George Washington

Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow

Tier: 1 (Instead of doing a star rating or X out of ten, I’m going to do tiers. 1 – 5, 1 being the best/must read, 5 being the worst/skip)

I got started on this project with a bang. It was to be expected. Sometimes there are good biographies about bad presidents, sometimes there are bad biographies about good presidents, but with the plethora of options for old Cincinnatus, I was expecting a good one. And I got it.

Chernow is one of the few biographers who have two entries in this project. He is also on the short list for best biographers that I’ve ever read. You may know a fairly popular adaptation of another of his works about a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman. This book is about as good as you’ll get for a single volume biography (I think I prefer another of his, but you’ll have to wait for that one). He manages to give you an even portrait of a seemingly mythical man in an exciting and informative manner.

One thing I found while listening to these books was that biographers tend to fall in love with their subjects. It’s understandable and in most cases excusable. If you spend years researching a person, it probably helps to like them. There are times that Chernow falls into this trap, where he skims over troublesome moments or frames things in a favorable light, but he mostly manages avoid this and give you an honest depiction. He’s willing to hit GW when its warranted and avoids overt editorializing. His prose is strong and moves quickly, he avoids the excessively academic nature of some biographies while keeping you gripped to the page.

There are failings to this book. Any single volume biography is going to skirt over aspects of the subject’s life, particularly one with the stature of Washington. I would’ve liked more on his early life and colonial military career (the time he basically started a world war is covered in like a dozen pages), but overall, it’s hard to complain here.

Washington was a bit of a late bloomer. If you told someone in 1774 (when he was already 42) that he would go down as one of the iconic figures, and military leaders, in world history, they’d have laughed in your face. He wasn’t a spectacular or even particularly notable man aside from the aforementioned fiasco (possible war crime) that began the French and Indian War. He wasn’t some military virtuoso or political visionary. He was rather the right man at the right time.

I think this is a valuable lesson for all of us. We tend to venerate prodigies and exceptional talents. We gravitate towards them and turn them into gods. But the smartest, most talented person isn’t always the best leader. I think there’s a valid argument to be made that someone who’s met nothing but success in their life is totally unprepared for something like the job of being president. Failure is important. It builds humility, it gives one perspective, and it teaches you to listen. Washington never would’ve been the president he became without those early failures.

Another thing that stood out to me during many of these biographies was the idea of partisanship. We often hear politicians yearn for some past where political adversaries were cordial in their hatred. If this era existed, I haven’t found it.

For Washington’s part he faced vicious criticism particularly in his second term. This included, but was not limited to, cartoons depicting him being beheaded, accusations of being a turncoat with regards to the French Revolution, and the recurrent claim that he was making himself king (something he probably could’ve done if he’d wanted to).

He sought, for a period, to remain above this petty partisanship. Along with many of his contemporaries, he reviled political parties and the factions that they created. But in the end those same men who demonized parties (looking at you Jefferson), were the ones to form them and subsequently attack their opponents. Washington’s partisan Rubicon seemed to be the Whiskey Rebellion after which it became impossible for him to avoid the factions that had torn open his cabinet and laid fault lines across the nation.

Given that the proverbial father of our nation couldn’t avoid libelous attacks and political parties, I think we should put this myth to bed once and for all. There was no idyllic time when politicians respected their opponents. Perhaps there are instances you can point to, but on the whole enemies detest one another. They did then just as they do now.

If a one volume biography falls short of explaining the complex man that was our first president, then my little blog has no chance to fully encompass him. What I can say is that you should read this biography. It’s excellent and Washington is a lesson to us now just as much as he was then. He wasn’t perfect, none of us are, but he’s certainly someone worth studying.

Fun fact(s): he loved dogs, he had to borrow money to attend his first inauguration, and he didn’t, as is so often claimed, have wooden teeth (he had issues with his teeth and lots of dentures, but they were more often ivory and probably even slave teeth at some point).

As always, if you know someone who might like this, please tell them about my substack or my website or both. It would be a great help to me. Thanks for reading!