What do you think?
Rate this book
A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic
The first full account of the relationship between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, countering the legend of their enmity while drawing vital historical lessons from the differences that arose between them.
Martha Washington’s worst memory was the death of her husband. Her second worst was Thomas Jefferson’s awkward visit to pay his respects subsequently. Indeed, by the time George Washington had died in 1799, the two founders were estranged. But that estrangement has obscured the fact that for most of their thirty-year acquaintance they enjoyed a productive relationship. Precisely because they shared so much, their disagreements have something important to teach us.
In constitutional design, for Whereas Washington believed in the rule of traditional elites like the Virginia gentry, Jefferson preferred what we would call a meritocratic approach, by which elites would be elected on the basis of education and skills. And while Washington emphasized a need for strong central government, Jefferson favored diffusion of power across the states. Still, as Francis Cogliano argues, common convictions equally defined their a passion for American independence and republican government, as well as a commitment to westward expansion and the power of commerce. They also both evolved a skeptical view of slavery, eventually growing to question the institution, even as they took only limited steps to abolish it.
What remains fascinating is that the differences between the two statesmen mirrored key political fissures of the early United States, as the unity of revolutionary zeal gave way to competing visions for the new nation. A Revolutionary Friendship brilliantly captures the dramatic, challenging, and poignant reality that there was no single founding ideal―only compromise between friends and sometime rivals.
Martha Washington’s worst memory was the death of her husband. Her second worst was Thomas Jefferson’s awkward visit to pay his respects subsequently. Indeed, by the time George Washington had died in 1799, the two founders were estranged. But that estrangement has obscured the fact that for most of their thirty-year acquaintance they enjoyed a productive relationship. Precisely because they shared so much, their disagreements have something important to teach us.
In constitutional design, for Whereas Washington believed in the rule of traditional elites like the Virginia gentry, Jefferson preferred what we would call a meritocratic approach, by which elites would be elected on the basis of education and skills. And while Washington emphasized a need for strong central government, Jefferson favored diffusion of power across the states. Still, as Francis Cogliano argues, common convictions equally defined their a passion for American independence and republican government, as well as a commitment to westward expansion and the power of commerce. They also both evolved a skeptical view of slavery, eventually growing to question the institution, even as they took only limited steps to abolish it.
What remains fascinating is that the differences between the two statesmen mirrored key political fissures of the early United States, as the unity of revolutionary zeal gave way to competing visions for the new nation. A Revolutionary Friendship brilliantly captures the dramatic, challenging, and poignant reality that there was no single founding ideal―only compromise between friends and sometime rivals.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published February 20, 2024
10 people are currently reading
276 people want to read
About the author
Francis D. Cogliano
15 books12 followersFrancis D. Cogliano is Reader in American History at the University of Edinburgh. A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he has held research fellowships at the Virginia Historical Society and the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 26, 2024
I found this very informative and increasingly interesting. It got off to a slow start that lasted a few chapters before I realized that the author was prepared to look at both of the men’s attitudes and actions towards slavery, and their beliefs about Native Americans.
Both men recognized that slavery was wrong. Both believed that to deal with it would damage the federal form of government and ruin the country. Jefferson was always of the belief slavery was wrong but was racist and felt Blacks and Whites couldn’t possibly live in the same area without clashes. Washington, on the other hand, came to his belief that slavery was wrong gradually over his adult life. I think an important point to mention is that legally, neither could free his slaves in Virginia except at death. Washington could only free his enslaved people, not the enslaved people that were his wife’s dowered and entailed property. Those were enslaved people that belonged to the Custis family, the family of Martha’s first husband, not to any one person of the family. Washington actually only directly freed one person on his death, his body servant. He gave him the choice of remaining on the property and being supported in retirement or living elsewhere with his free Black wife. He chose to remain at Mt. Vernon. Washington didn’t want to deprive his wife of comfort so didn’t immediately free the rest. She chose to free those she could shortly afterwards.
I doubt either would have made up their quarrel if Washington’s unexpected death hadn’t occurred. Jefferson and Adams had a personal basis to their friendship but washington and Jefferson never had the same personal aspect. Certainly Martha Washington hadn’t forgiven Jefferson!
What I discovered is that, as usual, most relationships are shades of grey. Washington was too conscious of his reputation and perhaps thin skinned. Jefferson was thinking of HIS reputation and tried the rest of his life to show how little difference there was between himself and Washington.
I recommend this to readers who want to go beyond the superficial in finding out what our Founding Fathers were like. Once I got past the first several chapters, I found this excellent.
Both men recognized that slavery was wrong. Both believed that to deal with it would damage the federal form of government and ruin the country. Jefferson was always of the belief slavery was wrong but was racist and felt Blacks and Whites couldn’t possibly live in the same area without clashes. Washington, on the other hand, came to his belief that slavery was wrong gradually over his adult life. I think an important point to mention is that legally, neither could free his slaves in Virginia except at death. Washington could only free his enslaved people, not the enslaved people that were his wife’s dowered and entailed property. Those were enslaved people that belonged to the Custis family, the family of Martha’s first husband, not to any one person of the family. Washington actually only directly freed one person on his death, his body servant. He gave him the choice of remaining on the property and being supported in retirement or living elsewhere with his free Black wife. He chose to remain at Mt. Vernon. Washington didn’t want to deprive his wife of comfort so didn’t immediately free the rest. She chose to free those she could shortly afterwards.
I doubt either would have made up their quarrel if Washington’s unexpected death hadn’t occurred. Jefferson and Adams had a personal basis to their friendship but washington and Jefferson never had the same personal aspect. Certainly Martha Washington hadn’t forgiven Jefferson!
What I discovered is that, as usual, most relationships are shades of grey. Washington was too conscious of his reputation and perhaps thin skinned. Jefferson was thinking of HIS reputation and tried the rest of his life to show how little difference there was between himself and Washington.
I recommend this to readers who want to go beyond the superficial in finding out what our Founding Fathers were like. Once I got past the first several chapters, I found this excellent.
February 22, 2026
This book is unnecessary. The author sets up a strawman that current historiography pits Washington and Jefferson in strong. consistent opposition. Instead, the author maintains, they were close buds until the 1790s when they had a falling out. He then tries to convince us just how close they were. But the evidence is unconvincing, no matter how often the author repeats himself and insists otherwise. Both were wealthy Virginians with large landholdings and slaves. Washington was head of the Continental Army; Jefferson, Governor of Virginia, the largest and most important colony/state. It's only natural their paths would cross, and they would have significant, respectful correspondence. OK, so they didn't hate each other. Nobody said they did. Washington would not have made Jefferson his Secretary of State if he couldn't get along with him.
Anyway, his entire thesis, even if it has much more validity than I have given it, could have been explored in a journal article rather than a book, for which there isn't sufficient material. Most of the book, then, is history and information only tangentially related to the two's relationship. I finished the book, because I can always hear the story of, say, the Compromise of 1790 (ie, Hamilton's fiscal policy for a Potomac location for the capital) one more time. But the book didn't add anything to my knowledge.
Moreover, 40 percent or more of the content has to do with either slavery or (to a lesser extent) Indians. The author's view is thoroughly anachronistic, applying the values of a 21st century university professor to 18th century landed gentry. The emphasis is totally out of proportion. It would be like a book on Eisenhower with the half the content on his attitudes regarding strictures against interracial marriage and whether he stayed at hotels that discouraged Jewish guests, both phenomena within my own lifetime. In the 1950s, both blacks and whites were overwhelmingly against interracial marriage and few raised eyebrows about Gentile-only hotels. It would be remarkable if Eisenhower felt differently (BTW, just an example, I have no idea what Eisenhower thought).
OK, yeah, slavery is different because instead of "All men are created equal" we're actually talking about "All men (not women) are created equal but some are more equal than others," which some say puts the lie to one of the war's underlying tenets. But abolitionism wasn't to become a significant movement for some years. Armies have invaded and taken over lands inhabited by supposedly inferior people for thousands of years. To needlessly emphasize again and again the hypocrisy of those who wanted freedom and equality but just for white men who took Indian land is beating a dead horse.
So, no, not worth reading, especially if you have some knowledge of the period.
Anyway, his entire thesis, even if it has much more validity than I have given it, could have been explored in a journal article rather than a book, for which there isn't sufficient material. Most of the book, then, is history and information only tangentially related to the two's relationship. I finished the book, because I can always hear the story of, say, the Compromise of 1790 (ie, Hamilton's fiscal policy for a Potomac location for the capital) one more time. But the book didn't add anything to my knowledge.
Moreover, 40 percent or more of the content has to do with either slavery or (to a lesser extent) Indians. The author's view is thoroughly anachronistic, applying the values of a 21st century university professor to 18th century landed gentry. The emphasis is totally out of proportion. It would be like a book on Eisenhower with the half the content on his attitudes regarding strictures against interracial marriage and whether he stayed at hotels that discouraged Jewish guests, both phenomena within my own lifetime. In the 1950s, both blacks and whites were overwhelmingly against interracial marriage and few raised eyebrows about Gentile-only hotels. It would be remarkable if Eisenhower felt differently (BTW, just an example, I have no idea what Eisenhower thought).
OK, yeah, slavery is different because instead of "All men are created equal" we're actually talking about "All men (not women) are created equal but some are more equal than others," which some say puts the lie to one of the war's underlying tenets. But abolitionism wasn't to become a significant movement for some years. Armies have invaded and taken over lands inhabited by supposedly inferior people for thousands of years. To needlessly emphasize again and again the hypocrisy of those who wanted freedom and equality but just for white men who took Indian land is beating a dead horse.
So, no, not worth reading, especially if you have some knowledge of the period.
November 13, 2024
Dual biographies can be challenging. The biggest risks I’ve found with these are giving each individual an equal amount of attention and making sure both are interesting enough in their own right to keep a reader engaged so they don’t want to hop around to read more about just one person. Thankfully, both of these risks are mitigated in Francis D. Cogliano’s A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic. Here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are both captured with vividness, clarity, and intrigue as we learn more about the two’s personal and professional relationship over several decades. Plenty of what is found here can be gleaned from other biographies. If you’ve read a biography on Washington or Jefferson, you’ve read a substantial part of this book. But that’s almost to be expected with figures such as these two who have so many stories already written about them. However, Coagliano manages to still find and present fascinating topics and key events throughout the two men’s lives that show their differences and similarities. There’s a chapter in here about each man’s experience, appreciation, or overall apathy towards the various Indian tribes, specifically the Haudenosaunee, that offered at least to me a substantial amount of new insight into both presidents. A Revolutionary Friendship may itself not be the most revolutionary book out there, but it’s still an engaging and relatively quick read on the fluidity of connection and what drives us closer or further apart from others—an important lesson today I feel when politics often can and does drive a wedge between people.
July 9, 2024
As an avid reader of Jefferson and Washington biographies, this account accurately and precisely traces the relationship and beliefs of the two men. Both are aristocratic Virginia planters who lost their fathers at an early age and where responsible for the care of their mothers and younger siblings. The two forged a good working relationship with many common interests before falling out. Each had fallouts with other friends as well due to political differences; Jefferson with Adams and Washington with George Mason as good examples.
This well researched book is a good read for any student of history or someone looking for a biography on Washington or Jefferson.
This well researched book is a good read for any student of history or someone looking for a biography on Washington or Jefferson.
June 18, 2025
This book offers a unique perspective on the relationship between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It starts off a little bit slow from my taste and I get it’s a history book that focuses on two people which is really hard to write so I give the author some credit for the slow start. I appreciate how this is not a traditional non-unique take on two people that are extremely important in American history. I give this book a 6.9 for my bias against not loving modern history books as a genre overall but as a 8.5!
July 3, 2024
Besides the author adding his personal bias a few times during the book, which got annoying, it's a great read.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews