Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1911-02-28

boy did not tell a lie about the chop.
ping Of that cherry tree. because
50 they say. there wasen't any Cherry
tree about which he had any occa-
sion on temptation to prevaricate.
The story. as is now pretty generally
understood. was the invention OF
Parson Weems, a travelling preacher
and book pedder. who in 1900 wrote
and published Life of Washing
ton," a pamphlet of eighty-two
pages, which had such a successful
sale it was enlarged from time to
time with anecdotes about Washing.
ton, the evident purpose being to
cater to the popular and patriotic
regard for the great American by
lheroizing him in every way any NOR
alizing on his many virtues. There
is no authority for the cherry tree
story other than Weems and it was
doubtless born of his vivid imagina-
ton, encouraged by his desire to
make his book popular. Senator
Hodge, in his biography of WASH
ington says of Mr.. Weems book
Judged solely as literature, the
book is beneath contempt. The
style is turgid, overloaded, and at
times silly. The statements are
loose, the mode of narration confused
and incoherent, and the moralizing
is flat and commonplace to the last
degree. Yet there were a certain
sincerity of feeling underneath all
the bombast and platitudes, and this
saved the book. The biography. did
not go, and was not intended to go,
into the hands of the polite society
of the great Eastern towns. 1t was
meant for the farmers, the pioneers
and the backwoodsmen of the coun
try. To them its heavy and tawdry
style, its staring morals and its real
patriotism all seemed eminently be-
fitting the national hero, and thus
Weems created the Washington of
the popular fancy. The idea grew
up with the country and became so
ingrained with the popular thought
that finally everybody was affected
by it, and even the most stately and
solemn, of the Washington Telegraph
ers adopted the unsupported tales Of
the itinerant parson and book ped
der"
The writer of this article cannot
recall that he was ever as a boy pro
foundly convinced of the accuracy of
this cherry tree story. He accepted
the autheniicity Of the incident. as
every body then seemed to do, but
there was conscious sense of doubt
in his mind concerning the dramati-
cally heroic action and speech of the
Washington boy. There was sub
tie and unexpressed suggestion. in
all his wondering acceptance of the
story and its obtrusive moral, that if
young George really did hack the
cherry tree with his little Ratchet
and really did acknowledge his mis-
chievous wrongdoing it was because
he knew that all the circumstantial
evidence was against him and that a
denial of his guilt under the circum-
stances would have invited a severer
punishment. 1t did not follow then,
and does not now, when the story is
regarded as a myth, that George
would have told an outright lie to
escape detection. He might have
reluctantly admitted his fault and
taken reproof and punishment like a |
little man, but there is ample room |
for doubling the historic as we'll as
the histrionic picture of the little |
fellow drawing himself up to his !
utmost height, throwing his head |
back, placing his hand on his heart |
and flashing from his eyes the in
spiration of noble purpose for gen
erations yet unborn. as he grandilo- |
quently exclaimed, 81 cannot tell a
lie, father; / did it with my little
hatchet!" Nevertheless, we can
well believe that George was fairly |
good boy for he had qualities that
developed into great manhood II
ID.