His Excellency: George Washington

Not having read any biographies specifically about our first president, I was impressed to find one that looked good without being over 500 pages. Ellis’ work came also with the promises attached to having won two Pulitzer Prizes for “Founding Brothers” and “American Sphinx”. I was not disappointed.Reading reviews, I noticed that more than one reviewer chastised Mr Ellis for “disrespect” and what amounts to negativism in regard to Washington. I always read negative reviews because I usually learn more about whether I will find the book interesting and worth my time by the kind of criticism it draws. Deciding to try it mostly because of this criticism, I decided I do not want a white-wash of any historical personage. I want an even handed presentation free from either animosity or excess kindness. I want the truth. Again, I was not disappointed. I find the criticisms completely without foundation. Yes, Mr Washington is presented as having romantic feelings for Mrs Fairfax, but just as truly, it is stated that he resisted all inclinations toward her. Rather than defaming the President, Mr Ellis made him more courageous and admirable. I found no slander in the book; I found no excess criticism or character assassination. Rather, I discovered a man who changed and matured over the early years of his life and learned to control his passions, make wise decisions, and who went on to become the most revered of our forefathers, simply because he WAS totally human and yet controlled himself as well as, if not better than, anyone else of whom I have read.I am most impressed with this presentation of George Washington. He is no longer a marble mystery shrouded in sweet-smelling words to me. He is a real, living human being. He is, in my opinion, the most impressive human being I have ever read about, other than the only human in history to actually be perfect, Jesus Christ. Please don’t misunderstand: I am not comparing him to the Lord. I am simply saying he is a most impressive man.As for the content of the book, Ellis says only a small amount about Washington’s youth, gives good coverage to his activities, finances, personality and thoughts during the period of the French & Indian War through the start of the American Revolution. Ellis’ discussion and analysis is logical, easy to follow and helpful. I would classify this biography as being one of the most thorough biographies I have read, yet did not find it tedious or laden with excessive irrelevance. I never got tired of the story or anxious to finish. As a result, I am thoroughly satisfied with this work.Thank you, Mr. Ellis, for introducing me to His Excellency, George Washington. I am even more indebted than I ever realized to our most illustrious forefather.This book is highly recommended.Five satisfied stars.

George Washington possessed the gift of silence, according to his VP Adams (and a good thing that was, as Adams did not possess it at all.) Considering all the partisan noise and turbulence during the constitutional debate and the first presidency, that gift of silence may have been what saved the new republic from early shipwreck.For his earlier years, another key ability of his was more important: survival. If you want to succeed, you have to survive first. In GW's own view of his lucky escape over many years in two wars, he was a beneficiary of providential forces. It seems that was about as religious as he would get.Ellis defines his purpose in writing this short Washington bio like this: how did it come about that GW is considered the `Foundingest Father of them all'?Among the writing on GW, there are two frequent extremes: the hero worshippers and those of the `Oedipal' direction, the father murderers. Ellis intended to stay away from both, and I think he managed to do that.For the purpose of writing this book, Ellis read single-handedly the whole series of Washington Papers. Awesome. There are over 40 volumes of those.In the early chapters, Ellis is not trying very hard to avoid stepping on the fan club's toes. GW's emerging personality is characterized by two not very endearing traits: first, a thin-skinned aversion to criticism, and second, a capacity to play the political game effectively while cultivating the claim of not being interested in it. I have looked up some of the 1 star reviews here, and found that Washington worshippers don't appreciate this critical attitude towards their idol. Furthermore, an allegation that GW had a love affair with the wife of a friend is not accepted happily by some. Watched from afar, in time and space, I wonder: so what? Why does it matter? Answer: true admiration needs purity in its object. (On the other hand, a rational mind wants to know the real man, not the saint.)From the chapter about the squire time in Virginia, between the British war against France and her Indian allies, and later the War of Independence, we take away this key message: the man was aware of economics and business management needs. He understood what it meant to be exploited by the colonial master. His revolutionary impulses were fanned by genuine self interest.On the military leader of the revolutionary war, Ellis has to say that GW lost more battles than any other victorious general in modern times. GW's own judgment at taking the charge was that he was not qualified for the task. Ellis agrees. Why did GW win then? First, he was lucky with his overly cautious adversaries, who didn't pursue their advantage as relentlessly as they might have. Though everyone expected a short war at the start, the Americans would surely have lost a short war. Second, the leader's personal qualities helped: he was composed, indefatigable, and able to learn from mistakes.Ellis then challenges the assumption that time was on America's side. Wasn't the British war machine far better able to finance and maintain an army? Washington's ragtag Continental army gave little reason for optimism. Undermanned, undersupplied, underfunded and undertrained... Why did they win at all?Ellis quotes a picture that somebody else invented: the American victory was like that of an outclassed boxer who miraculously knocks out the stronger opponent in the last round.New to me: when many expected GW to make use of his victory for grabbing power in the new continental `empire', he proved `as immune to the seduction of dictatorial power as he had been to small pox'. I learned that he actually resisted a military coup that would have made him America's Napoleon (or rather, that would have turned Napoleon into France's Washington).During the interlude between generalship and presidency, which GW initially mistook for retirement, he gets dragged into the constitutional debate, but stays artfully aloof and thus can't avoid the first presidency.The presidency was a true first: the first republic in a new state. A nation is built out of chaos. Did GW take the helm or did he just man the bridge? That depends on the subjects. Some subjects were delegated, like treasury to Hamilton. Some issues GW took on himself. Some key issues were not tackled at all, like slavery (out of fear of the outcome), or were not successfully tackled (like GW's wish for a fair Indian solution). The second presidency term came up mainly because the president's surrogate sons started fighting: Jefferson (& Madison) versus Hamilton. Though he held things together, there seems to be no doubt that GW stood on Hamilton's side in the federalism question.The political game became dirty. Parties were born. Trust was betrayed. Jefferson and Hamilton both turned out to be villains. The Republicans started Fox News, then called Aurora, with the task to smear and slander Washington and his policy of nation building.They started the predecessor of the Tea Party, then called French Party, in opposition to Washington's neutrality policy in the war between Britain and France.Not having grown up with these subjects, I don't know how original the book is. For me it was certainly very interesting, and it puts the noises that I hear out of the contemporary US in a different light. There is nothing new under the sun, alas.