George Washington: The 1st President, 1789-1797

George Washington has a deservedly iconic, larger than life, stature among Americans; and yet his own reserve and aloofness, combined with the 18th Century world in which he lived, make him difficult for most Americans today to understand. With President's Day approaching and our country in the midst of a presidential election, I wanted to revisit Washington. This biography by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn, part of the "American Presidents" series, tells a great deal in short compass about Washington and why he remains important. The study avoids the tendency to place Washington upon a pedestal, and it also avoids the more modern, and much more regrettable, tendency to deflate. Washington (1732 --1799) was born to the landed aristocracy of Virginia. He served in the French and Indian Wars (1754 -- 1758), as a delegate to the first Continental Congress, as the Commander in Chief during the American Revolution (1775- -- 1781) and as the president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (1787), among other accomplishments, before becoming the first President of the United States (1789 --1796). In the early chapters of this book, Burns and Dunn trace the character traits of Washington that fitted him for leadership, together with some of his flaws. They paint a portrait of a Washington driven by ambition and concern for his reputation, but also a person of character, intelligence, and sound judgment. More than once in his life, Washington professed himself reluctant, notwithstanding his ambition, to assume or to expand upon powers he readily could have assumed. Washington did indeed temper his ambition and drive with restraint. The central theme of this book is how Washington proceeded to set the tone of the American Presidency. The authors draw a number of valuable distinctions. The first is between the ceremonial function of the American President -- as representative of the American people and above the political fray -- and the President's political function. As a result of the respect in which he was held, Washington unified the United States under his leadership and, as the authors state, enhanced the position of the Presidency by his occupation of it rather than, as with his successors, having his own reputation enhanced by virtue of becoming the President. This was an invaluable accomplishment to perform for the new nation. The authors further distinguish between Washington as a transactional and as a transformational leader. As a transactional leader, Washington acted as an administrator in supervising the complex business of government, including the relationship of the Executive Branch with Congress and with foreign countries. As a transformational leader, Washington acted to create a strong presidency, within the limits established by the constitution, "as well as inspiring and cementing citizens' commitment to the federal government." (p. 64) The authors also two main commitments underlying Washington's

This book is part of the American Presidents series. As with all of these books, they are well wriiten and very informative about every stage of their lives not just the political. They also inlcude detail that I rarely see in other biographical books concerning the political machinations of their time.

This book is cowritten by one of my favorite authors from my college days, decades ago. James MacGregor Burns wrote a classic about presidential and congressional politics entitled "The Deadlock of Democracy." That book was about the interaction between presidential and congressional parties and how they act as checks on one another. In this book, we see the formation of our political system. Beyond what the Constitution set forth, the nature of our federal system is, in great part, defined by what Washington made of the presidency. As the first chief executive and a highly popular figure, he was in position to define the presidency for the future administrations. He could have asserted much greater power than he did and he would have been (at least initially) largely unopposed. He was in position to sieze almost monarchal power but in significant ways, he did not. For example, he set the two term custom which held until FDR was elected to a third term. Also, he often deferred to Congress. On the other hand, in both foreign affairs and financial affairs Washington utilized power when it was unclear from the Constitution, whether such power was intended. The authors point out such example as the taking of an official position of neutralitry in the conflict between Great Britain and France. The Constitution makes it clear that congress issues a declaratrion of war. However, does this also mean that a position neutrality must be declared by congress? Washington's actions made this a presidential power. Also, Washington appointed a cabinet of very able men and they, paticularly Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, consolidated significant power in the executive branch. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding a cabinet so, Washington's creation this institution set a significant precedent. In Washington's second term, an opposition party was taking form and this greatly disappointed him since he believed in consensus and felt that parties were harmful. The formation of parties was probably inevitable but Washington almost took it personally, as he hoped his leadership would lead to consensus and he saw the formation of parties as sort of a rejection. In fact, he was a great success since the actions that Washngton took set the precedents for future presidents. As the authors point out so well, "[w]hile future presidents would be respected because of the office they held, in Washington's case, the office would become respected because of the man." For that reason, Washington was a great president.

I admit I am a sucker for history, and especially American History and biographies. In the last few years there have been a plethora of books about our founding fathers, and Professor Burns and Dunn's work is right up there with the best. If there is a flaw it lies in the brevity. But the writing is sharp, almost like a well developed college lecture series, and though I have read longer, more detailed biographies of Washington, this was the most entertaining and easy to digest. I also highly recommend Professor Burns previous books on Franklin Roosevelt if you have a mind to immerse yourself in a very thorough history of a very troubled time and a very heroic, and human statesman.

This is one of the latest of the American Presidents Series of short biographies, presented by Arthur Shelesinger, Jr. I remain puzzled by the lack of strong public interest in these books while lengthier tomes make the best sellers lists. Regardless, I find these books to be an excellent complimentary resource that allow a reader to learn much more about presidents for whose name may have only have been memorized for a middle school civics class. Much has been written about Washington in the past, and he seems to be enjoying a resurgence of interest. Some of these biographies are more hagiographic than the last, while others are critical especially of his contrary views on slavery.The authors of this book, Burns & Dunn, choose to try and focus on Washington's character, and philosophy, instead of chronicling each aspect of his life. They discuss his military career up to the revolution and give short mention of his generalship. But, what they miss in the revolution, they expound on in his post-war career as the president of the Constitutional convention, and as President. They provide beliefs of his that are relevant in today's executive branch, but more as an example of his judgments that were not followed. For example, "In all situations, including emergencies, Washington demanded calm examination and `a deliberate plan.' No action, he repeated to the secretary of war, should be undertaken without absolutely reliable facts and information." (pp. 63-64). Also, Washington the southerner, not Lincoln the northerner, set the precedent for taking armed action against internal insurrection without the specific approval of the Constitution. This is an historical fact that is ignored by too many of the current population.Washington failed to live up to his famous maxims in many situations, as the book makes note, including short changing his former troops in the Ohio territory. But, what he did accomplish in defining the role of the chief executive officer is a legacy that is too much taken for granted when rating the great former presidents. This book only shows that character is a difficult judgment to make. It's like trying to define beauty or love. I was taught that there was only one perfect person in this world's history, and he was crucified.