Every author writing on George Washington leads the preface with the same sentence: "The reason the world needs another Washington biography is because..." Chernow claims that newly discovered papers and insight from recent research justifies a new comprehensive single volume. In other words, he thinks he can out-do the reigning Washington biography: James Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man, which has been the gold standard since 1974. Many good "Washingtons" since then have had a specific bent justifying their existence. A few may have challenged Flexner for the single-volume crown, but none have taken it. Chernow's attempt gives us a new classic, but it doesn't supersede Flexner for one reason: his book is about twice as long as his predecessor's.

Chernow's greatest contributions come in his treatments of slavery, Martha Washington, and George's reaction to his own fame. He succeeds handily in his goal to flesh out the marble Washington. While Flexner still wins in the "under 500 page" category, Chernow's effort is completely justified. Of course, I think the real reason Chernow wrote the book is because, after finishing his biography of Hamilton, about a quarter of his Washington work was done.