What do you think?
Rate this book
George Washington #2
George Washington in the American Revolution, 1775-1783
History has blinded us to the all-too-human character of George Washington; in doing so, it has blinded us to the true nature of his greatness. We have urgent need to know this man we call the Father of Our Country. And now, at last, James Thomas Flexner has given us the biography that fully meets our need.
622 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1968
About the author
James Thomas Flexner
77 books28 followersJames Thomas Flexner was an American historian and biographer best known for the four-volume biography of George Washington that earned him a National Book Award in Biography and a special Pulitzer Prize. A cum laude graduate of Harvard University, Flexner worked as a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune from 1929 until 1931, after which he worked as an executive secretary for the New York City Department of Health before leaving the job the following year in order to devote his full energies to writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 12, 2026
I learned so much about Washington. I didn't realized there was so much down time during the war and that he spent so much time fighting with congress to obtain the resources for his army. Congress couldn't come up with the money to pay the solders or to feed them.
What a great man he was.
What a great man he was.
March 8, 2018
Volume II of Flexner's series on George Washington picks up with the Virginian being named the commanding General of the newly formed Continental Army. To call it an “Army” would be an overstatement. What Washington really took the helm of was a ragtag group of men who continually tried to desert the patriot cause due in part to the horrible conditions that they were exposed to. Unlike today, Congress did not want to fund any more than the absolute minimum for military measures. But it must be kept in mind that there was not much money to go around to begin with as that nation had just been founded and a significant portion of the population was either still loyal to Great Britain or lukewarm to the independence movement. These are issues that Washington had to face daily over the first few years of the Revolutionary War – a war that Washington himself and many others thought would be over quickly (the same miscalculations of the length of war occurred later in the Civil War and then WWI).
Washington's resume, while solid, did not alone support him being placed in top command. Indeed, another issue he faced was the fact that many of his generals (Charles Lee, for one) believed that they were more experienced and better able to command the new army than Washington was. From a purely paper standpoint, this was probably true. Washington's record in combat was mixed. He was a Colonel in Virginia and saw action in the French and Indian War. But what tipped the scales in Washington's favor was his demeanor and comportment. Washington carried himself like a leader, like a gentleman (18th century ideas of a gentleman, anyway), and commanded by virtue of his personal magnetism. He especially needed these qualities as the first few years of the War did not go well for the rebel cause. Washington made his share of blunders (Brandywine Creek being one of the biggest), sprinkled in with some improbable victories (his Christmas Day surprise at Trenton).
As with the first volume, Flexner makes this eminently readable. He writes more as one friend telling another a story, instead of a biographer simply describing event after event in a person's life. At times, we follow Washington from day to day, even hour to hour when battles occur. Flexner does not let the narrative stray from Washington and what his actions/thoughts were (Washington, like many men of that age, was a prolific letter writer). Despite the reputation he later held as President, not everyone was a fan of Washington, and his own generals and staff caused him never-ending indigestion. Combined with the difficulty of feeding and clothing his army, trying to keep some of the men from deserting, and then being subjected to second-guessing by Congress, this was a miserable time in Washington's life. One wonders what he would have done had he known going into it that the war would last seven years.
Once the war concluded, most of the senior officers in the Army wanted to march against the Congress, demanding back pay that had been repeatedly promised to them. While they had a right to be incensed with Congress' poor performance and lack of accountability, had this cabal succeeded, this very well could have destroyed the country just when it was trying to move out of its embryonic stage. Only Washington, with his clarity of vision and understanding of the consequences of such a rash and irreparable action, was able to keep this from occurring. If anyone needed an example to point to show that Washington was held in tremendous respect by his fellow Americans, this would be it. Washington may have been the only person that could have kept this short-sighted move from happening.
Flexner concludes with a thoughtful analysis on Washington's military career and how he interacted with his men and with Congress. While the analysis is insightful, especially focusing on how Washington conducted himself as General and how he was always learning, always trying to improve, it ran a bit long for me. Partially this is because most of what Flexner writes at the end has already appeared throughout the book. He strives to create a fair portrait of Washington, neither making excuses for his flaws nor giving him undue credit. Flexner also contrasts the facts about what Washington did with the myths that have grown up around his stewardship of the Continental Army. While I personally liked Volume I more than this one, that is not a criticism. Military history is not as much of an interest for me as political or social history. This is a very well-written and engaging book, and it would be difficult to come away from this not having a firm grasp on Washington's character and personality.
