What do you think?
Rate this book
First in Peace: How George Washington Set the Course for America
Just before he died after a long and distinguished international career as a politician, commentator, and author, Conor Cruise O’Brien completed a study of George Washington’s presidency. Cruise O’Brien has been described as “a man who so persistently asks the right questions” (The Economist), and in this, his last book, he explores the question of how early America’s future was determined.First in Peace considers the dissension between Washington and Jefferson during the first U.S. presidency, and reveals Washington’s clear-sighted political wisdom while exposing Jefferson’s dangerous ideology. Cruise O’Brien makes the case that Washington, not Jefferson, was the true democrat, and commends his clarity of vision in restoring good relations with Britain, his preference for order and pragmatism, and his aversion to French political extremism.
184 pages, Hardcover
First published July 13, 2009
3 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
About the author
Conor Cruise O'Brien
58 books36 followersIrish politician, writer, historian and academic.
Member of the Irish Parliament for the socialist Labour Party.
Member of the Northern Ireland Forum for the United Kingdom Unionist Party, which advocated direct rule of Northern Ireland from London.
Virulently anti-IRA.
Member of the Irish Parliament for the socialist Labour Party.
Member of the Northern Ireland Forum for the United Kingdom Unionist Party, which advocated direct rule of Northern Ireland from London.
Virulently anti-IRA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 17, 2025
George Washington And The French Revolution
I found Cruise O'Brien's last book, "First in Peace" (2009) in the process of searching for something to read in celebration of Presidents' Day. The late Conor Cruise O'Brien (1917 - 2008) was an Irish diplomat and politician and an international scholar. O'Brien wrote about, among other things, Irish politics, the State of Israel, the French Revolution, early American history, and Edmund Burke. Although known for his left wing views, which he modified late in life, O'Brien was a great admirer of Edmund Burke. In this unusual combination, (political liberalism and Burkean conservatism) O'Brien was similar to the American legal scholar, Alexander Bickel.
In "First in Peace", O'Brien examines the presidency of Washington to explore, as the book's subtitle indicates, "how George Washington set the course for America." A further "publisher's note" explains that the book endeavors to show the "art of subtle, magnanimous, and wide-resonating statecraft practiced by a president at a tender moment in America's history, especially in relationship to the rest of the world." The book in part is a continuation of an earlier work of O'Brien's, "The Long Affair" (1986) which was a highly critical examination of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.
O'Brien's book is in two short chapters, one for each of Washington's terms as president. Although American domestic issues, including the establishment of the Bank of the United States and the Whiskey Rebellion, receive some attention, the focus of the study is on foreign affairs. In particular, O'Brien explores President Washington's reaction to the French Revolution and to the attendant turmoil in Europe. In the book, Jefferson, as Washington's Secretary of State, and his followers appear as the foil to the statecraft and moderation practiced by Washington and his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
The book's discussion of Washington's first term begins with a private letter of Washington, written in October, 1789, in which the president expressed his concern with the then-recent French Revolution. Washington predicted that its ideological excess would lead in the end to lawlessness, violence, and militarism. With his concern with events in France, Washington began secret overtures to Britain early in his administration before appointing Thomas Jefferson as his Secretary of State. Washington appointed Jefferson to his cabinet to include a spectrum of opinions; but from the beginning, O'Brien argues, Washington paid little attention to him. Jefferson was a fiery supporter of the French Revolution and became Secretary of State without knowledge of the covert negotiations for closeness to Britain that Washington had already initiated. O'Brien argues that Washington never had any confidence in Jefferson's foreign policy expertise or opinions. Instead, Washington relied upon his own judgment in foreign affairs, as reinforced by the advice of Treasury Secretary Hamilton. Hamilton is given great stature in O'Brien's account for his domestic and foreign policy roles in the Washington administration. By contrast, Jefferson is shown as attempting to undermine Washington's efforts for political and ideological purposes.
O'Brien's discussion of Washington's second term begins with the presidential proclamation of neutrality followed by what has become known as the "Genet affair". The French minister to the United States, Edmond-Charles Genet, attempted to circumvent diplomatic channels and to foment support for an alliance with Revolutionary France among the American people. Genet also commissioned French privateers from American shores. O'Brien provides documents that show that Genet was following orders from the French Directory in these matters rather than acting alone, as is sometimes assumed. Washington ordered the French government to recall Genet and Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State shortly thereafter. O'Brien tries to find duplicity in Jefferson's attitudes with respect to Genet.
The discussion of the Genet affair is followed by a treatment of Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and of the president's attendant discrediting of political societies. These societies were supporting a closer alliance between the United States and France. O'Brien further considers the controversial treaty with Britain negotiated by Chief Justice John Jay which was narrowly ratified in face of widespread disapproval. The theme of the book is that Washington's prudence and judgment in foreign affairs, spared the United States from a ruinous alliance with France and from the excesses of the Revolution. Washington truly was "First in Peace" and a model for subsequent American statesmen.
O'Brien offers a worthwhile if abbreviated account of Washington's presidency. I suspect it might have been expanded upon if O'Brien had lived. Readers familiar with the literature on Washington's presidency will be aware that scholars have disagreed about the relative roles of Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. O'Brien captures the independent, deliberative, and reflective character of Washington's judgments together with Washington's high regard for Hamilton. Jefferson comes across badly. The focus of the book is on the dangers that France posed to the new American Republic. The dangers emanating from British seizures of American ships and other belligerent actions receive little mention in O'Brien's study. Thus, O'Brien tends to minimize the reasons underlying the widespread dissatisfaction in the United States with Jay's treaty. Similarly, O'Brien may move too quickly to support what other writers have seen as suppression of dissent during Washington's second term. And the book presupposes a lengthy explanation of how the French Revolution differed from the earlier American Revolution. Discussion of this subject would have been appropriate and welcome.
With these questions, O'Brien's book remains a thoughtful, provocative book on the Washington presidency. It explains why our first president is deservedly held in high esteem and thus was an appropriate book to read and consider for Presidents' Day. The book will be of most interest to readers who have some background in the issues of Washington's presidency and with the turbulent early years of the United States.
Robin Friedman
I found Cruise O'Brien's last book, "First in Peace" (2009) in the process of searching for something to read in celebration of Presidents' Day. The late Conor Cruise O'Brien (1917 - 2008) was an Irish diplomat and politician and an international scholar. O'Brien wrote about, among other things, Irish politics, the State of Israel, the French Revolution, early American history, and Edmund Burke. Although known for his left wing views, which he modified late in life, O'Brien was a great admirer of Edmund Burke. In this unusual combination, (political liberalism and Burkean conservatism) O'Brien was similar to the American legal scholar, Alexander Bickel.
In "First in Peace", O'Brien examines the presidency of Washington to explore, as the book's subtitle indicates, "how George Washington set the course for America." A further "publisher's note" explains that the book endeavors to show the "art of subtle, magnanimous, and wide-resonating statecraft practiced by a president at a tender moment in America's history, especially in relationship to the rest of the world." The book in part is a continuation of an earlier work of O'Brien's, "The Long Affair" (1986) which was a highly critical examination of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.
O'Brien's book is in two short chapters, one for each of Washington's terms as president. Although American domestic issues, including the establishment of the Bank of the United States and the Whiskey Rebellion, receive some attention, the focus of the study is on foreign affairs. In particular, O'Brien explores President Washington's reaction to the French Revolution and to the attendant turmoil in Europe. In the book, Jefferson, as Washington's Secretary of State, and his followers appear as the foil to the statecraft and moderation practiced by Washington and his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
The book's discussion of Washington's first term begins with a private letter of Washington, written in October, 1789, in which the president expressed his concern with the then-recent French Revolution. Washington predicted that its ideological excess would lead in the end to lawlessness, violence, and militarism. With his concern with events in France, Washington began secret overtures to Britain early in his administration before appointing Thomas Jefferson as his Secretary of State. Washington appointed Jefferson to his cabinet to include a spectrum of opinions; but from the beginning, O'Brien argues, Washington paid little attention to him. Jefferson was a fiery supporter of the French Revolution and became Secretary of State without knowledge of the covert negotiations for closeness to Britain that Washington had already initiated. O'Brien argues that Washington never had any confidence in Jefferson's foreign policy expertise or opinions. Instead, Washington relied upon his own judgment in foreign affairs, as reinforced by the advice of Treasury Secretary Hamilton. Hamilton is given great stature in O'Brien's account for his domestic and foreign policy roles in the Washington administration. By contrast, Jefferson is shown as attempting to undermine Washington's efforts for political and ideological purposes.
O'Brien's discussion of Washington's second term begins with the presidential proclamation of neutrality followed by what has become known as the "Genet affair". The French minister to the United States, Edmond-Charles Genet, attempted to circumvent diplomatic channels and to foment support for an alliance with Revolutionary France among the American people. Genet also commissioned French privateers from American shores. O'Brien provides documents that show that Genet was following orders from the French Directory in these matters rather than acting alone, as is sometimes assumed. Washington ordered the French government to recall Genet and Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State shortly thereafter. O'Brien tries to find duplicity in Jefferson's attitudes with respect to Genet.
The discussion of the Genet affair is followed by a treatment of Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and of the president's attendant discrediting of political societies. These societies were supporting a closer alliance between the United States and France. O'Brien further considers the controversial treaty with Britain negotiated by Chief Justice John Jay which was narrowly ratified in face of widespread disapproval. The theme of the book is that Washington's prudence and judgment in foreign affairs, spared the United States from a ruinous alliance with France and from the excesses of the Revolution. Washington truly was "First in Peace" and a model for subsequent American statesmen.
O'Brien offers a worthwhile if abbreviated account of Washington's presidency. I suspect it might have been expanded upon if O'Brien had lived. Readers familiar with the literature on Washington's presidency will be aware that scholars have disagreed about the relative roles of Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. O'Brien captures the independent, deliberative, and reflective character of Washington's judgments together with Washington's high regard for Hamilton. Jefferson comes across badly. The focus of the book is on the dangers that France posed to the new American Republic. The dangers emanating from British seizures of American ships and other belligerent actions receive little mention in O'Brien's study. Thus, O'Brien tends to minimize the reasons underlying the widespread dissatisfaction in the United States with Jay's treaty. Similarly, O'Brien may move too quickly to support what other writers have seen as suppression of dissent during Washington's second term. And the book presupposes a lengthy explanation of how the French Revolution differed from the earlier American Revolution. Discussion of this subject would have been appropriate and welcome.
With these questions, O'Brien's book remains a thoughtful, provocative book on the Washington presidency. It explains why our first president is deservedly held in high esteem and thus was an appropriate book to read and consider for Presidents' Day. The book will be of most interest to readers who have some background in the issues of Washington's presidency and with the turbulent early years of the United States.
Robin Friedman
March 2, 2025
4+ stars. A very enlightening history of George Washington’s two terms as president. The major topic was the conflict between the federalists (Washington and his trusted friend Hamilton) versus the republicans (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe). Domestic political intrigue arose as Washington kept Jefferson in his cabinet, despite his sympathies with France, while secretly negotiating a treaty with Britain without Jefferson’s involvement (as Secretary of State). Another was the foreign policy debate involving the French Revolution and the degree to which America “owed her existence” to the French. The issue of foreign involvement in the internal affairs of state and the degree to which this is allowable initially arose during the timeframe of a proposed declaration of neutrality against any war between France and Britain. Finally, a connection between the “self-created societies” (Washington’s term) that created the first constitutional crisis known as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1974, provided an answer to both foreign influence and subversion of constitutional authority throughout the country.
Straight forward in language I found this book a relatively quick read, even as thorough in substance and research. I only found one point of disagreement. On page 166, while discussing Hamilton’s input to Washington’s farewell address, O’Brien says this, “…was more than Washington, a deist, could accept.” George Washington was a bible-believing Christian and not a deist (absentee God).
Straight forward in language I found this book a relatively quick read, even as thorough in substance and research. I only found one point of disagreement. On page 166, while discussing Hamilton’s input to Washington’s farewell address, O’Brien says this, “…was more than Washington, a deist, could accept.” George Washington was a bible-believing Christian and not a deist (absentee God).
May 19, 2020
They say that you can't judge a book by it's cover. Well, once in awhile I do just that and I have to say that too often that saying rings true. But not this time. I bought this on impulse while on vacation and checking out a bookstore with a nice, not cup of dark italian roast coffee. Black.
But as much as I enjoyed the book as it was well-written and was just the type of book I enjoy greatly, I can only bring myself to give this three stars for one simple reason: I completely disagree with O'Brien's views on Thomas Jefferson. And because he further misrepresents Jefferson (while on occasion going overboard in his appreciation for Washington), I give it a 3.
This is how I feel about most of the books put out by the Lincoln Cult. It's just sad that writers pretending to be simply giving you a history have to go to extremes and distort reality, turning into propagandists. And in doing so, they lose trust and respect among those of us who know better. When stated as opinion, that is fair. But when stated as fact when it is not, that is unacceptable.
So, I won't be recommending this. But that's a shame because it had potential. And since the author of this work died shortly after completing this book, maybe he knew his days were numbered and just didn't care. I don't know. But it is what it is.
But as much as I enjoyed the book as it was well-written and was just the type of book I enjoy greatly, I can only bring myself to give this three stars for one simple reason: I completely disagree with O'Brien's views on Thomas Jefferson. And because he further misrepresents Jefferson (while on occasion going overboard in his appreciation for Washington), I give it a 3.
This is how I feel about most of the books put out by the Lincoln Cult. It's just sad that writers pretending to be simply giving you a history have to go to extremes and distort reality, turning into propagandists. And in doing so, they lose trust and respect among those of us who know better. When stated as opinion, that is fair. But when stated as fact when it is not, that is unacceptable.
So, I won't be recommending this. But that's a shame because it had potential. And since the author of this work died shortly after completing this book, maybe he knew his days were numbered and just didn't care. I don't know. But it is what it is.
March 20, 2018
Knowing that Washington was present during the entire constitutional debate and extremely conscious of the conflicts between the states, I was curious how he implemented policy during his years as our first president. This book points out the conflict between Jefferson and Washington over the latter's foreign policy (and other conflicts). Washington was in favor of working out a peace treaty with England. Jefferson opposed it. He favored France even after the horrors of the regime were known. I learned more about the conflicts between these men and that Washington, in spite of strong opposition from Jefferson and the members of the Republican party of which he was the head, ultimately prevailed. Jefferson's methods and behind the scenes maneuvers show an unscrupulous individual bent on undermining a good man.
November 21, 2010
This was a really good, although very short book. First off, this was a nicely bound book with a nice comfortably sized font and good quality paper.
As to the content, Conor Cruz O'Brien focuses on then end of Washington's first administration through his second. He provides sharp insights into the political motivations of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and uses translations of the French instructions to their plenipotentiary representatives to explain the motivations of the Girondist government vis a vis the US.
Jefferson's machinations are revealed and Cruz takes Flexner and Dumas to task where they have succumbed to the role of apologists in their treatments of Washington and Jefferson.
The writing is crisp and clear and Cruz's conclusions are hard to argue with.
I have completed an extensive review here -> http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/book-review-first-in-peace
As to the content, Conor Cruz O'Brien focuses on then end of Washington's first administration through his second. He provides sharp insights into the political motivations of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and uses translations of the French instructions to their plenipotentiary representatives to explain the motivations of the Girondist government vis a vis the US.
Jefferson's machinations are revealed and Cruz takes Flexner and Dumas to task where they have succumbed to the role of apologists in their treatments of Washington and Jefferson.
The writing is crisp and clear and Cruz's conclusions are hard to argue with.
I have completed an extensive review here -> http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/book-review-first-in-peace
August 27, 2014
This book should not be confused with a biography of Washington. It is more a book about the ways in which Jefferson systematically undermined the government of the newly created United States. Even there, it is but a slice of the apple. It definitely needs to be read in apposition with Ron Chernow's bio of Hamilton. I suspect it will dove-tail with O'Brien's "The Long Affair" which is on my list.
I enjoyed O'Brien's writing style and his willingness to avoid politically correct caution when writing about inevitably flawed human beings. Of course, Jefferson is much more flawed, in O'Brien's view along with some other modern historians, than most of the rest.
To go back to my first sentence: do not select this book if your goal is to read either a biography of Washington or an analysis of his presidency. There are several out there from which to choose.
I enjoyed O'Brien's writing style and his willingness to avoid politically correct caution when writing about inevitably flawed human beings. Of course, Jefferson is much more flawed, in O'Brien's view along with some other modern historians, than most of the rest.
To go back to my first sentence: do not select this book if your goal is to read either a biography of Washington or an analysis of his presidency. There are several out there from which to choose.
June 30, 2017
O'Brien's style is jarring, and the book seems disjointed. Still, its worth reading. When O'Brien uses quotes prodigiously, perhaps excessively. His own writing sparkles, and one wishes there would have been more in First in peace. Even though the book is about Washington, it sometimes seems that the Cruiser still wants to write about Jefferson. But his analysis is erudite as well an incisive. The chapter on Genet alone is worth reading, and O'Brien is most enjoyable talking about the relationship of the french Revolution to American politics. The greatest criticism of this book might be that it is essentially a repackaging of O"Brien's The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800Long Affair.
November 28, 2010
Interesting look at Washington's Presidency, the challenges he faced, and the attacks against him. O'Brien takes a very pro-Washington view point and, likewise, is favorable to Hamilton. O'Brien makes Thomas Jefferson look like a modern day politician more interested in power than doing what's right, not surprising from the author of Long Affair Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution.
This book takes a sporadic look at Washington's Presidency. It focuses on just a few events, analyzing them in depth. It pays to have a good knowledge of that era before proceeding.
This book takes a sporadic look at Washington's Presidency. It focuses on just a few events, analyzing them in depth. It pays to have a good knowledge of that era before proceeding.
October 1, 2012
I feel that with all the literature out there written about America's first president, one could pass on Conor Cruise O'Brien's redundant essay. O'Brien seems to make two point over and over and over again. 1) Thomas Jefferson was a shameless supporter of the French and their Revloution. 2) George Washington was not.
It is not a terrible book, and their are some fine points made about the difficulty of wrangling our founding fathers into a group fit to lead a nation. However, I found my mind wandering while reading and couldn't get into the prose. I'm afraid I'm not a fan of First in Peace.
It is not a terrible book, and their are some fine points made about the difficulty of wrangling our founding fathers into a group fit to lead a nation. However, I found my mind wandering while reading and couldn't get into the prose. I'm afraid I'm not a fan of First in Peace.
December 2, 2016
One thing is for certain after reading this book--Jefferson and Washington didn't really like each other. The book was insightful in some parts, but it reminded me of a glorified research paper. I thought the section on French-American relations was drawn out and could have been shorter. Not a bad read, but certainly not one of the best.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews