own height as five feet seven in his “Invoice Book
” and then struck through it and changed the figure to five feet six. He might have been considering the proper fit of his suit if he added an extra inch to his height. “Invoice Book &a,” Lee Family Papers, VHS.

  30 “Fidelia”: James B. Lynch Jr., The Custis Chronicles: The Virginia Generations (Camden, Maine: Picton Press, 1997), 55-56.

  30 “To hell, Madam”: Ibid.

  31 “vile names or give . . . any ill language”: “A Marriage Agreement,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 4 (1897): 64-66.

  31 “young Alice”: York County Records, Deed Book 5, 236-37, York County Project, Department of Historical Research, CWF. Research and data collection done with assistance from the National Endowment for the Humanities under Grants RS-0033-80-1604 and RO-20869.

  32 “This comes at last . . .”: Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, 7 vols. (Fairfield, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley, 1981, rep.), 2:294.

  32 John Custis made a will: He bought a small piece of property for Jack, separate from the Custis and Parke holdings, and left him nine young enslaved boys, as well as the boy’s mother, Alice. When Jack came of age, Daniel Custis was to build and furnish a house for him on the property. In the meantime, the land and slaves were held in trust by one of the elder Custis’s nephews. York County Records, Will Book, CWF.

  CHAPTER THREE: Young Mrs. Custis

  34 Tomb inscription: Lynch, 87-88.

  37 “for Mrs. Custis’s use”: “Invoice Book,” VHS.

  42 “called her women together”: Jack Larkin, The Reshaping of Everyday Life: 1790-1840 (New York: HarperPerennial, 1988), 94.

  42 “so sweet an office”: Sally G. McMillen, Motherhood in the Old South: Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Infant Rearing (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990), 111.

  43 “my son”: “Invoice Book,” VHS.