Maria Washington

Rough draft posted for comments. Usual rules. Do not share off the blog or copy to your website.

The Church in Maria’s House

            There are several points in our narrative where this history would be appropriate. It appears here because it illustrates the nature of fledgling congregations and the path taken by some of those newly interested. We are without a real start to this account and do not have a satisfying grasp on some details. It is brought to us through an article in The New York Sun. The article, written without a byline, alternates between simple reporting and snide, nearly vulgar, insulting comments. The article focuses on Maria Jourdan Washington – better known to history as Maria Elizabeth Jourdan Westmoreland – describing religious meetings held in her home.

            Maria Jourdan was born in Georgia, October 10, 1838, to Warren Jourdan and Mary Johnson-Thornton. The Thorntons and Jourdans were prominent politically, espousing ‘states rights’ in the pre-war years, and they were wealthy. Both Maria and her sister Madeline were educated at the Baptist-sponsored Southern Female College at La Grange, Georgia, and both were accomplished writers. Maria was an expert musician as well. In 1856 she married Willis Furman Westmoreland [June 1, 1828 – June 26, 1890], a surgeon of note. He was ten years her senior, not uncommon in this era.[1] A biography says:

Loveliness of person and precocity of mind were her gifts from nature. It was a rare thing for one to pass the thoughtful little beauty without prophesying a brilliant future for her. Even in tender childhood she gave unmistakable evidences of that genius which has given to the literati those essays which have appeared from time to time in the columns of “Scott’s Monthly,” and the “Ladies’ Home Gazette,” both periodicals published in the City of Atlanta, the home of Mrs. Westmoreland.

With Maria Jourdan, music was a passion. Having been so fortunate as to have always enjoyed the tuition of skilful masters, she early became a proficient in the art, and, unlike most married ladies, she has never thrown aside her favorite amusement, but devotes much time to familiarizing herself with 'the various operas, etc., her rendition of some of which is worthy a Strakosch or a Verdi. Her touch is exquisite and thrilling, her manipulation wonderful. Nor should we fail to speak of her beautiful improvisations, which so often charm and delight the home circle. Hour after hour have we seen her under the inspiration, as it were, of Orpheus, while strain after strain of the most witching music would be borne upon the air, ravishing the ear, melting the heart, and causing the eye to grow liquid, and the lip to quiver with emotion. On such occasions Mrs. Westmoreland is transcendently charming. The rapt look she wears; the deeply sad expression of her large, dark, and lustrous eyes; the heightening color, the classic brow, where “thought sits enthroned” – all, all combine to form a picture over which artists would delight to linger. Her manners are fascinating – not indeed free from that hauteur peculiar to high-bred Southern women; but she commands without repulsing. She is a brilliant colloquist, her conversations abounding in wit, repartee, and pleasantry.

Mrs. Westmoreland is endowed with a high order of intellect, excelling, when at college, in mathematics and the languages. She also early evinced a preference for the study of the classics, and her mind is richly stored with stories and legends – of those real and mythical personages whose marvelous deeds and glorious achievements have been sung from time immemorial.[2]

           

            Maria’s married life was as lively as it was in her youth. She fostered a “literary club.” The biography quoted above says:

She was also the founder of a “literary club,” whose members convened once a week at her residence on Marietta Street. On these occasions, private theatricals were performed, and poems read or delivered, each member being compelled to contribute something for the amusement and edification of the “club.” These weekly reunions were replete with interest and information, and happy they, indeed, who formed one of this charmed circle.

            This seems effusive, but given her known history, it appears accurate. We can trace some of her travels and know something of her subsequent history. The American Civil War interrupted her home life. She gave birth to her first child, a daughter, on December 20, 1860, the day South Carolina seceded, and in honor of that they named her Carolina. Her husband joined the Confederate medical corps, eventually being promoted to the rank of general by Jefferson Davis.

            Maria “was devoted to the cause of the South, and toiled unremittingly, through heat and cold, rain and sunshine, during those terrible years of blood and carnage from which we have but emerged,” wrote a biographer. She wrote two plays, A Soldier’s Wife and The Soldier’s Trials, both performed in the Atlanta Athenaeum. “The proceeds, which were munificent, were donated to the destitute wives and children of those brave Atlantians who were battling so manfully for our cause on the historic soil of the ‘Old Dominion.’” [The Old Dominion is Virginia.] Her biographer wrote that:

The first evening the play of ‘The Soldier’s Wife’ was presented, the Athenaeum was crowded almost to suffocation: the order and decorum observed on that occasion was wonderful, and bespoke at once the high regard and appreciation which the Atlanta public felt for the dramatic neophyte. The emotion evinced by that vast audience was deep and unfeigned; and every eye shed a tear and every bosom heaved a sigh over the stricken wife who had abandoned herself to sorrow, in the hourly expectation of the news of the condemnation of her husband, who had deserted the army, and fled to his home and little ones to preserve them from starvation. The play was a decided success, and the youthful follower of Aeschylus left the Athenaeum amid the congratulations of many sincere and loving friends.

            The war challenged, as it did for many women, Maria’s view of women’s rights and responsibilities. In Southern culture as in most of the United States, “respectable women” did not become actresses. The Civil War changed that, and Maria with other ‘respectable’ women acted in her plays. Writing plays to fund relief work was not her only act in support of the Southern cause. She and a Madeline V. Bryan, crafted “the first public symbol of Confederate authority in Atlanta,” a flag for the Customs House.[3] Maria called together prominent women, her social peers, on April 17, 1861, five days after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. They organized into a soldiers’ aid society, their first task being to scrape lint for bandages. Since the Confederate government did not furnish uniforms, they turned to making shirts, pants and socks for soldiers. Naming themselves The Ladies’ Soldier’s Relief Society, the attracted “many young women of high social standing” including Mary Clayton whom some of our American readers will remember form their history reading.[4] Contributions in money and “in kind” came to “the Ladies,” and Maria duly reported them in detail.[5] When General Sherman approached Atlanta, Maria, in late term pregnancy, fled.

Post-War: 1866-1879

            Maria wrote a series of articles for The Atlanta Constitution using the fictional persona of Aunt Tabitha, “dispensing advice to a younger female relative.” She condemned fornication, rampant in post-war Georgia. She advocated educating women. She advocated the admission of women to the University of Georgia, though to no avail. Women were not admitted until 1918. Maria said that “women’s economic advancement would occur when they gained access to education.” Later, the Southern press saw her as a radical ‘women’s rights’ advocate, but she was not. She suggested that “women were not yet ready to become voters,” but she saw the day when suffrage would come as near.[6] In July 1872 she addressed the graduating class of the Southern Female College at LaGrange, her alma mater. The Christian Index, a religious paper published in Atlanta, reported: “Mrs. Maria J. Westmoreland ... read a splendid essay.  Subject, ‘What shall our Women do?’  It was filled with good sense, sound reasoning, and practical advice.”[7]

            Maria turned to novel writing, producing Heart-Hungry, published by G. W. Carleton and Co. of New York. Maria traveled to New York to consult with her publishers. Wendy Venet, in her stellar book, says she was accompanied by her husband.[8]  Her stay was short, but she returned to New York in the fall of 1873, planning to stay the winter. She brought her two children with her, but her husband remained in Atlanta.

            Her original intention, a bow to Southern prejudice, was to publish anonymously.[9] Heart-Hungry tells us much about her views of religious practice. The heroin is Maud Livingstone, an oppressed orphan. Her foster parents mistreat her out of guilt. Her foster mother, wrote Maria, “was a living representative of a certain class, who are saints in public, and vipers in private life, and with much external religion, her woman’s unwomanly heart entertained no spark of sympathy for this motherless girl.” Oppressed Maud dealt with dark thoughts, vanquishing them “by the consciousness of the sin of indulging them, and taking up her cross again.” Toward the novel’s conclusion Maria wrote: “Religion is the foundation of virtue and the strongest support of society; the friend of the helpless; the sacred guardian of the marriage rite; the faithful sentinel upon the light-house, that, descrying danger, gives the alarm, and then throws its protecting arms around the weary and the doubtful”. In time, Maria would question the efficacy of religion as usually practiced, but in 1872, this was her firm belief.

            A second novel followed in short order, and the first was dramatized. Clifford Troup: A Georgia Story was published the next year. As did her first novel, this one contained a religious message. She introduced her story with Bible quotations that focused on respecting parents and giving exclusive worship to God. She felt compelled to include a moral lesson. We see this in a letter she wrote to Mary Washington, her brother-in-law’s wife:

Undoubtedly genius, talent, or by whatever name you call it thrives best in attics and in poverty. And those who think they can coquette with the muses in slippered luxury and at such time as suits their self-indulgence and sweet fancy, will never reach the dizzy heights where Homer soared, or write their names on fame’s eternal scroll. George Eliot said: “Genius meant daily labor.” ... For my part – from childhood up I have led such a busy life, that I am wretched when idle. Indeed “doing nothing” is the task as difficult for me, as rolling the stone up the hill, then down again was to Sisphus [sic]. And looking at it from another point of view, I think it wicked to lead a life of idleness and believe, as firmly as I believe in my God, that we must render an account of talents given and not used. Indeed the parable of the talents is one of the most forcible in all the teachings of the sweet, but lowly Nazarene. My Rector used to say that I was born with as distinctive a mission as any one he had ever known – and that mission was to teach though my writings, the right and the wrong, the follies and weaknesses of human nature – He also said I possess a rare combination, which at the same time as recognizing all the light and shadow of right and wrong, felt a broad sympathy for all the foibles of humanity – I once hoped all this was true, prayerfully, and in the sight and fear of God, accepted, through numerous trials, sufferings and tribulations, the awful responsibility. After accepting the rôle, I went forth as the knights of old, with spear drawn and helmet down, confident in my own ability – not only to battle for my brothers and sisters, but hopeful of my own capacity to win the fight. – That they wounded me to the core, is also, true, for like all persons of fervid imaginations, I am morbidly sensitive. But alas! L’hommes propose – mais Dieu dispose![10]

            When in New York City, Maria lectured at the Union League Club. The New York Home Journal reported: “Mrs. Maria Jourdan Westmoreland, the Southern authoress, made a successful debut as a lecturer before a cultivated and fashionable audience.” Her subject was “Shots at Social Myths.” She was, reported the Home Journal, “equally severe upon both sexes, firing whole broadsides of satire and sarcasm at the ‘morals’ of men and the insincerity and gossiping tendencies of women.” Her lecture was “well received ... its keen hits and brilliant points being warmly applauded.” The Home Journal described Maria as a woman of culture and extensive reading, adding: “In presence, manner and personal appearance she possesses all the elements of popularity. When so many plain-looking lecturers appear in public, it is refreshing to see one who is endowed with beauty and wit.”[11]

            The lecture was also reported in             The New York Post which described her audience as “eminently intellectual” and in obvious sympathy with Maria. It reported that she made pointed comments on the Cuban situation: “The lecture included several sharp and timely hits ... at indisputable realities ... especially to Burriel and the problem of the ever-faithful isle.”[12] The “isle” was Cuba and Burriel a devious, rather stupid Spanish General. On October 31, 1873, the United States flagged Virginius was captured by the Spanish warship Tornado and brought to Santiago de Cuba. Included among its crew were Cuban revolutionaries, but there were also Americans, Europeans, Africans and British citizens. Some of the prisoners were only thirteen. The crew were tried before a Spanish naval court and sentenced to death as “pirate prisoners.” On November 4^th, General Juan N. Burriel ordered the execution of the four insurgent generals captured on board the Virginius. Three days later, thirty-seven more members of the crew, including Joseph Fry, the American captain were killed. General Burriel stopped the executions when the H. M. S. Niobe arrived, sent to stop the execution of British citizens.

            Late in 1873, Maria addressed a Women’s Conference held in New York City. The Southern press reproduced an extract from the New York Herald:

Mrs. Maria Jourdan Westmoreland came to the platform, and looking like Titian’s high-born dames, said, in a sweet and low, but distinct voice, that there was a great necessity for close union between the women of the North and the South. She hoped that lecturers would be sent through the South in order to awaken the ladies of that section to immediate action. Mrs. Westmoreland further stated that she would gladly give any lecturers letters of introduction to the first people of the South in order to further the common object. Mrs. Westmoreland spoke on the condition of the Southern women; she said she knew them well enough to know that if the papers of this Congress had been read in the South, it would so rouse them that they would not be quiet until they had the ballot

            Reaction from the Southern press was immediate and negative. The Nashville, Tennessee, Union and American said in response that “Southern people will readily encourage ladies in their efforts to achieve fame in the genial walks of literature, but they have no patience with ‘crowing hens.’” The Union and American writer – the report lacks a byline – quoted The Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel as saying:

It need hardly be said that Mrs. Westmoreland, in expressing the views with which she is credited above, does not represent the women of the South. In one section of the Union, at least, women are contented to be women – they have no desire to drag their dainty skirts through the filthy mire of politics; no ambition to figure among roughs and rowdies at the polls. They have a higher and more noble mission to perform. They run not after strange gods, but worship at the altars of the fireside and the family circle. We would advise the Women’s Rights women to stay at home and not undertake missionary work in the South. Even Mrs. Westmoreland’s letters will not open to them the doors of Southern people – and their lectures will not pay the gas bills and hall rent.[13]

            The Lynchburg, Virginia, Republican commented:

In assuming the breeches, [the writer means men’s pants] we are sure Mrs. Westmoreland speaks only for herself, for we think she greatly mistakes the sentiment of the Southern woman if she supposes that they are “heart hungry” as herself for the ballot, and that they are ready to rush into a revolution to secure it in order that they may exhibit their prowess in a scuffles at the polls on election day with their dusky fellow citizens, Mrs. Dinah Johnson and Mrs. Phillis Brown.

