If the only thing you actually know about George Washington is that he chopped down a cherry tree in his youth and didn’t lie about it, then you may be in the majority of sadly misinformed and ignorant Americans. I am, unfortunately, among that majority.

Besides being the very first president of these United States and being somewhat of an important player in the American Revolution, Washington actually did other stuff. He actually had a life outside of having his face on the dollar bill. Unfortunately, Washington’s life has been shrouded and mystified in a false impression of a stoic, emotionless, larger-than-life figure. For many Americans, Washington is like John Henry or Paul Bunyan: a folk legend whose existence and exploits have entered a realm of unreality and unbelievability.

Joseph J. Ellis, in his biography “His Excellency”, attempts to de-mystify the legend of Washington and shine a light on the real man, not the unknowable god-like figure that we see in the famous portraits of him.

Ellis succeeds where other biographers may have failed perhaps because he does not view Washington through the lenses of idolatry and utter reverence. Not that Ellis shows any disrespect or lack of admiration for the man. He simply shows Washington as just that: a man. One with just as many foibles and dysfunctions and hang-ups as any other man.

Ellis also succeeds in keeping it short (a mere 275 pages), by not going into lengthy detail and not focusing on the boring minutiae that occasionally bogs down similar presidential biographies. (For example, while I respect the brilliance of Edmund Morris, I have been stuck at the midway point of “Theodore Rex”, his second volume of a three-volume biography of Theodore Roosevelt, for almost a decade now. Holy shit, Mr. Morris, I don’t need to know what he had for breakfast or what books he read every damned day.)

Washington, according to Ellis, has been unfairly treated by history for several reasons. One is that he was kind of a quiet guy. While he did write gorgeous letters when he actually wrote letters, the fact is that he was nowhere near as prolific as some of his contemporaries, like Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, Washington made an effort to destroy most of his letters before his death; a sad fact for historians but perhaps ideal for a man who was known for sitting in on meetings and rarely uttering a word. He was a listener, not a talker.

Unfortunately, according to Ellis, historians don’t really like quiet people. They like people like Jefferson who didn’t know when to shut the fuck up. They like people who wrote a shit-ton of letters and journals and purposely kept them sequestered away until their deaths, with every intention of having them posthumously published. Those are the kinds of guys historians get off on. Guys like Washington are a bit of a mystery. They don’t know what to do with them.

He also had a reputation for being always honest, which is where that whole “cherry tree” legend comes from. It’s bullshit, by the way, according to Ellis. It never happened. The truth is, Washington was simply straightforward. He was, in today’s parlance, authentic. A rare quality in any age.

This doesn’t mean, however, that Washington didn’t have a private life. Indeed, his reputation for being somewhat staid and stoic was a fairly contrived persona. The truth, according to Ellis, was that Washington was ruled by his passions---probably moreso than others of his day---but he was much better at keeping his passions controlled. Unlike Jefferson (again with this guy), Washington knew how to keep it in his pants.

Sure, Washington had plenty of opportunities for extramarital affairs, with other politicians’ wives as well as the hundred or so slaves he kept in his lifetime as a Virginia plantation owner, but by all accounts, he was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. Keep in mind, too, the guy was well over six feet tall and built like a modern-day linebacker, minus the use of steroids, so it’s not like he didn’t have the equipment to play the game.

History has also unfairly painted him as an embodiment of the perfect commanding officer, one who never gave a questionable order or made a questionable decision. It’s patently untrue. Much of his early military escapades were filled with snafus and horrendous fuck-ups. He just learned from his failures rather than dwell on them.

Sadly, two of the most important things Washington ever did are essentially two things that most people have forgotten.

One is his refusal to run for a third term. Keep in mind that Washington was the FIRST president of the U.S. He could have done whatever the fuck he wanted in office, mainly because the position was so new. He could have run for a third term, and, according to Ellis, he most likely would have won with a landslide. He was that popular. Instead, Washington did what he felt was right for the country, not what he felt was right for himself.

Read that last sentence again. When the fuck was the last time we had a president who did anything that wasn’t motivated by self-interest?

The other thing for which he should be remembered is his last will and testament. Throughout his life, Washington kept slaves. He thought very little of the fact that these slaves were actually people. Until the Revolution. His views on slavery changed somewhat as he got older, and while he never fully embraced the movement, he was known to harbor pro-abolitionist sentiments.

In his lifetime, Washington never had the courage to free his slaves. There were so many legal and financial complications involved that he never really tried. He did, however, stipulate in his will that his slaves were to be freed upon his death.

Sadly, due to the family contesting some of the things in his will, only one of his slaves was actually ever freed (https://www.history.com/news/did-geor...), but Washington deserves credit for the (for his time) revolutionary attempt at setting free slaves.

Washington was far from a perfect human being, but that’s a good thing. People who are too close to perfect (or at least think that they are---and we all know people who think that) simply aren’t fascinating subjects for biographies. Ellis knows that, which is why the ironically-titled “His Excellency” (a term thrust upon Washington and one that he hated, because it sounded too much like royalty) gives Washington the chance to finally step down off that pedestal and join the ranks of us imperfect Americans.

I think the best way for me to summarize this book is: George Washington's life, basically, sucked.

As a young man, he was basically broke. So he marries Martha, the wealthiest widow in Virginia. And he marries her even though he's really in love with another man's wife. Then when he first goes to war he's practically a laughingstock. Fast forward to him commanding the army during the War of Independence and he has success! Yay! But then takes on the mantle of the presidency. Yeah, that's great and all, except when he wanted to leave after his first term, he got railroaded into a second term. Not to mention, during this second term, his closest "friends" were putting out propaganda behind his back saying he was old, senile, and unfit for the presidency.

When he finally does get to retire after his second term as president, he doesn't really get to retire. People were always visiting Mount Vernon to see him and dine with him. The fact that this book even clearly states that Washington figured he and Martha didn't dine alone for almost 20 years. Ridiculous. Then, when it was finally time for him to die, how does it happen? Oh that's right, he gets some crazy infection in his throat and suffocates to death. Lovely life, huh?

Some cool things that I learned. Washington, D.C. is located where it is because George thought it best to have the "Federal City" just north of Virginia to help the Virginians believe it was in the south. (Or something like that) I never knew, prior to reading this, that "Commander in Chief" wasn't always a presidential term. During the first half of this book when GW was being mentioned as the "Commander in Chief" I kept thinking, "Um...did I miss where he became president?" Only to then realize that I'm an idiot. :) It was very cool to read about the creation of our government and why decisions were made. And another thing that sucked for GW, he was our nation's guinea pig and really got crapped on in terms of people talking badly about him. But you've got to admit, even though he didn't always make the best decisions, he was the one that really and truly believed we could be independent.

Lastly, I think it would be pretty awesome to be called Her "Excellency". :)

Not having a lot of interest or knowledge when is comes to history I picked this book out for the Pop Sugar Reading Challenge and enjoyed it. It wasn't throwing fact after fact after fact at you so you don't get overwhelmed and confused. I would recommend this to someone new to reading about American history and would read this author again.

I don't know if 3 stars is fair, because honestly if you're someone that likes biographies you would probably enjoy this. It is a well written book, I'm just not a huge fan of biographies, so this was a struggle for me. Some things I retained, a lot of things I didn't. I did learn some things from it, which is the whole point of me reading different genres, so no regrets. I would actually recommend it if it's your cup of tea.

I promised myself to read this while living in the Washington area and I'm glad I picked it up in my final summer here. This Joseph Ellis biography of his excellency George Washington was a delightful read. Lots of reminders: a balanced non-partisan first president and the early beginnings of the modern political party with the split between Jefferson and Hamilton. Lots of new information: the connection to the Fairfax family and early northern Virginia history. Washington's desire to establish a federal city "where men could come to congregate and 'rub off' their sectional habits and accents", and his belief in a national city, national bank, university, chief executive, and expansion of the army/navy (251) all puts today's politics in perspective, especially that of the radical anti-federal groups. When looking at this earl U.S. history, today's "tea-party" groups are more like the Shay rebellion or the whiskey debt rebellions of 1794 which Washington referred to as "self created societies" that "represented a tyranny of the minority against the will of the majority, that their only revolutionary principle was that every man can cut and carve for himself" (224). In the first and only time in American history a sitting president led soldiers into the field and crushed the whiskey insurrection; and surely he'd scoff just the same at today's so called Libertarians. Another interesting note about Washington was he was the only founding father to free his slaves in his will. Ellis shows Washington's inner problems with slavery and his great concerns about protecting the native Americans, what could be considered failures of Washington. In fact, failure itself was more prevalent in the first president's life than success: more losses than wins in battle. Of course, he won the critical ones and never gave up. In his dying hours, evidence of agnosticism or just a lack of concern for religion is demonstrated where most men of this stature would be surrounded by Christian artifacts and a minister, which of course reinforces how Washington was a man of logic and reason. In his final words he breathed, "Tis well." One other fun fact I found was how he warned hunters in the area that the deer on and near his property had become domesticated and must not be hunted (242).

A very readable biography. Great new insights into the life and character of our nation's first president.

As I continue on my quest to read at least one book about each president and one for each first lady, I'm glad this president is one of my early choices.

Author Joseph J. Ellis writes a good overall book about the life of George Washington from his childhood through his involvement in the French and Indian Wars, the American Revolution, his presidency, and life afterwards. Unfortunately, little is known about the relationship between George and Martha because she destroyed all their letter after his death.

This book was a good reminder to me to read more about the American Revolution because there were many references to military actions that a basic understanding would have helped considerably. At times the book was written with the preconceived belief that the reader already knew much of the events that occurred during his lifetime.

I had never really thought about the actual process it took to develop and form a new government. Decisions from where to place the national capitol and build it, how a president should behave and the amount and form of contact between this president and citizens, and how to combine the beliefs of government in such a way to prevent looking like a local version of the British government the citizens went to war to keep from obeying.

Washington also had to deal with losing trust in Jefferson, who led Washington to believe one thing in their correspondence between one another compared with the actions Jefferson was taking behind his back. George Washington did want to free slaves in the United States, but knew that if he tried, there would be a civil war. Instead he took a personal step through his will.

A good book to begin learning about George Washington, but I would recommend referring to other books listed as resources for this one.

Having written fine accounts of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, historian Joseph Ellis turns his attention to Washington, and the result is lively and thoughtful, perhaps the best single-volume work on the man in a generation.
Britain would have avoided plenty of trouble by granting Washington a commission. In leading Virginia troops during the French and Indian War he showed talent, but he refused — a crushing disappointment. Although the War was not over, he gave up his dream of a military career and resigned in 1758.
Washington belonged to minor Virginia gentry, so marrying the extremely wealthy Martha Custis in 1758 was a coup. He quickly, settled into the life of a Virginia planter: fox hunting, horse racing, gambling and ordering clothes and luxury goods from England. But Washington also kept a watchful eye on his properties. He was quick to accuse merchants of cheating or to sue over contract disputes, and he grew increasingly angry at mounting bills from his English agent. During this time, his correspondence and diary consist primarily of business matters, lists, weather reports and daily chores.
As a consequence, many bored historians have concluded that he lacked depth. Ellis merely concludes that he was sensible. After all, Washington died wealthy, unlike Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and most Virginia aristocrats. More significant, Ellis adds, is that his resentment of England had less to do with unfair taxes than only with being economically dependent on a nation that refused to treat him as an equal.
Dressed in his old uniform, Washington attended every 1775 meeting of the Continental Congress during the debate over choosing a commander in chief, quietly letting it known that he was available. Since he was already chairman of four committees on military affairs and universally respected, he was the obvious — and unanimous — choice.
Everyone agrees that Washington made a mess of the defence of New York in 1776, but he then recovered brilliantly with victories in minor engagements at Trenton and Princeton. After two more defeats, he lost Philadelphia in 1777. Then followed the miserable winter at Valley Forge, caused, Ellis emphasizes, more by the inability of colonial governments to supply the army than by the severe weather. Leaving Valley Forge, Washington fought the inconclusive Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. Until Yorktown three years later, other battles occurred but none with Washington in charge.
General John Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga, followed by the French alliance in early 1778, made victory inevitable but only in hindsight. Achieving it required a massive infusion of French troops and money, fantastic luck and persistent British incompetence. Even more unlikely, it required Washington’s half-starved army to seem threatening to British forces who outnumbered them even after Yorktown.
Throughout the War, Washington was the only founding father who mattered. All European governments assumed that he represented America. After French forces arrived in 1780, their leading officers debated whether or not Washington was a great general. They concluded that it was impossible to tell until he led a good army. But that didn’t matter: The French loved Washington as a person anyway.
Ellis claims that out of Washington’s wartime service came many of his significant contributions to the nation. Although he yearned to fight, he had the genius to realize — and he proved — that sometimes fighting was a bad idea (even Robert E. Lee would fall there). Waiting and threatening could sometimes be very useful. Ellis adds that Washington’s posture during the Revolution contributed to a general understanding of the importance of civilian government. For eight years he deferred to the Continental Congress and 13 colonial governments, all of which failed him repeatedly. Then he retired — a rare example of a revolutionary general not making himself dictator.
That experience, Ellis points out, also led Washington to understand and fight for the ratification of our Constitution. Those years of trying to extract support for his tattered army convinced the general that America desperately needed a central government with the power to levy taxes to defend the nation. Revolutionaries disagreed, pointing out that it was taxes imposed by a remote central government that provoked America’s revolt. Correctly viewing the Constitution as counterrevolutionary, many vehemently opposed it. Its passage would have been inconceivable without Washington’s support and the expectation by a worshipful country that he would be the first president.
Historians portray Washington as the founder of the “Virginia dynasty” that produced four of the first five U.S. presidents. Ellis insists he was not. A Virginia party existed, but Washington detested it. The dominant state in the union, Virginia, took for granted that its interests came first; its party’s leader, Jefferson, agreed. This fact meant, for example, that agriculture was all-important, and commerce a bad thing. Washington never took this position, and he never stopped trying to convince Americans that they belonged to a single nation. He was the country’s first and greatest nationalist — another significant contribution to the nation’s sense of self.
Competent historians get their facts right. Good historians conclude. A master of his profession, Ellis presents no new facts or startling conclusions, but his insights not only ring true, but they are also a delight. For example, he blames colleagues for the low marks Washington has given as an intellectual force.
Our founding fathers knew that they were founding fathers and wrote with an eye on posterity, turning out volumes of thoughtful prose as well as lively personal correspondence. Washington never wrote down his thoughts, and Martha (a surprisingly unlovable first lady) burned their letters to each other after his death. Aside from military correspondence — primarily complaints — Washington’s writing is relentlessly dull. Suffering historians can’t help feeling resentful.
Yet Washington knew what he wanted, declares Ellis. He was “that rarest of men: a supremely realistic visionary….His genius was his judgment.” As a general, he made mistakes but never one that put the War at risk. As president, he made all the right decisions. This fact was not the case with Adams, Jefferson and Madison, but the country was stronger by then.
Washington was the only significant American who was recognized as outstanding as soon as he stepped on the stage and whose reputation has never declined. Best of all, he deserved it.

Source: https://www.historynet.com/his-excell...

In "His Excellency," Joseph Ellis has written a very readable and concise synopsis on the life of George Washington. Though more recognizable for his works "Founding Brothers" and "American Sphinx" (about Thomas Jefferson), Ellis successfully undertakes the task of illuminating probably the most important figure in American history.

Probably the most apparent burden struck by Ellis, and a theme readily illusive throughout his book, is the author's effort to avoid what he terms a certain "hyperbolic syndrome" that is usually associated with any critical discussion of George Washington. In his introduction, Ellis rhetorically asks how we can "accurately map the terrain" of Washington's life "without imposing the impossible expectations." Ellis appropriately warns that when examining Washington, "if we find ourselves being merely celebratory, or its judgmental twin, dismissive, we should rub our eyes and look again."

Ellis thereby begins with the premise that, as a biographer, anyone ought to begin their quest "looking for a man rather than a statute, and any statutes that are encountered should be quickly knocked off their pedestals." Ellis effectively wipes the Washington-slate clean; he begins tabla rasa and ultimately does a great job at painting a portrait of Washington that, not-coincidentally, is akin to other statutesque conclusions previosuly concluded by others.

My one complaint with the book involves the author's style. Often times, Ellis will draw conclusions about Washington's character and/or ideology which are based on statements to the effect of "... all of the evidence points to thus." In coming across these repeated affirmations, I found myself wanting to know the details; wanting for Ellis to specifically delineate the evidence. Overall though, the author does a great job of inserting Washington's own words and the words of his peers and the book is adequately footnoted.

On a positive note, Ellis, as with every good biography, deviates from the comfortable, all-too-common, historical-narrative-chronology (i.e., 'X' happened, then 'Y' happened, and after that 'Z' happened). Instead, at appropriate times, Ellis grasps certain themes throughout the book and interesting weaves them into the narrative coming back to them repeatedly.

For example (and probably most importantly), one prominent topic throughout the book involved Washington's philosophy regarding slavery. At certain points in the book, Ellis illuminates Washington's then-current view on the topic, or more appropriately Washington's wrestle with and evolving view on the institution. Though anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Washington knows that he ulitmately emancipated his slaves upon Martha's death via his will, Ellis does an outstanding job in ellucidating the nuances of Washington's ever-evolving philosophy.

"His Excellency" is a great starting point for any study of the life of George Washington. Again Joseph Ellis has demonstrated his ability to bring a larger-than-life historical figures to a wide audience. I would highly recommend this book.

Fun fact about George Washington’s: His last words were ‘Tis well’ and his last action was to feel his dying pulse!

Very readable biography of GW.

Ellis’s motivation for this book includes a new compilation of Washington’s correspondence providing new material. Ellis sees how the current crop of historians and the universities treat the Founders. In the past, history was less critical and treated them as icons. Not today. The narrative believes America is a:

nation that was imperialistic, racist, elitist, and patriarchal. While there are some important exceptions to the rule, the reigning orthodoxy in the academy regards Washington as either a taboo or an inappropriate subject, and any aspiring doctoral candidate who declares an interest in, say, Washington’s career as commander in chief, or president, has inadvertently confessed intellectual bankruptcy..…When not studiously ignored, Washington is noticed primarily as an inviting target for all the glaring failures of the revolutionary generation to meet our own superior standards of political and racial justice. This approach is thoroughly ahistorical and presentistic; but so, for that matter, is its opposite, the heroic-icon tradition. We are back again to the rotating cartoon character. Or perhaps we ought to think of that alluring dockside light in The Great Gatsby, flickering on and off like some synchronized signal of our fondest illusions.
How can we avoid this hyperbolic syndrome? ….Well, if we find ourselves being merely celebratory, or its judgmental twin, dismissive, we should rub our eyes and look again.

Ellis succeeds in bringing Washington to life as a real person, not some cold, distant icon. 5 Stars

Ellis is intrigued…and so am I. Where does Washington fit among the Founding Fathers:

….It seemed to me that Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior. Within the gallery of greats so often mythologized and capitalized as Founding Fathers, Washington was recognized as primus inter pares, the Foundingest Father of them all. Why was that? In the pages that follow I have looked for an answer, which lies buried within the folds of the most ambitious, determined, and potent personality of an age not lacking for worthy rivals. How he became that way, and what he then did with it, is the story I try to tell.

George Washington was lucky, if not very successful at soldiering, in his early military service. And he gets attention:

As for his reputation, for the second time he emerged from a disastrous defeat with enhanced status No one blamed him for the tragedy —Braddock was the obvious and easy target—and he came to be called “the hero of the Monongahela’ for rallying the survivors in an orderly retreat. His specialty seemed to be exhibiting courage in lost causes, or, as One Newspaper account put it, he had earned “a high Reputation for Military Skill, Integrity, and Valor; tho’ Success has not always attended his Undertakings.” There was even talk—it was the first occasion—that his remarkable capacity to endure marked him as a man of destiny “I may point out to the Public,” wrote Reverend Samuel Davies, “that heroic youth Col. Washington, who I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal a Manner for some important Service to his Country.”

Colonel George Washington, 23 years old, commands the Virginia Regiment. By Ellis’s account, Washington focused training on understanding how to fight like the Indians. He seeks Cherokee and Catawba braves to support his troops but the French have the Native Americans’ support or at least neutrality. His expectations are high and he values discipline:

Discipline was harsh. Those found guilty of drunkenness or lewd behavior sometimes received up to a thousand lashes. Deserters, even those who returned voluntarily, faced death by hanging. A surge in desertions in the summer of 1757 produced a string of public executions. “I have a Gallows near 40 feet high erected,” Washington boasted to a British officer, “and I am determined . . . to hang two or three on it, as an example to others.” He suffered no sleepless nights after endorsing the executions, even when a condemned man made a special plea based on previous bravery in combat. There were clear lines in his mind, and if you crossed them, there was no forgiveness.

Washington did not aggressively seek to command the Continental Army but reluctantly agreed. Pretty amazing that he spent 1775 to 1782 in the field with the soldiers:

Washington was...was being honest and realistic about his qualifications to lead the American army to victory. Though a battle-tested veteran, he had never commanded any unit larger than a regiment. He had no experience deploying artillery or maneuvering cavalry and no background whatsoever in the engineering skills required to construct defensive positions or conduct sieges. Compared to the British officers he was sure to face on the battlefield, he was a rank amateur.

With only a few exceptions—his conferences with the Continental Congress, and his stopover at Mount Vernon on the way to Yorktown in the fall of 1781 Washington spent the entire war in the field with the Continental army. He was not, by any standard, a military genius. He lost more battles than he won; indeed, he lost more battles than any victorious general in modern history. Moreover, his defeats were frequently a function of his own overconfident and aggressive personality, especially during the early stages of the war, when he escaped to fight another day only because the British generals opposing him seemed choked with the kind of caution that, given his resources, Washington should have adopted as his own strategy....in addition to being fortunate in his adversaries, he was.....composed, indefatigable, and able to learn from his mistakes....He began the war at the siege of Boston determined to deliver a decisive blow against more disciplined and battle-tested British regulars. He ended it at the siege of Yorktown doing precisely that.

Washington had 3 strategic options available to fight the British. 1) Withdraw to the west and fight a guerilla campaign; 2) take a "Fabian" strategy of withdrawing whenever his forces were threatened; or 3) fight a set-piece European style decisive battle. He would never take option 1-cowardly; he wanted option 3 (his New York defeat was his first attempt). What happened:

He had limited resources, Washington came to accept the fact that he must adopt a more defensive strategy and fight a “War of Posts.” Also called a “Fabian strategy” after the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, who defeated the Carthaginians by withdrawing whenever his army's fate was at risk, it was a shift in thinking that did not come naturally to Washington. A Fabian strategy, like guerrilla and terrorist strategies of the twentieth century, was the preferred approach of the weak. Washington did not believe that he was weak, and he thought of the Continental army as a projection of himself. He regarded battle as a summons to display one’s strength and courage; avoiding battle was akin to dishonorable behavior, like refusing to move forward in the face of musket and cannon fire.

When the French join the fight, the Continental Congress wants another invasion of Canada. Washington had enough the first time, a major defeat. Washington also formulates a key principal of national strategy:

When pressure from the Congress mounted for a prospective - Franco-American expedition into Quebec, Washington objected on the grounds that, once the French planted their flag in a country “attached to them by all the ties of blood, habits, manner, religion and former connexion of government,” they were unlikely ever to leave. He concluded with his unsentimental assessment of the French connection, and with what turned out to be one of the earliest and most forceful statements of the realistic tradition in American foreign policy: “Men are very apt to run into extremes; hatred to England may carry some into excessive Confidence in France ...; I am heartily disposed to entertain the most favourable sentiments of our new ally and to cherish them in others to a reasonable degree; but it is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it.”

When Washington left his command and retired to Mt Vernon, he expected he would not live much longer. The Washington line of men did not have long lives. He is convinced to come out of retirement for the Constitutional Convention. The new nation was failing under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" adopted as the first framework of government. After the Constitution was put in place, the only logical choice for President is Washington. Everything in his first term sets "precedence", including what to call him:

As it turned out, even ceremonial occasions raised troubling questions, because no one knew how the symbolic centerpiece of a republic should behave, or even what to call him. Vice President Adams, trying to be helpful, ignited a fiery debate in the Senate by suggesting such regal titles as “His Elective Majesty” or “His Mightiness,” which provoked a lethal combination of shock and laughter, as well as the observation that Adams himself should be called “His Rotundity.” Eventually the Senate resolved on the most innocuous option available: the president of the United States should be called exactly that, no more and no less.

One eulogy for the first President:
Whatever minor missteps he had made along the way, his judgment on all the major political and military questions had invariably proved prescient, as if he had known where history was headed; or, perhaps, as if the future had felt compelled to align itself with his choices. He was that rarest of men: a supremely realistic visionary, a prudent prophet whose final position on slavery served as the capstone to a career devoted to getting the big things right. His genius was his judgment.

But where did that come from? Clearly, it did not emanate from books or formal education, places where it is customary and often correct to look for the wellspring that filled the minds of such eminent colleagues as Adams, Jefferson, and Madison with their guiding ideas. Though it might seem sacrilegious to suggest, Washington's powers of judgment derived in part from the fact that his mind was uncluttered with sophisticated intellectual preconceptions. As much a self-made man as Franklin, the self he made was less protean and more primal because his education was more elemental. From his youthful experience on the Virginia frontier as an adventurer and soldier he had internalized a visceral understanding of the arbitrary and capricious ways of the world. Without ever reading Thucydides, Hobbes, or Calvin, he had concluded that men and nations were driven by interests rather than ideals, and that surrendering control to another was invariably harmful, often fatal.

Armed with these basic convictions, he was capable of a remarkably unblinkered and unburdened response to the increasingly consequential decisions that history placed before him. He no more expected George III and his ministers to respond to conciliatory pleas from the American colonists than he expected Indians to surrender their tribal lands without a fight. He took it for granted that the slaves at Mount Vernon would not work unless closely supervised. He presumed that the Articles of Confederation would collapse in failure or be replaced by a more energetic and empowered federal government, for the same reasons that militia volunteers could never defeat the British army. It also was quite predictable that the purportedly self-enacting ideals of the French Revolution would lead to tragedy and tyranny. With the exception of his Potomac dream, a huge geographic miscalculation, he was incapable of illusion, fully attuned to the specter of evil in the world. All of which inoculated him against the grand illusion of the age, the presumption that there was a natural order in human affairs that would generate perfect harmony once, in Diderot’s phrase, the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest. For Washington, the American Revolution was not about destroying political power, as it was for Jefferson, but rather seizing it and using it wisely. Ultimately, his life was all about power: facing it, taming it, channeling it, projecting it. His remarkably reliable judgment derived from his elemental understanding of how power worked in the world.

So much more is covered in this book. Very highly recommended.