Let's Talk about George Washington
I’m chill with George Washington. Yup, I do indeed think of him as the “father” of the nation. Maybe I’m old fashioned - but his role in securing independence, contributing to the idea that hereditary monarchies weren’t the only way to run a country, and setting forth the precedent for civilian executive leadership and the peaceful transfer of power sit well with me. Okay, before you come at me with all the usual stuff - I also acknowledge that he was flawed, that he profited from the enslavement of other human beings, and that he stewarded a nation conceived in liberty that fell very short of its stated principles. Washington, as with most of our nation’s leaders, was a complicated man. He embodied virtues for sure…but also some troubling shortcomings that today make most everyone cringe. So I will say that at the very least, we should understand him on his terms.
Which of course brings me to the book under review, Maurizio Valsania’s First Among Men. This is hands down one of the best books (biographical or otherwise) on George Washington I have read in some time. As I tell my students (nearly) everyday, we have to read historical actors within the contexts of their times - whether those contexts sit well with us or not…and I remind them that it is important that we not bend historical actors to suit our own worldview. Indeed…they are not us, so we should not treat them as if they were. I am pretty confident that Valasnia would agree. In fact, much of this book explores how the Washington we think we know is really a product of a much later era - when the things that denoted “manhood” meant something quite different than it did during Washington’s life.
Washington Crossing the Delaware, Emanuel Leutze, 1851
When I was reading this book I was reminded of my middle school history class…(as terrible as it was), where my teacher (I have thankfully long since forgotten his name) spun yarns about the larger (both literally and figuratiely) than life manliest man of man-dom dominating all things living or not. That Washington was a near super-human, both of physical strength and intelligence, who was destined for great things. Turns out this was all an invention created by those who envisioned a more “robust” and perhaps “virile” version of manliness that dominated the nineteenth century. The real Washington was hardly the specimen of physical beauty, strength, and aggressive nature that our nineteenth-century ancestors would have us believe. In fact, he was average in height, had rather sloping soldiers, a soft pooch belly, a small head, and pretty jacked-up teeth. And to top it off, he dressed kind of like a dandy - what later generations would most certainly have found effeminate.
The book, while telling it like it was (so to speak) is also a wonderful account that brushes up against the realm of memory studies. We can inquire - as good students should - exactly why Americans needed Washington to resemble a presidential ass-kicker in the nineteenth century. I can only think of Teddy Roosevelt’s version of “muscular Christianity” and the how the concept connected with patriotism, American exceptionalism, and ultimately, world dominance. Yeah - the robust image of Washington makes a lot more sense when you think of him in that particularly anachronistic context.
All of this means that reading Valsania’s book - beautifully written by the way, with an enjoyably expressive language and tone, which is accessible to the non-academic public (hallelujah!) - will help anyone better understand eighteenth-century British North America and the early United States and most importantly, how people no matter the time and place can can find a useful history to support their own particular national landscape.
And just for fun, I recently brought these ideas to the attention of my students - and we had a great discussion about the uses of historical imagery - for better or worse. Do yourself a solid and grab a copy of the book yourself - then we can talk.
With compliments
Keith
PS - I would just like to point out that the last line of one particular chapter is perhaps the best (and most accurate) closer I have ever read…”Dust to dust: time is never a friend to individual lives, no matter whether they are patriots or loyalists, tall or short, villains or heroes.” (293)