What do you think?
Rate this book
American Political Thought
George Washington and American Constitutionalism
George Washington is generally viewed as a demigod for what he was and did, not what he thought. That he played a key role in securing the adoption of the Constitution is well known, but few credit him with a political philosophy that actively shaped the constitutional tradition. In this revisionist study, Glenn Phelps argues that Washington's political thought did influence the principles informing the federal government then and now. Phelps examines Washington's political ideas not as they were perceived by his contemporaries but in his own words, that is, he shows what Washington believed, not what others thought he believed.
Phelps shows that Washington's political values remained consistent over time, regardless of who his counselors or "ghost writers" were. Using Washington's letters to friends and family--written free from the constraints of public politics--Phelps reveals a man committed to a fully developed plan for a constitutional republic. He demonstrates that the first president developed--long before Madison, Hamilton, and other nationalists--a coherent and consistent view of a republican government on a continental scale, a view grounded in classically conservative republicanism and continentally minded commercialism. That Washington was only partially successful in building the constitutional system that he intended does not undercut his theoretical contribution, Phelps contends. Even his failures affected the way our constitutional tradition developed.
Phelps shows that Washington's political values remained consistent over time, regardless of who his counselors or "ghost writers" were. Using Washington's letters to friends and family--written free from the constraints of public politics--Phelps reveals a man committed to a fully developed plan for a constitutional republic. He demonstrates that the first president developed--long before Madison, Hamilton, and other nationalists--a coherent and consistent view of a republican government on a continental scale, a view grounded in classically conservative republicanism and continentally minded commercialism. That Washington was only partially successful in building the constitutional system that he intended does not undercut his theoretical contribution, Phelps contends. Even his failures affected the way our constitutional tradition developed.
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 24, 2026
That America is now celebrat—no, I’m not going to start this review with the almost prerequisite preamble one would normally see up here. Sure, it was an independence, but also a revolution. And for a conservative like Washington, “independence was a foreboding step”. (page 40, eBook)
“George Washington and American Constitutionalism” while features some biographical elements is *not* a biography of our first president; there are many others out there such as Ron Chernow’s that I had the liberty to read albeit many years ago. What we have here is something unique and coincidentally something I only encountered not too long ago when I again had the liberty to read “The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, & the French Revolution” by Dan Edelstein. https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-te...
Thus, in my mind I had the lingering traces of a phenomenally unique book that also provided a little bit of historical background to the French Revolution, America’s younger and far messier sister in revolt before focusing mainly on tracing the idea of Natural Right and how the Jacobins used and abused it. Here, our ground is less blood-stained thankfully, but we still are presented with something different: not that Washington biography we don’t need another of, but a book that aims to dispel the common notion nowadays that Washington was something of an aloof observer. He may have been “disinterested” but “disinterested” and “uninterested” are vastly different to a someone like him where the former’s “virtue and independence were such that one could rise above narrow self-interest and act out of a sense of the public good.” (page 280)
What we get here is a book with a well-developed revisionist theory that’s heavy on quoting source material and with a heavy focus not just on the ‘public’ letters, but ones “intended only for friends and family, [that] reveal a man with a passionate commitment to a fully developed idea of a constitutional republic on a continental scale, eager to promote that plan wherever and whenever circumstances or the hand of Providence allowed.” (page 10) In other words, as the author provides the receipts and I’m the kind of guy who loves reading things as banal as terms and conditions, this book was right up my alley. The Founding Fathers were not gods and none—even GW himself—was above the fray of voicing opinions, making mistakes, and it was only when he finally married into money did Washington transform into the ‘disinterested gentleman of virtue’ that he is now recognized mostly as.
A modern reader of course—and I definitely apply here—may wonder what exactly is “constitutionalism”? That’s actually one thing the book did not really go far in defining but I feel this is more of a hindsight issue because it’s pretty obvious: what we take for granted today, the liberal democracy, is what the Founders were after even though some like Washington were the last hangers-on of classical republicanism that “held that politics was dedicated to the attainment of ‘the good’—of the one, true, genuine public interest. This public interest could be discerned only by employing experience and careful, disinterested reason to the resolution of great public questions. The pursuit of virtue allowed for no consideration of the particular or the self-interested.” (page 242)
A demagogue Washington was not. If anything, he was a calm, collected individual more in line with a humanist like Erasmus than his fiery Lutheran counterpart. https://kobushi.substack.com/p/fatal-...
Some reviewers have noted this book has a “liberal bias” but I find that a stretch. Perhaps “liberal” based on a classic meaning, but if there is a bias in this book, it’s simply showing how our first batch of leaders, the Founders, created a rather unique document and did their best to work with it, respect it, and try as hard as hard gets to set up good precedents for future leaders to follow it. Washington hated the concept of parties even though factions developed not too far into his first term. By most any measure (after all, for a constitutionalist government detached from royalty, we had little to work on!), he did a pretty good job; this book is no biography but something not terribly long nor terribly difficult that puts Washington in his proper place as an important player not just in leading America but crafting it.
“George Washington and American Constitutionalism” while features some biographical elements is *not* a biography of our first president; there are many others out there such as Ron Chernow’s that I had the liberty to read albeit many years ago. What we have here is something unique and coincidentally something I only encountered not too long ago when I again had the liberty to read “The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, & the French Revolution” by Dan Edelstein. https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-te...
Thus, in my mind I had the lingering traces of a phenomenally unique book that also provided a little bit of historical background to the French Revolution, America’s younger and far messier sister in revolt before focusing mainly on tracing the idea of Natural Right and how the Jacobins used and abused it. Here, our ground is less blood-stained thankfully, but we still are presented with something different: not that Washington biography we don’t need another of, but a book that aims to dispel the common notion nowadays that Washington was something of an aloof observer. He may have been “disinterested” but “disinterested” and “uninterested” are vastly different to a someone like him where the former’s “virtue and independence were such that one could rise above narrow self-interest and act out of a sense of the public good.” (page 280)
What we get here is a book with a well-developed revisionist theory that’s heavy on quoting source material and with a heavy focus not just on the ‘public’ letters, but ones “intended only for friends and family, [that] reveal a man with a passionate commitment to a fully developed idea of a constitutional republic on a continental scale, eager to promote that plan wherever and whenever circumstances or the hand of Providence allowed.” (page 10) In other words, as the author provides the receipts and I’m the kind of guy who loves reading things as banal as terms and conditions, this book was right up my alley. The Founding Fathers were not gods and none—even GW himself—was above the fray of voicing opinions, making mistakes, and it was only when he finally married into money did Washington transform into the ‘disinterested gentleman of virtue’ that he is now recognized mostly as.
A modern reader of course—and I definitely apply here—may wonder what exactly is “constitutionalism”? That’s actually one thing the book did not really go far in defining but I feel this is more of a hindsight issue because it’s pretty obvious: what we take for granted today, the liberal democracy, is what the Founders were after even though some like Washington were the last hangers-on of classical republicanism that “held that politics was dedicated to the attainment of ‘the good’—of the one, true, genuine public interest. This public interest could be discerned only by employing experience and careful, disinterested reason to the resolution of great public questions. The pursuit of virtue allowed for no consideration of the particular or the self-interested.” (page 242)
A demagogue Washington was not. If anything, he was a calm, collected individual more in line with a humanist like Erasmus than his fiery Lutheran counterpart. https://kobushi.substack.com/p/fatal-...
Some reviewers have noted this book has a “liberal bias” but I find that a stretch. Perhaps “liberal” based on a classic meaning, but if there is a bias in this book, it’s simply showing how our first batch of leaders, the Founders, created a rather unique document and did their best to work with it, respect it, and try as hard as hard gets to set up good precedents for future leaders to follow it. Washington hated the concept of parties even though factions developed not too far into his first term. By most any measure (after all, for a constitutionalist government detached from royalty, we had little to work on!), he did a pretty good job; this book is no biography but something not terribly long nor terribly difficult that puts Washington in his proper place as an important player not just in leading America but crafting it.
Read
April 9, 2015The first time seeing Washington as a politician
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews