900+ pages later and I have finished step 1 of 43 in my Presidential Bio Blog idea. What is my current mood?
Primarily disappointment.
Part of the point of this exercise was to learn about the men behind the myths.[1] But after a very thorough look at Washington’s life, I feel mostly let down. Washington’s primary greatness was his restraint and his lack of action. He didn’t make big mistakes and he didn’t take strong public stances. My overall impression was that he was a blank canvas for people to project on. That isn’t to say he wasn’t also patriotic and honorable, but he was so reserved, so restrained, that admiration for him seems largely based on what he didn’t do (e.g., lose the Continental Army, serve more than two terms, override the authority of the Continental Congress, etc.) As general, he prevented catastrophic collapse of the Continental Army until a decisive blow could be landed against the British (mostly by someone else). As President, he restrained the fanatical impulses of Jefferson and Hamilton[2] but offered little vision of his own. He primarily reacted and considered, rather than imparting his own vision. Basically, the overwhelming impression I received was that he never had much of a vision for the offices and organizations that he led, a strategy. He was primarily reactive. Granted, in most of his positions, he rarely had the resources or the opportunity to enact much of a vision. But, my final impression remains that, while was constantly placed in positions of power, he seemed more concerned with the perception of the office than with its mission.
Which is admirable to an extent and, likely, just what was needed in both major situations – the Revolutionary War and the First Presidency. Restraint and dispassionate leadership were likely just what was called for. It was a time of flux and a more traditionally ambitious character – say Hamilton or Jefferson, just to pick two names out of a hat – would likely have been far less successful at firmly establishing our nascent country.
Just as a thought experiment, if Hamilton or Jefferson had been the first President and established the precedents as the hyper-partisans they were, America might have been a great deal less successful an experiment. Hamilton (or many other prominent Federalists) would likely not have given up the office after two terms. They would likely have ignored the importance of the Bill of Rights and restraining the government reach in certain situations. Conversely, Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists/Republicans would almost certainly have involved America in the French Revolution, much to our detriment.
However, the overall picture I got of Washington was a man out of time. He rose to prominence as a revolutionary on the cusp of a major social and political change, and he did not seem to be comfortable functioning in it. He said the words of equality and freedom and, sincerely I think, believed them, but truly had trouble seeing others as equals or deserving of the same opportunity he enjoyed. When faced with the unexpected or the unusual – or when forced to take a hard stance – he tended to defer and prevaricate. Again, this might have been the correct temperament for the time. Washington’s very lack of specific policy positions or attachments to a specific course of action is what allowed him to draw from both Federalists and Republicans and allowed – at least for a while – for partisans of all stripes to bestow upon him whatever values they wanted. He was the kindly father, the wise and patient leader, the man of patriotism, the Southern Planter, the aristocrat, the republican, the warrior, the statesman.
But I still return to my feelings of disappointment. George Washington is the “Great Man” of American history, an icon. And, honestly, his greatness lay in inaction and reserve. It’s a little tough to get excited about that. The book was full of interesting facts, anecdotes and stories about Washington and the Revolution, and I think I have a better understanding of the time. But, in the end, I expected to see that more of Washington’s success came from his will and his strategies, rather than appropriate reactions to circumstances largely outside his control.
I might feel differently as I go on. I wonder how I'll feel about Lincoln or Roosevelt afterwards? And how much of it is related to the skill and approach of the biographer rather than the subject? This is, of course, the first book, and I’ve already dived into Adams’ biography[3], so my feelings might change, but right now, still a tad disappointed.
[1] And, for folks like Millard Fillmore, learn anything about them at all.
[2] He was, in fairness, a lot more lenient with Hamilton.
[3] John Adams by David McCullough
Primarily disappointment.
Part of the point of this exercise was to learn about the men behind the myths.[1] But after a very thorough look at Washington’s life, I feel mostly let down. Washington’s primary greatness was his restraint and his lack of action. He didn’t make big mistakes and he didn’t take strong public stances. My overall impression was that he was a blank canvas for people to project on. That isn’t to say he wasn’t also patriotic and honorable, but he was so reserved, so restrained, that admiration for him seems largely based on what he didn’t do (e.g., lose the Continental Army, serve more than two terms, override the authority of the Continental Congress, etc.) As general, he prevented catastrophic collapse of the Continental Army until a decisive blow could be landed against the British (mostly by someone else). As President, he restrained the fanatical impulses of Jefferson and Hamilton[2] but offered little vision of his own. He primarily reacted and considered, rather than imparting his own vision. Basically, the overwhelming impression I received was that he never had much of a vision for the offices and organizations that he led, a strategy. He was primarily reactive. Granted, in most of his positions, he rarely had the resources or the opportunity to enact much of a vision. But, my final impression remains that, while was constantly placed in positions of power, he seemed more concerned with the perception of the office than with its mission.
Which is admirable to an extent and, likely, just what was needed in both major situations – the Revolutionary War and the First Presidency. Restraint and dispassionate leadership were likely just what was called for. It was a time of flux and a more traditionally ambitious character – say Hamilton or Jefferson, just to pick two names out of a hat – would likely have been far less successful at firmly establishing our nascent country.
Just as a thought experiment, if Hamilton or Jefferson had been the first President and established the precedents as the hyper-partisans they were, America might have been a great deal less successful an experiment. Hamilton (or many other prominent Federalists) would likely not have given up the office after two terms. They would likely have ignored the importance of the Bill of Rights and restraining the government reach in certain situations. Conversely, Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists/Republicans would almost certainly have involved America in the French Revolution, much to our detriment.
However, the overall picture I got of Washington was a man out of time. He rose to prominence as a revolutionary on the cusp of a major social and political change, and he did not seem to be comfortable functioning in it. He said the words of equality and freedom and, sincerely I think, believed them, but truly had trouble seeing others as equals or deserving of the same opportunity he enjoyed. When faced with the unexpected or the unusual – or when forced to take a hard stance – he tended to defer and prevaricate. Again, this might have been the correct temperament for the time. Washington’s very lack of specific policy positions or attachments to a specific course of action is what allowed him to draw from both Federalists and Republicans and allowed – at least for a while – for partisans of all stripes to bestow upon him whatever values they wanted. He was the kindly father, the wise and patient leader, the man of patriotism, the Southern Planter, the aristocrat, the republican, the warrior, the statesman.
But I still return to my feelings of disappointment. George Washington is the “Great Man” of American history, an icon. And, honestly, his greatness lay in inaction and reserve. It’s a little tough to get excited about that. The book was full of interesting facts, anecdotes and stories about Washington and the Revolution, and I think I have a better understanding of the time. But, in the end, I expected to see that more of Washington’s success came from his will and his strategies, rather than appropriate reactions to circumstances largely outside his control.
I might feel differently as I go on. I wonder how I'll feel about Lincoln or Roosevelt afterwards? And how much of it is related to the skill and approach of the biographer rather than the subject? This is, of course, the first book, and I’ve already dived into Adams’ biography[3], so my feelings might change, but right now, still a tad disappointed.
[1] And, for folks like Millard Fillmore, learn anything about them at all.
[2] He was, in fairness, a lot more lenient with Hamilton.
[3] John Adams by David McCullough