His Excellency: George Washington

My favorite page was page 2 because it had no writing on it.

This is a fantastic biography! It was filled with many nuances worthy of attention. I don't feel like I crawled inside Washington's heart or soul but I do feel like I understand him more as a flesh and blood man than the cartoon often told. It's hard not to be struck by how there really was no one else that could have done what Washington did. He was not only central in winning independence from British rule but also in nurturing a nation in its infancy.

The author covers every facet of Washington's life. You see his views progress and you truly understand that he was the exact right man born at the exact right time. It's as if looking back on his life, it was all choreographed. Just as all of us one day, if we live long enough, should be able to look back on our own lives and have it all make sense ~ every twist, every turn, perfect in every way. The author also illuminates how fragile it all was ~ for example, if the British had shown Washington more respect early on in his military career, he would have been thrilled to be an aristocrat serving the monarchy for the rest of his life.

It was shocking to know that more Americans were signing up to fight for the British than alongside Washington toward the end of the war. Most thought that British rule was a forgone conclusion and that a little more domestic autonomy was all that was really hoped as an outcome. Knowing this really waters down the idea of Benedict Arnold being such a huge traitor. He was merely hedging his bets as most others were at the time, including Benjamin Franklin's eldest son (known as the second worst traitor after Benedict Arnold). In this light, Washington seems even more amazing as the underdog fighting what most colonists thought was a losing battle. Washington's bent to rather die than bow down to the British is what prevailed ultimately. He made bold choices and took suicidal chances that the British weren't expecting making their usually foolproof playbook useless.

Over and over again, Washington made the decision that gave him the most momentum. And often it meant letting go of what he really wanted ~ like his first love. He chose to marry the widow Martha instead because to do so elevated his station. This is the same reason he wanted American independence ~ the road to greatness for him was not aligned with the British Empire. He was not the greatest military leader; he lost more battles than he won. But he was really good at learning as he went along and applying lessons learned in a meaningful way. So much of what he learned during the revolution informed his presidency.

I think this book would be great for everyone to read. If for no other reason than to understand the political rhetoric we hear today. A few examples . . .

STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Initially, the revolution wasn't about uniting the states and creating a nation. Not many thought beyond the sovereignty of states. In fact, this world view almost cost the revolution to be lost. Washington went into the revolution with this same bent but came out of it knowing that the only way to keep the states free was to unite as one. And the only way to accomplish this was with a strong central government. During the revolution, Washington was forced to ask for help state by state. He had a constant flow of untrained soldiers that could only serve for a year and a serious lack of supplies. Washington learned that this was no way to win a war or to grow a nation. He prevailed in spite of this and was smart enough to take this important lesson to his Presidency.

DISINGENUOUS RHETORIC

Did you know that many wealthy politicians and rich plantation owners wanted to impeach George Washington? Both Jefferson and Hamilton were part of Washington's cabinet. Their feud was the impetus for the two party system we have today. The idea of the Republican Party was kick-started by Jefferson and other wealthy plantation owners fearing the federal government legislating the end of slavery. In other words, pure economic self interest. Of course, they cloaked it in patriotic banter. But make no mistake, it was the same thing that sparked the American Revolution. Rich plantation owners wanting more money in their pockets.

SURRENDERING POWER

Of the many astounding things the author points to, the most astounding, is that Washington surrendered power more than once. There have been few men more ambitious than Washington, yet he had the wherewithal to do what had never been done before. Even today it's unusual ~ just look at how long politicians stay in power right now. He didn't surrender power because he was no longer ambitious, he walked away because he knew no amount of power could ever quell his thirst for more. He was also wise enough to know that future generations would not equate his greatness with power but instead if he thought about future generations and made decisions accordingly.

DEBT AND GREED

I had to pause to let it sink in that we were a nation founded on debt and greed. Two-thirds of the original colonists from England were running from their creditors. And the impetus for the American Revolution was also about money ~ rich plantation owners wanting to keep more money in their pockets. And as mentioned above, the rhetoric against a strong central government was birthed out of the fear that slavery would end if taken out of the states hands. This is not that different from today because a great amount of legislation is written by corporations and voted into law by politicians pretending to benefit "we the people" when in fact it's just self-serving. Lobbying organizations masquerading as tax-exempt educational associations play matchmaker with CEOs and politicians all the time. The CEO writes a law he would like voted in and the politician presents it as his idea and sells it as a benefit for everyday citizens. A lot of laws get voted in this way. It's much easier for a corporation to get their needs met state by state than federally. It's under the radar oftentimes ~ sort of like the tale of the frog in the water slowly being heated up not realizing he's being cooked. Also, when a politician speaks of a smaller government, it usually means putting tax dollars into a corporations pockets ~ private schools instead of public schools is one example ~ private prisons versus public prisons is another ~ private military subcontractors versus federal military is one more. Demanding lower taxes and smaller government usually is a mask for greed when spoken by millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, and politicians. Not all the time, but too often.

SLAVERY

I think the way the author discussed slavery was very thoughtful. Washington wanted to address slavery sooner than later but he knew if he pushed the issue, the nation would die in its infancy. It's hard to hear that he chose to delay the issue but in reality he knew that to divide the nation immediately after being united would mean there would be no more United States of America and that he would be the last president. The internal struggle with setting his own slaves free was enlightening. Slaves were second to land as an asset. They were a huge part of ones wealth. One could argue that they got wealthy off the labor of slaves so in reality were already amply rewarded financially. I think its a myth that all slaveholders weren't bothered by the morality of their choices, it's just that financial concerns weighed heavy on them. I'm not making excuses for anyone, I'm just trying to see this from another point of view besides my own. It seems that Washington's morality was held hostage by his finances. This isn't unlike some large corporations today. Also, he didn't split families so there was the problem of setting his slaves free when they were intermarried with his wives slaves (Martha had no intention of setting hers free and George could not force her to do so by any legal measure). He did set his slaves free after his death and did provide care for some of them through money left in his will. I believe he regretted not getting this right. It's a shame he didn't because the act of him freeing and caring for his slaves through bestowing land to the able and food and board for the very old would have probably ended slavery sooner than later. Washington died one of the richest, if not the richest founding father. He could have left behind something so much more valuable than assets. That of empathy.

THE BRITISH EMPIRE

As far as the British, I felt I understood better their motivation and miscalculations. In 1775, a compromise could have been waged instead of war but the British were a new empire, afraid if they granted domestic freedom for the colonies that the rest of their empire would demand the same and that would be it for the empire. They made the grave error of trying to quell the revolution via military might instead of mining a peaceful solution.

3 Stars - Good book

Let me start by saying that this has been a rough few days. I'll admit I had a hard time reading this because of the current political situation in America. I think that put me in a sour mood, especially reading about the presidency. Not a fan of a certain and I became quite harsh. My tolerance for historical decisions that are rooted in racism and white superiority is nonexistent right now. I angrily sped through the last 150 pages (not necessarily a reflection of the book/Washington but based on my emotional state). I'm trying not to let that affect my reading of this book but I wanted to put that out there.

I appreciate that Ellis is upfront about how we romanticize historical figures but especially Washington. Washington has become this untouchable figure in American history and I’m guilty of romanticizing him as well. He was by no means perfect but he was horrible either. We need to understands all sides of the person before we can really make a decision about their character.

I had a problem with Ellis’s discussion of Washington’s slaves. Not the facts but how he analyzed them. I know he owned slaves and that’s part of the problem when people romanticize him, they forget that. But Ellis seems to be stating the facts and then trying to justify it by saying well, Washington didn’t treat them horribly. In fact, he treated them well and he really only say it as business, nothing personal. When Ellis does this, it seems to take away from his goal to deromanticize Washington.

Overall, it's a short and relatively concise biography. It's not hard to read but is heavy on the facts.

George Washington has always struck me as one of those historical figures that is mostly myth at this point, the reality almost inseparable from the legend. In that sense, this book was good, giving a general overview of his life. That said, it was pretty brief so I walked away feeling like I had only scratched the surface.

It was a good book and I never get tired of learning about our first President.

An insightful character study of the first President.

One of my favorite books is Ellis' "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson" where Ellis was able to delve deeply (or as deeply as the evidence allowed) to show the duplicitous and often self-deluding nature of Jefferson especially as it related to his conflicted commitment to the Revolution and republican principles. It was as revealing as it was frustrating.

So, I was intrigued by his similar approach in his 2004 character study of Washington. Technically, it's a biography, and it doesn't attempt an exercise in minutiae. It really is an illustrative character study that needs to take a chronological approach as its subject ages and matures. It's appropriately comprehensive insofar as no space feels wasted or like filler. Every page is "instructive" about Washington in at least some sense.

The biggest highlight from Ellis' study is in presenting Washington, despite his outward stolidity/stoicism as a man of intense opinion and passion. Whether it's his feeling unjustifiably looked down upon by British regulars or a persistent sense he's being cheated in business by his British agents, or his feelings about regular troops vs militia, or his deeply ingrained view that a strong central government was necessary to secure the American experiment.

His break from the views of the landed Virginia gentry towards the Federalist view is fascinating especially as the duplicity of Jefferson and Madison becomes more and more apparent and their criticisms of Washington (laundered through third parties) becomes more and more histrionic (is he a secret monarchist? a pottering old fool? a puppet of Hamilton? all that and more!) - yet Ellis also shows Washington still being skeptical of Hamilton's more extreme views on executive power.

What Ellis does best is look beyond the stone-faced portraits (or face of stone at Mt Rushmore) to show a Washington that was deeply concerned about all of these things -- but ever increasingly (or more) concerned about his place in history. A fine study all around.

After thoroughly enjoying Dallek's 2017 biography about FDR, I wanted to go back and read about the other two of the Big Three, Washington and Lincoln. Reading here and there on the web, I understood that Joseph Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington - following his excellent Pulitzer-winning Founding Brothers - was considered among the best in class. (I plan to read Chernow's biography of Washington soon as well).

In His Excellency, Ellis paints the great general and first president as an imposing physical presence whose enduring legacy reaches Demi-god status but who nonetheless had a checkered record. He participated in an early massacre of Indians during the French & Indian War in the 1750s, was a southern plantation owner (and therefore owned slaves), and actually lost more battles in the Revolutionary War than he won. However, he had a level of persistence and conviction that was nearly superhuman which helped him rise above internecine politics and keep the larger picture in mind - the founding of a new nation independent from English colonialism. The book does a great job of bringing out the known facts about GW and explaining how the man became the legend. I guess the thing I appreciated the most was how easy it would have been for Washington to pull a Napolean-like move and become an emperor following his victory at Yorktown. It would have been that easy and he would hardly have been blamed. His nemesis during the war, King George III actually said that he would be the "greatest of men" if he stepped away after the victory at Yorktown and this is precisely what he did. The book, of course, continues to draw the picture of the rest of his life: his semi-retirement, his being coaxed into being President, his being coaxed into a second term, his decision (once again, in the "greatest of men" mode) to step down after the second term, and the end of his life. He was a truly remarkable person despite having left little correspondence for history to judge him (his wife Martha burned all of their letters to each other immediately after his death, unfortunately.)

In short, His Excellency is highly readable and a great way to discover this icon of American history in all his incredible humanity. For more on the crossing of the Delaware River and the Trenton and Princeton battles which were turning points in the War of Independence, see Fischer's excellent Washington's Crossing.

Verbose.