Book Review: "Washington: a Life" by Ron Chernow
A Biography Worthy of the Man
Overall Rating: 5/5
This book provides a wealth of detail and a deep analysis of George Washington's life and character. It explores both the good and the bad. Ultimately, you feel you know the man well enough to be reasonably confident about how he would act or feel regarding many specific things.
Washington: Hero or Villain?
One of the reasons I think that George Washington (GW) would highly approve of this book is that it is neither hero-worshipping nor vilifying. In American education, there was previously a tendency, like in any nation, to hero-worship its founders. Likely because of this, things came full circle in 2020, and we saw many who wanted to and, in some cases, succeeded in tearing down GW's statues. This book gives you plenty of information to make up your mind as to whether that was justified or not.
A Sense of Historical Destiny but Still Modest
Probably the most remarkable aspect of GW's character, which the book emphasizes, is that although he received the "demigod" treatment in his travels across the country, even from very early on, he did not let it go to his head. He rather disliked the adoring crowds, in fact, and tried to avoid them. This is all the more remarkable given that, as Chernow makes clear, he realized, early on, that he was born to lead men and even had a sense that he was destined to play an important role in history. Indeed this sense of historic destiny was so strong that he even thought that God was protecting him from bullets on the battlefield.
Chernow describes two things that kept GW's sense of being a man of historical importance in check, kept it from turning pathological, and ensured he never used the adulation of the crowds to attempt to make himself a monarch. The first is that he had an almost contradictory current of thought regarding his own inadequacies. The second was a sense that thoughts about being worthy of being a monarch were improper and something he must guard against. This is just one of the very strong British values* (*my phrase, not Chernow's) in GW's character that Chernow describes. GW was always striving to remain dignified and do the proper thing.
As a demonstration of how GW did not let power go to his head, Chernow also describes how GW, when President, was very careful to solicit opinions on the interpretation of the Constitution so that he could follow it to the letter of the law. This was because he was humble enough not to consider himself above the Constitution and realized how important it was for the first President to set a precedent for future generations.
Dispelling Misconceptions
Chernow's book is good at clearing up some misconceptions about GW. For instance, GW was regarded by many contemporaries as indecisive and not sufficiently aggressive as a general. Chernow points out this was often due to legitimate supply shortages, such as a severe gunpowder shortage at Dorchester Heights. He had to keep this secret from the British, but it severely limited any action he could take and made him look passive.
Another misconception that Chernow clears up is GW's beliefs surrounding religion. Many have supposed that GW was a deist. Chernow presents the arguments for this but then provides contrary evidence that GW was, in fact, a devout Christian. Chernow argues that, since it would not be proper, GW did not make a big public display of his faith, did not use his beliefs for political purposes, and, above all, never wanted to do anything that would conflict with his beliefs about tolerance of other religions in the new Republic.
A Good General History
Besides being an excellent biography of GW, this book is also highly successful in giving a feel for the times. Being a biography and already a very long one, the book does go some ways in doubling as a general history of the Revolutionary War. In many ways, I had a better sense for the feel of the Revolution than I did from reading The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, which is a general history.
Slavery
I went into the book hoping for an answer to a big question: Were the rioters in 2020 right? Should GW's statues be torn down? GW's attitudes toward and actions regarding slavery are discussed in great detail in this book. Chernow fully engages with this subject.
Chernow presents examples of how GW generally treated his slaves well relative to other slave owners at the time, but also how this was not always the case. For example, forcing them to work breaking ice on the Potomac on a day when he felt it was so particularly cold that despite being a very hardy man, he himself decided to remain indoors. As another example, Chernow details how GW was reluctant to break up slave families but how exceptions existed to this rule. Most troubling is how GW, although there is much evidence that he was a deeply empathetic man, for example, how he tried to avoid whipping his slaves and took good care of them when they were sick, never ultimately seemed to regard them as fully human. For instance, he wrote about being alone at Mount Vernon on days when only he and his slaves were there.
Chernow presents a more complete account of GW's treatment of his slaves than you will likely find elsewhere. Mitigating aspects of his treatment of slaves are not well known on the left these days. From conservatives like Thomas Sowell, in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, by contrast, you will often hear only the mitigating aspects. For instance, GW did not have ownership over all the slaves at Mount Vernon, so he could not free them all, and he did free those he could in his will (Sowell leaves out the part that this was only after Martha's death, however).
Although it is good to hear the mitigating side, conservatives leave out the more problematic parts. For example, many contemporaries and friends, such as Hamilton and Lafayette, were much more in favor of ending slavery than he was. Indeed, the latter even proposed a plan for how to do so: they would free Washington's slaves and rehire them as paid labor. GW did not have to wait until the last year of his life to alter his will to free them (although Chernow mentions that he was the only founder who did). Indeed, the events at Mount Vernon after GW's death showed that Lafayette's plan likely would have worked.
Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
A final big takeaway from the book is how much of the political disputes that engulf the country even to this day were already present even immediately after the Revolutionary War. We see, for example, the early disputes between Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, who wanted minimal governmental power, and Hamilton's Federalists, who thought that a strong Federal government was essential to a prosperous country, and, ultimately, freedom itself while being entirely consistent with the Constitution. The disputes all started with the interpretation of the phrase "necessary powers," it seems, and have continued through to this day...
From this book, I was surprised to learn just how deep the animosity between Jefferson and Washington was regarding the Federalist/Democratic-Republican dispute. This book also provided further evidence, consistent with other books, that, even from very early on, conspiracy theories have played an important part in American politics. In particular, Jefferson believed that Hamilton and the Federalists were conspiring to turn America into a constitutional monarchy. Conversely, later on, those leaning toward Federalism believed that Republicans were conspiring to help France invade the US.