The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Blood of Tyrants
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
1. BLOOD OF TYRANTS ~ August 12th ~ August 18th ~~ INTRODUCTION AND CHAPTERS 1 - 3 ~ (1 - 31) No-Spoilers
Chapter Overviews and SummariesIntroduction
The Founding Fathers struggled with leadership like we do today. One man chosen for leadership was George Washington.
Washington fought as a young militia officer in the French-Indian War. Heading West, he befriended Chief Tanacharison. In Pennsylvania, they encountered French troops and thinking there was an imnent attack, they attacked the small garrison. Tanacharison killed De Jumonville, the French commander. Word came back to Europe about a massacre and it helped ignite a larger war.
Washington was not a demi-god, but a commander who struggled with real issues such as prison abuse, congressional war powers, military tribunals, and American rights. The Founders modeled the commander in chief powers of the U.S. Constitution after Washington's command during the American Revolution.
Chapter One: The No-So United States
The U.S. did not come out of the revolution in great shape. The country faced a large debt and the Articles of Confederation was not working as a model. Because of this decentralization and rising discord due to the fact that the states no longer faced a common enemy, the country was struggling.
The Founders would turn to Washington who understood in-cohesion and cohesion as he commanded the Continental Army through difficult times. People were inspired by the fact that Washington retired from the army after the war, and he was a champion of liberty.
Chapter Two: Not As happy in Peace as They Had Been Glorious in War
Washington echoed Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton's desire to pay off the large $78 million war debt. Washington himself worked to pay off his personal debts. However, Congress did not have much power to reduce the debt, but could only urge the states to pay it down. The idea of making the Federal government combine all the debt was not popular among states who paid most of their debt off.
The young country also was still vulnerable to British troops out West and Spanish influence along the Mississippi River. There was also no money for a army. Although retired at Mount Vernon, Washington kept in touch with all these events.
Chapter Three: The Shadow Government
Washington was very concerned about his country's future. The calls for a new government were building and it rose as Daniel Shays started a major protest.
In Massachusetts, the farmer, Daniel Shays, faced tough times by the recession and inflation. He was a veteran that did not get paid, either. Shays and his fellow protestors began to call for debtor and government reform. They seized courthouses and the protest became a rebellion. Governor James Bowdoin called the state militia, but this made matters worse as small battles broke out for over a year. The revolt was finally suppressed and Shays fled the state.
Washington followed this rebellion and felt the country was spiraling into anarchy. He felt a new, more effective Federal government would help, and he would be willing to come out of retirement to make it happen.
Welcome everyone:For those who are new to a book discussion on the HBC, please read message 1 carefully.
Three things to keep in mind:
1. Be civil
2. Just talk about what is in our weekly reading. If you read the whole book and want to comment, you go to to our Final Thoughts topic.
3. Please ask Mr. Beirne any questions you have throughout the process.
Here we go :-)
I have to say the biggest thing that jumps out for me in the introduction is the De Jumonville massacre. I was surprised; I didn't know this was in GW's past.What was your initial response? What are your thoughts on Washington’s initial reports following the battle? Do you think he was trying to cover up his mistake?
As a 21-year-old given more responsibility than he was likely ready for, Washington's culpability in the massacre that basically began the Seven Years War is something I've never really faulted him for. Using that story as a launching point for Beirne's book makes for compelling reading and an effective way to jump into an overall theme of actions not being in tune with the freedom of civil liberties that I'm sure we'll be seeing throughout the book. Beirne probably could have written a whole book just on that one incident or the start of the French and Indian War and it does seem as I read the first two chapters of the book that we quickly turn to the formation of government as a broader theme for the first section of the book.
Anyway, I'm impressed by the writing style and research methods that I'm reading thus far in the book.
Welcome again, Craig. Glad to see you back.Some great points. He was young and really, did not have a lot of military experience. He probably didn't have a lot of experience among the Native Americans, either. Something to consider.
It is a great way to start the book.
Bryan wrote: "I have to say the biggest thing that jumps out for me in the introduction is the De Jumonville massacre. I was surprised; I didn't know this was in GW's past.What was your initial response? Wha..."
I believe that Bernie used this encounter as a way to start his book was to really delve into Washington's experiences, reactions and their outcomes and to truly find their connections to the way he formulated and envisioned the US government. It shows how Washington would learn from experience to better his formulation of the Constitution.
Mod
Thanks, Hope. Yeah, one big advantage was that GW knew how the British thought, being in their army climate.
Yes, I agree. The introduction certainly piqued my interest and set the tone. Other sources say that de Jumonville was killed while he was sitting with Washington and was scalped by Tanacharison afterward. But regardless, Washington, a very young man probably unprepared to command, took the advice of an older warrior who had an agenda. Big mistake. But, as Mr. Beirne says on page 6, ..'the struggles were (violent, desperate, and messy). And above all, Washington did what he thought was necessary to defend his country. ' Even though it was not yet his country. And on the next page, he shows us that Washington evolved from an immature commander to a 'demigod' in an incredibly short period of time. I am looking forward to the elaboration of this theme.
On another note, I enjoyed the literary introduction to the first section of the book.
Welcome, G. I think GW reaches "demigod" status by the end of the revolution. It just shows you how immensely popular he was. During his lifetime, there was no one bigger.
I agree with the others, that the introduction does a great job of setting the tone of the book, as well as rebooting our image of Washington. He was not infallible. I think I had always imagined Washington as a larger than life person, literally and figuratively. After reading the description of his size (6 ft, 175 lbs), I realize that he is the same size as my husband. That sets a very good mental picture for me.
Washington's direct involvement in The De Jumonville massacre was a complete surprise.
I was surprised at Washington's lack of response during the attack. Given his age, inexperience and swiftness of act could all be contributing factors in explaining his passive behavior. The way Washington has always been portrayed, his lack of response was rather a surprise. Granted the attack took him off guard it seems with his personality/character he would have attempted to calm or regain control of the situation. I realize
Tanacharison was out of control but I was shocked Washington let the entire situation go from worse to horrible. Given the circumstances and Tanacharison's state of mind perhaps all Washington could do was in fact what he did do.
I do believe he was covering up, when one fails to reveal the entire truth it translates to a cover up of some sort. Obviously his withholding of details was unsuccessful and the truth was known.
I was surprised at Washington's lack of response during the attack. Given his age, inexperience and swiftness of act could all be contributing factors in explaining his passive behavior. The way Washington has always been portrayed, his lack of response was rather a surprise. Granted the attack took him off guard it seems with his personality/character he would have attempted to calm or regain control of the situation. I realize
Tanacharison was out of control but I was shocked Washington let the entire situation go from worse to horrible. Given the circumstances and Tanacharison's state of mind perhaps all Washington could do was in fact what he did do.
I do believe he was covering up, when one fails to reveal the entire truth it translates to a cover up of some sort. Obviously his withholding of details was unsuccessful and the truth was known.
Teri wrote: "I agree with the others, that the introduction does a great job of setting the tone of the book, as well as rebooting our image of Washington. He was not infallible. I think I had always imagined..."Thanks, Teri, and welcome. You get the impression that his personality is one of magnetism.
Mal wrote: "Washington's direct involvement in The De Jumonville massacre was a complete surprise. I was surprised at Washington's lack of response during the attack. Given his age, inexperience and swiftn..."
Interesting points, Mal. I think GW's incentive to put the situation into the best light as possible was high. He was building a career.
I am impressed (and thankful) at how readable this book is! What surprised me most was that the funding for the Revolutionary War was left up to the separate states, financing Washington with donations, and bickering constantly. Paying down the nation's debt seems to have been a thorny issue for our entire history.
Glad you can join us, Doreen. It is a very readable book.You do forget that this nation was founded on individual states and all their rivalries.
While I have familiar with the details of the "Jumonville Affair", the author LB provided new and interesting details on the Half King and his history with the French. Best story line of the first 3-chapters.
He was nothing if not motivated.
Bryan wrote: "I have to say the biggest thing that jumps out for me in the introduction is the De Jumonville massacre. I was surprised; I didn't know this was in GW's past.What was your initial response? Wha..."
I also really enjoyed the opening chapters and this obviously proved to be a very pivotal moment in his history. I imagine tensions were extremely high and unpredictable.
The divisions among the colonies are a very fascinating part of our history. It always brings to mind one of my very favorite reads on this subject, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard. I'll never read about the history of our country the same way again after this book. I am linking it here, not sure how to put the image on it.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Crit wrote: "While I have familiar with the details of the "Jumonville Affair", the author LB provided new and interesting details on the Half King and his history with the French. Best story line of the first..."Very true, I didn't know much about Tanacharison, but you want to learn more.
Barbm1020 wrote: "He was nothing if not motivated."Very true, war intensifies everything.
I also wanted to bring up the subject of chapter 3 - Shay's Rebellion - as obviously it was the major factor that led to a stronger federal government which again I'm assuming will be the base of much of the material Beirne covers in his book (and it even spurred the words of Thomas Jefferson which gave the author his book's title.)But as I was reading the words of George Washington that are quoted at the end of chapter three (pages 30 and 31), I was confused by some of the dates of the letters. Shay's Rebellion took place from the summer of 1786 to the summer of 1787. Yet, Washington's letter to the anti-Federalist James Warren quoted on page 31 ("descending into the vale of confusion and darkness") dates from October 7, 1785 according to the book's footnotes and really doesn't have anything to do with Shay's Rebellion, does it? There's also a quoted Washington letter to the future Secretary of War James McHenry (and namesake for Fort McHenry) on page 31 which the footnotes indicate was written on August 22, 1785 but which the text says was voiced by Washington in 1787 ("We are either a united people under one head, and for federal purposes; or we are thirteen independent sovereignties.") Again, if those words were following Shay's Rebellion, it seems like they should have been from 1787 and not 1785.
I guess the point of my nitpicking is just my questioning of whether Washington was beginning to wonder about federal power over individual liberties immediately upon retirement to Mount Vernon following the end of the American Revolution or if his thoughts really began to change following word of Shay's Rebellion?
I was actually not overly surprised by the Jumonville Affaire. I had heard of his involvement in this affair before, and have seen in different works on Washington different accounts on his involvement in the episode.I find it interesting the way we as contemporaries look back on the affaire. I think it is important that in addition to all of the things already mentioned, we focus on who Washington was in HIS world. Washington was a wealthy man from Virginia who had invested interest in the developing hostilities over the (original) western frontier. He was one of many land speculators in that time eager to buy up land in the new frontier that was soon to be so valuable.
I think the story that the "savage" native guide and his warriors perpetrating the massacre survives to us through George Washington's report, and perhaps some men under his leadership, but isnt necessarily the perfect truth. While George Washington would mature into a man uninterested in power by the end of the Revolutionary war, at this point in his life he was eager to prove himself, and advance his agenda.
I think what the shays rebellion really demonstrates is the importance not just of representative government but one that is functional as well. One of the reasons the government was so ineffective and found itself in the debt crisis that lead to the rebellion, was its lack of real power. That lack was self prescribed in an attempt to embody the ideal of the revolution and keep the government small and out of people's lives.What was obvious very fast was that without a strong central govt the expected services can't be carried out for the people.
Good point about the difference between Washington and today's leaders. The modern presidency can only be achieved by a master politician, which doesn't always equate to a great leader.
Interesting points, Jodi. Like most people, I find mythologized accounts of heroes to be very boring. Historians sometimes go to the opposite extreme and try to debunk everything good these people accomplished.So far, I think that Beirne is treading a middle path. He wants to show us that Washington is human like everyone else by starting with an incident when Washington was very young and made some very bad misjudgments.
By Chapter 3, however, we find out that Washington was universally admired, not least (as you pointed out) because he willingly relinquished power after the war.
I am trying to think of another time in our history when a current leader was so universally respected, but I can't. Anybody else?
Craig wrote: "I also wanted to bring up the subject of chapter 3 - Shay's Rebellion - as obviously it was the major factor that led to a stronger federal government which again I'm assuming will be the base of m..."I get the sense that GW progressed to more federal power over those two years, maybe Shays put it over the top. You might want to ask Beirne, it is a good question.
Hello Jodi. You make a good point that we need to get beyond a myth.
Doreen wrote: "Paying down the nation's debt seems to have been a thorny issue..."Yes, the backbone of our country was built upon basic principles such as paying the nation’s debit and Washington and other American leaders were firmly in unison on this. Logan Beirne has highlighted another historical and forgotten piece of our heritage (pg. 22-23).
I'm enjoying the discussion as much as the book!I didn't know much about Washington - other than myth! - coming in to this read, so I enjoyed the irony that the first "story" Beirne shares is of Washington, of "I cannot tell a lie" myth, telling a bit of a whopper to look good to his superiors. I was struck, as others noted above, by his youth. Then I reflected that throughout our history, many young men (and now, women) found themselves shouldering heavy wartime responsibilities of leadership. But I wonder how much training Washington was given - or was it assumed that one of the landed gentry would just be a "natural" military leader?
Another moral of that story: important to know the motives, the interests, of your "allies." Will we see this coming to the fore as the book goes on? Certainly it would be a concern Washington would have to attend to as a leader in war and in peace.
I really enjoy the readability of the book. It is clear that there has been a lot of research involved in writing the book. Beirne does a good job of simply depicting complicated events without getting distracted, such as the Jumonville affair.
Bryan wrote: "Teri wrote: "I agree with the others, that the introduction does a great job of setting the tone of the book, as well as rebooting our image of Washington. He was not infallible. I think I had al..."I am enjoying this opening very much. The author presents Washington as a real person, a young man with uncertainties and this helps to take him out of that prevalent view we all grew up with: Washington as the perfect statesman/ soldier/leader. I thinkmit is brilliant that Beirne used this earlier encounter to humanize the man a little more. It sets a good tone for the coming struggles.
It frustrates me that GW relies on one point of intel, Half King and some drunken brags to disobey orders to keep the peace and attack. (Pg 4) It reminds me of missing WMD'S and the folly of unreliable intel. A young GW who was anxious to make his military mark to a president GW Bush who was anxious to be seen as "doing something" about the events of 911. We have the added benefit of history to color our perception of his motives but what excuse do we have for recent events?
The De Jumonville Massacre was probably the best thing that could have happened to Washington. The Washington described in that event is a reckless and sporadic young man that seemed to have been almost bullied into participating in the massacre. After this event, in every book or story you hear or read, Washington is described as a man that carefully considers every thought before it is spoken. He has an almost obsessive compulsive disposition towards honor and duty. He seems to carefully craft every event in his life thereafter. It was almost as if he promised himself that he would never go into another situation unprepared. If not for the De Jumonville Massacre, he may have never had a life changing experience to make him the great general and President he would later become.
Nathan, I think you are onto something here....a life changing experience for GW and a resolution to never let that happen again....which, in my opinion is a true sign of greatness. I am trying to think of other politicians/presidents that have had similar learning experiences.....this will take awhile....
Hi Craig, you are correct - one of the most difficult parts of writing the book was putting the various elements into a coherent narrative. Things are happening all over the place at different times but I wanted to focus them into something readable. You should have seen my early drafts - they were schizophrenic! My goal here is to show that the Shays Rebellion brought to a head Washington's (ongoing) dismay about the state of the nation. The rest of the book flashes back to the war to delve into the experiences that shaped the founding generations' understanding of the words used in the Constitution. I think you will enjoy it!
Craig wrote: "I also wanted to bring up the subject of chapter 3 - Shay's Rebellion - as obviously it was the major factor that led to a stronger federal government which again I'm assuming will be the base of m..."
I have a few other books about GW but haven't read them yet . . . so this will be an interesting learning experience. When I start reading about the evolution of this country . . . I find it amazing that UNITED ever occurred at all. This is a group of individual states that had their own agendas to deal with and then are asked to deal with the costs of a war machine as well. It seems these same issues are still being repeated today as well.
I was surprised to learn how accessible GW was to the general public coming up to his house . . . and the fact that he was gracious enough to welcome them in!! You certainly would never see this in todays's world . . . you would have to deal with the Secret Service . . .
I think this is going to be an interesting read . . . Looking forward to more.
I really like how Logan brings Washington to life by sharing these first stories. We get to see Washington as a young man, a little naive perhaps about others' hidden agendas; then hear about the country's opinion of him as a Demigod when he retired, which was a strong contrast for me. I can understand how the people were shocked that he would retire instead of lead. I admire his decision to step down, relax and watch for a while.
Then, we have the story about his portrait. I looked up the portrait, and it's probably the one I've seen the most. Washington looks stiff and sort of wooden. You can tell he's not enjoying the experience. There's another contrast between the private, closed Washington In the portrait and the gracious host. And I liked the use of Shays Rebellion to show how things had come to a head for Washington - enough for him to come out of retirement. Can't wait to read what's next!
Finished First Reading of Introduction. Did not know Washington's French Indian War adventures included a massacre that precipitated the conflict.
Beeing a 21 year old officer that probably just had bought his commission (as was usual in the British army) GW had all reason to want to prove himself as a soldier. Which 21 year old beeing not very well trained, under influence of a man who hatred the French
Nathan I agree the experience definitely changed him as a man and leader. Early on in the war the prudence he learned was a real saving grace. We are spoiled in this day and age to expect corroborating sources. For Washington in the moment his preconceived notion of French aggression in the region coupled with the information from his guide (without whom his job would have been nearly impossible) would have been plenty for a confrontation.
The only reason the incident became an international issue was the slaughter of the French officer.
Reading the section what strikes me is the report written by Washington in which he seems to be playing into a coverup. Knowing the politically hostile environment they found themselves in who's to say the initial ambush didn't leave the whole French party incapacitated.
I can't help but put myself in his shoes. At 21, how would I have handled this? I would have been scared out of my mind, not wanting to make horrible mistakes and at the same time, knew that I was expected to do something. I wonder if the sight of Half King's killing and taking De Jumonville's brains in his hands was something that GW kept with him the rest of his life? Every time he made decisions, that replayed that in his mind? Just as John Adams strong support of a central government was influenced by his viewing of a mob that tarred and feathered a British tax collector.The introduction of this book definitely takes Washington off our coinage and into our understanding.
Chantal....your last sentence is exquisite!
I think all of your comments about how young he was is important. He was a newbie.Also, communications and intelligence was hard as Quinn mentions. He didn't have satellite images or a code breaker. He was out there in the woods with people he didn't know very well. I think trust plays a big role for GW after this incident.
Every time I read about the Revolutionary period, I am always amazed how tenuous the whole thing. The Americans are waging a war against a major world power with a kind of shadow of a government, no power to tax, rising debt, and squabbling states.What are your impressions of the situation among the states back then as it is today?
The states back then verged on being independent countries, and the conflict between states rights and national control was paramount throughout much of our history.But even today our states have much more power than provinces/states in other countries. Marriage rules, education requirements, criminal law, health care policies, "right to work" laws - etc. The list of areas where the states have a lot of control goes on and on.
Christopher wrote: "David wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I have to say the biggest thing that jumps out for me in the introduction is the De Jumonville massacre. I was surprised; I didn't know this was in GW's past.What was..."
Thank you for the link photo. I really enjoyed that book. One of the best American history books I've ever read.
Great to see you back, Ann.Good comment. States still have considerable power. It seems like the Founders wanted this to remain intact in many ways.
Robyn wrote: "Then, we have the story about his portrait. I looked up the portrait, and it's probably the one I've seen the most. Washington looks stiff and sort of wooden. You can tell he's not enjoying the experience."
I think this is the portrait Beirne is talking about, yes? (Sorry for size, it is the clearest I found.)
David wrote: Thank you for the link photo. I really enjoyed that book. One of the best American history books I've ever read. ..."David, feel free to use the "add book/author" found in the comment box. Put in book cover and author. We can help you along :-)
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Blood of Tyrants: George Washington & the Forging of the Presidency (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Thomas Jefferson (other topics)Logan Beirne (other topics)
For the weeks of August 12th - August 18th, we are reading the Introduction and Chapters One, Two and Three of Blood of Tyrants.
The first week's reading assignment is:
Week One - August 12 - August 18-> INTRODUCTION and Chapters ONE, TWO and THREE p. 1 - 31 - INTRODUCTION, ONE – The Not-So United States, TWO - Not As Happy in Peace as They Had Been Glorious in War, and THREE - The Shadow Government:
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book is being kicked off on August 12th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on August 12th. We offer a special thank you to Encounter for their generosity.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bryan Craig will be leading this discussion and back-up Assisting Moderators are Christopher and Jerome.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Here is the Introduction Thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Q&A with Logan
Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because author Logan Beirne will be participating and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...