Washington: A Life

Everyone knows George Washington was the military leader who defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War and is regarded as the Father of the Country. Some may also be aware that he ranked near the best among all the US Presidents, but probably not much more about the life and work of George Washington. (How many know that Washington was also the Father of the American Mule?)Many years ago, I had read the books “1776” by David McCullough and “His Excellency – George Washington“ by Joseph Ellis. However, with the passage of time, whatever I learned have faded from memory. Recently, after reading “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and “Jefferson” by Jon Meacham, I thought I should read “Washington – A Life” by Ron Chernow. The page numbers of these books are 754, 505, and 817 respectively, not including footnotes. They are long, but thankfully they all are engrossing page-turners and are easy to read.I thought all three books are excellent. In particular, I believe that anyone who invests the time to read “Washington – A Life” will be rewarded with much information not only about George and Martha Washington but also a number of interesting events and colorful personalities in early American History. To wet the reader’s appetite, below is a sample of what I learned.- The name Mount Vernon was given in honor of the British Admiral Edward Vernon, whom George Washington’s half-brother, Lawrence served under, while he was in the Colonial “Regiment of Foot” (Infantry). “Thus the name of a forgotten British admiral would implausibly grace America’s secular shrine to the revolt against British rule,” stated the author.- The bravery of George Washington in battles was well established during the French and Indian War. To his brother Jack, Washington speculated that he was still alive “by the miraculous care of Providence that protected me beyond all human expectation. I had 4 bullets through my coat and two horses shot under and yet escaped unhurt.” In the battle of Fort Necessity, a young doctor named James Craik, observed: “I expected every moment to see him fall. His duty and station exposed him to every danger. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him from the fate of all around him.” Washington’s daring even fostered a lasting mystique among the Indians. A folk belief existed among some North American tribes that certain warriors enjoyed supernatural protection from death in battle, and this mythic statue was projected onto Washington. It was his legendary bravery that enabled his military reputation to keep rising despite losing the battles of Fort Necessity and Fort Monongahela.- The strategy that resulted in the Victory at Yorktown against the British which ended the Revolutionary War was actually originated by the French Lt. Gen. Comte de Rochambeau. Washington’s plan was to retake New York, which was repeatedly not agreed to by the French. That Lt. Gen. Comte de Rochambeau hesitated to go along with Washington’s plan turned out to be a blessing for America.- The first suggestion of what eventually became the structure of the new American Government came from a letter to Washington from John Jay in early 1787, which stated: “Let congress legislate, let others execute, let others judge.” Jay was then serving as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, appointed by Congress of the Confederation. (Jay later served as the 1st Chief Justice of the United States).- When Benjamin Franklin died on April 17, 1790, America was curiously devoid of public eulogy to this founding father. The French outdid the U.S. Congress by the eloquent homage to “the genius who liberated America and poured upon Europe torrents of light.”- It seemed that Washington was short of cash most of the time and his estates in Mount Vernon and neighboring counties were not financially profitable. When he was elected as the first president of the US, he had to borrow money to make it to New York City for his own inauguration in 1789. Washington was beset by health problems from time to time, ranging from dysentery, thigh tumor to pneumonia. In particular, he had bad teeth. Indeed, in his first Presidential Inauguration in April 30, 1789 he had only one good tooth remained. Martha Washington suffered an inordinate number of family deaths - two husband including Washington, four children and seven siblings. Nevertheless, neither George nor Martha ever reacted to grave setbacks in a maudlin, self-pitying manner. Both believed in a world replete with suffering in which one muddled through with as much dignity and grace as one could muster.- Thomas Jefferson once boasted that “If I could not go to heaven but with a (political) party, I would not go there at all”. Yet, Jefferson and his supporters were founders of the Republican Party, which fought fiercely with the Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton. The intensity of the political infighting as narrated in the book is evidence that the political bickering and partisanship we witness today date all the way back to the earliest days of the Republic. In the book “Jefferson” by Jon Meacham, Hamilton appeared to be a scheming politician. In the present book, on the other hand, Hamilton appeared to be extremely intelligent and it was Jefferson and James Madison who were cunning and duplicitous. Washington was on the side of Hamilton.- Many interesting characters appeared in the book, including Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, the arrogant but brilliant French Architect Pierre Charles L'Enfant, who conceived the architectural layout of the new capitol Washington, D. C. A most interesting personality was Marquis Layette, who is “considered a national hero in both America and France”.The quote about Washington which appeared in the front of the book was that by Abigail Adams: “Simple truth is his best, his greatest eulogy.”The more famous eulogy of George Washington, given at his funeral by Henry Lee, did not appear until the end of the book: "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."After reading the book, the reader will better understand the rationale and context of these quotes. He/she can then decide whether the sentiments expressed therein resonate.Lastly, did you know that Henry Lee was the father of famous Civil War Confederate General Robert E. Lee? What an irony that he was the close friend of George Washington and author of the famous eulogy.

Chernow is a wonderful writer and Washington is a wonderful subject. What went wrong?I read a not-too-good biography of Francis Galton a month or so ago. It was hard to get through. The author was afraid some one might think he approved of Galton's ideas so he constantly interrupted the narrative with mini-lectures on the evils of eugenics. Galton was a remarkable person but he had some notions that are now considered politically incorrect. I don't remember who wrote that Galton biography and I certainly don't care what his politics are.Chernow similarly seems to feel the need to scold long dead Washington on his failures to feel more guilty about being a slaveholder. Washington was an eighteenth century figure but in this biography we are periodically yanked right back into the twenty first century with current ideas about slavery. I know what most people today think about slavery. I read this 800 page book to learn about a different period.One of the best biographies I ever read was 'Twelve Caesars' by Suetonius. I was very strange. Every so often the very bright and sensible Suetonius would write something that just seemed crazy. It was very unsettling. But I began to realize that the things that seemed important to an ancient historian were different from those that seemed important to a modern. Those things that matter to a person of the period told you something about the period.Similarly 'The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini' has no mention of his two wives. A modern historian would give us some chapters or paragraphs about his wives. But apparently Cellini didn't think marriage matter enough to include it. That tells us something about Cellini and the times he lived in.Chernow is of course not an ancient. He is very much a modern but he is, in this book, too modern. Instead of describing just the happenings of the eighteenth century he tells us what a modern historian thinks of those happenings. I read his earlier biography of Hamilton and didn't notice this flaw but apparently slavery for him is too important to overlook. He succumbs to the temptation to inject a series of moral sermons about the evils of slavery. He obscures Washington's attitudes towards slavery in his eagerness to interject his own modern views.Chernow is a fine writer but I wouldn't bother to read about his political opinions. I have spent almost two weeks reading this long book because I was interested in Washington - not Chernow.Slavery in the colonial and revolutionary period was a contentious issue. Washington hoped that it would just fade away. He was wrong about that, as it happens. But Washington may be forgiven. He lived before Darwin and Mendel. He had no idea of genetics or evolution. He - nor anyone else of his age - understood human races. He probably believed in the Old Testament story about Hamm. In terms of conventional Judeo-Christian morality he was a model slave holder. Chernow criticizes him for not being even better.Why didn't Washington use a Water-Pic ? He could have just used this electrical plastic water squirting device and his periodontal problems would have probably been much less serious. Of course they didn't have running water in the Mount Vernon bathrooms or electricity. They didn't have plastic or tiny water pumps either. It would be absurd to criticize Washington for not using tools only invented a century after his death. But Chernow and others feel no compunction about criticizing people of the revolutionary generation for not adopting ideas that didn't become popular until far into their future.Was Washington right to be cautious about slavery? Or to put it another way - would we with our modern ideas have done better? We moved against black slavery sooner than many at the time thought wise. For our trouble we got the worst war in American history. By the beginning of the twentieth century and the inventions of John Rust and others, a field slave was worthless. Slavery had succumbed to the Industrial Revolution. It was probably too contentious an issue for the nation to wait so long, but Washington was right - slavery was doomed to the continuance of progress. We might have been able to avoid the Civil War.We haven't actually solved the problem of slavery have we? That's probably because it never was the institution of chattel bondage that was the sole problem. Washington was well aware that slaves were much inferior to wage workers. If you could replace a slave with a free man you would be better off in almost every way. Washington knew that. The problem was that black field slaves were best solution at the time and the place.White indentured servants had first been used in the fields of Jamestown. They died like flies. The colony would have failed without field labor. The colonists would have starved. The native Amerindians proved to be poor field workers and whites succumbed to the conditions, the semi-tropical climates and the diseases. Jamestown was saved by the introduction of black slaves.Black slaves were still needed by the time of Washington. American black field slaves were always treated better than the Caribbean or Brazilian slaves who worked sugar. They were probably the best treated field slaves in world history and Washington was among the best slave holders. Chernow's harping on slavery shows a disregard for historical context - a serious defect in a historian.In fact it's even worse. The slavery issue today isn't about anything that happened or didn't happen in the American South centuries ago. The slavery issue is alive today because unlike every other immigrant group that came to America, blacks have been failures. They show terrible crime rates and dependency rates. They fail in school and they can't compete for jobs. The most popular excuse has become - 'The Legacy of Slavery'. Writers are under all sorts of pressure to subscribe to this dubious explanation. History has to be distorted to keep this comforting notion alive.Chernow must know that all people everywhere have been slaves at various times and masters at others. Slavery is a non-sequitur. How can a universal condition explain any particular modern circumstance?Washington it seems was untroubled by the reality of black slavery in general. He was against it on religious and moral grounds. He kept families together and he planned for manumission on his death. Chernow writes as if that was not enough. He implies that Washington was morally suspect because he didn't go further. Frankly I would trust Washington's judgment more that Chernow's.The simple fact is that America has never solved the problem that began with the importation of black slaves. The problem lingers today as any honest observer must admit. We freed blacks a century and a half ago. We then spent a trillion or more dollars trying various ways to assimilate them. Nothing has worked. I certainly hope we can devise a solution but to date I don't see that we have any modern remedy to the problem.In Washington's day many groups were treated as bad or worse than our black field slaves. The Irish were treated worse by the English than our blacks were by American slave holders according to Frederick Douglas (a few decades later). The British Army and Navy both beat their men to death for infractions. Americans were to learn this as they were impressed by the British. American field slaves ate better, lived longer, had better medical treatment, and better family lives than the white Americans who were routinely kidnapped on the high seas. We went to war largely over impressment. Our first military actions as a nation were over the much harsher enslavements that American whites experienced at the hands of the Barbary Muslims.Maybe Washington wasn't as alarmed by black slavery because he understood more about white enslavement than Chernow.

This is a great read, very absorbing and getting the right balance between historical detail and character description. I realised that I didn't really know anything about Washington the man and I wasn't inspired by those doughy-faced portraits of him. Ron Chernow has changed that, bringing Washington's unique character alive and the originality of his personality. Enormous personal decency, modest reticence and ego, highly disciplined, almost fatalistically brave, largely self-taught and self-motivated, excellent judge of character, aware of the moral dilemmas of issues such as slavery and while acknowledging his economic dependance on slavery,predicting that if the issue was not resolved over time it would threaten the Union. Did not regard himself as an intellectual, and patronised by his fellow Founding Fathers who never doubted their own genius, but he constantly exercised wisdom that was all the more powerful because it was not egotistical in any way. This meant he was trusted through the worst travails of the revolution and the explosive potential of the constitution-building. He was the essence of authority, with a sense of duty that compelled him to tasks that he did not relish but took no glory from. And in retirement he endured constant visitors to Mount Vernon and felt obliged to feed and water them all at some expense as long as they didn't expect him to engage in small talk (or any talk).Thanks to Ron Chernow's brilliantly written book, superbly edited to maintain a coherent narrative of personal detail and historical sweep, Washington of the doughy face has become my favourite and most original character from history. Americans are right to revere him, I have finally understood.

Jesus, this book is a long read. I've had it for a few weeks and as a not-so-avid reader I've barely put a dent in it, but I can not recommend it more. It's incredible how much this book has pulled me in as an English person. The history is brilliantly presented in a genuinely interesting way, making you feel as if you aren't trapped back in high school history again and instead making it feel as if you're reading a story book. George Washington's life is so interesting and there are actually some genuinely funny moments, my favorite so far being;"According to legend, Washington attended the Fairfax County election and ended up in a heated exchange about George William with one William Payne, who favoured an opposing candidate. Their confrontation grew so angry that Payne struck Washington with a stick, knocking him to the ground. When Washington got to his feet, he had to be restrained from assaulting Payne."Now I don't know about you, but the idea of George Washington, first president of the United States of America, being hit to the ground with a stick of all things is the most entertaining thing I've read in a while. This isn't the kind of thing you'd find in your average dusty 20 volume biography, so don't for a second think that this is even on the same caliber. It's funny, it's witty and it's charming. There aren't enough good words about this book, so if you have any sort of interest in American history or the man himself, then I can safely say that this is a great place to start.Oh and there are pictures! ;)

For a figure as ubiquitous and recognizable as George Washington, one may not initially feel the sufficient curiosity to read a 900 page biography of the Father of the Nation, however, such indifference would cause one to miss out on a truly scholarly treat.At 900 pages, Chernow stays on message and sticks to the point pretty much throughout, giving a complete portrait of the first President. All of Washington's life is covered, including family members, which reveals the crucial detail that Washington men had traditionally short life expectancy, his service in the French-Indian War, his early political career in the Virginia House of Burgesses, his leadership of the Continental Army, his seemingly reluctant Presidency, and finally, his long awaited but comparatively brief retirement.What the reader is gifted with is not just an incredibly detailed and well researched study of Washington, but also a first rate account of the American Revolution. Having read other books on this subject, most of which were by Joseph J Ellis, it can certainly be said that this is additionally an informative study of the American Revolution.Chernow provides a wholey objective and de-mythologized study of Washington, however, he does answer key questions as to why Washington attained such an apotheosis in both life and death, he led a ragtag, unprofessional army to a seemingly impossible victory against the greatest power of the day, he resigned his commission and threw away any pretensions of power returning to public service only through popular demand, and he exercised the office of the Presidency in a noble, non-partisan manner, which shaped the Presidency into the office that it is today.Washington was often called the American Cincinattus, and this biography clearly shows why, as Washington is frequently portrayed as a reluctant participant in the public square, reluctantly presiding over the Constitutional Convention and serving two terms as President.The main glitch on Washington's record, slavery, is shown largely in unfavorable light, presenting Washington as a half-hearted, would be abolitionist, full of empty rhetoric. Even toward the end of his life, he remained vigilant against escaped slaves, however, he did free his slaves in his will, something no other slave holding Founding Father did.A frequently recurring detail is Washington's teeth (or lack of) and his makeshift supply of dentures (no they were not wooden, as popular mythology would have us believe) and how his public speaking, often breathy and rather quiet, was not quite as heroic and imposing as the popular imagination would have us believe.Within this volume, Chernow goes against the somewhat fashionable intellectual tradition of portraying Washington as a Deist. Washington clearly comes across as a sincere and practicing Christian, although not as evangelical as some would like to believe. His invocation of the almighty is frequently tinged with hints of his Masonic background, speaking of the Great Architect or the author of all, however, there is little within this study that could reasonably put him in the Deist camp.Overall, this book is strongly recommended to enthusiasts of American History, or anyone wishing a better understanding of the founding period, or a better understanding of Washington himself. A scholarly, readable, and highly informative book.

Exceptional biography of an exceptional life. Clearly portrays the person behind the myth. Certainly not conventionally 'heroic', or the most gifted military leader but brave, wise and selfless.Washington's key gift to posterity was his refusal to turn the US presidency into a Monarchy (or rather himself into the King) that many excepted and would have welcomed. Prior to that it was his probably unique ability to hold together the under equipped and demoralised Continental army during terrible winters in awful conditions while Congress prevaricated and held back pay and equipment.Chernow's produced an epic work with all the detail anyone, short of an academic, could hope for. It rightfully won a Pulitzer.However, I have a couple of issues. The first is the tiresome adjectives applied to (mainly women), his mother was "shrewish", someone's wife was (pick from any number of words referring to her weight). Other than that we have the regular reference to how attractive or otherwise they appeared.The other problem is while he attempts to grapple with the issues of slavery it seems equivocal. It feels like the premise of owning other people is accepted, as opposed to simply describing context.This is always going to be an issue when writing about Washington, Jefferson and other owners of enslaved people. The question an author needs to answer is, would they write differently if they were imagining their own ancestors were the people being described, would this change their prose?Great piece of work, highly recommended (with caveats) but let's hope publishers can engage and promote a wider diversity of biographers - the stories of the past will become richer and more informative if we start to depart from not just hearing from the white, middle aged males (and I speak as one).

As someone who never learnt about George Washington at school (from the UK) I only knew him as this legendary man who never told a lie. There was so much more to the man that this book can provide. The depth of information on Washington is astounding and it isn't surprising given how full his life was. But there are many levels to the character beyond the army commander and politician which Ron Chernow's book tells us. The struggles Washington had over slavery, his efforts to contain his temper, his lifelong embarrassment of a lack of higher education and his battle to hide his ambition. Perhaps the author wants to paint the picture of a flawed man who, while still being worthy of praise, doesn't illicit the bottomless adoration history has bestowed upon him. But ultimately that is the job of the historian and it is up to us to agree or not. If you only read one biography of George Washington then this is a worthy one indeed.