His Excellency: George Washington
by Joseph Ellis
Publisher: Knopf, 2004

Reviewed by: Kevin Quinn

In his latest work, Joseph Ellis brings out the character and life of George Washington. Only 352 pages long, "His Excellency" gives us a short, but informative biography of Washington's life as the general of the American Revolutionary Army, nation builder and gentleman. As he does in "Founding Brothers," (2000) Ellis highlights the salient parts of his subject while providing the reader with sufficient background of the times.

Whether it is the myth of Washington chopping down the cherry tree, the claim that Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac or the quip that Washington had wooden teeth, as a nation we are all fascinated by this amazing figure of American history. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, man or woman, we all look at Washington as a legend, perhaps only challenged by our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln.

Despite having lived in very different times, one theme runs through these great men - namely, the need to accomplish something for the broader and better good. Ellis shows us how Washington accomplishes the broader and greater good through his tenacity and resolve in the fight for freedom in the American Revolution and the building of a great nation.

Yes, one can take the view that despite his tenacity and resolve to fight for freedom in 1776, Washington was a hypocrite because he had slaves. While factually true, this view is too narrow a position given the period in which he lived.

He explores three reasons that may have contributed to Washington's not freeing his slaves while he was alive. They are his wife's reluctance, his economic needs and his concern over breaking up slave families. We don't know the answer, but Ellis, as he always does in his biographies, provides the reader with the tools to understand the surrounding circumstances and then lets the reader decide "why."

Despite this inconsistency in Washington's case, the dividing line seems to be drawn on economic reality, not the founding fathers' actual thought process on freedom. To the "southern" founding fathers, Washington, Madison and Jefferson, slavery was the economic reality of running a plantation, while the "northern" founding fathers, Franklin, Adams and Hamilton, lived in an region where this was not the major form of a person's livelihood.

This economic difference, perhaps, served as the principal issue in the civil fight to define our nation. Should the nation be an agrarian society as advanced by the Jeffersonian Republicans or a financial trading partner with other countries as advanced by the Hamiltonian Democrats? Washington, as Ellis points out, was caught in the middle and had to provide leadership to a nation trying to define itself. Washington was in the position similar to a father tying to settle a fight between sons, having chosen Jefferson as his Secretary of State and Hamilton his Treasury Secretary.

However, Washington couldn't split the baby in this fight and ultimately set the course of the nation based on the Hamiltonian view of government to advance the new nation in a way that allowed us to collectively advance our standard of living and protect our borders. This course of action, while not popular in 1800, established the framework to position America as a significant world power in the years to follow.

Perhaps most interesting and myth breaking in Ellis' work is his description of Thomas Jefferson. While we learn in elementary school that Jefferson is the intellectual father of the nation, Ellis shows the reader another side to Jefferson. Obviously smart and extremely important to the American Revolution, Jefferson's work to discredit Washington while he was the sitting Secretary of State over America's position in the French Revolution is astounding. America generally knows that Colin Powell, a decorated war hero, was not a major proponent of going to war with Iraq, but he never criticized his commander in chief, despite what must have been a difficult position for him.

Despite the fact that America had a weak army and a small treasury, Jefferson wanted to commit troops to the French Revolution. He surreptitiously undermined Washington in trying to accomplish his goal. Washington, according to Ellis, knew Jefferson was doing this, but, in his gentlemanly way, did not lash out as his Secretary of State.

In any administration, differing views are important and debate is necessary, but once a decision is made, your cabinet can't undermine that decision by publicly advocating against it. Keeping silent, I am sure, is difficult when your view is not the one that carries the day, but Jefferson, as Ellis points out, had no ability to do this. Unlike Powell, a solider and war veteran, Jefferson, who never saw battle in his life, wanted to commit troops, despite what seemed to be the better decision by General Washington of staying neutral.

Whether economics or foreign relations, Ellis gives the reader a great flavor for the tension and debate that underlies the initial policy decisions that ultimately made America great. Washington, as Ellis tells the reader, strove to for the greater good, despite, in some instances, making unpopular decisions.

First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countryman, as Ellis points out from Henry Lee's words define Washington's life so well. As a commander, nation builder and gentleman, Ellis' Washington jumps off the pages and never lets the reader go.

Kevin Quinn is a partner with the law firm of Hinman Straub, focusing his practice on education law and government relations. He is the co-chair of the Firm's education law practice.

02/22/2005