This compelling letter, penned by George Washington from Mount Vernon on June 11th, 1769, offers a fascinating glimpse into the business dealings and economic realities of colonial Virginia. Addressed to a “Sir” – whose identity is central to understanding the context, perhaps even someone historically connected to figures like “Posey John” in broader colonial narratives – the letter is a frank and somewhat forceful communication regarding significant debts and a proposed land transaction. Washington, writing with his characteristic directness, lays bare the financial straits of his correspondent and proposes a solution that is both business-minded and advantageous to himself.
The letter opens with a brief, almost perfunctory congratulation on the recipient’s recent remarriage, quickly pivoting to the pressing matter at hand: unresolved financial obligations. Washington states plainly that the recipient’s affairs in the county have reached a “crisis,” necessitating this somewhat demanding reminder of their outstanding debts. He emphasizes the urgency and seriousness of the situation, urging careful consideration.
Washington immediately details the actions taken to recover the owed money. He informs the recipient that assets not already secured to him have been “Attached”—legally seized—and many already sold. The remaining assets are on the verge of being sold off as well. This paints a stark picture of the recipient’s deteriorating financial position. Adding to the gravity, Washington notes that even some of the assets included in a previous “Bill of Sale” meant to secure Washington’s interests have also been seized or are diminishing due to “various and unforeseen Accidents.” This suggests a chaotic and unfavorable situation for the debtor.
The letter further escalates the pressure by bringing in other creditors. Washington mentions Colonel Mason, for whom Washington acts as security on a bond for the recipient. Mason has reportedly inquired about the debt multiple times and likely needs the money more urgently than initially anticipated due to his own financial setbacks. This highlights the interconnected web of credit and obligation in colonial times, and the pressure felt by guarantors like Washington.
Adding another layer of complexity, Washington reveals that Mr. Ross and others have initiated a “Bill in Chancery” – a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery – against both the recipient and Washington. This legal action aims to force the sale of the recipient’s estate to settle debts owed to Washington. Washington anticipates a final decree from the court imminently. This legal pressure underscores the seriousness of the situation and the limited options available to the recipient.
Washington contrasts his own “forbearance and Indulgence” with the “short and easy method” employed by other creditors. He points out that his patience has not only left him without the money he needs but also put him at risk of having to cover Colonel Mason’s demand. Furthermore, the declining value of the seized goods due to various factors means Washington could suffer significant losses if the situation isn’t resolved quickly. He emphasizes that his attempts to be lenient have not benefited either party.
Washington then addresses a potential, albeit unlikely, scenario: the recipient attempting to redeem his Virginia estate by selling newly acquired assets in Maryland. He dismisses this possibility, citing a “Bill in Chancery” brought by James Cheston against the recipient’s new wife and her family. This lawsuit, on behalf of Messrs. Sedgley & Hilhouse, seeks to subject the real estate of Robert Idair (likely related to the wife’s family) to debt payment, effectively blocking the recipient’s access to those Maryland assets for the purpose of settling Virginia debts. This legal maneuver further restricts the recipient’s financial maneuvering room.
Even if the recipient could raise funds from Maryland, Washington argues that the Virginia land in question is no longer a viable “Seat” – a suitable place to live. It is now separated from the land previously held by the recipient through his late wife. Moreover, Washington asserts that the recipient will “most assuredly loose the Six Acres” with improvements bought from Mr. Marshall, due to Mr. West’s superior claim. This legal opinion, seemingly shared by lawyers and others, further diminishes the value and desirability of the land for the recipient. Washington concludes that the land, lacking timber, fencing, and fuel, is only valuable for its sale price. This practical assessment aims to steer the recipient towards accepting Washington’s proposal.
Having laid out the dire financial and legal landscape, Washington pivots to his proposal: purchasing the 200 acres of land previously bought from his brother Charles. He clarifies that this land, separate from Mr. West’s and the “Slipe” where the dwelling house stands, is unsuitable as a residence for the recipient. He has instructed Lund Washington (George Washington’s cousin and Mount Vernon manager) to inquire about the recipient’s asking price for the land, requesting immediate possession. Lund Washington is authorized to discuss price and other details, providing further explanation of Washington’s sentiments.
Washington candidly reveals his motivation for wanting to purchase the land at this time. He has an opportunity to rent out land near Williamsburg but is hesitant to commit and relocate overseers without securing a nearby place to relocate some of his enslaved laborers. He needs a location in his current “Neighbourhood” to consolidate his workforce, as his other properties are already at capacity. Furthermore, he desires time to make preparations and alterations to the land before the fall harvest. This reveals Washington’s strategic approach to land management and agricultural operations.
Anticipating a potential objection about the existing crops on the land, Washington addresses the issue of immediate possession. He proposes selling the standing crops – grain and corn – as part of the transaction. He suggests three methods for valuation: mutual agreement, appraisal by impartial individuals, or auction. Washington argues that selling the crops standing in the field could be advantageous to the recipient. He believes the crops are likely to be seized soon anyway, leading to waste and reduced value. He also points out that the recipient’s workforce is running out of food, and the horses lack fodder, making it difficult to manage the harvest effectively.
Washington reiterates that selling the crops and other assets quickly would allow the recipient to settle debts sooner, potentially before a court-ordered sale. This could be beneficial as it might coincide with a better market for selling goods, particularly if it is near market season. He suggests it is better to have one comprehensive sale than multiple sales, especially since money is urgently needed to satisfy Colonel Mason’s demand. The assets needed to meet this demand, such as horses and carts, are crucial for continued crop production, creating a further incentive to sell everything at once.
Washington concludes by reiterating that his primary focus is acquiring the land. He requests the recipient’s “ultimate determination” on the land sale, even if possession is delayed until the fall. Knowing his land situation will allow Washington to plan the relocation of his workforce. He emphasizes that any agreement reached with Lund Washington will be binding. However, he cautions that any private agreement is contingent on Mr. Ross’s approval, given the ongoing Chancery suit. Washington believes his willingness to pay a premium for a quick and certain land purchase will likely be agreeable to Mr. Ross. He advises keeping the potential deal quiet until preparations are made.
Finally, Washington clarifies that any agreement on the crops would be conditional, as Mr. West’s potential recovery of land possession would include the crops growing on it. He emphasizes his willingness to include all crops, even those on Mr. West’s land, to fully disengage the recipient’s enslaved workforce from the property. While the crop sale is secondary to the land acquisition, Washington presents it as a potentially beneficial option for the recipient to streamline the entire debt settlement process. The letter closes with a formal sign-off from “Go: Washington.”
This letter provides a rich historical document revealing the complexities of 18th-century business, land ownership, and debt management. While the direct connection to “Posey John” remains unclear from this specific letter, understanding the broader historical context of figures like him, potentially involved in colonial commerce or land transactions, could further illuminate the intricacies of this era. George Washington’s assertive yet pragmatic approach to resolving this financial matter showcases his business acumen and the stark economic realities of colonial Virginia life.
