What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Presidents #1
George Washington: The 1st President, 1789-1797
As president, Washington built almost unimpeded power into the executive branch, not only occupying the office but virtually conquering it. And yet his was by no means a one-man presidency. James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn demonstrate that Washington built a collective leadership never to be surpassed in American history. He succeeded in creating a strong sense of national unity while failing markedly in trying to foster political unity, believing that it was possible to dissolve political differences and banish opposition. His moral legacy would also be mixed, for he feared that discussions of slavery would threaten the survival of the young republic. But in the end the presidency itself would be his ultimate achievement; it would undergird every future president who would seek to offer strong and determined leadership.
As a public figure Washington could be difficult to decipher. At key moments in his life he seemed to want to shun the spotlight, disquieted by the responsibilities of power. And yet he always happened to be in the right place at the right time. Burns and Dunn probe behind his virtuoso performance of self-effacement and discover a supremely ambitious man determined to be at the center of events.
Burns and Dunn dissect the strengths and weaknesses of Washington's presidential leadership, from his lasting foreign and economic policies to his polarizing denunciation of political parties and his public silence about slavery. The result is a surprising portrait of the multidimensional man behind the myth he so assiduously crafted.
207 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 7, 2004
61 people are currently reading
2011 people want to read
About the author
James MacGregor Burns
76 books79 followersAn award-winning author of presidential and leadership studies, James MacGregor Burns was the Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government Emeritus at Williams College and Distinguished Leadership Scholar at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his bachelor's degree from Williams College and his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard, and he also attended the London School of Economics. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was past president of the American Political Science Association and the International Society of Political Psychology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
March 29, 2020
Now, in the late afternoon of our American Republic, during the reign of King Donald the Mad (and the Good Princess Ivanka), I feel I should reflect upon the nature of the American Presidency. But first I thought I should learn more about the forty-five men who have occupied the office, and I figured the brief lives in the Times Books American President Series would be a good place to start.
Although I am not ignorant of my country’s history, I am more ignorant than I should be. For me, history has primarily been a way of understanding literature better, and, since I like Brit Lit more than American, I know less about the Compromise of 1850 than the Reform Bill of 1832, less about the Ludlow Massacre than the Peterloo Massacre, and less about the Adams and Roosevelts than the Plantagenets and the Tudors.
George Washington, though, is one of the presidents I know about, and Burns and Dunn’s short history of his presidency has only confirmed for me what I already knew. He was, above all, a gentleman, in an almost Confucian sense of the term, a man who believed that proper manners, proper attire, and ethics were inextricably bound together, that there was no happiness apart from public duty, and that one achieved wisdom, by acting—with virtue—upon the stage of the world. Washington thought often of his role upon this “stage,” but never with irony or alienation: that role was General Washington, and General Washington was himself. The following anecdote, concerning the president’s sitting for a portrait by Gilbert Stuart, is revealing:
”Now sir, you must let me forget that you are General Washington and that I am Stuart the painter,” Stuart said as he tried to put the president at ease. Mr. Stuart, Washington coolly responded, need not forget “who he is, or who General Washington is.”As this incident makes clear, he was also a man of great dignity. (He was a man with a volcanic temper too when he felt that dignity violated; fortunately, he was also a man with extraordinary self control.)
His virtue was real, but he saw no contradiction between public virtue and private acquisitiveness. Money he never loved, but he loved land, and money was a way to acquire it. He drove his slaves hard, snapped up the land grants of desperate Revolutionary War officers at bargain prices, and—literally—was an extremely fierce horse trader. (This trait Vice-President Adams complained of, when the retiring president, “tried to fob off on him, for $2,000, two old nags.”)
In spite of this, as I said, the virtue was real. He gave our republic a great gift—nay, it could be said, “he gave us our republic”—by disbanding the Continental Army and, following the example of the Roman dictator Cincinnatus, returning to private life at his farm Mount Vernon. Later, widespread acclaim called him to be president, but he left office after two terms, setting a precedent which has served the country well.
Although he loved the republic and hated tyranny, he also desired a strong executive. He was careful to observe the separation of powers, but he desired a free-hand in his negotiations, particularly with foreign governments. A strong presidency suited his temperament, true, but it was more than just that. He believed that only through a vigorous executive and a capable federal government could the fledgling republic achieve the twenty years of peace necessary to survive in a world of great powers. Although he surrounded himself with strong men with differing opinions (Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison), it was Hamilton’s strong federalist ideas that gave Washington the sturdy government he was looking for. One of worst things about his governing style was his naive belief that he was somehow impartial, impervious to political faction, when it seemed clear to his fellow Virginians Jefferson and Madison that he had neglected their ideal of democracy for the centralizing interests of the north. Thus Washington, who despised faction, fed them unknowingly, furthering the development of the American political party.
Speaking of the formation of political parties: what I had not known before was what a destructive force the Jay Treaty with England was in their development, how it seemed to the Democratic-Republicans not only an appeasement of our former enemy, but a betrayal of our great revolutionary ally, now the Republic of France. I was surprised—and dismayed—to learn that political squabbling had progressed so far by February of 1796 that “the House, dominated by Republicans, soundly defeated a motion to adjourn for a half hour so that representatives might congratulate the president on his birthday.”
Such squabbling dismayed Washington, and he was stung by the vicious attacks of the press:
”By god he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation,” Jefferson had heard him say in 1793. “He had rather be on his farm than to be made emperor of the world, and yet they were charging him with wanting to be a king.”Yet Washington was sincere in his love for his farm and in not wanting to be a king, and it is to his pursuit of virtue, and to his conception of what was required of him as he played his part upon the stage of the world, that we owe the survival of this great experiment, the Republic of the United States of America.
February 14, 2025
George Washington And The Shaping Of The American Presidency
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."
The authors also two main commitments underlying Washington's presidency: a commitment to reason, compromise, and judgment, as developed in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and a commitment to happiness as the end of government. Washington did not view happiness as synonymous with pleasure but rather as involving a well-ordered republic with laws that applied fairly and equally to everyone and which allowed everyone the opportunity to improve themselves and to flourish.
The book examines Washington's relationships with his brilliant colleagues, Hamilton, Jefferson, and James Madison and how, at his best, he listened to their frequently divergent views before deciding himself on a wise course of action. Washington's toleration and slowness to judgment receive deserved praise in this study. The authors also examine some of the less fortunate aspects of the Washington presidency, including its elitism, lack of understanding of those other than the rich and powerful, and its obsession with order and discipline. These factors, among others, would lead even in Washington's lifetime to the development of the party system that Washington had hoped to avoid. The authors also are critical of Washington's failure to publicly address the issue of slavery and to his all too frequently demonstrated acquisitiveness and tendency to drive sharp bargains in his private life.
In our complicated, difficult political world, this book will remind the reader of the origins of our system of government. It will encourage reflection on the nature of leadership, both when it fails and when it is brilliantly executed, as it was during the presidency of George Washington.
Robin Friedman
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."
The authors also two main commitments underlying Washington's presidency: a commitment to reason, compromise, and judgment, as developed in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and a commitment to happiness as the end of government. Washington did not view happiness as synonymous with pleasure but rather as involving a well-ordered republic with laws that applied fairly and equally to everyone and which allowed everyone the opportunity to improve themselves and to flourish.
The book examines Washington's relationships with his brilliant colleagues, Hamilton, Jefferson, and James Madison and how, at his best, he listened to their frequently divergent views before deciding himself on a wise course of action. Washington's toleration and slowness to judgment receive deserved praise in this study. The authors also examine some of the less fortunate aspects of the Washington presidency, including its elitism, lack of understanding of those other than the rich and powerful, and its obsession with order and discipline. These factors, among others, would lead even in Washington's lifetime to the development of the party system that Washington had hoped to avoid. The authors also are critical of Washington's failure to publicly address the issue of slavery and to his all too frequently demonstrated acquisitiveness and tendency to drive sharp bargains in his private life.
In our complicated, difficult political world, this book will remind the reader of the origins of our system of government. It will encourage reflection on the nature of leadership, both when it fails and when it is brilliantly executed, as it was during the presidency of George Washington.
Robin Friedman
April 7, 2020
I decided a while ago that I wanted to devote this year to reading a biography (or several) of every president of the United States, in chronological order, for no reason other than the fact that it sounds interesting and educational and I’ve kind of always wanted to do it. This decision was made before all hell broke loose in the world and a global pandemic decided to rear its ugly head, so I’ve been a bit preoccupied. Like many people, I think I’ve been a little anxiety-ridden and somewhat depressed about the state of the world, worried about my loved ones, worried about my own health, terrified at the prospect that I live in a country with a rotten diseased kidney stone with feet, a bad wig, and the mental capacity of a five-year-old in a coma sitting in the Oval Office, making life or death decisions for the rest of the country, decisions that any five-year-old in a coma would inherently know is stupid. I mean, Jesus Christ, Trump, will you please just shut the fuck up and listen to the grown-ups in the room speaking for once in your life?..
Anyhoo, now that every library in my state is closed, I’ve kind of been unable to get the books I want anyway, so I had to make do with what I got, which is surprisingly a lot. In my own personal library I apparently had about three or four biographies of George Washington. The first one I read, Joseph Ellis’s “His Excellency”, was an excellent and succinct little summation of the man’s life. The next one I picked up was actually one that I had out from the library for over a month, but since the library’s closed, I can’t return it anyway. Thankfully, due dates mean nothing anymore as fines have been suspended. So, take that, coronavirus! You may take our libraries, but you can’t take our freedom... to keep library books way past their due dates! Yay!
Times Books published a series of reader-friendly (translation: short) bios of every president in The American Presidents series. Each book is written by both well-known and/or extremely reputable historians, some of whom you may have actually heard of. They are all writers who would never think of ending a sentence, like that last one, with a preposition.
“George Washington” (do I really need to say that it’s the first book in the series?) was written by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn. It’s very readable and concise, almost like a CliffsNotes version of his life.
Here’s some fun facts I learned:
****Washington, was fond, of, commas. Especially, unnecessary ones. He, apparently, never learned, the grammatical, axiom, “When in doubt, leave them out.” In all seriousness, Washington was a beautiful writer but a very shy one. He didn’t write a hell of a lot, or if he did, he wrote in diaries or letters, many of which he tried to destroy before he died. Luckily, many survived.
****Washington started what is often referred to as the Seven-Year War, probably by accident: In 1754, when he was barely in his mid-20s, Washington had rose in the ranks of the British colonial army to Lieutenant Colonel. Highly inexperienced, Washington and his men, aided by Indian guides, “came upon a small French troop and carried out a surprise attack, only to discover that one of the Frenchman they killed was an envoy on a mission similar to Washington’s earlier one, to warn the British off French land. The shots Washington’s men fired marked the start of the French and Indian War. (p. 27)”
****As a young boy, Washington (who came from modest means) wanted so badly to be a part of the landed gentry that he modeled himself from a book of 17th-century French manners. He lived by these basic rules of etiquette his entire life.
****Washington inadvertently helped in creating the two-party system. Obviously, the Republicans and Democrats as they exist today weren’t around in Washington’s day, but the embryonic beginnings of both parties were birthed by Washington’s administration. Washington (with lots of education by his friend and Cabinet member Alexander Hamilton) fashioned himself a Federalist, a believer in strong, big government. He believed that the government should be there to provide for the little people. On the other side of the argument were people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who fashioned themselves Republicans, who believed that the real power should be left in the hands of the people. They believed in a smaller, less-powerful federal government, with most governing powers given to the states. Ironically, Washington hated the idea of political parties, but his words, actions, and policies eventually aided in shaping the two-party system as it exists today.
****Washington was the only president to ever lead an army in the field, as a president. To be fair, it was against a bunch of scared alcoholics, nobody was killed on either side, and the whole episode was basically an embarrassment to the new United States. It was the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion, led by angry farmers pissed off at having their whiskey taxed. Only two people were convicted of treason, and Washington quickly pardoned them, primarily because they were probably drunk off their ass at the time. Not making this up.
****Washington’s foreign policy was, in a nutshell, “America First”. It’s an inconvenient truth, but Washington had very little to no interest in getting involved in the affairs of other countries, not even in offering simple aid. To be fair, his reasons were probably sound. The U.S. was, after all, a baby country in comparison to the thousand-year-old countries in Europe. We had a lot of growing up to do before we could sit at the grown-up table.
****Slavery was a complicated issue for Washington. Unfortunately, racism was the norm for most if not all white people. Having enlightened thoughts like “black people are people, too” or “slavery was wrong, period” was, actually, the very rare exceptions to the rule. Still, Washington’s views on slavery did evolve over time. They just evolved extremely slowly and without having any real effect on his actions or policies regarding the horrible institution. He did, however, write a last will and testament that freed his slaves after his death.
There’s a lot more good stuff in this, these were just a few highlights.
Anyhoo, now that every library in my state is closed, I’ve kind of been unable to get the books I want anyway, so I had to make do with what I got, which is surprisingly a lot. In my own personal library I apparently had about three or four biographies of George Washington. The first one I read, Joseph Ellis’s “His Excellency”, was an excellent and succinct little summation of the man’s life. The next one I picked up was actually one that I had out from the library for over a month, but since the library’s closed, I can’t return it anyway. Thankfully, due dates mean nothing anymore as fines have been suspended. So, take that, coronavirus! You may take our libraries, but you can’t take our freedom... to keep library books way past their due dates! Yay!
Times Books published a series of reader-friendly (translation: short) bios of every president in The American Presidents series. Each book is written by both well-known and/or extremely reputable historians, some of whom you may have actually heard of. They are all writers who would never think of ending a sentence, like that last one, with a preposition.
“George Washington” (do I really need to say that it’s the first book in the series?) was written by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn. It’s very readable and concise, almost like a CliffsNotes version of his life.
Here’s some fun facts I learned:
****Washington, was fond, of, commas. Especially, unnecessary ones. He, apparently, never learned, the grammatical, axiom, “When in doubt, leave them out.” In all seriousness, Washington was a beautiful writer but a very shy one. He didn’t write a hell of a lot, or if he did, he wrote in diaries or letters, many of which he tried to destroy before he died. Luckily, many survived.
****Washington started what is often referred to as the Seven-Year War, probably by accident: In 1754, when he was barely in his mid-20s, Washington had rose in the ranks of the British colonial army to Lieutenant Colonel. Highly inexperienced, Washington and his men, aided by Indian guides, “came upon a small French troop and carried out a surprise attack, only to discover that one of the Frenchman they killed was an envoy on a mission similar to Washington’s earlier one, to warn the British off French land. The shots Washington’s men fired marked the start of the French and Indian War. (p. 27)”
****As a young boy, Washington (who came from modest means) wanted so badly to be a part of the landed gentry that he modeled himself from a book of 17th-century French manners. He lived by these basic rules of etiquette his entire life.
****Washington inadvertently helped in creating the two-party system. Obviously, the Republicans and Democrats as they exist today weren’t around in Washington’s day, but the embryonic beginnings of both parties were birthed by Washington’s administration. Washington (with lots of education by his friend and Cabinet member Alexander Hamilton) fashioned himself a Federalist, a believer in strong, big government. He believed that the government should be there to provide for the little people. On the other side of the argument were people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who fashioned themselves Republicans, who believed that the real power should be left in the hands of the people. They believed in a smaller, less-powerful federal government, with most governing powers given to the states. Ironically, Washington hated the idea of political parties, but his words, actions, and policies eventually aided in shaping the two-party system as it exists today.
****Washington was the only president to ever lead an army in the field, as a president. To be fair, it was against a bunch of scared alcoholics, nobody was killed on either side, and the whole episode was basically an embarrassment to the new United States. It was the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion, led by angry farmers pissed off at having their whiskey taxed. Only two people were convicted of treason, and Washington quickly pardoned them, primarily because they were probably drunk off their ass at the time. Not making this up.
****Washington’s foreign policy was, in a nutshell, “America First”. It’s an inconvenient truth, but Washington had very little to no interest in getting involved in the affairs of other countries, not even in offering simple aid. To be fair, his reasons were probably sound. The U.S. was, after all, a baby country in comparison to the thousand-year-old countries in Europe. We had a lot of growing up to do before we could sit at the grown-up table.
****Slavery was a complicated issue for Washington. Unfortunately, racism was the norm for most if not all white people. Having enlightened thoughts like “black people are people, too” or “slavery was wrong, period” was, actually, the very rare exceptions to the rule. Still, Washington’s views on slavery did evolve over time. They just evolved extremely slowly and without having any real effect on his actions or policies regarding the horrible institution. He did, however, write a last will and testament that freed his slaves after his death.
There’s a lot more good stuff in this, these were just a few highlights.
January 11, 2016
My goal this year is to read the entire presidential series. I plan to go chronological, so starting with good ol' George was an easy choice. This book wasn't an in depth detail of his life, but more a cursory review of his timeline, challenges, character review, and an analysis of his impact on the forming of our country, it's survival, and his intended and unattended consequences of his military, government service, and private business and societal norms.
All of our presidents are great in some way that led to or cemented their executive administrations. However, the universal question returns to me time and again. Are these men great or great for their time?
In my opinion, our first president falls in the latter category. He was a man keen of his character and reputation. This is where his height, his detailed uniform and choice of dress, his comforting and trustful humility, skillfully learning field tactics and management of different men under his jurisdiction both militarily and while assembling a working bureaucracy within the executive branch, all lend to his greatness.
What does become apparent, unfortunately, in his character is his vanity and reliance upon it, snobbery towards lower men, not taking a more vocal stance against slavery, scheming deals in business taking advantage of those much less savvy than himself. But, we all have faults. The higher the podium one is put upon the longer the fall of reality is.
Washington, however, was a truly great man for his time. He was the only leader of his era to have accrued immense power and humbly relinquish it more than once (at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War and after his second term in congress). Without his example, the delicate balance of power of our federal government may be of much different character in function and its position on the international scale than it is today.
I only hope that my character and my influence are at least a spec of his own. The George Washington of our childhoods is easily one worth emulating.
All of our presidents are great in some way that led to or cemented their executive administrations. However, the universal question returns to me time and again. Are these men great or great for their time?
In my opinion, our first president falls in the latter category. He was a man keen of his character and reputation. This is where his height, his detailed uniform and choice of dress, his comforting and trustful humility, skillfully learning field tactics and management of different men under his jurisdiction both militarily and while assembling a working bureaucracy within the executive branch, all lend to his greatness.
What does become apparent, unfortunately, in his character is his vanity and reliance upon it, snobbery towards lower men, not taking a more vocal stance against slavery, scheming deals in business taking advantage of those much less savvy than himself. But, we all have faults. The higher the podium one is put upon the longer the fall of reality is.
Washington, however, was a truly great man for his time. He was the only leader of his era to have accrued immense power and humbly relinquish it more than once (at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War and after his second term in congress). Without his example, the delicate balance of power of our federal government may be of much different character in function and its position on the international scale than it is today.
I only hope that my character and my influence are at least a spec of his own. The George Washington of our childhoods is easily one worth emulating.
June 20, 2021
Of the biographies in this series that I have read, this was my least favorite.
February 22, 2021
What would our founding father make of today's political situation? I think he would be aghast. Burns and Dunn argue, successfully I think, that above all, George Washington guiding principal for the country was Unity. This constant drumbeat of Unity was the mantra of Washington. Washington - at least to me - has always been sort of dull, a cardboard cutout of a American revolutionary general (I should probably say THE revolutionary general), a beloved father figure for our beloved nation, but dull as dishwater. Burns and Dunn haven't really convinced me otherwise. But it's his dullness, his lack of narcissism and over the top characteristics, his non-bullying, his dislike for partisanship, that helped Washington start the engines of this great rumbling tank of a nation, and slowly leading the tank onto the path in to the future of this country. A rocky path, but with some true greatness. It was one of those miraculous times when the right man was in the right place at the right time.
July 27, 2013
This was a simple biography with not a lot of depth. I guess that is okay as it is part of a series on the Presidents of the United States. I am a little unsure about the authors' claims to Washington being a Federalist as parties began to take shape. Yes Washington had money. Many others did not and wanted to believe that the Revolution would bring instant money to empty coffers. Maybe he was an elitist, but are not all of our Presidents? He gave up power too readily to believe in power for power's sake.
October 9, 2022
James Burns & Susan Dunn’s book on George Washington, the first in “The American Presidents” series, was a pleasure to read. Polished and concise, in weighs in at a lean 157 pages.
Washington’s star remains brilliant. His long list of heroics include: being the top Revolutionary War general, serving as an indispensable player in several political conventions, becoming the first US president who set vital precedents for future ones to follow, and utilizing an excellent judge of character by stocking the first cabinet with brilliant minds. However, the authors, at various times, have the courage to question parts of his legacy. Was Washington too ambitious and obsessed with reputation? Did he do enough to combat long-term issues like slavery? Washington also experienced failure. He could not establish a national university (he strongly believed in the necessity of an educated citizenry), and he could not stop the incoming tidal wave of the formation of political party development to name a few. In fact, by the end of his presidency, Jefferson/Madison’s “Republican” party so strongly disliked Washington's politics that their members in Congress killed a proposal to take 30 minute break to wish him a happy birthday. When the good and bad is balanced out, however, I would agree with the majority of historians who rank Washington as one of the USA’s best presidents.
The best book I’ve ever read about Washington is Joseph Ellis’ “His Excellency: George Washington”, but Burns & Dunn’s book, especially given its shorter length, is a very worthy one!
Washington’s star remains brilliant. His long list of heroics include: being the top Revolutionary War general, serving as an indispensable player in several political conventions, becoming the first US president who set vital precedents for future ones to follow, and utilizing an excellent judge of character by stocking the first cabinet with brilliant minds. However, the authors, at various times, have the courage to question parts of his legacy. Was Washington too ambitious and obsessed with reputation? Did he do enough to combat long-term issues like slavery? Washington also experienced failure. He could not establish a national university (he strongly believed in the necessity of an educated citizenry), and he could not stop the incoming tidal wave of the formation of political party development to name a few. In fact, by the end of his presidency, Jefferson/Madison’s “Republican” party so strongly disliked Washington's politics that their members in Congress killed a proposal to take 30 minute break to wish him a happy birthday. When the good and bad is balanced out, however, I would agree with the majority of historians who rank Washington as one of the USA’s best presidents.
The best book I’ve ever read about Washington is Joseph Ellis’ “His Excellency: George Washington”, but Burns & Dunn’s book, especially given its shorter length, is a very worthy one!
June 10, 2022
This was the third of these short presidential biographies I've read, having previously read George McGovern write about Abraham Lincoln and Sean Wilenz write about Andrew Jackson. I'm still pretty on the fence about whether the existence of this entire series is actually worthwhile, though I enjoyed reading this volume well enough.
Here is the argument against it: Each volume is written by a different historian, meaning there is no ideological or philosophical continuity in the series; each volume is so short that it can only hope to cover the President in question in extremely expedited way, glossing over and omitting many details; American Presidents are already topics of great interest and there is no shortage of available material covering them already.
The argument in favor I guess is just that most people aren't going to read 800-page biographies and these may encourage some study of our political history because they're less intimidating. They are the Wikipedia of presidential histories.
While I'm no great scholar of Presidents, I know enough to feel pretty good about Burns' treatment of Washington. Since the series is supposed to be an exploration of the Presidency, it necessarily spends most of its time on the years the President is in office. This volume has about as much ink dedicated to Hamilton and Jefferson as Washington himself.
Burns depicts Washington as a man obsessed with status and achieving his legacy, and whose desire for national unity in the face of splintering factions led him to be increasingly alienated from those around him. It gives him the many accolades he deserves but does not scrimp on criticism in a variety of areas including his slave ownership and his distaste for those he saw as below his social standing.
I'm in no hurry to work my way through this entire series, but I will likely occasionally return read them here and there in the years to come.
Here is the argument against it: Each volume is written by a different historian, meaning there is no ideological or philosophical continuity in the series; each volume is so short that it can only hope to cover the President in question in extremely expedited way, glossing over and omitting many details; American Presidents are already topics of great interest and there is no shortage of available material covering them already.
The argument in favor I guess is just that most people aren't going to read 800-page biographies and these may encourage some study of our political history because they're less intimidating. They are the Wikipedia of presidential histories.
While I'm no great scholar of Presidents, I know enough to feel pretty good about Burns' treatment of Washington. Since the series is supposed to be an exploration of the Presidency, it necessarily spends most of its time on the years the President is in office. This volume has about as much ink dedicated to Hamilton and Jefferson as Washington himself.
Burns depicts Washington as a man obsessed with status and achieving his legacy, and whose desire for national unity in the face of splintering factions led him to be increasingly alienated from those around him. It gives him the many accolades he deserves but does not scrimp on criticism in a variety of areas including his slave ownership and his distaste for those he saw as below his social standing.
I'm in no hurry to work my way through this entire series, but I will likely occasionally return read them here and there in the years to come.
January 10, 2023
Fascinating introduction to the first President of the United States, and the first in a series of relatively short books written by different authors on the various Presidents that I hope to eventually get through.
George Washington is so often boiled down to the myth of the man beyond the individual, so it's very interesting to read a much more down-to-earth account of the man himself.
Whilst it's clear he was a remarkable and revolutionary leader, it's also clear that he had many flaws which often don't come through in the way he is now often thought of: whether it be his discomfort with opposition ideologies; his concern for and focus on his reputation; and his desire not to surface already-existing tensions on the issue of slavery.
George Washington is so often boiled down to the myth of the man beyond the individual, so it's very interesting to read a much more down-to-earth account of the man himself.
Whilst it's clear he was a remarkable and revolutionary leader, it's also clear that he had many flaws which often don't come through in the way he is now often thought of: whether it be his discomfort with opposition ideologies; his concern for and focus on his reputation; and his desire not to surface already-existing tensions on the issue of slavery.
February 25, 2017
Learned a a lot about our first president!
October 12, 2018
George Washington is the first book in The American Presidents series – a biographical series chronicling the Presidents of the United States. James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn wrote this particular installment.
George Washington was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and served as the nation's first President (1789–1797). In the American Revolutionary War, he commanded Patriot forces to victory against the British and their allies. He presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which established the new federal government, and he has been called the "Father of His Country".
The bulk of the biography focuses on the eight years that George Washington spent in the Presidential Office. Burns and Dunn spend almost no time whatsoever on the first president's upbringing or go into details about his service in the Revolutionary War. Similarly, they spent slightly more time about his post-presidency years. However, he did die about a couple years after his second term of President of the United States, so there might not be much information to gleam.
Burns and Dunn show that there was a duality to George Washington. There was the public persona that George Washington constructed and protected at all cost – the public persona of a leader gravely willing to sacrifice anything – including himself for the country – the definition of a patriot and the personification of American values. Privately, George Washington was a ferociously ambitious person who managed to overcome his insecurities and apprehensions.
There was also a duality in his belief systems as well – to the point of hypocrisy itself. Hypocrisy might be too strong a word, but I could not think of a proper euphemism. George Washington regards their plight under England akin to slavery and yet he supported and collaborated in black slavery. Burns and Dunn pointed out that George Washington supported a government – one for the people, by the people, of the people, as long as it aligned to his personal and political beliefs. Furthermore, there was an elitist streak in him, more so then anyone else during that time, which is suppressed in his well-crafted public persona.
George Washington was written and researched extremely well. It showed a wonderful insight to the man who became the first President of the United States of America. It brought to light many things about his personality and personal beliefs that I was unaware of, as I have fallen into the persona that George Washington created so well, which persist even today. It is a somewhat cursory biography, covering the major incidences of his presidency, and it may have been targeted to a younger audience.
However, I wished that Burns and Dunn had spent more time on George Washington's upbringing. It would have been interesting to read how he grew up and how it shaped his life and how it made him, the man that would one day be the first president of a new nation. Similarly, I would have like more information on his service in the Revolutionary War – how he rose in rank and became one of the most celebrated generals in American history. The biography seems rather incomplete without them included.
All in all, George Washington is a wonderfully written biography of the first president and rather good start to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
George Washington was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and served as the nation's first President (1789–1797). In the American Revolutionary War, he commanded Patriot forces to victory against the British and their allies. He presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which established the new federal government, and he has been called the "Father of His Country".
The bulk of the biography focuses on the eight years that George Washington spent in the Presidential Office. Burns and Dunn spend almost no time whatsoever on the first president's upbringing or go into details about his service in the Revolutionary War. Similarly, they spent slightly more time about his post-presidency years. However, he did die about a couple years after his second term of President of the United States, so there might not be much information to gleam.
Burns and Dunn show that there was a duality to George Washington. There was the public persona that George Washington constructed and protected at all cost – the public persona of a leader gravely willing to sacrifice anything – including himself for the country – the definition of a patriot and the personification of American values. Privately, George Washington was a ferociously ambitious person who managed to overcome his insecurities and apprehensions.
There was also a duality in his belief systems as well – to the point of hypocrisy itself. Hypocrisy might be too strong a word, but I could not think of a proper euphemism. George Washington regards their plight under England akin to slavery and yet he supported and collaborated in black slavery. Burns and Dunn pointed out that George Washington supported a government – one for the people, by the people, of the people, as long as it aligned to his personal and political beliefs. Furthermore, there was an elitist streak in him, more so then anyone else during that time, which is suppressed in his well-crafted public persona.
George Washington was written and researched extremely well. It showed a wonderful insight to the man who became the first President of the United States of America. It brought to light many things about his personality and personal beliefs that I was unaware of, as I have fallen into the persona that George Washington created so well, which persist even today. It is a somewhat cursory biography, covering the major incidences of his presidency, and it may have been targeted to a younger audience.
However, I wished that Burns and Dunn had spent more time on George Washington's upbringing. It would have been interesting to read how he grew up and how it shaped his life and how it made him, the man that would one day be the first president of a new nation. Similarly, I would have like more information on his service in the Revolutionary War – how he rose in rank and became one of the most celebrated generals in American history. The biography seems rather incomplete without them included.
All in all, George Washington is a wonderfully written biography of the first president and rather good start to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
May 8, 2021
This whole thing stank from the beginning. I knew something was wrong, it never really sat well in my stomach as I was reading this, but I couldn't get my finger on why.
I told myself that I (like many Americans) had made a bit of an idol of Washington. We tend to put him on a pretty high pedestal. The man is absolutely amazing, and is one of the most interesting people in history; but he was still just a man. He had his faults, his bad days, and I needed to remember that as I worked through this book. I had to press on.
In fact, the stuff about the constitutional convention and about Washington during the Revolution was really good. It was amazing to see these men come together and form the most successful government in the history of the world. Washington was there and played his part, but he was not the central character.
It finally revealed itself about 50 pages in (we were done with the revolution and constitution already?) when the man proceeded to give a nice lecture about Washington's feelings of achievement. Using only one letter, taken out of context, he proceeds to think that Washington's greatest ideal was people's happiness. Happiness apart from the "superstition" of faith.
Washington (and all the founding fathers) were men of great faith. Their dedication and love of the Lord is evident in their writing and in the way they chose to live and what they chose to create. It is absolute nonsense to think that any of these men wanted to separate their faith from the government they had created. They didn't want the government to create a state-religion, but they sure as sugar wanted the people's faith to affect their government.
The book started with a similar motive. Demonizing Washington for slaves, being shocked that a woman hasn't been president. Even the dedication is to all the first wives. What is this 21st century nonsense? Martha Washington and Abigail Adams were integral parts of the founding. The author started by taking a single letter Washington sent to his nephew, again completely out of context, and proceeds to build a man completely driven by vanity and image, and absolutely power mad. Whose whole life was dedicated to gaining power and prestige.
Even while giving clear examples of his actions that in no way paint that picture the authors are dedicated to the idea that it is all a mask for true EVIL Washington. The man liked nice clothes and was probably self-conscious about the smallpox scars on his face.
He also retired from leading the country 3 times. He turned down becoming the monarch. He voluntarily ended his presidency. He didn't ram his ideas of government through the committee.
He was saved, by literal acts of miracles, on no fewer than three occasions (none of those stories are in this book of course). He freed all the slaves he could legally free.
Yes, he was a man. He had his flaws and his bad moments. Not everything he did stands up in light of the contemporary, but he was an amazing guy.
This book does not do him justice.
I recommend you check out Wall Builders to get a better understanding of our Founding Fathers. Drive Thru History also does a great series on the American Revolution. Visiting Mt. Vernon is also well worth your time. This book, however, is not worth your time.
I told myself that I (like many Americans) had made a bit of an idol of Washington. We tend to put him on a pretty high pedestal. The man is absolutely amazing, and is one of the most interesting people in history; but he was still just a man. He had his faults, his bad days, and I needed to remember that as I worked through this book. I had to press on.
In fact, the stuff about the constitutional convention and about Washington during the Revolution was really good. It was amazing to see these men come together and form the most successful government in the history of the world. Washington was there and played his part, but he was not the central character.
It finally revealed itself about 50 pages in (we were done with the revolution and constitution already?) when the man proceeded to give a nice lecture about Washington's feelings of achievement. Using only one letter, taken out of context, he proceeds to think that Washington's greatest ideal was people's happiness. Happiness apart from the "superstition" of faith.
Washington (and all the founding fathers) were men of great faith. Their dedication and love of the Lord is evident in their writing and in the way they chose to live and what they chose to create. It is absolute nonsense to think that any of these men wanted to separate their faith from the government they had created. They didn't want the government to create a state-religion, but they sure as sugar wanted the people's faith to affect their government.
The book started with a similar motive. Demonizing Washington for slaves, being shocked that a woman hasn't been president. Even the dedication is to all the first wives. What is this 21st century nonsense? Martha Washington and Abigail Adams were integral parts of the founding. The author started by taking a single letter Washington sent to his nephew, again completely out of context, and proceeds to build a man completely driven by vanity and image, and absolutely power mad. Whose whole life was dedicated to gaining power and prestige.
Even while giving clear examples of his actions that in no way paint that picture the authors are dedicated to the idea that it is all a mask for true EVIL Washington. The man liked nice clothes and was probably self-conscious about the smallpox scars on his face.
He also retired from leading the country 3 times. He turned down becoming the monarch. He voluntarily ended his presidency. He didn't ram his ideas of government through the committee.
He was saved, by literal acts of miracles, on no fewer than three occasions (none of those stories are in this book of course). He freed all the slaves he could legally free.
Yes, he was a man. He had his flaws and his bad moments. Not everything he did stands up in light of the contemporary, but he was an amazing guy.
This book does not do him justice.
I recommend you check out Wall Builders to get a better understanding of our Founding Fathers. Drive Thru History also does a great series on the American Revolution. Visiting Mt. Vernon is also well worth your time. This book, however, is not worth your time.
April 20, 2019
Not so much a biography of Washington as an exploration of his legacy, which is a lot more substantive than the dollar bill and that weirdly phallic monument in the city which bears his name. Burns and his co-author, Susan Dunn, make a fairly convincing case for Washington as the predecessor for the "imperial presidency" we all know and love (depending on who's in the White House) today, because the Constitution, the ink on which wasn't dry when POTUS # 1 took office, was a lot less prescriptive about the Executive branch than it was about the legislative, so it was destined to take on the character of its first leader. And George, as a military commander and plantation owner, was used to being in charge. It's all politics, policy and principle, and thus a little dry, a few details about the workaday world of the first Presidency might have livened it up a bit (still odd to think that Washington never set foot in, well, Washington), but interesting nonetheless.
May 27, 2025
In my quest to get back into reading books about presidents, I decided to start this series. I'm going to read them in presidential order. I can't say that I learned anything new in this book. But I have read somewhat extensively on George Washington, so that did not really surprise me. But to be honest, I didn't really like this book all that much. I don't know if it was the writing style, the fact that so much had to be left out or something else entirely. If you're looking for a good one volume short book of Washington I would start with Joseph J. Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington instead.
June 22, 2017
I believe I read this book some time ago when I first started collecting the American Presidents series. But when I wanted to make a concerted effort to read the series I collected, I figured starting at the beginning made sense. I have Audible versions of the first four books and so started listening.
This seems to me like a rather balanced view of GW with a few interesting ideas thrown out. The two most interesting aspects are how our first president was intensely focused on his image and reputation, and perhaps worked to craft it, and how his focus on unity, prosperity and strength ended up strengthening party factions. I am not enough of a Washington scholar to really judge the assertions and claims but it strikes me as a solid introduction.
This seems to me like a rather balanced view of GW with a few interesting ideas thrown out. The two most interesting aspects are how our first president was intensely focused on his image and reputation, and perhaps worked to craft it, and how his focus on unity, prosperity and strength ended up strengthening party factions. I am not enough of a Washington scholar to really judge the assertions and claims but it strikes me as a solid introduction.
October 19, 2017
Probably the best book in this series I have read to date. It is quite a challenge to cover any of the presidents in approximately 150 pages. The authors have organized their material very well. I was particularly impressed by a "look back" chapter which summarized the political issues during Washington's presidency, positing three competing but not mutually exclusive attitudes toward government, the Federalist (which Washington shared), the Madisonian, and the Jeffersonian. What we have ended up with, of course, is not any one of these but an amalgam of these three different roots which played themselves out over the decades.
February 9, 2018
After Chernow, everything's kinda meh, but this also served a very different role than Chernow's biography of Washington. Chernow wanted to reveal the man behind the myth, while the American Presidents Series is more about The Office of the President of the United States and Burns takes that message to heart, placing particular emphasis on the precedents that Washington set, but not the inner life and very human struggles of this larger-than-life figure. The book does it's job and is a reasonable choice if you only have time for a short Washington biography, but it wasn't really what I was in the mood for.
May 12, 2017
One of my personal goals is to read a book on every US President in chronological order. I'm glad to have found the Time Presidential Series as there is so much to choose from out there. The Time Presidential series are straight and to the point.
I finished this book on President Washington and was somewhat suprised to learn that our political party system started during his presidency (he personally had no challengers at the first election) and the infighting began with the signing of the Jay Treaty. Very good (and short) read.
I finished this book on President Washington and was somewhat suprised to learn that our political party system started during his presidency (he personally had no challengers at the first election) and the infighting began with the signing of the Jay Treaty. Very good (and short) read.
May 19, 2017
Unlike many biographers, Burns and Dunn do not attempt to apotheosize our first President. In this small volume, they present Washington as a man of the Enlightenment era, with all his flaws and weaknesses as well as his strengths. If he had chosen to stand for a third term, the divisiveness already present in Washington's Cabinet might have torn the young nation apart; instead, he chose to retire to life on Mount Vernon, unconsciously setting the "two-term limit" that his successors followed until FDR in 1940.
February 21, 2019
First (obviously) in the American Presidents Series, this series covers the first 43 presidents in compact biographies meant for accessibility. This was certainly that. It packed in a decent bit of info without a lot of depth. Although I will say it covered more in Indian affairs, at least by percent of total length, than any of the substantial bios I’ve read, which I thought shorted that subject.
I picked this up as part of a set of the first 4 Presidents, more bc I wanted another take at Madison and missed Adams, but figured I may as well read what they managed on George and Tom as well.
I picked this up as part of a set of the first 4 Presidents, more bc I wanted another take at Madison and missed Adams, but figured I may as well read what they managed on George and Tom as well.
April 20, 2019
Really didn’t get on with this for some reason. This is more of a history book on early America than an actual personal account of Washington’s life, which is sort of what I wanted to read. This all seems well written and researched though, so it’s just a case of me not getting what I wanted from a book, I think.
January 12, 2025
It was nearly exactly what I wanted. There are of course much longer biographies out there for people who want more detail. This biography provides a brief summary of Washington’s life before, during, and after his presidency. It highlights the major political views and events of his time, and where he stood on both.
December 4, 2018
This is my kind of biography. Tight and focused. You may not be presented with every anecdote about George Washington that exists, but if you're looking for an overview of the man, his time as President, and his legacy in less than 160 pages, it doesn't get much better than this.
July 7, 2024
I had a hard time understanding it. I read the Abraham Lincoln book which was a different author but I had no trouble understanding that one and actually enjoyed it.
I do wish that this book had some more information about his childhood and even how his married life was.
I do wish that this book had some more information about his childhood and even how his married life was.
September 14, 2025
This is a great introductory biography to the life of the first US President. It is very nicely written and easy for anyone with no knowledge of the man or the period to understand the principal events in his life
April 28, 2018
This is a brief introduction to Washington but I learned a lot.
June 22, 2019
Too brief.
January 27, 2020
it was ok. Not very detailed and seemed to jump all over the place. It felt more like a research paper than a book.
June 23, 2021
This book is really epic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews