What do you think?
Rate this book
George Washington: Man and Monument
Step-by-step, Marcus Cunliffe traces the ancestral background, the childhood, the growth, the failures and achievements of George Washington. He shows readers a real person--fallible, ambitious, impatient of criticism--providing a portrait of one of America's greatest leaders.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
12 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
About the author
Marcus Cunliffe
84 books3 followersMarcus Falkner Cunliffe (1922-1990) was a British scholar who specialized in cultural and military American Studies. He was particularly interested in comparing how Europeans viewed Americans and how Americans viewed Europeans.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
May 17, 2021
This was a decent biography about this puzzling man. Even the author admits that, even with all of Washington's letters, and journals, recorded conversations, incidents in politics, there is really very little we know about him and how he truly felt about all sorts of issues and events, so in some things, all historians can only speculate since he revealed little of his own thoughts. It would be interesting to be able to talk to the man himself and get his take on so much. I often wonder, since all the historians seem to vary wildly on what Washington actually thought and felt about things, are they imputing to him what they would actually feel/think in a given situation? As the saying goes, "What we know of ourselves, we often suspect in others"-- and at some points in the book, when the author would say "we don't really know what Mr. Washington was thinking at this point, but maybe it was....", I often thought he might have been projecting himself in that situation. But all in all, from a historical perspective and covering major events that Washington himself was a witness to or involved in, I found the book enlightening.
September 20, 2015
First published in 1958, this relatively brief biography of George Washington, though not as detailed as many others, provides a perspective that is often lost in more detailed works. With more detailed treatments an overall viewpoint can get lost, bogged down in an analysis of a relatively narrow set of circumstances. This common in today’s political discourse, where one or two negative events can ruin a politician’s career. Sadly, this same phenomenon seems to be encroaching on how historical figures are viewed as well. A relatively recent, and well known example, are the revelations, confirmed by DNA evidence, that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by his slave Sally Hemmings. I believe it is important that all information relative to the lives of historical figures like Jefferson, ought to be out in the open. In this case, it is doubly important as it helps inform how we evaluate Jefferson’s views on slavery, and it allows previously unacknowledged descendants of Jefferson to get the recognition they deserve. However, like with anything we study, it is important to put each piece of information in the proper context. There are many who are now using this revelation to tarnish Jefferson’s entire legacy, something that is certainly not warranted given his body of work. Similarly, with efforts to humanize George Washington it becomes very easy to focus on some of the negative aspects of his personality and to magnify them beyond their overall relevance. We see some of this with the focus of some authors on Washington’s relationship with Sally Cary Fairfax. For example, John C. Fitzpatrick, author of George Washington Himself believes evidence of an untoward relationship with Mrs. Fairfax would prove Washington as a “worthless scoundrel.” We also see, with focus on Washington’s early career as a military leader before and during the French and Indian War how easy it would be to taint his entire legacy by attaching too much importance to his early displays of petulance and ambition. Richard Brookhiser in his character study of Washington, Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington, seems to fear this as well. He includes very little of Washington’s early career in his analysis. But here again, while this information is needed to get a complete understanding of Washington, it needs to be viewed in the context of his entire life and career. The downside to the type of overall treatment Cunliffe gives us, is that important details are often glossed over or eliminated altogether. Especially for historians who may be familiar with much of this information, it is often distressing to see what are viewed as extremely significant events given short shrift.
In addition to producing a very concise biography of George Washington the man, Cunliffe also explores George Washington the monument. Throughout his narrative he looks at how contemporaries viewed Washington, and how his legacy has taken shape since his death. In contrast to much of the recent effort to penetrate the marble exterior that has been constructed around Washington, in order to humanize him, Cunliffe takes the view that Washington’s legacy cannot be understood without looking at what caused this phenomenon, and how Washington himself contributed to it.
In the space of one hundred and four pages (three of five chapters), Cunliffe covers Washington’s entire life, from the arrival of his earliest ancestors to North America through to his death in 1799. He divides Washington’s life into three broad periods: pre-Revolutionary War, Revolutionary War, and Presidency. Because of this brevity Cunliffe is forced to cover significant aspects of Washington’s life very briefly, only highlighting the most important of events. While this does tend to leave on wanting more detail, it does allow for a very concise and relevant summary at the end of each section, that segueways very effectively into the next. For example, chapter two is devoted in large part to Washington’s early military career. While a book such as for King and Country: George Washington, The Early Years, by Thomas A. Lewis can devote much time to reviewing Washington’s actions during this period, giving us much important detail and the ability to make informed judgements, little attention is given to how these experiences guided his later career. Thus, a reader who does not round out their study of other aspects of Washington’s life can come to a distorted view of his character. Cunliffe, while coming to many of the same conclusions, is able to sum up this period in context, highlighting Washington’s actions, weighing his strengths and weaknesses, and then moving on to the next period. In Washington’s early military career, Cunliffe, echoing Lewis, offers the opinion that “there is something unlikable about the George Washington of 1753-1758. He seems a trifle raw and strident, too much on his dignity, too ready to complain, too nakedly concerned with promotion.” (Cunliffe, 40) He goes on to portend the Washington that was to come later, noting that “all through his adult life Washington was to be closely concerned with his reputation,” that he “was determined to do what was right, and he hoped his rectitude would be acknowledged even if his actions turned out badly, “but “otherwise, his shortcomings were more than balanced by his good qualities. “ (Cunliffe, 40) He goes on, making a point that is not only important for understanding Washington’s conception of the French and Indian War, but would also be an important demonstration of increasing maturity in the run up to the Revolution. And that is, related to the French and Indian War, Washington’s “outlook was rather narrowly Virginian. He did not conceive of the war as a whole…” (Cunliffe, 40)
Thus, as Cunliffe’s narrative continues we are able to see how Washington’s earlier behavior and actions are reflected in his conduct of the war, and his Presidency. We are able to see how he matured over time, how his view of the French and Indian war from a Virginia perspective made it easy for him to later take an American view in the dispute with Britain. It was not only indicative of his natural inclination to resistance, but hid view that “the voice of mankind is with me.” (Cunliffe, 50). By mankind, Cunliffe notes, Washington undoubtedly meant Virginia. “He was a Virginian by birth, upbringing, instinct and – not least – property.” (Cunliffe, 50) In this one short section, we see how Washington’s concern with honor and rectitude, first noted during his early military career, is reflected in his implicit need to be on the side of his fellow Virginians, and how his view of himself that way impelled him to rebel. Cunliffe repeats this pattern through sections devoted to Washington's biography. He effectively relates Washington's actions and behavior in one period of his life, to later periods, showing how Washington was able to learn and adapt based on experience. This gives is a broadly cohesive portrait of the man.
In addition of the biographical portrait Cunliffe paints, he also tackles the process by which Washington's has taken shape, turning him into the "marble man" of American history; the monument portion of Man and Monument. As noted earlier, Cunliffe's main thesis here is that Washington's legacy cannot be understood by setting aside this view of him. In other words, the story of how this view of him became dominant is as important as learning about Washington the man, and how his "real merits were enlarged and distorted into unreal attitudes, an that this overblown Washington is the one who occurs immediately to us whenever his name is mentioned." (Cunliffe, 5) Extending the metaphor of the Washington Monument, Cunliffe offers four guises under which this view takes shape. First is the "copybook hero" that views Washington as a "man without faults...with all the nineteenth century virtues, from courage to punctuality, from modesty to thrift - and all within human compass, and all crowned by success."