Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation

by Smith Norton

A dramatic portrait of George Washington's presidential years, Patriarch is a gripping story of politics and statecraft. Smith describes Washington's struggle to preside over the bitter feud between Jefferson and Hamilton--two brilliant members of his cabinet--while attempting to distinguish the first presidency.

Genres: History, Biography, Presidents, American History, Nonfiction, Biography Memoir, American Revolution

446 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Michael A · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm trying to re-learn my American history via free public library books. Since George is the first person who came to mind, I tried this book out as my first venture.

I appreciated the author's even-handed treatment of the subject. He presents Washington's strong points in contrast to his blunders. And Washington did make quite a few blunders. Most of these were political in nature -- speculation about the construction of the new federal city, involvement in politics after retirement, money problems and lending to relatives too freely, an inevitable desire to stay on the public stage even when he was not able to do it very well or appropriately (during the Adams presidency and the French entanglements especially). All of that being said, he was an even-handed leader who kept the party rifts between Jefferson's Republican party and the Federalists from appearing for quite a few years, he managed a brilliant, if quarrelsome, bunch of advisers early in his presidency, and, most importantly, he put his duty and country above his personal comfort and life. He saw his role much like Cato and he accordingly lived a disciplined life to reflect those beliefs. He might very well have saved the young Republic in more than one way.

The main issue is that it doesn't read smoothly -- much too dry and academic in tone for that. Nor does it cover his life before his time as president, so I find I need to go find a biography to cover several gaps in what I want to know about him.

Nonetheless, I think this is a serviceable book about his life as the first President and slightly after - I'd recommend reading it after finding a different source that covers a larger period of his life so you can place this book's story and contents in that larger narrative.

3 to 3.5 stars for me. I certainly can't complain about free information from the local library.

[Aaron Million · Rating 3 out of 5]

With no shortage of books about George Washington, Richard Norton Smith chooses to focus solely on Washington's final decade of life, which encompassed his entire presidency and his fairly brief post-presidency. For readers unfamiliar with Washington's early life or his Revolutionary War service and also his time spent chairing the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, this would not be a good book to delve into as Smith assumes that the reader is familiar with Washington pre-1789. While of course there are references made to earlier events, there is no context provided.

Washington repeatedly professed that he did not wish to be President and only wanted to retire to his Virginia plantation, Mount Vernon. Smith calls baloney on this, stating that while he no doubt did harbor feelings of peaceful and tranquil retirement, that nonetheless Washington loved the action, loved being the man in charge and was accustomed to issuing orders and having people promptly carry them out. I think this is a fair assessment as Washington knew what his reputation was and knew that he would repeatedly be called to serve in spite of whatever reservations he may have had about doing so. In this sense he reminds me of one of his successors, both as highest-ranking General of the Army and as President: Dwight Eisenhower.

Smith reviews Washington's presidency in detail, and spends a lot of time discussing his bickering Cabinet members (Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). While these two Founders were both brilliant men, they each caused Washington immense headaches and their animosity towards each other ate up much of Washington's time as he repeatedly attempted to find a neutral ground for both men to stand on. Smith writes that Washington was not nearly the tool of Hamilton that people were later led to believe (largely by Jefferson). Of the two, Hamilton clearly seemed to care more about working with Washington and assisting him in getting the country off to a solid start (albeit with a strong central government and Treasury contributing to that beginning). While Smith is critical of both men, I thought he let Jefferson off a bit lightly. Even though Hamilton definitely bent Washington's ear, Jefferson actually worked to undermine him despite being Secretary of State. Jefferson was deceitful and duplicitous, having others (like James Madison) launch anonymous attacks on Washington while Jefferson professed ignorance and innocence in his own relations with Washington. One area that he did not review as much as I would have liked or have thought is the awful appointment of James Monroe as Minister to France. Smith notes that Washington came to dislike Monroe and did not at all approve of the job he did over there, but I think that Smith could have went into much more detail in this area.

One of the strengths of the book is that Smith takes his time doing a thorough review of Washington in retirement. So often in presidential biographies (full or partial) the time after leaving office is brushed past, as if the author by that point is in a hurry to finish up the book. Not so here. Smith examines how Washington had to overcome a significant adjustment to his life: he was no longer in a position of power or designated authority. While still the most famous figure in the young nation, he was no longer at the center of things, no longer the first to receive classified documents, no longer the decision maker (outside of Mount Vernon).

Despite the constriction of his life in those areas, Washington was still quite active: he made frequent trips to chart the progress of the soon-to-be federal capitol that would bear his name; he had a steady stream of visitors (both invited and uninvited) to his home; he maintained correspondence with members of John Adams' Cabinet (Adams blundered by keeping Washington's Cabinet intact when he succeeded him); and he returned to Philadelphia in late 1798 when Adams nominated him to once again be an active General and in overall command of creating an army to ward off a potential invasion from France. And, Washington kept plenty busy running his plantation. Still, after being the center of attention for decades, it had to be a difficult comedown for the veteran public servant.

While Smith writes of Washington being a slave owner, he does not dwell on it. He writes that Washington personally wanted to do away with slavery (gradually) and was for educating blacks, treating them humanely, assisting them when ill and elderly, and not breaking up families. At first, I was annoyed that Smith seemed to sort of give a pass to this horrible aspect of Washington. But, as I thought more about it, I think Smith was right in his approach. First, he did note that Washington's role as a slaveholder directly contradicted the premise of the government which he led and the ideals which he professed to espouse. Second, while Washington was slow (too slow) to act, he did free his own slaves upon his death - which is more than can be said of Jefferson and many others. Third, while holding a condescending and paternalistic view towards blacks, he wasn't out there whipping them nor was he advocating that others do so. Fourth, the context of his times still must be remember and factored in - this is what he was born into, this is what he knew. That doesn't make it right nor acceptable. It doesn't even make it understandable from a 21st century viewpoint. But maybe, as morally wrong as it was, it could be understandable in the 18th century. Finally, in today's political and social climate, there does seem to be a tendency to paint Washington as "He owned slaves; only horrible people owned other human beings. Thus Washington was an awful person." I think that's too simplistic. The truth is more nuanced and complex than just "he owned slaves" and therefore he was horrible. What he did was wrong. Period. I am not sure how one person, even then, could think it was okay to own another human being. And I think he, at least on some level, knew that too but did not have the guts to counteract it while he was alive. He will always live with that blot on his record, as well he should. Yet Washington was more than just a slave owner. This country, as incredibly flawed as it is, would have died on the operating table if it hadn't been for him and his steady, measured leadership in both war and peace. If Washington had wanted to be a dictator, he easily could have been. Given what is going on around the world today, think about that for a minute. A little over a year ago, we witnessed a president who tried so desperately to cling to power that he attempted to overturn an election, first by screaming about the results and claiming with zero proof that it was rigged, then by dubious legal means, and finally by instigating a coup attempt against the government that he took an oath to protect. Viewed in that light, Washington looks pretty good to me.

If you are looking for a book specific to Washington's presidency, this will serve fine. I still prefer Ron Chernow for a single volume full biography, or James Thomas Flexner's four volume series. Having read other works by Smith, this is not my favorite, though by no means is it bad.

Grade: C+

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...

“Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation” was authored by Richard Norton Smith, a historian whose background includes work at six presidential libraries. He is currently Scholar-in-Residence of History and Public Policy at George Mason University in Virginia.

Richard Norton Smith’s biography of Washington was published in 1993, at a time when he felt there was not a comprehensive single-volume work focused on Washington’s presidency. In the two decades since its publication, there have been several excellent single-volume biographies of Washington published (though focused on his entire life), most notably by Joseph Ellis in 2005 and Ron Chernow in 2010.

“Patriarch” is a book about which I am unavoidably ambivalent. For one thing, his biography fulfills a mission that is rather unique: it focuses almost exclusively on the eight years of Washington’s presidency, defining the man in terms of his performance in office rather than building him up on the basis of an ambitious youth which later translated into war and politics.

Much to my delight, the biography is also replete with details I had not come across in the other seven books on Washington I’ve read thus far. Although I recall none which were critical in getting to know Washington, they were of no less interest than the day-to-day details on Washington I encountered in the other biographies.

On the other hand, “Patriarch” struck me as meaningfully less fluid and readable than the other Washington biographies I’ve encountered. The text is often dense and dry and, frankly, a great deal less “fun” to read. Nothing against his capabilities as a historian, but Smith is simply not the storyteller that you find in Chernow, Ellis or Ferling.

In addition, I am most content when consuming history in a reasonably chronological fashion. Unfortunately, the structure and flow of “Patriarch” was often fairly difficult for me to follow. Although on a large scale the biography does proceed chronologically, it feels a bit like a mature river meandering back and forth, not always certain where it wants to flow.

Richard Norton Smith is clearly a knowledgeable historian and vigorous fan of the US presidency, appearing not infrequently on television to impart a healthy dose of wisdom and interesting presidential trivia. But although “Patriarch” seems to fulfill its author’s goal of analyzing Washington on the basis of his eight-year presidency, it ultimately left me less than fully satisfied.

The biography’s scope seems needlessly limited, and by design leaves exploration of Washington’s evolution as a person and as a great political figure somewhat stunted. Other biographies more fully examine Washington’s entire life and are therefore able to make more meaningful and sweeping conclusions.

The closest comparison to “Patriarch” in my library is “His Excellency: George Washington” by Joseph Ellis which, though of comparable length, is more expansive in scope, more penetrating in analysis and much more easily absorbed. For that reason among others “Patriarch” rests comfortably on my bookshelf but is unlikely to serve as one of my “go to” biographies on Washington.

Overall rating: 3 stars

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation is a book about George Washington that follows a unique formula. For this book is about President George Washington as opposed to General George Washington. The purpose is to give readers and understanding in early constitutional government and George Washington's role in it.

Americans today take for our constitutional government for granted. We hold elections every two years for Congress and every four years for the presidency, and to us this is normal procedure and part of the natural order of things. However, this democratic republican nature was not always guaranteed to be our fate. The fact that since the current form of our Republic was established in 1789, we have enjoyed over two centuries of peaceful transition from administration to the other*. As grown older it has also grown much stronger, with each year it existed it established more legitimacy and historical memory of the American people, and as it continued it became more inclusive going from a republic with only white men who owned land voting to suffrage being extended to all citizens upon entering adulthood.

In the beginning of this new form of government, the Constitution, everything was new and those who were in it were learning how to make this bi-cameral Congress, presidency and Supreme Court work. There were many ups and downs, experiments that would ultimately become precedent, and experiments that would fall apart almost immediately.

"On August 22, 1789, taking literally his constitutional charge to advise and consent with lawmakers over a proposed treaty involving southern Indian tribes, Washington had appeared in Federal Hall. Senator Maclay moved to refer the whole business to an appropriate committee of Congress. For a moment, Washington lost his legendary poise. `This defeats every purpose of my coming here,' he exploded. Soon after he withdrew vowing he would be damned rather than face such public humiliation again. In a single exchange Maclay and his colleagues had asserted their independence, undone the executive's plan to treat them as a kind of privy council, and laid the groundwork for a very different set of presidential advisers, the Cabinet." p.37

The book covers not only the major events of the Washington presidency, such as Hamilton's economic plans, the Bill of Rights, Citizen Genet, and the Jay treaty, but it also discuss a great deal of what life was like in our first two capitals of New York and Philadelphia. How Washington dealt with people's expectations of him is one of the books reoccurring themes. One of Smith's great accomplishments in this book is the way he shows President Washington as a smooth political operator.

"Politics is theater, and George Washington was America's first actor-president. The Constitution made Washington head of state as well as head of government, and no man had a better grasp of ceremonial leadership then George III's American usurper. The Washington presidency was nothing if not theatrical. Why else the elaborate rituals of levee and drawing room, of triumphal progress to occasions of state and deferential responses from lawmakers for whom the president was both symbol of continuity and the instrument of change? As the embodiment of revolutionary virtue, Washington knew that wherever he appeared, partisan murmurs would be lost in a chorus of hero worship. This alone was enough to make him the young republic's greatest asset and only glue." p. 87

Smith's work covers Washington's presidency and his post presidency in such detail that those who choose to read this book are opening a window into one of the most interesting decades in our history: the 1790s. I trust those who give this book time will not be disappointed.

* There is the 1860 exception of course, but I view the U.S. Civil War as something that the Republic was able to get though in one piece (we did have elections in 1862 and 1864 after all) by holding the nation together in `one piece'

[Patrick Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

History, or correct history, is what you learn when you do your own research and reading after you are out of school. There are literally hundreds of books on George Washington and everyone knows the overview presented in school but not the details. This book focuses on Washington's Presidency and his thoughts and actions on dilemmas presented. It doesn't go into details of how the end results were achieved but tells the dilemma and the thought process.

The book also spends a lot of time discussing his bickering Cabinet members (Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). While these two Founders were both brilliant men, they each caused Washington immense headaches and their animosity towards each other ate up much of Washington's time as he repeatedly attempted to find a neutral ground for both men to stand on. It covered Washington's thoughts on Knox and on his cabinet and the turmoil and back stabbing within. Showing how he was always looking for compromise within his ideals of fair play and gentle-manliness.

I enjoyed this book and it kept my interest and it is a good addition to add to any Washington collection.

[John Hartwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actually, more like 3.5 stars. My biggest beef is the writer's style; it's a bit dry. But, he offers a fairly comprehensive portrait of Washington, giving us a good sense of what it was exactly that set him apart from his contemporaries. A good read.

[Matthew Briggs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chernow is the best, start there. His Excellency is also good. Washington’s Crossing is awesome if you love the military stuff. Reach for Patriarch after exhausting some Washington material or if, like me, you are looking for more of Nelson Runger as audiobook narrator.

[Brian Black · Rating 1 out of 5]

A little dense for me and hard to find the interesting points of his life.

[Jonathan Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have had this book on my shelf for probably 15 years, perhaps longer. It seems as though I have been reading about George Washington for a year (I actually have as he is the glue of many other biographies from the Revolutionary era), but this was all about his presidency and I really enjoyed it. Washington was a stoic and a master of silence at the right times, and I enjoyed reading how he shaped the presidency with these philosophies. The myth of his perpetual greatness is also dispelled in this book: he was hated by a large group of people (Jeffersonians) when he left office in part because of his reliance on Hamilton, and it wasn’t until his death he was revered once again. Solid read for any history buff wanting a fuller story.

[Ryan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dnf. I'm sure there's good research in this, but I couldn't do it. The author literally talks about 100 subjects per chapter without any sense of direction. One chapter he's talking about appearances as a general, then it's talking about Princeton and New Jersey, then slavery, then Valley Forge, then him as a planter and then looking up to Lawrence. All within 1 chapter. I'm sure Smith is a fine historian but there's probably some good reasons a lot of people haven't read this.

[Frank Duke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit of a slog to read. Smith's account of the presidency and last years of George Washington is full of details and facts I never knew. At times it is an incredibly interesting read, though much of the book is, honestly, boring and dull. Admittedly, this is a period of history I have not studied with any seriousness, which may account for my feelings about the book. It isn't terrible; it's just not my cup of tea.

[Joseph J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rich and readable account of George Washington's sunset years, post the battlefields of the American Revolution. A human portrait of a Patriarch often rendered larger than life in history and myth.

[Stuart]

Richard Norton Smith writes well, although I would have appreciated his tying together more some of the key forces and events of GW’s presidency.
This is a book we own in print.

[Cody McCracken · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely detailed accounting of Washington's presidency and short post-presidential life

[MariMel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only got about half way through in several months, as it was painfully boring. This is the same author that wrote the Hoover bio that I read last year, which was also tough reading. Although the topic of Washington is interesting, the book seems all over the place, ranging from details about Mount Vernon's crops to international relations, etc., etc. I often don't have a clear sense of where the author is going, so I'm giving up on the book.

[Jeff Aldrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well researched and presented book of the tensions between Hamilton and Jefferson and why Washington both allowed the tension and at times encouraged it for the sake of the new nation. It often reads more of an academic tome, particularly towards the end and the final days, but nonetheless paints a very human but heroic picture of the first president.

[Rich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating account of the origins of our governmental system. Washington was a far more intelligent and influential character than many critics give him credit for, and there is no denying his influence on the formation of our government.

[Jared · Rating 5 out of 5]

First of many contemparary bios of Washington I have read and or intend to read. a very good start on a really great man.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit dry, but I love Washington.

[Clayton]

i just started reading it today it looks like its gonna be a good book...shows the many stages of his presidency and retirment.

[Steve Hemmeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bio of Washington - pretty good

[Jonathan]

None

[Maude]

"How the American presidency was formed by this remarkable man and how it rested on the solid rock of his character."

[Rosemary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting - post Revolution. Thankful to see we begun fighting each other.

[Barbara Lovejoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy reading books about George Washington, but this one was not one of my favorites. I found it somewhat hard to read, but still discovered some new things about Washington.

[TAkumi Shida · Rating 4 out of 5]

it was very good book.

[Eric A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good thourough look at George Washington's presidency.

[Jay Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the book but thought it was poorly footnoted. It great to see national politics has changed little in 200 years. In addition, clearly seen is Washington as the foundation of the nation.

[Doris Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great. Book