1776

1776, David McCullough (2005)

I read 1776 for a number of reasons.  First, the book details life-altering events in the lives of Washington, John Adams, and Jefferson, meaning that it fits perfectly into this project.  Second, McCullough is a tremendous biographer—his books on Roosevelt and Truman led me to the idea that reading a biography of every president would be a rewarding endeavor.  Third, and most importantly, I forgot my Washington book during a visit to my parents’ house and wanted something to hold me over until I received it in the mail (and I wasn’t going to move onto John Adams until I finished Washington).

1776 is an excellent read.  It’s fast pace.  It has compelling characters and interesting events.  And it has a solid level of detail—enough to introduce the reader to new people and new events, and provide many new details about people events with which we’re already familiar.  This isn’t scholarship.  McCullough isn’t breaking new ground and his ideas aren’t new.  But it’s wonderful popular history and it’s more detailed and more careful than a lot of the popular history that’s on the market today.  I study history mainly because I like it—history is supposed to be fun.  This book is fun.  Enough said.

1776, the year, was monumentous (I think that should be a word).  The book isn’t just about 1776—it begins in 1775 with the siege of Boston and the decision to position General Washington as the head of the Continental Army.  Washington arrived in Cambridge in July 1775 and took command.  And the book ends on a high point—the victory at Trenton was a morale booster and the last major American victory until Saratoga.  I won’t recap the history, but there are lots of cool things in this book.

Boston in 1775

Loyalist in the Colonies:  American’s tend to think of the Revolution as us (Americans) versus them (British), but that’s just not the case.  During the New York campaign, lots of colonists in Long Island assisted the British when they landed in August 1776.  And it appears that Staten Island was almost entirely loyalist—British troops landing there were essentially landing on home soil.  Even in Boston, the most revolutionary of cities, there were substantial numbers of loyalists that pulled up stake and left with the British Army (many of them settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia).  This certainly makes the conflict more interesting, and it also makes the American victory even more impressive.  This also makes the British strategy of trying to wait-out the perhaps isolated Continental Army and wait for the population to capitulate more understandable.  [This wasn’t a total surprise—I was previously well aware of the presence of loyalists in the colonies, but not to this extent.]

Continental “Army”:  I don’t think people realize how rag-tag this force was.  These guys didn’t even have uniforms for the most part—they just showed up and fought in whatever clothes they could get their hands on.  They were terribly trained, un-disciplined, and when they were near home (as the New Englanders were during the siege of Boston), went home at their leisure.  What’s also surprising is that they served for one year commissions, and were allowed to leave at the end of their commissions (many of them left at the close of 1775 and the close of 1776, as did my ancestor John Baxter).  This country recently extend the commissions of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because we had difficulty getting enough troops to fight abroad—but Washington and the other commanders in the Continental Army thought highly enough of individual liberty to let soldiers leave in the throes of this nation’s struggle for its very existence.

Knox, Greene, and Putnam:  Washington didn’t do it alone, and he had able assistance from some exemplary generals.  These were creative and supportive commanders who worked cooperatively with Washington to develop overall strategy and battle tactics with the Commander (and ably represented southern New England in the leadership of the Continental Army).   

Henry Knox

This leadership style—consensus building and seeking the input of his advisers—also served Washington well as president.  And it’s fun to read about these guys.  There are hundreds of smaller heroes in American history that provide color and depth to this history.

Washington

Washington:  The Indispensable Man, James Thomas Flexner (1969)
George Washington:  1st President (1789-1797); b. 1732[N.S.]; d. 1799

Washington is (obviously) the first stop in my quest to read a biography of every president; he’s an excellent place to begin.  Washington straddles two historic epochs.  In his youth we can see vestiges of feudalism and class structure that would soon melt away.  And in his later years we can see the emergency of new struggles based on economics and slavery that would define the new nation for decades to come.  Washington’s dynamic.  He grows and changes with the times, but it appears that he increasingly felt out of place as the 18^th century was coming to a close (he’s the only U.S. president to have lived entirely in the 1700s).  He also looms large in the lives of a number of his successors, laying a foundation for future reading.

Flexner’s book is a very good portrait of a wonderful American.  Flexner wrote this book as a condensation of his earlier, and much lengthier, four volume biography of Washington.   The book is very well paced, and very readable.  Washington’s life lends itself well to a picaresque-style narrative, and Flexner takes full advantage of this in crafting a very enjoyable book.  Flexner’s Washington is a compelling character.  Washington is thoughtful, curious, and concerned about his “country” (be it England, Virginia, or the United States).  He’s interested in ways to improve agriculture, transportation, and slavery—he wants to make the country better.  We can also see the man mature—early mistakes made in the Seven Years War and the Revolution are learning events that make him a better leader.  The man is a giant in American history, but Flexner makes him more accessible than he would be otherwise.

The book does suffer from a few drawbacks.  The first is, at certain times, a lack of detail.  There are about 400 pages of text here, and the book certainly would not have suffered from another 100 or so pages of detail at certain critical (and not so critical) junctures.  This book is aimed at a broader readership than his earlier works, but I think that the advantages of having another 100 pages of detail would more than outweigh the drawbacks of a 25% larger book.  The book also, at times, suffers from a lack of sign-posting.  He would do well, at times, to remind the reader of at least the year in which events are occurring—I think the added clarity would outweigh any decrease in flow or pace.  This fact can at times be exacerbated because the chapters are not always chronological.  Flexner has a number of chapters centering on themes (slavery, Indians, north-south relations) that move the narrative backwards in time, rather than forwards.  His chapter titles include years, but additional attention to timeline in the text would be helpful.  (To be fair, the book is 40 years old and the art of popular biography has changed since he wrote this—perhaps I have different preferences than a reader in 1969).

Washington the man is fascinating.  At the open, we can see the man emerge from a Virginia that is a country foreign to the one we live in.  The focus on owning land as the main measure of wealth, hunting for sport, and socializing among the upper classes is right out of a Jane Austen novel.  Virginians were re-creating the society of the landed gentry in England in the New World (think of “well bred” as a compliment for a person, not for a dog).  Out of this Washington emerges as a romantic figure.  He falls in love with Sally Fairfax, another member of the landed gentry, and courts her aggressively.  She marries one of Washington’s friends, but that does not halt the exchange of passionate letters (which continues throughout his life and his marriage to the wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis).  He joins the army seeking glory.  He’s disappointed that as a Virginian (and not being from England) he cannot attain a high-ranking officer-ship in the regular army and must join the militia.  His actions in the Seven Years War are rash—he essentially starts the battle that kicks-off this global conflict, and then has a terrible showing later in the war.

After the war he becomes a respectable Virginia gentleman.  He owned the land that would eventually become Pittsburgh.  And he becomes involved in the revolutionary movement as a moderate.  This final point is largely forgotten—it’s not at all clear that Washington saw the need for a permanent break with England when he took command of the Continental Army.  He perhaps thought that the colonies could force concessions from the Crown and repair their damaged relationship.

The importance of Washington’s service during the American Revolution cannot be overstated.  He was beloved by his troops, and from all accounts it appears that he held the Continental Army together, at times with little more than the force of his own will.  What’s interesting is that Washington was a much better leader of men than he was a battlefield tactician.  Throughout the siege of Boston he advocated invading the city.  Luckily, his compatriots (including John Adams) saw this as a suicide mission, and the American’s triumphed in Boston largely as a result of Knox’s retrieval of cannon from upstate New York and the wondrous occupation of Dorchester Heights, a logistical triumph.  His tactical decision making was again disastrous in the Battle of Long Island, but his escape was another logistical wonder.  His powers of leadership kept the Continental Army together through terrible conditions, and his Newburgh Address likely saved republican government in the colonies.

Washington was also a Federalist.  It seems to be popular fashion to portray Washington as above party politics, but he was clearly on one side of the Federalist/Republican divide.  He believed in centralized power.  Washington was a major mover behind the Constitution—his work on new canals and riverine improvements led him to understand the importance of having a central authority to direct projects between the states.  Washington believed in the National Bank—as commander of the Continental Army (and as a cash-poor farmer) he understood the need for a stable, national currency.  And he obviously favored Hamilton over Jefferson.

One final item of note is Washington’s turn away from the south in his later years.  After the presidency, he looked into the future and thought it likely that the two sections of the country might turn away from each other—and if the happened, his intention was to remain with the north.  He also hated slavery—he freed many of his own and made efforts to educate and train his slaves so that they could someday become free individuals.  His actual efforts to mitigate against this horrific institution far outpace those made by Jefferson, a man of much more strenuous rhetoric in favor of liberty.

This was an excellent way to start this project.  Washington is an engaging and inspiring individual, all the more when we learn of his flaws and imperfections, his care and concern for his fellow human beings, and his great anxieties.  He was not the inaccessible, perfect person that one often imagines when thinking of Washington, and that makes him all the more appealing.