He is more myth than man. As elementary school students, we learned about his exploits during the Revolutionary War and remember him appropriately as the “Father of the Nation.” Yet, despite his status as an enduring symbol of America, details of George Washington, the man, remain unknown to many of the very same individuals who celebrate him. However, recent efforts by Washington scholars have improved the situation. The year 1999 marked the two-hundredth anniversary of the death of our first president, and historians and Washington scholars used the occasion to undertake a year-long celebration of the hero of Valley Forge.

Part of the commemoration was an effort to reinvigorate his slightly tarnished image. After years of being ranked solidly in the second spot behind Abe Lincoln, recent polls of historians have seen the general slip from second to third and even fourth place in the presidential rankings (1). Scholars (not to mention the public) today cast a much more critical eye on slaveholders, and Washington owned many slaves. In fact, after reaching a high mark in 1964, the number of visitors to Mount Vernon, Washington’s plantation home and burial site, declined steadily in subsequent years (2). The alarmed caretakers of Mount Vernon, responding with focus group sessions to determine public opinion of Washington, uncovered a distant, aloof figure. Dusting him off and reintroducing him to the American public, the year-long Washington festivities in 1999 included museum shows featuring such Washington memorabilia as his sword and locks of his hair, a re-enactment of his death and funeral at Mount Vernon, and a $9 million renovation of the 555-foot-tall Washington Monument. However, noticeably absent from the ceremonies was any serious consideration of Martha Washington. This is unfortunate because neglecting the life of Martha Washington undermines our ability to truly know her husband. Indeed, a closer inspection reveals Martha’s fingerprints all over George Washington’s public life, so much so that it is not unreasonable to suggest that, without Martha, George never would have become president. Hindsight favors the historian, and the lesson learned in 1999 might be that the best way to reconsider George is to consider Martha as well.

A “Worthy Partner” for Washington

Martha’s influence on George’s life and career began with their marriage on 6 January 1759. When the two married, George was a military officer of modest fame but considerable ambition who longed for a career as a top officer in the British army and a life as a wealthy gentleman planter. Martha was an heiress to a booming plantation business and was perhaps the wealthiest woman in Virginia.

As a teen Martha married Daniel Parke Custis, who was twenty years her senior and son of one of the colony’s leading families. However, tragedy struck after seven years of marriage when Martha’s husband died unexpectedly. It was then, shortly after the death of Custis, that George Washington began courting the then Martha Dandridge Custis, an older, twenty-six year old widow with two infant children, John Parke and Martha Parke Custis, and 17,500 choice acres of land. It could be said that George married “up” the social ladder. Moreover, their union provided the young military officer with his life dream: instant membership in the upper echelons of Virginia’s tidewater society. It also furnished him with the requisite social and political connections necessary to embark on a public career. But Martha provided more than wealth and status. As the oldest of eight children, she had already developed impressive domestic skills by the time she was a young woman. Having been raised in and around prominent families, she possessed social grace.

George and Martha’s relationship was solid and productive, although childless. They held similar values and a shared appreciation for disciplined order, virtue, and the merits of a good reputation. Where their personalities differed, they ended up complementing each other. For instance, Martha was warmer and more relaxed than George, and her social graces and refinement balanced his aloofness and temper. Not surprisingly, George and Martha became partners in their prosperous plantation home, their busy social life, and George’s public career.

Lady Washington: Helpmate and Framer of the First Ladyship

During the Revolutionary War Martha displayed a sense of duty and courage that was not lost on the colonial militia, her husband, or the country. Each winter she made the difficult trip to join George at his headquarters, staying at camp until the spring and enduring the hardships of camp life. While in camp Martha tended to sick and injured soldiers and assisted her husband with his official correspondence. From reading Martha’s letters of this period, it is clear that George confided in her about the status of the war (3). Her presence in camp created a sense of home and normalcy for the suffering troops and, perhaps more importantly, had a calming and positive effect on her husband. Although it is not well known, the general was prone to spells of self-doubt and melancholy stemming from the pressures of the war. To lift spirits in camp, Martha hosted George’s officers for dinner.

It is no coincidence that “Lady Washington” was beloved by the troops or that Martha became a symbol of the Revolution. Martha Washington raised consciousness about the war by wearing clothing made in the colonies, leading drives to collect clothing and materials for the war effort, and lending her considerable fame to championing the revolutionary cause. And she did all this with indifference to her personal safety, an amused humility to the fuss made over her, and a strength of character reserved for heroes from the pages of military history.

Martha’s influence continued in the years after the war when many questions remained concerning the new nation and its inaugural president. Amidst this whirlwind of expectation and uncertainty, the Washingtons went to the new, temporary capital in New York. If little was known about the specific duties of the president, even less was known about the role of the first lady. Although apprehensive, Martha quickly asserted herself as the nation’s social hostess, presiding over public receptions and greeting curious visitors on her first full day in the capital. She continued to create precedents for the new office by hosting regular Friday socials that were well attended and successful. Her confidence, poise, and good nature won her many supporters.

One of the greatest challenges she faced was in setting the tone for the office through her socials and the formal affairs of state. On one hand, the public desired a simple, common approach befitting the new spirit of popular democracy. On the other hand, there was pressure to provide a sense of dignity and formality to the office in a style appropriate to the courts of Europe. Somehow Martha managed to balance these competing interests with a minimum of criticism.

She literally developed the role of president’s spouse, and her actions set a precedent for all first ladies who followed. Martha was also a constant source of support for her husband during his two terms in office. She cared for him through bouts of severe illness and was politically astute enough to invite each member of Congress to dine with the president during legislative sessions.

The (Extra)Ordinary “Mother of the Nation”

Martha’s service both during the war and throughout her husband’s long public career, becomes all the more impressive when one considers that she did not enjoy public life and served only out of a sense of duty to her country and husband. Still, her service was marked by dignity and selflessness. Martha was an intensely private person with a grandmotherly manner and simple tastes. This reveals another paradox in the life of Martha Washington: she was an extraordinarily ordinary person, a self-described “old-fashioned Virginia house-keeper” who appears almost naively unaffected by the monumental events of her lifetime (4). For instance, when rumors surfaced of a British plan to kidnap the wife of General Washington during the Revolutionary War, she casually dismissed it. When she was greeted by huge crowds shouting “Long live Lady Washington!” and thirteen-cannon salutes during her trip from Mount Vernon to the new capital to meet her husband, she could not understand the need for such fanfare. And during the inaugural presidency she often remarked that she found all the pomp and pageantry surrounding state functions to be little more than “empty ceremonies.”

Martha longed for a normal, private life that continually eluded her, as the events of the late eighteenth century precluded a quiet family setting for the wife of the age’s foremost public figure. But she was incredibly resilient. As a young woman, Martha had overcome the loss of her father, first husband, and two infant children all within a three year period. The young widow with two surviving children was then thrust into managing one of the largest businesses in the colony of Virginia. Under her stewardship it continued to prosper. The Revolutionary War and two presidential terms also took her away from home. Even after George’s death in 1799, the quiet of private life was not to be found; she spent the final two years of her life greeting the constant stream of well-wishers visiting the home of their fallen hero.

Lady Washington was an intriguing person in her own right, simultaneously appearing to be extraordinary and ordinary. For instance, extraordinary Martha was the general’s source of strength during the war’s most critical hours, the gifted hostess who impressed guests of the first president, and the most beloved woman of her time. Ordinary Martha was a grandmother who, as the old saying goes, spoiled her grandson rotten, was so insecure about her grammar that she often had her husband pen her letters, and during her husband’s presidency even counted the days until she could return to a quiet home life. Martha was clearly a complex individual, yet appears to be much easier to understand than her image-conscious, overly formal husband. Martha and her life experiences are more familiar and “real” to most people than those of George, and therein she offers a means of empathizing with the unknowable, mythical first president. She provides a window for analyzing the “Father of the Country.”

Legacy

Martha Washington’s resilience and many sacrifices in the name of public service alone make her worthy of our admiration. But it is also clear that to know George Washington one must consider Martha. When George Washington assumed command of the Continental Army, they had already been husband and wife for sixteen years, and their marriage was beginning its third decade when George took the presidential oath of office. They were partners throughout their forty year marriage, and she was a vital part of his success. This is her legacy and a key part of understanding George Washington, the man.

Martha lived on another two years past her husband, passing away on 22 May 1802 from “severe fever.” Her obituary accurately described the wife of George Washington as a “worthy partner.” After the renewed interest in the study of George brought on by the historic anniversary of his death in 1999, it is time to rethink Martha’s life and honor her rightful place in history.

Endnotes

1. There have been many polls ranking the presidents such as the Arthur Schlesinger polls [“The U.S. Presidents,” Life 65 (1948) and “Our Presidents: A Rating by 75 Scholars,” New York Times Magazine, 29 July 1962]; Gary Maranell and Richard Dodder, “Political Orientation and Evaluation of Presidential Prestige,” Social Science Quarterly 51 (September 1970); Robert E. DiClerico, The American President (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979); the Chicago Tribune Poll, U.S. News and World Report, 25 January 1982. Most of these well known polls ranked Washington second. However, beginning in the 1980s polls such as Robert K. Murray’s, which appeared in the Journal of American History in December 1983 placed Washington in the #3 spot with Franklin D. Roosevelt moving to #2. The comprehensive Siena Research Institute Poll in 1994 listed Washington fourth, falling behind both Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.

2. Mount Vernon Ladies Association, Mount Vernon, VA.

3. A collection of Martha Washington’s letters appears in Joseph E. Fields, “Worthy Partner:” The Papers of Martha Washington (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994). Nearly all of the letters exchanged between George and Martha are lost, however, after Martha destroyed the letters upon the death of her husband.

4. Martha’s remaining letters exchanged with friends and family reveal humility and what seems to be boredom and a lack of interest in the presidency. In addition to calling herself an “old-fashioned Virginia house-keeper,” Martha, in a letter written on 22 October 1789 to her friend Fanny Bassett, describes her life as wife of the president, saying “I live a very dull life here” and “I am more like a state prisoner than anything else.” Fields, “Worthy Partner,” 1994.

Robert P. Watson, Ph.D. is an associate professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, Hilo, and author of, most recently, The Presidents’ Wives: Reassessing the Office of the First Lady (1999) and First Ladies of the United States: A Biographical Dictionary (forthcoming). He is currently working on a biography of Martha Washington, which will be part of the Presidential Wives series (Nova Social Science Books), for which he is also serving as series editor.