John Washington, Great Grandfather of GW
.
This is late September 1675, the year of Bacon's Rebellion.
That's the year our Colonel George Washington's Great Grandfather, John Washington , who, along with Major Truman from Maryland, got accused of killing 5 or 6 Susquehannock Chiefs who came to parlay peace.
That slaughter made the others hide in a fort they had made.
Thus began a 6 week siege by John Washington's Virginia men and Truman's Maryland men.
The Susquehannock escaped their potential Alamo after 6 weeks of being under siege.
They sought retribution.
They killed and burned and pillaged.
That retribution led to Bacon's Rebellion.
America's first colonist insurrection maybe?
And it led to the burning of Jamestown,
as depicted by Howard Pyle.
It almost sounds modern.
One side did not want to war against the Indians.
The other side was in rage against any Indian.
After that slaughter
of the Susquehannock Chiefs and
after that siege
and after the Susquehannock escaped
and after the Susquehannock
wrought their retribution
against the colonists,
Washington and Truman sat
to hear a diatribe by Virginia's Governor
‘ ‘ If they had killed my grandfather and my grandmother, my father and mother and all my friends, yet if they had come to treat of peace, they ought to have gone in peace, ‘ ‘
See source:
The location of that Susquehannock fort?
Right on the coast opposite of a future Mount Vernon.
Next time you go to Mt Vernon, walk down to the Potomac.
Look across to the Maryland side.
Google that.
.
.
That Nickname Town Destroyer?
Allegedly both George Washington and his Great Grandfather, John Washington shared an unusual nickname.
The nickname, Conotocaurius means Destroyer of Towns.
We have found no proof the great grandfather ever got that nickname.
We think we know why many internet sources say the Great Grandfather got that nickname.
And that is because of this story
of the slaughter of those Susquehannock Chiefs
and then the siege
of the remaining Susquehannock
in the fort they had built.
But no contemporary of his ever documented
calling John Washington this nickname.
.
Running Down a Footnote
and Challenging it:
When trying to find the source for the claim
John Washington was called Conotocaurius,
I was surprised the search ended with nothing.
.
First, I began with David Preston’s book, Braddock’s Defeat, page 26, who writes:
.
“He [George Washington] signed it with his Iroquoian moniker, “Connotaurcarious” (“town taker” or “devourer of villages”), which dated back to his great-grandfather John Washington, who had been involved in the brutal murders of five Susquehannock Indian emissaries in a 1675 war.”
.
David Preston’s footnote sites several sources.
One of David Preston's sources
was George Washington’s papers, which is duplicated on Founders Online website.
.
Another of David Preston's sources was Fred Anderson’s, book:
“George Washington Remembers: Reflections on the French and Indian War.”
Did GW himself say his great grandfather was given the nickname?
Anyone who has read this book, please let us know.
.
The 3rd source listed in David Preston’s footnote, sites:
.
Pages 115-155 in an anthology of essays, “George Washington and the Virginia Backcountry,” edited by Warren R Hofstra.
Hofstra's footnote lead us to :
.
J. Frederick Fauz, the contributing writer of those pages 115-155.
He wrote the essay, “Engaged in Enterprises Pregnant with Terror: George Washington’s Formative Years among the Indians. “
.
The short bio provided at the back of the book, in part, states:
.
“J. Frederick Fausz is an ethno historian of Anglo-Indian relations in the 17th Century Chesapeake and of fur trading in colonial America. He received his Ph.D. in early American History from the College of William and Mary and served as assistant editor of The Complete Works of John Smith.”
.
The footnote in Dr Fausz’ essay is at the end of each paragraph, so it is vague what the part of the paragraph the footnote proves.
.
Dr Fauz’ footnote,
cites Douglas Southall Freeman’s George Washington, volume 1, pages 22-25.
.
No where does Freeman state that the Susquehannock called John Washington the nickname or its equivalent definition Town Destroyer.
.
We end this search with no proof.
But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
.
So we remain open to continue the search.
The Susquehannock
[Major] Truman
[leader of the Maryland forces]
did not wait for
[John] Washington
[leader of the Virginia forces]
and on
Sunday, September 25 or 26, 1675
he arrived at the
Susquehannock Fort
and asked for a parley.
The Susquehannocks were accused
of the murders on both sides of the Potomac
but they denied them
and accused the Senecas.
The next morning the Virginians arrived and there was another parley.
This time the Susquehannocks brought with them a silver medal on a black and gold ribbon that a Maryland governor had given them as a pledge of eternal friendship.
There is a great deal of conflicting testimony as to what happened.
Apparently Truman ordered the great men of the Susquehannocks bound and murdered and Washington did nothing to prevent it.
The siege of the fort began immediately. The Susquehannocks had only about a hundred fighting men but all accounts agree that they put up a magnificent resistance.
The siege lasted for six weeks,
the Colonists lost between fifty and a hundred men and the fort was never taken.
During the siege the Susquehannocks made frequent sallies and captured some of the colonists' horses to replenish their food supply.
At the end of the six weeks the Susquehannocks escaped through the colonists' lines with their women and children and crossed over into Virginia.
They raided the heads (falls) of the Rappahannock and York rivers, killing as they went.
When they came to the head of the James they killed Bacon's overseer. This led directly to Bacon's Rebellion.
The Map?
Bacon's Rebellion was primarily a rebellion against an indolent and inept royal governor but it was also a rebellion against the Crown and in 1677 there was a Royal Commission of Investigation.
In 1910 Professor Wertenbaker found a map of the Susquehannock Fort (Fig. 1) in the British Public Record Office. This map was probably made for the investigation and many of the accounts of the siege were written for the same purpose.
Source:
MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE PUBLISHED
UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY
VOLUME XXXVI BALTIMORE 1941
Page 3
John Washington Timeline
This timeline relies on 2 sources:
Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 1, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons, page 15 to page 29:
Maryland Historical Magazine published under the authority of the Maryland Historical Society Volume XXXVI Baltimore year 1941, Page 3.
The First Washington in America
John Washington, the great grandfather of George Washington
was the first Washington in that family line
to step on to these shores.
1629 or 1633. Year of birth?
See Page 142 Volume 1 of Charles A Hoppin, The Washington Ancestry and Records of the McClain, Johnson, and Forty Other Colonial American Families (Greenfield, Ohio, 1932) “This work, limited to three hundred copies, was printed for Edward Lee McClain, Greenfield, Ohio by the Yale university press, in January 1932, hereafter referred to as Hoppin.”
.
We are skipping over an interesting passage of John Washington’s life in England. This is a story of his Dad who did well with the Royals, but ran into the Puritan rebellion against the Royals and lost his position and in turn lost John Washington’s future. John Washington learns the Merchant Tobacco business before joining Prescott and 2nd in charge of the Ketch, Seahorse of London going to Virginia.
.
December 1656 or early 1657
John Washington arrives in Virginia. He arrives on the ketch, Sea Horse of London. The ships See Page 147 Volume 1, Hoppin. or Page 15 of Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, a biography, volume 1: Young Washington, hereafter referred to as Freeman.
.
28 February 1657
The Sea Horse of London on leaving, runs aground a shoal. A winter storm comes along, sinking it. The tobacco it holds is ruined. John Washington helps to raise the ketch. See link claiming the date 28 February 1657. And this interesting link.
.
.
Litigation. No outcome found on this suit, See page 147 Hoppin.
.
Prior to December 1658
John Washington marries Nathaniel Pope’s daughter, Ann. See pages 153-154 Hoppin.
.
John Washington cannot get court to delay the trial of a law suit of his former business partner held on the same day as the christening of his first child, George Washington’s grandfather, Lawrence.
.
John Washington elects to forego the trial and be at the christening.
.
16 May 1659
The will of Nathaniel Pope. Page 88, 115 Volume 1, Westmoreland Deeds and Wills. This will cancels the 80 lbs. debt John Washington’s owed to Nathaniel Pope. Page 282 Hoppin. Page 17 Freeman.
.
Positions attained, Land purchases in this time period.
.
Early 1661
Coroner position attained.
.
3 July 1661
Vestryman of Appomattox Parish. See Westmoreland Deeds 1661-1662, page 47. See Hoppin, page 167.
.
Burgess position. Lieutenant Colonel position. Justice of the County Court position. See Westmoreland Deeds page 20, 23. See Hoppin, page 167, 170-171. 173.
.
October 1666
The Cessation Issue.
.
John Washington is one of the men appointed to get Maryland to cease (called the “Cessation”) planting tobacco so the price could return to higher levels and give incentive to merchants to trade.
.
.
…. future links
.
Summer 1675
Thomas Mathew writes a report 30 years later July 13, 1705. He states his overseer is killed by the Indians. Here’s the account:
.
“My dwelling was in Northumberland, the lowest county on Potomack River, Stafford being the upmost, where having also a plantation, servants, cattle, &c. my overseer had agreed with one Rob’t Hen, to come thither, and be my herdsman, who then lived ten miles above it ;
.
.
but on a sabbath morning in the sumer anno 1675, people on their way to church, saw this Hen lying thwart his threshold, and an Indian without the door, both chopt on their heads, arms & other parts, as if done with Indian hatchetts, th’ Indian was dead, but Hen when asked who did that ? answered Doegs, Doegs, and soon died,
.
then a boy who came out from under a bed where he had hid himself, and told them Indians at come at break of day & done those murders.”
.
July 1675
Reports of murders are attributed to the Susquehannock.
.
31 August 1675
Letter from Green Spring, home of Gov Berkeley containing a copy of an order from Council. See pages 189-190 Hoppin and page 22-23 Freeman.
.
John Washington doesn’t receive this letter until early September.
.
The order is for him and Major Isaac Allerton to obtain redress from the Doeg Indians accused of 3 murders and to raise a “fit number of men” if they deemed it “requisite and necessary” and to join the Maryland forces on the Maryland side of the Potomac where the Doegs are.
.
John Washington is careful. He makes this order from Council a matter of public record. Source: Westmoreland Deeds and Patents, 1665-1677, pages 231-232. See page 23, Freeman.
.
September 1675
From Maryland Historical Society,page 2 : “In September the Maryland Council received a letter from Col. John Washington asking for permission to follow the enemy into Maryland with a force of men and asking cooperation from Maryland.”
.
But this is to join against the Susquehanocks, not the Doegs.
.
Truman’s orders read that the Susquehannocks ‘” be forthwith forced off from the place they now are and remove themselves to the place they assured the last Assembly they would goe and seate themselves.” 8
.
There was no question of annihilating them; Maryland simply wanted them to move.
.
Maryland had wanted them to move to above the Great Falls on the Potomac and not stay at Piscatway area. The Susquehannock promised to move but never did.
.
Apparently the Susquehannocks were not wanted as neighbors even by the Indians themselves. The king of the Mattawomans voluntarily offered all his men to Truman, and the Piscataways, Chopticos, Pomonkeys and Nanjemoys also joined the Maryland forces.
.
Truman did not wait for Washington and on Sunday, September 25 or 26, he arrived at the Susquehannock Fort and asked for a parley.
.
The Susquehannocks were accused of the murders on both sides of the Potomac but they denied them and accused the Senecas.
.
The next morning the Virginians arrived and there was another parley. This time the Susquehannocks brought with them a silver medal on a black and gold ribbon that a Maryland governor had given them as a pledge of eternal friendship.
.
There is a great deal of conflicting testimony as to what happened. Apparently Truman ordered the great men of the Susquehannocks bound and murdered and Washington did nothing to prevent it.
.
The siege of the fort began immediately.
.
The Susquehannocks had only about a hundred fighting men but all accounts agree that they put up a magnificent resistance.
.
The siege lasted for six weeks, the Colonists lost between fifty and a hundred men and the fort was never taken.
.
During the siege the Susquehannocks made frequent sallies and captured some of the colonists’ horses to replenish their food supply.
.
At the end of the six weeks the Susquehannocks escaped through the colonists’ lines with their women and children and crossed over into Virginia.
.
They raided the heads (falls) of the Rappahannock and York rivers, killing as they went. When they came to the head of the James they killed Bacon’s overseer. This led directly to Bacon’s Rebellion.
.
.
.
21 September 1675
John Washington’s Will recorded, before going on this military mission. Source: Page 23 Freeman. See Hoppin, page 29.
.
.
Sunday, September 25 or 26
Maryland’s Major Thomas Truman did not want to wait any longer for Virginia’s Colonel John Washington.
.
Truman went to the Susquehanna Fort demanding a parley.
.
The next day the Virginians arrived.
.
Then it appeared by this account there was confusion on who ordered or caused the killing of the Susquehannock Chiefs who came out to parley peace. The testimony quotes the impatience of Truman who didnt want to waiting anymore on John Washington’s fact finding questions.
.
Aftermath of the massacre
Governor Berkeley rebukes John Washington. See Thomas Mathew’s (TM) account:
.
The next forenoon, th’ Assembly being met in a chamber over the general court & our speaker chosen, the Govern’r sent for us down, where his hon’r with a pathetic emphasis made a short abrupt speech wherein where these words.
.
‘ ‘ If they had killed my grandfather and my grandmother, my father and mother and all my friends, yet if they had come to treat of peace, they ought to have gone in peace, ‘ ‘ and sat down.
.
The two chief commanders at the aforementioned siege, who slew the ffour Indian great men, being present and part of our assembly.
.
The Govern’ or stood up againe and said “if there be joy in the presence of the Angels over one sinner that repented, there is joy ” now, for we have a penitent sinner come before us, call Mr. Bacon; …”
.
And the testimony goes on telling us of Bacon on knee asking forgiveness for rebelling (but later raises an army and burns down Jamestown).
.
And the testimony describes an Indian Queen. Worth reading.
.
Another Summary of the incident
.
“John Washington, the great-grandfather of George Washington, headed a party of Virginians to the assistance of Maryland and the welfare on both sides was conducted with the utmost ferocity.
.
When six of the Indians came to treat for peace, they were murdered by the Colonists and here again we see the spirit of the Cavalier in Berkeley’s rebuke, “If they had killed my father and my mother and all my friends, yet if they had come to treat of peace, they ought to have gone in peace.”
.
When the Indians, mad for revenge, started their awful reprisals, Berkeley refused the Colonists the right to arm themselves for defence. Then it was that Nathaniel Bacon, disregarding orders, formed a “rebel army” which ultimately forced Berkeley to yield. “
.
June to November 1677
John Washington's last days
From Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 1, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons, page 29:
The inquisitor knocked at John Washington’s door before the tax collector did. In June, 1677, by order of the colonial government. Nicholas Spencer and Richard Lee began to collect testimony concerning the alleged murder of the Indians in October, 1675. John Washington either received no summons as a witness, or else stood on his rights and refused to testify against himself. [footnote 72]
Those of his companions whose depositions subsequently were taken in Westmoreland County unanimously absolved him and put the blame on Truman’s Marylanders.[footnote 73]
This was John Washington’s last vindication against slander that had pursued him. On Aug. 14, 1677, he attended a conference regarding the levy to pay for the suppression of Bacon’s rising. Nearby, as the committee sat down at Captain Beale’s house, was an acquaintance of Washington’s who bore the name William Ball. If the two shook hands, they could not have imagined what the mingling of their blood was to mean in the next century.[footnote 74]
Eleven days after the two men met, John Washington sat in a court
at his own residence. A month later. Sept. 26, 1677, his colleagues were
performing the sombre duty of admitting his will to probate.[footnote 75]
Interment was on his own plantation, by the side of Anne Pope Washington
and close to the graves of two children who had died in infancy. If the
directions expressed in his will were carried out, the other funeral costs
did not exceed 400 pounds of tobacco.
John Washington’s will divided his landed property among his three
children, Lawrence, John and Anne. In accordance with customary
primogeniture, Lawrence inherited the largest share of the land and . . .
Footnotes:
Footnote 71
Proceedings of Aug, 14, 1677, n.
Footnote 72
It is almost certain that if he had made a deposition, he would have had it recorded along with those mentioned in the next note.
Footnote 73
See the depositions of John Gerrard, Daniel Lisson and Capt. Robert Massey in 1 Hoppin, 192-194
Footnote 74
For William Ball, grandfather of Mary Ball, mother of George Washington, see the Ball genealogy, Appendix 1-5.
Footnote 75
Westmoreland Deeds and Patients, 1665-77, p. 349, 366. A convenient text is in W.C. Ford, The Washington Family, 77 ff. The authoritative text, with notes of the errors in other versions, will be found in Hoppin, 205-07. Needless to say, the season of Washington's death and the known time limits of his illness suggest that his malady was typhoid fever or dysentery. In Westmoreland Orders, 1676-89 100, is the court order, Nov. 25, 1677, for the delivery to Frances of the eight Negroes due her under prenuptial agreement. For the appointment on Jan. 3, 1683, of men to divide the estate, see ibid. 269.
.
edits by Jim Moyer
.
The Story of the attack
on the Susquehannock Fort
As told by Douglas Southall Freeman
From Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 1, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons:
Pages 22- 29
Note: We will edit some to the typos resulting from a copy and paste soon.
.
The strangest of all John Washington’s experiences was now to
begin. Early in September, 1675, he received from Green Spring, the
home of Governor Berkeley, a copy of a startling order in Council.
This set forth, under date of August 31, that the Doeg Indians from
Maryland had made forays into Virginia and had committed three
murders, for the punishment of which the Governor of Maryland had
agreed to permit forces from South of the Potomac to enter that Colony.
Washington and Major Isaac Allerton accordingly were ordered to
assemble the militia officers of the Northern Neck, to make inquiry
and to demand satisfaction from the Indians. If the two commanders
thought it “requisite and necessary,” they were to raise a “fit number
of men” in the Northern Neck and were to proceed against the
Indians."*®
Washington did not take this lightly. According to his practice
with all important public papers, he had the order in Council made
a matter of record,®® and he proceeded to make his will.®* With
surprising promptness he and Allerton assembled some of the other
militia officers and set out for the Indian fort on the north bank of the
Potomac about fifteen miles above Washington’s and Spencer’s tract
at the “freshes.” The Virginians arrived on the 25tli of September
and found that a force of Indians had been in a bloody fight at nearby
Hinson’s plantation and then had been driven into a crude fort where
they were under siege by Major Truman’s Maryland militia. A quick
examination made Washington realize that the refuge could be captured
easily. Some of its occupants, foreseeing their doom, already had come
out to parley. Five were standing nearby under a guard of two files
of soldiers.
Why, asked the Virginians, were the Indians being held ? The answer
was that the savages had attempted to get away. No intimation was given
that the rcdmcn had come from the fort as emissaries to seek terms of
peace. Washington then explained that he and Allerton had instruc-
tions to treat with the natives before undertaking to punish them.
Major Truman did not appear to object to this. With his con.sent, a
stronger cordon was thrown around the five prisoners. Then, through
an interpreter, Washington accused the savages of their crimes in
Virginia. All of the savages denied responsibility. The murders, they
m I M^ppin, a
Wmtmordmd md PaiMs, 1665-77, p. 331 **3 a*
It b Sept* ai, 1675* See infr&f p, 29.
ludiaii hn b bdkvdl to have been within the cortilncs of the present eby of
Waihkfton. TTioma# Mathew* in lib MS narrative, quoted in t 1S9, mid that Ooveraor
lent and 4llerton with zm meni hut what b known of the
GEORGE WASHINGTON
said, had been committed by the Senecas, not by them. As thi.s ex-
change continued slowly and awkwardly, Major Truman became more
and more impatient. Several times he interrupted to ask, “Gentle-
men, have you done.? For I resolve to say nothing until you have
done.”
“When we have done,” Washington answered, “we will give you
notice.”
He went on with his accusations, but at length, despairing of getting
either confession or satisfaction from the Indians, Washington and
Allerton “bade them defiance” and turned them over to Truman, who
at once began a new indictment through his interpreter, John Shanks.
After some vain attempts to get an admission of guilt from the
prisoners, Truman cried out to Washington, who had withdrawit a
short distance, “Are not these impudent rogues to deny the murders
they have done, when their Indians lie dead at Mr. Hinson’s plantation
being killed in a fight there.?”
Washington spoke up: “It would be very convenient to carry
them up thither and to show them their Indians that arc there
buried.”
“And so I will,” Truman replied.
The rest is a matter of conflicting evidence. A Marylander, Capt.
John Allen, subsequently made deposition that IVuman .sent a small
scouting party to Hinson’s the next morning to sec if the Indians had
plundered the house and whether any ammunition remained there.
On the return of these men, argument was renewed over the «Hs-
position of the captives. Washington is alleged to have .said, “What
[why] should we keep them any longer? Let u.s knock them on the
head; we shall get the fort today.” To this, .said the Captain, Truman
objected, but “was overswayed by the Virginia officers,” After a brief
di.scussion, Allen testified, the bound Indians were led off and were
killed by blows on their skulls. Some of the Virginians later swore,
on the contrary, that after the Indians were carried to Hinson’s and
were shown the bexlies of their companions who had been killed there,
Allerton asked what was to be done with the savages, who remained
under colonial guard.
“I think they deserve the like,” said Truman.
“I do nert think so,” Allerton replied. With no further cxcb.inge of
words, according to the Virginia version, the Marylanders marched the
savages off some 5 (k) yards and slew them. Thb, said two witnc®ic%
THE RISE OF THE WASHINGTONS
25
“much amazed and startled us and our commanders, being a thing that
was never imagined or expected of us.”
Shortly after, the expedition was disbanded. The Virginians returned
home, but the whisper pursued them that they had been party to the
murder of Indians who had left the fort to arrange a surrender. The
public conscience was stirred. Governor Berkeley was quoted as saying
of the Indians, “If they killed my father and my mother and all my
friends, yet if they had come to treat of peace, they should have gone in
peace.” The Virginians who had visited the fort asserted that the
Marylanders had killed the Indians; the Marylanders insisted that the
savages had been slain by the Virginians or by unidentified persons at
the instance of Colonel Washington.
Besides his concern over this charge, John Washington had the dis-
tress of illness at home. In a short time Anne Brett Washington died.''”
As it chanced, her sister Frances about the same time lost her husband,
John Appleton, who had witnessed the signing of John Washington’s
will. In accordance with the quick accommodation of the times, a
prompt marriage of the bereaved Colonel and the weeping widow
seemed in order, but Frances was no ingenue in such a matter. She
had been born in Maryland, it would appear, prior to the migration of
her father. Dr. Thomas Gcrrard, to Virginia,”® While quite young,
Frances had married Thomas Speke, who, it will be recalled, had
owned land next to the tract that Washington and Spencer subsequently
patented when Richard Lee failed to seat it. After Speke’s death about
1660,®^ Frances soon accepted as her second husband Valentine Peyton,
who had been a planter or land speculator or both, from about 1654.''®
It was after his death, presumably in 1665, that Frances named her
^ The greater part of the tkmmtion of Allen, from Proceedings of the Assembly of Maryland,
V. 2, p. h reprinted, dightly condensed, in i HopPin, 191, Hoppin should he given
fullest credit for discovering artd making public many entirely unknown facts, Virginia testimony
is in Westmorelmd Deeds and Patents, i665-77» p. 287-8, Nothing is known of the date and
circumstances of the return of Washington and of Allerton to their own Colony,
t Ho^n, 191.
date is not known but it was sufc^uent to Sept, at, 1675, when Washington nude
his will, and it was some time prior to the agreement of May ro, 1676, mentioned infra, p, a6.
So far IS ii knowi^ Amu Brett Washington, who mmt not be confused with Anne Pofu Wash-
ington, had no children by her last husband. She had two sons by her first husband, Ckrrard
ssM Walt# Brodhum IL
date ei her Inrth hm mt been mtablhhcd.
See his patent*, Sept i6, 1651, 1000 acres on the northwest side of Nomini River,
incltMiinf Cedar libnd, and of 900 acres, also on the northwest skJe, where his land was
divided pwn that ol Walter Brodhurst, who was the first husband of Anne fermrd, France***
itlst«f {a L, 0 , Beeards, 337). The will of Thomas Speke b in 1 Wenmmtland Deedi tmS'
103, It is pmaibk that hb son Thomas, eaecutnr of his will, wm bom d an eaiiar.ssmrt^fe*
was a i#i ol Itary Fey«m Nomini Valcastine iFtyscwi** 'tod'
acfCi on Aquk Creek arc in 3 LQ, Records, 272, 351; 4 ibid., 4^0*
26
GEORGE WASHINGTON
“trusted and beloved friend” John Washington as her attorney/’” but
she did not require his services long. John Appleton, appearing wish-
fully, became Frances’s third mate/” By the time he had ended his days
and Frances Gerrard-Speke-Pey ton- Appleton had dried her tears, she
had acquired sufficient experience to know that a wife should prepare
to be a widow. Consequently, before she agreed to take lier fourth
husband and to be the third wife of John Wa,shington, she insisted on
a definite jointure: First, John Washington was to deed to trustees of
her choice 500 acres of land on a specified stream and was to give bond
of 30,000 pounds of tobacco for the purchase of an equivalent tract in
the event she did not like the property set aside for her; secoiul, Colonel
Washington was to assign to her, as of the date of his death, one-third
of the profits of his grist mill at the head of Rozicr’s Creek,'" with the
explicit proviso that Washington should not alienate the equity during
his lifetime; third, the prospective fourth husband of Frances was to
provide by will that eight “good Negroes” should be her property at
his demise; finally, if Frances predeceased John Washington, then,
within six months, he was to pay sterling to her son, Gcrrard
Peyton.®^ To these stiff terms, John Washington duly subscribed, May
10, 1676, in the presence of Frances’s brother, Justinian Gerrard, and of
another witness.
The marriage probably followed almost immediately, but its pleasure
was interrupted by Bacon’s Rebellion, the worst disaster that swept
Virginia after the massacre of 1622. Nathaniel Bacon, a fiery, well-born
young settler, who was twenty-nine years of age in 1676, led a protest
against the laxity of Governor Sir William Berkeley in combating
Indian raids. With a company of determined men, Bacon struck several
heavy blows at the savages and thereby won the support of nearly all
the owners of small farms in exposed regions. He was less successful in
plans for reforming the government of the Colony, which he and his
followers considered partial to the ruling coterie and oppreaiive of the
clement that was extending settlement. In dealing with Bacon in 1676,
Governor Berkeley acted on the premise that the leader of the new
faction was a personal rival and a political rebel, against whom decep-
tion was a permissible weapon. Although the Governor had twice to
I Wmmm^fhnd Defdt and Wdh, a6o.
wa* appointed Sherifi of Westmorcliinl, Awg. |i, 16711 Wmm^nkn^t Dmdi
PmentSf i665«-77i p. 98* For hii invciitory» Mm ihid., 367*
For tie location of the mill* which if bdiev^ to have biffii Wt la 1663^ m 4%
^ The text of this foiomre. htm Weammiani iktdi amd FMmir, 1665*77, a7| ft m
printed in 1 HGpfdn, *85.
THE RISE OF THE WASHINGTONS
27
retreat from Jamestown to the country between Chesapeake Bay and
the Atlantic Ocean, he rallied the large proprietors and did not for a
moment abandon the task of putting down the “rebellion.” Young
Bacon, in turn, maintained that Berkeley had fled and that the new
government represented the King and had authority to issue orders in
the royal name.
When the uprising spread to Westmoreland, Bacon sent repeated
orders to Col. John Washington, who apparently ignored them. Wash-
ington, in fact, may have gone to the “Eastern Shore” to join Berkeley
In October, 1676, word reached Bacon’s lieutenant in Westmoreland,
Stephen Mannering, that John Washington’s overseers were using a
sloop, and perhaps more than one, to carry food and tobacco from his
Virginia plantations across the Potomac to Maryland. Mannering was
preparing at the moment to set out on an expedition against the Indians
and consequently could not go in person to Washington’s farms. In
his place, Mannering sent a party of “rebels” under Daniel White, with
instructions to impress all of Colonel Washington’s stores, to seize his
small craft, and to prevent any further shipment to the Maryland
shore.'" White obediently proceeded to Wa.shington’s place on Mattox
Creek and to the other large tract of the Colonel’s at Round Hill.
Washington was not there. In his absence, the “rebels” stopped all
removal of food and tobacco and then apparently established them-
selves on the plantation as a guard. They probably ate and drank and
perhaps did some plundering in ignorance of the fact that Bacon him-
self had died that month in Gloucester County.
While the insurrectionists enjoyed the unwilling hospitality of John
Washington’s home, their comrades surrendered a few at a time or
else slipped away from their camps and returned to their farms. The
great planters reasserted themselves quickly. Berkeley recovered power
and began with heavy hand to punish the “rebels.” One day that
autumn, William Armiger and a group of “Loyalists” quietly ap-
proached the Washington plantation, where seven or more of Bacon’s
adherents were stationed. Although the garrison had no less than
fourteen loaded guns and all the advantage of shelter from which
to fire, they either had lost heart or else had ceased to exercise vigilance.
No evidence of dik cxbtsj the infercfitiiil evidence is that of Washi^ton^s ab«®Eice
from home in Oemto. Etcon'i orders to Washington, which probably were similar m those
sent odiar lustkes ind County militia commanders, will be found in i Hopping 195
<^Tbe text of White’s ortos is glwi in i H&ppin, 19B. !t was throtifh ^ teaidi
of Mr. Hoppin die Interatkif iemmnu on }obn Wiihington’s part In Mmm
were brought to light
28
GEORGE WASHINGTON
By a quick descent, Armiger captured seven of the men and their en-
tire store of weapons.®®
Washington himself soon returned and, with his usual regard for
the remedies of the law, proceeded to institute suit for the damage done
him. Daniel White was put under bond to keep the peace and to make
good the loss he had inflicted.*’® Mannering, too, was bonded but was
not silenced. He had the effrontery, while still under penalty, to visit
the plantation and to talk with Armiger, in Mrs. Washington’s presence,
of the manner in which the place had been recovcreil. When Armiger
said that seven men and fourteen loaded weapons had been captured,
Mannering broke out: “God damn me, were I here with fourtc-en men,
1 would uphold the house from 500 men, or else die at their feet.”
“You are a fool!” said Armiger.
“I am bound to the peace,” Mannering stormed, “and dare not chal-
lenge you.” He stamped his foot and glared. “I do not challenge you—
but come out, if you please.”
Mrs. Washington spoke up: “If you were advised by your wife, you
need not have come to this pass.”
“God damn my wife,” answered Mannering, “if it were to [he done |
again, I would do it again.”
This spirit on the part of some of the ex-rebels did not interfere with
the collection by John Washington of tlamages. The Goloncl was not
too severe in pressing Daniel White, who by his own profession was a
“poor man” and had to “labor hard for | a | living." Compromise
was made with White, but from the County of Westmoreland Washing-
ton received ultimately about 9500 pounds of tobacco for services per-
formed and expenses sustained.*® In addition he was paid 6000 pounds
of tobacco and /80 cash by the Colony.^® Careful as he was in collect-
This seems the one reastjrmblc intcrprctaibn ot the depositions of Arm^cr and of
Decry* July 1677, as printed m t Hetppm, 19% A careful analysis of these ennfuied pafiers
does not indicate that Frances Washington had a part in this coup or that she even wm m the
plantation when Armiger and his men came. Misunderstanding has arisen Minnering's
remarks and Mrs. Washington’s wifely obttervation are assumed to have been marie at the time
of Armiger's apjcarance. Actually, the conversation was stune mondts Uter# tJoc id the
dciKisitions &j>ccincally statei that the talks were of events that had occurred '‘in the lime of
Bacon’s Rebellion.”
White’s petition to Nrcholas Silencer, praklitig Jua»tke, July 44, 1677, iu 1 thppin,
ioo 0|.
Anmger’s dqn^ition of |uly afe, 1677. the amversatum is in die third imrnn, kil it i^
deiailetl that no error k rkked in cluu^iiig it back to tik Ernt pawn* See 1 t|^
Wlute’s jjetition, /©e. eii.
^Proemlings of Aug, 14, 1677, printed in 1 Heppi»t aoa,
p. 84! Wimlt* Tt^tuimpu, 4, p, a8i; mg iIm, t am,
ImumiMtely tifior lo Bacon's Rebellion, tobacco wm u a, i»cr cwt
THE RISE OF THE WASHINGTONS
29
ing, he had to pay part of his own bill, so to say, by meeting his share
of the stiff tax levied to cover the cost of “raising forces ... for sup-
pressing the late rebellion,”
The inquisitor knocked at John Washington’s door before the tax
collector did. In June, 1677, by order of the colonial government.
Nicholas Spencer and Richard Lee began to collect testimony concern-
ing the alleged murder of the Indians in October, 1675. Jo^in Wash-
ington either received no summons as a witness, or else stood on his
rights and refused to testify against himself.^^ Those of his companions
whose depositions subsequently were taken in Westmoreland County
unanimously absolved him and put the blame on Truman’s Mary-
landers.’^®
This was John Washington’s last vindication against slander that
had pursued him. On Aug. 14, 1677, he attended a conference regard-
ing the levy to pay for the suppression of Bacon’s rising. Nearby, as
the committee sat down at Captain Beale’s house, was an acquaintance
of Washington’s who bore the name William Ball. If the two shook
hands, they could not have imagined what the mingling of their blood
was to mean in the next century.'^^
Eleven days after the two men met, John Washington sat in a court
at his own residence. A month later. Sept. 26, 1677, his colleagues were
performing the sombre duty of admitting his will to probate.'^® Inter-
ment was on his own plantation, by the side of Anne Pope Washington
and close to the graves of two children who had died in infancy. If the
directions expressed in his will were carried out, the other funeral costs
did not exceed 400 pounds of tobacco.
John Washington’s will divided his landed property among his three
children, Lawrence, John and Anne. In accordance with customary
primogeniture, Lawrence inherited the largest share of the land and
Proceedings of Aug, 14, 1677, n.
It k almost certata tfeat if be Imd msde a cleposiiion, he would have had it rccordcti akmg
with those mentbnied in the aestt note.
* 7 ^ Sec the depositions of M'n Oemrd, Daniel Lisson and Capt. Robert Massey in 1
H&ppin, i0a*-94*
f* For William Ball, grandfadier of Mary Ball, mother of George Washington, see the Ball
Af^ndix 1-5.
Wrnm^Mni Ikeii tmi feients, 1665-77, p. 349, 366, A convenient text k in W, C,
Fad, Tk 0 Wmkingwn 77 f , irinced ,al$o in W. C, Ford, ed., The Wniings of George
Wmkmmon, f, 14, p* 391 ff. The autiboritadve text, with notes of the erron in odMa- versions,
will be louiii in t Hopping xos-oy, Needle^i to say, the season of Washington'i d^th and dte
known time Ihniti of his lUom suggest dial hk maWy was typhoid few or In
Westmordend Ordm, 1676-S9, p* 100, It the court order, Nov. as, 1677, §m die lo
Frances of the tdghi due het under prenuptial agrement For the on
^an. 3, 16B3, of men to divide the see ihid*, 369*
.
Nathaniel Bacon dies at Gloucester Hall
Historical sign to be dedicated in Gloucester
OCT 15, 2012 AT 12:13 PM
Source:
A state historical marker commemorating a 17th-century manor house called Gloucester Hall will be dedicated on Oct. 27.
The sign will be located near the intersection of Route 17 and Bacons Fort Road, about 7 1/2 miles north of Gloucester Court House.
Gloucester Hall was built around the 1660s by Col. John Pate on a 2,100-acre plantation, said a Department of Historic Resources spokesman. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, who led a rebellion of frontiersman and planters against colonial authorities, died at Gloucester Hall of a fatal illness that brought the uprising to an end.
The whereabouts of Bacon's remains endures as a mystery.
Gloucester Hall served in 1684 as the first Virginia residence of Royal Governor Francis Howard, baron Howard of Effingham, whose wife, Lady Philadelphia Pelham Howard, died there in 1685.
Advertisement
00:0002:46
Keynote remarks during the ceremony will be provided by Warren M. Billings, a visiting professor at the College of William & Mary. Other speakers include Gloucester archaeologists David Brown and Thane Harpole, co-directors of The Fairfield Foundation; A.J. Pate, sponsor of the marker; the Rev. Theodore H. McConnell, interim rector of Ware Episcopal Church in Gloucester, and a representative of the Department of Historic Resources.
Here is the text of the marker:
Gloucester Hall
Near here stood Gloucester Hall (built ca. 1660s), where Bacon's Rebellion effectively ended with the fatal illness of its leader, Nathaniel Bacon, in 1676. In 1684, this house served as the first Virginia residence of Royal Governor Francis Howard, baron Howard of Effingham, whose wife, Lady Philadelphia Pelham Howard, died there in 1685. Col. John Pate, a member of the Council of State, built the house on his 2,100-acre plantation, including 1,141 acres that his uncle Richard Pate had patented in 1650. Col. Thomas Pate inherited the plantation in 1672. Both Richard Pate and Col. Thomas Pate represented Gloucester County in the House of Burgesses.
.
Source:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
