George Washington's Indispensable Men

by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

While history has immortalized George Washington, it has largely forgotten those who helped to propel him to such greatness--the 32 men who served as his aides-de-camp. "George Washington's Indispensable Men" asserts that Washington relied heavily on these men for help in formulating policy and strategy. His aides were definitely not just "pen men," but real, behind-the-scenes advisors that potentially affected some of his greatest decisions.

Genres: American Revolution, History, Biography, Nonfiction

432 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2002

Reviews

[mary (ferrari's version) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.75/5

I took immense pleasure in reading this! And very grateful to the author for all the time and work he has put into researching this. There are but few resources one can use to learn about the aides.
The text is clear and not that complicated to understand. I also loved the letter extracts that were evidently very carefully selected for the book.
The only issues I take with this book are these:
- the facts contradict each other sometimes. for example, John Trumbull is cited as being a graduate of Yale, but then, about 30 pages later, it is said that he graduated from Harvard. Same with the date of McHenry’s arrival fluctuating between 1771 and 1772
- the text is sometimes not that clear on the dates that the aides have finished their service (this is especially evident with the sections on John Laurens)
Otherwise, this book is wonderful and a certain must-read for anyone who is interested in learning about the life and times of Washington’s aide-de-camps.

[Avis Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Washington's Indispensable Men is a good book which covers the lives of the 30-odd aides who served Washington in the field, examining their interactions and influence on their chief as well as the influence of their postwar careers on the nation. Very few of them came to bad, though several died prematurely. It was surprising, however, the large number who felt the urge to make money more than the urge to serve their country, and who left the army right when the United States was fighting for its very existence. Washington had a terrible time keeping good men in their jobs.

The book has one serious flaw. Though Lefkowitz did much research, I strongly disagree with his defense of General Charles Lee. Lefkowitz accuses Washington and the latter's aides of trying to railroad Lee out of the army, but even the author makes it clear that Lee let his forces fall apart at the Battle of Monmouth. Lee made no attempt to organize a proper fighting retreat when faced with stout British determination, gave no orders to his subordinates, and made no attempt to communicate his predicament to and consult with his superior until Washington arrived and demanded to know what was going on.

The job of an army is to win battles, not to protect the careers of incompetent generals. Many generals throughout history have found themselves in circumstances similar to Lee's and performed better. Dealing with a variety of emergencies, hairy situations, and the simple plain unexpected is part of the job description of being a general. Lee's duty, once he found his circumstances to be worse than expected, was to do the best he could with what he had. Letting your own forces fall apart and run away in confusion while you are paralyzed with indecision does not come under that heading. If you can't be court-martialed for that, then what on earth can you be court-martialed for? Washington had ordered Lee to harass the enemy, and Lee failed to do even that.

Lefkowitz thinks there is something outrageous about the way Lee was treated. On the contrary, Lee would have been court-martialed by any army anywhere, and Lefkowitz's conclusion is absurd. Considering that Lefkowitz has written two books in praise of Benedict Arnold, it appears the author is one of the those historians who are regrettably attracted to scoundrels.

Lefkowitz also accuses Washington's aides tried to spin doctor Monmouth into an American victory which it did not deserve. However, if Monmouth wasn't an American victory, then Gettysburg wasn't a Union victory. Both battles are remarkably similar. The two armies collided with each other unexpectedly, and after the Americans (and Union) quickly picked a defensive spot and fought hard with the enemy, the enemy failed to make any gains stick, and so fell back in retreat. We traditionally award a victory to the side that keeps possession of the field, so Monmouth sure looks like a victory to me. The overall strategic goal of the British was to destroy American forces and render them useless, not to finish their own retreat, and British sure didn't defeat the Americans at Monmouth.

Nevertheless, if you can overlook the author's weird biases, Indispensable Men is book with much to recommend it to a student of this period.

[D.L · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was very good. I enjoyed the writing style, keeping it very informative while also making it enjoyable to read. Many an historical text are dry and honestly kind of boring. This one took the lives of these men and wove biological information with the timeline of the war in an easy to follow and interesting way.

[Luis Peña · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised reading this book. The author did a great job researching events, locations, and personal letters to bring alive the inner circle of George Washington's military family. After reading through some of the minor Aides-De-Camp, the author introduces the reader to great men who greatly embodied the revolution while aiding George Washington(such as, Alexander Hamilton, John Laurens, Thomas Mifflin, among others). Adding the history from which each man came from, the reader is introduced to not only the qualities that made up each man but to the characteristics of the era as a whole(Gentleman-ship, Duty, Honor, & Friendship, etc.) As a whole, it is a great read, riding side-by-side with George Washington and his men throughout the whole Revolution. Highly Recommended.

[Rebecca Dupont · Rating 5 out of 5]

This may be one of my favorite books, it has been instrumental to my own writing through the detailed accounts of each individual man in this office as well as the daily workings if the Continental Army and simple life in the 18th century. I learned so many new things about the war, individual battles and the relationships with these men. The politics and personal lives, General Washington as an officer and a person, how this also affected the very fighting of the war brought a new view upon the revolution itself to me. I would highly reccomend this book if you have an interest in the Revolution or any individual person in the book, or just want to learn more.

[JMarie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Considering how much trouble I had tracking down a copy of this book, I really had higher hopes for it. I definitely appreciated the deep dive into so many details of the war and the people who served in this capacity. But overall this book is a bit of a meandering mess. Lots of asides that have no direct bearing on the people Lefkowitz is supposedly writing about (INTERESTING asides, but they often felt like they were just there because—despite being irrelevant to the subject at hand—the author thought they were too quirky and fun to leave out).

The author also makes some pretty huge leaps in logic, and has a tendency to theorize wildly on things that really don't need explanation. Any time I see lots sentences in a nonfiction history start with, "It's possible that..." / "Washington may have..." / "We can probably safely assume..." etc etc etc, I tend to look at the whole book askance. There are also a great many places where the author's conclusions directly contradict EVERY OTHER BOOK I HAVE READ on this era—which is not in itself proof that the author is wrong, but considering I've never seen some of these theories even posited before... I dunno man, it smells kinda funky to me.

The book could also have done with some serious help in the copy-editing department. The writing isn't bad, but the number of typos and formatting problems made for a very distracting read. Overall, I don't recommend this book, and I'm a little perplexed at myself for the fact that I spent so very long forcing myself to finish reading a title I didn't enjoy.

[Sherry · Rating 5 out of 5]

We hear about George Washington and picture his war efforts as a solo player. Not so! George Washington's Indispensible Men is a look at the men who support Washington's efforts during the Revolutionary War and follows their individual lives after the war. I was introduced to the term 'aides-de-camp' for the first time to describe the assistants that surrounded a senior officer (any officer, not just Washington). Some of Washington's aides go on to be famous in their own right, such as Alexander Hamilton, and some are never heard from again. Some don't make it past the two week trial period. This book is a very interesting read.

[Lil Bringuier · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was good, some parts were quite long and textbook-y but it was full of good information and I enjoyed reading it

[MG King · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best nonfiction amrev book I’ve read

[Jaime · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like the author, I too come away from this book with a profound respect for the men who served as aides-de-camp to George Washington during the American Revolution.

[Christopher A · Rating 5 out of 5]

really engaging read. plenty of different characters to keep you interested. the author managed to never get bogged down with excessive detail and gave just the right amount of backstory for the reader to get the necessary picture. Book describes the extraordinary men who helped George Washington and how they came to be in that position.
Immediately had to read a John Laurens stand alone bio after this one.

[prbeckman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the only book I've been able to find that tells the story of Washington's 32 aides-de-camp. It presents a lot of information that you won't otherwise find collected in one book, but it's not as well written as I had hoped.