Rating: 
Summary: A well-written book...Ellis vs Flexner
Review: The biggest problem I had chosing to read this book was deciding to read this or Joseph Ellis' book on George Washington. I have a feeling that the Ellis book was more insightful and provocative (as was "American Sphinx", about Thomas Jefferson), though I chose this book because the author had previously written what is considered the gold-standard, highly acclaimed, 4 volume work on George Washington, and this book was slightly longer, 400 pages vs 250 pages. The Flexner book is 35 years old, however, as opposed to the Ellis's book, which is brand new, but I don't think this made a difference.
Regardless, the book reads like butter (unlike Chernow's Hamilton), covers a lot of information, integrates lots of primary source quotes well, and does a good job of providing background material against which to understand Washington. You should know that Flexner states in the introduction that this book is not just a patchwork, rehash of his 4 volume opus, but a total re-write. And that is what I perceived. [As an aside, you may want to download Washington's Farewell Address from the internet, it's about 8 pages long. There is a whole chapter on it in the book, but the text of the Address does not appear.]
The "problem" with writing a "complete" biography about Washington is that there is so much information on him. For between 25 and 40 years, Washington was the most important political figure in the colonies and the United States, so doing an all-inclusive biography on Washington in one volume and making it meaningful (not just a bunch of hackneyed summaries) and full of primary source material is difficult. In this regard you couldn't ask for a better book to read than Flexner's.
Furthermore, competing texts on Washington by good authors, who have done thier own research and drawn their own conclusions, will likely cover many different aspects and details. Ellis's and Flexner's books probably complement each other.
The Founding Father's and the creation of the United States is an absolutely fascinating and relevent topic. This is the seventh major book/biography I've read in this topic in the past year.
Rating:
Summary: Should be mandatory from high school to citizenship classes
Review: The passing of time, unnecessary mythologizing and more recently bitter revisionism all have served to obscure and distort this giant of the Revolution. So much of what we are today we owe to this man who placed service to duty above his desires. But who was he....really?
Not an aristocrat, nor the descendant of one. Self made to be certain. Expansive and curious like so many others of his age. Placed by history time and time again exactly where his unique qualities and experiences could have the greatest influence. To use a term of the times, "Providential".
Not a great general in the classic sense. He had trouble protecting his flanks and only fought 9 battles, winning only 3. But he held the army together. A brillaint executive he could divine the talents of others and empowered where they could have the greatest effect. Humble (the rarest of all leadership qualities any more), gracious, focused, unbending and determined in resolve.
He transcended regional differences yet could not stop, nor perhaps did he even see how those differences were on a collision course to civil war long before it came. If only he could have imparted his tolerance and wisdom to his proteges perhaps north and south could have co existed, or separated peacefully.
Can one one book really convey all this? This one does. This is Washington with a clarity that only a great writer and a great scholar could deliver. My only disappointment was the lack of footnotes and a bibliography.
Rating: 
Summary: Read it and respect the statesman and politician.
Review: This "single-volume distillation" of an earlier four-volume biography contains at least one silly mistake-Flexner twice describes actions taking place on the Monongahela that the book's maps locate (correctly) on the Allegheny. While a minor error, the fact that it persists today in a biography originally published no later than 1974 gives the reader pause. More disturbing is a patent contempt for the fighting skills of British-born and German-speaking soldiers deployed to America (he refers to them both as "automatons" and "professional killers") and a misunderstanding of London's plan to heel the colonies to royal authority and rescue law-abiding British North Americans from the armed Patriot minority. To be fair, Flexner acknowledges that George III and Germain underestimated the breadth and depth of Whig passion for independence. But he doesn't note that American Tories didn't rally to the King's standard in the numbers Government expected, either, particularly after they realized that their loyalty might not reform the colonies' relationship with the Crown. As a result, Flexner doesn't attribute the Howe's failure to destroy the fleeing Continental Army after the Battle of Long Island to the British commander's expectation that Washington's force would wither from lack of citizen support after being soundly beaten. Instead, Flexner writes that it was because Howe couldn't think for himself, while Washington (and each of his soldiers) could. Flexner's Washington leads an orignal, American war that the hidebound British just can't understand, rather than a conventional one using an army that he husbands carefully until its strength and spirit matches that of Redcoat forces increasingly viewed as invaders. Why, then, did British troops win most revolutionary battles? How is that American Loyalist soldiers chose to fight according to the same manual the British regulars? In fact, Loyalists are pretty much absent from this book, which doesn't do them, or the complexity of the Revolution, justice. The whole year 1779, the southern campaign of 1780-81, and Nathanael Greene (Washington's foremost protégé and the Revolution's other great "political general") barely rate a mention. Henry Lee figures only in context of the Whisky Rebellion. And, maybe because this book is an abridgment, Flexner speaks too often for Washington and others. In the longer version, I hope they, particularly Martha, speak for themselves.Flexner did win my respect for his account of Washington's life after the Constitutional Convention. Flexner names Jefferson (more) and Hamilton (less-Flexner is Hamilton's biographer, too) as schemers. Washington's burden-world renown, knowledge that he set official precedent, and high moral character-compelled him to always carefully do right the thing. According to Flexner, he did it generally wisely, generally competently, generally selflessly, and generally stoically. He has his moments of confusion, frustration, and vanity, and Flexner recounts those, too. Washington apparently ascribed America's good fortune to providential intervention, rather than dumb luck or fate. The best argument for his theory is one he himself never advanced-that the United States had him, a better hero than it ever deserved-as its first general and president. Maybe so large and well-considered a life can't be fit into just one volume.
Rating:
Summary: A Solid, Factual, One-Volume Biography
Review: This biography of the U.S.'s father figure was very informative, and gives equal attention to the important points of Washington's life. Flexner did a good job of highlighting the key parts of Washington's career: his war-time service, and his activities as President. This book does pass fairly quickly through Washington's childhood and adolescence, which I wished to have learned more about, but it is a 1 volume summation, so that should be expected. The author was very fair and objective in this book. While he sees Washington as having been an average, if not below average, soldier, Flexner does show Washington to have excelled in other areas such as leadership and management which became very critical to his success as President. So for anyone looking for a reasonably quick cover of Washington's public career, with a shorter background of his private life, I definitely recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Very detailed, might exaggerate Washington's role
Review: This book is a condensed version of Flexner's award-winning 5-volume biography of Washington. It gives extensive coverage to Washington's high-criticized military career and his role in the various parts of early American history. Flexner proves that Washington was the one man that shaped most shaped the birth of the U.S., and ensured the strong central gov't which held it together. But at times Flexner seems to exaggerate the role of Washington in some events, particulary the forming of the constitution. Flexner seems to suggest that Washington actually was the most influential framer of the constitution, and downplays Madison. As great as Washington was, it seems strange to Forrest Gump him into making EVERYTHING happen that happened.
Rating:
Summary: Nice Overview of Washington's Life
Review: This book is the best one-volume biography of Washington I have found. As the title hints, Flexner takes the approach that Washington was an indispensible figure in the period leading up to and through the Revolutionary War, as well as the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the first truly republican government. He makes a pretty good argument! This book gave me a much better appreciation of how remarkable Washington was to willingly and conscientiously refuse to assume the autocratic powers that were surely his for the taking, thus setting the precedent for the remarkably peaceful and unopposed transfer of leadership that is the hallmark of the US government to this day (recent presidential elections notwithstanding). If you really want to plumb the depths of Washington's life and career, read the entire multivolume biography by Flexner (from which this book was condensed). If you want a single-volume biography of the "Father of His Country" (who, ironically, was sterile as a matter of fact), you will not be disappointed with this volume--although I would not put it in the David McCullough class of presidential biographies (which is a small class indeed).
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible...
Review: This book reads as if it was a term paper for a high school sophomore. After reading Adams by McCullough and Jefferson by Ellis, this book was so bad that I ended up pulling my bookmark and leaving in on my return flight from Vegas. Skip this poorly wirtten book and get the Washington biography by Ellis.
Rating:
Summary: This book is an excellent biography of the indispensable man
Review: This book was recommended to me by my History teacher for the basis of a report I am doing. I finished it in just a week. I am only in eigth grade and its great for me because I don't have enough time to read a multivolume work. I would like to if I had the time.The book is great for anyone who has an intrest in history or a great man. This in my opinion is the indispensable book on Washington.
Rating:
Summary: Very good, but not quite as spectacular as I had hoped
Review: This is a very solid biography, but I have to say that it just failed to be brilliant. I had seen it listed several places as a very good one-volume biography, but it clearly feels like a biography from an earlier, more genteel generation. There are very few probing questions about Washington as a person, and a respectful distance from the subject is maintained at all times. This is a one-volume distillation from a multi-volume work undertaken by the author. The very famous biography by Doughlas Freeman is also available in a one-volume abridgement, but that one was not done by the author, and therefore represents the editor's and not the author's belief about what is most essential in the book. So curiously, while the Freeman biography in its unabridged form may still be the definitive biography of Washington in English, this abridgement by Flexner of his longer work may be preferable as a short biography.
Rating:
Summary: Very good, but not quite as spectacular as I had hoped
Review: This is a very solid biography, but I have to say that it just failed to be brilliant. I had seen it listed several places as a very good one-volume biography, but it clearly feels like a biography from an earlier, more genteel generation. There are very few probing questions about Washington as a person, and a respectful distance from the subject is maintained at all times. This is a one-volume distillation from a multi-volume work undertaken by the author. The very famous biography by Doughlas Freeman is also available in a one-volume abridgement, but that one was not done by the author, and therefore represents the editor's and not the author's belief about what is most essential in the book. So curiously, while the Freeman biography in its unabridged form may still be the definitive biography of Washington in English, this abridgement by Flexner of his longer work may be preferable as a short biography.
|