(Cunliffe, 8) Second is the "Father of His People" guise, which cast Washington as the "prime native hero...a necessary creation for a new country." (Cunliffe, 8) Thus, throughout American history, no matter the issue, Washington's legacy could be invoked. Persons with as disparate views as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee felt no hesitation using his legacy to advance their causes. Cunlifee argues that only Lincoln approaches the national acclaim afforded Washington, but as a more accessible historical figure falls slightly short of monument status. Third is the view of Washington as the "disinterested patriot," reflecting the view of many of him as the modern Cinncinatus, who, displaying a lack of personal ambition, left familial comfort to answer the call of his countrymen. Last is the view of Washington as the "Revolutionary Leader," a view held mainly by those outside of the United States. This is a view of Washington as "liberator, the champion of nationalism, and the victor in the first great revolution of modern times." (Cunliffe, 13)
In the final chapter, Cunliffe argues that the vision of Washington as "monument" is not entirely without justification. He notes that many biographers of Washington are left feeling they have missed something. Unlike Napoleon, Wellington, Nelson, and others who had significant flaws, Washington's early petulance and ambition, his reticence, his innate common sense that in others might indicate a lack of intelligence, all seem like inevitable steps toward becoming the great man he became. Cunliffe describes he conundrum many historians feel, either they must surrender to the "conventional piety," or, "descend to petty fault-finding" when assessing Washington's life. (Cunliffe, 125)
Cunliffe also argues that the comparison with Cincinnatus is not unwarranted - and that Washington himself contributed to this view. Despite some claims to the contrary, many leaders of this period did view themselves as "classic warriors" of the Roman kind, and that in Washington's actions throughout his life one could see his cultivation of the Roman ideals of virtus (virtue), gravitas (seriousness), pietas (regard for discipline and authority), simplicitas (lucidity), integritas (integrity), and gloria (glory). That Washington thought of himself this way can be inferred from his frequent quoting from Addison's Cato. In making these comparisons, Cunliffe is persuasive, arguing Washington was not simply aping "the modes and experiences of the ancient world, " but that he and other leaders in 18th century America were "markedly 'classical' in temperament," and their actions must be understood in this context.
I found this book to be a breath of fresh air. It's brevity, and the authors skill in putting Washington's early actions into the context of his later life, results in a very good overall view of his character and legacy. As with any book however, one can always find fault, however minor. In this case, as one who has studied this time period to some degree, I often found myself getting frustrated that little or no time was devoted to what I consider critically important events. These most glaring of these, in my opinion, is the brief attention given to the Jumonville affair and Washington's subsequent humiliation at Fort Necessity, which is generally considered to be the incident that touched off the French and Indian War. There were also some instances where Cunliffe, in my view, characterizes certain incidents incorrectly. In a chapter on Washington as Revolutionary War leader, Cunliffe includes a discussion of the southern campaign in which he praises the actions of Lord Charles Cornwallis at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, characterizing it as a decisive victory. In reality Guilford Courthouse was a costly victory in which Cornwallis was obliged to fire on his own men as well as the Americans in order to achieve it. It was this pyrrhic victory along with his overwhelming defeat at the Battle of Cowpens that eroded British morale and induced Cornwallis to move north to Yorktown.
These criticisms aside however, if one is looking for a relatively brief, but fully realized biography of George Washington, George Washington: Man and Monument by Marcus Cunliffe is an excellent choice.
In addition to producing a very concise biography of George Washington the man, Cunliffe also explores George Washington the monument. Throughout his narrative he looks at how contemporaries viewed Washington, and how his legacy has taken shape since his death. In contrast to much of the recent effort to penetrate the marble exterior that has been constructed around Washington, in order to humanize him, Cunliffe takes the view that Washington’s legacy cannot be understood without looking at what caused this phenomenon, and how Washington himself contributed to it.
In the space of one hundred and four pages (three of five chapters), Cunliffe covers Washington’s entire life, from the arrival of his earliest ancestors to North America through to his death in 1799. He divides Washington’s life into three broad periods: pre-Revolutionary War, Revolutionary War, and Presidency. Because of this brevity Cunliffe is forced to cover significant aspects of Washington’s life very briefly, only highlighting the most important of events. While this does tend to leave on wanting more detail, it does allow for a very concise and relevant summary at the end of each section, that segueways very effectively into the next. For example, chapter two is devoted in large part to Washington’s early military career. While a book such as for King and Country: George Washington, The Early Years, by Thomas A. Lewis can devote much time to reviewing Washington’s actions during this period, giving us much important detail and the ability to make informed judgements, little attention is given to how these experiences guided his later career. Thus, a reader who does not round out their study of other aspects of Washington’s life can come to a distorted view of his character. Cunliffe, while coming to many of the same conclusions, is able to sum up this period in context, highlighting Washington’s actions, weighing his strengths and weaknesses, and then moving on to the next period. In Washington’s early military career, Cunliffe, echoing Lewis, offers the opinion that “there is something unlikable about the George Washington of 1753-1758. He seems a trifle raw and strident, too much on his dignity, too ready to complain, too nakedly concerned with promotion.” (Cunliffe, 40) He goes on to portend the Washington that was to come later, noting that “all through his adult life Washington was to be closely concerned with his reputation,” that he “was determined to do what was right, and he hoped his rectitude would be acknowledged even if his actions turned out badly, “but “otherwise, his shortcomings were more than balanced by his good qualities. “ (Cunliffe, 40) He goes on, making a point that is not only important for understanding Washington’s conception of the French and Indian War, but would also be an important demonstration of increasing maturity in the run up to the Revolution. And that is, related to the French and Indian War, Washington’s “outlook was rather narrowly Virginian. He did not conceive of the war as a whole…” (Cunliffe, 40)
Thus, as Cunliffe’s narrative continues we are able to see how Washington’s earlier behavior and actions are reflected in his conduct of the war, and his Presidency. We are able to see how he matured over time, how his view of the French and Indian war from a Virginia perspective made it easy for him to later take an American view in the dispute with Britain. It was not only indicative of his natural inclination to resistance, but hid view that “the voice of mankind is with me.” (Cunliffe, 50). By mankind, Cunliffe notes, Washington undoubtedly meant Virginia. “He was a Virginian by birth, upbringing, instinct and – not least – property.” (Cunliffe, 50) In this one short section, we see how Washington’s concern with honor and rectitude, first noted during his early military career, is reflected in his implicit need to be on the side of his fellow Virginians, and how his view of himself that way impelled him to rebel. Cunliffe repeats this pattern through sections devoted to Washington's biography. He effectively relates Washington's actions and behavior in one period of his life, to later periods, showing how Washington was able to learn and adapt based on experience. This gives is a broadly cohesive portrait of the man.
In addition of the biographical portrait Cunliffe paints, he also tackles the process by which Washington's has taken shape, turning him into the "marble man" of American history; the monument portion of Man and Monument. As noted earlier, Cunliffe's main thesis here is that Washington's legacy cannot be understood by setting aside this view of him. In other words, the story of how this view of him became dominant is as important as learning about Washington the man, and how his "real merits were enlarged and distorted into unreal attitudes, an that this overblown Washington is the one who occurs immediately to us whenever his name is mentioned." (Cunliffe, 5) Extending the metaphor of the Washington Monument, Cunliffe offers four guises under which this view takes shape. First is the "copybook hero" that views Washington as a "man without faults...with all the nineteenth century virtues, from courage to punctuality, from modesty to thrift - and all within human compass, and all crowned by success."(Cunliffe, 8) Second is the "Father of His People" guise, which cast Washington as the "prime native hero...a necessary creation for a new country." (Cunliffe, 8) Thus, throughout American history, no matter the issue, Washington's legacy could be invoked. Persons with as disparate views as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee felt no hesitation using his legacy to advance their causes. Cunlifee argues that only Lincoln approaches the national acclaim afforded Washington, but as a more accessible historical figure falls slightly short of monument status. Third is the view of Washington as the "disinterested patriot," reflecting the view of many of him as the modern Cinncinatus, who, displaying a lack of personal ambition, left familial comfort to answer the call of his countrymen. Last is the view of Washington as the "Revolutionary Leader," a view held mainly by those outside of the United States. This is a view of Washington as "liberator, the champion of nationalism, and the victor in the first great revolution of modern times." (Cunliffe, 13)
In the final chapter, Cunliffe argues that the vision of Washington as "monument" is not entirely without justification. He notes that many biographers of Washington are left feeling they have missed something. Unlike Napoleon, Wellington, Nelson, and others who had significant flaws, Washington's early petulance and ambition, his reticence, his innate common sense that in others might indicate a lack of intelligence, all seem like inevitable steps toward becoming the great man he became. Cunliffe describes he conundrum many historians feel, either they must surrender to the "conventional piety," or, "descend to petty fault-finding" when assessing Washington's life. (Cunliffe, 125)
Cunliffe also argues that the comparison with Cincinnatus is not unwarranted - and that Washington himself contributed to this view. Despite some claims to the contrary, many leaders of this period did view themselves as "classic warriors" of the Roman kind, and that in Washington's actions throughout his life one could see his cultivation of the Roman ideals of virtus (virtue), gravitas (seriousness), pietas (regard for discipline and authority), simplicitas (lucidity), integritas (integrity), and gloria (glory). That Washington thought of himself this way can be inferred from his frequent quoting from Addison's Cato. In making these comparisons, Cunliffe is persuasive, arguing Washington was not simply aping "the modes and experiences of the ancient world, " but that he and other leaders in 18th century America were "markedly 'classical' in temperament," and their actions must be understood in this context.
I found this book to be a breath of fresh air. It's brevity, and the authors skill in putting Washington's early actions into the context of his later life, results in a very good overall view of his character and legacy. As with any book however, one can always find fault, however minor. In this case, as one who has studied this time period to some degree, I often found myself getting frustrated that little or no time was devoted to what I consider critically important events. These most glaring of these, in my opinion, is the brief attention given to the Jumonville affair and Washington's subsequent humiliation at Fort Necessity, which is generally considered to be the incident that touched off the French and Indian War. There were also some instances where Cunliffe, in my view, characterizes certain incidents incorrectly. In a chapter on Washington as Revolutionary War leader, Cunliffe includes a discussion of the southern campaign in which he praises the actions of Lord Charles Cornwallis at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, characterizing it as a decisive victory. In reality Guilford Courthouse was a costly victory in which Cornwallis was obliged to fire on his own men as well as the Americans in order to achieve it. It was this pyrrhic victory along with his overwhelming defeat at the Battle of Cowpens that eroded British morale and induced Cornwallis to move north to Yorktown.
These criticisms aside however, if one is looking for a relatively brief, but fully realized biography of George Washington, George Washington: Man and Monument by Marcus Cunliffe is an excellent choice.
August 7, 2020
This was a decent biography about this puzzling man. Even the author admits that, even with all of Washington's letters, and journals, recorded conversations, incidents in politics, there is really very little we know about him and how he truly felt about all sorts of issues and events, so in some things, all historians can only speculate since he revealed little of his own thoughts. It would be interesting to be able to talk to the man himself and get his take on so much. I often wonder, since all the historians seem to vary wildly on what Washington actually thought and felt about things, are they imputing to him what they would actually feel/think in a given situation? As the saying goes, "What we know of ourselves, we often suspect in others"-- and at some points in the book, when the author would say "we don't really know what Mr. Washington was thinking at this point, but maybe it was....", I often thought he might have been projecting himself in that situation. But all in all, from a historical perspective and covering major events that Washington himself was a witness to or involved in, I found the book enlightening.
October 1, 2017
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had been written about perhaps more than any other person in American history. Despite this, much of what we know about the man is, in fact, pure myth. The stories we were raised on; the cherry tree incident, Washington praying at Valley Forge; were fictions created by historians long after his death, writers like Parson Weems in the 1800s, who created not Washington the man, but Washington the monument.
In George Washington: Man and Monument, Marcus Cunliffe offers a nuanced of Washington’s life and history that lays bare many of the myths, and attempts to reach the real man who lies beneath. The history of the Washington family, from its origins in England to its establishment of a planter society in Virginia, Washington’s early years, living in the shadow of his older half-brothers, his early military adventures, his command of the continental forces in the revolution, and his taxing years as president.
After reading this book, I can’t say that my understanding of Washington the man is improved, but, I did come away with a better understanding of the milieu that shaped that man.
An extremely well-written and exhaustively-researched tome, this should be required reading for every American. Not only will it give a better understanding of where we as a nation have come from, but will aid in understanding some of the confusing political events of the present day.
I received a free copy of this book.
In George Washington: Man and Monument, Marcus Cunliffe offers a nuanced of Washington’s life and history that lays bare many of the myths, and attempts to reach the real man who lies beneath. The history of the Washington family, from its origins in England to its establishment of a planter society in Virginia, Washington’s early years, living in the shadow of his older half-brothers, his early military adventures, his command of the continental forces in the revolution, and his taxing years as president.
After reading this book, I can’t say that my understanding of Washington the man is improved, but, I did come away with a better understanding of the milieu that shaped that man.
An extremely well-written and exhaustively-researched tome, this should be required reading for every American. Not only will it give a better understanding of where we as a nation have come from, but will aid in understanding some of the confusing political events of the present day.
I received a free copy of this book.
November 7, 2010
Published in 1958, this biography was an interesting look at our first President, and it compared the "real" Washington (the Man) with some of the myths that surrounded him (the Monument). I admit that from school I had always pictured Washington as this mythical figure, the Father of Our Country, this Great Man riding his White Stallion, etc. But he was just a typical man, who didn't necessarily desire and want the presidency, but who did his duty for our country, before retiring for a short time to his beloved Mount Vernon, the place he really wanted to be. Very sad that he only had two years of retirment before dying following a brief illness.
It was also interesting to read about how prevalent political parties and the divide between them was even at the beginning of our country. Except then it was the Federalists vs the anti-Federalist Republicans. But the political party divide existed even then.
It was also interesting to read about how prevalent political parties and the divide between them was even at the beginning of our country. Except then it was the Federalists vs the anti-Federalist Republicans. But the political party divide existed even then.
October 10, 2017
This was a very well written and researched book about George Washington from his childhood to his passing.
While I know the basics of his life from history classes and general pop culture, this book went into depth about who he was as a man, military man, and politician. It was interesting to learn and delve deeper into his thoughts and reasons for many of his actions. I was actually surprised to learn that he was a reluctant general and president and would preferred to stay at his home in Mount Vernon.
This book is easy to read and follow along with. It doesn't get too complicated or weighed down. I enjoyed the author referring back to George Washington's actual correspondence and "hearing" his thoughts.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking to learn more and have a complete picture of our first president. Any American history buff would enjoy this as well as people wanting a good biography.
(I received this book for free in exchange for a review).
While I know the basics of his life from history classes and general pop culture, this book went into depth about who he was as a man, military man, and politician. It was interesting to learn and delve deeper into his thoughts and reasons for many of his actions. I was actually surprised to learn that he was a reluctant general and president and would preferred to stay at his home in Mount Vernon.
This book is easy to read and follow along with. It doesn't get too complicated or weighed down. I enjoyed the author referring back to George Washington's actual correspondence and "hearing" his thoughts.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking to learn more and have a complete picture of our first president. Any American history buff would enjoy this as well as people wanting a good biography.
(I received this book for free in exchange for a review).
Read
September 27, 2021This book seemed set on separating the Washington Myths from the Washington realities. It was well written, and the information was clear and easy to understand. I was, however, surprised by the lack of 'story.' I expected to read more of Washington's own words and to learn more details about his life and times.
It was a good short summary, but I wouldn't recommend it if you are looking for details.
It was a good short summary, but I wouldn't recommend it if you are looking for details.
January 5, 2018
I’m not the best reader “as in my mind drifts often” but I made it a resolution this year to read more. I love history and especially Washington so when I received this for Christmas I was excited.
This book was excellent, it kept me wanting to keep turning the page. It really went into great detail with the history. I highly recommend this for anyone who likes history and Washington.
This book was excellent, it kept me wanting to keep turning the page. It really went into great detail with the history. I highly recommend this for anyone who likes history and Washington.
January 26, 2018
"Here was a man who did what he was asked to do, and whose very strength resided in a sobriety some took for fatal dullness; who in his own person proved the soundness of America. A good man, not a saint; a competent soldier, not a great one; an honest administrator, not a statesman of genius; a prudent conserver, not a brilliant reformer. But in sum an exceptional figure."
-pg 145
-pg 145
July 8, 2010
In material goodies, it pays better to be a hero in England than in the U.S. Washington was an admirable man. Not perfect, but admirable. Also, I think tall people usually get more leadership roles than short people.
July 27, 2011
Best short biography of Washington. Easy read too.
May 27, 2012
A good brief biography of Washington by an Englishman.
October 29, 2013
Good, brief, non-fictional account of George Washington's life. Cunliffe did a great job of taking the separating myth from reality and of making an academic subject sound a bit less academic.
October 8, 2017
An interesting time capsule into what historians thought about Washington when this was published in 1958
May 11, 2018
I read this book as an appetizer to Sacred Fire. It was a good overview of Washington’s career.
October 22, 2020
"On the other hand..."
When it was written in 1958, this was a great book, chock-full of facts about George Washington. Given its intervening competition, however, it suffers some but still is a good book which I read to update my own book, “George Washington’s Liberty Key.” I’d like to make a few hopefully corrective comments by page number from Cunliffe’s 1960 paperback edition. P 18: Mason Weems did not hesitate to “style himself ‘Rector’ of the nonexistent parish of Mount Vernon.” Actually, Weems was trained as a minister and may have worked for a time at Truro Parish, which Washington had attended and some considered the parish of Mount Vernon. “False anecdotes”: Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Actually, Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree; Weems said young Washington barked it and/or cut it with his hatchet, cutting around its circumference which would eventually kill it. Also, “it would be no easy matter to find a man, now-a-days, who could do it” (viz. throw a stone across the Rappahannock). Actually, pitcher Walter Johnson did it, and perhaps many/some others: there was an annual contest on George Washington’s birthday. P 20: “It was only natural to replace ‘George Guelf’ (Jefferson’s description) with George Washington. Presumably, Cunliffe and Jefferson mean George III, although strictly speaking the family appellation referred to George I. P 48: Braddock’s expedition was 1755, not 1775. P 69: I doubt, as the author says, that Samuel Adams was his cousin John Adams’ namesake. P 83: Cunliffe writes about the Battle of Princeton, but I believe he was talking about the Battle of Assunpink Creek (2nd Trenton). P 108: Cunliffe says that nuts were Washington’s favorite dessert. While Washington loved nuts and allegedly lost many of his teeth by cracking open nuts with them, his favorite dessert may have been cherry pie or ice cream, when it was available. As well, at this point Cunliffe begins his attacks on Washington’s military and leadership genius. The pattern begins with negative assessments and examples, then a conciliatory list of “on the other hand” examples, and finally conceding well, maybe, Washington was a great guy after all. This biographical method has unfortunately been picked up by a number of other Washington authors over the years, and, IMHO as a fellow author, been soundly refuted by still other authors with a better understanding of the facts. Bottom-line, and "on the other hand," the book is very well written, given the information available at the time.
When it was written in 1958, this was a great book, chock-full of facts about George Washington. Given its intervening competition, however, it suffers some but still is a good book which I read to update my own book, “George Washington’s Liberty Key.” I’d like to make a few hopefully corrective comments by page number from Cunliffe’s 1960 paperback edition. P 18: Mason Weems did not hesitate to “style himself ‘Rector’ of the nonexistent parish of Mount Vernon.” Actually, Weems was trained as a minister and may have worked for a time at Truro Parish, which Washington had attended and some considered the parish of Mount Vernon. “False anecdotes”: Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Actually, Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree; Weems said young Washington barked it and/or cut it with his hatchet, cutting around its circumference which would eventually kill it. Also, “it would be no easy matter to find a man, now-a-days, who could do it” (viz. throw a stone across the Rappahannock). Actually, pitcher Walter Johnson did it, and perhaps many/some others: there was an annual contest on George Washington’s birthday. P 20: “It was only natural to replace ‘George Guelf’ (Jefferson’s description) with George Washington. Presumably, Cunliffe and Jefferson mean George III, although strictly speaking the family appellation referred to George I. P 48: Braddock’s expedition was 1755, not 1775. P 69: I doubt, as the author says, that Samuel Adams was his cousin John Adams’ namesake. P 83: Cunliffe writes about the Battle of Princeton, but I believe he was talking about the Battle of Assunpink Creek (2nd Trenton). P 108: Cunliffe says that nuts were Washington’s favorite dessert. While Washington loved nuts and allegedly lost many of his teeth by cracking open nuts with them, his favorite dessert may have been cherry pie or ice cream, when it was available. As well, at this point Cunliffe begins his attacks on Washington’s military and leadership genius. The pattern begins with negative assessments and examples, then a conciliatory list of “on the other hand” examples, and finally conceding well, maybe, Washington was a great guy after all. This biographical method has unfortunately been picked up by a number of other Washington authors over the years, and, IMHO as a fellow author, been soundly refuted by still other authors with a better understanding of the facts. Bottom-line, and "on the other hand," the book is very well written, given the information available at the time.
October 1, 2017
Carefully composed and categorized in neatly compartmentalized chapters, the author provides the reader a deeper, more thoughtful insight into the "Man and Monument" of George Washington. Sparing no precision, an intense character dissection soon proceeds. With common myths dispelled and the chronological analysis that follows, the reader is presented with not just the factual history of the great man, but also the lingering ponderations about his traits, his personality, his weaknesses, and the parallels between him and the flawless monument that we associate with him becoming.
This is a thorough read that, while short in pages, does challenge the reader to explore Washington with a keen mind. I would recommend this book to avid historians who are already familiar with the subject.
A few typographical errors were found in the reading of this short book, but the material presented is not without meritable scholarship.
This is a thorough read that, while short in pages, does challenge the reader to explore Washington with a keen mind. I would recommend this book to avid historians who are already familiar with the subject.
A few typographical errors were found in the reading of this short book, but the material presented is not without meritable scholarship.
July 26, 2020
one of the best biographies on George Washington. Cunliffe is amazingly neutral and wise, offering an in-depth judgement on a great politician. Also, the writing style is quite literary and touching. Like many comments already mentioned, this book does not go to lots of details. But Cunliffe still showcases one point clearly: the genius of Washington is not his god-like infallibility/perfection but his firm Roman-style commitment to virtue/morality and the welfare of the state, which drives him always to overcome difficulties and his drawbacks. This sounds easy; however, very few people can do it well. And this is one of the reasons which make Washington a monumental politician in human history. Recommended.
November 27, 2009
A very well written book, not too dry, about Washington and his military campaigns, first against the French, then against the English, and his leadership of the U.S. Did an exceptionally good job debunking the 'myth' of Washington as more of an eighteenth century superhero than a man, foibles and all, yet still recognized his greatness.
January 18, 2019
Short and comprehensive and very dense. This is a good introduction to Washington's biography but will leave the history buff wanting more. Several moments written as asides or drive-by-references could themselves become full Chernow books (and some have...e.g. Alexander Hamilton).
Any one who reads it will understand why it stands the test of time and is still highly regarded 50 years later.
Any one who reads it will understand why it stands the test of time and is still highly regarded 50 years later.
July 14, 2011
A nice, short biography on George Washington. Doesn't get very indepth, but it's a good book if you're looking for something short to read on GW.
June 17, 2025
I picked up George Washington: Man and Monument for a nickel at McKay’s in Nashville—cheaper than the coin bearing his face. As someone raised on stories of Washington the myth, I was drawn to learn more about Washington the man. This is one of his least popular biographies, likely because it tries to do something rare: present him in full, flaws and all.
What I found was a Washington I could actually learn from. A man who failed hard early on, persisted anyway, and constantly recalibrated. A man who worked tirelessly, lived honestly, and was tormented by the expectations placed on him. I related to his struggle to channel internal angst toward something bigger than himself. I saw how his example could guide me during times of stagnation or failure.
The book is slow, often overly detailed, but full of gems. It dives deep into Washington’s fight against corruption, his discomfort with rising political factions, and the hard decisions he made between the life he wanted and the life duty demanded.
This isn’t a hero-worship piece. It’s better. It’s honest.
And that honesty, especially today, makes it worth the read.
What I found was a Washington I could actually learn from. A man who failed hard early on, persisted anyway, and constantly recalibrated. A man who worked tirelessly, lived honestly, and was tormented by the expectations placed on him. I related to his struggle to channel internal angst toward something bigger than himself. I saw how his example could guide me during times of stagnation or failure.
The book is slow, often overly detailed, but full of gems. It dives deep into Washington’s fight against corruption, his discomfort with rising political factions, and the hard decisions he made between the life he wanted and the life duty demanded.
This isn’t a hero-worship piece. It’s better. It’s honest.
And that honesty, especially today, makes it worth the read.
January 13, 2022
This book is better than the average mythologizing hagiography that you get for younger readers, but it still whitewashes (literally) some of Washington's story. No prize for guessing what gets sanitized. (The man owned slaves.) Nice illustrations.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews