1. BLOOD OF TYRANTS ~ August 12th ~ August 18th ~~ INTRODUCTION AND CHAPTERS 1 - 3 ~ (1 - 31) No-Spoilers

[Logan]

Chantal - Thank you, I want to use your line! "The introduction of this book definitely takes Washington off our coinage and into our understanding"

Chantal wrote: "The introduction of this book definitely takes Washington off our coinage and into our understanding."

[Logan]

Thank you, G, I am happy you enjoyed it. You make an excellent point - these accounts have so many conflicting nuances. You know how they say, "there are two sides to every story" - well, for stories like Jumonville, there are ten sides! It was quite fun going through them all and presenting the account with the most support/likelihood of accuracy.

G wrote: "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 a..."

[Logan]

Thank you Robyn! This is exactly how I hoped you would feel while reading the opening. Too often history is buried in dry tomes but I am passionate about this era and want to bring them to life for everyone to enjoy.

Robyn wrote: "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..."

[Logan]

Thank you Doreen - this makes my day!

And isn't it amazing how they faced these fundamental issues that mirror today's?

History may not exactly repeat itself - but it definitely does rhyme.

Doreen wrote: "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 dona..."

[Bryan]

Thanks Logan for your great comments so far.

[John]

Bryan wrote: "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 bre..."

Excellent point Bryan. One thing also, that several of Washington's biographers have pointed out, is Washington's admiration and almost idolization of his older half-brother Lawrence. Lawrence was more of a father figure to George, as their father died when he was about 11. As a young man, George looked to Lawrence as a model. (Side note: Mount Vernon was originally Lawrence's home, whom he named after his own commanding officer, Admiral Edward Vernon.) Part of the motivation for George to distinguish himself as an officer in the first place was to prove himself and partly emulate his brother whom he viewed as honorable and heroic. Lt. Gov. Dinwiddie appointed George to Lawrence's post as adjutant general of the Virginia militia when Lawrence died in 1752. Washington was definitely eager to prove himself and to move forward as an officer. He was young, he was impetuous and he was determined to be a good officer and fulfill the wishes of a Lt. Gov. that he at this time respected, and to honor the legacy of his mentor and brother.

Also his trusting of the half-king was not unusual in his position- he was well known and fairly reliable, so Washington trusted him. I'm sure he was completely caught off guard and not ready for the shock of the Half-King's men's massacre of the prisoners. To Washington, for all of his life, one comported himself as a gentleman. His youth and inexperience and shock led to a mismanagement of the affair- and the Half-King exploited this for his own end.

Washington was a young man not fully in possession of himself yet or fully trusting in his own instincts and asserting his personality - all of which would serve him well as a leader later on. I think Logan brings this out well in the Introduction and I think he does a great job in letting it stand as a contrast to the later Washington, who has learned lessons the hard way, grown wiser and more sure of himself and his instincts and own judgment.

[Teri]

I agree, Ann. I do think, though, that there is a vast difference in what was controlled by the states back then compared to today. My impression has always been that the states then were settled, largely, by like minded people whether it was large families settling in an area, a large religious community, or ethnic group. The laws set for these states were for those like minded group.

Now we have become such a melting pot society that it seems to blur the lines where the federal government should/shouldn't be the decider over the states. So, at what point should the federal government step in and set the rule? At what point should individual states set the rule? In GW's time, we had a large population of Europeans farming with large working plantations in southern states, and more diverse ethnic groups in the northern states with the beginning of urban areas and trade. Laws and states rights were understandably different.

I am hoping we will see, in the coming chapters, whether GW and our forefathers anticipated the nation changing over time, and the possible need for the federal government to take on more responsibility. This is that what we saw with Shay's Rebellion. It was time for a unified federal presence, but to what extent?

Ann wrote: "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..."

[Ann D]

You're right, Terri. The states were much more powerful then.

Still, I think it's interesting that the power of the federal government vs. the states is still an issue even now. I thought of it again today when I heard a discussion of the new voter-id requirements recently passed in North Carolina. Does it make any sense to have so many different rules? (I do understand the motivation in passing these laws. I only question the logic)

The Articles of Confederation were good experience for Americans in proving the value of a stronger federal government. The existing arrangement was just not working out.

[Bryan]

John wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Excellent point Bryan. One thing also, that several of Washington's biographers have pointed out, is Washington's admiration and almost idolization of his older half-brother Lawrence. Lawrence was more of a father figure to George, as their father died when he was about 11. As a young man, George looked to Lawrence as a model..."

Good point, John, it makes sense GW wanted to impress Lawrence. Age does make a difference, too.

[Bryan]

Teri wrote: "I agree, Ann. I do think, though, that there is a vast difference in what was controlled by the states back then compared to today. My impression has always been that the states then were settled..."

Interesting comment, Teri. America was less of a melting pot as it is today and that might help.

Shays Rebellion helped crystallize a growing chorus of reforms of the Articles of Confederation going on for years.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

For sure - it just did not take into account things that a country needs - a means to defend itself, infrastructure costs, who comes to a state's defense and the list goes on, no power to tax, no regulation of foreign or interstate commerce, each state had only one vote no matter of size, there was no way to enforce anything and there was no national court to do any judging and there was no way to gather a military force to put down any rebellions. Quite the wild west atmosphere.

[Chantal]

Doreen wrote: "Chantal....your last sentence is exquisite!"

What a compliment! Thank you!

[Doreen]

Bentley ....aren't we still in the Wild West ? We have elected officials (Cruz, Lee,Rubio), talking seriously about shutting down the Government of the United States to defund a bill they don't agree with....(Obamacare). This probably isn't the right place to bring up this issue....help me out, where do I go?

[Chantal]

Logan wrote: "Chantal - Thank you, I want to use your line! "The introduction of this book definitely takes Washington off our coinage and into our understanding"

Now, I'm just blushing. Thank you! Use it anyway you see fit.

[Doreen]

Chantal...even Logan Bierne wants to use your sentence....well done!

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Doreen wrote: "Bentley ....aren't we still in the Wild West ? We have elected officials (Cruz, Lee,Rubio), talking seriously about shutting down the Government of the United States to defund a bill they don't ag..."

You can always go to the Coffee, Tea or Me thread but it is OK here - I guess everybody has to decide how they feel about Healthcare - frankly we are sadly behind everybody else. It is all politics but what was different in Washington's day was that things were not always just about politics. They wanted to unite for the common good and see other's points of view. And that is where Washington comes back into the equation and also the discussion of the Articles of Confederation. Imagine trying to do what the founding fathers did in ratifying the Constitution?

[Doreen]

Do you think we will ever get back to the point of uniting for the common good? Have we passed that point of no return?

[Doreen]

Christopher...thank you, I will move over to the current events folder. Some of us who found our voice in the 60's, have never been able to shut up. I rant and rave about everything these days....just another old eccentric. But I cannot stay silent.

[Jason]

Bryan wrote: "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? "

My initial response was shock, that GW could do anything wrong. I was very surprised reading this section. I do totally believe that he was covering things up.

To me this was even more important: Ponder this. The Jumonville Affair sparked the 7 years war, THEN Britain taxes the colonies because they are in debt from the 7 years war, these taxes lead to the revolution. So does that mean that GW caused the revolution?

[Jason]

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..."

GW's looks were surprising to me. My only mental picture of him was that on the dollar bill, which the author goes into detail about, saying mostly its not the best depiction of GW. And he didn't look like that at all when he was younger. I never thought of George Washington as a red-brown haired six foot 21 year old, that made mistakes, even good looking: “exuded such masculine power as frightens young women”. As Nathaniel Hawthorne is quoted joking Washington was born “…with his hair on, and his hair powdered…” Thats how I think of him.

[Jason]

Chantal wrote: "The introduction of this book definitely takes Washington off our coinage and into our understanding. "

I agree with Doreen, this should go on the book cover!

[Logan]

What an interesting point Jason - in a way, Washington did set everything in motion!

Jason wrote: "The Jumonville Affair sparked the 7 years war, THEN Britain taxes the colonies because they are in debt from the 7 years war, these taxes lead to the revolution. So does that mean that GW caused the revolution"

[Logan]

Ann, I very much agree. I have tremendous respect for these founders and am not trying to knock them down at all. I feel that by showing them as real people facing amazing obstacles (some of which we still face today), it makes them even more impressive!

Ann wrote: "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..."

[Jason]

So far, I'm loving this book. This is the most readable history book I have read in years. A big thank you to Mr. Beirne for that!

First, it is an eye-opening account of a man that is seen as the leader/founder of our country, but also a man that history (as the author points out) sees as a "semi-omniscient demigod who was so unlike us that he never struggled to find his way." He was a superhero. With no faults. The man put superman and batman to shame. “…any attack against the great man was considered unpatriotic.”

Then BOOM! he totally blows the Jumonville Affair and then LIES about it in his reports.

The story of Gilbert Stuart's unflattering depiction of the man further made GW a real person to me. The fact that this picture is the one that history will remember him as is truly unfortunate and further solidifies history's belief that he was a kind of demigod.

One question for everyone, how has the first three chapters changed your perception of GW?

And two cans-of-worms to open since no one has touched this yet:

1. The man (or superhero) was a slave owner, and while he did give them up in his will he was unwilling to do so in life. What do we know about GW the slave owner and does that change his superhero status or was slave owning status-quo then, so no biggie?

2. As Mr. Beirne points out there are striking similarities between our nation now and our fledgling nation back in GW's time. Yet we have no superheroes now, unless anyone would like to nominate one? How long until someone takes up Shays' cause is and shouting “True Liberty and Justice may require resistance to law” in our current time?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Jason, owning slaves though repugnant to us was commonplace both in the North and the South and pretty much everywhere. And the folks during this time period had a mindset which did not make them racists or anything else. They were good men and women who really believed that African Americans were of another race and had limited capabilities (and that is appalling today as it should be). Even by the time of the Civil War - scientists were promoting theories that would appall people today and these were our most learned scientists, philosophers, etc. So he is still a hero and did a lot for our country though human and part of society and its mores at the time - you cannot judge these folks like Jefferson, Washington or even Jackson by today's standards even though that happens all of the time.

It is hard to have even iconic or revered figures because the media and entertainment news try to tear down anybody who has achieved anything - whether it be a general (McKrystal, Petraeus, Macarthur, Patton, Billy Martin) or any of our Presidents or other iconic figures. It makes no difference - these folks are sifting through people's garbage and with telephoto lens taking pictures of folks in their private settings or worse. I certainly hope that we do not have vigilantes taking over our streets and buildings but with the lack of respect and civility who knows how far folks will push the envelope. By the way, this would be very unfortunate.

[Craig]

I'm really trying to read this book per the weekly syllabus so I don't know if Beirne ever touches the subject of slave ownership by Washington in the book or not (knowing the subject matter of the book, however, my guess is it isn't really covered.)

The subject of slave ownership, however, was something that would obviously divide the United States for most of its first 100 years and could have destroyed the Constitutional Convention had Washington's leadership not kept the Founding Fathers together in their joint effort to develop a new Government. But the reality is that Washington was one of the largest slave-owners in Virginia and actually brought three slaves with him to Philadelphia to the Convention. The reality is that 10 of the first 12 American Presidents earned slaves so I'm not sure if slave ownership pre-Civil War is something that historians should judge when looking at qualities of American leadership.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Craig, he probably doesn't.

However, within the Constitution and the attitudes when the Articles of Confederation were signed certainly referenced differences. It is OK to expound a bit but not be expansive if that is what you are talking about Craig. The moderators will keep things in check - no need for you to worry about it. I think everybody is on top of things.

And you are correct - the point I was making to Jason in answer to his question. I could not agree more - slavery was a way of life which was not just in the South and the number of Presidents who owned slaved was astounding.

And now back to Washington and let us not go further adrift - and Jason - great thoughts but there are other threads which are spoiler threads for expansive discussions beyond the posts above. This one is not one of them.

[Phillip]

It is easy to forget how different distance was perceived in the late 1700's. It seems more natural that the states would devolve into independent countries than a cohesive union.

[Phillip]

Read Chapter 1 tonight. OK so Washington owned slaves. Seems he was a touch of an arrogant bastard too.

[Quinn]

Jason I think the beginning of the book was designed to get us questioning our basic assumptions. The Washington who's only wrong was chopping down a cherry tree is a fiction. The building up of the founders of a nation ha a very specific purpose in modern nationalism.

In this work as we grapple with modern issues of torture warfare and other difficult issues, Logan is opening us to the ideas of Washington as a man in a world just as imperfect as our own.

I think it's important to remember that while he enjoyed popularity I'm his time he also had his opponents. Especially by the end of his presidency the critics were rather loud. The passage of time can shine the light of heroism on people who in their own time were divisive and imperfect.

As for the slavery issue as has been mentioned it was a sign of wealth for the landed gentry in his time, and his position of leadership would be improbable without it. Hence why so many in the congress were slave owners.

For me the way I see Washington has changed over the years as I've learned more to humanize him, but I continue to regard him highly and appreciate all he did.

[Craig]

Phillip wrote: "Read Chapter 1 tonight. OK so Washington owned slaves. Seems he was a touch of an arrogant bastard too."

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'arrogant'. Confident certainly, perhaps even with aristocratic aspirations. But his self-control was legendary making the times he lost his temper even more memorable. And some of those attributes are what made him such an effective leader and commander-in-chief as he matured. Remember, the Washington in the preface and Chapter 1 is just 21 years old and no 21-year-old is the same person that they are at the age when Washington led the Continental Army or later as President in his mid 40s to mid 60s.

I don't know how much the book will get into the relationship between George and Martha Washington, but I believe she is owed a tremendous credit in the creation of his image as well.

[Bryan]

Great comments, everyone. Thanks for a lively discussion.

To recap for me, I think Beirne does a good job in showing that GW was a real person, all the Founders were. What we don't see is that there were a lot of corruption going on, just like today. Even Continental Congressmen were no angels. I think it is good to learn this. But you have to say, the brightest minds had a singular purpose: win freedom and forge a working government. It doesn't happen successfully very often.

We see in this book that GW played a major force in reaching that purpose.

Another theme to keep in mind for this book is the power of persuasion, celebrity. I am seeing a lot of parallels with GW and Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the most popular man alive since GW. He was a war hero, beloved, and hugely popular. He won two terms as president. He also was hated by many, fearing, in part, for the very reasons Congressmen were about the potential power of GW.

[Quinn]

Bryan I love the comparison with Andrew Jackson. I think one of the things that is remarkable about the American Revolution and its founding decade was the selection of GW for power. As you pointed out there were so many of the founding fathers that were capable and brilliant men, but there was clearly a realization of the necessity for popular sovereignty in the head of state.

I think Shays rebellion demonstrates how huge the potential for a counter-revolution there is in the wake of a successful revolution, and one of the great strengths of GW was that he managed to keep that from happening. I think another name you could potentially throw into the mix as a comparison is Eisenhower, and even FDR.

[G]

I wonder why the formation of this country resonates so much with us now? Is it because, while we recognize they were all flawed in one way or another, the 'Founders' still managed, created and lead and were able to transcend their personal challenges? Are we looking for a guide book to repair what is broken in government now (not the policies, the process)? I am grateful to Mr. Beirne for starting with GW's misstep. I am also grateful that we (the citizens of the USA) are looking for answers, but was the US really a representative government at that time, or was it more of a group monarchy that Shay was rebelling against?

[Bryan]

Quinn wrote: "Bryan I love the comparison with Andrew Jackson. I think one of the things that is remarkable about the American Revolution and its founding decade was the selection of GW for power. As you pointed..."

Absolutely, Quinn. We were facing a potential civil war after the Revolution. I'm beginning to see why we call GW the father of our country.

FDR and Ike, yes, I can see that, too. Good.

[Bryan]

G wrote: "I wonder why the formation of this country resonates so much with us now? Is it because, while we recognize they were all flawed in one way or another, the 'Founders' still managed, created and lea..."

Thanks, G. Many people feared monarchism at this time. The government during Shays' rebellion was the opposite: devolved power to the states. This was the problem.

I'm going to throw out another parallel, lol, excuse my mind's wanderings.

Do you think Shays was like the Bonus Marchers of the 1930s? They wanted stability and income for their service. The government reneged. Both happened at a time when the government looked shaky. The Bonus Army didn't have guns, but the government used force like Bowdoin. One difference: we had a constitution in the 1930s.

I think it must have been a very scary time.

[Ann D]

That's an interesting analogy, Brian. The forces of property and order won in both cases, as they almost always do.

[Craig]

Bryan,

I was thinking about that comparison (to the Bonus Marchers) as well. Although 150 years later we had a federal government and ill-advised federal response to those veterans looking for war payments!

[Bryan]

I think this returns us to Beirne's theme about the Founders wanting to pay off the debt. What a fiscal mess and throw in the fact that soldiers were not getting paid. Not good.

