“Washington: a Life” - Ron Chernow

I first read Chernow’s “Hamilton” in 2008. At the time, I recall the account of Hamilton’s humble origins, his improbable, meteoric rise, his brilliant career, and the tragic life cut short, was a riveting read. When I picked up the book, I was well-acquainted with Hamilton’s legal genius - his “Federalist” papers are an oft-cited fixture of early constitutional law jurisprudence. I was also aware of the Treasury Secretary’s impetuous streak - we are, after all, taught as school children, that Hamilton’s life ended infamously, in a duel. Chernow deftly wove together Hamilton’s humble origins, autodidactic fire, fortuitous arrival in America, sometimes stormy personal relationships, and underscored the numerous spheres of influence that Hamilton transversed with his brilliance. The book was difficult to put down!

Following the release of the “Hamilton” play on tv this summer I re-read “Hamilton” and followed it with Chernow’s “Washington”. Interestingly, I observed that several key sequences dramatized in the play (i.e. the tempestuous cabinet battles), seem to draw more heavily on the “Washington” biography. While I found “Washington” to be a bit of a slower read in parts, it was well worth it as I realized that while I was armed with general knowledge of the trajectory of Washington’s life and career (unlike my knowledge of Hamilton’s life prior to bursting onto the American stage), I was quite unaware of his actual personality characteristics. He has consistently been portrayed by history books and biographers as morally upright, with infallible wisdom, and supreme self control. Chernow discusses that the deification of Washington as the embodiment of the ethos of the new Republic, lead directly to the erasure of personality quirks and human foibles, rendering it nearly impossible for us to  contextualize his accomplishments. Taken as a whole, I realize that his ascent to the pinnacle of American politics was no less improbable than that of Hamilton. 

Below are a few of my observations, in no particular order, of this thorough and well-organized biography.

• Washington struggled with lifelong financial woes. Despite projecting the patrician visage of a wealthy Virginia planter, he was routinely scrambling to make ends meet. He had a taste for the gilded, and as such, his income was never quite adequate for his standard of living. He was also exceedingly financially generous with family, friends, and the Nation itself.
• Unfortunately, we do not hear much of Martha Washington’s perspective. Alas, like Elizabeth Hamilton, Martha burned her correspondence with Washington after his death. Interestingly, we do get insight into Washington’s relationship with beautiful, worldly, and intelligent, female peers such as Sally Fairfax and Elizabeth Powell. This suggests that his relationship with Martha was more of a deep friendship than a romance.
• The portions of his life from birth through the French and Indian War read quickly. I found the Revolutionary War period to be a bit of a slog, which is quite in keeping with the protracted defensive nature of the conflict. The pace picked up significantly as the war drew to a close.

• I was shocked at the difference in the treatment of Washington between his first and second terms. The first term included whispered attacks and veiled criticisms, with Freneau (backed by Jefferson and Madison) becoming a vocal critic. By his second term, the Father of America, had suddenly fallen from unreproachability.  I was stunned by the slanderous nature of attacks against both Washington’s policies and even his personal character, leveled by Freneau and Benjamin Franklin Bache, among others. Washington was clearly stung, but maintained steadfast support of a free press. One wonders that he was never drawn to even consider the possibility of a duel; a concept which seemed to leap to Hamilton’s mind with regularity.
• “Hamilton” provided ample evidence of the cutthroat back fighting occurring behind the scenes among Washington’s first cabinet - with Hamilton and Jefferson the primary combatants. “Washington” exposed the devious machinations of James Madison who acted the part of confidant to Washington, all the while feeding Freneau frenzied criticisms to hurl at Washington.
• As in “Hamilton”, John Adams is portrayed as an island unto himself, an exceedingly intelligent and wily politician, with a debilitatingly massive chip on his shoulder.

• Washington displayed a psuedo-benevolent attitude toward Native Americans. While he seemed to sympathize with the gross unfairness of their treatment at the hands of the U.S. government and white settlers, he also seemed to think that it was a simple matter of Native tribes giving up their ancient ways and cultures, converting to Christianity, and adopting western agricultural methods. 
• Washington fully straddles a paradox on the thorny question of slavery, which is a recurring theme throughout the book. All the while profiting from the enslaved labor, Washington seems to grasp early on, the moral dubiousness of human bondage. He struggles to articulate a solution, but is convinced that the blight of slavery is a problem left to future generations to absolutely resolve through abolition. He knows the nation depends upon it. 
• I was intrigued by Washington’s  hypocritical  treatment of acclaimed poet Phillis Wheatley as an (almost)  peer, while knowing her to be an enslaved person. This interaction contrasts sharply with his later overzealous attempts at kidnapping Martha’s maidservant Ona Judge, who had fled to freedom. The Washingtons simply could not grasp why a “well treated” enslaved person should desire her freedom (the same misguided, paternalistic attitude cropped up with regards to Native Americans). Washington does seem to desire to atone for the sin of having enslaved so many, by stipulating that all enslaved persons within his control, should be freed upon the death of Martha. Chernow notes that while this merely pushes the greater problems associated with human bondage, further down the line, it is the only such act committed by a slaveholding founding father.

“Washington” was an engaging and informative read. Based on the portrayal of a devious Madison, I may need to scoop up his biography to learn his perspective of these times. I am interested in the rupture that occurred between Adams and Washington, so I may start with a biography of Abigail Adams, to try and bring some gender parity to these revolutionary perspectives.