This is part of a four-volume series of George Washington's life and this is the initial installment, covering his early years. Flexner's narrative takes the reader up to the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Despite the fact that there is a plethora of interesting material on Washington's youth and young manhood, this book is singularly flat and written in a plodding style. It is generally reliable and accurate, but one yearns for a more enlightened and exciting presentation. This is the personification of how history is usually taught: in a manner not designed to capture the reader or the student.

One strong point is that Flexner successfully presents a balanced portrait of Washington. Any bias from the author is thankfully masked from the reader. When Washington deserves criticism or censure, the author soberly dispenses it. Praise and plaudits are similarly given. If you are deeply interested in Washington's early years, this is an adequate and trustworthy source. But if you are merely dabbling in Washington and prefer a swifter narrative, then this is not a recommended selection.

I would strongly encourage those interested in both Washington and our early republic to read the entire four volume biography, of which this is the first volume. Volume II is out of print and hard to get, but available in libraries. I got one from a used book store through the Internet, but paid a premium.

Washington was at the center of everything important that happened to this country prior to 1800. Through this biography, you not only live through a magnificent life, but you experience the birth and early life of our republic. Flexner makes a persuavise case that the actions of the Founding Fathers after the revolution were perhaps more important that the War itself. I did not once find four volumes to be overly long. Indeed, I relished every detail.

As for writing style, the first volume, whether because it was written first, or because the material is less inspiring, has the least interesting prose. It's certainly adequate and competant, but not inspiring. Volumes II, III and IV, however, are not only excellently researched, they are written in a romantic, literary style that too few historians still use. There is a remark, for example, about Adams jealously feeling like he's the girl no one will dance with, while Washington is the belle of the ball; it's not PC by today's standards, but it's funny and makes a point.

I'd particularly urge readers not to skip Volume II, on the Revolutionary War, even if you've read many other accounts. To see that War through Washington's eyes brings a new and insightful perspective.

This is, in my view, one of the great American historical biographies. It is not heavily read, possibly because of his one volume condensation, or maybe because people just don't read multi-volume works anymore. I doubt few history lovers will be disappointed with this work.

James Thomas Flexner does justice to the early years of George Washington's life. The author has a heavy straight forward writing style, that takes the reader on a journey through the life of Washington. As this is the first installment of a four volume series, the reader gets to know what made and the circumstances related to Washington, that laid the ground work for the framing of his life.

As with most of us, we have a mental picture of Washington as an Icon in our schoolrooms as we grew up, but Flexner paints a picture through words of a man. Not much different than you or I, but the times and circumstances are extraordinarilly different. A man subject to the vulnerabilities of life, energetic, somewhat impulsive, gullible to an extent, put into situations of leadership ill prepared but always seemed to prevail. A man using his resourses to forge a respectable life for himself, a resoursful man to make life better through deeds and enterprises.

This first volume takes us through the first forty-three years of Washington's life with detail and scholarship, the author gives us a glimpse into the society, family, and events that shaped Washington for the future as America's foremost leader early on, as a new nation is forged.

I found that this first volume to be full of interesting details and is accurate for the youthful Washington. Engrossing, adequate, accurate, but the writing style is again straight forward and factually solid leaving the reader with the impression of early experiences of history classes past... needing a breath of life.

The overall scholarship rated a 5 star, even in light of rather heavy writing style.

Benfey spends less time on the famous French painter Edgar Degas and the alleged influence that New Orleans and his Creole relatives had on his work than he does in relating the story of one of Degas' relatives: a brilliant "quadroon" engineer named Norbert Rillieux who invented an efficient steam-driven apparatus for refining sugar.

When you ignore Benfey's racist use of the term "black" to describe people who are far from it, you find important information about the privileges and oppressions experienced by mixed-race Creoles in 19th century New Orleans. Rillieux (who is often falsely listed as a "black" inventor) was a highly respected professional whose predominate white ancestry allowed him to utilize his talents in a way that would not have been possible if he had been black.

One of Rillieux's close friends and major supporter in Louisiana sugar circles was Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate luminary who later served as Jefferson Davis's Secretary of State. In a nice touch of irony, Benfey compares the image of the "mulatto" in American literature with than of the "Jew" in European literature:

"Almost white, almost free, `oriental,' and effeminate, at once wealthy and a social pariah, the free man of color in his literary depictions occupies much the same place as the Jew in literary Europe. (The first article of the eighteenth-century `Code Noir,' or Black Code demanded the expulsion of the Jews from New Orleans.) Jews and free men of color were difficult to detect; they often LOOKED like white citizens, and passed for such. It was against the radical `otherness' of Jews and free people of color that the proper Englishmen and proper Louisiana Creoles respectively sought to define their own uneasy identity."

Maybe the most important thing for you to know about this book is that it isn't just, or even mostly, about Edgar Degas. If you're in the market solely for an art book about Degas, you may not like this book. What this book is really about is 19th century New Orleans. Degas' 1872-1873 trip is the main theme which the author has used as his framework. Mr. Benfey "improvises" on this theme and goes off in interesting directions. He talks about what made New Orleans unique- the early Creole settlers vs. the "Americans" that arrived after the Louisiana Purchase; the free black population (pre-Civil War) vs. the slaves who became free because of the war; the rupture caused by the war- as New Orleans was occupied by Federal forces through almost all of the conflict. (Many of the local women proved to be fairly feisty in showing their contempt for the Yankees. One woman in the French Quarter supposedly downloaded the contents of a chamber pot onto Admiral Farragut's head. On another occasion, the soldier in charge of keeping order, General Benjamin "Beast" Butler, was riding by some women and they all turned their backs to him. Butler remarked, "those women evidently know which end of them looks best.") After the Civil War the economy, based almost solely on King Cotton, took a beating in the Depression of the 1870's. Yankee "carpetbaggers" were despised. Liberals who wanted integration of the races did battle, sometimes literally, with reactionary forces who yearned for a return to the days of slavery. Mr. Benfey works in some analysis of the writers Kate Chopin and George Washington Cable, who were interested in some of the above themes. The author does devote a fairly good portion of the book to discussing Degas' "Louisiana Connection," (his mother was born in New Orleans; he had relatives who were involved in the cotton trade; and his younger brother, Rene, left France to try to make his fortune in New Orleans). If you enjoy Degas' art, you will find Mr. Benfey's musings on the portraits and "genre scenes" that Degas did during this period to be interesting and informative. For example, from a purely painterly standpoint, Degas enjoyed the juxtaposition of black and white skin, as well as the white of cotton against the black suits and hats commonly worn by businessmen of the time. Mr. Benfey also, convincingly, shows that Degas' started to use, in these paintings, certain compositional effects- such as slanted floors, the arrangement of figures in interior spaces, and certain hand and head movements- that would shortly reappear in the more famous "ballet paintings." We also see Degas in transition from his early "realistic" phase to a looser, more "Impressionistic" style of painting. I also found it interesting that Degas was fascinated by many things he saw while walking around New Orleans, but he was limited mostly to painting interior scenes because the light of New Orleans was bothering his eyes. (He started to have problems with his vision while serving in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. By the time of his death in 1917 he was nearly blind.) There was enough about Degas and his family and art in this book to satisfy me, plus I enjoyed Mr. Benfey's "improvisations." If, in addition to being a Degas fan, you have any interest in the antebellum and post-Civil War worlds of New Orleans, I think you will get a lot of enjoyment and intellectual stimulation from this book.

This book is a wonderful history of Degas and his family. Anyone who loves art and enjoys history of any kind about New Orleans will like this book.

Harwell does a good job of pulling together and redacting DS Freeman's epic VII Volume (actually VI - he died before publishing the 7th) account of George Washington's life. I often find myself wishing he would annotate, at least on a chapter basis, which volumes of the larger work he is pulling his info from.

A basic understanding of the extreme hardships early Americans (Colonists) went through can be gathered through this book, and this understanding should be required basic knowledge in all schools. The birth of this nation, was founded on some of the most remarkable physically, financially, emotionally and seemingly impossible acheivements by a few who had the courage to see the delivery through. Freeman captured these trials and victories in marvelous detail.

His decades of efforts for the multi-volume biography is a gift to all fans of American History. Even though it drags in a few spots, this edited version is one of the best one volume biographies of the "Father of Our Country"

His decades of efforts for the multivolume biography on Washington is a gift to all fans of American history. While this summary drags in a few places, it is the best one volume biography of the "Father or Our Country" available. Particularly pleasing is the concise chronological arrangement of the materials.

To tell you the truth, I had to read this book for a class I took this year, which focused on literature from New Orleans. I don't mind reading books for classes; however, once I read the first couple of chapters of The Grandissimes, I thought that this would be one of those books that I would fall asleep reading. It seemed confusing and dealt with issues that did not really pertain to me, but I was pleasantly surprised at how interesting and complex the novel became.
Once the plot started to unfold, the novel grabbed my interest and I grew to respect and be amazed by it. I think that Cable did a great job tying major themes into this piece of literature, such as family pride, Creole lifestyle, Iron Virgins and Southern Belles, and the rigorous expectations of society. The Grandissimes takes place right after the Louisiana Purchase (1803), which allowed Cable to encompass ideas that many people are familiar with, such as a fear of change. The characters in the book where well developed and each seemed to carry their own message to the audience. For example, it is easy for everyone to relate to Joseph Frowenfeld, an American who finds himself wrapped up in the Creole society. This character was forced to be an outsider and the novel depicts how he dealt with the divisions of class and status.
The Grandissimes is titled after the Creole family from New Orleans who held most of the power and influence in society at the time. Throughout the book, the family must struggle through twists and turns of deceit and unexpected events, while still holding up their Old South charm. This book does a great job portraying how the family struggled to keep their position and power in society, in order to stay true to their roots.
If you are thinking of reading this book, I would suggest giving it a try. It may seem very complicated and choppy at first, but it will eventually tie together to make a great story. However, the only downfall to this book is that I could not truly like it until it was done and I reflected on it. It is one of those books that ends up surprising you!

Cable's epic masterpiece details the adventures of a young protagonist stranded in New Orleans after his family succumbs to yellow fever. Through an acquaintance with a well-connected Doctor, he is able to enter a society that few people get to experience -- upper class New Orleans.

Mark Twain said that if you read the Grandissimes, you wouldn't have to go to New Orleans, because by reading it, you have already visited. Cable, with extensive detail, humor and intricate commentary on the Old South, has written a novel that stands the test of time, even though some of the characters (Agricola Fullister) do not.

Although the book is at points tenuous, the characters are vibrant and interesting enough to keep the plot moving along.

Of course, the most controversial aspect of The Grandissimes is the ending, which many feel is a let down after pages and pages of emotional build-up. Without giving anything away, the finals pages are somewhat of a disappointment. But the ending in its entirety is a well done.

Overall, the Grandissimes is a fascinating look at class and culture of the Creoles. It is recommended to anybody who enjoys reading New Orleans literature or literature in general.

This farsighted inditement of Southern society is still powerful today.

Much of the story is seen through the eyes of Joseph Frowenfeld, a young Northerner of German background who has just moved to Louisiana with his family. He is soon left bereft by yellow fever, and with nothing to go back to is befriended by several kind souls, chief among them Honore Grandissime, the scion of a filthy rich Creole family.

He is quickly dismayed by the inequities of New Orleans society, a confession that prompts his new friend to pour out his heart to him. Honore, who knows what his family is, longs to reach out to his Mulatto half-brother and share the family business with him. He also wants to do right by the beautiful and virtuous Aurora Nancanou and her daughter Clotilde, who have been left destitute (by genteel standards, anyway) after Honore's father murdered Aurora's husband and swindled her. Honore would like to court Auroura, but honorable man that he is doesn't want to take advantage of her by performing his good deed barely before knocking on the door. In short, he wants an end to the moral decay of the old South.

He is not so deluded, however, as to think he can live happily ever after married to Auroura with his brother at his side. The Grandissime family will not give up it's ill-gotten wealth and prestige without a fight, and with few exceptions save his delightful nephew and protege Raoul - who is still too young to have a voice in family affairs - he is virtually alone.

Inspired by his new friend, Honore finally makes his lonely stand, unsure that his efforts will bear fruit - or even that they won't end with a Grandissime bullet in his back.

Honore must rank as one of the most likable of literary heroes - a good man who you can unreservedly sympathise with and root for. The point is not that he succeeds - we are left very much uncertain on that point - but that he has the strength to be the first to fight for what he knows in his heart is right. It's a struggle that many concientious white people are facing now long after this book was written.

This brief (300 pages) history of the American Revolution, as seen through the actions of Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, is a thoroughly enjoyable, pool side type of read. Granted, it is a superficial history of the Revolution, but provides an interesting perspective of the motivations, interactions, and rather different personalities of the three founding fathers. Mr. Ferling's work does seem to be at times rather colored in favor of Washington and Adams, which might be expected, as he has written biographies of our first and second presidents. He makes some rather interesting comments about Jefferson's personality; comments which come close to a psychoanalysis of our third president. Overall, if you are searching for a history of the revolution, this work is not for you. If you are ready for a relaxing narrative of the revolution, and the actions of these three individuals, you will not be disappointed.

Ferling has written an interesting story weaving the lives of Washington, Adams and Jefferson together. Given that I have just begun to read about this period in American history, this book was easy to read, follow and understand. A good read.

So many books have already been published about the American Revolution as well as about Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Ferling brilliantly analyzes all three towering figures within a specific historical context, to be sure, but also in terms of each other. He creates and then explores a matrix of juxtapositions between and among them, comparing and contrasting all three in relation to each other but also in relation to the historical context on which each had such a profound impact. What Ferling has created is both a history book of panoramic scope and a trilogy of interrelated (and to some extent interdependent) biographies. It is so well-written that I often thought I was reading a novel.

Since childhood, I have viewed certain books as "magic carpets." I include Ferling's book among them. It transported me back more than 200 years and deposited me amidst the brave and brilliant men who were about to set the world "ablaze" with their incendiary passion for an independence soon to be declared and eventually to be achieved. Ferling guides his reader through this highly combustible process. Of special interest to me is Ferling's presentation of Adams (characterized as the "Bulwark" of the American Revolution), a founding father not always mentioned in the same breath with Washington and Jefferson. With all due respect to Jefferson's accomplishments, Ferling concludes the final chapter with this observation: "To the end, he was incapable of accepting the reality of his culpability in the perpetuation and expansion of African slavery and the danger it now posed to the achievements of the American Revolution." And then in the Epilogue, Ferling asserts that the Revolutionary generation "was indeed fortunate to have had Washington and Adams as its greatest stewards and shepherds."

If you have a keen interest in the War for Independence and, especially, in those who led the new nation through and beyond that war, there is this magic carpet I know about....

This book is really well written and focuses on Washington's presidency. It is incredibly interesting to learn how Washington dealt with the supposed greats of his day like Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams. We should all realize that GW was a much better politician and thinker than he gets credit for. ENJOY!

Smith has written a good book that rightly focuses on Washington's building of our national government through careful consideration of precedent and the ability to balance factions through the force of his dignity and integrity.

Our new American government need not have stuck by its Constitutional structure. Indeed, that document was a plan on paper that could arguably have been observed more in the breech had Washington had anything like Napolean's thirst for personal power.

Yet that marvelous document was strengthened by Washington's desire to observe its structure and strictures. Smith details how our first president was keenly aware that his organization of the government and almost every action were setting the precedents that would determine whether his successors would be preside in his spirit or in a vein more threatening to the liberties he had helped purchase during the Revolution.

He also had the help of very intelligent men in his cabinet -- principally Hamilton and Jefferson -- who had opposing views as to the nature of the federal government and its goals and desired relationship to the individual, states and the economy. That Washington was able to keep them both in his employ during the critical period of his first term reveals him to be a very good politician who was adept at balancing interests, using his prestige, and satisfying the egos of men who thought they were destined to design the nation in this first presidency.

I would have liked a little more detail on the actual organization of the government and it's establishment. Smith focuses more on the personal and relationships of Washington and his key subordinates -- somewhat of a style over substance analysis of his two terms. Yet at this period, style and nuance were critical to setting a positive tone for the presidency and Smith's focus is certainly a good lense through which to shed more light on this important historical era.

Because this book focuses exclusively on Washington's presidency, it avoids the trappings of postmodernist social history and instead gives us a portrait of power. More than a mere dupe of Hamilton, Washington is presented instead as a symbol of dignity; firm, intelligent, and focused. While the author makes it clear that Washington was far from the man of marble so often portrayed in grade school history books, he was nonetheless a man of true principle -- especially in terms of Federalist philosophy. Modern readers should take note of Washington's belief in a strong central government and a distrust of states' rights and factions. Also, the author rightly places his Farewell Address in the pantheon of great American documents -- a collection of remarkably prescient prose arguably as influential as anything ever written by Jefferson or Lincoln.

In an apparent attempt to present a balanced view of Washington, Ferling attempts to psychoanalyze the first president and goes far afield of the materials he has. Often his conclusions are pure conjecture and he frequently criticizes "other historians" for thier conclusions and then draws his own unsubstantiated conclusions.

Ferling does provide a nice historical accounting of events and details during Washington's life. However, he frequently tries to determine the mindset of Washington and here he repeately fails. Often these attempts are little more than cheap shots. He even criticizes the President for not writing his feelings in his diary when he found that a relative was dying, saying that Washington was afraid to appear "unmanly." This is little more than the insertion of 20th century thoughts and values into an 18th century mind. It does little to shed light on Washington and much to shed light on Ferling's mindset.

Undoubtedly there are biographies which are equally detailed without the repeated and distracting psychoanalysis.

This book was an assigned text in one of my college classes, and that's how I came to read it. I originally wanted to read Flexner's or Randall's biography of Washington, but Ferling's version didn't disappoint me.

What struck me about this biography is its objectivity. Ferling neither romanticizes about Washington as a demi-god, nor does he try to debase him. In the first hundred pages or so, I felt that Ferling was rather harshly critical of Washington, but by the end of the book, I felt that Ferling had highlighted many of Washington's good qualities as well. Ferling doesn't sugar-coat Washington's faults, but he doesn't ignore Washington's remarkable achievements, either. I liked how Ferling contrasts the brash young Washington of Fort Necessity with the mature Washington of Valley Forge. The father of our country certainly wasn't born with the dignity that later was his trademark, and it was interesting to see how Washington developed his character over the years. This gave me a more realistic admiration of Washington than I previously had.

An excellent biography about a tremendous historical figure.

This book is an excellent account of a man who learned from his mistakes in his early life and used those experiences to control himself and attain recognition as one of the most accomplished men in history.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

I personally think the Washington Post and NY Times are liberal rags that are generally not worth the paper they are printed on. However, in fairness, when they do well I think they should be commended. I read the NY Times "36 Days" and still think that book was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was nothing more than a reprint of their articles.

Conversely, though, Deadlock was a well-written book. Two passages are worth noting. The first is about the book itself. About one-third of the way into the first chapter the book says: "These are the ... decisions, alliances, power plays, snap judgments and personality flaws revealed when a flukishly close election is played out for staggering high stakes. Both sides were nimble and brilliant and occasionally shady; both sides were also capable of miscalculations, divisions and blame. The best and worst of politics were on displayed in those 36 days, and both sides trafficked in each. This is how it happened." Although the Post endorsed Al Gore (no surprise) they tried to be equal in their appraisal of how the two campaigns sought resolution in their favor.

As for the two sides' strategy one only has to look within the first three pages of Chapter 2 where the Post records that the Democrats enlisted the services of three authors who wrote "The Recount Primer". The book reads: "Anyone who read and heeded the booklet could predict how the two sides would play America's closest president election -- at least in the broad outlines. Gore would gamble; Bush would stall. Gore would preach a doctrine of uncounted ballots; Bush would extol the dependability of machines. Gore needed more: more counting, more examination, more weighing and pondering of more ballots. Bush needed it over while he was still ahead." The only trouble for the Gore forces with this gospel was that the Republicans knew the same gospel. The book attempted to show how the two sides played out the roles assigned them.

For a behind the scenes objective look at the two sides, I think the Post did a very decent job. This could have been a... job on the Republicans and conservatives, but generally it was not (though I expected it). It could have been a... job on the Democrats and liberals, but it was not (nor did I expect it). I am not accustomed to this degree of fairness from the liberal Washington Post nor do I expect to see it very often in the future.

George Washington is one of few people in the history of the world to lead a major revolution for freedom and then not "betray the revolution". For that we owe him all the reverence he gets and then some. But as to his being some sort of brilliant 14-year old with these tremendous insights, it's not correct. Washington copied these rules from a translation of a work produced in the 1500's by Jesuits. The Jesuits actually had a few more. Unfortunately, we can't really give him credit for recognizing the importance of the rules and feeling a need to copy them - the copy was most likely assigned as an exercise in penmanship.

BTW, the rules are available all over the web for free.

Let me first say that I'm a George Washington fan. I've read a few biographies of "the first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen," and was excited to find this work was available in Amazon.com. Not only would I own the only book Washington ever wrote (although it was written at age 14 and was supposed to be a personal list of do's and do not's, not a book), but I would gain valuable insight into Washington's personal mannerisms as he consulted his old list frequently.

I suppose it's my fault for not carefully reading the info that Amazon.com posted. The book is a whopping 30 pages and has 110 Rules, many of which consist of only one sentence. Furthermore, most of the Rules are things that we do without thinking. One rule advises the reader not to speak "with meat in your mouth" or "Put not off your clothes in the presence of others, nor go out of your chamber half dressed." If you regularly discuss current events while a chicken leg is dangling from your teeth or serve a cold beer in your underware (unless, of course, you work at a gentleman's club), you might benefit from this book.

But I weakly attempt humor. Most of the rules, while they are common sense, remind us of how we, over 225 years later, should interact with people. Other rules advise us not to give medical advice to friends if we're not a doctor, you frustrate the sick. Don't be too hasty to spread news of someone else's misfortunes. In a business relationship, make conversation quick and to the point, yet not cold or unpleasant. While I admit that a few (five, maybe) are very outdated, many of these rules are very useful. The small size of the book allows for it to be carried in a purse or briefcase easily so that you can frequently look at it. In sum, if you have the money to burn, I say, get the book. It's helpful and insightful. If I could do it all over again, I wouldn't get it as I don't think it's worth the money.

I am writing this on America's 225th birthday. Considering the Father of Our Country's intellect--generously displayed in this slim volume, it's no wondered that America has endured the hard times and prospered so majestically. A few of his rules of civility may seem archaic; "spit not in the fire" discusses an issue that most would agree is not a teeming controversy in the 21st century. Most, though, are as timely as they are sapient. From friendliness, "let your countenance be pleasant," to respectfulness, "turn not your back to others," to the profound, "when a man does all he can though it succeeds not well, blame not him that did it," what George Washington termed rules of civility are truly words of wisdom to live by.

It is staggering to contemplate that a fourteen-year-old boy composed these perspicuous aphorisms. Yet, as the extraordinary man George Washington became later suggested, he was no ordinary fourteen-year-old either.

Mr. Hirschfeld has put a lot of time and research into this work and has turned out a good look at Washington the slave owner. He like the writers of recent attacks on T. Jefferson however forget to tell the whole story. Early in the 21st century it is easy to look back and see what an evil slavery was. The fact that we weren't raised being told that slavery was not only acceptable but a positive good makes our viewpoint much eaiser. Washington like Jefferson was raised by people who told him slavery was indeed a good thing. The society he grew up in and probably even his ministers told him the same thing. Hirschfeld's work is lacking in that he doesn't point out that by ever beginning to see the wrongs of the slave system Washington had shown a great deal of moral growth. Otherwise this is a fine book that examines an area of Washington's life that does deserve attention.

The author's work is certainly exhaustively researched, and thus has much to offer to any student of Washington, and of slavery itself. However, I take umbrage to the notion of conducting a limited analysis on the character of Washington, as inferred solely from his reluctant acceptance of the institution of slavery. Had the author been born into a southern plantation family in the late eighteenth century, I wonder if his intractable views on slavery would have been quite as pronounced.

This was an excellent text, rivaling the great "Founding Brothers - The Revolutionary Generation" by Joseph J. Ellis. It addresses the fundamental question I have always had; how could slavery continue (thrive) in a "free" nation? I have been reading a lot about the Founding Fathers with the central purpose of answering this very question. This book "George Washington & Slavery" includes many quotes and letters from the general that specifically addresses the slavery issue. It uses Washington and his contemporaries own letters to paint a story of our most famous founding father and his viewpoint on Blacks and slavery.

It begins by discussing how Washington obtained his large slave population through his marriage with Martha. It tells us that Washington was your typical (although meticulous) plantation owner. The Mount Vernon Estate was the most envied in the land. This was due to not only Washington's management but also slave labor. You get a strong since of how important slavery was to the every day needs of our most esteemed founding father.

However, Washington changed his views about Blacks during the Revolutionary War when he initiated enlisting Blacks into the Army (in the North not the South). Unfortunately, this was only done as a last resort after British Lord Cornwallis had announced that Black slaves could seek freedom if they took up arms with the British. It was then that Washington, faced with a mounting slave force with weapons, decided it was a smart strategy to allow Blacks to serve for the colonies.

What was most disappointing about Washington is that he was well aware of several Blacks with courage, intelligence and character. This book tells us about the Black poetess Phyllis Wheatley who was highly regarded for her literature (Washington once wrote her and he did addressed her with respect). There were several slaves that fought valiantly in the Revolutionary War and won recognition from Washington and other generals. He was always known to be fair on the battlefield with both his White and Black soldiers. There are several notably slaves such as his own Billy Lee that stood side by side with Washington through even his military battles. Frenchman Marquis de Lafayette often wrote Washington about the abolition of slavery? In fact, Lafayette wrote Washington about the large-scale emancipation of slaves in the French colony of Cayenne, the capital city of what is now known as Guiana. Therefore, Washington not only had first hand knowledge that Blacks were capable individuals, but also that slavery could and had been abolished in another part of the world. Washington still was willing to sit idle while hundreds of thousands were destined to a life of bondage.

At one time the Washington estate housed over 400 slaves (including children). They catered to the every needs of the Washingtons. Martha Washington had personally eleven slaves to perform her cooking, cleaning, sewing, etc. This book was full of letters by the Washington's regarding their slaves. It indicated that the Washingtons were fair and reasonable with their slave labor. In fact, the only time George revolted punitively was in regard to runaways.

The last will and testament of George Washington was to free his slaves. This is good, but in my opinion is not enough to remove the stain of slavery in his life. Even though he was fair to his slaves, he could have set in motion (or at least continued the existing momentum) emancipation in this country. The original impression I had before was that Whites during our revolutionary time lived in an environment where slavery was an unchallenged institution. This book and others indicate that there was a growing abolition movement in this country that began at the nations' founding.

I get the impression from Washington and the other Founding Fathers that they realized slavery was wrong. Of course it would have been hard to move towards abolition. It is always difficult to give up status and an economic advantage. Power and privilege are always difficult to give up. And even if Washington could give up the Presidency of the United States he could not find himself to give up the comforts of slavery while he was living. This was a question about power and the need to feel superior to others. Emancipation would have been challenged by his fellow southern plantation owners. Of course it would have been challenged and certainly unpopular, but many ideas are challenged. The Founders including Washington could have provided freedom for slaves after they reach an appropriate age. This was a strategy employed by the northern states. He could have been more outspoken and introduced a plan to gradually rid the country of this egregious sin. The question is whether this is worth fighting for. There are many examples where Washington put his life on the line for ideas he felt were worth the fight. Was the fight was worth it? Fighting a war against the world's largest Army was hard and many thought suicidal. But you fight for things that you believe in and ideas that are worth it. That was one of the themes of the revolution. In Washington's opinion (and most other key leaders of our nation at that time), the plight, hopes, dreams, viewpoints, feelings and freedom of Blacks were not worth the fight.