[G]

Bryan wrote: "G wrote: "I wonder why the formation of this country resonates so much with us now? Is it because, while we recognize they were all flawed in one way or another, the 'Founders' still managed, creat..."

Absolutely. The Bonus Army and Shay were looking for 'wages' due to them. With regard to the WWI vets, and it is interesting that FDR created the CCC and offered jobs to those who joined the smaller march in 1933. Ultimately, the congress paid them their wages - result of the Constitution in place, I'd say. And probably the fact that we were no longer agrarian.

[Bob]

My initial reaction to what I read in the introduction and in chapter one was that much of history has glossed over Washington's flaws (understandable) and the individuality of the States. The story about his involvement in slaughtering French soldiers side by side with American Indians was truly a shock.

But, my glorified image of the way the States worked together comes from the movie/play popular in the 1970s, 1776. The States are portrayed as antagonistic, with many differing goals. But, they did have one centralized principal they strove for - independence from Britain and unity.

The first chapter dispels the notion of unity and reminds me of what we are seeing in congress in 2013. Individual states want to handle things their own way, regardless of the centralized government. Pork in legislation appears to have been as rampant in the 18th century as it is today. But, even though the country gained independence, there was no strong desire to build a whole, rather than build its parts.

[Bryan]

Thanks Bob for those thoughtful comments.

You can see once the immediate goal of independence was achieved, the situation deteriorated. However, GW knew Britain and other European powers were still a threat.

[Katy]

The de Jumonville Massacre; I had no idea. Looking into my reading history, I can't believe it, but I have not read a biography just on Washington. Read histories on the Revolutionary War, and the founding fathers & mothers so I've some idea of what Washington was like, but this book will be a treat.

The first chapters are very readable and a nice start to the book.

[Tomi]

I am thoroughly enjoying this book - it is definitely readable. The introduction made me (almost!) wish I were still teaching, so I could share some of the anecdotes with my students. "Devourer of Villages" - what an interesting contrast to the "Father of Our Country"!

I am also struck by the parallels to today. We still struggle with federal vs. state power. Another similarity is how the rich power structure cannot (or will not) show empathy toward the everyday person. Shays and others like him were torn between obeying the nation they had fought for and caring for their own families. How different things might have been had Bowdoin (or someone like him) stepped up to address the issues of the common man...although it's probably good that things happened the way they did or the US would be completely different.

Washington comes across as being very concerned about what future generations will think of him. There is definitely a trace of arrogance about him.

[Nathan]

I think it is interesting how our modern American society views debt and deficit as a novel idea. It seems that this issue has been a problem for our country since before the founding. I am intrigued by the political undertones in the first three chapters. It allows us to view our common problems through the spectrum of our founding fathers.

We are not living in a "special" time in American history. We are dealing with the same problems that the founders had to deal with. Behind the rhetoric in our modern society, we can see these problems perpetuate throughout our nation's history.

[Phillip]

Enjoying Running Commentary on Intro and Chapters 1-3. Shay's rebels seem analogous to today's City of Detroit and other private public pensioners.

[Mark]

Jim wrote: "I have always found it ironic to see Thomas Jefferson quoted as decrying public debt - this, a man who could not live within his means at hardly any time of his life as he thrived on fine French wine and his love of books and ended up dying virtually bankrupt..."

I too find this disconnect very interesting.

[Bryan]

Kathy wrote: "The de Jumonville Massacre; I had no idea. Looking into my reading history, I can't believe it, but I have not read a biography just on Washington. Read histories on the Revolutionary War, and the ..."

Glad you could join us, Kathy.

[Bryan]

Jefferson actually supported reducing the debt for all his public life. Hamilton and Jefferson were on the same side on that. However, as Jim says so well, his private life was a mess. He did die bankrupt and his family had to sell his slaves and Monticello. Sad, indeed.

I remember Jefferson organizing his letters with the help of his family for future generations. They all knew the importance of what they were doing.

[Logan]

Bob wrote: "My initial reaction to what I read in the introduction and in chapter one was that much of history has glossed over Washington's flaws (understandable) and the individuality of the States. The stor..."

Bob, these are great insights! While researching, I was surprised by how much they never taught me in school. And then when I dug into the details, I found the history to be so much more relevant to today.

I hold tremendous respect for the founders - they truly were incredible. By learning about them as real people rather than the mythical creatures in the textbooks, I found them all the more impressive.