Hello, and welcome to America’s First Ladies. I’m your host, Risa Weaver-Enion.
Episode 1.1, Introduction
On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States of America, and Martha Washington became the first First Lady. But here are two fun facts right out of the gate: Martha wasn’t even at George’s inauguration, and we didn’t start calling the President’s wife the First Lady until 1849.
Martha was born into a world where the King of England was the sovereign ruler of the colony of Virginia, where she lived. She could never have dreamed that one day she would be the spouse of the President of the United States of America.
First of all, no other country had a President. And second of all, The United States of America didn’t exist! She expected to grow up, marry, have children, and live her entire life in the same colony where she was born. The reality turned out so wildly different from anything she could have ever imagined.
We’re going to start at the beginning in episode 1.2, where I tell you all about Martha’s childhood in Virginia. But I thought it would be useful to create an introductory episode with some background information.
Although today we use America and the United States interchangeably, the United States did not exist at the beginning of our story. America did though. The colonies that England established throughout the 1600s on the land mass across the Atlantic Ocean were called the American colonies. So I will refer to America as such for the first part of the season.
Once the American colonists declare independence, win the war, and establish a new nation, I’ll start referring to it as the United States.
I also use England/English and Britain/British somewhat interchangeably. England is a country, obviously, and it’s on the island of Great Britain. Wales and Scotland are separate countries that are also on the island of Great Britain. In 1707, England, Scotland, and Wales were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain. But the seat of government was London, and the king and parliament governing Great Britain were often referred to as the English king and the English parliament. We Americans tend to refer to the English as the British, which is probably not super precise on our part, but there you go.
One more note on terminology has to do with what to call the Americans who decided to revolt against their king and parliament back in England. They called themselves patriots. The English called them rebels and traitors.
What’s the difference between a rebellion and a revolution? You could argue that it depends on the outcome. If the rebellion is put down and the status quo resumes, then it was a rebellion. But if the rebellion is successful, either in effecting some significant change or in throwing off control by another country, then it’s a revolution.
Obviously the outcome of the uprising that we today call the American Revolution wasn’t known while they were in the middle of it. They all knew they were committing treason, and they all knew that they could be hanged as traitors if the British defeated them or if they were captured during hostilities. George Washington and his fellow soldiers knew they had to win or die. Miraculously, they won. But keep all this in mind as we get into the episodes covering the war years.
Life in 18th century colonial America was vastly different from what we experience in 21st century America. Let’s start with the most obvious difference, and the elephant in the room: slavery. I’ve rewritten and revised this portion of my script numerous times. It’s hard to talk about Martha and George Washington’s relationship to slavery without sounding like I’m trying to justify the fact that they were slaveholders. That’s not at all what I’m trying to do. I’m only trying to put it in context and describe their relationship with slavery.
Even in the 18th century, there were plenty of people who knew that slavery was wrong, so the fact is that Martha and George were just plain racist in their belief that Black people were inferior. Nothing I’m about to say should be construed as trying to condone that, or overlook it. I just want you to understand that this was only one facet of their lives and who they were as people.
Martha lived her entire life in slave-holding America, and she depended on slave labor throughout her life. To her, this was a natural state of affairs. To us, it’s appalling.
But it was a fact of life in colonial America, and not just in the south. There were also Northerners who owned slaves. During Martha’s lifetime, there was a small abolition movement, and they achieved some small wins, but most slave owners were unwilling or financially unable to release their slaves from bondage. The Southern colonies had developed their entire economies on the backs of slave labor, and it was never going to be easy to separate them.
A lot has been written about the irony of the Founding Fathers fighting for liberty from their oppressors while also being slave holders. There’s no doubt it was the height of hypocrisy. Some Founding Fathers, like George Washington, had qualms about slavery and wanted to find a way to end it. He did eventually free all his slaves, but only under the terms of his will when he died.
Martha never seems to have had second thoughts about slavery. She wasn’t cruel to her slaves, but she definitely thought of them as inferior beings. She became rather close to some of the house slaves who were with her for many years, especially her personal maids. But she also often accused them of being inherently lazy and felt they needed to be constantly micromanaged or nothing would get done.
It’s uncomfortable to refer to humans as property belonging to someone and using the possessive pronouns “his, her, and their,” but there’s no getting around the fact that African people were kidnapped, shipped to America in inhumane conditions, and sold as property. Slaveholders considered these African people to be property in the same way they considered their homes and the contents of their homes to be property.
It’s also uncomfortable to seemingly defend Martha by saying she wasn’t cruel to her slaves. It feels like playing into the fallacy of the “benevolent slaveholder,” which is a contradiction in terms. I don’t want anything I say here to be construed as justifying slavery.
Subjectively speaking, Martha was not cruel. She made sure the slaves were properly clothed and fed, and she provided medical care and medicines when they were sick. Their quarters were kept in good repair, and they were allowed to earn money in various ways. George and Martha also had a policy of not selling slaves if it meant splitting up families.
This gets complicated because, again, slaves were considered property, but it will come up a few times in future episodes, so I want to explain it now. Martha inherited a large number of slaves from her first husband. They belonged to his estate, but she had the right to the benefit of their labor during her lifetime. They were referred to as “dower slaves.”
After her death, they would revert to the estate and the estate’s heirs. That means George couldn’t sell any of Martha’s dower slaves without reimbursing the estate for their value. Because slaves that were part of George’s estate intermarried and had children with slaves that were part of Martha’s dower estate, they almost never sold any of their slaves, because it often wasn’t possible to sell them as a family unit, and they didn’t want to separate the families.
I can assure you that not all slaveholders were this conscientious about keeping families together. But at the same time, objectively speaking, the very fact that they “owned” slaves is cruel. Slaves had no control over their own lives. No freedom of choice at all. They were not allowed to learn how to read or write. Life as a slave was inherently a cruel state of existence, even if the slaves were taken care of and provided for.
Now certainly, there were slaveholders and plantation overseers who were just inhumanely cruel—beating and starving their slaves. So what I mean when I say that Martha wasn’t cruel to her slaves is that they were not subjected to this extreme inhumanity, and they were generally treated as valuable assets. But they were seen as assets nonetheless.
This podcast isn’t about slavery, but slavery runs through everything in the 18th and first half of the 19th century, so it has to be acknowledged. It’s going to be in the background of all of the seasons of this podcast until we get past the Civil War.
This podcast also isn’t about George Washington, and it’s not about the Revolutionary War, but you’re going to learn a whole lot about both because they were such large parts of Martha’s life. She was an integral part of the war, to an extent that no one ever learns in school.
Another thing to note about life in the 18th century is that there was a lot of death. You might be appalled at the number of tragic deaths Martha endured throughout her lifetime. Disease and illness were the major culprits, but also accidents and, you know, war. It will make you appreciate all the vaccines and pharmaceuticals we have available to us in the 21st century. It’s something of a miracle that Martha lived to be nearly 71, which was considered elderly in the 18th century.
Communication was much slower in the 18th century. They obviously didn’t have email or telephones, but they didn’t even have telegrams yet. All communication was done either in-person or through written correspondence that had to be hand-delivered or sent through the post. Couriers often carried important messages and then waited for a reply to go back to the original sender. Transportation was entirely by foot or by horse—either riding on a horse or riding in a coach or wagon pulled by horses.
By the end of this season, I think you’ll have a real appreciation for the force of nature that was Martha Washington. I know I do. I read four biographies of Martha to prepare this season’s episodes. Biographies are what we call “secondary sources” because they are not original documents from the time period being studied. The opposite of secondary sources is primary sources. Primary sources are things like correspondence between the relevant parties, diaries, logbooks, newspaper articles, official records of meetings, etc.
Many people of this time period, including George Washington, kept daily diaries of their activities and who they met or dined with. George even kept detailed records of each day’s weather and what was happening with various plantings, like a true farmer. Unfortunately, Martha Washington did not keep a diary.
The biographies I read did have quite a bit of overlap because the authors were mostly using the same primary sources for their research. In an unfortunate twist, after George died, Martha burned all the letters they had written to each other. Only two escaped because they were wedged into a desk and Martha missed them. It’s fascinating to speculate on what more we could know about this famous couple if she hadn’t burned their letters.
But Martha was a reluctant public figure, and she probably felt that this was the only way she could exert any control over her legacy. George and Martha were apart for long stretches during their marriage, especially during the Revolutionary War and some parts of the presidency. They wrote to each other constantly when they were apart, so those letters would have been a treasure trove of information. Oh well! [shrug emoji]
I, personally, am glad I didn’t have to do the primary source research for this podcast. People were less than creative with names back then, and the same names were used over and over again within families. Because there were so many people who had the same names, nicknames were common, but a lot of the same nicknames were used too. Trying to keep track of which Martha or John was which sounds like an absolute nightmare.
Not to mention that record-keeping in the pre-digital age was less than ideal. Many records have been lost to fires and floods. Others have weathered with age, making them difficult or impossible to decipher. Plus, trying to read 18th century handwriting is enough to drive a person to drink. Then add in the fact that there was little standardization of spelling back then, and reading letters from this time period is a little like trying to solve a word puzzle. So yeah, I’m glad the biographers have done the really hard work for me.
In places where I quote directly from one of the biographies I read, I will identify the book and author. They are also listed on the companion website at americasfirstladiespodcast.com. You can also find transcripts for each episode there, in case you want to refer back to something.
Lastly, just a note about time periods and dates. I’ve already mentioned the 18th century a couple of times. This is obvious to some, but maybe not obvious to everyone. The 18th century is the 1700s. Martha was born in 1731 and she died in 1802, so nearly everything I’m going to talk about takes place in the 1700s. I’ll mostly give exact years for events, but there are some generalizations that are made with regard to the 18th century, so I want you to have the proper context.
I’ll leave you with a quote from one of the biographies I read to prepare this season, Martha Washington: An American Life by Patricia Brady: “Not elected and free of official oversight, presidents' wives wield tremendous political and social influence. With their unique access to the nation’s leader, they are subject to constant scrutiny by allies and enemies, the press, and the general public. These women are expected to assume national responsibilities, willing or not, and their private lives are routinely examined, discussed, and criticized. There is no guidebook to help a new First Lady; she must look back at her predecessors to decide how to shape her role and to survive in the limelight. Martha Washington’s imprint on the position has been decisive. As the first in a long line, she invented the role while confronting with grace its inevitable quandaries, successes, and heartaches. Admired and respected in her lifetime, Martha Washington set the standard for all First Ladies.”
Next week, we’ll officially kick off Martha Washington’s life with Episode 1.2, Little Patsy Dandridge. Thanks for listening. This episode was produced by me, and the music is by Matthew Dull.