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

[[deleted user]]

Bryan wrote: "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, inexperienc..."

I would agree that GW knew he was building a career and I feel he was also learning the game of politics. Whether dealing with international governments or different groups at home; I sometimes have to remember that Washington had to play the game well in order to succeed. In the case of the first three chapters, that may have meant covering up the true details of the massacre. He was not above politics but right smack in the middle, even if he tried to extricate himself from it. This introduction helped me place him there.

[Logan]

Jim wrote: "Washington's role in the battle is important in showing his development as an military officer and, later as a leader of his country."

Excellent points Jim! You hit the nail on the head regarding why I opened with Jumonville.

I agree about Jefferson - he was quite contradictory. The more I learned about Washington, the more I respected and admired him - for Jefferson, it was a bit of the opposite! He certainly was brilliant, but he often said one thing and did another.

I am very happy to hear you are enjoying the book and look forward to more of your thoughts.

[Logan]

Tomi wrote: "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 o..."

Thank you, Tomi. You will notice that I work in those little anecdotes whenever possible. My line editor tried to cut some out because they were not exactly on point, but I fought to keep them in there because I love them!

Washington was amazingly foresighted and knew future generations would look to him. He realized that he was a big deal! The history books often lose sight of the fact that he was an ambitious man who wanted to make his mark on history. Lincoln and other great leaders were very similar in that regard.

Thank you, I look forward to more of your thoughts. I love hearing from a former teacher.

[Bryan]

What does this quote say about GW? Tomi says arrogance. Agree?

"He was intent on protecting his pedestal in history and feared risking it by coming out of retirement. He agonized over the reputational damage should he throw his support behind government reform only to have it fail. But in the end, he was a man of action and not about to sit idly by while his beloved country unraveled." (p. 31)

[Logan]

Nathan wrote: "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 intri..."

Nathan, I very much agree.

History may not perfectly repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme. As I was researching, I was amazed by how these fundamental issues of morality, government, and human rights crop up again and again. Stay tuned for some more (almost eerie) parallels to today!

[Ann D]

I did not think arrogance at all when I read this. Many great men have worried about their place in history. Washington deserves his, and it is to his great credit that he returned to public service in spite of his personal inclinations.

[Todd]

Logan,

Thanks so much for writing this book. You've done a great job of writing history in a way that flows well and keeps you entrenched. It took some self control to set the book down after the first three chapters.

One thing that's really interesting to me about Washington is the side of him that was the reluctant politician. You talked about how he'd already proven himself in the war, but something that endeared him even more to people all over the country was the fact that he backed away into retirement, even when some people thought that he could make himself king. His willingness to give it all up gave the whole country the chance to be unified behind him.

A question I have, is in today's society, do you think there is even room for the reluctant politician? Is there room for the man who resists power, or is power swallowed up by the men who want it most?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Todd, tremendous post and comment.

[Todd]

Sorry about that. I've got it posted in the Q&A thread now.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Thanks so much Todd

[Tomi]

I read GW as arrogant because in his public persona he was stiff and very formal...notice his attitude when sitting for his portrait with Stuart. There are some other indications that show up during his presidency, which I won't mention because I don't know if Logan includes them - since I'm not supposed to read ahead, darn it!

In my mind, it is arrogance when a person worries about how history will perceive him as a leader - seems to me that if you do what is right, you shouldn't worry about that...but the fact that he was willing to return to politics (even if the republican "experiment" was a failure, which would have had a disastrous impact on his legacy) tempers what I see as arrogance.

[John]

Everyone needs to remember that as much as events and issues may correspond to events and issues of today, the mindset and attitudes were very much different. Washington's arrogance may be off putting today, but remember that he was well aware of the many eyes around the country and the world that were on him and the new nation. His comment to Stuart is as much a statement on who he was and had to be in the public, as it was a statement to Stuart to just get the job done.
Think of the issue regarding Adam's wrongheaded attempt to legislate how the President should be addressed- "Your most excellent", your high honor, etc, etc. Washington's own direction and stance- "Mr. President" and nothing else. He was well aware that he had to straddle the line between not being a monarch and of the people, but also how he must comport himself- the dignity of the office that had to be put in place so that, as the Genet affair would demonstrate, the office would command respect long after he was gone. Logan's section on dealing with the Cincinnati and going to the Convention I think shows some of this. For GW his reputation, and indeed back then for any person in public office or trying to deal in large affairs, was currency - it was everything. And anything attached to it was very important. It wasn't just for the sake of posterity- it was for current day matters as well.

[Ann D]

Well said, John. In this day and age, many politicians do not worry about their reputations nearly enough. :-)

[Logan]

Ann wrote: "I did not think arrogance at all when I read this. Many great men have worried about their place in history. Washington deserves his, and it is to his great credit that he returned to public servic..."

I agree Ann and John, Washington was enforcing proper decorum. Today we are said to "elect the candidate with which we would most like to have a beer." But Washington did not think that way. To him, there was a proper way to act in public that brought dignity to his office.

He was not one to look down on people (he was quite respectful to others), but certainly expected to be treated with the utmost respect himself.

Tomi, I definitely see your point. Washington was very much concerned with how posterity would view him. Was that due to vanity? Perhaps somewhat (he was human after all) but I think it was largely due to the fact that he knew he was setting precedents that would define his nation for generations to come. He wanted to set a good example!

[Logan]

Excellent question Todd and thank you very much for your kind words. They made my day!

I placed an answer to you question in the Q&A thread.

Todd wrote: "Logan,

Thanks so much for writing this book. You've done a great job of writing history in a way that flows well and keeps you entrenched. It took some self control to set the book down after the..."

[John]

Excellent point Logan! I agree - GW was definitely aware of the precedents being set by all of them and how much the survival of the new nation would, in part, depend upon the strength, reputation and ability of the new government to stand on its own. Much in the way the survival and success of continuing the war didn't always necessitate on winning all battles, as much as it did having a viable army surviving in the field, able to fight again.
When in office, it wasn't just the states and people they were concerned with- GW was very wary of aligning the nation with any particular nation - not to tie the fate of the nation to the successes or failures of another, but rather strengthen our own nation and chart our own course.


Logan wrote: " Washington was very much concerned with how posterity would view him. Was that due to vanity? Perhaps somewhat (he was human after all) but I think it was largely due to the fact that he knew he was setting precedents that would define his nation for generations to come. He wanted to set a good example! "

[Bryan]

You wonder how much pressure these guys were under. It is not everyday you build a country. Could this be misread for arrogance?

[G]

Was it arrogance or the aloofness needed to lead? Perhaps he learned something from the de Jumonville affair. Perhaps he learned not to trust, and so had to keep himself removed, rather than being a 'buddy' or a pal.

[Tomi]

Regarding the ownership of slaves and how that is possible in a nation that supposedly valued liberty so much, I have been reading an essay by Ned C. Landsman, "Liberty, Province, and Empire." He says that the concept of liberty wasn't quite our modern definition, which equates liberty with freedom for all. T the colonial world, liberty mention freedom from undue governmental regulation and was "the property of citizens..." Since slaves were not citizens, the idea of granting them liberty would not have been a common idea. Liberty mention the ability to take part in civic life more than it meant true freedom for everyone. A prosperous nation required a free market economy; GW believed that his slaves were essential to his prosperity. He could not contribute to the well-being of the nation without his own economic prosperity, so, in order to promote the idea of liberty, he had to keep his slaves.
Ned C. Landsman (no photo)

[Bryan]

G wrote: "Was it arrogance or the aloofness needed to lead? Perhaps he learned something from the de Jumonville affair. Perhaps he learned not to trust, and so had to keep himself removed, rather than being ..."

Interesting, G. I haven't thought about it in that way.

[Bryan]

I think we talked a little about this already, but Logan posed an interesting question to me that I think is worth another round:

When you learned about George Washington in school, did he seem like a real man to you?

[Phillip]

Bryan wrote: "G wrote: "Was it arrogance or the aloofness needed to lead? Perhaps he learned something from the de Jumonville affair. Perhaps he learned not to trust, and so had to keep himself removed, rather t..."

Bryan wrote: "G wrote: "Was it arrogance or the aloofness needed to lead? Perhaps he learned something from the de Jumonville affair. Perhaps he learned not to trust, and so had to keep himself removed, rather t..."

There was a different sort of arrogance alluded to in the painting of his portrait. It seems a strectch to draw so many conclusions from the fragments of the first 3 chapters. We live in revolutionary times and examples of what could have happened abound. I wonder if any revoltion along the lines that birthed this country could survive the centripetal effects of modern communications technology.

[Bryan]

Interesting, Phillip. I think it would be a very different war in these modern times. The differences are many, maybe hard to list, lol.

[[deleted user]]

I finally found a chance to read some of this book, and I must say, I'm highly impressed thus far. Washington has always been portrayed in such a demigod status, and I've never particularly enjoyed reading certain political and/or militaristic biographies because of this fact (I lean more towards the biographies of his family members, since it delves deeper into Washington's human characteristics). However, this book instantly starts painting a more realistic image in my mind; a nervous, desperate to please, young Washington, who, as I've read, might have been a bit arrogant, but was really just trying to do things appropriate for the time period. I think I've come to respect him more, just from the first two chapters I've read, and I cannot wait to finis the third later tonight!

[Bryan]

Great, Hannah, I think a more human GW does come out.

[Logan]

Hannah wrote: "I finally found a chance to read some of this book, and I must say, I'm highly impressed thus far. Washington has always been portrayed in such a demigod status, and I've never particularly enjoyed..."

Thank you, Hannah! I think you are going to enjoy learning about the human side of Washington and the other founders as we go.

Christopher summed up my intentions precisely when he said in a PM, "I think it's important to break down some of the myths and expose the real person beneath the surface so we can understand superheroes don't change the world but real people with their own foibles and doubts who, through tremendous energy, skill, and luck achieve momentous things."

[Robyn]

The best history teacher I've ever had was my first college history professor. He taught American history and he really made the people and events come alive by talking about not just what was going on, but what people knew about it and how they felt about it. He made the historical figures into real people with drives, faults, bad decisions, lucky good decisions (sometimes) and taught us about why they made the choices they made. It really made history come alive for me and I loved that class even though it wasn't in my major. I really appreciate the 3-D view we've gotten about Washington in just 3 chapters and the intro. I'm also really enjoying the discussion and I think I'm hooked on this book club Can I please read some more now?

Thanks Logan. I'm really enjoying the book.

[Bryan]

Great Robyn. I had some great profs too. History is more complex.

[Chantal]

At the end of Chapter Three, it's as if you can hear Washington say 'I'll be damned if the country I fought to create will be destroyed by the country that was created!' There's a parallel I can find in this, some sort of understanding..even though this is a southern Gentilly plantation owner aristocrat from the 1700's. A disparage to get into the thick of things but a deeper resolve to set them aright.

[Bryan]

Well said Chantal

[Lily]

I am enjoying this book so much. Washington has always been deified in our nation and it is intriguing to see him as more man here than god. as I read about Shays Rebellion in this chapter it really does put me in mind of recent events such as Occupy Wall street and the foreclosure crisis of the past few years. I was surprised to find that the early rev government was actually that steeply in debt after the war. I knew that on a vague level as most history texts give brief mention of it, but Logan's precise amounts listed were shocking, and the resultant foreclosures that resulted afterward. Banking crisis.... in post rev America...really quite astounding. I am curious to learn if the U.S. govt ever got iut from that early debt load of some 54 million, or has it been rolled up and rolled over in different loans and deals as wevdo today? Just wondering. All in all, I am loving this book, learning a lot as a post college history major. Thanks Logan, it is hard not to read ahead ....

[Steve D]

Lily wrote: "as I read about Shays Rebellion in this chapter it really does put me in mind of recent events such as Occupy Wall street and the foreclosure crisis of the past few years. ."

Shays' rebellion seemed to be the result of just pure desperation on the part of the farmers. These were veterans who had not received their promised pay from the war. Then, with the crumbling value of the currency, and the government's total inability to do anything to generate the funds to pay them, the farmers started losing their land to their creditors. Can you imagine the frustration and anger? It's almost admirable that they stayed peaceful for as long as they did.

[Logan]

Lily wrote: "I am enjoying this book so much. Washington has always been deified in our nation and it is intriguing to see him as more man here than god. as I read about Shays Rebellion in this chapter it reall..."

Thank you Lily! I hope you keep enjoying it! I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts as you go.

The US started paying down the debt but then the War of 1812 sent it back up again. The country has continuously held public debt except for about a year in 1835-1836. It jumped up again during the Civil War, then Depression, WWI, and skyrocketed in WWII.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, historical data from 1790 to 2009, with projections until 2035


Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, historical data from 1790 to 2009, with projections until 2035. The extended-baseline scenario adheres closely to current law, following CBO’s 10-year baseline budget projections through 2020 (with adjustments for the recently enacted health care legislation) and then extending the baseline concept for the rest of the long-term projection period. The alternative fiscal scenario incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions that might be difficult to sustain for a long period

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Figure 1 of "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis", July 27 2010.

[Logan]

Robyn wrote: "The best history teacher I've ever had was my first college history professor. He taught American history and he really made the people and events come alive by talking about not just what was goin..."

My pleasure Robyn! I had some lackluster history teachers in high school and it led me to believe that history war dry and dead. I wrote this book to show just how alive it is and relevant to modern debate. These we incredible individuals facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles. But they triumphed. He have much to learn from their (fascinating - and often juicy) stories.

[Kelby]

I finished the Introduction and sat here for a moment. First thought was...."I didn't know that about Washington!" My elementary school mind was just flipped upside down....and this was the first few pages.

I'm joining the discussion a little late this week...but I wanted to bring out something that stood out really strong to me.

Quote : In fact, his self-imposed exile from politics stunned the world. After the war, his popularity was at such height and his hold on military so ironclad that some expected him to pronounce himself kind of the United States


Not many people in this country or the world today would take such a strong action and remove themselves out of politics when they knew they could have it all. Just in my opinion, I believe he knew that the best thing to do at the time was remove him from the politics on the nation to give it a change to flourish on its own. We know today that it wasn't all roses...and eventually he would have to put the kids (states) in timeout. :)

[Bryan]

Glad you joined us Kelby. GW's act that you cite really cemented his legacy. Amazing, very few leaders would do it. Napoleon sure didn't and that was in the near future.

[Sarah]

I know I am a little behind, but I am thoroughly enjoying this book. I must say it continues to pique my curiosity to learn more about certain events, especially the De Jumonville massacre, the Shay rebellion and national debt throughout our history. I think that is a sign of a great, thought-provoking book.

As for Washington worrying about his legacy, who doesn't have that concern in some form? Politicians, military leaders, even simple me thinks of wanting to leave behind something positive or for the good of society. What's even more important (amazing) is that he still did the right thing regardless.

I agree with Teri's point about how our society has changed from the "like-minded group" of Washington's time to the "melting-pot" of today and how our country has changed, or maybe how it has not changed to address that. I wouldn't mind exploring that issue a little further.

I appreciate that the topics in the book are so relevant to politics today and look forward to reading more.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Welcome Sarah - and thank you for joining the conversation - it is never too late to jump in and we are glad that you are enjoying the book.

You are so right - everybody worries what their legacy will be. You raise some interesting questions about how our society has changed or not. Something obviously to explore further as you read.

Glad you have joined us.

[Roslyn]

I am thoroughly enjoying the book so far. Like many of you my education about George Washington was somewhat lacking and just covered the basics. I was never exposed to his early years as a young soldier and certainly never really thought about the time he spent in "early retirement" ... this book is certainly giving us a glimpse into George Washington, the person, and not just the general and President. On a more social note, I really enjoyed reading about how people would just show up at his home and seemingly expect to have dinner with him and his family! It just shows that we've been a nation of celebrity worshippers for a long time!

[Hope]

I quite enjoy reading this book because of the way information is presented as stories. I always enjoy it when history books read like this. I was particularly interested in the story about the portrait artist,Gilbert Stuart and his encounter with Washington. It truly showed Washington as a person by telling of his dislike of "strangers' attempts at familiarity". I could only imagine the tense feelings between the two men as the portrait was being done. And to think that this portrait is the one that most people think of when they think of Washington.

[Evin]

I finally received my copy in the mail yesterday (ordered it from Amazon) and am playing catch-up. Hope to contribute to the most recent discussions very soon. I'm just finishing the first chapter and so far, a great read. I admittedly do not know much about Washington and was really surprised to find out that although he seemed to be in favor of abolition, he still not only owned many slaves, but refused to grand them freedom (until his death per his will). Interesting....

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I think you will love the book - all of the other participants do and the author is with us on the discussion and there is a Q&A thread where you can ask him questions. So enjoy.

Yes, GW was an enigma - didn't I guess want to do the work himself at Mount Vernon. It is interesting how even great men rationalized this away when it came to their own slaves. Jefferson was also no exception.

Thomas Jefferson

[Bryan]

I agree Libby

[Logan]

Evin wrote: "I finally received my copy in the mail yesterday (ordered it from Amazon) and am playing catch-up. Hope to contribute to the most recent discussions very soon. I'm just finishing the first chapter ..."

Welcome Evin. Thank you and please let me know if I might help you catch up. I hear it is a fast read (which is what I was shooting for!).

[Bryan]

I'm glad you like it Libby. I agree that there are unique ways to write a book and it is a good break to see thematic structure like this.

[Jerome, Assisting Moderator - Upcoming Books and Releases]

I know everyone's been contributing heavily to the discussion here, but allow me to ask a relatively basic question:

What do you already know about the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the Constitution? Do you think this history any bearing on today?

[David]

I thought the book started off well with a brief synopsis into Washington's pre-Revolution military career (though it was anything but successful). The Jumonville incident certainly illustrates a less than pleasant characterization of Washington's early military career. He was willing to take any chances to further himself in the eyes of his peers and superiors in an age when duty and glory were paramount. It showed that even someone as successful and idolized as him walked on shaky ground and could make mistakes. It was also interesting to see the mention of veterans and how they felt they were being neglected by the government they had fought to give birth to and served to protect. One can certainly draw modern-day comparisons with the issues today's veterans are having securing the benefits they deserve and the bureaucratic red tape they have to fight through with the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to the claims backlog.

[Bryan]

Good point on the vets. I did not pick this up. So true how vets were treated over time.