What do you think?
Rate this book
Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership
"Larson's elegantly written dual biography reveals that the partnership of Franklin and Washington was indispensable to the success of the Revolution." —Gordon S. Wood From the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian comes a masterful, first-of-its-kind dual biography of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, illuminating their partnership's enduring importance. NATIONAL BESTSELLER • One of Washington Post 's "10 Books to Read in February" • One of USA Today’s “Must-Read Books" of Winter 2020 • One of Publishers Weekly 's "Top Ten" Spring 2020 Memoirs/Biographies Theirs was a three-decade-long bond that, more than any other pairing, would forge the United States. Vastly different men, Benjamin Franklin—an abolitionist freethinker from the urban north—and George Washington—a slaveholding general from the agrarian south—were the indispensable authors of American independence and the two key partners in the attempt to craft a more perfect union at the Constitutional Convention, held in Franklin’s Philadelphia and presided over by Washington. And yet their teamwork has been little remarked upon in the centuries since. Illuminating Franklin and Washington’s relationship with striking new detail and energy, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Edward J. Larson shows that theirs was truly an intimate working friendship that amplified the talents of each for collective advancement of the American project. After long supporting British rule, both Franklin and Washington became key early proponents of independence. Their friendship gained historical significance during the American Revolution, when Franklin led America’s diplomatic mission in Europe (securing money and an alliance with France) and Washington commanded the Continental Army. Victory required both of these efforts to succeed, and success, in turn, required their mutual coordination and cooperation. In the 1780s, the two sought to strengthen the union, leading to the framing and ratification of the Constitution, the founding document that bears their stamp. Franklin and Washington—the two most revered figures in the early republic—staked their lives and fortunes on the American experiment in liberty and were committed to its preservation. Today the United States is the world’s great superpower, and yet we also wrestle with the government Franklin and Washington created more than two centuries ago—the power of the executive branch, the principle of checks and balances, the electoral college—as well as the wounds of their compromise over slavery. Now, as the founding institutions appear under new stress, it is time to understand their origins through the fresh lens of Larson’s Franklin & Washington, a major addition to the literature of the founding era.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published February 11, 2020
365 people are currently reading
4849 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. Larson
41 books177 followersEdward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 122 reviews
February 24, 2020
I didn’t really want to read another book about the Revolutionary War and the creation of the republic. The paring of Franklin and Washington was really just a device to lure readers like me into this book, and to rehash history. The book was fine, but it wasn’t what I was expecting. 3.5 stars
November 19, 2020
Edward Larson shows how Washington and Franklin were critical to forging the new nation. He shows their contributions were far beyond Washington’s military victory and Franklin’s diplomacy resulting in critical assistance from France. The book is divided into three “Books”.
The first book gives biographical highlights of the two men and their role in bringing the revolution about. He shows how Franklin was representative of the more urban and entrepreneurial north and Washington of the rural and plantation economy of the south. Both were among the earliest to recognize the need for independence from Great Britain. Franklin served in Britain as an agent for Pennsylvania colonists seeking to curb the excesses of the Penn family’s proprietorship. He saw a pervasive and intractable negative attitude towards the colonies. Washington served in the British army protecting territories from French incursion. He saw that same attitude resulting in talented locally born soldiers serving less able officers from England. Both men observed the weakness of the British army in their service in the French and Indian War.
In Book II skirmishes between the colonists and the British have begun both men recognize that independence, not compromise, will solve the problems. Both accept the that this will mean war and recognize importance of French support and the need for a professional army and not a volunteer militia to win it. Larson shows how during the war Washington earned respect for leading the military and Franklin for his diplomacy in France.
After the war, both recognized the urgency to have one country. Many leaders of the revolution recognized the colonies were stronger together. Some of them favored having their own colonies as countries but most recognized that this would open the door to separate alliances with foreign governments. Book III covers shows Washington and Franklin taking initiative for seeing that there would be one country. It shows their painstaking and frustrating work of laying the foundation for this new country.
The colonies feared a strong central government that could tax them, conscript them and take their rights away. Southern states feared the northern states would take their slaves; Northern states did not want to defend plantation owners against slave rebellions. There were the issues of populous and rural colonies, the powers of the chief executive and the need for a Bill of Rights. Larson shows how differences were not easy to resolve and how both men used their influence to effect compromise.
The final chapter covers their legacies showing Washington as a man of his time and Franklin as a citizen of the future.
The notes are extensive. There is an index (which I did not use) and color plates.
For readers of this era, there is not much new. For its clarity, I see Book III on the difficulties of framing the Constitution as a supplement to a high school course in government or a PoliSci 101 course in the Constitution.
The first book gives biographical highlights of the two men and their role in bringing the revolution about. He shows how Franklin was representative of the more urban and entrepreneurial north and Washington of the rural and plantation economy of the south. Both were among the earliest to recognize the need for independence from Great Britain. Franklin served in Britain as an agent for Pennsylvania colonists seeking to curb the excesses of the Penn family’s proprietorship. He saw a pervasive and intractable negative attitude towards the colonies. Washington served in the British army protecting territories from French incursion. He saw that same attitude resulting in talented locally born soldiers serving less able officers from England. Both men observed the weakness of the British army in their service in the French and Indian War.
In Book II skirmishes between the colonists and the British have begun both men recognize that independence, not compromise, will solve the problems. Both accept the that this will mean war and recognize importance of French support and the need for a professional army and not a volunteer militia to win it. Larson shows how during the war Washington earned respect for leading the military and Franklin for his diplomacy in France.
After the war, both recognized the urgency to have one country. Many leaders of the revolution recognized the colonies were stronger together. Some of them favored having their own colonies as countries but most recognized that this would open the door to separate alliances with foreign governments. Book III covers shows Washington and Franklin taking initiative for seeing that there would be one country. It shows their painstaking and frustrating work of laying the foundation for this new country.
The colonies feared a strong central government that could tax them, conscript them and take their rights away. Southern states feared the northern states would take their slaves; Northern states did not want to defend plantation owners against slave rebellions. There were the issues of populous and rural colonies, the powers of the chief executive and the need for a Bill of Rights. Larson shows how differences were not easy to resolve and how both men used their influence to effect compromise.
The final chapter covers their legacies showing Washington as a man of his time and Franklin as a citizen of the future.
The notes are extensive. There is an index (which I did not use) and color plates.
For readers of this era, there is not much new. For its clarity, I see Book III on the difficulties of framing the Constitution as a supplement to a high school course in government or a PoliSci 101 course in the Constitution.
November 10, 2019
3+ The publisher’s description of Franklin and Washington calls it a “dual biography”; I think this will set up the wrong expectation in a reader. The book has interesting details about Franklin and Washington’s lives, but I think it is better described as a history of the founding of our country, with an emphasis on the contributions of these two men.
Indeed, one might wonder if our country would have been founded at all without Franklin and Washington, given their central roles in so many aspects of that period of history. In the first section of the book, Larson discusses the French and Indian War and other military actions that preceded the Revolutionary War in some detail. We all know of Washington’s participation, but I had not realized that Franklin led the Pennsylvania militia during the French and Indian War. The second section takes the reader through the Revolutionary War, where Franklin’s diplomatic success was crucial to Washington’s military accomplishments. And in the final section, we learn about the meetings that produced the US Constitution, and how Franklin and Washington pragmatically helped guide the representatives of the then-sovereign states to overcome their significant differences and form a more perfect union.
Within the broader picture of the founding of the United States, Larson paints wonderful portraits of Franklin and Washington’s contrasting personalities and styles and gives interesting information on their early lives that we don’t usually get in history class, e.g., Washington was not always the aristocratic plantation owner we associate with Mount Vernon, and both men in today’s terms might be called real estate speculators. This is mostly in the context of their historical importance; for example, there is little about their marriages or children. Despite their differences in age, background, and personality (Larson calls Washington the “father figure” and Ben Franklin the “favorite uncle”.) and their geographic separation in an age when both transportation and communication were so difficult, he emphasizes their long friendship and stresses that they were “friends first and, unlike John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, never rivals.”
It is not surprising that a historian of Larson’s stature would make use of primary sources, and the book is enlivened by quotes from many of the famous figures of the day. This modern reader especially enjoyed the contrast between the more formal style used in that period and the poor spelling that came from the common lack of much formal education. I was surprised to hear that Franklin had more formal education than Washington, and Washington shows his lack of education when he complains that his troops during the French and Indian War “are of those loose, Idle Persons that are quite destitute of House, and Home, and, I may truely say, many of them of Cloaths.”
Some of their contemporaries apparently felt Franklin’s and Washington’s contributions were overrated. John Adams complained that history would say that “Dr Franklins electrical Rod, Smote the Earth and out Spring General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his Rod—and thence forward these two conducted all the Policy Negotiations Legislation and War.” Ed Larson is too good a historian to foster such exaggeration, but he leaves the reader with a real appreciation for the accomplishments of these two remarkable men.
Indeed, one might wonder if our country would have been founded at all without Franklin and Washington, given their central roles in so many aspects of that period of history. In the first section of the book, Larson discusses the French and Indian War and other military actions that preceded the Revolutionary War in some detail. We all know of Washington’s participation, but I had not realized that Franklin led the Pennsylvania militia during the French and Indian War. The second section takes the reader through the Revolutionary War, where Franklin’s diplomatic success was crucial to Washington’s military accomplishments. And in the final section, we learn about the meetings that produced the US Constitution, and how Franklin and Washington pragmatically helped guide the representatives of the then-sovereign states to overcome their significant differences and form a more perfect union.
Within the broader picture of the founding of the United States, Larson paints wonderful portraits of Franklin and Washington’s contrasting personalities and styles and gives interesting information on their early lives that we don’t usually get in history class, e.g., Washington was not always the aristocratic plantation owner we associate with Mount Vernon, and both men in today’s terms might be called real estate speculators. This is mostly in the context of their historical importance; for example, there is little about their marriages or children. Despite their differences in age, background, and personality (Larson calls Washington the “father figure” and Ben Franklin the “favorite uncle”.) and their geographic separation in an age when both transportation and communication were so difficult, he emphasizes their long friendship and stresses that they were “friends first and, unlike John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, never rivals.”
It is not surprising that a historian of Larson’s stature would make use of primary sources, and the book is enlivened by quotes from many of the famous figures of the day. This modern reader especially enjoyed the contrast between the more formal style used in that period and the poor spelling that came from the common lack of much formal education. I was surprised to hear that Franklin had more formal education than Washington, and Washington shows his lack of education when he complains that his troops during the French and Indian War “are of those loose, Idle Persons that are quite destitute of House, and Home, and, I may truely say, many of them of Cloaths.”
Some of their contemporaries apparently felt Franklin’s and Washington’s contributions were overrated. John Adams complained that history would say that “Dr Franklins electrical Rod, Smote the Earth and out Spring General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his Rod—and thence forward these two conducted all the Policy Negotiations Legislation and War.” Ed Larson is too good a historian to foster such exaggeration, but he leaves the reader with a real appreciation for the accomplishments of these two remarkable men.
December 18, 2019
3.5 stars.
Interesting concept: The friendship and partnership of founding Americans Ben Franklin and George Washington is an overlooked and crucial piece of history.
This book is a great review of the events that transpired in and related to the American colonies from about 1750-1800. It's a helpful chronology, it brings in other key players without overwhelming the reader with too many to keep track of, and it successfully weaves in Franklin's and Washington's separate and joint contributions.
The main focuses are the Revolution and the Constitution, unsurprisingly.
I find it so interesting how hard it is for historians to denounce Washington vis-à-vis slavery. Even when they are grappling with his enthusiastic support and use of the cruel institution, and going so far as to question and criticize ol' Geo. W., they just can't stop from talking about how he managed to be "great" (in the sense of significant.) They are so rarely able to just write a scathing critique.
There are many fun facts herein, and I gained an even deeper understanding of Franklin, always enjoyable.
Interesting concept: The friendship and partnership of founding Americans Ben Franklin and George Washington is an overlooked and crucial piece of history.
This book is a great review of the events that transpired in and related to the American colonies from about 1750-1800. It's a helpful chronology, it brings in other key players without overwhelming the reader with too many to keep track of, and it successfully weaves in Franklin's and Washington's separate and joint contributions.
The main focuses are the Revolution and the Constitution, unsurprisingly.
I find it so interesting how hard it is for historians to denounce Washington vis-à-vis slavery. Even when they are grappling with his enthusiastic support and use of the cruel institution, and going so far as to question and criticize ol' Geo. W., they just can't stop from talking about how he managed to be "great" (in the sense of significant.) They are so rarely able to just write a scathing critique.
There are many fun facts herein, and I gained an even deeper understanding of Franklin, always enjoyable.
June 7, 2024
Zooming in on just the letters and actions of Franklin and Washington was an interesting idea because it can bring out some lesser known facets of the war, but it gets some things wrong.
- Maryland was the state that held out on signing the Articles of Confederation, not New Jersey.
- Adams and Jay were the ones who changed the negotiations to end the war from multi-lateral to bi-lateral, not Franklin.
- Franklin was a lot more ill at the constitutional convention than the book allows, having him make all kinds of speeches whereas in reality they were written out in advance and read out on his behalf.
It's good on the details of the anti-slavery petitions Franklin was involved with at the end of his life, and what happened to them.
In general the book needed to take a deeper dive than it did. One fruitful area might have been Franklin's six terms governing Pennsylvania, where he successfully managed to bring the opposing sides together. More details on how he managed that particular trick might be useful to the country about now...
- Maryland was the state that held out on signing the Articles of Confederation, not New Jersey.
- Adams and Jay were the ones who changed the negotiations to end the war from multi-lateral to bi-lateral, not Franklin.
- Franklin was a lot more ill at the constitutional convention than the book allows, having him make all kinds of speeches whereas in reality they were written out in advance and read out on his behalf.
It's good on the details of the anti-slavery petitions Franklin was involved with at the end of his life, and what happened to them.
In general the book needed to take a deeper dive than it did. One fruitful area might have been Franklin's six terms governing Pennsylvania, where he successfully managed to bring the opposing sides together. More details on how he managed that particular trick might be useful to the country about now...
February 4, 2025
While not normally connected in the same way that Washington and Hamilton or Franklin and Jefferson tend to be, Mr. Larson's book connects Franklin & Washington in a way that makes their partnership seems obvious and foundational. Not as comprehensive as a biography of either of them would be, Mr. Larson, instead, drew parallels between their experiences, background, and influence on the founding of the American republic. I already knew these two men were remarkable, but seeing how they overlapped, worked together, and used their influence to make history made my opinion grow even more.
My intention wasn't to hoover up the book quite as quickly as I did, but I couldn't help but keep reading as I was enjoying it so much. I especially appreciated the author's attention to both men's use of their influence to search for compromises where necessary or to drive coalition where it didn't. Critics may point out that both of them existed in a pre-party system, this didn't preclude politics from being part of what they both had to deal with. I wish we enjoyed a bit more of the spirit of the Revolution today working for the collective good rather than the bipartisan fights we seem to increasingly resort to today.
52 Book Club 2025 Challenge, prompt 2 "a character with red hair" for the young George Washington.
My intention wasn't to hoover up the book quite as quickly as I did, but I couldn't help but keep reading as I was enjoying it so much. I especially appreciated the author's attention to both men's use of their influence to search for compromises where necessary or to drive coalition where it didn't. Critics may point out that both of them existed in a pre-party system, this didn't preclude politics from being part of what they both had to deal with. I wish we enjoyed a bit more of the spirit of the Revolution today working for the collective good rather than the bipartisan fights we seem to increasingly resort to today.
52 Book Club 2025 Challenge, prompt 2 "a character with red hair" for the young George Washington.
September 15, 2020
"Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership" doesn't quite live up to it's premise: That they were frequent collaborators and friends but it is a great biography of both of them and a strong Revolutionary American history. I picked it up because I've never really read much about Franklin and I was not disappointed. Franklin comes off much better in this book than Washington but being on the wrong side of the Slavery issue does tend to do that.
Larson did a great job of a relatively brief portrait of two of America's most important founding fathers. I like the idea that Washington was a man of his time and that Franklin would be completely comfortable in today's America. I had never really thought of that but the more I found out about Franklin, I'm inclined to agree. Strong book, if a bit too brief.
Larson did a great job of a relatively brief portrait of two of America's most important founding fathers. I like the idea that Washington was a man of his time and that Franklin would be completely comfortable in today's America. I had never really thought of that but the more I found out about Franklin, I'm inclined to agree. Strong book, if a bit too brief.
July 15, 2021
Thanks to my social studies classes in grade school my imagining of the American Revolution has long been that of tri-corner hats, Johnny Tremane, and a bunch of legal tender hanging out in some New England ballroom signing papers.
I know this isn’t how it happened. What I’m able to pull from my fact sheets on George Washington and Ben Franklin would fill a matchbook. George’s wooden teeth and his inability to tell a lie, oh and something about a cherry tree—Zzzz. And Ben flew kites in the rain just to eventually have your mom harp on you about taking a shower when it’s lightning outside. I’m so disappointed in my grade school social studies. These tattered old threadbare factoids about some of our most circulated currency are hardly brought up in Edward Larson’s “Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership.” Thank goodness!
Now if you thought this book was gonna be George and Ben riding around the 13 colonies beating up British soldiers, trading girlfriends, and signing America’s closing papers, then you are sadly mistaken. What Larson shells out is ground floor making of America stuff leading back to the French and Indian War (which as far as the rest of the world was concerned was the Seven Years War, but lasted nine—long story) all the way up to Washington and Franklin’s deaths. Spoiler alert.
Now let’s talk about those glaring omissions from 6th grade history class. I’ve got good news and bad news. Let’s start with the bad news. George Washington, let’s say, wasn’t what you’d call a Black Lives Matter kind of guy. Oh no, George was a slave owner, and he was pretty hard-headed about it too. And so was about half the delegates in the Continental Congress. George also sort of lucked into everything he ever did, and got by on charisma. Sound familiar? Yikes! But he was intelligent, a great public speaker, and had a terrific work ethic. His ability to rally people is exactly what America needed at the time, in spite of his mostly being a grump on a personal level. Strange as it may seem, I’m not sure the Father of Our Country would cut it in today’s America. Be glad you’re dead, George.
The good news is Benjamin Franklin was there to be the reasonable person this country needed deal with all the red tape that goes along with Independence. Every George Washington needs a Benjamin Franklin. We could stand a few more Benjamin Franklin’s today. Ben Franklin was the kind of guy with an easygoing demeanor and a sharp wit who you wanted to get to talk to you but you knew you could never match him, and he somehow made you feel okay about it. In short, the coolest guy in the room. Trouble is, he was also a satirist, and unfortunately satire is lost on most modern Americans, and he’d probably be on the cancelled list too. But I digress.
It’s a common misconception that Ben was President. Well, he was, just of Pennsylvania (First in Abolition—why isn’t this on PA license plates? It’s a great way to make all the other states look bad.) It’s true, PA was the first state to abolish slavery, so that makes Ben our reasonable, abolitionist friend who tirelessly worked to end slavery in the Constitution, but much like today, there were too many paranoid radicals who were terrified of how it would impinge upon their newfound liberty (ironic), and most importantly, their bottom line. It’s easy to see why George is on the one-dollar bill and Ben is on the hundred.
Ben caught so much pushback on the slavery stuff that he finally had to say, “Look, let’s just get this Constitution out the door before we lose steam. We’ll deal with the slavery business in 1808.” And as we all know—or should know—slavery, thankfully ended in 1865 in “America Part 2: The Civil War.”
Bottom line is: look, I don’t blame my social studies teachers. They were working with a curriculum that was based on a 17 chapter textbook that ranged from the pilgrims to the first Gulf War and George Washington and Ben Franklin only got about 20 pages, so yeah you’re gonna leave out some of the skeletons in America’s closet, especially to a bunch of impressionable 10 year olds. But inherent historical dryness notwithstanding, Larson does a great job picking up the slack, and I now feel like one of those social media scholars who calls people out during election season or social upheaval. Being able to do that is what this county is all about, right?
Four stars.
I know this isn’t how it happened. What I’m able to pull from my fact sheets on George Washington and Ben Franklin would fill a matchbook. George’s wooden teeth and his inability to tell a lie, oh and something about a cherry tree—Zzzz. And Ben flew kites in the rain just to eventually have your mom harp on you about taking a shower when it’s lightning outside. I’m so disappointed in my grade school social studies. These tattered old threadbare factoids about some of our most circulated currency are hardly brought up in Edward Larson’s “Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership.” Thank goodness!
Now if you thought this book was gonna be George and Ben riding around the 13 colonies beating up British soldiers, trading girlfriends, and signing America’s closing papers, then you are sadly mistaken. What Larson shells out is ground floor making of America stuff leading back to the French and Indian War (which as far as the rest of the world was concerned was the Seven Years War, but lasted nine—long story) all the way up to Washington and Franklin’s deaths. Spoiler alert.
Now let’s talk about those glaring omissions from 6th grade history class. I’ve got good news and bad news. Let’s start with the bad news. George Washington, let’s say, wasn’t what you’d call a Black Lives Matter kind of guy. Oh no, George was a slave owner, and he was pretty hard-headed about it too. And so was about half the delegates in the Continental Congress. George also sort of lucked into everything he ever did, and got by on charisma. Sound familiar? Yikes! But he was intelligent, a great public speaker, and had a terrific work ethic. His ability to rally people is exactly what America needed at the time, in spite of his mostly being a grump on a personal level. Strange as it may seem, I’m not sure the Father of Our Country would cut it in today’s America. Be glad you’re dead, George.
The good news is Benjamin Franklin was there to be the reasonable person this country needed deal with all the red tape that goes along with Independence. Every George Washington needs a Benjamin Franklin. We could stand a few more Benjamin Franklin’s today. Ben Franklin was the kind of guy with an easygoing demeanor and a sharp wit who you wanted to get to talk to you but you knew you could never match him, and he somehow made you feel okay about it. In short, the coolest guy in the room. Trouble is, he was also a satirist, and unfortunately satire is lost on most modern Americans, and he’d probably be on the cancelled list too. But I digress.
It’s a common misconception that Ben was President. Well, he was, just of Pennsylvania (First in Abolition—why isn’t this on PA license plates? It’s a great way to make all the other states look bad.) It’s true, PA was the first state to abolish slavery, so that makes Ben our reasonable, abolitionist friend who tirelessly worked to end slavery in the Constitution, but much like today, there were too many paranoid radicals who were terrified of how it would impinge upon their newfound liberty (ironic), and most importantly, their bottom line. It’s easy to see why George is on the one-dollar bill and Ben is on the hundred.
Ben caught so much pushback on the slavery stuff that he finally had to say, “Look, let’s just get this Constitution out the door before we lose steam. We’ll deal with the slavery business in 1808.” And as we all know—or should know—slavery, thankfully ended in 1865 in “America Part 2: The Civil War.”
Bottom line is: look, I don’t blame my social studies teachers. They were working with a curriculum that was based on a 17 chapter textbook that ranged from the pilgrims to the first Gulf War and George Washington and Ben Franklin only got about 20 pages, so yeah you’re gonna leave out some of the skeletons in America’s closet, especially to a bunch of impressionable 10 year olds. But inherent historical dryness notwithstanding, Larson does a great job picking up the slack, and I now feel like one of those social media scholars who calls people out during election season or social upheaval. Being able to do that is what this county is all about, right?
Four stars.
April 1, 2021
This book strikes its mark far better than most side by side biographies can. Larson doesn't get bogged down in reciting the oft told tales about either of these men. While that means that Washington's blunders in the 1750s get more time than his achievements at Yorktown, it serves to hone the point of the book well. Larson wanders for the first 1/3 before hitting stride near the middle and finishing with a final 100 pages that are nearly brilliant.
June 29, 2021
Well written and balanced, it focuses more on the similarities of Washington and Franklin while extending the differences to illustrate the continuing differences In our country today as well as explaining how their strengths and weaknesses are reflected in our countries strengths and weaknesses. A great primer for anyone interested in a comprehensive view of these complicated, yet monumental men who almost singlehandedly created our country.
September 30, 2024
In the pantheon of America’s founders the two indispensable giants are Washington and Franklin. In this valuable but somewhat flawed book the author brings to light the long history of communication and support between these two seminal figures and how their shared goals of a unified United States rather than a loose confederation of independent state republics produced a synergy eventually leading to an effective federal government under the U.S. Constitution. Where the partnership broke apart in the author’s view was in Washington’s failure to lend his prestige to Franklin’s opposition to slavery which tabled the resolution of this terrible issue, and the last part of the book is largely devoted to this failing. Whether one buys the thesis that Washington could have made a significant contribution to abolishing the scourge of slavery in his time, the book is marred by the ahistorical tendency now in vogue to view Washington’s character and motivations largely through the lens of this issue. A critical view of Washington on the moral issue of slavery is warranted but a stereotypical depiction of him is not. Nevertheless given the insights into the Franklin and Washington partnership in founding the country, I still rate the book as a worthwhile read.
February 18, 2020
Pretty much everyone knows that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were prime movers and shakers both pre-and post the American revolution and that their work did as much as any human efforts to shape this country. Libraries of books have been published about both of them. Hours of instruction have been spent exploring their lives and writings. What, then, you might ask yourself, as I did myself, does the world need with still more?
Edward J. Larson answers the question in fairly short order, but I'm going to lead here with what I found his most trenchant point, even though it occurs near the end of the book. The matter of Slavery.
The debates about slavery and the constitution are pretty well-known. The argument about the relative influence of large states and small states became intertwined with with how to count slaves. On the one hand, the more people you have in your state, the greater your influence in the house of representatives. On the other hand, if slaves were property and not really people, how could you count them at all? The 3/5 compromise whereby each slave counted as 60% of a person for census purposes was the result. Thus was the nation founded on a logically absurd, not to mention inhumane, premise.
Most writers pass this off as a sort condition of the times with little more consequence than knee-britches and cocked hats. That's always bothered me, and Larson is the first historian I've read who takes it head on.There was a thriving and powerful abolitionist movement in the colonies, not the least of which was based in Franklin's Pennsylvania. The movement recognized slavery as a hideous wrong, and he was part of the faction who opposed it.Even though he had some house slaves over the years, he had freed them by the time of the revolution and he had argued eloquently against notions of Negro inferiority.
The constitutional debates were filled with vitriolic rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Most memorable for me was the remark Larson quotes by one of our most quoted orators. The same man who called, "Give me liberty or give me death," when the time came to toss out the Articles of Confederation, yelled to all and sundry
They Will Free Your Niggers!
Such eloquence from a scion of the enlightenment, no?The final document (this I did not know) forbad even discussing, let alone acting on, the question of slavery until 1808, twenty years after the nation would be established. Thus did these courageous men turn into cowards when confronted with the deepest moral conflict of their time. And dare I say we are still paying the price.
Though urged by close friends to free his slaves, Washington could not bring himself to do so during his life, instead leaving manumission to a time after his wife had died. I might also mention that Jefferson, too, brilliant though he was, couldn't quite figure out how to let go of his mistress/chattel Sally Hemings or her (his, too, of course) mixed race children. Such a dilemma. Poor guy.
But back to the other 250 pages or so of Franklin and Washington. I've done a fair amount of reading on the period, and Larson is certainly correct in stating that despite their separate accomplishments, no one has much explored how the relationship between the two men began, developed, and influenced this particular "course of human events."
That Washington was a surveyor is fairly well-known. That he used his surveying work to get the inside scoop on available land and thus build his freehold far beyond what it would have otherwise been is much less known. At least to me. Nothing wrong with that. In a system of primogeniture, the third son competing with not only two brothers but a couple of half-brothers needed every advantage he could get.
Franklin had it just as bad or worse, trailing in birth behind five older brothers. He was every bit as enterprising as Washington, but chose, as most of us know, to write, print, publish, and invest rather than to join the landed gentry. Or, as Washington did, to join the military.
Both became prominent in their own ways and undoubtedly knew of one another, but their paths ran parallel for decades without significantly touching one another (Franklin being twenty years the senior), finally converging during first continental congress in 1774.
Astoundingly, Franklin was sixty-nine at that time, yet still had the energy to exercise leadership far beyond the capabilities and energy of lesser and younger men.Washington had built himself a considerable military reputation as a British officer, had married well, and had become a man of property and influence.How could two men with such disparate skills, separated by a generation of years and constellation of life experiences, work together amid the crises that finally resulted in a group of ragtag colonies defeating the army of the world's preeminent war machine?
Larson doesn't make it explicit, but it seems obvious that their different backgrounds and styles complemented one another. Washington, the stalwart soldier, tall, commanding, accustomed to being listened to and obeyed. Franklin, the convivial joiner, intellect, scientist, founder of discussion groups on every conceivable subject. The theorist as well as a practical realist who founded libraries, invented machines and spectacles, and created homespun mottoes to live by.
Washington could command a room simply by walking through the door. Franklin could start a conversation with about anyone on any subject. And do it a at least two languages. Thus a diplomat and a general. The revolution needed both. Washington appears in our mythology in full military regalia. Franklin dared to look rather ridiculous in a fur hat that enthralled the French and their romantic image of America when he was ambassador. The revolution needed both. And, though the two men apparently were never really hugs and loving close, they formed a potent team that had as much to do not only with the success of the revolution but in reflecting and even forming the character that became us.
Edward J. Larson answers the question in fairly short order, but I'm going to lead here with what I found his most trenchant point, even though it occurs near the end of the book. The matter of Slavery.
The debates about slavery and the constitution are pretty well-known. The argument about the relative influence of large states and small states became intertwined with with how to count slaves. On the one hand, the more people you have in your state, the greater your influence in the house of representatives. On the other hand, if slaves were property and not really people, how could you count them at all? The 3/5 compromise whereby each slave counted as 60% of a person for census purposes was the result. Thus was the nation founded on a logically absurd, not to mention inhumane, premise.
Most writers pass this off as a sort condition of the times with little more consequence than knee-britches and cocked hats. That's always bothered me, and Larson is the first historian I've read who takes it head on.There was a thriving and powerful abolitionist movement in the colonies, not the least of which was based in Franklin's Pennsylvania. The movement recognized slavery as a hideous wrong, and he was part of the faction who opposed it.Even though he had some house slaves over the years, he had freed them by the time of the revolution and he had argued eloquently against notions of Negro inferiority.
The constitutional debates were filled with vitriolic rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Most memorable for me was the remark Larson quotes by one of our most quoted orators. The same man who called, "Give me liberty or give me death," when the time came to toss out the Articles of Confederation, yelled to all and sundry
They Will Free Your Niggers!
Such eloquence from a scion of the enlightenment, no?The final document (this I did not know) forbad even discussing, let alone acting on, the question of slavery until 1808, twenty years after the nation would be established. Thus did these courageous men turn into cowards when confronted with the deepest moral conflict of their time. And dare I say we are still paying the price.
Though urged by close friends to free his slaves, Washington could not bring himself to do so during his life, instead leaving manumission to a time after his wife had died. I might also mention that Jefferson, too, brilliant though he was, couldn't quite figure out how to let go of his mistress/chattel Sally Hemings or her (his, too, of course) mixed race children. Such a dilemma. Poor guy.
But back to the other 250 pages or so of Franklin and Washington. I've done a fair amount of reading on the period, and Larson is certainly correct in stating that despite their separate accomplishments, no one has much explored how the relationship between the two men began, developed, and influenced this particular "course of human events."
That Washington was a surveyor is fairly well-known. That he used his surveying work to get the inside scoop on available land and thus build his freehold far beyond what it would have otherwise been is much less known. At least to me. Nothing wrong with that. In a system of primogeniture, the third son competing with not only two brothers but a couple of half-brothers needed every advantage he could get.
Franklin had it just as bad or worse, trailing in birth behind five older brothers. He was every bit as enterprising as Washington, but chose, as most of us know, to write, print, publish, and invest rather than to join the landed gentry. Or, as Washington did, to join the military.
Both became prominent in their own ways and undoubtedly knew of one another, but their paths ran parallel for decades without significantly touching one another (Franklin being twenty years the senior), finally converging during first continental congress in 1774.
Astoundingly, Franklin was sixty-nine at that time, yet still had the energy to exercise leadership far beyond the capabilities and energy of lesser and younger men.Washington had built himself a considerable military reputation as a British officer, had married well, and had become a man of property and influence.How could two men with such disparate skills, separated by a generation of years and constellation of life experiences, work together amid the crises that finally resulted in a group of ragtag colonies defeating the army of the world's preeminent war machine?
Larson doesn't make it explicit, but it seems obvious that their different backgrounds and styles complemented one another. Washington, the stalwart soldier, tall, commanding, accustomed to being listened to and obeyed. Franklin, the convivial joiner, intellect, scientist, founder of discussion groups on every conceivable subject. The theorist as well as a practical realist who founded libraries, invented machines and spectacles, and created homespun mottoes to live by.
Washington could command a room simply by walking through the door. Franklin could start a conversation with about anyone on any subject. And do it a at least two languages. Thus a diplomat and a general. The revolution needed both. Washington appears in our mythology in full military regalia. Franklin dared to look rather ridiculous in a fur hat that enthralled the French and their romantic image of America when he was ambassador. The revolution needed both. And, though the two men apparently were never really hugs and loving close, they formed a potent team that had as much to do not only with the success of the revolution but in reflecting and even forming the character that became us.
January 6, 2022
This book wasn't as much about a partnership between the two men as it was about how their work and lives intersected regarding the American Revolution. It also was a dry read at times. Not what I was expecting it to be. Interesting at times, but still dry.
November 17, 2024
I have nothing really negative to say here, it’s just that I’ve yet to read a dual biography I have loved. This book is worth reading if you are interested in early, revolutionary American history, as Washington and Franklin are instrumental here, but having read multiple biographies and books on these subjects, there wasn’t enough new here for me. I did appreciate the very positive take on Franklin ( I always do).
June 8, 2021
Interesting perspective. A bit dry but it is a historical biography of 2 great American icons. What fortune early America had to have these men, among others, to build our nation.
May 24, 2020
Well written and concise account of the in-person and philosophical meetings, overlaps, and disagreements between Franklin and Washington. Nicely done.
February 18, 2020
With a critical presidential election less than nine months away, millions of Americans are looking for guidance before they cast what might be the most important vote of a lifetime. Perhaps they would be wise to turn their attention from the din of social media to American history for both reassurance and inspiration. A good starting point in their search could be Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward J. Larson’s FRANKLIN & WASHINGTON: The Founding Partnership, an impressive joint survey of the lives of “the indispensable authors of American independence and the two key partners in the attempt to craft a more perfect union…”
Aimed at the general reader and, given the accomplishments of both men, eschewing any attempt at comprehensiveness, Larson’s account comprises three acts. The first --- focused on the French and Indian War --- examines the foundation of his subjects’ relationship, one that endured for more than three decades, and their connections in the period before the American Revolution. In the second section, Larson recounts their respective roles --- Washington on the battlefield and Franklin mostly in European diplomacy --- in achieving what must have seemed to both at many moments an improbable victory in the Revolutionary War. Finally, he analyzes their contributions to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution of the new American nation, with particular attention to their divergent views on the issue of slavery.
Emerging a generation apart from two radically different backgrounds --- Franklin the 15th of 17 children of a working-class Boston family, who left home at age 17, eventually landing in Philadelphia where he made his fortune in the printing business, and Washington, the scion of a well-to-do family of Virginia planters --- at first they would seem to share few traits that would allow them to work “shoulder to shoulder on the patriot cause.” Indeed, the two did not meet until 1755, when Franklin was already 49 years old, and Washington was just beginning to emerge as a public figure as a result of his military exploits on America’s western frontier. But as Larson demonstrates, “they shared a republican ideology and progressivist faith that relied on human reason and divine providence rather than traditional ways and established dogmas. They sought truth and accepted facts. Life could get better, they believed. Theirs did.”
Following on the drama of the eight-year-long Revolutionary War --- when Washington masterminded a disorganized and chronically underfunded army to achieve victory over the world’s most imposing military force, while Franklin deployed his considerable skill as a negotiator to secure France’s decisive support for the war effort --- the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, to which Larson devotes a great deal of attention, may seem arid by comparison. Yet it was in those debates that the foundation of an enduring republic was laid, along with the roots of some of the controversies --- notably, the conflicts between large and small states --- that define our politics to this day.
Chief among those controversies was slavery, the issue that Larson argues “shaped the Constitution.” On this issue, the views of Franklin and Washington could not have been more divergent. Washington, the owner of Mount Vernon, was master to some 300 slaves, ones he treated with barely a modicum of kindness. Though the urbanite Franklin at one time owned a handful of house slaves, his views on the issue evolved over his long life, culminating with his assumption of the presidency of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society just before the opening of the Constitutional Convention.
Franklin was nothing if not a pragmatist, and for all his principled opposition to the evil of slavery, he realized that some form of compromise, however odious it might be to him personally, had to be reached if the states had any hope of achieving the unity he had believed, since crafting the Albany Plan of Union in 1754 was essential to the growth of a new nation. Though the Constitution as ratified granted slaves only 60 percent personhood and barred any attempt at abolition before 1808, Franklin persisted in attempts to restrict slavery between the date of ratification and his death in 1790, an effort that “served to confirm his benevolent, philanthropic, and forward-looking nature.”
Larson, who already has produced two books about Washington and another on the Constitutional Convention, is unabashedly sympathetic toward his subjects, though it appears he has a special affection for Franklin, the Renaissance man whose accomplishments in science, literature and philanthropy he touches on only briefly. Washington, he writes, governed “with a granite, tight-lipped self-control that made him the stoic father figure for a nation that adopted Franklin as its favorite uncle.” Despite their differences on substance and in style, theirs was a relationship of mutual admiration and respect, as “each recognized the other’s goodness and greatness.”
While fully reckoning with their shortcomings, Larson is intent on leaving the reader with portraits that reveal both Franklin and Washington as extraordinary leaders. “Despite their flaws,” he writes, “Franklin and Washington have held up better under examination than most leaders of any age. Theirs was the founding partnership that launched a nation.” Facing the far different perils of our own age, is it too much to expect our current leaders, as these two men did, to rise to the challenges the times pose to them?
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
Aimed at the general reader and, given the accomplishments of both men, eschewing any attempt at comprehensiveness, Larson’s account comprises three acts. The first --- focused on the French and Indian War --- examines the foundation of his subjects’ relationship, one that endured for more than three decades, and their connections in the period before the American Revolution. In the second section, Larson recounts their respective roles --- Washington on the battlefield and Franklin mostly in European diplomacy --- in achieving what must have seemed to both at many moments an improbable victory in the Revolutionary War. Finally, he analyzes their contributions to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution of the new American nation, with particular attention to their divergent views on the issue of slavery.
Emerging a generation apart from two radically different backgrounds --- Franklin the 15th of 17 children of a working-class Boston family, who left home at age 17, eventually landing in Philadelphia where he made his fortune in the printing business, and Washington, the scion of a well-to-do family of Virginia planters --- at first they would seem to share few traits that would allow them to work “shoulder to shoulder on the patriot cause.” Indeed, the two did not meet until 1755, when Franklin was already 49 years old, and Washington was just beginning to emerge as a public figure as a result of his military exploits on America’s western frontier. But as Larson demonstrates, “they shared a republican ideology and progressivist faith that relied on human reason and divine providence rather than traditional ways and established dogmas. They sought truth and accepted facts. Life could get better, they believed. Theirs did.”
Following on the drama of the eight-year-long Revolutionary War --- when Washington masterminded a disorganized and chronically underfunded army to achieve victory over the world’s most imposing military force, while Franklin deployed his considerable skill as a negotiator to secure France’s decisive support for the war effort --- the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, to which Larson devotes a great deal of attention, may seem arid by comparison. Yet it was in those debates that the foundation of an enduring republic was laid, along with the roots of some of the controversies --- notably, the conflicts between large and small states --- that define our politics to this day.
Chief among those controversies was slavery, the issue that Larson argues “shaped the Constitution.” On this issue, the views of Franklin and Washington could not have been more divergent. Washington, the owner of Mount Vernon, was master to some 300 slaves, ones he treated with barely a modicum of kindness. Though the urbanite Franklin at one time owned a handful of house slaves, his views on the issue evolved over his long life, culminating with his assumption of the presidency of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society just before the opening of the Constitutional Convention.
Franklin was nothing if not a pragmatist, and for all his principled opposition to the evil of slavery, he realized that some form of compromise, however odious it might be to him personally, had to be reached if the states had any hope of achieving the unity he had believed, since crafting the Albany Plan of Union in 1754 was essential to the growth of a new nation. Though the Constitution as ratified granted slaves only 60 percent personhood and barred any attempt at abolition before 1808, Franklin persisted in attempts to restrict slavery between the date of ratification and his death in 1790, an effort that “served to confirm his benevolent, philanthropic, and forward-looking nature.”
Larson, who already has produced two books about Washington and another on the Constitutional Convention, is unabashedly sympathetic toward his subjects, though it appears he has a special affection for Franklin, the Renaissance man whose accomplishments in science, literature and philanthropy he touches on only briefly. Washington, he writes, governed “with a granite, tight-lipped self-control that made him the stoic father figure for a nation that adopted Franklin as its favorite uncle.” Despite their differences on substance and in style, theirs was a relationship of mutual admiration and respect, as “each recognized the other’s goodness and greatness.”
While fully reckoning with their shortcomings, Larson is intent on leaving the reader with portraits that reveal both Franklin and Washington as extraordinary leaders. “Despite their flaws,” he writes, “Franklin and Washington have held up better under examination than most leaders of any age. Theirs was the founding partnership that launched a nation.” Facing the far different perils of our own age, is it too much to expect our current leaders, as these two men did, to rise to the challenges the times pose to them?
Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg
March 19, 2020
It was a little dry going through all the battles of the Revolutionary War, but other than that this was a great history refresher course, as well as a really great tribute to two very incredible men.
October 15, 2024
The subject matter of this book is very interesting. I find that a stronger case is made for the difference between the two men than their similarities, nonetheless Larson produces an interesting and informative account.
January 11, 2020
well written but too much like being back in history class
February 27, 2020
Felt like I was reading a term paper.
March 4, 2020
3 1/2. Good book. I was a bit overwhelmed by the about of politics involved. I was looking more for a historical book.
April 11, 2020
Fascinating to see the overlap between Franklin and Washington, as they aren't usually paired together. Didn't feel as intellectually hard-hitting as Larson's previous work, but an enjoyable read.
February 24, 2020
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway for the purpose of writing this review. No other compensation was offered or requested.
A dual biography of Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) and George Washington (1732-1799) is, I will state right up front, is a good idea. Both men were instrumental in moving the American Colonies from loyal but disgruntled subjects of the British Crown to the United States of America, an independent country with its own constitution chosen by those who lived there. This volume details the times these friends cooperated, and some of their differences.
The first point of concentration is the French and Indian War, in which both Franklin and Washington worked to protect their individual colonies, but found common ground and began corresponding.
Both men were industrious, and self-made at the beginning. Washington, however, only a few years into adulthood became considerably wealthier by inheritance as a series of family deaths wiped out his close relatives. Having started industrious, he then worked to make his plantation more successful, as well as becoming known as a soldier and leader of men when his colony needed him.
The book talks about how the men became disillusioned with British rule, both in general, and due to personal slights. Franklin was more diplomatic by nature, and spent quite some time abroad, first in England trying to mitigate the various taxes imposed after the Seven Years’ War, and during the American Revolution, convincing the French to support the rebelling colonies.
Meanwhile, George Washington became General Washington, leading the American troops through many lean years of hardship until the British occupation was finally broken.
After the war ended, both Franklin and Washington had learned the dangers of too little coordination between the colonies, jealous of their own prerogatives. The once vibrant Continental Congress had most of its best people move on to military service or their individual state governments, while petty men served in the broader congress. The Articles of Confederation gave each new state its own full powers, which meant that they could starve the national government and refuse to pay the veterans of the revolution on time.
A better government was needed, and so a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, which turned into the creation of the American Constitution. Franklin was elderly and nearly bedridden by this point, but still managed to show up (the meeting hall wasn’t too far from his house) and help out, while Washington presided over the convention. It was pretty obvious that George Washington was the only one to be trusted as head of the new government, so his ideas were also listened to.
But one of the big differences between Franklin and Washington was their attitudes towards slavery. In his early career, Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, because that was how you got ahead in business, but exposure to Quaker ideas and abolitionism through his printing business caused Franklin to realize the moral implications of the practice. (Plus he’d been an indentured servant once, so didn’t buy the “benevolent master” argument.) He freed his own slaves and urged others to do the same, eventually founding a major Abolitionist society.
Meanwhile, George Washington came from the planter class of Virginia. Although he seems to have begun realizing the immorality of slavery sometime during the American Revolution due to interacting with free black people, Washington kept his reservations private. He needed slaves economically, and reacted badly to anyone who disrespected him including slaves who ran away.
Thus, Washington was not thrilled when Franklin sent a petition to the first Congressional session of the new United States, one of several that asked the government to restrict the slave trade, and even ban slavery altogether. The protections in the Constitution for slavery had been a hard-fought compromise, and President Washington didn’t want the country torn apart again. (Congress kicked the can down the timeline to 1808, the first time allowed under the Constitution for restriction of the slave trade.)
George Washington freed his own slaves in his will…to take effect after the death of his wife. Martha Washington, realizing that this was an open invitation to kill her, freed them early, but not her own slaves. Anti-slavery people took this as a sign that Washington had meant for slavery to end altogether at some point, while pro-slavery people saw it as just a nice private gesture that did not set a precedent for themselves.
There’s a center section of color pictures, extensive endnotes, and a full index.
Because the focus is on the connection between the two men and where their interests coincided and diverged, other portions of their lives get much less focus. So while I do recommend this well-researched book to the student of American history, you’ll also want to read individual biographies of those involved to get a fuller picture.
A dual biography of Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) and George Washington (1732-1799) is, I will state right up front, is a good idea. Both men were instrumental in moving the American Colonies from loyal but disgruntled subjects of the British Crown to the United States of America, an independent country with its own constitution chosen by those who lived there. This volume details the times these friends cooperated, and some of their differences.
The first point of concentration is the French and Indian War, in which both Franklin and Washington worked to protect their individual colonies, but found common ground and began corresponding.
Both men were industrious, and self-made at the beginning. Washington, however, only a few years into adulthood became considerably wealthier by inheritance as a series of family deaths wiped out his close relatives. Having started industrious, he then worked to make his plantation more successful, as well as becoming known as a soldier and leader of men when his colony needed him.
The book talks about how the men became disillusioned with British rule, both in general, and due to personal slights. Franklin was more diplomatic by nature, and spent quite some time abroad, first in England trying to mitigate the various taxes imposed after the Seven Years’ War, and during the American Revolution, convincing the French to support the rebelling colonies.
Meanwhile, George Washington became General Washington, leading the American troops through many lean years of hardship until the British occupation was finally broken.
After the war ended, both Franklin and Washington had learned the dangers of too little coordination between the colonies, jealous of their own prerogatives. The once vibrant Continental Congress had most of its best people move on to military service or their individual state governments, while petty men served in the broader congress. The Articles of Confederation gave each new state its own full powers, which meant that they could starve the national government and refuse to pay the veterans of the revolution on time.
A better government was needed, and so a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, which turned into the creation of the American Constitution. Franklin was elderly and nearly bedridden by this point, but still managed to show up (the meeting hall wasn’t too far from his house) and help out, while Washington presided over the convention. It was pretty obvious that George Washington was the only one to be trusted as head of the new government, so his ideas were also listened to.
But one of the big differences between Franklin and Washington was their attitudes towards slavery. In his early career, Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, because that was how you got ahead in business, but exposure to Quaker ideas and abolitionism through his printing business caused Franklin to realize the moral implications of the practice. (Plus he’d been an indentured servant once, so didn’t buy the “benevolent master” argument.) He freed his own slaves and urged others to do the same, eventually founding a major Abolitionist society.
Meanwhile, George Washington came from the planter class of Virginia. Although he seems to have begun realizing the immorality of slavery sometime during the American Revolution due to interacting with free black people, Washington kept his reservations private. He needed slaves economically, and reacted badly to anyone who disrespected him including slaves who ran away.
Thus, Washington was not thrilled when Franklin sent a petition to the first Congressional session of the new United States, one of several that asked the government to restrict the slave trade, and even ban slavery altogether. The protections in the Constitution for slavery had been a hard-fought compromise, and President Washington didn’t want the country torn apart again. (Congress kicked the can down the timeline to 1808, the first time allowed under the Constitution for restriction of the slave trade.)
George Washington freed his own slaves in his will…to take effect after the death of his wife. Martha Washington, realizing that this was an open invitation to kill her, freed them early, but not her own slaves. Anti-slavery people took this as a sign that Washington had meant for slavery to end altogether at some point, while pro-slavery people saw it as just a nice private gesture that did not set a precedent for themselves.
There’s a center section of color pictures, extensive endnotes, and a full index.
Because the focus is on the connection between the two men and where their interests coincided and diverged, other portions of their lives get much less focus. So while I do recommend this well-researched book to the student of American history, you’ll also want to read individual biographies of those involved to get a fuller picture.
September 10, 2020
For this and other book reviews, visit www.bargain-sleuth.com
Do we really need another book on the founding fathers? In my world, yes, as I enjoy reading about colonial history quite a bit. This “dual biography” is really two parallel biographies, because the links between Washington and Franklin are few.
The men were vastly different: one an abolitionist self-made man, a printer and inventor and sound businessman, the other, a slave-holding plantation owner who was also a sometimes soldier. But it is their similarities that brings this book together.
There’s a chapter on the early years of both men, bringing them up to the French and Indian War and their roles in it. Then there’s a chapter on how the Revolutionary War came to pass. The stories show how both men rose to power in their various spheres. There’s a lot of time spent with Franklin and Washington not knowing or being in contact with each other.
But the author’s theory that Franklin & Washington were essential for the creation of the United States is a sound one; Franklin’s diplomacy, as well as his business interests in the printing industry, helped with the founding of our nation as much as Washington’s ability as a general to defeat the strongest army in the world.
I’ve already read extensive biographies of both Benjamin Franklin (my favorite, An American Life, can be found here) and George Washington (Ron Chernow’s is the best IMO), and I can’t say that this biography adds much to the mix, beyond pointing out that these two men were very important to the colony’s cause for independence, and subsequent set-up of our government. I’d give it three stars out of five.
Do we really need another book on the founding fathers? In my world, yes, as I enjoy reading about colonial history quite a bit. This “dual biography” is really two parallel biographies, because the links between Washington and Franklin are few.
The men were vastly different: one an abolitionist self-made man, a printer and inventor and sound businessman, the other, a slave-holding plantation owner who was also a sometimes soldier. But it is their similarities that brings this book together.
There’s a chapter on the early years of both men, bringing them up to the French and Indian War and their roles in it. Then there’s a chapter on how the Revolutionary War came to pass. The stories show how both men rose to power in their various spheres. There’s a lot of time spent with Franklin and Washington not knowing or being in contact with each other.
But the author’s theory that Franklin & Washington were essential for the creation of the United States is a sound one; Franklin’s diplomacy, as well as his business interests in the printing industry, helped with the founding of our nation as much as Washington’s ability as a general to defeat the strongest army in the world.
I’ve already read extensive biographies of both Benjamin Franklin (my favorite, An American Life, can be found here) and George Washington (Ron Chernow’s is the best IMO), and I can’t say that this biography adds much to the mix, beyond pointing out that these two men were very important to the colony’s cause for independence, and subsequent set-up of our government. I’d give it three stars out of five.
October 13, 2021
Interesting idea for a dual biography of two of the greatest (and most biographied) founding fathers. It’s a short book and given the towering stature of the two stars, it is in no way comprehensive or inclusive. Also, Washington and Franklin are rarely tied together (the way, say, Washington and Hamilton are), since they didn’t really work together exactly. What the author does instead is to show how their paths frequently intersected, then has each one representing a faction of the FF — basically, Franklin is the northern intellectual wit, Washington is the imperious but rather humble southern aristocrat. Because these factions were very much a part of the “United” states at that time (and really, remain so today), it works very well. Larsen uses the two mens’ positions on slavery as a telling example — Franklin owned house slaves but unconditionally freed them early in his life then became the president of an abolitionist group, while Washington owned many slaves, didn’t treat them all that well, and only freed them in his will (and even then, only after his WIFE had died, though in fairness, she owned most of them when they got married). For the most part, the book proceeds linearly and we see how the two men shaped the union — Washington’s role as president of the Continental Congress which drafted the Constitution was among his finest hours, comparable perhaps to his decision not to seek a third term (which could’ve basically turned him into a king — he was very conscious of how he has shaping the presidency). Anyway, I thought this was an excellent dual biography and really enjoyed gaining a different perspective on these two American heroes.
Grade: A-
Grade: A-
April 16, 2021
American Dyad
A detailed, compelling retelling of the American Revolution from the dual perspectives of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
As with the best history books, it has a conversational and easy-to-follow narrative that drops you right into the time period. This book makes its main subjects the protagonists of their own wartime action- and political intrigue-filled adventure. The author masterfully weaves together the separate plots of a landed, slave-owning military General from the south fighting on desperate battlefields, helped immensely behind the scenes with funding and finding foreign allies by one of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds of the age. While both Washington and Franklin are usually portrayed as outsized, larger than life characters, this book humanizes them. Washington suffered from hemorrhoids. Franklin is ridiculously frail, but active. By narrowing the focus, this book provides a different take on the usual revolutionary war recitation of dates, battles, with a grand finale in Philadelphia with a new constitution.
While the author praises its title stars, other Founding Fathers are treated less reverentially. Patrick Henry comes off as an outright racist. Anyone who’s watched the HBO mini-series “John Adams” will be surprised by the characterization of the verbose lawyer as a pompous self promoter. While it must have been nice to have Washington on his side, Alexander Hamilton’s sole appearance is reduced to a mere cameo.
A detailed, compelling retelling of the American Revolution from the dual perspectives of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
As with the best history books, it has a conversational and easy-to-follow narrative that drops you right into the time period. This book makes its main subjects the protagonists of their own wartime action- and political intrigue-filled adventure. The author masterfully weaves together the separate plots of a landed, slave-owning military General from the south fighting on desperate battlefields, helped immensely behind the scenes with funding and finding foreign allies by one of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds of the age. While both Washington and Franklin are usually portrayed as outsized, larger than life characters, this book humanizes them. Washington suffered from hemorrhoids. Franklin is ridiculously frail, but active. By narrowing the focus, this book provides a different take on the usual revolutionary war recitation of dates, battles, with a grand finale in Philadelphia with a new constitution.
While the author praises its title stars, other Founding Fathers are treated less reverentially. Patrick Henry comes off as an outright racist. Anyone who’s watched the HBO mini-series “John Adams” will be surprised by the characterization of the verbose lawyer as a pompous self promoter. While it must have been nice to have Washington on his side, Alexander Hamilton’s sole appearance is reduced to a mere cameo.
June 16, 2024
DNF halfway through. I love history. I read a lot about history and one of my sweet spots is the time before the American Revolution and the war itself. This looked to be exactly what I usually read, and the friendship between Washington and Franklin intrigued me.
Oh man, was this hard to plow through. The writing is so tedious and, dare I say BORING. I wish I could articulate the writing style better but boring fits best. While there were nuggets of interesting facts, I kept waiting for the friendship angle to take hold and it never did. I learned a bit about Washington and a bit about Franklin, but over halfway through the book I’m still waiting to see a friendship blossom. Maybe it does in the latter half but halfway in, I just couldn’t stand it anymore.
I think what got to me was that the information included reads more like individual biographies of these men. I didn’t find any warmth from the few interactions I read about. It was business and that’s it, which may have well been the extent of the relationship. But if that’s the case don’t talk about their friendship helping to form our nation. Honestly, they both come across as cold fish not friends…amazing cold fish but not warm and fuzzy and certainly not friends with each other. But maybe that’s because the writing seems cold too. I don’t know.
There are some interesting facts in here but the writing is painful. When an audio book can’t help you get past the hard spots, that’s saying a lot. Again, some interesting moments but just not for me.
Oh man, was this hard to plow through. The writing is so tedious and, dare I say BORING. I wish I could articulate the writing style better but boring fits best. While there were nuggets of interesting facts, I kept waiting for the friendship angle to take hold and it never did. I learned a bit about Washington and a bit about Franklin, but over halfway through the book I’m still waiting to see a friendship blossom. Maybe it does in the latter half but halfway in, I just couldn’t stand it anymore.
I think what got to me was that the information included reads more like individual biographies of these men. I didn’t find any warmth from the few interactions I read about. It was business and that’s it, which may have well been the extent of the relationship. But if that’s the case don’t talk about their friendship helping to form our nation. Honestly, they both come across as cold fish not friends…amazing cold fish but not warm and fuzzy and certainly not friends with each other. But maybe that’s because the writing seems cold too. I don’t know.
There are some interesting facts in here but the writing is painful. When an audio book can’t help you get past the hard spots, that’s saying a lot. Again, some interesting moments but just not for me.
July 12, 2024
This will be short since others have already said a lot of what I concluded - this is a very valuable book about a critical time in world history. I was surprised to find that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were so different, I knew that they worked together well. We would still be better off if we could talk to the two men and ask them why they abandoned their heritage and decided to experiment with democracy and elections. It was a very bold move.
This is a particularly important book in mid-2024 when people are again taking the first steps towards imposing autocracy on the USA, people who lust after power and disdain democracy are organizing and moving again. Hopefully in a few years people will read these words and wonder what they mean, hopefully the right wing will be rejected at the ballot box and we can contain the inevitable violence.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were honorable and courageous people, able to leave a proven system of a King and Parliament behind and trust in a subset of the people to make decisions. They left us an imperfect Union and left us with a major fracture that had to be solved with combat just 70 years later - but they left us with an ideal that we are still trying to live up to.
If you are interested in how democracy got started, how the USA was given this experiment in government, this is an important book to read.
This is a particularly important book in mid-2024 when people are again taking the first steps towards imposing autocracy on the USA, people who lust after power and disdain democracy are organizing and moving again. Hopefully in a few years people will read these words and wonder what they mean, hopefully the right wing will be rejected at the ballot box and we can contain the inevitable violence.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were honorable and courageous people, able to leave a proven system of a King and Parliament behind and trust in a subset of the people to make decisions. They left us an imperfect Union and left us with a major fracture that had to be solved with combat just 70 years later - but they left us with an ideal that we are still trying to live up to.
If you are interested in how democracy got started, how the USA was given this experiment in government, this is an important book to read.
February 2, 2025
You do not have to be a historian to enjoy this book, which deals with the friendship between George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Members of the general public will most definitely learn many new things about the American Revolution (1776) and the events leading to it through the lens of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. By making us walk into Franklin's and Washington's shoes, Edward J. Larson, the book's author, seems intent on demonstrating that both founding fathers gradually came to the conclusion that the thirteen British colonies of North America would be better if they form an independent republic.
For instance, I learnt that following the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Benjamin Franklin voiced incipient thoughts about the formation of a centralized and continental military force for all thirteen colonies. It stands to reason that before the American Revolution (1776), the thirteen colonies (or the future United States) had a mosaic of uncoordinated militias.
Secondly, once the book moves to the American Revolution (1776), Edward J. Larson does a brilliant explaining that during the armed conflicts with the British in 1775, Franklin and Washington still saw themselves as colonists who could one day secure rights for the thirteen colonies. However, as the war dragged, Franklin and Washington concluded that the United Kingdom would never yield and independence was the only option.
For instance, I learnt that following the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Benjamin Franklin voiced incipient thoughts about the formation of a centralized and continental military force for all thirteen colonies. It stands to reason that before the American Revolution (1776), the thirteen colonies (or the future United States) had a mosaic of uncoordinated militias.
Secondly, once the book moves to the American Revolution (1776), Edward J. Larson does a brilliant explaining that during the armed conflicts with the British in 1775, Franklin and Washington still saw themselves as colonists who could one day secure rights for the thirteen colonies. However, as the war dragged, Franklin and Washington concluded that the United Kingdom would never yield and independence was the only option.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 122 reviews