            This was reprinted with approval in The Alexandria, Virginia, Gazette and Virginia Advertiser of October 29, 1873, under the heading Petty Coat on the Rostrum. The Savannah Advertiser said: “Mrs. Westmoreland, a Southern woman herself, ought to have a better knowledge of the sentiments of her own sex in the South. If Mrs. Westmoreland herself should undertake a canvass of the South under the banner of Mesdames Stanton and Livermore, she would fail to win over to her cause a sufficient number of women to start even a first class sewing society.”[14]

            There is strong indication that Maria’s speech was misrepresented by a hostile press. An April 1874 press report said: “Mrs. Maria J. Westmoreland has finished a lecture which she calls the ‘Daughters of Eve,’ in which she very properly takes the ground that woman’s widest field lies within the sacred precincts of home.”[15] It is possible that she held both viewpoints. There is some indication she did. But we think the northern newspapers quoted in the south exaggerated Maria’s speech. The best indication that the press misrepresented her speech is found in The New York Daily Graphic: “Mrs. Westmoreland is ‘defended’ by an enthusiastic Savannahan, who declares she said nothing about the rights of the ballot in the recent Convention.”[16]

            Maria responded through an open letter to the Southern press. Unfortunately it survives, as far as our research shows, in a brief quotation:

I did not say I hoped lecturers would be sent through the South. I said that I hoped they would go, and with letters of introduction which I would gladly give them. I knew they would have a happy and perhaps a lucrative time, and I knew that a few women at least would be delighted to know that women were accomplishing so much ... Why are these attacks constantly made upon me, and by my own people? Is it because they hate me personally? It cannot be for anything I ever did to them, for my house, heart and well-wishes have ever belonged to my people, and an unkind word from them is always answered by my tears. Is it kind, is it liberal or charitable for them to try to draw down a woman who is trying honestly and by hard labor to support herself and two children?[17]

            The newspaper that quoted this suggested that she should have sought better association than the Women’s Conference and was paying just consequences for failing to do so. The criticisms are all from men, many of whom resented Reconstruction and sought to preserve pre-war culture.

            In mid-December 1872 she was engaged to lecture by the Fraternals, a newly-formed society whose goal was help for indigent women, of whom there were many in New York City. The New York Sun described them as “chivalrous order of gentlemen,” saying: “It had been found by investigation that there is not in New York a place where a moneyless woman who preserves the respect of the world, can go for lodging except to the free but uncomfortable shelter of a police station; although there are numerous benevolent houses of refuge, to enter which would stamp her with infamy. Mr. Dooly mentioned the case of a woman who had walked the streets all night as the best thing to be done.”[18] Their goal was to found comfortable housing throughout the city. Maria was drawn to this type of work, and agreed to lecture to help raise funds. The Kingston, New York, Daily Freeman noticed her impending lecture. It would be accompanied by illustrations, and “she allows any gentleman in the audience to come up on stage and learn how the thing is done.” The writer snidely observed that Maria was “rather ancient” (she was thirty-eight) “and not a very comely piece of anatomy – indeed rather angular – she don’t illustrate much.”[19] The accuracy of this report is uncertain. What is certain is that the editor of the Freeman was as illiterate as he was rude. The Daily Graphic held a differing opinion:  “Mrs. Westmoreland is a very handsome woman, and – is it impertinent to say? – probably has a large acquaintance with her theme.”[20]

            Her audience was “fashionable and appreciative ... [and] seemed to keenly enjoy the racy and piquant witticism of the lecturer.” The New York, Daily Graphic, just quoted, added that “her selection of a subject last evening was a ‘happy thought.’ All men appreciate ‘kisses’ from rosy lips, whether given or talked about, especially when the theme is handled with a rare blending of delicacy, wit and sentiment.[21]

            Favorable impressions of Maria’s lecture resulted in invitations to repeat it in Boston and Washington, D.C. In February 1874, Maria took her “Kisses” lecture to Willard Hall in Washington, D.C. The Washington, D.C., Star declared that Maria’s lecture would be the “literary event of the week.” It came at an appropriate time, St. Valentine’s Day. “Judging from the number of tickets disposed of, the fair authoress will be greeted by a brilliant and fashionable audience.[22] A newspaper article described her as “a beautiful representative of the ‘Sunny South.’” It said that the “attractive character” of her subject resulted in a “large and cultivated audience.” After a short concert, she was introduced by Henry Stuart Foote, former governor of Mississippi, “who read a letter from the Hon. Alex. H. Stephens regretting his inability to attend on account of sickness.”[23]

            Maria returned to her Georgia home sometime near August 1874, the New York Daily Graphic announcing that “Mrs. Maria J. Westmoreland is occupied at her home in Georgia writing a psychological novel, which is likely to excite a profound sensation.”[24] She delivered her “Kisses” lecture to an Atlanta audience the press described as “large and distinguished.” One report tells us that she planned a summer tour of resort areas.[25] In 1880 her publisher reissued her second novel, Clifford Troup¸ with a new title, Drifted Together, and issued anonymously.[26]

illustration

Maria Westmoreland in 1873.          

The Eighties

            Maria fades from newspaper notice in the 1880s. Venet’s take on this was:

She largely faded from view by the end of the 1870s. Although the two novels went through several editions, critics panned them, and speaking engagements appear to have dried up. Her marriage may have collapsed, for Maria did not attend her daughter’s Atlanta wedding in 1882, and she is not buried next to Willis, who died a much-respected member of Atlanta’s medical community in 1890.[27]

            Maria’s marriage deteriorated. If we re-read her open letter to the Southern press, we find her asking: “Is it kind, is it liberal or charitable for them to try to draw down a woman who is trying honestly and by hard labor to support herself and two children?”[28] When her husband, Willis Westmoreland, returned to Georgia after their joint visit to New York City, he stopped supporting her and their children. Willis, though respected as a physician, was volatile, ready to threaten a duel, and just as ready to run off to Arkansas to avoid it.[29]  He deteriorated mentally to the point of commitment to the State Insane Asylum at Milledgeville, Georgia, where he died June 26, 1890. At some point the children returned to their father’s care. Maria and Willis lived separately, and then divorced. We do not have details of the divorce, and they’re probably not relevant. Maria vividly described her reaction to this family tragedy:

Then came troubles thick and fast – heart-aches – oceans of tears – poutings – the tearing asunder of all home ties – the uprooting of all I had done. Then attacked by foes within and foes without – with no strong but loving hand to guide me, much as a father might have done – I fell like a tree blasted by the lightning – obliterated – paralyzed amidst the ruins of all the beautiful home and dreams that I myself had created. Then my courage forsook me, for griefs do make cowards of us all, and I lost all hope of every doing ought again – lost all confidence in my own capacity to accomplish any-thing. Thus does the inhumanity of man make cruel ship-wreck of so many lives.[30]

            In 1882 she married William Lewis Washington [1844-1902], a man of some wealth and a colonel in the Confederate Army.[31] Maria presented her love affair with William Lewis as torrid, “I am happy still and still in love, but not at the same tempestes furioso temperature – or else I should be dead.”[32] Maria’s health tumbled

            William and Maria purchased a farm in West Virginia, calling it Washington Manor. Problems followed. A letter from Maria to her father-in-law, George Augustine Washington [1815-1892], tells us that William had debilitating headaches: “William is still suffering so much with his head that he is unable to write you at length as he would wish to do.” The farm was an unwise purchase, and there were other financial problems. Maria described at length the deficiencies: When William “purchased the farm it was so totally and utterly and almost hopelessly out of repair as to be unsuitable for any civilized human being.” The walls were filthy, “compelling him to paper, paint and whitewash.” The doors would not close “sufficiently to keep out either rain or snow,” and none had locks. The chimneys, hearths and grates were in ruins. Two-thirds of the windows were broken; there were problems with erosion. To raise funds, William tried to sell some property in Nashville, but believed his agent was trying to cheat him, so he sold off bonds instead. Her letter was meant to assure her father-in-law that they were not spending profligate spenders.[33]

            She was in New York City by 1887, and a letter from her to Richard Watson Gilder, the publisher of Century Magazine, seeking an appointment exists; it was meant to further her literary career. A follow-up letter dated June 18, 1887, shows that she had an appointment with Robert Underwood Johnson at Century Magazine. We do not know the result.[34]

            Maria expressed herself as deeply in love with William, writing: “I am happy still as still in love, but not at the same tempestes furioso temperature – or else I should be dead.”[35] Maria’s health tumbled and she was a patient in New York City’ Women’s Hospital in the State of New York. An entry in a hospital directory noted that it was: “For the treatment of diseases peculiar to women.” Other cases were not accepted.[36] A common cure, as we will note further, was opium based medicine.

            William tired of Maria. A letter from his lawyer, dated August 5, 1890, tells us that he ran off to California. Not in the letter is any statement of his conduct there, but a classified advertisement found in several issues of The Los Angeles, California, Herald suggest that he had taken as a mistress a Louise Henley, and passed her off as his wife.[37] Maria filed for divorce in California, New York City and in West Virginia, receiving judgments against him in California and West Virginia. Letters passing between him and his mother show William trying to hide assets.[38] By the time of the divorce, William was nearly impoverished. Despite Maria’s 1882 letter to his father, he seems to have spent foolishly through most of his life.

            William’s attorney described Maria as being in poor health and as having “suspicious and distrustful state of mind,” certainly understandable given William’s behavior.[39] They were already separated by 1886. We learn this from a letter from William to Joseph Washington. Maria wrote to Joseph, outlining her complaints against William, and apparently seeking some sort of help. [The letter has been lost.] Joseph replied, forwarding a copy of his reply to William. What we have in William’s August 1886 letter to Joseph is a series of excuses. “I do not know,” he wrote, “what Maria wrote you, only through what she says, and through your reply to her; I know enough however, to make it necessary for me to write you a letter of explanation.”

            He told Joseph that Maria was an “opium eater,” adding that it was “well-known” by the medical community “as well as the intelligent world at large, that no opium eater can tell the truth.” It is unwise to take William at his word. He was less than honest both inside and outside his marriage. Maria was chronically ill. She may have sought relief through one of the opium based patent medicines. We do not know. But William used her condition to discredit her with his family:

By experience in her case, I only know too well that she does not know when truth ends or when fiction begins. These are admissions that I dislike to make even to you or myself. I have kept my lips sealed both to my own family and to hers, hoping all along that she would reform – promise after promise has been made – by the bed-side of her dead mother, at Norfolk, she promised me most sincerely to reform and in less than 6 weeks she was at it again – physician after physician to whom I have talked have all told me that she was not responsible and that you could not rely upon what she would do, and could not even say what she might or might not do.[40]

            Again, the truthfulness of this is open to question. He wrote that her son, Willis Westmoreland, Jr., was present and cooperating with him to have her committed to an asylum for the insane. If this is true, their efforts failed. No court committed her. It is worth noting, however, that William had been committed for mental issues in 1882, shortly after their marriage. A West Virginia newspaper reported: “William Washington was confined in jail of this county last week upon a charge of lunacy. He is a resident of this county and is a lineal descendant of a brother of George Washington, the first great name in our country’s history. What sad changes time often produces in the affairs of man.”[41] In the 1880s, especially in rural areas, jail was a common fate for those deemed insane.

            William said Maria was violent:

I have never left her a day at the time that I have felt safe, not knowing what she might do – It was with great difficulty that I prevented her being indicted before the Preston Co. Grand Jury last fall for assault with intent to kill – she shot at an old mountaineer and had he not turned aside his face she would have killed him. Only by bribing and actually compounding a felony with the County Atty [Attorney] did I save her.

            He presented this to Joseph to mitigate the real problem between himself and Maria. After admitting to Joseph that he had tried to conceal his part in their difficulties he said:

She did find me in delictus flagrante, [He meant: in flagrante delicto.] I do not deny it, as to my abandoning her it is not true; I made arrangements for her to be looked after and by the advice of her own physicians and Dr Hammond kept out of the way, until her physician deemed it advisable – I finally got a nurse – shut down on any money except prescription of medical attendant - and only yesterday was she entirely herself – I will not write more on this subject; this letter is for Mary and yourself, no one else.

            William’s sexual transgression is a very minor part of this lengthy letter. William kept two, probably three mistresses whom he passed off as his wife. We know the names of two of them, and there is apparently a third unnamed but mentioned in a short newspaper notice. There may have been and probably were more. If Maria was chronically upset, we can lay it to this and to an unnamed illness that plagued her from before her marriage. In an undated letter written early in their marriage, probably in 1882 or 83, Maria wrote: “Ill-health has kept me so long on enforced idleness that now I must be up and doing things, if possible.”[42] Maria’s issues, aside from discovering her husband had a touch of madness and chronically fornicated, seem to have been ‘women’s issues,’ reproductive issues including menstruation and menopause.

            It is a mistake to judge 19^th Century accusations of female insanity by today’s standards. Even in the last quarter of that century, the female reproductive system was not understood, and what progress there was, was resisted by physicians. Some continued to believe that the fetus was formed from menstrual blood, that the cramps and emotional swings associated with menstruation were a form of madness as were the emotions that came with menopause. The treatment of choice was opium or an opium derivative such as Laudanum. If Maria truly was addicted to opium it was because of her physicians’ treatment. There is no sign of any addition later in her life, and it is worth remembering that J. C. Sunderlin’s physicians had addicted him to morphine trying to cure his pain.

            In the late 19^th Century medical opinion was often uninformed, even moronic and stood as a bulwark against developing science. Vern Bullough and Martha Vogt observed:

Since medical practitioners were almost all men, and many of them were hostile to any change in the status quo in male-female relationships, they inevitably entered the struggle with what today appears not only as ludicrous arguments, but which even in the period they were writing were not based upon any scientific findings and in fact went contrary to those findings. This is particularly true in their understanding of the consequences of menstruation.[43]

            Edward Clark, a Harvard professor, provides us with an example of medical abuse in the period, recounting several cases where he misdiagnosed female issues. The one pertinent here is that of a young woman whose menstrual flow had diminished. [He called it ‘catamenial function.’] With that were headaches, “vagaries, forebodings and despondent feelings.” She developed acne and rough skin. When he couldn’t cure her, he blamed it all on the exertions of higher education for which women were not, in his opinion, fit and had her committed to an asylum for the insane.[44]

            We think that William’s characterization of her as violent is colored by his desire to appear the aggrieved party. If a record exists of the shooting incident, we could not find it. But a rational soul can find alternative explanations for it. Maria was alone; William was off pursuing his gambling, dog racing, women or who knows what. A ‘mountain man’ appears on her property. She feels threatened, maybe was threatened and fires at him. Those of our readers enamored of first-hand accounts of frontier and mountain life will know of similar circumstances. William wanted her to appear insane. But ultimately the one with a history of mental illness was William.[45]

            By 1888 Maria was trying to sell or rent the West Virginia property. William saw the need to defend himself to relatives, writing to Joseph Washington in November 1888 that “she is certainly crazy, as she offers the place for sale or rent. – No one will be so foolish as to either purchase or rent, and I have written to ... notify any one renting the place that they will certainly have trouble.” He continued the insanity theme, writing: “The Lady Maria might really to be placed in a lunatic asylum, for she is dangerous, as I well know.” He believed they would be divorced by that December. That was optimistic. Divorce was, as we have seen, two years away.[46]

            It is to this troubled period we should assign her exploration of alternative religions. She wrote a biography, printed in very limited numbers and which we could not locate.[47] What remains of this story is found in the December 13, 1891, New York, New York, Sun, which reported that she “has been a member of almost every religious denomination and a disciple of all manner of strange vagaries including spiritualism, theosophy and Christian science [sic].” This is typical Sun innuendo and insult, a type of insult the Sun directed at anyone religiously out of the ordinary. Maria told the Sun reporter that she had sought the “truth of religion” for forty years which takes us back to 1851, her twelfth or thirteenth year. Serious questing usually takes place in more mature years, though it can begin quite early.

Photo W. L. Washington

           

The Nineties

            After separating from William, she moved from the Park Avenue Hotel to a rented, older Greek Revival house at 179 McDougal Street, in the Washington Square area.[48] She became interested in the near return of Christ, reading Charles A. L. Totten’s prophetic speculations. Totten was a retired army officer, a British Israelite proponent, and believed Christ would return in 1899.[49] And she read Russell’s Plan of the Ages. We do not know the circumstances. A group of wealthy, somewhat prominent widows and matrons resident in New York City promoted the book; principal among these was Viola Gilbert whom we profile in volume three of Separate Identity. She and Maria were social peers. It is possible that Maria was introduced to Russell’s writings through one of these women. We simply do not know.

            However, Maria was impressed and traveled to Allegheny to meet Russell, returning with his photo and a determination to preach. The insinuating, insulting, rather vulgar Sun reporter wrote:

She has been searching for the truth for forty years, and, as she says, only succeeded in gathering a flock of hungry parasites, who fattened off her substance and pretended to have all manner of faith in her. Not until a year ago did the truth come to her, and since that time she has been preparing to open a campaign for the saving of the world, which will end before many years.

The truth came to her with the aid of a certain Charles Russell – a big-eyed, unctuous-looking man, if his picture does not flatter him. Mr. Russell lives in Allegheny, Pa., and is responsible for a good deal more than this church in the house of Maria.

illustration

Maria’s Calling Card – New York Public Library Collection.

Mr. Russell has written some of the largest and dullest books in the world to prove that the millennium is at hand. He preceded Totten; is more voluminous and more wearisome, if possible. He is spending all his time at the propagation of his ideas about the millennium, and runs a publishing house in its interests.

Maria thinks exceeding well of Russell and is inclined to adopt his plan of the end of the world, although she is still flirting with Totten and may yet go over to him. Russell says the first trumpet sounded in 1878 or thereabouts, and that the millennium will come in 1914. He is a good deal agitated about this, but not so much agitated as is Maria.[50]

            She told the reporter that for weeks after “the truth was revealed to her she ... ran about the streets telling everybody, policemen, beggars, street walkers.” She went to the “big churches,” asking “embarrassing questions of the ministers as they descended from their handsome pulpits.” Failing to receive satisfactory answers she traveled to Allegheny, “and there got the powerful call to start a church.” She invited previous acquaintances to her meetings. The reporter described them as “the best people of New York – the worldly, be-diamond, décolleté people.”

            The Sun’s reporter was a modernist who, as did most of his ilk, responded to fervent belief with ridicule. Despite this, much detail penetrates the fog. At the time of this report, Maria was teaching what she found in The Plan of the Ages. If she was persuaded by Totten’s Anglo-Israelitism, she was not the only Watch Tower adherent to be so. Russell saw the issue as irrelevant to the times. The Sun suggested that she had “an entire [sic] new system of theology, and talks about the Presbyterians and Methodists and the rest in a most startling way – She thinks the wicked are to be instantly killed off, instead of burned or tortured with remorse. She thinks – but if you care to know all that she thinks go see her.” The public was invited to come on Fridays to discuss and debate. Maria used what she saw as a New Testament pattern, calling the group who met with her The Church in Maria’s House, and alternately, according to the reporter, The School of Christ.[51] Probably the reporter misunderstood the phrase “school of Christ.” The phrase was in common use in the 19^th Century, and Russell used it frequently, not as the name of a church but to illustrate a Christian’s relationship to Jesus.

            From The Sun’s article we pull this:

Maria is endeavoring to return to the Apostolic Church in every way. Her method of expounding the Scriptures is novel and, to one unfamiliar with any but the orthodox standards most startling. She is well educated and is by no means absurd in her talk. She can reason with adroitness and subtlety, and she has an amazing flow of language. She is quick tempered too, and, as she regards it as inspired do not hesitate to show it when her view are called into question.

            As we observed in the previous chapter, meetings could be contentious. Those held in Maria’s house were. The Thursday meetings for ‘the church’ were described this way:

If you should happen to strike the church in Maria’s house of a Thursday afternoon you will hear in all probability voices raised high in argument. There will be swinging word-blows exchanging in the shrillest tones and the most vigorous language a well-strained Anglo-Saxon vocabulary affords. This will be Maria driving home the truth as it is revealed to her. “Sometimes,” she will explain, “the Lord gives it to me to speak the truth with wonderful power. I do not spare words. I tear my adversaries in pieces. The woman who came to combat me had to her bed, and many do not get over a visit for days. Oh, the truth is mighty.

            Despite the controversies, Maria’s mission reached some. Two students attending The Union Theological Seminary testified that “Maria has taught them more in a few lessons than all the professors at Union have ... in the time they have been going there.” The Sun article was designed to discourage contact with Mrs. Washington, to ridicule her, but it did not succeed. Maria turned to a forum with which she was very familiar, a salon. Using as a pattern her youthful literary salons, she promoted Millennial Dawn teachings among her social peers, holding two meetings a week, one for visitors and one for those who saw themselves as part of the “little flock,” the 144,000, heaven-bound congregation.  

            Russell, accompanied by his wife, was in New York City in November 1892 “in response to the urgent solicitations of the friends in and adjacent to” the City. He ‘preached’ in the morning at Cooper Union on the subject “In Our Days.” In the evening he spoke at Hardman Hall on “The Restitution of All Things” and again that night on “The Millennium and Its Day of Preparation.” An announcement in Zion’s Watch Tower said: “Notice is given thus publicly and in season, that readers from surrounding places may attend, if they can make it convenient.” Russell said, “Private meetings will be held elsewhere on Monday.” Russell used the phrase “in response to urgent solicitation” as a code word for the need to address troublesome issues among the brethren. We do not know what the issues was or where the private meetings were held, or how they affected Maria Washington.

            We believe, based solely on circumstantial evidence, that Maria attended the Watch Tower convention held in Chicago in 1893. Late in life Maria was described as having an angular face. A comparison of her known portrait with the large format group photo taken at the convention leads us to tentatively identify her in that group. In any event, she was in Chicago in October 1893 with a small but organized group of evangelizers. The Chicago, Illinois, Inter-Ocean reported on her work:

Mrs. Maria J. Washington and her associates in evangelistic work are meeting with great success in the neighborhood of the World’s Fair.

The meetings are largely attended and numerous conversations are reported. Services will be held at four centers in the vicinity of the exposition today, Mrs. Washington having the assistance of an energetic volunteer band of workers numbering over twenty. ....

Mrs. Washington is a lady of means who devotes all her time and energy to religious work, devoting particular attention to the rescue of the fallen and abandoned. Not many years since she occupies a very prominent place in society at the National capital. She is the widow of a gentleman who belonged to the family of the illustrious Washington. She surrendered her fashionable environments and associations to give herself up to the labors of charity among the poor and lowly. Her efforts have been most fruitful, a rare and peculiar magnetism of manner enabling her to win friends with ease. She has labored in New York and in some of the southern cities, but will make Chicago her home for some time to come.[52]

           

            In Chicago, as in all of America’s larger cities, women faced the problem of earning a living wage “under conditions which would make it possible for her to escape illness and prostitution.” Chicago was at the center of labor reform, and a complex multinational mix. H. B. Thompson, a Chicago resident, saw it as a foreign mission field. Germans predominated with – in 1890 – 384,958; Americans came next with 292,463. Other nationalities and ethnicities included in order the Irish; Bohemians; Poles; Swedes; Norwegians; English; French; Scots; Russians; Danes; Italians; ‘Hollanders’; Hungarians, Romanians; Canadians, Swiss, Welsh; Mongolians; Greeks; Belgians; Spanish, West Indians; Portuguese; Hawaiians; East Indians. Out of a total population of 1,218,679, there were 924,916 foreign born.[53]

            Prostitution was public, as it was in all large cities and in many small towns. It was “one of the distinguishing traits of nineteenth-century urban culture, because of its widespread nature as well as the obviousness with which it flaunted itself, a source of considerable alarm among contemporaries.”[54] Often public objection was to its public nature rather than the act itself, and there was considerable reluctance to call the trade by its name. Instead of “prostitutes” practitioners were called “fallen women,” “common women,” or something similar. But Maria was concerned with the women themselves, not their trade. She wasn’t alone. Building and furnishing houses of refuge for prostitutes was a growing phenomenon.

            The Inter-Ocean and other papers described her as a widow. In fact she was not, but was twice divorced. We do not know if the papers were being polite to a well-doing woman or if Maria misrepresented herself. Care for poor, abandoned, under-class women was Maria’s interest since the Civil War years. Despite Russell’s suggestion that the work of God’s people lay elsewhere, she persisted. While this was contrary to advice as found in Zion’s Watch Tower, Russell observed that others followed this path, and it did not break fellowship. His view was that because Christ was present, social issues would soon be solved by his kingdom.

            Maria returned to Atlanta early in 1894, leaving no discernable impression on Chicago. Her message remained a socially conscious one.   The Atlanta Constitution of April 26, 1894, reported that she established a “rescue mission for the redemption and saving of fallen women.” She gave a series of public lectures on religious topics that were well attended, and, though the events were free. Her November 25^th lecture was entitled “Go Sin No More,” and a special invitation was extended to “old friends specially and the public generally.” Though her lecture was free, afterward she asked for an “offering” to support her rescue mission.[55]

            Maria may have abandoned portions of Russellite belief. The Atlanta Constitution reported her as giving a series of lectures in DeGive’s Opera House. According to the December 2, 1894, Constitution¸ she attracted large and appreciative crowds. Her lecture for that night was “The Lord’s Second, Personal and Imminent Coming.”[56] If Christ’s return was imminent, it had not yet occurred. While noting this, we should draw conclusions cautiously. Advertisements from Russell’s own lectures and those of Watch Tower missionaries used similar language.

            A letter from her to the editor of The Atlanta, Georgia, Constitution, though it does not mention Russell or Zion’s Watch Tower, suggests that she retained much of what she learned from them. She wrote in response to an article about her work that she believed misrepresented her and which raised controversy among her friends. She blamed that on the reporter’s inexperience – he was young – and on his infatuation of with Theosophy. She used her complaint and her considerable reservoir of respect to explain her beliefs: “As the spirit of what I said was not altogether entered into and diffused through the article entitled ‘A New Mission,’ ... and some misunderstanding has arisen in the minds of friends, permit me to say a few words in regard to my discipleship and service for the blessed master.”[57] Maria explained her “call” to mission work:

I wish to say that I was mercifully and graciously called by the lord of the harvest and sent forth by his holy spirit into His vineyard to labor. My commission was to ‘go out into the highways ands [sic, probably a type setter’s error] hedges and byways of the city and constrain man to come in that the Father’s house might be filled.’ My work is among the poor, the prisoners, the convicts and social outcasts or wherever and whenever a broken heart is to be comforted or a helping hand is needed to raise up the fallen. I care not what sinners have done. If the need of a savior is felt in their broken hearts, I will put my arms of love around them and bring them to Christ. “For the blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sins.”

            Some Watch Tower evangelists were unwilling to address the spiritual and physical needs of the poor, and this Maria’s approach may seem uncharacteristic to some modern readers. However, while Russell discouraged participating in social uplift programs, this is within Watch Tower theology. Russell pointed to the Parable of the Wedding feast found in Matthew twenty-two. There we find this: “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. God to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” Within this volume of Separate Identity you will find examples reported by Russell with approval, where the poor, criminal and despised were aided. Maria followed this path, though in her own way.

            Maria made other points that Watch Tower readers would see as echoes of Russell’s statements. The original article quoted her as saying, “All preachers talk for money, and are yet to be converted.” She wrote that she was “quite sure that I was misunderstood,” following that with a series of criticisms. Some ministers had not been baptized of the holy spirit. “We know it,” she wrote, “because they sadly confess it.” They were unable to ‘bear fruit’ because “no man can ... unless endued with power from on high, and baptized in a flame of Pentacoastal [sic] fire.”

            Modern readers may mistake this for Pentecostalism, but that movement was nearly twenty years future. In the 19^th Century the phrase meant being anointed with holy spirit. The emphasis was on God’s choosing of his ‘sons’. Russell saw the Pentecostal event as the first anointing and choosing of the Little Flock, the heaven-bound congregation. Maria appears to have seen it in the same way. One could not bear holy fruit without that anointing. She believed, as Russell suggested, that most clergy lacked it.

            Maria turned to other criticism, complaints that any reader of Zion’s Watch Tower would recognize, even down to the phrasing:

I deplore the methods in vogue for raising money to carry on the Lord’s work. I believe it to be a lack of faith in God to give festivals and to beg and take money of sinners, as if the church of God was an object of charity and the children of God were orphans. I am just child enough to ask my Father in heaven for what I need to glorify Him, and he always gives it to me, and in one instance performed almost a miracle in bestowing a gift that I craved.

            She wrote that “there are many godly men and women who differ with me.” Each should be fully persuaded in their own mind, she said. The majority “of the men who stand in the pulpits to warn, exhort, and entreat are doing the very best they know how, and doing it conscientiously.” This mirrored Russell’s continuing optimism that clergy would listen to the message, and some did. Maria asked for clergy cooperation in her “feeble efforts to tear down the strongholds of Satan.” Though there is much here that parallels Russell’s message, we do not know to what extent Maria Washington continued to adhere to Watch Tower belief.

            In 1897, Maria wrote to E. F, Cheatham, one of the extended Washington family, asking him to escort her daughter, Carolina, and a friend to the theater. Proper ladies did not go alone, even in 1897. She wrote that she was happy in new life as a missionary but barely able to pay bills. She asked for a loan. The loan was granted, and her son, W. F. Westmoreland, Jr., sent a letter of thanks for Cheatham’s kindness. Maria died in 1900 and is buried in Atlanta.[58]

            Maria’s path was barely within what The Watch Tower advised. In 1881 Russell suggested that true Christians preach Christ, but that they also visit the sick, finance the Lord’s work, are willing to “sacrifice reputation” and suffer “the reproach of the world and a degenerate nominal church.”[59]  In this volume of Separate Identity we meet a number who continued to belong to fraternal lodges, the Grand Army of the Republic (a Union army veterans’ organization), and who continued to participate in community affairs. Maria’s journey is similar. She sought immediate remediation of the poor, as far as she was able, expending her fortune in this work. She sought to rescue prostitutes, many of whom were mere children. We think Maria’s story is representative and important because of that.

            Maria represents several of whom we know and probably many of whom we know nothing, who accepted all or parts of Watch Tower belief, but rejected Russell’s call to focus on Kingdom work. An example is J. B. Keim who sought immediate remedies for human ills through “Christian Socialism” yet remained on the fringes of Watch Tower congregations. B. W. Keith remained active in the Prohibition Party and in a Union Army veteran’s organization. John Sunderlin maintained his membership in the G.A.R.

illustration

DeGive’s Opera House Later in its Life.

           

---

[1]               W. F. Westmoreland’s biography: H. A. Kelly: A Cyclopedia of American Medical Biography, Philadelphia, 1912, volume 2, page 494ff. Maria’s family and biography: The Living Female Writers of the South, Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger, Philadelphia, 1872, page 188ff; Ida Raymond: Southland Writers: Biographical and Critical Sketches of the Living Female Writers of the South, Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger, Philadelphia, volume 1, 1870, page 447ff.

               “Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland was born in Fayette county, [sic] Ga., June 1, 1828. He studied medicine in the Georgia Medical College, in the Jefferson Medical College, and the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn. He graduated at the Jefferson Medical College in 1850. He also spent three years in Europe, principally in Paris, in making himself proficient with the principles of his profession. He first settled in Fayette county, [sic] and in 1851 removed to Atlanta. His specialty is surgery. He is a member of the American Medical Association, of the Georgia Medical Association; was its president in 1873, and of the Atlanta Academy of Medicine. He was one of the original founders of the Atlanta Medical and Surgical Journal in 1855, and ever since has been a contributor to medical literature. From 1854 he has been a professor in the Atlanta Medical College.” – W. P. Reed: History of Atlanta, Georgia¸ D. Mason and Co., Syracuse, New York, 1889, page 312.

[2]               Ida Raymond, op. cit.

[3]               S. C. Clayton: Requiem for a Lost City: A Memoir of Civil War Atlanta and the Old South, Mercer University Press, Macon, Georgia, 1999, page 67.

[4]               W. H. Venet: A Changing Wind: Commerce and Conflict in Civil War Atlanta, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 2014, page 49.

[5]               Contributions Received by the “Ladies’ Soldier’s Relief Society” for the Atlanta Hospitals, The Southern Confederacy¸ April 10, 1862.

[6]               We have drawn heavily from W. H. Venet’s excellent book, A Changing Wind: Commerce and Conflict in Civil War Atlanta, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 2014, page 215.

[7]               T. H. Stout: Southern Female College, The Christian Index, July 11, 1872. The Index was a Baptist publication.

[8]               Venet, op. cit. page 215.

[9]               The Living Female Writers of the South, 1872, page 189.

[10]             Maria Washington to Mary Washington, New York, March 4, 1883, found in the Tennessee State Library archive. Used by permission.

[11]             Shots at Social Myths, New York Home Journal as reprinted in The Atlanta Constitution, December 2, 1873.

[12]             Mrs. Westmoreland’s Lecture, New York Evening Post as reprinted in The Atlanta Constitution, November 30, 1873.

[13]             A Georgia Authoress in a New Role: The Nashville, Tennessee, Union and American, November 2, 1873.

[14]             As quoted in The Nashville, Tennessee, Union and American, November 12, 1873.

[15]             Personalities, The New York Daily Graphic, April 24, 1874.

[16]             Personalities, The New York Daily Graphic,

[17]             The letter is quoted in part in: An Indignant Woman, The Nashville, Tennessee, Union and American, November 26, 1873.

[18]             Shelter for Poor Women, The New York, New York, Sun, July 15, 1873.

[19]             Current Topics, The Kingston, New York, Daily Freeman¸ December 17, 1873. Kingston is about ninety miles from New York City. Few likely to attend would have read the Freeman.

[20]             City Jottings, The New York, New York, Daily Graphic, December 12, 1873.

[21]             Miscellaneous, The New York, New York, Daily Graphic¸ December 17, 1873, Third Edition.

[22]             Society, The Washington, D.C., Star, February 14, 1874.

[23]             “Kisses,” The Washington, D.C., National Republican, February 16, 1874.

[24]             Personalities, The New York Daily Graphic¸ August 27, 1874.

[25]             Personalities, The Indianapolis, Indiana State Sentinel, July 14, 1874.

[26]             J. L. Whitney: A Modern Proteus: Or a List of Books Published Under More Than One Title, F. Leypoldt, New York, 1883, page 70.

[27]             Venet, op. cit., page 216.

[28]             The letter is quoted in part in: An Indignant Woman, The Nashville, Tennessee, Union and American, November 26, 1873.

[29]             Wounded Honor, The Springfield, Ohio, Globe-Republic¸ December 29, 1886.

[30]             Maria Washington to Mary Washington, March 4, 1883, Washington Family Papers in Tennessee State Library Archive.

[31]             An unsigned paper in the Washington family archive, Tennessee State Library, says they were married in New Jersey.

[32]             Maria to G. A. Washington, July 27, 1882, Washington Papers, Tennessee State Library and Archive. The date is difficult to read and may be 1885, but we think the 1882 date is correct.

[33]              Maria to Mary Washington as cited above.

[34]             New York Public Library collection.

[35]             Maria to Mary Washington, as cited above.

[36]             New York State Medical Association: The Medical Directory of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, volume three, 1901, page 670. The hospital was established in 1856.

[37]             The family genealogy in the Tennessee State Library suggests he married her. The advertisements in The Herald say otherwise. See for example the April 16, 1897, issue.

[38]             Margaret Adelaide Washington to W. L. Washington, June 13, 1890. His reply dated July 23, 1890. Washington Papers.   “Of course it would be very foolish to deposit the money in my name.”

[39]             Stern and Myers, Attorneys, to G. A. Washington, August 5, 1890. Washington Papers.

[40]             W. L. Washington to Joseph Washington, August 11, 1886. Washington Papers.

[41]             Local Matters, The Point Pleasant, West Virginia, Weekly Register, October 25, 1882.

[42]             Letter from Maria to Mary Washington family cited above.

[43]             V. Bullough and M. Voght: Women, Menstruation and 19^th Century Medicine, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, February 1973, page 66.

[44]             E. H. Clarke: Sex in Education, Or a Fair Chance for Girls, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., Boston, 1884, pages 86-87.

[45]             One of our advance readers suggested that since the Westmorelands, father and son, had mental problems, Maria married into the family. She did not have their genetic inheritance. Willis, the younger, committed suicide. His father died in a mental institution, probably there because of senility.

[46]             W. L. Washington to “Joe,” November 2, 1888. Washington Papers.

[47]             The title as announced in The Atlanta Constitution, is The Growth of a Soul: A Testimony for Jesus in Three Parts – Part I. Old Faith. Part II. Unfaith. Part III. Faith.

[48]             While 179 is long-gone, two of its neighboring houses still stand.

[49]             Totten receives unfavorable mention in a more recent Watchtower publication. See: Do You Believe Everything You Read, Awake! November 22, 1970, page 5. In 1890 Totten started publishing Our Race: Its Origin and Destiny, a quarterly, to promote his Anglo-Israelite theories.  N. Goodrick-Clarke [Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York University Press, 2002, page 235] suggests that Anglo-Israelitism came to America through Totten. This is, of course, false.

[50]             The Church in the House of Maria, The New York, New York, Sun, December 13, 1891.

[51]             Maria based the phrase “Church in ...” on Romans 16:5; 1Corintians 16:19; Colossians 4:15, Philemon 2.

[52]             Their Labors Rewarded: Mrs. Maria J. Washington and Associate Evangelists Meeting with Success, The Chicago, Illinois, Inter-Ocean¸ October 8, 1893.

[53]             H. B. Thompson: Chicago as a Foreign Mission Field, The World’s Crisis, September 28, 1892.

[54]             Eva Canaleta Safont and Joana Maria Pujades Móra: Medical Discourse and Municipal Policy on Prostitution: Palma 1862-1900, Dynamis,

Volume 28, Granada, 2008.

[55]             DeGive’s Opera House, The Atlanta Constitution, November 25, 1894.

[56]             Mrs. Washington Tonight, The Atlanta Constitution¸ December 2, 1894.

[57]             Maria Washington to Editor of Constitution published as: For the Master; Mrs. Maria Washington States her Position and Her Motives, Atlanta Constitution¸ April 24, 1894. 

[58]             Washington family papers, Tennessee State Library and Archive.

[59]             C. T. Russell: The Ekklesia, Zion’s Watch Tower¸ October 1881, page 8.