Virginia's Trinity of Immortals: Washington, Jefferson, and Henry, and the Story of Their Fractured Relationships

Abstract

public careers of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry overlapped for over three decades-in Virginia resistance movement before 1776, in Continental Congress, in General Washington's pleas to Governors Henry and Jefferson for men and supplies during Revolutionary War, in fight over ratification of Constitution, and in events of Washington's presidency and politics of 1790s. Eventually, these relationships unraveled. First Henry and Jefferson became estranged. Then same thing happened between Henry and Washington, and, finally, between Washington and Jefferson. Only one reconciliation took place between any of these pairs: Washington and Henry, both of whom died in 1799. As has often been true in American politics, political disagreements took on personal dimensions, and combination of two ended friendships and generated bitterness and estrangements. Even so, three Virginians dealt with their conflicts by peaceful means. That fact alone tells us something important about American Revolution and future character of American politics.Over years intense fascination for trio fed partly on myth, which always enlarges accomplishments of heroes who stand tall even without embellishment. That explains late Bernard Mayo's title for slim volume called Myths & Men: Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Mayo begins his masterly surgery on layers of exaggeration by recreating cold February day in 1858, in Richmond's Capitol Square, when Washington's equestrian statute was unveiled, with figures of Jefferson and Henry standing beside him. Panegyrists hailed them The Sword, Pen, and Trumpet of Revolution.1Washington's role in American founding took place on colonial and national scene, was case with Jefferson's; Henry's participation in that same process happened almost exclusively at local level in career that was Virginia-centered. Prior to Henry's departure from Second Continental Congress in August 1775, however, he had inspired and energized Americans with his vigorous speeches and calls to action in defense of their liberties. Washington, on other hand, consistently thought and acted from high ground, in continental terms. Jefferson too knew how to view things in national context, but he did not do so with Washington's consistency. Certainly Washington's critics rarely described him preoccupied with Virginia and South. He ranks most consistent and influential nationalist of his generation. Fair or not, Henry's detractors eventually saw him particularist, and, to somewhat lesser extent, so did critics of Jefferson.There is no evidence to suggest any friction between Washington, Jefferson, and Henry for some years after their acquaintance began. All from gentry families. All served in House of Burgesses, entering that body shortly before or during imperial crisis: in 1758 (Washington), 1765 (Henry), and 1769 (Jefferson). Henry's arrival at capital in 1765 found Jefferson still reading law under George Wythe, having recently attended College of William and Mary. Jefferson's extramural political education received shot of adrenaline in May 1765, he stood at back of House chamber and heard Henry, freshman legislator, attack Stamp Act. As an old man Jefferson still remembered vividly the splendid display of Mr. Henry's talents popular orator . . . such I have never heard from any other man. He spoke as Homer wrote.2 Jefferson was never silver-tongued and never claimed to be. If he envied Henry in that respect, he denigrated his talents lawyer. Both were part of what Merrill Petersen calls a new generation of professional lawyers. In Jefferson's eyes, Henry was intellectually lazy. No doubt it irritated Jefferson that Henry came to bar after six weeks of desultory reading, whereas Jefferson devoted several years to exhaustive preparation. …