A VERY PUBLIC PERSONA

A review of John Ferling’s The Assent of George Washington: The Hidden Genius of an American Icon (2009)

(Rating 5 of 5)

 

It can be said that there are two people for every person, the person who we are perceived to be and the person who we really are.  This is extra true for public personalities, there is the identity that the public knows and who the person actually is.  From any reality T.V. star to the President of the United States, who the person really is maybe far different from the public perception.  For those who have graced the public stage the public persona continues to live on long after the real person dies.  If the person is famous enough then that individual has become, in a very real way, immortal.  This is certainly true with George Washington’s persona.  

John Ferling’s book explores how the real George Washington conceived, crafted, created, and used his public persona to his and the nation’s advantage.  Far from being a disinterested man above politics George Washington is presented as extremely politically ambitious and creates an artificial poster of disinterestedness that was able to win over the American public. 

President Washington is an image George worked hard to create.

As far as George Washington’s life goes, as Ferling himself acknowledges, this is not a traditional biography.  You find no information here that you would not find in any other book covering Washington’s life and in some ways is a lot less.  This book is primarily just George Washington, the real person, creating the George Washington the internationally recognized persona.  It’s almost as if the traditional ‘Father of our Country’ was just a character created and acted by this eighteenth century Virginian aristocrat.

 Nevertheless the country clearly benefited.  George Washington served as a unifying force during the dark days of the Revolution, and the early days of the Republic.  Only he was popular enough to resist the type of criticism that was aimed at him for supporting the Jay treaty with Great Britain, a move that would prevent an ill-prepared nation from going to war the superpower of the day, the British Empire. 

{Video is from "Biography,"}

LETTERS FROM A REVOLUTION

A review of Edward G. Lengel’s This Glorious Struggle: George Washington’s Revolutionary War Letters (2007)

(Rating 3 of 5)

Edward Lengel assembled the letters that George Washington wrote during the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. The letters are laid out year by year; there are comments in-between to give context to what it is the reader is looking at. Lengel’s remarks are always italicized to distinguish them from General Washington’s letters. It is an all right read, but not something for a beginner, rather for someone who already has a strong understanding of the period.

Here are some of the letters I found most interesting:

On the Declaration of Independence,

“I perceive that Congress have been employed in deliberating on measures of the most Interesting nature. It is certain that It is not with us to determine in may Instances what consequences will flow from our Counsels, but yet It behoves to adopt such, as under the smiles of a Gracious & All kind Providence will be most likely to promote our happiness; I trust the late decisive part they have taken is calculated for that end, and will secure us that freedom and those privileges which have been and are refused us, contrary to the voice of nature and the British Constitution. Agreable to the request of Congress I caused the Declaration [of Independence] to be proclaimed before all the Army under my Immediate command and have the pleasure to inform them that the measures seemed to have their most hearty assent, The expressions and behavior both of Officers and men testifying their warmest approbation of It.” p.52

On Saratoga,

“By this Opportunity, I do myself the pleasure to congratulate you on the signal success of the Army under your command, in compelling Genl Burgoyne and his whole force, to surrender themselves, prisoners of War. An Event that does the highest honor to the American Arms, and which, I hope will be attended with the most extensive and happy consequences. At the same time, I cannot but regret, that a matter of such magnitude and so interesting to our General Operations, should have reached me by report only, or though the channel of Letters not bearing that authenticity, which the importance of it required, and which it would have received by a line under your signature, stating the simple fact.” p.119

On American nationhood,

"We are known by on other character among Nations than as the United States—Massachusetts or Virginia is not better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers then the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Gloucester County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in Government, by which they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity & Interests, these should be attended to, & brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; but when the come in contact with the general Interest of the State—when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole—their Voices should be heard no more—so it should be with individual States when compared to the Union—Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United?” p.281

This book is a rich holding of primary source material on General George Washington and the American Revolution.

Everything you wanted to know about the American Revolution

A review of Robert Leckie’s
George Washington’s War: The Saga of the American Revolution (1992)

(Rating:4 of 5)

In America, it was once a common tradition to name wars after our leader at the time. During the colonial period, we had King William’s War (War of the Grand Alliance), Queen Anne’s War (War of Spanish Succession), and King George’s War (War of Austrian Succession)*. After Independence, we still informally referred to conflicts by our leaders, Mr. Madison’s War (War of 1812) or Mr. Polk’s War (Mexican-American War). However, over time, this feel out of fashion and we started to refer to wars by geographical area or politician significance**. In that bold tradition, Leckie’s titles the tale of the American Revolution as: George Washington’s War.

Leckie portrays the American Revolution as an epic tale involving colossal figures. Although the book has George Washington’s name on the cover, the work covers far more then just him. The book focuses on many of the military leaders and statesmen of the period. In fact, sometimes Leckie goes a little overboard with information. Not only explaining a certain leader and who they were but also he likes to go into immense detail about their family history dating back centuries. For example, although I, as a history buff, eat a lot of this stuff up, one wonders if the average reader feels the need to know George Germain’s ancestry dating all the way to the Norman Conquest of 1066.

One of the major things that I learned from reading this book is how the structure of the American and British Armies contributed to an American victory. The American Army was so small and assembled haphazardly that it was possible for people like Nathaniel Greene to be promoted right from buck private to a general officer. The cream rose to the top in the American Army. While the British Army was the exact opposite of the American Army, officers had to buy their commissions if they wanted to serve in the Army in any leadership role. This allowed the American Army to have a higher quality group of leaders then the British.

“A wealth young officer could not, of course, simply buy his way up the chain of command. He had to serve a certain amount of time in his rank and wait until a vacancy occurred above him, either in his own regiment or somewhere else. Even if promoted, he still had to buy his higher new rank.” p.171

In the end, George Washington’s War is a wonderful experience and an even better source of reference for anyone who had any question about the American Revolution.

*Since King George II was king for both War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, Americans refer to the later as the French and Indian Wars.
**There had been some attempt to name later wars after presidents but it never quite caught on the way it had in earlier generations. Ex. “Mr. Lincoln’s War” (U.S. Civil War), “Mr. Wilson’s War” (World War I), and “Mr. Roosevelt’s War.” (World War II).

{Video created by a Keol101 on Youtube. Scenes are from the movie Patriot that was made in 2000. Movie is not that great history wise but it does have some nice scenes.}

The First Presidency

A review of Richard Norton Smith’s Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (1993)

(Rating:5 of 5)

Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation is a book about George Washington that follows a unique formula. For this book is about President George Washington as opposed to General George Washington. The purpose is to give readers and understanding in early constitutional government and George Washington’s role in it.

Americans today take for our constitutional government for granted. We hold elections every two years for Congress and every four years for the presidency, and to us this is normal procedure and part of the natural order of things. However, this democratic republican nature was not always guaranteed to be our fate. The fact that since the current form of our Republic was established in 1789, we have enjoyed over two centuries of peaceful transition from administration to the other*. As grown older it has also grown much stronger, with each year it existed it established more legitimacy and historical memory of the American people, and as it continued it became more inclusive going from a republic with only white men who owned land voting to suffrage being extended to all citizens upon entering adulthood.

In the beginning of this new form of government, the Constitution, everything was new and those who were in it were learning how to make this bi-cameral Congress, presidency and Supreme Court work. There were many ups and downs, experiments that would ultimately become precedent, and experiments that would fall apart almost immediately.

“On August 22, 1789, taking literally his constitutional charge to advise and consent with lawmakers over a proposed treaty involving southern Indian tribes, Washington had appeared in Federal Hall. Senator Maclay moved to refer the whole business to an appropriate committee of Congress. For a moment, Washington lost his legendary poise. ‘This defeats every purpose of my coming here,’ he exploded. Soon after he withdrew vowing he would be damned rather than face such public humiliation again. In a single exchange Maclay and his colleagues had asserted their independence, undone the executive’s plan to treat them as a kind of privy council, and laid the groundwork for a very different set of presidential advisers, the Cabinet.” p.37

The book covers not only the major events of the Washington presidency, such as Hamilton’s economic plans, the Bill of Rights, Citizen Genet, and the Jay treaty, but it also discuss a great deal of what life was like in our first two capitals of New York and Philadelphia. How Washington dealt with people’s expectations of him is one of the books reoccurring themes. One of Smith’s great accomplishments in this book is the way he shows President Washington as a smooth political operator.

“Politics is theater, and George Washington was America’s first actor-president. The Constitution made Washington head of state as well as head of government, and no man had a better grasp of ceremonial leadership then George III’s American usurper. The Washington presidency was nothing if not theatrical. Why else the elaborate rituals of levee and drawing room, of triumphal progress to occasions of state and deferential responses from lawmakers for whom the president was both symbol of continuity and the instrument of change? As the embodiment of revolutionary virtue, Washington knew that wherever he appeared, partisan murmurs would be lost in a chorus of hero worship. This alone was enough to make him the young republic’s greatest asset and only glue.” p. 87

Smith’s work covers Washington’s presidency and his post presidency in such detail that those who choose to read this book are opening a window into one of the most interesting decades in our history: the 1790s. I trust those who give this book time will not be disappointed.

* There is the 1860 exception of course, but I view the U.S. Civil War as something that the Republic was able to get though in one piece (we did have elections in 1862 and 1864 after all) by holding the nation together in ‘one piece’.

{Video from the now classic HBO John Adams series}

WASHINGTON…THE HUMAN BEING

(My first ever review, so be kind!)

A review of His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004)

(Rating:5 of 5)

I have to admit I never really thought that much about George Washington. I knew who he was of course, (What American school child doesn’t?), but I never really thought that much about him. I always gave him the respect due him; he was the father of my country after all. As a history buff, I knew of his many accomplishments that were impressive; Commander-In-Chief of a winning effort in the Revolutionary War, presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and of course the first President of the United States. Nevertheless, despite my immense interest in history, especially presidential history, he had never held my interest.

Washington, like a lot of other Americans that I had learned about in my early years such as Lincoln, FDR, Susan B. Anthony, or Martin Luther King, Jr.; was too damn perfect to be interesting. He was too good and too honest. The image was of cherry-tree cutting boy scout who could not tell a lie*. In his preface, Ellis describes similar experiences calling Washington the ‘man on the moon.’ Personally, whenever someone asked who my favorite president was I would throw him or her a curve ball and say ‘James K. Polk’**.

Joseph Ellis’s story begins with a young George Washington starting to make his mark in the French and Indian War, carrying a message from the Governor of Virginia to the Indian leader known as the Half-King. What is most interesting aspect about Ellis’ take on George Washington it that Ellis makes it clear that there are two George Washingtons. There is the George Washington the man whom he truly was, and there is the iconic George Washington of whom the public sees and knows. I am not talking about Washington the famous historical figure in comparison to the real person. I am referring to something that was very real during his life and something that of which he himself was consciously aware. It would start with his published Journal of Major George Washington and continue into his brief post-presidential years. It is important one understands that in order to understand him.

The real Washington was a man who often sought to better his position in society, but consequently he often felt out of place, an imposter in his position who is afraid he might be discovered. Although his family was wealthy, he was not a natural member of the Virginia gentry and as he moved into that role, thanks in no small part to the marriage to the widow Martha Curtis, he never felt quite at home in that position. He would engage in activities that were generally considered ungentlemanly. For example, Washington would always take an active interest in his money and investments, activity considered quite beneath a gentleman***.

Washington also lacked a classical education; he gained most of his knowledge from real world experience. This however, also caused him to feel inferior and tended not to participate openly in debates, rather in his legislative career he would be more of a behind the scenes type of operator.

“Washington was accustomed to leading by listening. During the Revolution, he had chaired countless councils of war in which junior officers presented options to the commander in chief. Before the war, George Mason had helped him understand the constitutional arguments against parliamentary taxation. In 1787, as in these previous instances, he already possessed a firm grasp of the elemental forces at work and a clear set of convictions about the strategic direction in which to lead those forces. Where he needed assistance---and he was completely comfortable about requesting and receiving it---was in mastering the vocabulary that more formally educated colleagues possessed, learning the intellectual road map to reach the destination that he had already decided upon.” p.175-6

In battle, George Washington became known as the American Fabius. It was a role he did not care for but assumed out of necessity. He was hired because of his outstanding reputation from the French and Indian War, but often felt overwhelmed trying to lead a rag tag army of farm boys against the best-equipped and trained army in the world. However, Washington prevailed decisively at Yorktown. Even with that famous victory, Ellis points out, Washington was still unsatisfied and he did not quite think of the British as being truly beat.

“Never a man to place his fate in trust, he had learned to mistrust everything emanating from London. Even the term ‘negotiations’ troubled him. What was there to negotiate? The British had tried to destroy him and his army, but he had destroyed them. He wanted the personal satisfaction that came with an unqualified, unconditional surrender. He wanted them to say that they had lost and he had won. He wanted his vaunted superiors to admit that they were his inferiors.” p. 138

    

Later as President, Washington would use his public persona to help create a unified nation. Ellis shows that Washington was very much an American nationalist who favored a strong national government, but being aware of the need for a unifying leader he often would silence his voice and allow the others to debate the point. This would not satisfy Thomas Jefferson who felt like he always lost out to Alexander Hamilton when push came to shove. However, it was not Hamilton who controlled Washington, rather Washington just agreed with Hamilton on about everything and that made Jefferson the nonconformist.

President Washington’s view was that the presidency had to apolitical was a rather foolish thing because it obviously could not. During the President’s second term, he became far more openly Federalist in his political appointments. This, ironically enough, is the exact same mistake King George III made in his view of the monarchy, and his real preference for the Tory party. (Although this is my personnel observation, not Ellis’. Also it is view neither President Washington nor King George III would have care for.)

One of the biggest issues in early America is the issue of slavery. George Washington first became a slave owner when his father died, while George was only eleven. (This boggles the modern mind. Imagine going up to a prepubescent kid and informing him that he is now the ‘owner’ of a small group of people.) Ellis chronicles Washington’s ever-evolving views on the subject, starting during the Revolution and continuing thought his life. Ellis holds the reason for Washington’s changing ideas about the subject is combination of ideological and economic forces at work at the same time. The most interesting thing I found was that Washington’s famous will in which he manumits his slaves is that will was actually Washington’s back-up plan. His original idea was to sell off land that he owned out west to pay for the cost of manumission. He came up with this plan as early as 1794 but the fall of land prices had delayed implantation, so the will was written in case Washington, who was already a decade older than most the men in his family generally lived to, did not live see it through.

Finally, one of the main themes in Ellis’s book was; what made George Washington great is not what he did but rather what he did not do. Washington voluntarily walked away from power, not only once but twice. Although the peaceful transfer of power may seem normal for Americans, the idea that a revolutionary military leader would do that is incredible. Unlike Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Vladimir Lenin, Washington would step aside where absolute power was available and let the Republic run its course. This was not always easy because he was not always happy with what occurred but Washington would not commit a sin against freedom and proclaim himself king.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know anything about our nation’s primary founding father. This book is rich and covers a broad range of subjects in the life of Washington; only some of which have been discussed here. This book can be read and enjoyed from the advanced history buff to the historical novice, and they will find the second half of the eighteenth century come to life with the ‘His Excellency.’

* A ridiculous story if there ever was one.
** I still like Polk, but that is for another article.
*** Ellis points out it was for this reason Washington died rich and Jefferson died poor.

{Video from the all-ready classic HBO 'John Adams' series!}