Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Flexner (published 1974) is a one-volume abridgement to Flexner’s comprehensive four-volume biography about our first president. I did not find this volume wanting in anyway, and I found both the writing and the content to be straight-forward and relevant as I learned about Washington’s life. The stories in Flexner’s biography were readable. I appreciated the quotations from correspondence and other founding fathers. Washington wasn’t as perfect as some people have created in the Washington myth, yet it is clear to me from Flexner’s biography that his life and personality properly prepared him to take on the role of “founding father.”
About George Washington
As he was the first president, this is the first for me of Presidential biographies. We’ll see how far I get in a project of reading about these leaders. For now, here are some thoughts about George Washington in general. His entire life prepared him for the leadership role in which he found himself, and yet in many ways his success in those events was largely due to, as some would claim, lucky success. He was not an experienced leader when as a youth he led the army into the French & Indian war, and in fact made some blunders that had serious consequences. Yet, his experience in that war gave him a little bit of background to prepare him for later work as the leader of the Continental Army.
He was a reserved man, in general, but this was to his benefit. His humility in the midst of this reserve meant that he did not seek out positions of power. Rather, he wished to be left alone and return to his beloved Mount Vernon. This made him all the more endearing to the people, and this lack of desire for renown is probably what has inspired so many other generations to glorify him as an amazing example. George Washington also had an intelligent grasp on the issues facing the colonies, so while his political impact in the writing of the Constitution was not a vocal one (as president of the Congress, he served as a leader, not a debater), his presence and his willingness put his actions behind the “rebellion” gave him an essential understanding as to how the new nation was supposed to run. He accepted leadership during the writing of the Constitution (as well as the afore mentioned Continental Army) and his experiences gave him a sympathy for people of all walks of life.
As president, Washington sought to bring out the ideals put into place in the Continential Congress. Pretty soon, however, different factions (Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists) began taking sides on various issues, specifically how much power the Federal Government had versus the states. The biography seems to suggest that Washington did not notice the rift between his cabinet members, which to me seems a bit far-fetched. Rather, I think Washington willfully tried to ignore the argumentation as he sought to keep the new nation together. His terms were not as successful as other’s would be, I believe. there were still a lot of issues to work out in establishing tradition. Plus, infighting among Cabinet members increased significantly during Washington’s second term. Finally, he was able to return to Mount Vernon, after warning the nation, in his noted Farewell Address, to avoid factions.
Washington’s Character
In some respects, it seemed to me that Washington’s age had caught up to him. During that second term, he simply could not keep up with the political debates that so divided his own political leaders. He did all he could, and he was essential for keeping the early nation together, but he simply was not effective. Flexner’s discussion of Washington’s subsequent return to Mount Vernon likewise convinced me that George Washington had lost some of the leadership strength that he had so well demonstrated in his younger days. Of course, now he struggled to keep his affairs on his extensive properties in order.
Beyond that, though, now Washington used his fame to wheedle his way into land deals and gain prestige in his community and life. To me, this seemed contrary to the character he had so demonstrated throughout the rest of his life. But, Washington was significantly older. For those who have older parent or friends in our lives, though, we too have (probably) noticed their lack of strict social attention to the mores once exhibited in their youth. In other words, old people are sometimes too honest and blunt, and too willing to use their age and experience to “get away” with things they might not have done before.
One note: I liked Flexner’s second to last chapter, in which he explored Washington’s lifetime of slave ownership, as well as the conflicts with his own moral beliefs. He strived to find a way to free the enslaved people on his property, since it was more complicated than just “freeing” a small village worth of people to go about their own business. As far as I know, he was the only founding father that freed his slaves upon his death.
I appreciated Flexner’s detailed biography, and I honestly don’t need to read his four-volume (!) work to be able to say that. Washington was overall a moral man who strove to lead as he felt he should. He had plenty of failings that seem to have been washed out of childhood history books, but that was unnecessary. Of course he was imperfect. There is still a lot we can learn about character from George Washington. I highly recommend Flexner’s biography that highlights this.
