Jesse Williams

Religion 4930

Dr. Jonathan M. Yeager

12 April 2013

George Washington and Patrick Henry: Religion and Liberty

“Give me Liberty, or give me death!” was Patrick Henry’s call to arms at the Virginia

Convention in March of 1775. That call would be answered by George Washington; a Virginian

war hero who stood six feet and four inches tall and stood even taller in character. George

Washington and Patrick Henry had somewhat similar religious upbringings, and while Henry’s

religious identity was vastly influenced by the Great Awakening and Washington’s was

completely uninfluenced by it, this pair of patriots remained closely aligned in their views on the

role that government should play in religion. The two Virginian Anglicans would successfully

fight for the cause of liberty--one in rhetoric, the other in battle; and their religious identities

would shape the way they went about that fight.

George Washington was raised in a fairly wealthy home of Anglicans. His great-great-

grandfather was an Anglican minister, and his family were loyal to the Anglican faith. They

didn’t concern themselves with deep theology or spirituality as a stricter Anglican might, but

they did attend church at least once a month, were quite familiar with the Book of Common

Prayer, and believed that they were in the good hands of God Almighty, teaching young George

to use words like “Providence” to describe God’s favor. His family emphasized the importance

of benevolent behavior and integrity. The famous “cherry tree” story in which young George

expressed to his father that he could not “tell a lie,” although a myth, is probably quite

Willams 1

representative of how he might have acted, given the way he was raised and the man he would

turn out to be.1

Like Washington, Patrick Henry was also raised an Anglican in Virginia. His uncle by

the same name was an Anglican minister at St. Paul’s Parish, where his father, John, was a

vestryman. Though Henry stayed a part of the Anglican church his whole life, as a young man

he was influenced by the American revivals known as the Great Awakening.

In the 1740’s, the Great Awakening was in full swing. Revivalists like George Whitefield

were drawing crowds of thousands all throughout the colonies, preaching to anyone who would

hear them. Many Anglican ministers felt threatened by these “New Lights” as so they were

called. While many evangelical Christians believed that the majority of Anglicans were far too

lukewarm in their faiths, many Anglicans believed that these new light Evangelicals were harsh

“enthusiasts” who were constantly shouting at their congregation and encouraging them to

participate in extreme forms of worship. None despised the revivalists’ “wild notions” about

“true religion” more than the Reverend Patrick Henry. According to him, these preachers would

stand at the pulpit in “violent agitation,” scaring everyone who heard them. Pastor Henry wished

that any visit from new light ministers to Hanover “could be prevented.” 2

Although many Anglican ministers didn’t agree with the outward expression of emotions

and overall subject matter of evangelical sermons, they might have tolerated it had it not been for

the infringement of these itinerate preachers on the territories of local pastors. Many Anglican

ministers believed that these traveling New Lights would cause people to leave their church.

Willams 2

1 Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washingtonʼs God: Religion, Liberty, and the Founding of Our Country (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 8.2 Letter from Patrick Henry Sr. Feb. 13, 1744, quoted in J.A.C. Chandler and E.G. Swim, William and Mary College Quarterly, volume 1, series 2 (Williamsburg, VA, William and Mary College, 1921), 265.

They feared that these new preachers would turn their congregations against them, and perhaps

those fears were legitimate. Many Anglican ministers, especially in high-church settings, were

known for holding dull services. Losing church members to the likes of entertaining and

emotionally charged sermons by Whitefield and the like was a reasonable concern. Some of the

new evangelical preachers were so compelling in their sermons, that people who heard them

preach might go through a so called “conversion experience” and join a church that put forth a

more evangelical message from the pulpit.

What Pastor Henry found detestable, young Patrick’s mother, Sarah, found powerful and

alluring. She joined the Presbyterian congregation of Virginian evangelical preacher, Samuel

Davies, and often brought Patrick along to the church’s meetings. At twelve years of age, he was

made to recall the main themes of Davies’ sermons to his mother. Henry would later profess that

Davies was the best preacher and orator he had ever heard. Although he was just a boy when he

attended these sermons, Henry’s life and career would be undeniably effected by the dynamic

preacher.3

In the 1750s, Virginia would find itself in the crossfire of The French and Indian War.

During the War, Samuel Davies preached a series of patriotic sermons in which he expressed the

importance of a French defeat. Most people in the colonies feared what they called the “popery”

of France. Those valuing religious liberty and liberty in general often despised Catholicism

because of its history of tyranny, while the colonies stood for liberty. If that wasn’t enough, the

French also had the “barbaric” Indians on their side. These Indians were viewed as savages, and

many fled their homes in order to get as far away from the battles as possible; away from the

Willams 3

3 Thomas S. Kidd, Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots, (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 30.

Indians in particular. Davies expressed his sentiments about the war well, using his platform of

audiences in the thousands to activate the people of Virginia and raise up troops.

In that warring summer of 1755, Davies would preach his first patriot-themed sermon

with a call to arms. “ We have no ground for a lazy confidence in divine Providence; nor should

we content ourselves with inactive prayers; but let us rouse ourselves, and be active.” Davies

continued to plead with those “whose circumstances allow of it, may not only lawfully enlist and

take up arms, but that your so doing is a Christian duty.”4 These were strong words that would

prove effective, as Davies can be credited with raising more troops than anyone else in Virginia.

Samuel Davies was perhaps the first to publicly praise a young colonel of the British

army, George Washington, boasting, “God has been pleased to diffuse some Sparks of... Martial

Fire through our Country... As a remarkable Instance of this,” Davies asserted, “I may point out

to the Public that heroic Youth Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has

hitherto preserved in so signal a Manner, for some important Service to his Country.”5 These

comments were in response to the leadership the twenty-two-year-old colonel showed in the

nasty defeat of General Braddock and his men in the Battle of the Monongahela. Surrounded by

French and Indian troops, Braddock and his men collapsed and most were killed. Col.

Washington was able to somehow bring enough order at the rear to salvage a retreat. He was

able to bury Braddock in the road as to not give notice of a fresh burial of the General. Looking

back on it, Washington acknowledged that they had been “shamefully beaten... But see the

Willams 4

4 Davies, “God the Sovereign of all Kingdoms,” Sermons (1845), III, 252-253, quoted in George W. Pilcher, Samuel Davies: Apostle of Dissent in Colonial Virginia (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1971), 164.

5 Davies, Religion and Patriotism: The Constituents of a Good Soldier (1756) 11-12. quoted in William S. Rasmussen, George Washington: The Man behind the Myths (The University Press of Virginia, 1999), 73.

wondrous works of Providence!” 6 Washington believed that he hadn’t narrowly escaped

unscathed by chance, but that God was watching over him and the remaining men. Though the

defeat was tragic, Washington became a hero in Virginia for the composure he showed in a dier

situation, and was put in command of the Virginian frontier until the war came to an end in 1763

with the Treaty of Paris.

While Washington kicked off his prestigious career by fulfilling his benevolent duties to

liberty in battle, Patrick Henry devoted his gift of charisma and oration to liberty’s cause. In

1763, Henry took on a case called the Parsons’ Cause that would precisely represent the rest of

his acclaimed career. In 1758 a law called the Two Penny Act was passed in Virginia, that

caused payments to clergymen to be in cash instead of in tobacco crop. Since tobacco crop was

on the rise and became more valuable than cash, Reverend James Maury would sue for back pay.

Young Henry would defend the vestrymen who would have to pay the extra in tobacco.

Although Henry was an Anglican, he despised the way many Anglican clergymen sought

personal gain instead of fulfilling the needs of the people. Given that Maury had Royal support,

Henry pointed his rhetoric straight at the throne, expressing his disdain for the King not having

the layman’s best interests at heart. He even went further to argue that in the King’s rejection of

a good law, he has become “a tyrant, and forfeits all rights to his subjects’ obedience.”7 In the

fashion of a new light preacher, Henry expressed sentiments that hinted at a revolution thirteen

years before the official beginning of the Revolutionary War.

To understand Henry’s passion for religious liberty, it is useful to take a second look at

Samuel Davies. Davies was the one true champion for dissenter freedoms in the colonies,

Willams 5

6 “To Robert Jackson,” Aug. 2, 1755, WGW 29:44, quoted in Novak and Novak, Washingtonʼs God, 58

7 James Maury to John Camm, 1763, quoted in Kidd, Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots, 28.

especially in Virginia. In 1747, Several years before the French and Indian War began, he started

his uphill battle for the right to hold church meetings in several counties. At this time in

Virginia, non-Anglican ministers were merely tolerated, and couldn’t hold meetings across

county lines. He went to the governor and received approval for four preaching licenses, but the

court still denied him the right to preach in several counties. After continually defending his

intentions, he was granted permission to have an assistant hold meetings at churches in the next

county. Continuing his fight for dissenters, he and his fellow minister, Gilbert Tennent took a

trip to Great Britain where they collaborated with Ben Avery, a trusted correspondent, to

propagate a petition. Many signed the petition but it never reached its destination. Although

Davies fell short of his goal, he made a name for himself overseas, stopping often to preach to

huge crowds. Patrick Henry most assuredly knew about and was inspired by the determination

of Samuel Davies in his fight for religious freedom.

Henry was to carry on this legacy, not only with his skills as an orator, but also in his

passion for religious liberty. In the Parsons’ Cause, the savvy lawman knew who he was talking

to--a jury full of laymen who had experienced the Great Awakening that often came across as an

upheaval of establishment. Religious rules of conduct were tossed to the wayside in the new

light way of doing church. These preachers didn’t need a building, they didn’t need a specific

type of audience, and they didn’t need rituals or high-church language. This disregard for

Anglican authority led to revolutionary thoughts, and Henry’s were on display in the case, and he

was victorious.

Twelve years later, at the Virginia Convention in March of 1775, the most famous speech

of America’s founding would be given, and this time there was no mistaking it--Patrick Henry

Willams 6

was calling for a revolutionary war, and he was doing so in the name of God. “If we wish to be

free,” Henry cried, “We must fight!--I repeat it, sir, we must fight!!” He continued, “An appeal

to arms and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us!” In the cadence of an evangelical preacher,

he expressed that God had empowered the people with an ability to take up arms “in the holy

cause of liberty.” In the spirit of the Apostle Paul, Henry asserted that “[We] are invincible by

any force which our enemy can send against us... [We] shall not fight our battles alone.” He went

on to speak of the divine favor of a country whose God “presides over the destinies of nations,

and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” As his speech drew to a close, Henry

addressed his congregation of politicians, begging the question, “Is life so dear, or peace so

sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Henry’s answer-- “Forbid it,

Almighty God.” Henry then made his final proclamation of the speech-- “I know not what

course others may take; but as for me,” his hands in the air as if he were presenting his best

impression of George Whitefield, “give me liberty, or give me death!” The speech made clear

Henry’s belief that a revolution was inherently Christian; that godliness and patriotism went

hand-in-hand, and that war was inevitable.8

Henry’s call for a revolution was immensely well-received and a war against the British

was eminent. America would now need a leader to command its troops and carry out God’s

agenda, and there seemed no one better for the job than Virginian hero, George Washington,

elected commander in chief by John Adams. The people of the colonies loved Washington, not

only for his valiant work in the Virginia militia, but also for his outward appearance and the way

he presented himself. Washington stood six feet and four inches tall, with broad hips and

Willams 7

8 William Wirt, Sketches of the life and character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1878), 141-142.

shoulders. He held his back straight; his confident demeanor commanding respect from those

around him, all the while having a distinguishable humility. Captain George Mercer who served

with him in Virginia, described Washington’s disposition in 1760, writing, “In conversation he

looks you full in the face, is deliberate, deferential, and engaging. His demeanor at all times

composed and even dignified.”9 Washington carried himself like a true leader, one whom the

people were poised to follow.

Furthermore, George Washington was perceived as not just any great leader, but as a

Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. The evidence of this was

in the aftermath of Washington’s death in 1799. In his article, “George Washington: American

Moses,” historian Robert P. Hay has done thorough research on the idea that Washington was

perceived as a biblical Moses. In the article, he cites parallels drawn between Washington and

Moses close to 50 times from many different sources. In December of 1799, eulogies for

Washington were read by clergymen throughout the young nation. Minister after minister upheld

Washington as a “second Moses”-- a “deliverer” of the “American Israel.” Washington would

lead his people out of “the bondage and tyranny of Haughty Britain”-- America’s “second

Egypt.”10 Orthodox and liberal clergymen all over America would lay religious claim to

Washington upon his death, which makes for an intriguing look into Washington’s personal faith.

In the winter of 1777 and 1778, the Continental Army under General Washington had lost

two major battles, and the British, under the command of General William Howe had taken over

Philadelphia. Morale was extremely low, and the soldiers, as Washington expressed, were

Willams 8

9 Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience (1732-1775) (1965), 191-192, quoted in Novak and Novak, Washingtonʼs God, 4.

10 Robert P. Hay, “George Washington: American Moses,” American Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), 780-791.

“without Cloathes to cover their nakedness, without Blankets to lay on, without Shoes, by which

their Marches might be traced by the Blood from their feet.” Washington praised the

“[unparalleled] Patience and Obedience” of his soldiers, but was disheartened by the

circumstances at hand.11 Legend has it that there in the snow, Isaac Potts, a local Quaker, would

stumble upon Washington as he knelt to pray. Given that Potts was a Quaker, he didn’t believe in

fighting and therefore didn’t support the Revolution. However, upon hearing Washington pray,

Potts became a patriot, for “If George Washington be not a man of God,” he proclaimed, “I am

greatly deceived.” Inspiring as the story sounds, historians have debunked it as a myth; but even

though the story is probably untrue, it does present a feasible portrayal of Washington.

For starters, anyone in a situation as desperate as Washington’s might pray, but

circumstances aside, Washington was a prayerful man. He used the word “providence” 270

times in his writings, and deeply believed that God was taking care of him throughout his

military career. Washington believed that the Almighty God was very active in his affairs, which

would rule out the speculation by some that he was a “deist”. Deists believed that God created

everything so that it would run on its own, rarely if ever dealing in the miraculous. Washington

lived by “the miraculous care of providence” that had protected him “beyond all human

expectation.” Upon Braddock’s defeat in the battle of Monongahela River during the French and

Indian War, Washington noted, “I had 4 Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me,

and yet escaped unhurt.” Even in the midst of failure, Washington credited the Divine. In

Philadelphia in 1777, Washington wrote that the Fog was so dense “as not to distinguish friend

from Foe at the distance of 30 Yards, we should, I believe, have made a decisive and glorious day

Willams 9

11 George Washington to John Bannister, April 21, 1778, quoted in Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington (New York: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, inc., 2005) 112.

of it. But Providence or some unaccountable something, designd [sic] it otherwise.”12

Washington believed that God was constantly intervening on his behalf in battle. While

Washington clearly wasn’t a deist, his use of the word “Providence” didn’t necessarily mean he

was overtly Christian, and it certainly didn’t mean he was orthodox.

In all of Washington’s referrals to providence, he managed to only mention Jesus Christ

twice in his writings, which comes across as odd for someone who belongs to the Christian

religion and puts so much emphasis on the Divine. However, Washington was very familiar with

the Bible--both the Old and New Testaments. He believed in grace, referencing the phrase, “the

throne of Grace,” from Hebrews 4:16, but when he had a chance to, he would avoid the subject

of Christ’s divinity at all cost. When he was asked by Reverend Samuel Langdon to publicly

proclaim that he was a “disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he dodged the invitation by referring

to “divine interposition.”13 His acknowledgement of the New Testament but avoidance of

mentioning Jesus Christ makes Washington’s person faith a peculiar nut to crack.

In his adult life, Washington attended church approximately once a month, depending on

if the weather permitted fox hunting. Sometimes he stayed home to get work done, or just

minded his leisure by playing card games. On the surface, Washington’s church attendance

seems inadequate, but to be fair, it was typical for a landowner in that day to stay home from

church when it was convenient; and when he did go to church, Washington participated in the

singing of Psalms and the reciting of the Book of Common Prayer.

Willams 10

12 George Washington to John Augustine Washington, July 18, 1755, George Washington to John Augustine Washington, Oct. 18, 1777, quoted in Novak and Novak, Washingtonʼs God, 56, 185-186.

13 Samuel Langdon to Washington, July 8, 1789, quoted in John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 181.

Communion proved to be a bigger issue for Washington than his lacking church

attendance. Though Washington didn’t write much in this regard, others noticed his peculiar

communion habits. Nelly Custis Lewis, a resident of Mount Vernon where Washington lived,

made the observation that before the Revolutionary War, Washington received communion

regularly, but after the war, he would always leave his wife to partake in the holy sacrament

alone. Washington was once even rebuked by a pastor at Christ Church in Philadelphia. James

Abercrombie considered it his “duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy

tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turn their backs on

the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” He would go on to “acknowledge the remark was

intended for the President.” While the President acknowledged the criticism of Abercrombie, he

from then on avoided any service at Christ Church that would offer communion.14 Given that

many southern Anglican forwent communion, Washington might have gotten away with his

brushing it off had he not been in the public light. Still yet, his abstinence of this Christian

practice doesn’t bode well for those making a case that Washington was an orthodox or

evangelical Christian.

Washington’s avoidance of mentioning Jesus Christ, along with his issues of church

attendance and communion practices may debunk the claim that he was an orthodox Christian,

but there is one statement that Washington made which would do just that. In 1787 he wrote in a

letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, “Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am

disposed to indulge in the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to

Willams 11

14 Quoted in Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit (1859), 5:394, cited in Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, 185.

them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.”15 To an

evangelical, the only road to heaven is stated plainly in an assertion made by Jesus in John 14:6,

“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through Me.”

Washington was clearly not an evangelical. So then, how would one describe Washington’s

personal faith?

Given his Anglican upbringing that he never wavered from as an adult, there is a simple

explanation of Washington’s religious identity; he was a Latitudinarian, a type of Anglican who

didn’t concern himself with deep theology. Latitudinarians had no interest in making waves or

getting into religious arguments. They were peace seekers who believed in living benevolent

lives, and religion was the best way to accomplish that.

Henry, though similarly quiet about his devotion to Jesus Christ as the one true God,

probably wasn’t a Latitudinarian. While Washington wrote many letters that can be dissected,

Henry wrote close to nothing that would give away his ideas about personal faith. He did

question whether he had taken on the style of Whitefield and Davies but not enough of the

substance of their sermons. This would suggest that he ascribed to their teachings even if he felt

that he didn’t live up to their standards. A statement like that was typical of evangelicals of the

time, always struggling with their salvation.

Given that Henry didn’t say much about his personal faith in letters, his reading habits

are necessary to look at in determining his faith. He often read Christian books with an

evangelical sort of message, and even distributed them (much like Samuel Davies and John

Wesley) at his own expense. Henry’s favorite book according to his brother-in-law was The Rise

Willams 12

and Progress of Religion in the Soul by Philip Doddridge. When the book was published in

1744, it became a staple amongst evangelicals well into the nineteenth century; the theme of

being “born again” by a conversion experience prominent. It is unknown whether Henry ever

experienced the kind of conversion that Doddridge advocated, but given that The Rise and

Progress of Religion was his favorite Christian book, he was at least partial to evangelicalism.16

Like Washington, Henry believed that without the Christian religion, the morality of

society would suffer. While the debate of the separation of church and state was in full, Henry

would put forth a general assessment plan, hoping it would abolish the notion of state churches.

The people would still have to pay taxes to a church, but it could be whatever denomination they

wanted (there would be exemptions for non-Christians). If Henry’s plan was implemented,

Christians in Virginia, for example, would no longer have to send their taxes to Anglican parishes

but would have to pay taxes to a church of their choosing.

Henry was, of course, was met with firm opposition, especially from the likes of Thomas

Jefferson and James Madison who wanted a complete separation of church and state--that no one

should be required by law to pay taxes to a church. Jefferson and Madison would have had no

chance of successfully standing against Henry’s bill had they not gotten support from the

Baptists. Madison mobilized himself, collaborating with dissenting churches, especially the

Baptists, relaying the message that the church could thrive through voluntary giving; that it

didn’t need the government in its way. He reasoned that religion “must be left to the conviction

and conscience of every man.”17 To Madison, religious liberty couldn’t exist if churches were to

be supported by the government.

Willams 13

16 Kidd, Patrick Henry, 36-39.

17 James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance,” June 20, 1785, quoted in Kidd, Patrick Henry, 171.

George Washington put his support behind Henry’s plan, and even while facing a tough

opposition, the plan gained momentum, passing through the House. That momentum would

come to a halt when Henry left the House of Delegates in order to become governor of Virginia.

Madison proved he was politically cunning by pushing for the change, knowing that when Henry

moved into the governor’s mansion, he would take his political clout with him. With little

support on the popular level, The bill would eventually be set aside. In their triumph, Jefferson

and Madison cheered the bill’s defeat in the name of religious liberty.

Henry and Washington would have never intended on being opposite of religious liberty.

Washington believed that no denomination or sect should be favored over another, and

throughout his political life, he attended meetings held by Anglicans, Quakers, German

Reformers, and Presbyterians. Henry, too, strongly opposed an established state church, and his

work as an attorney in the Parsons’ Cause was an immaculate display of religious liberty, perhaps

before any of his peers had fought for freedom’s cause. These patriots didn’t want to enforce

religion, they simply wanted to promote it for the better good of society. Unfortunately for

Henry, in drafting his general assessment plan, he would be looked at by some as trying to slow

the heavy current of liberty--the liberty that he had made a career long effort to defend.

Not long after the failure of the general assessment, another potential opportunity for the

state to promote religion found its way to Governor Henry’s desk. England’s Countess of

Huntingdon came up with a plan to Christianize Indians on the American frontier. An

evangelical methodist leader, the Countess wanted a chance to build towns, setting up schools

and churches near Indian tribes. In order to carry out her plan she would need tax incentives as

well as land to build on. Henry was poised to help such a cause and raised the plan to congress.

Willams 14

Washington also endorsed the plan. He believed that “the religion of Jesus Christ” would make

Indians a “greater and happier people” than they were. However, Henry would once again be

disappointed in not getting congress to see the benefits of promoting religion.18

In conclusion, George Washington and Patrick Henry, both Anglicans, were quite

different in their faiths. While Henry was deeply influenced politically and personally by the

Great Awakening, Washington remained a Latitudinarian Anglican, devoted to morality. Their

differences didn’t stop them from lining up in their views that the state should promote religion

without enforcing it, and that any society that valued the Christian religion would be better off.

While Washington might be most remembered for his actions of leadership in battle and as the

first great leader of a new nation, Henry will be remembered most for his gift of rhetoric,

especially in his “Liberty of Death” speech. Nevertheless, it can be concluded about these two

men, that their religious identities played a key role in their revolutionary fight for liberty.

Willams 15

18 Kidd, Patrick Henry, 167-174.

Bibliography

Chandler, J.A.C. and E.G. Swim. William and Mary College Quarterly, volume 1, series 2. Williamsburg, VA: William and Mary College, 1921.

Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency: George Washington. New York: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, inc., 2005.

Fea, John. Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

Hay, Robert P. “George Washington: American Moses,” American Quarterly. Vol. 21, No. 4. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969.

Kidd, Thomas S. Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

Novak, Michael and Jana Novak. Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Founding of Our Country. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

Pilcher, George W. Samuel Davies: Apostle of Dissent in Colonial Virginia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1971.

Rasmussen, William S. George Washington: The Man behind the Myths. The University Press of Virginia, 1999.

Wirt, William. Sketches of the life and character of Patrick Henry. Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1878.

Willams 16