Grade: B+
Washington's resume, while solid, did not alone support him being placed in top command. Indeed, another issue he faced was the fact that many of his generals (Charles Lee, for one) believed that they were more experienced and better able to command the new army than Washington was. From a purely paper standpoint, this was probably true. Washington's record in combat was mixed. He was a Colonel in Virginia and saw action in the French and Indian War. But what tipped the scales in Washington's favor was his demeanor and comportment. Washington carried himself like a leader, like a gentleman (18th century ideas of a gentleman, anyway), and commanded by virtue of his personal magnetism. He especially needed these qualities as the first few years of the War did not go well for the rebel cause. Washington made his share of blunders (Brandywine Creek being one of the biggest), sprinkled in with some improbable victories (his Christmas Day surprise at Trenton).
As with the first volume, Flexner makes this eminently readable. He writes more as one friend telling another a story, instead of a biographer simply describing event after event in a person's life. At times, we follow Washington from day to day, even hour to hour when battles occur. Flexner does not let the narrative stray from Washington and what his actions/thoughts were (Washington, like many men of that age, was a prolific letter writer). Despite the reputation he later held as President, not everyone was a fan of Washington, and his own generals and staff caused him never-ending indigestion. Combined with the difficulty of feeding and clothing his army, trying to keep some of the men from deserting, and then being subjected to second-guessing by Congress, this was a miserable time in Washington's life. One wonders what he would have done had he known going into it that the war would last seven years.
Once the war concluded, most of the senior officers in the Army wanted to march against the Congress, demanding back pay that had been repeatedly promised to them. While they had a right to be incensed with Congress' poor performance and lack of accountability, had this cabal succeeded, this very well could have destroyed the country just when it was trying to move out of its embryonic stage. Only Washington, with his clarity of vision and understanding of the consequences of such a rash and irreparable action, was able to keep this from occurring. If anyone needed an example to point to show that Washington was held in tremendous respect by his fellow Americans, this would be it. Washington may have been the only person that could have kept this short-sighted move from happening.
Flexner concludes with a thoughtful analysis on Washington's military career and how he interacted with his men and with Congress. While the analysis is insightful, especially focusing on how Washington conducted himself as General and how he was always learning, always trying to improve, it ran a bit long for me. Partially this is because most of what Flexner writes at the end has already appeared throughout the book. He strives to create a fair portrait of Washington, neither making excuses for his flaws nor giving him undue credit. Flexner also contrasts the facts about what Washington did with the myths that have grown up around his stewardship of the Continental Army. While I personally liked Volume I more than this one, that is not a criticism. Military history is not as much of an interest for me as political or social history. This is a very well-written and engaging book, and it would be difficult to come away from this not having a firm grasp on Washington's character and personality.
Grade: B+
May 12, 2020
Quite simply, the best biography I've ever read. The author is incredibly well-versed in primary sources and directly quotes them frequently, but his writing is always engaging and charming. I know 100x more about Washington in the war than I did before, and I'm so glad I found this old gem at a thrift store.
July 7, 2017
A great look at Washington as he led the continental army in the Revolution. Very interesting to read about Washington's trials with the Continental Congress, an inexperienced army, and several plots to replace him. Also how Washington was able to learn from his mistakes and the influence of his character on those around him.
My only real complaint while reading was that it was a biography and not a history book. I have this problem frequently with biographies. I had to remind myself the book is mainly about Washington, not the Revolutionary War, so it only talks about the war from his perspective. Made me want to read another book that focuses on the broader war. Still, an excellent look at Washington's role.
I guess that wasn't my only complaint. The edition I read had several typos when it came to dates, often giving the wrong year. These were pretty easy to overlook in context, but I was surprised that there were so many of them. Not distracting enough to pull me out of the book, however.
My only real complaint while reading was that it was a biography and not a history book. I have this problem frequently with biographies. I had to remind myself the book is mainly about Washington, not the Revolutionary War, so it only talks about the war from his perspective. Made me want to read another book that focuses on the broader war. Still, an excellent look at Washington's role.
I guess that wasn't my only complaint. The edition I read had several typos when it came to dates, often giving the wrong year. These were pretty easy to overlook in context, but I was surprised that there were so many of them. Not distracting enough to pull me out of the book, however.
March 18, 2019
"Throughout that era of social upheavals which the American Revolution began and which still continues today, national leader after national leader has descried, dividing before him, alternate roads, one toward more democracy, the other to the establishment of order through the exertion of personal power. From the road to absolutism, there rises the dust of marching crowds: newly crowned kings and emperors, perpetual presidents, Duces, Fuehrers, generalissimos, protectors, party secretaries, dictators of the proletariat: they advance to band music over the prostrate body of political freedom...On the other road we find a solitary figure, in a rusty blue and buff uniform without a single medal to sparkle on his breast...Historical imperatives did not force Washington thus to retire or even to pursue the republican way. As the war with England abated and the central government seemed about to fall apart, the horses of absolutism-military coercion of the civil government-were saddled and mounted by leaders as important as Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton. Had Washington been willing to leap onto the lead horse, which had been subtly prepared for him, America would inevitably have thundered down the road to a new, more bloody civil war. The end might have been a monarchy or a dictatorship or, more probably, a scramble of mutually hostile separate nations-warring with each other where the United States came to be. Almost every other world leader when faced with such temptation has succumbed. Why did George Washington stay his hand?
This is the second installment of Flexner's four-volume biography of George Washington. It follows Washington from his appointment by the continental congress as commander in chief, up to the demobilization of troops and chaos that followed his army's victory in the American Revolution. The book isn't aimed at providing a full-scope view of the Revolutionary war, but it does a pretty good job of that, except in the Canadian and Southern campaigns. I won't belabor this review with military history, as that's not why I read it, other than to say that the author is great at making complex battles easy to follow and understand.
The revolution wasn't great to old Georgie. After the initial semi-victory at the siege of Boston, his army pretty much got pushed around the Eastern seaboard after that, with exceptions being the obvious Trenton and Princeton, Monmouth Courthouse and Germantown (to some extent). I've read some historians excoriate Washington for his abilities as a soldier, and perhaps rightfully so. But it seems to me that in his situation, with the rabble he was leading, facing a world superpower as he was, he did alright.
"Arguments on Washington's skill as a soldier are as old as the history of the United States, and extreme positions have been taken. A school which insists that he would have been ignominiously defeated by any general except the dullards the incompetent English ministry sent against him has a fantastic fringe which believes that what happened can only be explained by assuming that General Howe (as a British Whig) purposely avoided crushing Washington's army.
An intelligent comparison between Washington and the celebrated soldiers of the past is greatly impeded by a fact too often overlooked: Washington was never truly a military man. He remained to the end of the war a civilian serving half-reluctantly in uniform."
He really was reluctant to accept the command. And multiple times he called congresses bluff and told them to appoint somebody over him. Another popular trope among historians is that he had nothing to do with the siege of Yorktown. The author sets to (in his mind) debunking this myth.
"French sources, and particularly Rochambeau's own memoirs have (with amazing acceptance by historians) depicted Washington as myopic at the conference to the possibility that Cornwallis's army could be trapped...but Rochambeau kept from Washinton a fact on which the eventual successful plan basically depended. Although Washington was informed that a 'numerous' French fleet under Admiral de Grasse would operate that summer in the Indies, he was given no reason to believe that this fleet was more likely to cooperate with his own army than the same admiral's fleet of the previous year, which had never arrived.
What Rochambeau communicated to Washington was hardly encouraging...Furthermore, he carried an answer to a question Washington had sent to Barras: the Newport squadron could not be made strong enough to ferry any troops down south. That this question had to be answered refuted what Rochambeau wrote in his memoirs."
It's foolhardy to try and defend Washington as the greatest general to ever lead, but I think he was the perfect person, both militarily and politically, to lead that army at that time in that place.
"The crucial military difference (apart from levels of innate ability) between Washington and the commanders who opposed him was that they were sure they knew all the answers, while Washington tried every day and every hour to learn...This does not mean that what he taught himself would have been effective against Frederick at Prague or Napoleon at Montenotte. His strategy was a Darwinian achievement of adaptation to environment...in the transcendent sense of making a synthesis out of the totality of experience."
One of Washington's strengths in my eyes, was his ability to take the plans of actions of all his generals, weigh the pros and cons, and decide on a course of action - and never waiver once it was decided. He seems to have remained modest throughout the war.
"Had Washington been less accommodating at the start of his command, he would surely never have been allowed to reach the unrivaled power he eventually attained. Yet men have come up modestly before in history only to have modesty vanish: it is an axiom that power corrupts."
I suppose a review that doesn't address slavery wouldn't be complete, though I, by and large, think viewing 18th century morality and ethics through the lens of 21st century political correctness, and then destroying all traces of any good legacy that could possibly be left behind by a man dead for hundreds of years - is silly...there's no avoiding the fact that slavery is one of the greatest evils ever visited upon the human race. And Washington participated in that evil until the day that he died. But there were indications that his views were evolving over time:
"Mixed up in Washington's reactions to the choice between an agrarian and a business economy was the disturbing issue of Virginia's labor pattern. A moral man perpetually stating that he was fighting to preserve himself and his descendants from slavery could not help being uneasy about the slaves on his own estate...Since he had left the south to lead the army, he had come on many men who regarded the whole institution of slavery as evil: not only individuals he found personally inimical like John Adams, but such of his beloved associates as Lafayette and young Laurens. The whole matter was so disturbing that he broke out to Lund, 'I every day long more and more to get clear of' all his [slaves]."
I liked that his agrarian views on economics were evolving, too.
"The idea that prices could be regulated by law had once seemed to him a panacea and still appealed to his emotions. However, he gradually became convinced that such legislation was 'inconsistent with the very nature of things.' He came to believe that it would be like trying to stop the smallpox by making it a crime to show the symptoms."
I knew, or at least assumed, that Washington had rivals among his generals and colleagues in congress, but I guess I didn't fully understand the extent to which the "Conway Cabal" was organized in it's opposition to him. The author does a great job of laying out those events, without bias, and really sticking to factual history. It's amazing Washington outlasted several opposing generals, and not just on the British side.
I had always heard the anecdote about Washington not running for his third term of presidency, and that it was a shock to the world (including the king of England). But one thing that shocked me in reading this book was, as the opening quote eludes to, "the horses of absolutism were saddled" as the war came to an end. Upon his appointment you get the sense that the fear, more so among the radicals, was that if whoever they appointed won the war, they could very easily take that army and point it at the civil government. I suppose that's a big reason they refused, or at least fought tooth and nail, all long-term enlistments in the continental army.
He put down a coup, essentially, at the end of the war. Congress was in shambles, states were separating themselves from the body, and soldier's were becoming more and more angry and indignant due to the fact that they were owed years worth of back pay. They had just sacrificed years of their lives and, in some cases, their livelihoods back home, to win independence for the new nation - and they were not going to be compensated for any of it. The financiers joined in on this "conspiracy." It seems first they tried to get Washington to lead the insurrection. When that failed they sought another to take his place. Eventually the conspirators called a meeting of officers, in New York, to decide their next steps, which would probably involve marching on congress (as had been done even during the war by some regiments demanding pay). Washington found out about it and attended the meeting uninvited.
"The meeting was held on March 15, 1783...the conspirators were pleased to see that Washington had adhered to his resolution: he was not present. As the second in seniority, Gates would preside - and Gates was their creature. A door giving onto the dais opened. Everyone turned their heads, and then His Excellency strode out into general view...As he looked out at his command, Washington appeared 'sensibly agitated.' For the first time since he had won the heart of the army in Cambridge, Washington saw in the faces of his officers not affection, not pleasure in his being present, but resentment, embarrassment, and in some cases anger."
Washington gave a lengthy prepared speech, during which his famous "The freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter" line. He urged them not to do what they intended, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was that it would surely end in bloodshed. But it seemed his words didn't sway the men listening.
"Washington had finished his prepared speech, but the chill in the Temple had not thawed...Washington reached in his pocket and pulled out a piece of paper. This he stated, was a letter from a member of Congress that would show the officers what that body was trying to do and what the problems were...The officers stirred impatiently in their seats, and then suddenly every heart missed a beat. Something was the matter with His Excellency. He seemed unable to read the paper. He paused in bewilderment. He fumbled in his waistcoat pocket. And then he pulled out something that only his intimates had seem him wear. A pair of glasses. With infinite sweetness and melancholy, he explained, 'Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.'
This simple statement achieved what all Washington's rhetoric and all his arguments had been unable to achieve. The officers were instantly in tears...he knew the battle was won, and avoiding, with his instinctive sense of the dramatic, any anticlimax, he walked out of the hall, mounted his horse, and disappeared.
The historian may well ask what would have happened had Washington been persuaded to lead the insurrection or proved unable to suppress it. The result would certainly have been what he foresaw: bloodshed. Americans can never be adequately grateful that George Washington possessed the power and the will to intervene effectively in what may well have been the most dangerous hour the United States has ever know."
I did not know this event took place. I certainly didn't know people as influential as Hamilton and Gates were involved in it. That was eye opening, to say the least.
On the whole, through two books on the man, he's a bit of an enigma. Seen as stoic, but with a terrible temper he had to try to control. A terrible (according to some) military leader who won the Revolution. Reserved, but prone to deep abiding expressions of love for his personal friends.
"He did not even seem conscious of how powerful he was, how grievously he outdazzled those around him. All the more because it was so effortless, this dominance made enemies of men who considered themselves as good as he was, or better - or who disapproved of his opinions. And some historians, more used to contemporary patterns, have assumed that because he did not struggle for office, Washington was a clod-like puppet lifted by brute chance."
I could go on for days, I have pages and pages of things I found fascinating in this book. The most striking thing to me about the man was that when offered absolute power, at a time when his personal estate was thought to be in ruins from his eight-year absence, he fervently refused. I suppose the question will always be "why?" I don't know the answer, other than that he foresaw the logical conclusion of despotism, and always held close to his heart the reasons for which he fought the war...maybe he thought soldier's going back home without compensation, in a republic, was a better alternative to impassioned soldier's usurping power and changing the course of world history forever.
"Since Washington foresaw that the establishment of political liberty would create a better world, the cause of American freedom became, by extension, the cause of all mankind. It also took on religious significance."
This is the second installment of Flexner's four-volume biography of George Washington. It follows Washington from his appointment by the continental congress as commander in chief, up to the demobilization of troops and chaos that followed his army's victory in the American Revolution. The book isn't aimed at providing a full-scope view of the Revolutionary war, but it does a pretty good job of that, except in the Canadian and Southern campaigns. I won't belabor this review with military history, as that's not why I read it, other than to say that the author is great at making complex battles easy to follow and understand.
The revolution wasn't great to old Georgie. After the initial semi-victory at the siege of Boston, his army pretty much got pushed around the Eastern seaboard after that, with exceptions being the obvious Trenton and Princeton, Monmouth Courthouse and Germantown (to some extent). I've read some historians excoriate Washington for his abilities as a soldier, and perhaps rightfully so. But it seems to me that in his situation, with the rabble he was leading, facing a world superpower as he was, he did alright.
"Arguments on Washington's skill as a soldier are as old as the history of the United States, and extreme positions have been taken. A school which insists that he would have been ignominiously defeated by any general except the dullards the incompetent English ministry sent against him has a fantastic fringe which believes that what happened can only be explained by assuming that General Howe (as a British Whig) purposely avoided crushing Washington's army.
An intelligent comparison between Washington and the celebrated soldiers of the past is greatly impeded by a fact too often overlooked: Washington was never truly a military man. He remained to the end of the war a civilian serving half-reluctantly in uniform."
He really was reluctant to accept the command. And multiple times he called congresses bluff and told them to appoint somebody over him. Another popular trope among historians is that he had nothing to do with the siege of Yorktown. The author sets to (in his mind) debunking this myth.
"French sources, and particularly Rochambeau's own memoirs have (with amazing acceptance by historians) depicted Washington as myopic at the conference to the possibility that Cornwallis's army could be trapped...but Rochambeau kept from Washinton a fact on which the eventual successful plan basically depended. Although Washington was informed that a 'numerous' French fleet under Admiral de Grasse would operate that summer in the Indies, he was given no reason to believe that this fleet was more likely to cooperate with his own army than the same admiral's fleet of the previous year, which had never arrived.
What Rochambeau communicated to Washington was hardly encouraging...Furthermore, he carried an answer to a question Washington had sent to Barras: the Newport squadron could not be made strong enough to ferry any troops down south. That this question had to be answered refuted what Rochambeau wrote in his memoirs."
It's foolhardy to try and defend Washington as the greatest general to ever lead, but I think he was the perfect person, both militarily and politically, to lead that army at that time in that place.
"The crucial military difference (apart from levels of innate ability) between Washington and the commanders who opposed him was that they were sure they knew all the answers, while Washington tried every day and every hour to learn...This does not mean that what he taught himself would have been effective against Frederick at Prague or Napoleon at Montenotte. His strategy was a Darwinian achievement of adaptation to environment...in the transcendent sense of making a synthesis out of the totality of experience."
One of Washington's strengths in my eyes, was his ability to take the plans of actions of all his generals, weigh the pros and cons, and decide on a course of action - and never waiver once it was decided. He seems to have remained modest throughout the war.
"Had Washington been less accommodating at the start of his command, he would surely never have been allowed to reach the unrivaled power he eventually attained. Yet men have come up modestly before in history only to have modesty vanish: it is an axiom that power corrupts."
I suppose a review that doesn't address slavery wouldn't be complete, though I, by and large, think viewing 18th century morality and ethics through the lens of 21st century political correctness, and then destroying all traces of any good legacy that could possibly be left behind by a man dead for hundreds of years - is silly...there's no avoiding the fact that slavery is one of the greatest evils ever visited upon the human race. And Washington participated in that evil until the day that he died. But there were indications that his views were evolving over time:
"Mixed up in Washington's reactions to the choice between an agrarian and a business economy was the disturbing issue of Virginia's labor pattern. A moral man perpetually stating that he was fighting to preserve himself and his descendants from slavery could not help being uneasy about the slaves on his own estate...Since he had left the south to lead the army, he had come on many men who regarded the whole institution of slavery as evil: not only individuals he found personally inimical like John Adams, but such of his beloved associates as Lafayette and young Laurens. The whole matter was so disturbing that he broke out to Lund, 'I every day long more and more to get clear of' all his [slaves]."
I liked that his agrarian views on economics were evolving, too.
"The idea that prices could be regulated by law had once seemed to him a panacea and still appealed to his emotions. However, he gradually became convinced that such legislation was 'inconsistent with the very nature of things.' He came to believe that it would be like trying to stop the smallpox by making it a crime to show the symptoms."
I knew, or at least assumed, that Washington had rivals among his generals and colleagues in congress, but I guess I didn't fully understand the extent to which the "Conway Cabal" was organized in it's opposition to him. The author does a great job of laying out those events, without bias, and really sticking to factual history. It's amazing Washington outlasted several opposing generals, and not just on the British side.
I had always heard the anecdote about Washington not running for his third term of presidency, and that it was a shock to the world (including the king of England). But one thing that shocked me in reading this book was, as the opening quote eludes to, "the horses of absolutism were saddled" as the war came to an end. Upon his appointment you get the sense that the fear, more so among the radicals, was that if whoever they appointed won the war, they could very easily take that army and point it at the civil government. I suppose that's a big reason they refused, or at least fought tooth and nail, all long-term enlistments in the continental army.
He put down a coup, essentially, at the end of the war. Congress was in shambles, states were separating themselves from the body, and soldier's were becoming more and more angry and indignant due to the fact that they were owed years worth of back pay. They had just sacrificed years of their lives and, in some cases, their livelihoods back home, to win independence for the new nation - and they were not going to be compensated for any of it. The financiers joined in on this "conspiracy." It seems first they tried to get Washington to lead the insurrection. When that failed they sought another to take his place. Eventually the conspirators called a meeting of officers, in New York, to decide their next steps, which would probably involve marching on congress (as had been done even during the war by some regiments demanding pay). Washington found out about it and attended the meeting uninvited.
"The meeting was held on March 15, 1783...the conspirators were pleased to see that Washington had adhered to his resolution: he was not present. As the second in seniority, Gates would preside - and Gates was their creature. A door giving onto the dais opened. Everyone turned their heads, and then His Excellency strode out into general view...As he looked out at his command, Washington appeared 'sensibly agitated.' For the first time since he had won the heart of the army in Cambridge, Washington saw in the faces of his officers not affection, not pleasure in his being present, but resentment, embarrassment, and in some cases anger."
Washington gave a lengthy prepared speech, during which his famous "The freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter" line. He urged them not to do what they intended, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was that it would surely end in bloodshed. But it seemed his words didn't sway the men listening.
"Washington had finished his prepared speech, but the chill in the Temple had not thawed...Washington reached in his pocket and pulled out a piece of paper. This he stated, was a letter from a member of Congress that would show the officers what that body was trying to do and what the problems were...The officers stirred impatiently in their seats, and then suddenly every heart missed a beat. Something was the matter with His Excellency. He seemed unable to read the paper. He paused in bewilderment. He fumbled in his waistcoat pocket. And then he pulled out something that only his intimates had seem him wear. A pair of glasses. With infinite sweetness and melancholy, he explained, 'Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.'
This simple statement achieved what all Washington's rhetoric and all his arguments had been unable to achieve. The officers were instantly in tears...he knew the battle was won, and avoiding, with his instinctive sense of the dramatic, any anticlimax, he walked out of the hall, mounted his horse, and disappeared.
The historian may well ask what would have happened had Washington been persuaded to lead the insurrection or proved unable to suppress it. The result would certainly have been what he foresaw: bloodshed. Americans can never be adequately grateful that George Washington possessed the power and the will to intervene effectively in what may well have been the most dangerous hour the United States has ever know."
I did not know this event took place. I certainly didn't know people as influential as Hamilton and Gates were involved in it. That was eye opening, to say the least.
On the whole, through two books on the man, he's a bit of an enigma. Seen as stoic, but with a terrible temper he had to try to control. A terrible (according to some) military leader who won the Revolution. Reserved, but prone to deep abiding expressions of love for his personal friends.
"He did not even seem conscious of how powerful he was, how grievously he outdazzled those around him. All the more because it was so effortless, this dominance made enemies of men who considered themselves as good as he was, or better - or who disapproved of his opinions. And some historians, more used to contemporary patterns, have assumed that because he did not struggle for office, Washington was a clod-like puppet lifted by brute chance."
I could go on for days, I have pages and pages of things I found fascinating in this book. The most striking thing to me about the man was that when offered absolute power, at a time when his personal estate was thought to be in ruins from his eight-year absence, he fervently refused. I suppose the question will always be "why?" I don't know the answer, other than that he foresaw the logical conclusion of despotism, and always held close to his heart the reasons for which he fought the war...maybe he thought soldier's going back home without compensation, in a republic, was a better alternative to impassioned soldier's usurping power and changing the course of world history forever.
"Since Washington foresaw that the establishment of political liberty would create a better world, the cause of American freedom became, by extension, the cause of all mankind. It also took on religious significance."
September 7, 2017
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...
This is the second book in a four-volume series written by James Thomas Flexner almost 45 years ago on the life of George Washington. This volume covers the period of Washington’s life from the outset of the American Revolution in 1775 (when Washington was elected Commander of the Continental Army) to the War’s conclusion in 1783.
To praise this book as merely a successful and worthy effort by Flexner would be to understate its efficacy and impact by a wide margin. The methodical and vibrant description of Washington’s life often seems brilliantly composed (particularly in hindsight, when reflecting on a book now finished) and although a somewhat dense and detailed biography, this story seemed to flow more easily and with more vitality than the first volume.
Although this book was not designed as a primer on the American Revolution, it probably serves that purpose far better than was intended, and likely better than many books written to that purpose. More importantly, its utility as a biography on Washington’s life during the tumultuous, controversial and chaotic years of the Revolution seems difficult to exceed.
With another six or seven works on Washington yet to read (among them several which are highly anticipated), I expect none may provide quite the journey of these 550+ pages. At times, the author’s insight into Washington’s intellectual and emotional struggles was so well portrayed you were led to believe you might well have been inside the General’s head for a time.
Flexner’s work was impeccably and seemingly dispassionately researched and supported. It is an incredibly thorough compendium of not just fact, but of insight and analysis, dissecting the complicated Washington into a series of guiding principles and values. Even absent the other three volumes in this series (the final two I have yet to read), this volume seems to stand on its own completely and provides a comprehensive, vivid image of our nation’s soon-to-be first President.
Overall rating: 5 stars
This is the second book in a four-volume series written by James Thomas Flexner almost 45 years ago on the life of George Washington. This volume covers the period of Washington’s life from the outset of the American Revolution in 1775 (when Washington was elected Commander of the Continental Army) to the War’s conclusion in 1783.
To praise this book as merely a successful and worthy effort by Flexner would be to understate its efficacy and impact by a wide margin. The methodical and vibrant description of Washington’s life often seems brilliantly composed (particularly in hindsight, when reflecting on a book now finished) and although a somewhat dense and detailed biography, this story seemed to flow more easily and with more vitality than the first volume.
Although this book was not designed as a primer on the American Revolution, it probably serves that purpose far better than was intended, and likely better than many books written to that purpose. More importantly, its utility as a biography on Washington’s life during the tumultuous, controversial and chaotic years of the Revolution seems difficult to exceed.
With another six or seven works on Washington yet to read (among them several which are highly anticipated), I expect none may provide quite the journey of these 550+ pages. At times, the author’s insight into Washington’s intellectual and emotional struggles was so well portrayed you were led to believe you might well have been inside the General’s head for a time.
Flexner’s work was impeccably and seemingly dispassionately researched and supported. It is an incredibly thorough compendium of not just fact, but of insight and analysis, dissecting the complicated Washington into a series of guiding principles and values. Even absent the other three volumes in this series (the final two I have yet to read), this volume seems to stand on its own completely and provides a comprehensive, vivid image of our nation’s soon-to-be first President.
Overall rating: 5 stars
November 19, 2018
Washington's crucial years amidst the sturmundrang of the Revolutionary War come alive in Flexner's second volume of George Washington's life. While many aspects of the story are etched in America's collective historical memory: the Battle of Trenton; Washington leading a rag-tag army through the winter at Valley Forge; victory for his country, surrender of his commission - reading the story through the singular perspective of Washington's life adds a new, and dare I say more glowing, portrait of the commander-in-chief.
Flexner makes the argument that Washington's time as commander-in-chief during the war should not be so much judged by military dictates as political ones. Washington was never Napoleon-in-America; rather, he was a wiley strategist, pulling together disparate and unruly elements and forging the only continent-wide institution that withstood parochial squabbles and sectional jealousies. Washington's feat isn't military glory - after all, the only truly momentous victory comes at Yorktown, assisted by the impeccably-professional French army under Rochambeau. Rather, it is deference, determination, and muddling ahead, figuring out early on that the war wasn't to be won by conquering posts or capitals, but rather by grinding down an enemy fighting 3,000 miles away from their home island.
John Adams may have thought for America; Jefferson may have idealized and proselytized it; Franklin may have wooed its friends abroad, but Washington was the continental Revolution - he was the keystone figure holding thirteen states together, urging Congress and his soldiers towards a more perfect union, not just independence from tyranny.
While one wishes that Flexner had devoted more time to analyzing the commanders and generals on the British side, in order to better appreciate who Washington was fighting against in Howe, Clinton, and Cornwallis, the author does an admirable job of removing the myth and revealing the man of Washington in the midst of so much pain, so much suffering, and eventually, so much glory.
Flexner makes the argument that Washington's time as commander-in-chief during the war should not be so much judged by military dictates as political ones. Washington was never Napoleon-in-America; rather, he was a wiley strategist, pulling together disparate and unruly elements and forging the only continent-wide institution that withstood parochial squabbles and sectional jealousies. Washington's feat isn't military glory - after all, the only truly momentous victory comes at Yorktown, assisted by the impeccably-professional French army under Rochambeau. Rather, it is deference, determination, and muddling ahead, figuring out early on that the war wasn't to be won by conquering posts or capitals, but rather by grinding down an enemy fighting 3,000 miles away from their home island.
John Adams may have thought for America; Jefferson may have idealized and proselytized it; Franklin may have wooed its friends abroad, but Washington was the continental Revolution - he was the keystone figure holding thirteen states together, urging Congress and his soldiers towards a more perfect union, not just independence from tyranny.
While one wishes that Flexner had devoted more time to analyzing the commanders and generals on the British side, in order to better appreciate who Washington was fighting against in Howe, Clinton, and Cornwallis, the author does an admirable job of removing the myth and revealing the man of Washington in the midst of so much pain, so much suffering, and eventually, so much glory.
February 27, 2021
This is a very good book, about a most remarkable character.
As the title says, it covers the war years. (Pet peeve: I insist on calling it the War of Independence rather than the American Revolution. It wasn't a revolution. George was still king after he lost.)
In the first volume, we learned about an impetuous young man, self-important, wanting to learn the military arts from his commanders but who made grave errors. In this volume, we see how this man, more mature now, remained audacious yet operated within the limitations of his forces to defeat a professional army with a bunch of amateurs.
I couldn't help but notice that Washington taught the British a few lessons more recent American leaders should have learned about some of the wars fought in my lifetime.
As the title says, it covers the war years. (Pet peeve: I insist on calling it the War of Independence rather than the American Revolution. It wasn't a revolution. George was still king after he lost.)
In the first volume, we learned about an impetuous young man, self-important, wanting to learn the military arts from his commanders but who made grave errors. In this volume, we see how this man, more mature now, remained audacious yet operated within the limitations of his forces to defeat a professional army with a bunch of amateurs.
I couldn't help but notice that Washington taught the British a few lessons more recent American leaders should have learned about some of the wars fought in my lifetime.
December 15, 2019
This was a really special book. I know it is a classic but I am late to reading this second volume in a four volume series that covers the life of George Washington. This volume covers the entirety of the Revolutionary War - always focused on Washington. Fascinating read of both the War and Washington's experiences throughout the War. Over the many years of the War there was actually not very much fighting - Washington's truly won the War by keeping the Army together against staggering odds. Looking forward to the next in the series.
July 12, 2018
I didn’t think this book would ever end. It wasn’t bad, in fact it was quite well written. However, it went way more in depth about the American Revolution than I preferred and I stalled out halfway through it. I felt like it was more military strategy than I cared to know about. I understand the American Revolution was a critical part of George Washington’s life, but I simply would have preferred more Washington and less specific battle descriptions.
January 13, 2022
Halfway through this Washington set, I can already tell that this book is likely the best standalone volume of the series because it is so descriptive about Washington's involvement in the Revolutionary War years. If another book exists with this much detail re: this point of his life, I'd love to read it.
December 3, 2019
I read this book three times in hard cover. It is now sitting on my shelf. That tells you that I love the book. I guess it is now time to try someone elses writings on Washington and American Revolution.
May 2, 2010
This is the second book in a four book series by Flexner on George Washington. The book is well written but was hard to get through as it is filled with many facts and details. The account of George Washington in this book is definately not the same that is taught in schools. The book did not Washington down a wrung or two off his pedestal as the author had several instances during the Revolutionary War where Washington succeeded in spite of himself.
The book goes into great detail on the troubles that the Continental Congress had in raising money to pay the troops and the constant infighting and factions that were ready to dump Washington for incompetence.
The book goes into great detail on the troubles that the Continental Congress had in raising money to pay the troops and the constant infighting and factions that were ready to dump Washington for incompetence.
February 24, 2026
Volume two out of a four-volume biography, Flexner gives an impeccably researched, and densely detailed account of Washington from the time from his election as Commander-in-Chief to the end of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Released almost 60 years ago, and it is still the best biography of a man that seems today to either be exalted or destroyed.
Read
November 20, 2014This will take me a while to get through. I am very interested in it, but I will go back to it whenever I am ready to read more. :)
April 28, 2015
This is the second volume in Flexner's biography of George Washington. He did a good job of capturing and describing the conditions under which Washington led his troops to a surprising victory.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews