What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Divide: The Conflict between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation
A conflict between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Most Americans are unaware of this historical reality. History tends to cast the early years of America in a glow of camaraderie, but there were many conflicts between the Founding Fathers—and none more important than the clash between Washington and Jefferson. Their disagreement centered on the highest, most original public office created by the Constitutional Convention: the presidency. It also involved the nation’s foreign policy, and the role of the merchant, the soldier, and the farmer in a republic. At its root were two profoundly different visions of America’s future.
In The Great Divide, acclaimed historian Thomas Fleming examines how the differing character and leadership styles of Washington and Jefferson shaped two opposing views of the presidency—and the nation. The clash between these two gifted men, both of whom cared deeply about the United States of America, profoundly influenced the next two centuries of the nation’s history and persists to the present day.
In The Great Divide, acclaimed historian Thomas Fleming examines how the differing character and leadership styles of Washington and Jefferson shaped two opposing views of the presidency—and the nation. The clash between these two gifted men, both of whom cared deeply about the United States of America, profoundly influenced the next two centuries of the nation’s history and persists to the present day.
440 pages, Hardcover
First published July 8, 2014
110 people are currently reading
818 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Fleming
127 books149 followersLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Thomas James Fleming was an historian and historical novelist, with a special interest in the American Revolution. He was born in 1927 in Jersey City, New Jersey, the son of a World War I hero who was a leader in Jersey City politics for three decades. Before her marriage, his mother, Katherine Dolan Fleming, was a teacher in the Jersey City Public School System.
After graduating from St. Peter's Preparatory School in Jersey City, Fleming spent a year in the United States Navy. He received a Bachelor's degree, with honors, from Fordham University in 1950. After brief stints as a newspaperman and magazine editor, he became a full-time writer in 1960. His first history book, Now We Are Enemies, an account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, was published that same year. It was a best-seller, reviewed in more than 75 newspapers and featured as a main selection of the Literary Guild.
Fleming published books about various events and figures of the Revolutionary era. He also wrote about other periods of American history and wrote over a dozen well-received novels set against various historical backgrounds. He said, "I never wanted to be an Irish American writer, my whole idea was to get across that bridge and be an American writer".
Fleming died at his home in New York City on July 23, 2017, at the age of 90.
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Thomas James Fleming was an historian and historical novelist, with a special interest in the American Revolution. He was born in 1927 in Jersey City, New Jersey, the son of a World War I hero who was a leader in Jersey City politics for three decades. Before her marriage, his mother, Katherine Dolan Fleming, was a teacher in the Jersey City Public School System.
After graduating from St. Peter's Preparatory School in Jersey City, Fleming spent a year in the United States Navy. He received a Bachelor's degree, with honors, from Fordham University in 1950. After brief stints as a newspaperman and magazine editor, he became a full-time writer in 1960. His first history book, Now We Are Enemies, an account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, was published that same year. It was a best-seller, reviewed in more than 75 newspapers and featured as a main selection of the Literary Guild.
Fleming published books about various events and figures of the Revolutionary era. He also wrote about other periods of American history and wrote over a dozen well-received novels set against various historical backgrounds. He said, "I never wanted to be an Irish American writer, my whole idea was to get across that bridge and be an American writer".
Fleming died at his home in New York City on July 23, 2017, at the age of 90.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
Read
March 5, 2015Though the title promises an examination of the deepening divide between Washington and Jefferson after the revolution separated the colonies from Britain and established the republic, this is actually an examination of three lives, interactions, and philosophies: those of Washington, Jefferson, and James Madison.
Probably Fleming left Madison out of the title partly because the two juggernauts overshadow just about everyone else except possibly Lincoln, but also because Madison was always a follower. At first of both, and according to Fleming he was guilty of no little amount of weaseling as he complimented Washington, confided in him to be confided in in return, and then turned around and betrayed him to Jefferson, to whom he became devoted--disastrously, as Fleming endeavors to show.
Fleming is clearly comfortable in the period. He quotes from a wealth of primary sources, and he sketches the characters of the "founding fathers", bringing them and their passions into three-d focus. The book is immensely readable, even bringing to life subsidiary figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and a few of the wilder sorts like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.
Where it could be considered weak is in the increasing sense of partisanship as the tone becomes more snide when illustrating Jefferson's failures. Which were legion, even before Jefferson, in his retirement, set out to rewrite history, justifying his own errors and lauding his ideology and condemning Washington. Jefferson is referred to more than once as the "master of Monticello," and at the end, the "Unwashington." Then there are the asides refuting unnamed historians, especially toward the end when Fleming shifts to a long essay about the presidency, and how he views the legacies of Washington and Jefferson.
However, I hesitate to ding Fleming for his passionate side-taking; though historians are supposed to be objective, I tend to look askance at anyone claiming objectivity. Not a human trait! Fleming's prejudices are right out front, and anyone curious as to his conclusions can visit the extensive notes, and bibliography, to follow the tracks of his thinking.
Overall a vigorous reading experience; I find myself wanting to read more about his take on Washington, after I refresh myself with a reread of Flexner's monumental biography.
Probably Fleming left Madison out of the title partly because the two juggernauts overshadow just about everyone else except possibly Lincoln, but also because Madison was always a follower. At first of both, and according to Fleming he was guilty of no little amount of weaseling as he complimented Washington, confided in him to be confided in in return, and then turned around and betrayed him to Jefferson, to whom he became devoted--disastrously, as Fleming endeavors to show.
Fleming is clearly comfortable in the period. He quotes from a wealth of primary sources, and he sketches the characters of the "founding fathers", bringing them and their passions into three-d focus. The book is immensely readable, even bringing to life subsidiary figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and a few of the wilder sorts like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.
Where it could be considered weak is in the increasing sense of partisanship as the tone becomes more snide when illustrating Jefferson's failures. Which were legion, even before Jefferson, in his retirement, set out to rewrite history, justifying his own errors and lauding his ideology and condemning Washington. Jefferson is referred to more than once as the "master of Monticello," and at the end, the "Unwashington." Then there are the asides refuting unnamed historians, especially toward the end when Fleming shifts to a long essay about the presidency, and how he views the legacies of Washington and Jefferson.
However, I hesitate to ding Fleming for his passionate side-taking; though historians are supposed to be objective, I tend to look askance at anyone claiming objectivity. Not a human trait! Fleming's prejudices are right out front, and anyone curious as to his conclusions can visit the extensive notes, and bibliography, to follow the tracks of his thinking.
Overall a vigorous reading experience; I find myself wanting to read more about his take on Washington, after I refresh myself with a reread of Flexner's monumental biography.
May 2, 2015
Thomas Fleming is an author I have not read in the past five plus years. In the past I have read a number of his books both non-fiction and fiction. I have even had correspondence with him regarding one of his books in the past. I have always enjoyed Fleming’s passion for history.
The basic debate between Washington and Jefferson is still an ongoing debate today on the role of government. Fleming states Washington beliefs came out of the problems he had as head of the Army, the problems of funding the Army and the country at the time. Therefore he preferred a strong federal government that could provide a strong military defense for the country and a strong financial foundation for the country. On the other hand, Jefferson preferred a confederation of states instead of a national government.
Fleming paints Washington as the practical farmer and dynamic leader and Jefferson as the dreaming idealist who failed to lead and left the country at the end of his tenure as president, in debt, without income, without an army, and on the verge of war with Britain over a trade embargo.
The book is well written, lightly documented but with the clean, snappy prose that Fleming is noted for. I enjoyed reading the book and dissecting Fleming’s views but I wonder if Jefferson was quite as scatter-brained as Fleming paints him. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. David Rapkin narrated the book.
The basic debate between Washington and Jefferson is still an ongoing debate today on the role of government. Fleming states Washington beliefs came out of the problems he had as head of the Army, the problems of funding the Army and the country at the time. Therefore he preferred a strong federal government that could provide a strong military defense for the country and a strong financial foundation for the country. On the other hand, Jefferson preferred a confederation of states instead of a national government.
Fleming paints Washington as the practical farmer and dynamic leader and Jefferson as the dreaming idealist who failed to lead and left the country at the end of his tenure as president, in debt, without income, without an army, and on the verge of war with Britain over a trade embargo.
The book is well written, lightly documented but with the clean, snappy prose that Fleming is noted for. I enjoyed reading the book and dissecting Fleming’s views but I wonder if Jefferson was quite as scatter-brained as Fleming paints him. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. David Rapkin narrated the book.
July 27, 2016
Wow. And I thought I wasn't an admirer of Thomas Jefferson!
Thomas J. Fleming contrasts the views of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as to the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States, the powers Congress and of the judiciary branch of the government, and the rights of the states versus the federal government. And theoretically this might have been a measured, balanced examination of the opposing visions of two key figures in our nation's history on how best to promote freedom, contentment, and prosperity for the new nation. But... nope! Fleming gives a nod to this idea, particularly in his conclusion, but for the greater part of the book he is passionately partisan in his presentation: Washington was a god, and everything he ever did, said, and thought was noble and wise and prudent, while Jefferson was a hypocritical, back-stabbing, ideologue.
As I mentioned, Fleming admires Washington, and he blames Jefferson for the way that Washington's political skills, diplomatic acuity, and prudent leadership have been overlooked in favor of a view which sees him as a military leader whose presidency was bland and nonpartisan. In fact, he blames Jefferson for a whole Lot of things. Did I mention that he hates Jefferson? I mean just absolutely loathes him with a burning passion. He describes the various things Jefferson does, and also the (boneheaded) actions and ideas of his minions, Madison and Monroe, with incredible venom. I felt kind of guilty enjoying his diatribes as much as I did, and I think any reader expecting a fair presentation of the Jeffersonian view of things would be justifiably outraged, but, as I said, I'm really not a Jefferson fan. Sometimes his invective became so wild that it was actually funny, though I think a little more restraint might be wise if he expects to be taken seriously as a historian. But then, I'm not a scholar, so what do I know?
Anyway, I found this pretty entertaining. I give it 3 ½ stars, and am rounding up to 4 because sometimes his rants about Jefferson's dumbassery got so outrageous that I laughed out loud (I listened to the audio book version of this), and that's surely worth a half star!
*One thing I forgot to mention, but I'm adding it now, is that Fleming has an odd habit of referring to congressmen as "Solons." As in, "and then the Solons did this." And yes, I know who Solon was. But still, after the first couple times it got a little irritating.
Thomas J. Fleming contrasts the views of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as to the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States, the powers Congress and of the judiciary branch of the government, and the rights of the states versus the federal government. And theoretically this might have been a measured, balanced examination of the opposing visions of two key figures in our nation's history on how best to promote freedom, contentment, and prosperity for the new nation. But... nope! Fleming gives a nod to this idea, particularly in his conclusion, but for the greater part of the book he is passionately partisan in his presentation: Washington was a god, and everything he ever did, said, and thought was noble and wise and prudent, while Jefferson was a hypocritical, back-stabbing, ideologue.
As I mentioned, Fleming admires Washington, and he blames Jefferson for the way that Washington's political skills, diplomatic acuity, and prudent leadership have been overlooked in favor of a view which sees him as a military leader whose presidency was bland and nonpartisan. In fact, he blames Jefferson for a whole Lot of things. Did I mention that he hates Jefferson? I mean just absolutely loathes him with a burning passion. He describes the various things Jefferson does, and also the (boneheaded) actions and ideas of his minions, Madison and Monroe, with incredible venom. I felt kind of guilty enjoying his diatribes as much as I did, and I think any reader expecting a fair presentation of the Jeffersonian view of things would be justifiably outraged, but, as I said, I'm really not a Jefferson fan. Sometimes his invective became so wild that it was actually funny, though I think a little more restraint might be wise if he expects to be taken seriously as a historian. But then, I'm not a scholar, so what do I know?
Anyway, I found this pretty entertaining. I give it 3 ½ stars, and am rounding up to 4 because sometimes his rants about Jefferson's dumbassery got so outrageous that I laughed out loud (I listened to the audio book version of this), and that's surely worth a half star!
*One thing I forgot to mention, but I'm adding it now, is that Fleming has an odd habit of referring to congressmen as "Solons." As in, "and then the Solons did this." And yes, I know who Solon was. But still, after the first couple times it got a little irritating.
December 13, 2015
A very interesting book--focused on the differences between the first President, George Washington, and thre third, Thomas Jefferson. Other works have explored Jefferson's quirky nature, one thinks of the book on "The American Sphinx." He could be nasty toward others, but at the same time he scintillated with his mind and his multiple skill sets.
This book, though, explores one side of his life--his evolving relationship with George Washington. Up front, I would have to say that the book is somewhat one dimensional in its critical examination of Jefferson. The author, essentially, excoriates him. And, doubtless, a deification of Jefferson is way off base. He was a flawed person, even though his talent must be respected. His cavalier work as Governor of Virginia, his hiring of a writer as an employee of the State Department (while Jefferson was Secretary of State) to write attacks on Washington and his administration (bizarre, no?), and his suicidal embargo against England, France and other nations.
The juxtaposition of Washington's wise, cautious, political approach to decisions and Jefferson's more idealistic perspective (changing over time) are at the heart of this book. Washington is looked at as a model president and Jefferson as a "loose cannon."
Readers will have to determine if that approach succeeds. I sense that the author is too critical of Jefferson--even though one needs a realistic look at a complex and flawed person.
This book, though, explores one side of his life--his evolving relationship with George Washington. Up front, I would have to say that the book is somewhat one dimensional in its critical examination of Jefferson. The author, essentially, excoriates him. And, doubtless, a deification of Jefferson is way off base. He was a flawed person, even though his talent must be respected. His cavalier work as Governor of Virginia, his hiring of a writer as an employee of the State Department (while Jefferson was Secretary of State) to write attacks on Washington and his administration (bizarre, no?), and his suicidal embargo against England, France and other nations.
The juxtaposition of Washington's wise, cautious, political approach to decisions and Jefferson's more idealistic perspective (changing over time) are at the heart of this book. Washington is looked at as a model president and Jefferson as a "loose cannon."
Readers will have to determine if that approach succeeds. I sense that the author is too critical of Jefferson--even though one needs a realistic look at a complex and flawed person.
March 4, 2016
I finished this book not out of any respect for the scholarship, research, and thoughtful conclusions drawn by the author, but simply because I simply could not believe that anyone could continue such a hateful vendetta against Jefferson clear to the end. I do not worship at the alter of Jefferson: I believe he has been over-rated, particularly in comparison to Alexander Hamilton who has been woefully under-rated. In a lightly researched book, Fleming appears like one of the partisans of early American politics. He defends the traitor, Burr, while suggesting that Jefferson was treasonous on many occasions. My revues are usually short and this will be no exception. I simply do not want to waste more time reading an author incapable of objective thought. He doesn't seem to understand that in order to respect Washington, it was never necessary to vilify Jefferson. All the Founders had very strong opinions but they were honestly held. To dismiss Jefferson's Administrations as failures with the possible exception of the LA Purchase, makes Fleming look like an ass. His conclusions, which are as snarky as they are poorly supported, do not deserve to be aired in a high school history class. If you have absolutely nothing else to do, read this book- otherwise, there are far better books out there.
July 3, 2016
In the typical history of the United States that most students get we are taught that George Washington was the general who led the colonies to freedom during the American Revolution and the first President of the United States. We are also taught that Thomas Jefferson drafted the Decleration of Independence and served as our third president. Very little, however is taught about the politics of these two men, and the wide gulf it created between not only them but amongst all of the prominent politicians of the era. This book attempts to do just that, and in the process explain the origin of the partisan politics that still paralyze the federal government today.
This book was very successful in showing how and why the Constitution was conceived following the failure of The Articles of the Confederation approved by The Second Continental Congress. We are shown how this was the turning point in the development the political ideology of Washington, who favored a strong federal government, military, and economic support, and Jefferson, who favored States rights, and a hands-off approach. Throughout Washington's and Adam's terms in office, these two men clashed, and manuvered behind the scenes to garner support. After Washington's death, Jefferson served his own two terms, and worked diligently to undo all that Washington accomplished. Fleming uses a thorough selection of personal correspondence, newspaper editorials, and the publications the time to give a detailed account of the events in the first 28 years of the Constitution, including James Madson's terms served as the fourth President. In fact, so much of the book was spent on Madison, a,man torn between Washington and Jefferson, that I really feel this book was a portrait of three men, not just the two. The book concluded with an examination of how the politics of these two men continue to influence the U.S. government.
In all this was a satisfactory introduction to the politics surrounding the early years of the U.S. government. However, I felt that the author showed some very clear biases in favor of Washington. The book was sprinkled with snide comments about Jefferson and his political ideologies that I don't think belong in a serious history. I found it really detracted from the book. This, along with a few references to other unnamed and apparently prominent historians with whom he disagreed really dragged the book down for me. I prefer my history to be more unbiased and without the constant presence of the author in the words. Without these niggling problems, I whole heartedly recommend this book as an introduction to the Federalist and Jeffersonian politics that came to define the era and echo down the centuries, where they are still in play today.
***Note, I received a free galley in return for a fair and unbiased review of this book.***
This book was very successful in showing how and why the Constitution was conceived following the failure of The Articles of the Confederation approved by The Second Continental Congress. We are shown how this was the turning point in the development the political ideology of Washington, who favored a strong federal government, military, and economic support, and Jefferson, who favored States rights, and a hands-off approach. Throughout Washington's and Adam's terms in office, these two men clashed, and manuvered behind the scenes to garner support. After Washington's death, Jefferson served his own two terms, and worked diligently to undo all that Washington accomplished. Fleming uses a thorough selection of personal correspondence, newspaper editorials, and the publications the time to give a detailed account of the events in the first 28 years of the Constitution, including James Madson's terms served as the fourth President. In fact, so much of the book was spent on Madison, a,man torn between Washington and Jefferson, that I really feel this book was a portrait of three men, not just the two. The book concluded with an examination of how the politics of these two men continue to influence the U.S. government.
In all this was a satisfactory introduction to the politics surrounding the early years of the U.S. government. However, I felt that the author showed some very clear biases in favor of Washington. The book was sprinkled with snide comments about Jefferson and his political ideologies that I don't think belong in a serious history. I found it really detracted from the book. This, along with a few references to other unnamed and apparently prominent historians with whom he disagreed really dragged the book down for me. I prefer my history to be more unbiased and without the constant presence of the author in the words. Without these niggling problems, I whole heartedly recommend this book as an introduction to the Federalist and Jeffersonian politics that came to define the era and echo down the centuries, where they are still in play today.
***Note, I received a free galley in return for a fair and unbiased review of this book.***
June 4, 2019
The author of this book died in 2017 at the age of 90. This book was published in 2014 and his final book was published just after his death. He published 50 books in his lifetime, some histories and some novels. I don’t know much about him and it is always important to have some knowledge of an author especially a historian to understand his point of view that might have an impact on his or her view of history.
I give this book 5 stars because I think it presents a view of the early history of the United States that you will not find easily elsewhere. In 2019 when I am listening to this audible book the country is immersed in presidential and congressional intrigue. I believe there is a common assumption that what we are experiencing now is quite unique. The more I have read about The history of the United States and especially the presidential history, I tend to believe that are common experience in the total history of this country includes many aberrations of presidential and political integrity. While I am not well studied in history, I increasingly believe that the current experience of presidential politics is not really an aberration at all.
I made many observations about this book as I listen to it and those paragraphs are available separately and I will not try to repeat them in this review. The final chapter of this book the epilogue is a fascinating although brief look at the history of the tension between the president and the Congress. The book ends basically with the first term of James Madison. The first four presidents are included In the book and other than Washington the others are all given pretty negative reviews over what you might read in other presidential histories.
I think the main thing I am lacking as I finish this book is some sense about how much I should believe this author. His point of view is so much different then anything I have ever read before about the history of Washington or Jefferson. But I think he makes a “pet compelling case in asserting that presidential intrigue made a very strong beginning with the very first president.
I give this book 5 stars because I think it presents a view of the early history of the United States that you will not find easily elsewhere. In 2019 when I am listening to this audible book the country is immersed in presidential and congressional intrigue. I believe there is a common assumption that what we are experiencing now is quite unique. The more I have read about The history of the United States and especially the presidential history, I tend to believe that are common experience in the total history of this country includes many aberrations of presidential and political integrity. While I am not well studied in history, I increasingly believe that the current experience of presidential politics is not really an aberration at all.
I made many observations about this book as I listen to it and those paragraphs are available separately and I will not try to repeat them in this review. The final chapter of this book the epilogue is a fascinating although brief look at the history of the tension between the president and the Congress. The book ends basically with the first term of James Madison. The first four presidents are included In the book and other than Washington the others are all given pretty negative reviews over what you might read in other presidential histories.
I think the main thing I am lacking as I finish this book is some sense about how much I should believe this author. His point of view is so much different then anything I have ever read before about the history of Washington or Jefferson. But I think he makes a “pet compelling case in asserting that presidential intrigue made a very strong beginning with the very first president.
May 14, 2018
Don’t be deceived. The Great Divide is less between Washington and Jefferson as it is Fleming (author) and Jefferson. The author detests Jefferson. That is my great takeaway. As a voracious lover of history, I’m aware of the lack of friendship between the two men, but it’s the unfortunate collateral damage of politics. The reader will see that turbulent times were not only if today’s era. It was ALWAYS that way. The birth of political parties, adultery, a vicious media. It was always there. My only wish is that Fleming could have avoided his constant barrage against Jefferson and simply told the story. It became irksome and irritating. Both Washington and Jefferson were imperfect men (as are you Fleming) but both were instrumental in building the nation we know today. Fleming comes off as a whiny and opinionated. It was sad.
February 15, 2015
‘A conflict between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?’
According to this book by Thomas Fleming, there were many conflicts between the Founding Fathers about the role of government in the United States of America, and the most important of these was between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, respectively the first and third presidents of the United States of America, had very different views of the role of government and specifically of the presidency. In the introduction to this book, Mr Fleming writes that: ‘Washington was first, last and always a realist’, while ‘Jefferson tended to see men and events through the lense of a pervasive idealism.’
How did these differences in character and leadership style impact on the government of the fledgling nation, and do those differences still have an impact on the present? What is the role of government and how should presidential power be exercised?
Mr Fleming provides a detailed examination of the differences in leadership style between Washington and Jefferson, as well as the different experiences which they each bought to the presidency. Before I read this book, I knew that Washington was the general who led the colonies to freedom during the American War of Independence and was unanimously elected as the first President. I knew that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, had served as the United States Minister to France and as the first United States Secretary of State under President Washington before becoming the third president. I knew very little about either the fact or causes of the political differences between them.
In this book, Mr Fleming explains the development of the Constitution, which followed the Articles of Confederation approved by the Second Continental Congress. While achieving independence from Britain left the United States at peace, the structure of government was unsettled, its power weak. This appears to have been key to the development of Washington’s political ideology, favouring a strong federal government. Jefferson favoured the rights of the individual states. Although these differences clearly shaped their individual presidencies, they have also continued to have an impact on US politics since.
And is one model of presidency better than the other? Or have both models (in their different ways) strengthened the Union? Certainly, at the time the United States came into being, a more centralized model of government would seem (to me at least) more effective in addressing the challenges facing the new nation. But the needs of nations and the ways those needs are met can change over time.
I enjoyed reading this book and learning more about the differences between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington seemed more practical, and focussed on effective management as well as leadership, Jefferson more of a passionate idealist believing that inspiration would serve instead of management by government. Two very different men, two very different (but complementary) visions. Each wanting what he saw as best for the USA.
While my positive impression of George Washington (gleaned some decades ago) remains largely intact, Mr Fleming’s book makes me question aspects of Thomas Jefferson’s influence. I suspect that I’ll be doing some more reading about Thomas Jefferson in the future.
Note: My thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the opportunity to read an advance copy of this book.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
According to this book by Thomas Fleming, there were many conflicts between the Founding Fathers about the role of government in the United States of America, and the most important of these was between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, respectively the first and third presidents of the United States of America, had very different views of the role of government and specifically of the presidency. In the introduction to this book, Mr Fleming writes that: ‘Washington was first, last and always a realist’, while ‘Jefferson tended to see men and events through the lense of a pervasive idealism.’
How did these differences in character and leadership style impact on the government of the fledgling nation, and do those differences still have an impact on the present? What is the role of government and how should presidential power be exercised?
Mr Fleming provides a detailed examination of the differences in leadership style between Washington and Jefferson, as well as the different experiences which they each bought to the presidency. Before I read this book, I knew that Washington was the general who led the colonies to freedom during the American War of Independence and was unanimously elected as the first President. I knew that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, had served as the United States Minister to France and as the first United States Secretary of State under President Washington before becoming the third president. I knew very little about either the fact or causes of the political differences between them.
In this book, Mr Fleming explains the development of the Constitution, which followed the Articles of Confederation approved by the Second Continental Congress. While achieving independence from Britain left the United States at peace, the structure of government was unsettled, its power weak. This appears to have been key to the development of Washington’s political ideology, favouring a strong federal government. Jefferson favoured the rights of the individual states. Although these differences clearly shaped their individual presidencies, they have also continued to have an impact on US politics since.
And is one model of presidency better than the other? Or have both models (in their different ways) strengthened the Union? Certainly, at the time the United States came into being, a more centralized model of government would seem (to me at least) more effective in addressing the challenges facing the new nation. But the needs of nations and the ways those needs are met can change over time.
I enjoyed reading this book and learning more about the differences between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington seemed more practical, and focussed on effective management as well as leadership, Jefferson more of a passionate idealist believing that inspiration would serve instead of management by government. Two very different men, two very different (but complementary) visions. Each wanting what he saw as best for the USA.
While my positive impression of George Washington (gleaned some decades ago) remains largely intact, Mr Fleming’s book makes me question aspects of Thomas Jefferson’s influence. I suspect that I’ll be doing some more reading about Thomas Jefferson in the future.
Note: My thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the opportunity to read an advance copy of this book.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
August 7, 2016
I've read quite a few books about the "founding fathers" but none as biased as this one. It was well-written and an enjoyable read, in part because you know exactly what this author's opinion is! I learned a number of things I did not know about the first four presidencies, and I thought I had a pretty good background as to the events.
The "great divide" is the differences between Washington and Jefferson's views of the constitution and especially of presidential power. But, there are other divides described in this book -- those involving Madison with Washington and Hamilton. John Adams, James Monroe, and Adam Burr get a fair amount of attention also. Madison is the most mystifying. The author describes in detail how he worked with Washington and Hamilton to achieve the Constitution, replacing the less that useful Articles of Confederacy. And he describes in detail how Madison then worked closely with Jefferson, as Jefferson tried to "redo" the Constitution. Ultimately, however, Madison in the last years of his life once came to share and stand for Washington's and Hamilton's view. What the author has no answer for is why Madison shifted his loyalty to Jefferson.
The author is quite passionate in his dislike of Jefferson's politics and his like of Washington's. He considers Washington to be a smart politician, knowing how to compromise and convince, whereas Jefferson is labeled an ideologue who can't accept any viewpoint other than his own. He paints Jefferson as undermining Washington and Adams over and over. He discusses in some detail the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. While Jefferson comes off as despicable, Adams is portrayed as smart, a good orator, but politically naïve. Madison gets kudos for a strong last year of his presidency when he apparently started to pull away from Jefferson's influence.
The last part of the book looks at how the tension between Washington's and Jefferson's views of the Constitution and the Presidency has never gone away and where it can be seen to have played a role and is likely to continue to do so.
The "great divide" is the differences between Washington and Jefferson's views of the constitution and especially of presidential power. But, there are other divides described in this book -- those involving Madison with Washington and Hamilton. John Adams, James Monroe, and Adam Burr get a fair amount of attention also. Madison is the most mystifying. The author describes in detail how he worked with Washington and Hamilton to achieve the Constitution, replacing the less that useful Articles of Confederacy. And he describes in detail how Madison then worked closely with Jefferson, as Jefferson tried to "redo" the Constitution. Ultimately, however, Madison in the last years of his life once came to share and stand for Washington's and Hamilton's view. What the author has no answer for is why Madison shifted his loyalty to Jefferson.
The author is quite passionate in his dislike of Jefferson's politics and his like of Washington's. He considers Washington to be a smart politician, knowing how to compromise and convince, whereas Jefferson is labeled an ideologue who can't accept any viewpoint other than his own. He paints Jefferson as undermining Washington and Adams over and over. He discusses in some detail the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. While Jefferson comes off as despicable, Adams is portrayed as smart, a good orator, but politically naïve. Madison gets kudos for a strong last year of his presidency when he apparently started to pull away from Jefferson's influence.
The last part of the book looks at how the tension between Washington's and Jefferson's views of the Constitution and the Presidency has never gone away and where it can be seen to have played a role and is likely to continue to do so.
April 3, 2015
I was intrigued by the title and subject matter and therefore sat down to read this book with anticipation. I thoroughly enjoyed the authors writing style and the subject matter. He spends a good story and makes it seem believable. While I do not doubt that there was a conflict between Washington and Jefferson I saw nothing that would convince me it was as bad as the author would have you believe. Nor do I believe that Jefferson was as bad in making decisions as you would be led to believe. He may have not been the best president but neither was he a fool. I would consider this to be an example to revisionist history writing. I would read this book for entertainment but would not consider it to be accurate by any means. When writing about events that took place over 200 hundred years ago you can make the facts (and I use that term loosely) say anything you want.
I received this book as an ARC from Net Galley. I would rate it at 3 stars.
I received this book as an ARC from Net Galley. I would rate it at 3 stars.
June 14, 2018
Fleming documents the personal and political idealogical split between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson laying the foundations for modern American political parties. A good read for both history and political science buffs.
August 22, 2015
This book should prove fatal to the widely-held belief that the founding fathers were of one mind on most topics and had only minor disagreements. Fleming clearly demonstrates the enormous rift between Washington and Jefferson, which was so wide that Jefferson considered his presidency to be "The Revolution of 1800," overturning the Washington presidency and similar Adams presidency.
Throughout this book the reader is left with little doubt who the author sides with. His sympathies are clearly with Washington to the point he almost seems to have an axe to grind with Jefferson. On the other hand, he clearly documents statements by Jefferson that show that he had some pretty radical ideas, and that he suffered from a self-imposed blindness to the realities of his beloved French revolution. He also demonstrates that the realities of holding presidential office made it difficult for him to live by many of these ideas. Still, the author's overall bias left me feeling like the case for Jefferson's radicalism was someone overstated.
Nonetheless I still recommend this book. Even with the author's bias coming through, it is a refreshing antidote to the sterile descriptions of the founding fathers as a monolithic body, all marching toward the same goal with the same opinions. This book points out many conflicts between Washington, Jefferson, and many other personalities and are still relevant today.
Throughout this book the reader is left with little doubt who the author sides with. His sympathies are clearly with Washington to the point he almost seems to have an axe to grind with Jefferson. On the other hand, he clearly documents statements by Jefferson that show that he had some pretty radical ideas, and that he suffered from a self-imposed blindness to the realities of his beloved French revolution. He also demonstrates that the realities of holding presidential office made it difficult for him to live by many of these ideas. Still, the author's overall bias left me feeling like the case for Jefferson's radicalism was someone overstated.
Nonetheless I still recommend this book. Even with the author's bias coming through, it is a refreshing antidote to the sterile descriptions of the founding fathers as a monolithic body, all marching toward the same goal with the same opinions. This book points out many conflicts between Washington, Jefferson, and many other personalities and are still relevant today.
March 5, 2015
We have a tendency to think of the bitter conflicts between politicians and political parties as something that is a relatively new phenomenon, but Fleming clearly illustrates that bitter feuds and political underhandedness existed from the beginnings of our history. This book defines the conflict between Washington and Jefferson and how their interpretation of the sentiments of the founding fathers and the constitution still influences politics today. Fleming is very biased toward Washington's leadership style and political acumen and attributes many of the problems in establishing the United States as emanating from Jefferson's inability to govern effectively and his passion for France and his support of the French Revolution. I would have liked to see a more evenhanded approach to the contributions of these two imposing leaders. Presenting this view of history does make one have hope that the United States can survive as a strong nation in spite of the "dirty politics" that have existed throughout our history.
April 6, 2015
An interesting discussion by the author of the divide between the belief in a strong central government with a strong president favored by the Federalist Party of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, which was strongly opposed by the Republican Party of Jefferson.
The author makes a very good case that Washington did an excellent job of getting the nation well started in his two terms as our first president and documents how important he was to making a success of our infant nation.
Washington had learned in the long years of the revolution to become a great leader and administrator. He was succeeded by John Adams who was not a leader or administrator, but at least was an honest man. Then came Jefferson who also was not a leader or administrator or even honest.
The author makes a very good case that Washington did an excellent job of getting the nation well started in his two terms as our first president and documents how important he was to making a success of our infant nation.
Washington had learned in the long years of the revolution to become a great leader and administrator. He was succeeded by John Adams who was not a leader or administrator, but at least was an honest man. Then came Jefferson who also was not a leader or administrator or even honest.
June 21, 2016
Fantastic book! I enjoyed hearing the challenges we take for granted in the creation of this great 'social experiment.' Washington was the right person at the right time- his leadership largely helped create and maintain the union. The actions of those around him- the deference and reverence is not a surprise. What was a surprise was the double-crossing of Jefferson (who comes across as seriously flawed). There was a great deal about the role Madison had in the conflict between these two, siding with Washington at first, then Jefferson, then back to Washington. The discussion of the role of France in early America was also a great addition, especially considering that if Yellow Fever hadn't impacted Napoleon's plans regarding America, or history may have been remarkably different.
April 30, 2018
Many of us today think that the bitter contrasts between the political parties are relatively new. This book shows us that the great divide existed at the foundation of our country and has no doubt persisted throughout our history. Having recently finished Chernow's Washington biography, I feel that Fleming's viewpoint is not as nuanced, especially as it relates to the conflict between Washington and Jefferson. He seems to be clearly biased toward Washington's greatness and to be unfair in his assessment of Jefferson's strengths. The book's best premise is that our country has survived the persistent antagonism between these two viewpoints. Let us hope that remains the case today.
November 23, 2017
Loved this book because I love to review historical events and thus remember them correctly. Many events are outlined here that I had forgotten or maybe never even knew.
I really did not know how different these two presidents were. Washington espoused a strong federal system; Jefferson leaned more heavily towards state rights.
I also did not know the strong influence the French Revolution had on Jefferson's thinking.
Well worth the read if you are a history buff like me.
I really did not know how different these two presidents were. Washington espoused a strong federal system; Jefferson leaned more heavily towards state rights.
I also did not know the strong influence the French Revolution had on Jefferson's thinking.
Well worth the read if you are a history buff like me.
January 31, 2020
I have read in several documents including President Jefferson's own personal diary, located in The Library of Congress, that he had many personal personality conflicts. He was a brilliant man and wanted everyone to know it and most had problems with it. The Great Divide tells of yet another Jefferson had with the Founding Fathers, this book deals with the disputes he had with President Washington.
June 27, 2015
I cannot recommend this book to anyone. It started out good but the authors hatred of Thomas Jefferson destroys it. Jefferson is not one of my favorite founding fathers but this book made me feel sorry for him. I have read other books by this author and liked them, that is why I gave it 2 stars. I hope this book is a result of poor editing!
August 7, 2016
We tend to think of the nation's founding fathers as a unified front. And they were somewhat in declaring independence and the Revolutionary War. But after that things became much more strained between many of our greatest leaders. This is a side of our early history that many of us have missed.
March 30, 2017
Slanted against Jefferson
There is nothing balanced about this book. The author makes it clear that he thinks Jefferson was a total jerk and Washington was an angel. He doesn't really try to break down the "Great Divide".
There is nothing balanced about this book. The author makes it clear that he thinks Jefferson was a total jerk and Washington was an angel. He doesn't really try to break down the "Great Divide".
October 22, 2018
The review on the cover reads, “A vivid, opinionated history.” Entertaining and educational as that can be, I prefer a neutral approach. Madison is the linchpin between the divide and worth further study.
November 4, 2016
The author's obvious bias against Thomas Jefferson grew very tiresome and distracted from what could have been a good read.
November 4, 2017
More fiction and opinion than fact. Extremely biased.
June 25, 2024
Stuck between 3 and 4 stars because I found this really interesting, but had a lot of issues with it too.
This book is clearly a culmination of the author's decades of scholarship on this period of history, and his takeaways from that - I don't fault him for it, but there are points where I think his biases were too strong to the detriment of the book. I'm not even a fan of Thomas Jefferson. Actually rather the opposite. But Washington wasn't a saint either, and the dichotomy of Washington=always right/Jefferson=always wrong seems to grow stronger (and more tiring) as the book goes on.
I think it's impossible for a biographer to not have some biases, but I also don't like it when an author states opinion as fact. Jefferson's actions and ideals are all framed as simply wrong, rather than things which Washington thought were wrong/disagreed with. This becomes especially prevalent in the section of the book discussing Jefferson's actions after Washington's death. It comes to feel like the point of the book is less to tell us about the so-called great divide between them, and more a defense of criticisms Washington received from his contemporaries, 250 some years later. That's fine, but I'd rather not have it dressed up as anything else.
The author's own apparent biases bleed through in other parts of the book as well, with some awfully loaded language at times (the excessive number of times the author refers to various Native American groups as "war-like," etc.)
This book is clearly a culmination of the author's decades of scholarship on this period of history, and his takeaways from that - I don't fault him for it, but there are points where I think his biases were too strong to the detriment of the book. I'm not even a fan of Thomas Jefferson. Actually rather the opposite. But Washington wasn't a saint either, and the dichotomy of Washington=always right/Jefferson=always wrong seems to grow stronger (and more tiring) as the book goes on.
I think it's impossible for a biographer to not have some biases, but I also don't like it when an author states opinion as fact. Jefferson's actions and ideals are all framed as simply wrong, rather than things which Washington thought were wrong/disagreed with. This becomes especially prevalent in the section of the book discussing Jefferson's actions after Washington's death. It comes to feel like the point of the book is less to tell us about the so-called great divide between them, and more a defense of criticisms Washington received from his contemporaries, 250 some years later. That's fine, but I'd rather not have it dressed up as anything else.
The author's own apparent biases bleed through in other parts of the book as well, with some awfully loaded language at times (the excessive number of times the author refers to various Native American groups as "war-like," etc.)
March 13, 2018
A great book telling the story of early American history from the revolution to the end of the War of 1812 by comparing and contrasting the lives and ideals of Washington and Jefferson.
The author shows how Jefferson’s religious attachment to the French Revolution shaped his political maneuvers in a way that set him on a different path than Washington, destroying their friendship, and ultimately shaping the future of America.
Fleming doesn’t hide his opinion of whose side he’s on. The premise of many of the chapters were either the successes of Washington or the failures of Jefferson. The book even has a section at the end showing how Madison’s experience as President and the War made him reject some Jefferson ideals and come around to the Washingtonian ways of governing
Despite the biases of the book, I enjoyed it a lot and learned a lot about early American history. Even after just finishing Meacham’s biography of Jefferson, this book still had many new things to teach me about our third president.
The author ends the book by taking the reader briefly through American history, highlighting the struggle between Congress and The Presidency; a struggle the author argues that was rooted in the Division of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
The author shows how Jefferson’s religious attachment to the French Revolution shaped his political maneuvers in a way that set him on a different path than Washington, destroying their friendship, and ultimately shaping the future of America.
Fleming doesn’t hide his opinion of whose side he’s on. The premise of many of the chapters were either the successes of Washington or the failures of Jefferson. The book even has a section at the end showing how Madison’s experience as President and the War made him reject some Jefferson ideals and come around to the Washingtonian ways of governing
Despite the biases of the book, I enjoyed it a lot and learned a lot about early American history. Even after just finishing Meacham’s biography of Jefferson, this book still had many new things to teach me about our third president.
The author ends the book by taking the reader briefly through American history, highlighting the struggle between Congress and The Presidency; a struggle the author argues that was rooted in the Division of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
January 6, 2026
Creating a nation hurts, but keeping the nation intact is painful. The politics of 1775 and beyond are the same as the present. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were, I believe, the most prominent founding fathers. For all the years they gave to make America work, their political differences divided them. Those differences spread among the populace. When were the Era of Good Feelings, and where did they go?
The author's writing mechanics were good. Had I chosen better, I would have read the Reader's Digest Condenced version of the book. Read The Man From Monticello before reading the present book.
Thank you, Mr. Fleming, for a good read.
The author's writing mechanics were good. Had I chosen better, I would have read the Reader's Digest Condenced version of the book. Read The Man From Monticello before reading the present book.
Thank you, Mr. Fleming, for a good read.
December 9, 2017
Clearly well-researched by a giant in the field, The book’s biggest drawback is Fleming’s unabashed dislike of Jefferson as a person, a politician and an idealist. The bias is so strong that it brings the objectivity of the research into question for a lay reader of history. I found myself wondering if his hatred of Jefferson was the tip of a reactionary iceberg. Certainly informative, but could use much more representation of the debates of which it has such a strong opinion. This ultimately unsatisfactory as a history for generalists.
July 28, 2017
An interesting comparison/contrast of two of the founding fathers and their visions of the "Presidency" and how each was responsible for the creation of that office and in very contrasting ways. Insightful in providing some understanding of why that office still is viewed in very conflicting ways by our leaders today. I discovered a lot about both that I never grasped or remembered learning that gave me a different perspective on these bigger than life heroes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews