In the Name of the Father: Washington's Legacy, Slavery, and the Making of a Nation

by François Furstenberg

Documents the ways in which George Washington's words, image, and mythology shaped America's fledgling republic and feelings of nationalism throughout the first fifty years after the Revolutionary War, offering insight into the pivotal role played by slavery issues. 30,000 first printing.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, American History, Historical

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Lucas Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I tried to rate this lower in my head as I was reading, telling myself that there was no way I would completely by the main thesis of the book. I believe in the end, Furstenberg's aim is not so much to convince the reader that ensuring the continuation of nation by shifting the individual autonomy and active consent of the founding generation into a veneration for the founding generation actually enslaved Americans because they had used individual autonomy as a justification for the continuation of chattel slavery as it is to convince the reader of the power of civic texts to explain something about the American past. This is a brief monograph at 245 pages including three brief appendices, but I'm at a loss trying to review things. Just free writing, because the amount of ideas per page is dense.

I enjoyed this book. It was very different from what my expectations were. I think it has changed the way I view George Washington, has reignited an interest to read more Frederick Douglass and read more about him (I bought the Blight biography and am as excited as intimidated by its 886 pages), and has given a concrete from to the vague annoyance I have always felt by people who expressed their patriotism in what felt like a lazy (or perhaps slavish) devotion to the Founding Fathers without much thought. Read this. Talk to me about it.

[Marty Mangold · Rating 5 out of 5]

The full title of this book caught my attention, but I read it to learn more about Mason Weems.

This book is the main source for the Wikipedia article on Mason Locke Weems, an enterprising doctor, preacher, bookseller and author that overlapped the lifetime of Benjamin Franklin. Weems wrote a famous biography of Washington, inventing the cherry tree episode in order to advance the idea that honesty was important. The author here has a nice feel for Weems, and, as I've just purchased a copy of Weems' similarly inventive "biography" of Franklin, I'm happy to have read it.

In dealing with slavery, starting with Washington's ownership of 371 slaves (!), Furstenberg follows some of the nuance needed to justify the rapidly expanding presence of slavery with the obvious words of the Declaration of Independence. This was all well done, but a bit repetitive, enlivened with glimmers of personality from Furstenberg that might have been more frequent.

Furstenberg's real topic is the body of literature he calls, and annoyingly repeats the term every chance he gets, "civic texts:" almanacks, newspapers, pamphlets and children's books. He sees these ephemeral works as more influential in molding public opinion than academic studies. Weems felt likewise, preferring books that were easily read and inexpensive.

While he seems to be praising these civic texts for the entire book, at the end, he wonders if they set America back on its own development along the precarious and never-certain path towards the abolition of slavery. This felt like a last-minute shift of direction in the concluding paragraphs. I don't consider this a spoiler alert,* because it absolutely feels like an afterthought, as if he talks to us for ten hours haranguing on one theory, and finally concludes "or maybe not, who really knows?"

I am happy I found this (after winning a copy of Weems' deeply-discredited biography of Franklin, and happy I read this before I read Weems. I will more clearly understand Weems' inexhaustible fund of curious anecdotes, and that he is talking about Franklin only to enliven his preaching.

The Tantor Media recording, read by Michael Prichard, is terrific.
* I'm checking the spoiler box to keep my own conscience clear. Cheers.

[Debra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was attracted to this book as I thought it would have more to do with George Washington - it did not. But as the first military leader and first president Washington did very much try to establish what a republic could be. The fact that he was conflicted over his involvement in slavery, along with Jefferson and Madison only makes one wonder what was truly in his mind. The poor man was exulted to sainthood and I don't think he really wanted that or the responsibility of being that. It was a very interesting listen, chock full of facts and opinion to sort through.
I found the story of the biographies of Washington to be very interesting in light of today's bend of book readers. One author, Carey, set out to write a factual account of Washington's life based on letters found in trunks at Mount Vernon. Another author, Weems, wrote to appeal to the public, making Washington a person like the people, pulling himself up by his bootstraps, religious and honorable with tales from his childhood, NOT accurate but IT became the best seller. Does any of this sound like today?
Maybe we should have separated the "worship" of the Constitution and Washington, but kept the instruction of them both as important to our core of citizenship. Even now applicants for citizenship know more about the core beliefs of our nation than our home born citizens. That is not right. We are growing ungrateful citizens on many levels. Yet if we were to step back and count the advantages of our citizenship and liberty, we would find that we have so much to be grateful for.
Another sobering observation was the quote that "All republics dissolve". People become ungrateful and the republic dissolves into tyranny and anarchy. And again, I submit my opinion that here we are today - with too many ungrateful and ill educated citizens.

[Sarah W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history aimed to unpack the legacy of George Washington, with a particular focus on how early Americans conceptualized his attitudes towards slavery. Washington himself, of course, was largely mute on the topic, and only taking action on his deathbed to free his slaves (under such conditions that most were not emancipated for some time). The Americans of the early United States, however, eagerly venerated Washington and enshrined his life and character in children's schoolbooks, statutes, and artwork. They needed to find a way to reconcile the ideals Washington supposedly embodied with the fact that he owned slaves and multiple conceptualizations were created to grapple with this contradiction. This book is academic in many ways, but it's helpful for understanding how early Americans were thinking about their form of government, the existence of slavery and the moral problems it posed to the nation, and how the figure of Washington fit into the national narrative. While certainly not the definitive book on the subject, this book offers perspective and insight into a difficult area of American history.

[Patricia Joynton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably not so bad, but not what I was expecting. All about the material written about and during Washington's time: my first true belief in fake news came from this. It's all about selling books, selling personal beliefs, selling ideas "worthy" for the country, and making money.

Not a great deal about Washington, more about the publications during his time and after. More about Weems than Washington. BUT, got through it.

[Aaron Urbanski · Rating 5 out of 5]

I borrowed this from the library and then purchased a copy for my shelf. It demonstrates how the popular memory of George Washington will consistently influence the social climate of the United States. This book is very academic and would read well in a college class.

[Lois · Rating 2 out of 5]

Propaganda doesn't equate to chattel slavery. So the premise of the book is faulty.
Still I enjoyed and appreciated the historical aspects

[Hdkruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful.

[Shannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slow start but informative! How George Washington became so admirable and promoted as if he were a God, and the use of religious education to control slave behavior.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is pretty dense but it builds its argument so well! It meant a lot to me personally to finish this book.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to start this review by saying that I'm not sure that I'm sold on Furstenberg's comparison between slavery as an institution and the intellectual slavery that civic texts placed Americans under as the United States was being founded. It's a dramatic analogy, and one that gets his point across without much messing around. Still, I think that it compares two things that don't even approach equivalency. I don't think that intellectual indoctrination, as this book lays it out, is a good thing by any means, but to compare it to slavery in the ways that Furstenberg does lends it an aura that elevates underhanded and controlling educational practices to the level of clear and horrifying human atrocity.

That being said, in terms of style, this is likely the best book that I've read for my historical readings class so far. Furstenberg's writing is bright, conversational, and easy to follow, meaning that reading this book within two days didn't come close to being a chore. The examples and illustrations given illuminate his points clearly, and his chapters are short enough that they don't drag on too badly. However, the disconnect in the analogy at the heart of this book often leaves it feeling disjointed. Furstenberg shows the connection between slavery and civic texts, but never successfully places the importance of the two facets of his book on the same level. The argument begins to come together in the book's second half, but it isn't enough.

This was an interesting book, and it did make for some easier reading than other books that I've faced in the history M.A. so far. However, I do not see myself having any trouble with spending three and a half hours discussing the flaws in the author's argument and approach.

[Stan Lanier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This, I think, is a remarkable book. Francois Furstenberg illuminates the contradiction that slavery could persist in a nation founded upon republican principles. From the veneration of Washington and the reasons for that, through how republican ideals were disseminated and internalized by the American people through civic texts, to the roles of consent and moral autonomy in the perpetuation of slavery, Furstenberg presents a thought provoking odyssey through the persistence of slavery in American life. He makes history both alive and relevant for us now living.

" The exigency of reconciling slavery within a republican nationalism had, in short, promoted an impoverished meaning of consent based on an idealized image of individual achievement. The convictions that Americans had single-handedly emancipated themselves from political slavery allowed them to shackle others in the bonds of chattel slavery. It was this same understanding of consent that would continue to inflect U.S. political discourse long after the institution of slavery itself had collapsed....Later, as the institution of slavery became a distant memory, the idea... [of individual responsibility for one's lot in life]continued to sanction an individualized, libertarian view of social life,in which contempt rather than pity was the proper response to the poor, the oppressed, the excluded."(220-21)

A book worth investing time in understanding its conceptuality.

[Jenni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some middle chapters lag and become tedious; beginning and ending strong. Overall an interesting, and well-written account of the lasting effects of the nation’s early publications and how they shaped American thought, formulated a sense of unity, patriotism and cultural mythology in a new & sprawling country, and perpetuated an ideology of the "moral individual" (placing moral responsibility on the slave for his fate rather than those who enslaved him) that sought to reconcile the persistence of slavery in a nation founded on the principles of freedom & consent.

Historical book that reads like interrelated stories/essays living within a timeline, highlighting common threads and themes, which I like. I took note of the criticism of Furstenberg comparing political slavery to actual slavery, but I never felt his comparisons to how civic texts played a role in each amounted to an equivalency. Though it may have been wise to pay closer attention to those differences in middle chapters (rather than elaborate on the distribution of the texts- sections which seemed unnecessarily explanatory and distracting from the book’s major themes.)

[Sam Newton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Furstenberg's argument: Civic texts "sought to reconcile the tension between active and tacit consent by persuading people voluntarily to grant their consent to the nation. Civic texts promoted a paternalist nationalism founded on veneration for the Founding Fathers in order to attach the affections of Americans to their nation" (p. 192). George Washington was the paternalist figure in the myth of "white Americans risking their lives to fight for their liberty." Both slaves and whites chose to revere the nation and civic texts promoted this virtue.

I could have written this book in about 20 pages. It went on and on and made the same argument in two-hundred different and incredibly boring ways.

[William · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book gave me a brand new dimension on slavery and the dilemma which our country faced and how to reconcile freedom and liberty while condoning slavery. I didn’t feel the author did a very good job at keeping the book interesting and was therefore difficult to stay on task while reading.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to read an absolutely fascinating account of early U.S. nationalism and the cultural narratives that allowed our country to continually justify the enslavement of men, women, and children, this is a good read.

[Michelle Davison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful analysis of how "civic texts" in the Early Republic shaped who could consent to be governed.

[Mina · Rating 1 out of 5]

tedious