What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon
Perhaps the most revered American of all, George Washington has long been considered a stoic leader who held himself above the fray of political infighting. What has gone unnoticed about the much-researched life of Washington is that he was in fact a consummate politician, as historian John Ferling shows in this revealing and provocative new book. As leader of the Continental Army, Washington's keen political savvy enabled him not only to outwit superior British forces, but--even more challenging--to manage the fractious and intrusive Continental Congress. Despite dire setbacks early in the war, Washington deftly outmaneuvered rival generals and defused dissent from officers below him, ending the war with the status of a national icon. His carefully burnished reputation allowed Washington, as president, to lead the country under the guise of non-partisanship for almost all of his eight years in office. Washington, Ferling argues, was not only one of America's most adroit politicians, he was easily the most successful of all time--so successful, in fact, that he is no longer thought of as having been political.
438 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2009
88 people are currently reading
1601 people want to read
About the author
John Ferling
22 books203 followersJohn E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews
August 4, 2025
As he has done time and time again in each of his biographies and histories that focus on the American Revolution and Founding era, historian John Ferling has brought new insight and understanding to an otherwise already exhausted subject—and in this particular work he manages to humanize George Washington. This is first and foremost a chronological political history and character study, and along the way Ferling brings us Washington’s faults, hidden ambitions, eccentricities, and an intimate backdrop into his actions and mindset. Ferling opens his account with an introduction that describes the sorrow and respect paid to Washington’s life works and achievements for the nation, where “Light-Horse Harry” Lee gives a stunning eulogy to the former first President during his funeral in 1799.
From there, Washington’s childhood is brushed over briefly, as the reader is introduced to his half-brother Lawrence, who’s experience in soldering and land acquisition has a profound effect on his younger counterpart. Ferling suggests that while Washington did not have access to a formal education or degree, most of his studies were of those that were important to Lawrence—including his influence by works composed by the likes of such great masters as Seneca and Cato, which would help George throughout his adult life. The strengths of Ferling’s work include his successful tribute in bringing out the very grit and dirt on his subject, in which he succeeds by not canonizing and shying away from the flaws and failures of Washington:
Washington has enjoyed a reputation among historians as an excellent administrator of the Continental army, but that view was not shared by all of his contemporaries. Some saw enormous waste, and especially a shameful squandering of the army’s manpower. Some thought there were far too many officers, and others were furious with the army’s practice of allotting vast numbers of men as personal guards and servants to the highest officers. Washington had a Life Guard of one hundred men who protected him and secured headquarters. Few quibbled over that, but each general officer had his own guard, some of which totaled nearly fifty men.
Powerful events that bind and mold Washington’s world and vision are brought up throughout the book, such as: his experiences on the frontlines of the French and Indian War, his induction into the House of Burgesses, stature as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental army, and eventual inauguration as the first U.S. President. While nothing is truly groundbreaking here in terms of facts or research obtained, Ferling still manages to keep the reader interested by providing another window on such events as the dramatics of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as well as the alleged collusion and machinations behind the Conway Cabal. Readers will find an easy to follow study into the mindset and ambitions of George Washington—all the while addressing his triumphs and failures both in and out of politics. Full scale maps are provided that include the geography of all territories discussed.
From there, Washington’s childhood is brushed over briefly, as the reader is introduced to his half-brother Lawrence, who’s experience in soldering and land acquisition has a profound effect on his younger counterpart. Ferling suggests that while Washington did not have access to a formal education or degree, most of his studies were of those that were important to Lawrence—including his influence by works composed by the likes of such great masters as Seneca and Cato, which would help George throughout his adult life. The strengths of Ferling’s work include his successful tribute in bringing out the very grit and dirt on his subject, in which he succeeds by not canonizing and shying away from the flaws and failures of Washington:
Washington has enjoyed a reputation among historians as an excellent administrator of the Continental army, but that view was not shared by all of his contemporaries. Some saw enormous waste, and especially a shameful squandering of the army’s manpower. Some thought there were far too many officers, and others were furious with the army’s practice of allotting vast numbers of men as personal guards and servants to the highest officers. Washington had a Life Guard of one hundred men who protected him and secured headquarters. Few quibbled over that, but each general officer had his own guard, some of which totaled nearly fifty men.
Powerful events that bind and mold Washington’s world and vision are brought up throughout the book, such as: his experiences on the frontlines of the French and Indian War, his induction into the House of Burgesses, stature as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental army, and eventual inauguration as the first U.S. President. While nothing is truly groundbreaking here in terms of facts or research obtained, Ferling still manages to keep the reader interested by providing another window on such events as the dramatics of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as well as the alleged collusion and machinations behind the Conway Cabal. Readers will find an easy to follow study into the mindset and ambitions of George Washington—all the while addressing his triumphs and failures both in and out of politics. Full scale maps are provided that include the geography of all territories discussed.
Read
July 27, 2011A very interesting view of George Washington. Nearly all of the books I've read on the Founders seem to offer the same view of Washington as politically disinterested if not downright apolitical.
March 10, 2024
Still The Great American Founder
Early in this new book, "The Ascent of George Washington", John Ferling quotes the famous two lines offered by Henry "Light Horse" Lee in his eulogy for George Washington offered on December 26, 1799 in Philadelphia. Lee declared that Washington was "first in war - first in peace - and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Lee proceeded to observe that in his long public life, Washington had acted in a selfless manner. Washington's intentions and actions had been motivated solely "from obedience to his country's will". Ferling is professor emeritus of history at the State University of West Georgia and the author of many books on the Revolutionary Era. Most recently, he is the author of "Almost a Miracle", which describes the Revolutionary War with an approach that he also follows in this book.
Many generations of Americans have accepted the iconic portrayal of George Washington that Henry Lee, together with his fellow eulogists, propounded. In our critical and skeptical age, this idealization of Washington has received substantial attack and correction. In his book, Ferling takes issue with two primary components of the Washington legend. He attacks the view that Washington was a disinterested participant in the political process and finds instead that Washington was heavily motivated by personal, political ambition. Ferling also attacks the view that Washington was above partisan politicking, and describes the first president as a skilled politician knowingly acting to advance a specific political agenda. Ferling argues that "George Washington was so good at politics that he alone of all of America's public officials in the past two centuries succeeded in convincing others that he was not a politician." Ferling also takes issue with other parts of the Washington legend. He points out that Washington made many military mistakes, both in the French-Indian War and in the Revolutionary War. Further, Washington was habitually indecisive and frequently acted with slowness more than with his vaunted deliberation.
Unlike the other Founders, Washington lacked an extensive formal education and, at least early in life, was not as wealthy as is sometimes believed. But Washington had an overweening ambition to make something of his life. (In this regard, Washington resembles the other great American hero, Abraham Lincoln.) Through hard work and the use of connections, Washington rose to increasingly large positions of responsibility while showing, especially in the French-Indian War, military deficiencies, a tendency to blame others for his own shortcomings, and a certain indecisiveness. Washington became active and Virginia politics and an early supporter of American independence. He saw America through a difficult and brutal war for independence, served as president of the Constitutional Convention, and as the first President of the United States, to highlight the greatest of his accomplishments.
Ferling shows that in many instances, Washington's disinterestedness and apparent aloofness were calculated to mask an individual with a drive for power. Ferling seems to me correct in this, but he also tends to overlook that many other students of Washington have made the same observation. Ferling also fastens upon Washington's many military mistakes. Here again, he offers little that will surprise students of the Revolutionary War. However, Ferling overstates his case against Washington, and he tends to overlook glaring deficiencies and mistakes made by other leaders of the Continental Army that, Ferling would have the reader believe, had a better military sense than Washington. There is a feeling of carping in Ferling's account. He recognizes, as he must, that Washington displayed the highest qualities of leadership and administration during the difficult years of the war. The conflict almost certainly could not have been won without Washington at the helm. Some of Ferling's criticisms, while true, are thus relatively insignificant.
When he considers Washington's presidency, Ferling again covers ground that has been well-explored by other historians. He argues that Washington was not above the political fray but was instead a strong supporter of the politics and tendencies to aristocracy of the Federalist Party, as exemplified in Alexander Hamilton. Yet Ferling recognizes that Washington, at his best, listened carefully to divergent points of view before making up his mind on issues of importance. He also downplays instances in which Washington did not fully follow Hamilton's counsel. While Hamilton undoubtedly tried to use his Chief on several occasions to further his own agenda, Washington was savvy enough to use Hamilton as well. Here again, Ferling's criticisms, while well-taken in part do not capture the nature of Washington's presidency. Ferling acknowledges the judgment, skill, and dedication with which, for all his pomposity, Washington conducted the presidency. Washington established the presidency as an institution. There was no one else, Ferling admits, who could have led the United States through the eight tumultuous years of domestic and foreign unrest as did George Washington. Ferling's account perhaps humanizes Washington. But it hardly lessens his stature.
It is a commonplace that many Americans today are woefully ignorant of our history. There is also a tendency to approach history and revered figures with cynicism. Ferling's book is readable and accessible. If his book encourages readers to think about its subject, it will have served its purpose well. The book offers a good if polemical account of Washington, the Revolutionary era, and the first presidency. For all his caviling, Ferling offers a portrait of a Washington who deserves strong and continued study and admiration from his countrymen.
Robin Friedman
Early in this new book, "The Ascent of George Washington", John Ferling quotes the famous two lines offered by Henry "Light Horse" Lee in his eulogy for George Washington offered on December 26, 1799 in Philadelphia. Lee declared that Washington was "first in war - first in peace - and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Lee proceeded to observe that in his long public life, Washington had acted in a selfless manner. Washington's intentions and actions had been motivated solely "from obedience to his country's will". Ferling is professor emeritus of history at the State University of West Georgia and the author of many books on the Revolutionary Era. Most recently, he is the author of "Almost a Miracle", which describes the Revolutionary War with an approach that he also follows in this book.
Many generations of Americans have accepted the iconic portrayal of George Washington that Henry Lee, together with his fellow eulogists, propounded. In our critical and skeptical age, this idealization of Washington has received substantial attack and correction. In his book, Ferling takes issue with two primary components of the Washington legend. He attacks the view that Washington was a disinterested participant in the political process and finds instead that Washington was heavily motivated by personal, political ambition. Ferling also attacks the view that Washington was above partisan politicking, and describes the first president as a skilled politician knowingly acting to advance a specific political agenda. Ferling argues that "George Washington was so good at politics that he alone of all of America's public officials in the past two centuries succeeded in convincing others that he was not a politician." Ferling also takes issue with other parts of the Washington legend. He points out that Washington made many military mistakes, both in the French-Indian War and in the Revolutionary War. Further, Washington was habitually indecisive and frequently acted with slowness more than with his vaunted deliberation.
Unlike the other Founders, Washington lacked an extensive formal education and, at least early in life, was not as wealthy as is sometimes believed. But Washington had an overweening ambition to make something of his life. (In this regard, Washington resembles the other great American hero, Abraham Lincoln.) Through hard work and the use of connections, Washington rose to increasingly large positions of responsibility while showing, especially in the French-Indian War, military deficiencies, a tendency to blame others for his own shortcomings, and a certain indecisiveness. Washington became active and Virginia politics and an early supporter of American independence. He saw America through a difficult and brutal war for independence, served as president of the Constitutional Convention, and as the first President of the United States, to highlight the greatest of his accomplishments.
Ferling shows that in many instances, Washington's disinterestedness and apparent aloofness were calculated to mask an individual with a drive for power. Ferling seems to me correct in this, but he also tends to overlook that many other students of Washington have made the same observation. Ferling also fastens upon Washington's many military mistakes. Here again, he offers little that will surprise students of the Revolutionary War. However, Ferling overstates his case against Washington, and he tends to overlook glaring deficiencies and mistakes made by other leaders of the Continental Army that, Ferling would have the reader believe, had a better military sense than Washington. There is a feeling of carping in Ferling's account. He recognizes, as he must, that Washington displayed the highest qualities of leadership and administration during the difficult years of the war. The conflict almost certainly could not have been won without Washington at the helm. Some of Ferling's criticisms, while true, are thus relatively insignificant.
When he considers Washington's presidency, Ferling again covers ground that has been well-explored by other historians. He argues that Washington was not above the political fray but was instead a strong supporter of the politics and tendencies to aristocracy of the Federalist Party, as exemplified in Alexander Hamilton. Yet Ferling recognizes that Washington, at his best, listened carefully to divergent points of view before making up his mind on issues of importance. He also downplays instances in which Washington did not fully follow Hamilton's counsel. While Hamilton undoubtedly tried to use his Chief on several occasions to further his own agenda, Washington was savvy enough to use Hamilton as well. Here again, Ferling's criticisms, while well-taken in part do not capture the nature of Washington's presidency. Ferling acknowledges the judgment, skill, and dedication with which, for all his pomposity, Washington conducted the presidency. Washington established the presidency as an institution. There was no one else, Ferling admits, who could have led the United States through the eight tumultuous years of domestic and foreign unrest as did George Washington. Ferling's account perhaps humanizes Washington. But it hardly lessens his stature.
It is a commonplace that many Americans today are woefully ignorant of our history. There is also a tendency to approach history and revered figures with cynicism. Ferling's book is readable and accessible. If his book encourages readers to think about its subject, it will have served its purpose well. The book offers a good if polemical account of Washington, the Revolutionary era, and the first presidency. For all his caviling, Ferling offers a portrait of a Washington who deserves strong and continued study and admiration from his countrymen.
Robin Friedman
August 1, 2022
Sometimes the preface of a book sounds promising, but then the book itself either fails to deliver or it ends up seeming at cross purposes to what the preface indicated that it would be about. That is the case with John Ferling's effort here. Ferling states upfront that this is not a biography of George Washington, which is fair enough as many aspects of his life are either ignored or barely mentioned. Yet, I have this categorized as a presidential biography, because it is not really a history book either. It lacks context for so much of the narrative on Washington's life that Ferling does choose to write about.
Ferling says the book is focused on Washington as a politician, from when he was a young Colonel in the early 1750s to the end of his life after he was President. Yet, after the preface, the book itself (minus a small epilogue titled "Reckoning") is basically a recitation of many of Washington's mistakes and flaws. Ferling is so decidedly negative about Washington that I began to wonder 1) why he wrote this book, despite him saying why at the beginning, and 2) if he thought that Washington did anything well. He repeatedly brings up Washington's flaws (of which there are many) and magnifies them, while glossing over most things that he did successfully.
Through the first part of the book, I am with him. This covers Washington's time with the Virginia colonial regiment both before and during the French & Indian War. Washington, while repeatedly demonstrating bravery (often to a foolhardy degree), blundered so poorly that it helped catapult Britain into war with France. I say helped, because there were a lot of factors at play then, and the North American continent was only one flash point in what was really a global war. But Washington did commit a huge mistake in attacking an unsuspecting French party that was not actively hostile towards his force. He was also quite petulant and entitled, constantly complaining to Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie about, oh, everything. Washington white-washed his own mistakes, blamed others whenever possible, and sought glory for himself. To make it short: young Washington was a real jerk, and did not deserve most of the accolades that came his way.
I am still with Ferling as he moves into Washington's time as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Washington was essentially a back-bencher, a non-entity who rarely spoke and hardly ever introduced or fought for any legislation. He looked upon his position as a social plumb. But here is where I start to part ways with Ferling. He maintains that Washington held the position only to look respectable in the aristocratic society of Virginia planters. Is there truth in this? Definitely. Washington was constantly worried about how others viewed him, although this lessened as he aged. But running through Washington's life is a strong strain of public service. He knew that he had a privileged position, and he was extremely ambitious, and he wanted to both make a name for himself while also contributing to the good of his country (which, at this stage, was only Virginia - later it was the thirteen colonies, and in the end the nascent United States). As things started to heat up in the late 1760s, and especially in the early 1770s, Washington took on a more vocal role, and became one of the most prominent of the colonists to call out Great Britain for its supercilious and condescending treatment of the colonies. I believe that he was also among the first group who saw that, ultimately, the only answer to their problems was to separate completely from the mother country.
Shifting to the Revolutionary War, Ferling continues to point out Washington's missteps (of which there were many). He was a poor battlefield commander, and as a tactician he left a lot to be desired. Washington was not a brilliant strategist or even a good one really like several of the generals below him. Ferling focuses on both his mistakes in battles (such as Brandywine Creek) and also his missives to Congress. Ferling repeatedly shows that Washington deflected blame from himself when things went wrong, and tried to hog the limelight and claim a great deal of credit when something went well. I agree with Ferling here - Washington was not the greatest general, and he did have a penchant for placing blame elsewhere when his decisions, or battles, backfired.
However, what Ferling only mentions in passing and does not stop to talk about, is that Washington also was - when all is said and done - the best person for the job. Keeping a ragtag group of basically civilians and militiamen together was a difficult, if not almost impossible, task. Rightly or wrongly (and there is much to be said that it could be wrongly), Washington had a reputation as a great military leader. This was a long, grueling war that saw large periods of inaction. Washington managed to hang in there until the end, and he had just enough successes on the battlefield to keep some Congressmen and many soldiers believing in him. How many other people could have done that? Yes, Ferling is right that Congress needed to make someone into a symbol that people could rally around. Was Washington over-rated in many aspects during the war? Yes, I think so. But he was not always the hapless fool, groping about in the dark trying to find his way. That he ultimately came out successful is attributed to a plethora of factors, many of which were out of his control (British stupidity and overconfidence, weather, etc...), but his tenacity and belief in what he was doing counted for something.
It probably sounds like I am defending Washington. I'm not trying to do that. In many ways, he lucked out during the war. A succession of British generals slow to act saved him from sure defeat multiple times. Some timely fog saved his army a few times. The French fleet also contributed mightily to the latter stages of the war. Other battles, some that he had nothing to do with, helped keep momentum going overall. My point here is that Washington was not a complete waste here. He wasn't a George McClellan. While I don't think that Ferling goes too far here with his criticisms, he simply does not tell the other side of the ledger.
When we get to the presidency, the narrative devolves into attack after attack on Alexander Hamilton. It is quite clear that Ferling dislikes him immensely. While there is a lot to dislike about Hamilton (I'm not really much of a fan myself), the problem here is that Ferling goes overboard. Ferling would have you believing that Washington was just a pawn, a puppet, in Hamilton's hands, one that Hamilton could yank whichever way he wanted to whenever he wanted to. While I do think that Washington was heavily influenced by Hamilton, at times too much so, I do not think that Washington had such a blind spot here that he willingly followed Hamilton around by the nose. Did he side more with Hamilton than he did with Thomas Jefferson? Yes. But why? Was it because he was under some kind of spell from Hamilton? I doubt it. As subsequent events made clear, he was closer to Hamilton on the political spectrum.
But Ferling paints Hamilton as the villain here, manipulating an aged Washington. On page 282 he writes that Hamilton had a "distaste" for Washington. I am not sure if that is really true. Am I saying that Hamilton was beyond using Washington? Absolutely not. Hamilton would use anyone to get what he wanted. But Ferling over-simplifies things here. On page 284, he writes: "Washington was drawn closer to Hamilton by what he saw, as if he were observing a mirror image of himself, or perhaps as if he were looking at the man he wished he could have been." What? I am not sure where that comment came from. Like many people then, Washington recognized and admired Hamilton's brilliant intellect, if not his ambition. But to say that Washington wished he could have been Hamilton is not something that seems plausible to me.
Ferling continues in this vein about Hamilton and Washington for the rest of the book. Hamilton - who again, was frequently his own worst enemy, when it wasn't Jefferson - is consistently painted in the most negative light possible. Ferling grudgingly admits that his financial plan helped get the country onto a sound financial footing, even though it came at the expense of all but the richest citizens.
In the same vein, Ferling ignores or minimizes Washington's issues with Jefferson and James Madison. Writing about the Jay Treaty and the fallout from it on page 346, he says "...he concluded that Madison had been disloyal to him in opposing the pact.... Several months later, artful Federalists, including Henry Lee, roused Washington to a rage with a mendacious tale that Jefferson had vilified him in private comments. There was no evidence for their allegations. Despite their political differences, Jefferson had never impugned Washington's character or motives. Washington should have seen that he was being manipulated. He did not." I really don't know where all of this is coming from. Both Jefferson and Madison did criticize Washington behind his back. Jefferson, while still serving as his Secretary of State, did not support Washington's administration at times. Aside from that, Ferling keeps making Washington out to be this old doddering fool, which is odd considering the original premise of the book is that Washington was a great politician and managed to get people to believe he was much better than in reality he was.
Speaking of the Jay Treaty, Ferling trashes both it and Jay, saying that the treaty gave America almost nothing and that Jay was too pro-British to have been sent on the mission to begin with. The treaty was not great. I don't know though it that was because Jay did a terrible job or if he just didn't have any cards to play. I need to rear more about Jay to learn more about this episode, but from what I have thus far read, I think it was much more the latter than the former. Britain had the strong hand, knew so, and played it.
The final chapter covers Washington's brief post-presidency. Once again, Ferling digs into Hamilton, citing him as using Washington to help pressure John Adams to form a standing army so that Hamilton could have a battlefield command in anticipation of war with France. Do I think that there is something to this? Was Washington as much of an unwitting instrument for Hamilton as Ferling would lead the reader to believe? I do not think so. Hamilton did a lot of good work for Washington too (such as writing much of his Farewell Address). And, did not Washington also use Hamilton because he knew that he needed a strong Secretary of the Treasury, someone who would be relentless and unafraid to be bold and put forward a plan to bring economic stability to a new nation?
As far as rating this one, it is a bit of a conflict. On the one hand, I think that Ferling fails in his goal of showing Washington as this uncanny politician for most of his life. Ferling is too negative on Washington; too quick to focus on his many character flaws and mistakes; too sparing with any praise. On the other hand, I appreciate what Ferling is trying to do here: Washington was not a god; he had an ugly side to him; he was often the beneficiary of luck or incompetence by someone else. He should not be venerated as some untouchable deity, because he was not remotely close to that. He also should not be viewed mostly through his own failings. I like Ferling's premise, and I believe that Washington was indeed a politician in many instances. But a more balanced view is needed.
Grade: C+
Ferling says the book is focused on Washington as a politician, from when he was a young Colonel in the early 1750s to the end of his life after he was President. Yet, after the preface, the book itself (minus a small epilogue titled "Reckoning") is basically a recitation of many of Washington's mistakes and flaws. Ferling is so decidedly negative about Washington that I began to wonder 1) why he wrote this book, despite him saying why at the beginning, and 2) if he thought that Washington did anything well. He repeatedly brings up Washington's flaws (of which there are many) and magnifies them, while glossing over most things that he did successfully.
Through the first part of the book, I am with him. This covers Washington's time with the Virginia colonial regiment both before and during the French & Indian War. Washington, while repeatedly demonstrating bravery (often to a foolhardy degree), blundered so poorly that it helped catapult Britain into war with France. I say helped, because there were a lot of factors at play then, and the North American continent was only one flash point in what was really a global war. But Washington did commit a huge mistake in attacking an unsuspecting French party that was not actively hostile towards his force. He was also quite petulant and entitled, constantly complaining to Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie about, oh, everything. Washington white-washed his own mistakes, blamed others whenever possible, and sought glory for himself. To make it short: young Washington was a real jerk, and did not deserve most of the accolades that came his way.
I am still with Ferling as he moves into Washington's time as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Washington was essentially a back-bencher, a non-entity who rarely spoke and hardly ever introduced or fought for any legislation. He looked upon his position as a social plumb. But here is where I start to part ways with Ferling. He maintains that Washington held the position only to look respectable in the aristocratic society of Virginia planters. Is there truth in this? Definitely. Washington was constantly worried about how others viewed him, although this lessened as he aged. But running through Washington's life is a strong strain of public service. He knew that he had a privileged position, and he was extremely ambitious, and he wanted to both make a name for himself while also contributing to the good of his country (which, at this stage, was only Virginia - later it was the thirteen colonies, and in the end the nascent United States). As things started to heat up in the late 1760s, and especially in the early 1770s, Washington took on a more vocal role, and became one of the most prominent of the colonists to call out Great Britain for its supercilious and condescending treatment of the colonies. I believe that he was also among the first group who saw that, ultimately, the only answer to their problems was to separate completely from the mother country.
Shifting to the Revolutionary War, Ferling continues to point out Washington's missteps (of which there were many). He was a poor battlefield commander, and as a tactician he left a lot to be desired. Washington was not a brilliant strategist or even a good one really like several of the generals below him. Ferling focuses on both his mistakes in battles (such as Brandywine Creek) and also his missives to Congress. Ferling repeatedly shows that Washington deflected blame from himself when things went wrong, and tried to hog the limelight and claim a great deal of credit when something went well. I agree with Ferling here - Washington was not the greatest general, and he did have a penchant for placing blame elsewhere when his decisions, or battles, backfired.
However, what Ferling only mentions in passing and does not stop to talk about, is that Washington also was - when all is said and done - the best person for the job. Keeping a ragtag group of basically civilians and militiamen together was a difficult, if not almost impossible, task. Rightly or wrongly (and there is much to be said that it could be wrongly), Washington had a reputation as a great military leader. This was a long, grueling war that saw large periods of inaction. Washington managed to hang in there until the end, and he had just enough successes on the battlefield to keep some Congressmen and many soldiers believing in him. How many other people could have done that? Yes, Ferling is right that Congress needed to make someone into a symbol that people could rally around. Was Washington over-rated in many aspects during the war? Yes, I think so. But he was not always the hapless fool, groping about in the dark trying to find his way. That he ultimately came out successful is attributed to a plethora of factors, many of which were out of his control (British stupidity and overconfidence, weather, etc...), but his tenacity and belief in what he was doing counted for something.
It probably sounds like I am defending Washington. I'm not trying to do that. In many ways, he lucked out during the war. A succession of British generals slow to act saved him from sure defeat multiple times. Some timely fog saved his army a few times. The French fleet also contributed mightily to the latter stages of the war. Other battles, some that he had nothing to do with, helped keep momentum going overall. My point here is that Washington was not a complete waste here. He wasn't a George McClellan. While I don't think that Ferling goes too far here with his criticisms, he simply does not tell the other side of the ledger.
When we get to the presidency, the narrative devolves into attack after attack on Alexander Hamilton. It is quite clear that Ferling dislikes him immensely. While there is a lot to dislike about Hamilton (I'm not really much of a fan myself), the problem here is that Ferling goes overboard. Ferling would have you believing that Washington was just a pawn, a puppet, in Hamilton's hands, one that Hamilton could yank whichever way he wanted to whenever he wanted to. While I do think that Washington was heavily influenced by Hamilton, at times too much so, I do not think that Washington had such a blind spot here that he willingly followed Hamilton around by the nose. Did he side more with Hamilton than he did with Thomas Jefferson? Yes. But why? Was it because he was under some kind of spell from Hamilton? I doubt it. As subsequent events made clear, he was closer to Hamilton on the political spectrum.
But Ferling paints Hamilton as the villain here, manipulating an aged Washington. On page 282 he writes that Hamilton had a "distaste" for Washington. I am not sure if that is really true. Am I saying that Hamilton was beyond using Washington? Absolutely not. Hamilton would use anyone to get what he wanted. But Ferling over-simplifies things here. On page 284, he writes: "Washington was drawn closer to Hamilton by what he saw, as if he were observing a mirror image of himself, or perhaps as if he were looking at the man he wished he could have been." What? I am not sure where that comment came from. Like many people then, Washington recognized and admired Hamilton's brilliant intellect, if not his ambition. But to say that Washington wished he could have been Hamilton is not something that seems plausible to me.
Ferling continues in this vein about Hamilton and Washington for the rest of the book. Hamilton - who again, was frequently his own worst enemy, when it wasn't Jefferson - is consistently painted in the most negative light possible. Ferling grudgingly admits that his financial plan helped get the country onto a sound financial footing, even though it came at the expense of all but the richest citizens.
In the same vein, Ferling ignores or minimizes Washington's issues with Jefferson and James Madison. Writing about the Jay Treaty and the fallout from it on page 346, he says "...he concluded that Madison had been disloyal to him in opposing the pact.... Several months later, artful Federalists, including Henry Lee, roused Washington to a rage with a mendacious tale that Jefferson had vilified him in private comments. There was no evidence for their allegations. Despite their political differences, Jefferson had never impugned Washington's character or motives. Washington should have seen that he was being manipulated. He did not." I really don't know where all of this is coming from. Both Jefferson and Madison did criticize Washington behind his back. Jefferson, while still serving as his Secretary of State, did not support Washington's administration at times. Aside from that, Ferling keeps making Washington out to be this old doddering fool, which is odd considering the original premise of the book is that Washington was a great politician and managed to get people to believe he was much better than in reality he was.
Speaking of the Jay Treaty, Ferling trashes both it and Jay, saying that the treaty gave America almost nothing and that Jay was too pro-British to have been sent on the mission to begin with. The treaty was not great. I don't know though it that was because Jay did a terrible job or if he just didn't have any cards to play. I need to rear more about Jay to learn more about this episode, but from what I have thus far read, I think it was much more the latter than the former. Britain had the strong hand, knew so, and played it.
The final chapter covers Washington's brief post-presidency. Once again, Ferling digs into Hamilton, citing him as using Washington to help pressure John Adams to form a standing army so that Hamilton could have a battlefield command in anticipation of war with France. Do I think that there is something to this? Was Washington as much of an unwitting instrument for Hamilton as Ferling would lead the reader to believe? I do not think so. Hamilton did a lot of good work for Washington too (such as writing much of his Farewell Address). And, did not Washington also use Hamilton because he knew that he needed a strong Secretary of the Treasury, someone who would be relentless and unafraid to be bold and put forward a plan to bring economic stability to a new nation?
As far as rating this one, it is a bit of a conflict. On the one hand, I think that Ferling fails in his goal of showing Washington as this uncanny politician for most of his life. Ferling is too negative on Washington; too quick to focus on his many character flaws and mistakes; too sparing with any praise. On the other hand, I appreciate what Ferling is trying to do here: Washington was not a god; he had an ugly side to him; he was often the beneficiary of luck or incompetence by someone else. He should not be venerated as some untouchable deity, because he was not remotely close to that. He also should not be viewed mostly through his own failings. I like Ferling's premise, and I believe that Washington was indeed a politician in many instances. But a more balanced view is needed.
Grade: C+
December 10, 2021
Great book.
I’ve read a few books on the Revolutionary War and one on Washington. Most were very complementary with glowing reviews of his life and career as a leader, but this one was NOT a tribute to the “Father of Our Country”.
The author gives a frank review of his upbringing, his ambition, his glaring mistakes as a military leader, “lucky” happenstance that worked in favor as military leader of the Patriots. His ego, his ambition, his vindictive nature towards rivals and/or critics. He frequently blamed and punished the failures of those beneath him, but rarely took responsibility for his own blunders/losses and even looked for scapegoats for his errors/losses. He did not seem as nice a person as I had perceived him previously.
I also had previously seen him praised continually for not pushing to be the king of America, but as he accepted the Presidency, he still seemed to treat others badly beneath him, reveled in his popularity and fame. Kept his slaves up to his death and THEN set them free as to not find himself in “discomfort” before freeing them (this really disgusted me more than anything).
His political rangling was no better. Siding with the overly ambitious Hamilton (not shown well in this book either) versus Jefferson and Madison.
Overall a really good book. I did not come out of reading this with a good view of Washington, but will read many others. And although the author showed a lot of the negative, he did admit Washington was the right man at the right time for our nation’s independence. A great addition to any library of founding fathers/Washington books to be read on the country’s greatest leader no matter what side of the fence you fall.
I’ve read a few books on the Revolutionary War and one on Washington. Most were very complementary with glowing reviews of his life and career as a leader, but this one was NOT a tribute to the “Father of Our Country”.
The author gives a frank review of his upbringing, his ambition, his glaring mistakes as a military leader, “lucky” happenstance that worked in favor as military leader of the Patriots. His ego, his ambition, his vindictive nature towards rivals and/or critics. He frequently blamed and punished the failures of those beneath him, but rarely took responsibility for his own blunders/losses and even looked for scapegoats for his errors/losses. He did not seem as nice a person as I had perceived him previously.
I also had previously seen him praised continually for not pushing to be the king of America, but as he accepted the Presidency, he still seemed to treat others badly beneath him, reveled in his popularity and fame. Kept his slaves up to his death and THEN set them free as to not find himself in “discomfort” before freeing them (this really disgusted me more than anything).
His political rangling was no better. Siding with the overly ambitious Hamilton (not shown well in this book either) versus Jefferson and Madison.
Overall a really good book. I did not come out of reading this with a good view of Washington, but will read many others. And although the author showed a lot of the negative, he did admit Washington was the right man at the right time for our nation’s independence. A great addition to any library of founding fathers/Washington books to be read on the country’s greatest leader no matter what side of the fence you fall.
July 16, 2009
An ARC from the GoodReads FirstReads program
This was a concise review of American history, although I'm not sure how reliable it is. The author clearly intends to portray a different side to George Washington, the 'hidden political' side.
In the preface, I came across a word I wasn't familiar with - hagiography. Turns out, this is the study of holy people. Ferling contends that most biographers treat George Washington as something of a saint, allowing some myths about his life to linger. He contends that Washington was a more complex man, and more politically talented, than he is usually portrayed.
Ferling starts with Washington as a young man. He paints a picture of a man who takes action to hide his faults, while subtly highlighting his virtues. The Washington he portrays is not really modest, just very smart and charismatic. He also intentionally studies those around him, in order to adopt the behavior most likely to lead to his personal advancement. In his early business career, he was mostly interested in his own monetary gain. One particular thing that bothered me was the way he took advantage of the enlisted men. This is as described by the author, to the best of my recollection. A parcel of land in the west was to be set aside as a reward for military service - the author contends that it was mainly for those who enlisted. Washington successfully lobbied so that large parcels were reserved for officers, with much smaller parcels for enlisted. Even worse, he sent his own survey team out to mark the prime parcels. As the land was distributed, he convinced some men to sell prime land to him, convincing them it was worthless.
As a general, Ferling claims Washington was a bumbling disaster, better able to discredit his fellow officers vying for command than able to plan and execute military strategy. His reputation is a result of luck and a conscious effort by congress to attempt to maintain the public's faith in a war leader. Ferling claims he was obsessed with attempting to retake New York, and only by luck (in the form of a French advisor) did he end up victorious at Yorktown.
After being elected president, Washington put Hamilton in charge of treasury. Ferling gives them both credit with establishing the firm financial foundations of the new country. Although commonly believed to be apolitical, Ferling contends that Washington was a firm Federalist throughout his life.
This is a good time to explain how I came to read this book.
My history education is full of gaping holes. I have almost no formal world history education. I had a high school history class which went in depth into the United States history through the Civil War. And I took one history class in college which also covered early United States history.
In that college class, we read a biography of George Washington -
Washington The Indispensable Man. This was the first historical biography I had read, and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed it and how easy it was to read. (I normally have a hard time with non-fiction.)
So when I saw this John Ferling book listed on the FirstReads page, I signed up because of my vague but fond remembrance of the other George Washington book. And wouldn't you know it, I won.
I am probably not the right audience for this book. Someone with a stronger background in history (preferably from multiple original sources) would be better able to rate this book. My problem is that the author is using a persuasive tone. He's trying to sell his idea of George Washington as a political genius. I just don't have sufficient knowledge to accurately judge the author's portrayal of Washington.
This was a concise review of American history, although I'm not sure how reliable it is. The author clearly intends to portray a different side to George Washington, the 'hidden political' side.
In the preface, I came across a word I wasn't familiar with - hagiography. Turns out, this is the study of holy people. Ferling contends that most biographers treat George Washington as something of a saint, allowing some myths about his life to linger. He contends that Washington was a more complex man, and more politically talented, than he is usually portrayed.
Ferling starts with Washington as a young man. He paints a picture of a man who takes action to hide his faults, while subtly highlighting his virtues. The Washington he portrays is not really modest, just very smart and charismatic. He also intentionally studies those around him, in order to adopt the behavior most likely to lead to his personal advancement. In his early business career, he was mostly interested in his own monetary gain. One particular thing that bothered me was the way he took advantage of the enlisted men. This is as described by the author, to the best of my recollection. A parcel of land in the west was to be set aside as a reward for military service - the author contends that it was mainly for those who enlisted. Washington successfully lobbied so that large parcels were reserved for officers, with much smaller parcels for enlisted. Even worse, he sent his own survey team out to mark the prime parcels. As the land was distributed, he convinced some men to sell prime land to him, convincing them it was worthless.
As a general, Ferling claims Washington was a bumbling disaster, better able to discredit his fellow officers vying for command than able to plan and execute military strategy. His reputation is a result of luck and a conscious effort by congress to attempt to maintain the public's faith in a war leader. Ferling claims he was obsessed with attempting to retake New York, and only by luck (in the form of a French advisor) did he end up victorious at Yorktown.
After being elected president, Washington put Hamilton in charge of treasury. Ferling gives them both credit with establishing the firm financial foundations of the new country. Although commonly believed to be apolitical, Ferling contends that Washington was a firm Federalist throughout his life.
This is a good time to explain how I came to read this book.
My history education is full of gaping holes. I have almost no formal world history education. I had a high school history class which went in depth into the United States history through the Civil War. And I took one history class in college which also covered early United States history.
In that college class, we read a biography of George Washington -
Washington The Indispensable Man. This was the first historical biography I had read, and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed it and how easy it was to read. (I normally have a hard time with non-fiction.)
So when I saw this John Ferling book listed on the FirstReads page, I signed up because of my vague but fond remembrance of the other George Washington book. And wouldn't you know it, I won.
I am probably not the right audience for this book. Someone with a stronger background in history (preferably from multiple original sources) would be better able to rate this book. My problem is that the author is using a persuasive tone. He's trying to sell his idea of George Washington as a political genius. I just don't have sufficient knowledge to accurately judge the author's portrayal of Washington.
January 10, 2016
This book was a fairly quick read, lacking the density of other biographies and histories I have read in recent years by Edmund Morris, David McCullough and Richard Lyman Bushman. I have wanted to find a good book on Washington since reading 1776 by McCullough and this book has proved credible in this regard.
I could not determine whether Ferling likes or dislikes his subject, which is part of the book's intrigue. The book is generally well written and well sourced. Most of Ferling’s arguments are well supported by Washington’s own words or other legitimate historical sources. Yet it is peppered by inflammatory language that suggests Washington was “mad” for glory, power and wealth. Ferling also infers that Washington “raged” as he wrote certain things. Washington is well known as having a volatile temper but to conclude that certain letters were written when Washington was in a fit of rage is a subjective judgment interpretation that cannot be substantiated.
On the other hand, Ferling writes of Washington in appropriately objective terms throughout most of the rest of the book – sometimes even with respect – that it is hard for me to believe that Ferling thinks Washington is in some way defective. I am left to conclude that Ferling was either writing for the approval of his liberal peers or, more likely, it is the work of an editor who thought the manuscript needed to be spiced up in order for the book to sell well.
I learned a lot about Washington from this book, but I found myself notating and setting aside the subjective “overstated” passages of the book, which I believe undermines the basic premise of the book: that Washington was a highly skilled politician, not a passive but noble man who was thrust to the top by others who were awed by his greatness. I believe this premise to be true and wish that the author’s arguments were not cheapened by the pejoratives he used.
I could not determine whether Ferling likes or dislikes his subject, which is part of the book's intrigue. The book is generally well written and well sourced. Most of Ferling’s arguments are well supported by Washington’s own words or other legitimate historical sources. Yet it is peppered by inflammatory language that suggests Washington was “mad” for glory, power and wealth. Ferling also infers that Washington “raged” as he wrote certain things. Washington is well known as having a volatile temper but to conclude that certain letters were written when Washington was in a fit of rage is a subjective judgment interpretation that cannot be substantiated.
On the other hand, Ferling writes of Washington in appropriately objective terms throughout most of the rest of the book – sometimes even with respect – that it is hard for me to believe that Ferling thinks Washington is in some way defective. I am left to conclude that Ferling was either writing for the approval of his liberal peers or, more likely, it is the work of an editor who thought the manuscript needed to be spiced up in order for the book to sell well.
I learned a lot about Washington from this book, but I found myself notating and setting aside the subjective “overstated” passages of the book, which I believe undermines the basic premise of the book: that Washington was a highly skilled politician, not a passive but noble man who was thrust to the top by others who were awed by his greatness. I believe this premise to be true and wish that the author’s arguments were not cheapened by the pejoratives he used.
December 6, 2013
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...
“The Ascent of George Washington” is prolific author John Ferling’s tenth book (of eleven thus far) and was published in 2009. He is a professor emeritus of history and has written extensively on the revolutionary era as well as many of those who figured so prominently in its history.
The somewhat contentious tone of his book is quickly established when Ferling points out that he fundamentally disagrees with the prevailing view of our first president as a “nonpolitical” super-hero who sought to rise above the fray as president. Instead, he portrays Washington as an aggressively self-interested, highly political figure who essentially did whatever he had to in order to “get ahead.”
Ferling’s anti-hero cadence remains steady throughout the book, but is not entirely without merit. It is undeniable that Washington energetically took advantage of most of the opportunities that destiny presented and, like many successful individuals, often made his own luck. Among other things, he assiduously cultivated relationships as a youngster with people of higher social class and influence, cajoled colonial politicians into providing him a military mission though he had no real experience, and worked tenaciously to find himself in the right places when important moments in history were likely to be made.
But to most of us, those are not the signs of a partisan and narcissistic egomaniac. They are the footprints of a highly-motivated and ambitious (though often self-doubting) individual who wished to rise above his underwhelming, under-educated childhood to earn the respect of his community and, eventually, leave a positive imprint on history.
Much of the time I found myself frustrated by Ferling’s insistence on relentlessly pursuing a thesis that seemed overdone. Although I appreciated his effort to uncover and pursue a new “twist” on Washington’s life, too often it seemed he either had a genuine personal dislike of Washington, or was working a bit too hard to create a conspiracy where there was hardly a crime.
On the other hand, I did find some of Ferling’s “evidence” to be reasonable, if one-sided and unbalanced. We are all – great historical figures included – composed of a complex amalgam of strengths and weaknesses. How someone projects one’s strengths while disguising or compensating for deficiencies can be the difference between making history and being forgotten altogether. Washington obviously knew this well, but Ferling sees a man who can only be viewed through a glass half-empty.
Ferling’s rhetoric eased somewhat in his closing remarks. In the final pages he delineated a number of conclusions which are (ironically) fairly consistent with those of other historians. Indeed, if you were to begin reading Ferling’s book with his final chapter, you might well find little with which to disagree.
Nonetheless, the overarching mood that pervades “The Ascent of George Washington” is that of a book authored by someone with an ax to grind; John Adams himself could hardly have been more delighted by much of what Ferling wrote. However, I do admire the book for what it did not intend to do: cover Washington’s life comprehensively from start to finish. This would have been the fourth such book for me in a month, and it was refreshing to read something a bit different and provocative.
Overall, Ferling’s book on Washington (which he goes out of his way to say is not a biography, as it does not chronicle his relationship with his family, his personal interests, etc.) seems to fall slightly short of its own goal. It tries too hard to be different, and seems to force facts and circumstances into slightly odd shapes at times in order to fit the desired conclusion. As a second or third book to read on Washington, Ferling’s work is entirely appropriate. But for someone intending to read just one book on our first president, “The Ascent of George Washington” doesn’t seem to be quite what the doctor ordered.
Overall rating: 3 stars
“The Ascent of George Washington” is prolific author John Ferling’s tenth book (of eleven thus far) and was published in 2009. He is a professor emeritus of history and has written extensively on the revolutionary era as well as many of those who figured so prominently in its history.
The somewhat contentious tone of his book is quickly established when Ferling points out that he fundamentally disagrees with the prevailing view of our first president as a “nonpolitical” super-hero who sought to rise above the fray as president. Instead, he portrays Washington as an aggressively self-interested, highly political figure who essentially did whatever he had to in order to “get ahead.”
Ferling’s anti-hero cadence remains steady throughout the book, but is not entirely without merit. It is undeniable that Washington energetically took advantage of most of the opportunities that destiny presented and, like many successful individuals, often made his own luck. Among other things, he assiduously cultivated relationships as a youngster with people of higher social class and influence, cajoled colonial politicians into providing him a military mission though he had no real experience, and worked tenaciously to find himself in the right places when important moments in history were likely to be made.
But to most of us, those are not the signs of a partisan and narcissistic egomaniac. They are the footprints of a highly-motivated and ambitious (though often self-doubting) individual who wished to rise above his underwhelming, under-educated childhood to earn the respect of his community and, eventually, leave a positive imprint on history.
Much of the time I found myself frustrated by Ferling’s insistence on relentlessly pursuing a thesis that seemed overdone. Although I appreciated his effort to uncover and pursue a new “twist” on Washington’s life, too often it seemed he either had a genuine personal dislike of Washington, or was working a bit too hard to create a conspiracy where there was hardly a crime.
On the other hand, I did find some of Ferling’s “evidence” to be reasonable, if one-sided and unbalanced. We are all – great historical figures included – composed of a complex amalgam of strengths and weaknesses. How someone projects one’s strengths while disguising or compensating for deficiencies can be the difference between making history and being forgotten altogether. Washington obviously knew this well, but Ferling sees a man who can only be viewed through a glass half-empty.
Ferling’s rhetoric eased somewhat in his closing remarks. In the final pages he delineated a number of conclusions which are (ironically) fairly consistent with those of other historians. Indeed, if you were to begin reading Ferling’s book with his final chapter, you might well find little with which to disagree.
Nonetheless, the overarching mood that pervades “The Ascent of George Washington” is that of a book authored by someone with an ax to grind; John Adams himself could hardly have been more delighted by much of what Ferling wrote. However, I do admire the book for what it did not intend to do: cover Washington’s life comprehensively from start to finish. This would have been the fourth such book for me in a month, and it was refreshing to read something a bit different and provocative.
Overall, Ferling’s book on Washington (which he goes out of his way to say is not a biography, as it does not chronicle his relationship with his family, his personal interests, etc.) seems to fall slightly short of its own goal. It tries too hard to be different, and seems to force facts and circumstances into slightly odd shapes at times in order to fit the desired conclusion. As a second or third book to read on Washington, Ferling’s work is entirely appropriate. But for someone intending to read just one book on our first president, “The Ascent of George Washington” doesn’t seem to be quite what the doctor ordered.
Overall rating: 3 stars
June 13, 2023
A fair and honest appraisal of George Washington. Sometimes biographies become clouded with a bit of bias from the author for their subject and I did not get that feeling with this book. Fair and insightful.
March 25, 2023
The author hates George Washington LOL. Cool historical facts though.
April 28, 2025
I didn’t know a lot about George apparently. Not as great a hero as I thought. Crazy.
January 9, 2019
An excellent story of the life of our first President by John Ferling! I also recommend 1776 for anyone interested in American history.
April 23, 2022
After visiting Mt Vernon recently, I thought a book on George Washington was in order. Ferling's work on the American icon is a very balanced look at not only Washington's tremendous success but also his failures, weaknesses and insecurities.
August 30, 2013
George Washington has been the subject of countless books, from multi-volume biographies to books that focus in on a single aspect of his life. John Ferling's 2009 The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon falls into the later camp, looking at the father of our country through the lens of his political career. Overall, it's an interesting book with a fresh - if often cynical - perspective, though I wouldn't recommend it as anyone's first venture into reading about Washington.
From Washington's early days trying to rise the ranks in Virginia, to his French and Indian War service, his colonial Virginia political career, to leading the Continental Army, to his time as the first President, Ferling depicts Washington as constantly looking for advantage and political advancement, while putting a noble, self-sacrificing face on his actions.
For a fan of Washington like myself it can be a bit trying to hear Ferling keep attempting to tear him down, but Ferling does a solid job of establishing his interpretation, and it is interesting to see episodes other biographers gloss over or don't mention at all, or commonly discussed events from another angle. While Ferling didn't dim my admiration for Washington, I do have a more well-rounded view, and I wouldn't say that Ferling ventures into "hacket job" territory at any point.
The main area where I'd suggest Ferling is overly hard on Washington is slavery. Ferling is pretty negative about Washington on that front, but having read Henry Wiencek's excellent An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America I'd suggest that Ferling doesn't give Washington enough credit for his growth on this issue over his life or for the environment he was in.
I would not recommend this book for the Washington novice. It helps to have read at least one general biography of the man to have a baseline for Ferling's alternate view, and since Ferling sometimes skims over less political aspects of Washington's life one might be a bit lost without other background. Reading something along the lines of Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner, His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis, or Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow would be wise before tackling The Ascent of George Washington. Reading Ferling first might also sour you on Washington unnecessarily.
I listened to Tantor Audio's 2009 production of the book, narrated by Norman Dietz. The production was very well done, and Dietz delivers a solid, no-frills reading fitting the non-fiction topic. The unabridged production runs approximately 17.5 hours.
The Ascent of George Washington is an interesting book for the veteran Washington reader, and I recommend it to anyone who fits that category and is looking for a different take on the first president's life. This was my second Ferling book, following Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 which didn't impress me. The Ascent of George Washington, however, was good enough that I was glad to have given Ferling another chance and expect to read more from him in the future.
From Washington's early days trying to rise the ranks in Virginia, to his French and Indian War service, his colonial Virginia political career, to leading the Continental Army, to his time as the first President, Ferling depicts Washington as constantly looking for advantage and political advancement, while putting a noble, self-sacrificing face on his actions.
For a fan of Washington like myself it can be a bit trying to hear Ferling keep attempting to tear him down, but Ferling does a solid job of establishing his interpretation, and it is interesting to see episodes other biographers gloss over or don't mention at all, or commonly discussed events from another angle. While Ferling didn't dim my admiration for Washington, I do have a more well-rounded view, and I wouldn't say that Ferling ventures into "hacket job" territory at any point.
The main area where I'd suggest Ferling is overly hard on Washington is slavery. Ferling is pretty negative about Washington on that front, but having read Henry Wiencek's excellent An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America I'd suggest that Ferling doesn't give Washington enough credit for his growth on this issue over his life or for the environment he was in.
I would not recommend this book for the Washington novice. It helps to have read at least one general biography of the man to have a baseline for Ferling's alternate view, and since Ferling sometimes skims over less political aspects of Washington's life one might be a bit lost without other background. Reading something along the lines of Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner, His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis, or Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow would be wise before tackling The Ascent of George Washington. Reading Ferling first might also sour you on Washington unnecessarily.
I listened to Tantor Audio's 2009 production of the book, narrated by Norman Dietz. The production was very well done, and Dietz delivers a solid, no-frills reading fitting the non-fiction topic. The unabridged production runs approximately 17.5 hours.
The Ascent of George Washington is an interesting book for the veteran Washington reader, and I recommend it to anyone who fits that category and is looking for a different take on the first president's life. This was my second Ferling book, following Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 which didn't impress me. The Ascent of George Washington, however, was good enough that I was glad to have given Ferling another chance and expect to read more from him in the future.
March 10, 2012
Added 3/9/12.
I listened to the audio version of this book. Below is a copy of a post I made at my group about this book and another book about GW:
=====================================
Jim wrote: "Joy, did you see a big difference between Ellis' view of Washington & Ferling's? One of the more interesting things about history is how much it changes depending on the author. ..."
Jim, I would say that, as far as I can remember, Ferling's book, The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon, seemed to tell more about Washington's shortcomings than did Ellis's book, His Excellency: George Washington. If I had read your question before I listened to the books, I would have paid more attention to the differences between the books. As it was, I was going back and forth between them since one listening device was in the living room and the other was in the kitchen. So my listening was interspersed between the books.
Ferling's book was interesting because it told about the disagreements and animosities between the historical figures of the time. It also told about the friendships. One relationship that was especially interesting was GW's friendship with Hamilton, who was capable but was also a rogue at the same time. I'll bet his life would be an interesting one to read about.
It was interesting to read the details of GW's early life as a backwoods explorer and also as a soldier, with descriptions of the battles and their outcomes.
GW was tall and impressive in his uniform and on his white horse. He had a commanding demeanor. He was fearless in battle. Quite the hero even though credit must be given to the officers under him, something Ferling said GW didn't do all the time. Instead he took the credit himself. IIRC, Ferling pointed out a time when GW didn't tell the truth! :)
I think that much of Ferling's info came from letters and writings of the important people of the time who made comments to each other about GW.
===============================
In another post about this book, I wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was interesting getting to know the details of Washington's life including his character and his personality. He was quite an operator! :) One interesting aspect of his personality was the fact that he often found scapegoats to blame for some of his failures. He married a rich woman. He invested in wilderness property in order to be able to sell it and make money. He's credited with guiding the new union through its infancy, following policies which helped it grow and become strong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I listened to the audio version of this book. Below is a copy of a post I made at my group about this book and another book about GW:
=====================================
Jim wrote: "Joy, did you see a big difference between Ellis' view of Washington & Ferling's? One of the more interesting things about history is how much it changes depending on the author. ..."
Jim, I would say that, as far as I can remember, Ferling's book, The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon, seemed to tell more about Washington's shortcomings than did Ellis's book, His Excellency: George Washington. If I had read your question before I listened to the books, I would have paid more attention to the differences between the books. As it was, I was going back and forth between them since one listening device was in the living room and the other was in the kitchen. So my listening was interspersed between the books.
Ferling's book was interesting because it told about the disagreements and animosities between the historical figures of the time. It also told about the friendships. One relationship that was especially interesting was GW's friendship with Hamilton, who was capable but was also a rogue at the same time. I'll bet his life would be an interesting one to read about.
It was interesting to read the details of GW's early life as a backwoods explorer and also as a soldier, with descriptions of the battles and their outcomes.
GW was tall and impressive in his uniform and on his white horse. He had a commanding demeanor. He was fearless in battle. Quite the hero even though credit must be given to the officers under him, something Ferling said GW didn't do all the time. Instead he took the credit himself. IIRC, Ferling pointed out a time when GW didn't tell the truth! :)
I think that much of Ferling's info came from letters and writings of the important people of the time who made comments to each other about GW.
===============================
In another post about this book, I wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was interesting getting to know the details of Washington's life including his character and his personality. He was quite an operator! :) One interesting aspect of his personality was the fact that he often found scapegoats to blame for some of his failures. He married a rich woman. He invested in wilderness property in order to be able to sell it and make money. He's credited with guiding the new union through its infancy, following policies which helped it grow and become strong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 5, 2014
Even after all the books about George Washington, this author finds a new perspective on Washington's career. Readers should not be put off by the sometimes-startling insights, by a Washington who owed as much to political favor and self-promotion as to his military successes, such that they were. The very fact that Washington served as colonial officer, revolutionary general and President was important, as was his symbolic value as early as 1775, and all this was the result of his political connections, the point of this book. He served at the pleasure of the royal governor of Virginia, and of the Continental Congress, and it's not cynical to say this, if only because he recognized that civil authority should govern the military.
Mr. Ferling seems to have made excellent use of recently-published papers and contemporary accounts by and about Washington, and it's because of his scholarship that he can buttress this story. Washington was quick to shift blame for military defeats from himself, to deliberately cultivate a public air of gravitas, to pass off disasters as temporary distractions, none of this a pretty tale. That a man of little formal education could manage politicians and professional soldiers in this way says much on his skill.
Ferling does show, time and again, how the Revolution had greater generals than Washington. He lost New York, he lost Philadelphia, the victories at Saratoga and Guilford Court House weren't his, and it was Gen. Rochambeau who suggested, even manipulated him, into the Yorktown campaign. Still, he remained, and this is why. After all, if Congress had relieved him of command, the Continental Army could have won more victories, but possibly not have prevailed. And he did save the Republic, and in some interesting ways.
Ferling tells, once again, of the Newburgh incident in 1783, when Continental officers came very close to mutiny and overthrow of Congress. Washington quieted them, reaffirmed the army's subordination to the rule of law. That Ferling tells it as a well-managed bit of theater does not diminish its importance. And Ferling tells of how Washington's presidency consolidated what the Revolution had only made possible: an orderly and capable Federal government, and that while managing bigger-than-life personalities like Hamilton, Jefferson, and John Jay.
It was Clausewitz who may have said that war is the extension of politics by other means, but it is Ferling, here, who illustrates how closely they interact, how political management can sustain a general, and how difficult it is for victories by the sword to be made into a permanent civil good. In that regard, Washington was a far greater leader than Napoleon.
Mr. Ferling seems to have made excellent use of recently-published papers and contemporary accounts by and about Washington, and it's because of his scholarship that he can buttress this story. Washington was quick to shift blame for military defeats from himself, to deliberately cultivate a public air of gravitas, to pass off disasters as temporary distractions, none of this a pretty tale. That a man of little formal education could manage politicians and professional soldiers in this way says much on his skill.
Ferling does show, time and again, how the Revolution had greater generals than Washington. He lost New York, he lost Philadelphia, the victories at Saratoga and Guilford Court House weren't his, and it was Gen. Rochambeau who suggested, even manipulated him, into the Yorktown campaign. Still, he remained, and this is why. After all, if Congress had relieved him of command, the Continental Army could have won more victories, but possibly not have prevailed. And he did save the Republic, and in some interesting ways.
Ferling tells, once again, of the Newburgh incident in 1783, when Continental officers came very close to mutiny and overthrow of Congress. Washington quieted them, reaffirmed the army's subordination to the rule of law. That Ferling tells it as a well-managed bit of theater does not diminish its importance. And Ferling tells of how Washington's presidency consolidated what the Revolution had only made possible: an orderly and capable Federal government, and that while managing bigger-than-life personalities like Hamilton, Jefferson, and John Jay.
It was Clausewitz who may have said that war is the extension of politics by other means, but it is Ferling, here, who illustrates how closely they interact, how political management can sustain a general, and how difficult it is for victories by the sword to be made into a permanent civil good. In that regard, Washington was a far greater leader than Napoleon.
July 31, 2009
The thesis of this volume is straightforward (Page xix): "This book, however, takes issue with [many historians':] portrayal of Washington as nonpolitical and steadfastly seeking to stay above politics." The author, John Ferling, also notes Washington's vaulting ambition and his willingness to use a variety of tactics to achieve his goals. Thus, this book can be deemed a political biography of George Washington.
The basic approach is laid out early. Washington did not have much of an education and was acutely aware of this shortcoming. Using his older brother from their father's first marriage as a model (Lawrence Washington), he set out to create a military success and use that as a steppingstone to wealth and success. To his advantage, Washington had a number of powerful patrons, who helped him in his ascent.
The book chronicles his up and down military career during the 1750s, his inveterate lobbying for military advancement, his "fights" with governors and military personnel to get the recognition that he desired. And, indeed, this represents one of my questions about the book. Ferling notes that others see Washington as "disinterested," but Ellis, in his excellent biography called "His Excellency," makes some of the same points, although in more nuanced terms. In that, it sometimes seems to me that Ferling is understating points made in other biographies to make his appear the more unique.
His ambitions were also supported by a marriage into wealth and an eminent family. From there, the arc of his well know life is traced--from the state legislature and his plantation to his role in the Revolutionary War to his accession to the presidency. Through all these stages of his life, Ferling notes his ambition. He also contends that, as President, Washington was far from the nonpartisan president described by many. Ellis, for instance, speaks of Washington often "levitating" above the partisan factionalism of his cabinet and of the emerging first party system. Ferling has none of that.
All in all, an interesting "take" on the life of George Washington. My own sense is that Ferling may take his thesis a bit further than warranted; he also sets up some straw men (like Ellis) to distinguish himself from their views of Washington. Nonetheless, his political biography makes Washington more human as a person than some volumes do, and that is to the good. The work also emphasizes the political side of Washington in a manner that has some credibility. All in all, I would recommend this book for its political orientation on George Washington.
The basic approach is laid out early. Washington did not have much of an education and was acutely aware of this shortcoming. Using his older brother from their father's first marriage as a model (Lawrence Washington), he set out to create a military success and use that as a steppingstone to wealth and success. To his advantage, Washington had a number of powerful patrons, who helped him in his ascent.
The book chronicles his up and down military career during the 1750s, his inveterate lobbying for military advancement, his "fights" with governors and military personnel to get the recognition that he desired. And, indeed, this represents one of my questions about the book. Ferling notes that others see Washington as "disinterested," but Ellis, in his excellent biography called "His Excellency," makes some of the same points, although in more nuanced terms. In that, it sometimes seems to me that Ferling is understating points made in other biographies to make his appear the more unique.
His ambitions were also supported by a marriage into wealth and an eminent family. From there, the arc of his well know life is traced--from the state legislature and his plantation to his role in the Revolutionary War to his accession to the presidency. Through all these stages of his life, Ferling notes his ambition. He also contends that, as President, Washington was far from the nonpartisan president described by many. Ellis, for instance, speaks of Washington often "levitating" above the partisan factionalism of his cabinet and of the emerging first party system. Ferling has none of that.
All in all, an interesting "take" on the life of George Washington. My own sense is that Ferling may take his thesis a bit further than warranted; he also sets up some straw men (like Ellis) to distinguish himself from their views of Washington. Nonetheless, his political biography makes Washington more human as a person than some volumes do, and that is to the good. The work also emphasizes the political side of Washington in a manner that has some credibility. All in all, I would recommend this book for its political orientation on George Washington.
Read
September 23, 2010"As I am late to the battle of these reviews, let me add more of a footnote than a full review. [return][return]The previous reviewers are correct in pointing out the focus of this book - the political aspect of Washington's life, rather than a broader focus that would include more details of his private life and military leadership. However, one should interpret the term ""political"" broadly, as Ferling has much to say about the politics of Washington's rise as a military leader and how he early arrived at his goal of attaining to fame.[return][return]The previous reviewers are also correct in pointing out that Washington, unlike Adams, was scrupulous in not writing his own biography or leaving us a mass of journals and notes This, it should be added, however, was not rare among prominent men of his age. Both Adam Smith and David Hume ordered their private papers burned at their deaths, and such was a common custom. The unusual thing about Washington is that there didn't seem to be all that much to burn. [return][return]Having agreed with the previous reviewers in two respects, let me disagree with them in one respect. This book is not a ""concise biography of Washington"". Given its rather narrow focus it is, if anything, much too long. After the first two chapters Ferling seems to get lost in minutia that does little to drive his story forward - another aspect, perhaps, of the relative lack of critical direct evidence to make out his thesis. [return][return]Having advanced that one criticism, I would conclude by highly recommending this book as a unique and, except for the belabored detail toward the middle, an excellently executed biography of Washington as a political animal. It is a perspective that has been sorely lacking up to now, and one that is important to add to the literature of Washingtonia."
February 14, 2012
Every American knows who George Washington was and even though few still believe Parson Weems’ story of his life (does anyone still believe he chopped down a cherry tree?) most Americans have an idealized portrait of Washington in their minds. In The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon, John Ferling portrays a different and much more human version of Washington. [return][return]Ferling, who has written extensively about the American Revolutionary period, discovered a Washington who was, “Madly ambitious and obsessed with recognition and renown,” he emerged a hero from two wars, in which he achieved only insignificant individual success and committed dreadful blunders. He was a genius at shifting the blame for defeat on to others and engaging in self-promotion. [return][return]In spite of these failings, Ferling maintains Washington was a great American icon and the country was extraordinarily fortunate to have had him as its first president. For while much of the aura that surrounded Washington in life and death was mythological, legendary heroes and mythical tales are essential for the creation and maintenance of a new nation. [return][return]Political leaders of the past have often been made into mythological figures that can never be imitated. The reader can never achieve the same greatness nor does he expect it from his current leaders. The fact that these past leaders were great but human, with human flaws is lost. This diminishes their accomplishments by making it appear they were something more then normal men. [return][return]The Ascent of George Washington serves as a reminder that we are all human, even George Washington.
October 26, 2020
After checking out some reviews before reading this, I was expecting a real hatchet job that knocked George Washington off his pedestal and into the gutter - but I didn't find that to be the case at all.
I've read several books by John Ferling and have always found him to be fair. He doesn't write hit pieces, but he doesn't write hagiographies, either. His portrayal of George Washington in this book is one of a driven, ambitious man who accentuated his successes and downplayed his missteps in order to get, and stay, ahead. He's not the impassive, reluctant hero of myth - he sought out success and recognition. We delude ourselves into thinking our successful leaders are free from ego, when that's simply not the case - but that shouldn't lessen our esteem for them when it's deserved.
Nor are our leaders omnipotent and free from flaws. No one would say Washington was a brilliant military tactician, for example. He made mistakes, and lost many more battles than he won, and Ferling points out where he went wrong. But his criticism is never gratuitous. And, in the final analysis, Ferling acknowledges that Washington was, and is, well-deserving of all the veneration he earned, in his time and ours.
Just because Washington was human, had flaws, made mistakes and was ambitious doesn't mean he's any less deserving of our admiration. You'll come away from this book knowing that Washington wasn't perfect, but with a better understanding of why we hold him in such high regard anyway.
I've read several books by John Ferling and have always found him to be fair. He doesn't write hit pieces, but he doesn't write hagiographies, either. His portrayal of George Washington in this book is one of a driven, ambitious man who accentuated his successes and downplayed his missteps in order to get, and stay, ahead. He's not the impassive, reluctant hero of myth - he sought out success and recognition. We delude ourselves into thinking our successful leaders are free from ego, when that's simply not the case - but that shouldn't lessen our esteem for them when it's deserved.
Nor are our leaders omnipotent and free from flaws. No one would say Washington was a brilliant military tactician, for example. He made mistakes, and lost many more battles than he won, and Ferling points out where he went wrong. But his criticism is never gratuitous. And, in the final analysis, Ferling acknowledges that Washington was, and is, well-deserving of all the veneration he earned, in his time and ours.
Just because Washington was human, had flaws, made mistakes and was ambitious doesn't mean he's any less deserving of our admiration. You'll come away from this book knowing that Washington wasn't perfect, but with a better understanding of why we hold him in such high regard anyway.
September 9, 2012
Ok I will shorten this review since I did a review earlier and then lost it due to some computer boo boo.
I really enjoyed reading this book about the Father of our nation. No where is mentioned the cutting down of the cherry tree or the infamous false wooden teeth. I was taught these stories in grade school and I now really don't understand the significance of these facts.
This book describes a Washington that is very self-serving,blaming others for his failures, unable to make a decision and caught up in an ego that is within character of British nobility during the American Revolution. I think what saved General Washington was that he did not make sudden brash decisions. He was patient.He was a good judge of character. He knew his army was incapable of standing a chance without the proper food, clothing,training and ammunition. What especially saved Washington was the French. Unable to decide what move to make next he was stirred or tricked into action by Rochambeau.
As the first President, I was impressed by his wanting to be of service and refusing pay for this position. Though this was later over ruled by his Vice President John Adams.
I also was rather amused that our country started out $92 million dollars in debt from the get go.
I enjoyed this book because it took a man and showed his flaws, which were many, and then by the time he was put back together again, we realize that he was the right man, in the right place and time to be the Father of our country.
I really enjoyed reading this book about the Father of our nation. No where is mentioned the cutting down of the cherry tree or the infamous false wooden teeth. I was taught these stories in grade school and I now really don't understand the significance of these facts.
This book describes a Washington that is very self-serving,blaming others for his failures, unable to make a decision and caught up in an ego that is within character of British nobility during the American Revolution. I think what saved General Washington was that he did not make sudden brash decisions. He was patient.He was a good judge of character. He knew his army was incapable of standing a chance without the proper food, clothing,training and ammunition. What especially saved Washington was the French. Unable to decide what move to make next he was stirred or tricked into action by Rochambeau.
As the first President, I was impressed by his wanting to be of service and refusing pay for this position. Though this was later over ruled by his Vice President John Adams.
I also was rather amused that our country started out $92 million dollars in debt from the get go.
I enjoyed this book because it took a man and showed his flaws, which were many, and then by the time he was put back together again, we realize that he was the right man, in the right place and time to be the Father of our country.
July 20, 2014
When we were little, we were told George Washington chopped down a cherry tree; had wooden teeth; beat the British at Valley Forge; and magically our country was born! This book is an engrossing and fascinating interpretation of Washington's mythology from contemporary accounts of his peers and a wider narrative of who and what in the world helped forge our great nation.
Having just finished slogging through the huge amount of facts and stories in this book, I found it most interesting learning about Washington's first years' presidency and the influence of Alexander Hamilton on the beginning nation. So many little skirmishes and politics that may have been forgotten in the mythology of Washington are repeated here, and as I'm sure other reviewers have mentioned make George a little more human and fallible than just being caught as a kid lying about a tree.
The text can be a little boring and hard to keep track of in my opinion, but in one sitting it might be easy to refer back to names and places. Washington's diaries themselves according to the extensive bibliography included number six volumes, and there are new anthologies of his papers (twenty-five volumes so far!) being produced all the time, so in short I think this book does a great service consolidating and interpreting those sources. I enjoyed learning so much about history, and opening my eyes to political patterns still in place today. Fun and informative read!!
Having just finished slogging through the huge amount of facts and stories in this book, I found it most interesting learning about Washington's first years' presidency and the influence of Alexander Hamilton on the beginning nation. So many little skirmishes and politics that may have been forgotten in the mythology of Washington are repeated here, and as I'm sure other reviewers have mentioned make George a little more human and fallible than just being caught as a kid lying about a tree.
The text can be a little boring and hard to keep track of in my opinion, but in one sitting it might be easy to refer back to names and places. Washington's diaries themselves according to the extensive bibliography included number six volumes, and there are new anthologies of his papers (twenty-five volumes so far!) being produced all the time, so in short I think this book does a great service consolidating and interpreting those sources. I enjoyed learning so much about history, and opening my eyes to political patterns still in place today. Fun and informative read!!
May 12, 2013
Awesome book! It's nice to see Washington as a flawed human with a pasion for becoming more than society said he could be. This book showed his blunders in military strategy and how he was able to rise to ultimate power in spite of it. The book also captured the spirit of '76 very well where other similar books failed to do so.
September 2, 2015
I really liked this book. If non-scholarly readers were to read only, say, Chernow's biography of GW, this would be a great supplement. In a way, it is a study of how Washington "got ahead," showing some particularly less than stellar characteristics of this man of whom much mythological thinking persists. Ferling is, I think, both a good historian and a good historiographer.
July 11, 2021
Historian John Ferling has for many years studied, taught, and written about the American Revolutionary War and our Founding Fathers. His work examines those critical questions relating to how the United States came to be "free and independent" and what it was about these men that made that outcome possible. This is not his first book about George Washington and it is not a biography, but it reflects a lifetime of research and thoughtful study of a man who seems more of "the marble man" to most Americans than even Robert E. Lee (with whom Washington has often been linked by the latter's admirers).
That Professor Ferling is choosing to try and break through the stonework that encases our First President and Commander-in-Chief to expose the real George Washington is a laudatory endeavor, though it can make this work a bit of a rough go for readers more accustomed to the traditional rather more reverential treatment of our principal founding father. As a historian, such an iconoclastic approach to historical figures is neither new nor at all unwelcome and in fact falls into a strong American academic tradition.
In recent decades we have been treated to works exploring the many facets of George Washington and his military and political career, including Washington as spymaster and intelligence chief, or a young and overly enthusiastic military-diplomat on the North American frontier, or as the initiator of a genocidal race war against Native Americans. In this work, the author brings together many, if not all, of the various charges, complaints, and allegations that have been leveled against Washington during his lifetime and since his death. As one reads through the book, it seems as if Ferling has accused Washington of being ambitious, boastful, conniving, duplicitous, egotistical, facile, limited, manipulative, naïve, opportunistic, self-promoting, virtual fraud and adventurer, among other faults he identifies in our first Commander-in-Chief and first President. This book is a warts and all telling of how young Master Washington of Virginia became General and President G. (drum roll, a la "1776") Washington.
As a longtime student of the American Civil War, for example, I know that the re-examination of the character, performance, and reputations of such iconic figures as Robert E. Lee and his "warhorse" Longstreet are the meat and potatoes of much of what is written today about that conflict and its most prominent figures. This parallel comes to mind in part because the one real fault I find with Dr. Ferling's work is the comparative inadequacy of the supporting evidence he sometimes brings to the discussion. Criticisms of Lee, Longstreet, George McClellan, and others seem especially awash with cited reports, letters, diaries, and other documentation compared to the relatively thin gruel offered by Dr. Ferling in support of some of the charges he levels in this work.
In part this reflects the relative volume of surviving records relating to these two conflicts. The Union Army and in particular the Army of the Potomac were marvels of early modern bureaucracy, turning out literally tons of paper records, reports, etc. that historians now pore over. George Washington's Continental Army, run principally by its Commander-in-Chief, some supporting general officers in positions such as Quartermaster General and Inspector General, and a handful of aides and clerks, produced far fewer surviving records. As a result, it is admittedly more difficult to expose a general who cites the failures of others to cover up his own errors of judgment or leadership. But even knowing this, I still found myself disappointed that Professor Ferling offered such little material evidence to support some of his statements regarding Washington's faults and failings.
This quibble aside, there is a lot of good material here which Professor Ferling presents in a readable and interesting style. Whether you agree with Dr. Ferling's work or not, this will be a book you will have to read to be fully informed about our First President and about the times and trials through which he, his colleagues and rivals, and our nation passed in order to emerge "free and independent."
That Professor Ferling is choosing to try and break through the stonework that encases our First President and Commander-in-Chief to expose the real George Washington is a laudatory endeavor, though it can make this work a bit of a rough go for readers more accustomed to the traditional rather more reverential treatment of our principal founding father. As a historian, such an iconoclastic approach to historical figures is neither new nor at all unwelcome and in fact falls into a strong American academic tradition.
In recent decades we have been treated to works exploring the many facets of George Washington and his military and political career, including Washington as spymaster and intelligence chief, or a young and overly enthusiastic military-diplomat on the North American frontier, or as the initiator of a genocidal race war against Native Americans. In this work, the author brings together many, if not all, of the various charges, complaints, and allegations that have been leveled against Washington during his lifetime and since his death. As one reads through the book, it seems as if Ferling has accused Washington of being ambitious, boastful, conniving, duplicitous, egotistical, facile, limited, manipulative, naïve, opportunistic, self-promoting, virtual fraud and adventurer, among other faults he identifies in our first Commander-in-Chief and first President. This book is a warts and all telling of how young Master Washington of Virginia became General and President G. (drum roll, a la "1776") Washington.
As a longtime student of the American Civil War, for example, I know that the re-examination of the character, performance, and reputations of such iconic figures as Robert E. Lee and his "warhorse" Longstreet are the meat and potatoes of much of what is written today about that conflict and its most prominent figures. This parallel comes to mind in part because the one real fault I find with Dr. Ferling's work is the comparative inadequacy of the supporting evidence he sometimes brings to the discussion. Criticisms of Lee, Longstreet, George McClellan, and others seem especially awash with cited reports, letters, diaries, and other documentation compared to the relatively thin gruel offered by Dr. Ferling in support of some of the charges he levels in this work.
In part this reflects the relative volume of surviving records relating to these two conflicts. The Union Army and in particular the Army of the Potomac were marvels of early modern bureaucracy, turning out literally tons of paper records, reports, etc. that historians now pore over. George Washington's Continental Army, run principally by its Commander-in-Chief, some supporting general officers in positions such as Quartermaster General and Inspector General, and a handful of aides and clerks, produced far fewer surviving records. As a result, it is admittedly more difficult to expose a general who cites the failures of others to cover up his own errors of judgment or leadership. But even knowing this, I still found myself disappointed that Professor Ferling offered such little material evidence to support some of his statements regarding Washington's faults and failings.
This quibble aside, there is a lot of good material here which Professor Ferling presents in a readable and interesting style. Whether you agree with Dr. Ferling's work or not, this will be a book you will have to read to be fully informed about our First President and about the times and trials through which he, his colleagues and rivals, and our nation passed in order to emerge "free and independent."
July 17, 2020
Ferling specializes in the American Revolutionary epoch, with a mission of putting right myths and distortions that have so colored our perceptions of that time. If you believe ‘Ascent,’ Washington’s was not the spotless character our cultural consensus would have it, but rather a personality given to extremes. Say, when Washington influenced the selection of a site for the permanent capitol, it happened to be where the value of his holdings was most enhanced: If this happened today we wouldn’t suppose that politician to be disinterested. If you consider the professional jealousies of a Doug MacArthur or Bernard Montgomery for example, you might suspect that generals of stature are given to undermining their rivals. We usually accept that H. Gates and C. Lee tried to harm General Washington by whispering campaigns and such, but might they have threatened him primarily by their successes in fighting for the same cause? Ferling shows us a talented G. W. with fine characteristics and troubling flaws. It’s odd that to this day people are prejudiced in favor of an unrealistic take on this, but then the famous case of George Washington is hardly the only example. In fact the governing classes of the time realized that our wobbly young nation needed a perfect leader to rally behind, and emotional imperatives have confirmed our preference for that distortion ever since. Or maybe Ferling has it wrong, but his view of things has the ring of truth to me.
May 11, 2024
I appreciated the general approach to the book, but somewhere between the revolutionary war and the Constitutional Convention, something in the books approach shifted. It is hard to identify the exact issue. I think at least a part of the problem is that evidently, in the authors view, Washington represented the "conservatives" of his time, while Jefferson represented "progressivism." Jefferson certainly harnessed populist sentiment in ways that Washington didn't, but it doesn't give Washington enough credit as a leader of a political revolution and a individual who was instrumental in establishing a constitutional foundation that gave people more say in their government, and more rights, than any other nation at that time. Another issue that comes out is that many historical points are not black and white, historical insight into the thoughts and motivations of figures like Washington or Hamilton are gray at best. Rather than portraying the shades of gray, or making it clear what is "fact" and what is speculation, Ferling seems to always portray his best guess or impression as an established fact. In doing so, he almost entirely villainizes Hamilton, and arguably mischaracterizes many of Washington's actions - it is not that he is necessarily wrong, it's just that there is a strong possibility he might not be right and that is never acknowledged.
I did appreciate the effort to discuss Washington as a politician and how he operated from that perspective.
I did appreciate the effort to discuss Washington as a politician and how he operated from that perspective.
April 1, 2020
** 2 1/2 - 3 stars **
This book is not a biography which is one reason why I might not have enjoyed reading it as much as I have past books about our Founding Fathers (including Washington himself). Ferling doesn't shy away from looking into the darker aspects of his subjects. In Washington, we see a man who's very much concerned about his legacy, and as such, disregards uncomfortable truths about his character and own failings in his prescient efforts to preserve his name in history. With that said, after reading the book, I'm certain Ferling has much respect for Washington. In fact, he's clear to point out his belief that no other man could have pulled our nation together when we were at our most vulnerable: the beginning stages and shaky ground of a new nation. Through his leadership and political guile, Washington was able to achieve sure-footing for a young nation.
The book is a decent read despite its deficiencies. I had two chief complaints against the book. The first is that because it leaves out much of the more interesting biographical facts for a more focused study of Washington's military and political exploits, the book lacks a personal feel for its subject. To be fair, Ferling informs us at the onset that the book is not biographical in nature. Secondly, I was disappointed to read the jarring take on Alexander Hamilton. While Ferling exposes the flaws in Washington's character that led to his mistake, I wasn't nearly as startled by this as I was at the seeming distaste Ferling had for Alexander Hamilton. While I knew some of the inconsistencies in Washington's character: the military hero, for instance, who had many more military failures than victories; the Founding Father who, like many other Revolutionary figures fought for freedom yet enslaved slaves, but Ferling goes deeper. His Washington is an indecisive, insecure man motivated by ambition (and sometimes greed) who's willing to scapegoat others for his own failings. Alexander Hamilton's character take an even harsher beating in Ferling's reflection of history. Gone is history's Hamilton: the one who had a son-father relationship with his revered Washington. Ferling's perceived Hamilton is a self-centered, duplicitous character who not only didn't respect Washington, but who used him as a puppet in pursuit of his own military and political objectives. To Ferling, Hamilton is a brilliant mind devoid of character. This is not the Hamilton I recall reading about in history books. As a result, it's somewhat difficult to reconcile what we know or thought we knew about Hamilton with the one that come across on Ferling's page.
With all this said, THE ASCENT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON: THE HIDDEN POLITICAL GENIUS OF AN AMERICAN ICON is a decent read if the reader is looking for a deeper exploration of Washington's deeds and failings. While Washington's character is explored, it is mainly in relationship to how he chose to lead and how that character impacted his choices, accomplishments, and failures. After reading Ferling's book, it becomes more evident that much of our reverence for and what we believe about Washington is due to Washington's careful molding of his own legacy during his own lifetime.
This book is not a biography which is one reason why I might not have enjoyed reading it as much as I have past books about our Founding Fathers (including Washington himself). Ferling doesn't shy away from looking into the darker aspects of his subjects. In Washington, we see a man who's very much concerned about his legacy, and as such, disregards uncomfortable truths about his character and own failings in his prescient efforts to preserve his name in history. With that said, after reading the book, I'm certain Ferling has much respect for Washington. In fact, he's clear to point out his belief that no other man could have pulled our nation together when we were at our most vulnerable: the beginning stages and shaky ground of a new nation. Through his leadership and political guile, Washington was able to achieve sure-footing for a young nation.
The book is a decent read despite its deficiencies. I had two chief complaints against the book. The first is that because it leaves out much of the more interesting biographical facts for a more focused study of Washington's military and political exploits, the book lacks a personal feel for its subject. To be fair, Ferling informs us at the onset that the book is not biographical in nature. Secondly, I was disappointed to read the jarring take on Alexander Hamilton. While Ferling exposes the flaws in Washington's character that led to his mistake, I wasn't nearly as startled by this as I was at the seeming distaste Ferling had for Alexander Hamilton. While I knew some of the inconsistencies in Washington's character: the military hero, for instance, who had many more military failures than victories; the Founding Father who, like many other Revolutionary figures fought for freedom yet enslaved slaves, but Ferling goes deeper. His Washington is an indecisive, insecure man motivated by ambition (and sometimes greed) who's willing to scapegoat others for his own failings. Alexander Hamilton's character take an even harsher beating in Ferling's reflection of history. Gone is history's Hamilton: the one who had a son-father relationship with his revered Washington. Ferling's perceived Hamilton is a self-centered, duplicitous character who not only didn't respect Washington, but who used him as a puppet in pursuit of his own military and political objectives. To Ferling, Hamilton is a brilliant mind devoid of character. This is not the Hamilton I recall reading about in history books. As a result, it's somewhat difficult to reconcile what we know or thought we knew about Hamilton with the one that come across on Ferling's page.
With all this said, THE ASCENT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON: THE HIDDEN POLITICAL GENIUS OF AN AMERICAN ICON is a decent read if the reader is looking for a deeper exploration of Washington's deeds and failings. While Washington's character is explored, it is mainly in relationship to how he chose to lead and how that character impacted his choices, accomplishments, and failures. After reading Ferling's book, it becomes more evident that much of our reverence for and what we believe about Washington is due to Washington's careful molding of his own legacy during his own lifetime.
March 27, 2020
As I reading about history in chronological order, i chose this book to read ONLY about Washington's 8 years as president. I did this for two reasons: one - I have already one full biography on him by Joseph Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington and plan on reading Ron Chernow's book, Washington: A Life so i didnt want to read another full bio; and two, i wanted to read a different author's POV, so I chose John Ferling.
All in all, this decision was a good one (I think) because Ferling doesn't give Washington the glowing approval that so many others have done. He tends to criticize Washington quite a bit as if to let the reader know that Washington is only a man that has made mistakes but that he has made plenty of mistakes.
All in all, this decision was a good one (I think) because Ferling doesn't give Washington the glowing approval that so many others have done. He tends to criticize Washington quite a bit as if to let the reader know that Washington is only a man that has made mistakes but that he has made plenty of mistakes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews