Sold – Chief Justice Marshall Writes About His “Life of George Washington”

Accuracy of detail ought to have been, and was, among my primary objects. If in any instance I have failed to attain this object, the failure is the more lamented if its consequence be the imputation of blame where praise was merited.

Within eight years of the death of George Washington in 1799, the first major biography of ‘the father of his country’ was written and published in five volumes. The author was none other than the sitting Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Marshall; the final volume came out the same year (1807) as Marshall presided over the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Marshall was a great admirer of Washington, and he was given access to Washington’s papers by his family. The biography was successful and influential, remaining the standard work on the life of Washington until surpassed half a century by Washington Irving’s.

The work was so authoritative in its day that fully 27 years after it was published, people were still poring over it to cull information. In February 1834, the 79 year old Chief justice received a long letter from John L. Lawrence, a New York politician who later served in the state senate. Lawrence praised Marshall’s biography, but took issue with a passage in the book regarding the Battle of Long Island, which occurred in August, 1776 and resulted in Washington’s evacuation of his forces to Manhattan, and ultimately out of New York entirely.  Specifically, Lawrence disagreed with Marshall’s portrayal of the actions of Gen. Nathaniel Woodhull, President of the Provincial Congress of New York and commander of the Long Island militia. Woodhull’s men were ordered to prevent supplies from reaching British troops, but Marshall labored under the belief that they were supposed to have made themselves available for the Battle of Long Island itself. Lawrence complained that Marshall misinterpreted Woodhull’s orders and actions, and sought to set the record straight. Woodhull was a hero on Long Island, as he was cut down in cold blood following the battle there for refusing to say “God save the King” to a British cavalry officer after being captured, and subsequently died from his wounds.

Autograph Letter Signed, 2 pages, Washington. February 21, 1834, to Lawrence. Marshall’s response shows his willingness, despite his busy schedule as Chief Justice, to correct the historical record, and his overall care and attention to facts and details. “Judge [Ogden] Edwards did me the favor to deliver yesterday evening your letter of the 13th with the documents to which it refers.  It is to me matter for deep concern and self reproach that the biographer of Washington should, from whatever cause, have mistaken the part performed by any individual in the war of our revolution. Accuracy of detail ought to have been, and was, among my primary objects.  If in any instance I have failed to attain this object, the failure is the more lamented if its consequence be the imputation of blame where praise was merited.

“The evidence with which you have furnished me demonstrates that the small body of militia assembled near Jamaica in Long Island in August 1776 was not called out for the purpose of direct cooperation with the troops in Brooklyn and was not placed by the convention under the officer commanding at that post.  It is apparent that their particular object, after the British had landed on Long Is. was to intercept the supplies they might draw from the country.  It is apparent also that General Woodhull joined them only a day or two before the battle; and there is every reason to believe that he executed with intelligence and vigor the duty confided to him.  I have supposed that the order to march to the western part of Queens county directed an approach to the enemy, and that the heights alluded to were between Jamaica and Brooklyn.  But I have not the papers which I read at the time from the publications then in my possession.  I only recollect the impression they made that General Woodhull was called into the field for the purpose of aiding the operations from Brooklyn; and that General Washington, knowing the existence of this corps, had a right to count upon it in some slight degree, as guarding the road leading from Jamaica.  In this I was mistaken; and in this mistake the statement of which you complain originated.

“I think however that you misconstrue it.  No allusion is made to the numbers of the militia under his command, nor to any jealousy of the military officer commanding at Brooklyn, nor is it hinted that the convention had placed him under that office.  I rather infer that it appeared to me to be an additional example of the many inconveniences arising in the early part of the war from the disposition of the civil authorities to manage affairs belonging to the military department. I wish very much that I had possessed the information you have now given me.  The whole statement would most probably have been omitted, the fact not being connected with the battle; or, if introduced, have been essentially varied.” Both this letter and Lawrence’s that evoked this response appear in the John Marshall Papers, Volume 12.

A search of auction records for the past 35 years fails to turn up any other letters of Marshall on Washington, nor so we recall having seen any.  Sold with pictured engraving of Chief Justice Marshall.