What do you think?
Rate this book
The Return of George Washington: Uniting the States, 1783�1789
NEW YORK TIMESÌýBESTSELLER
"An elegantly written account of leadership at the most pivotal moment in American history" (Philadelphia Inquirer): Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward J. Larson reveals how George Washington saved the United States by coming out of retirement to lead the Constitutional Convention and serve as our first president.
After leading the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, George Washington shocked the he retired. In December 1783, General Washington, the most powerful man in the country, stepped down as Commander in Chief and returned to private life at Mount Vernon. Yet as Washington contentedly grew his estate, the fledgling American experiment floundered. Under the Articles of Confederation, the weak central government was unable to raise revenue to pay its debts or reach a consensus on national policy. The states bickered and grew apart. When a Constitutional Convention was established to address these problems, its chances of success were slim. Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers realized that only one man could unite the fractious George Washington. Reluctant, but duty-bound, Washington rode to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to preside over the Convention.
Although Washington is often overlooked in most accounts of the period, this masterful new history from Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward J. Larson brilliantly uncovers Washington’s vital role in shaping the Convention—and shows how it was only with Washington’s support and his willingness to serve as President that the states were brought together and ratified the Constitution, thereby saving the country.
"An elegantly written account of leadership at the most pivotal moment in American history" (Philadelphia Inquirer): Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward J. Larson reveals how George Washington saved the United States by coming out of retirement to lead the Constitutional Convention and serve as our first president.
After leading the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, George Washington shocked the he retired. In December 1783, General Washington, the most powerful man in the country, stepped down as Commander in Chief and returned to private life at Mount Vernon. Yet as Washington contentedly grew his estate, the fledgling American experiment floundered. Under the Articles of Confederation, the weak central government was unable to raise revenue to pay its debts or reach a consensus on national policy. The states bickered and grew apart. When a Constitutional Convention was established to address these problems, its chances of success were slim. Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers realized that only one man could unite the fractious George Washington. Reluctant, but duty-bound, Washington rode to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to preside over the Convention.
Although Washington is often overlooked in most accounts of the period, this masterful new history from Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward J. Larson brilliantly uncovers Washington’s vital role in shaping the Convention—and shows how it was only with Washington’s support and his willingness to serve as President that the states were brought together and ratified the Constitution, thereby saving the country.
378 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 7, 2014
2,404 people are currently reading
1,611 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. Larson
30Ìýbooks166ÌýfollowersEdward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
September 2, 2022
Many books have been written about George Washington. However, of the ones that are not full biographies, most focus either on his time as General of the Revolutionary Army or as the nation's first President. Few tend to dwell on that crucial interregnum in between the official end of the war in late 1783 and the beginning of our-still (who knows for how much longer) current government in April 1789. But, Edward Larson does focus exclusively on this period, and with good reason as it was crucial to the just-established nation's formation and also to Washington.
At this point, Washington - to many - was already a revered figure. His long service to the country, in one form or another, dates back to just before the French and Indian War in the early 1750s. Washington, while not a brilliant tactical general, commanded immense respect from many quarters both in his army and in Congress, not to mention in the colonies overall. However, Washington had to deal with an unexpected conspiracy amongst many officers who wanted to use the military to overthrow Congress. The officers had legitimate beefs with Congress (mainly lack of pay), but Washington knew that military overthrow of a civilian government body that ostensibly controls that military was potentially disastrous. Washington skillfully snuffed out the conspiracy by essentially embarrassing the plotters; he did this by making a speech about his own lengthy service, how he had greatly aged during it, but was proud to have sacrificed those years given the importance of the cause they were fighting for.
Larson then follows Washington home to his plantation in Virginia, Mount Vernon. But, after almost a decade away from home, Washington was restless and soon set out on a long and arduous journey to survey his Western land holdings. He had many parcels of land in western Pennsylvania, around present-day Pittsburgh, and south of there into what is now West Virginia, and even some further west that he did not make it to. Since Washington had last been in this area many years earlier, squatters had moved in. I found the most humorous part of this book to be when Larson detailed Washington's dealings with these squatters - they refused to leave his land! By this time especially, if not before given his place in the Virginia aristocracy, Washington was not used to being told no, especially by people who were, speaking strictly in terms of social class status, much inferior to him. Also, they were in the wrong since Washington did have title to these lands. But he didn't have his army with him, so he had to sue them, which took years to resolve.
The bulk of the book though is focused on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Washington's reluctance to accept the role not only of a delegate on behalf of Virginia but to be the presiding officer of the Convention. While Washington rarely spoke in debates, and generally refrained from giving explicit opinions in public, Larson shows that in fact Washington was quite active in the cause to create a new system of governance. Washington viewed the Articles of Confederation and the current Congress as all but useless since the federal government (if one could even be said to be in existence at this time) had almost no power. Pretty much all powers rested with the states, who of course did not usually even make a pretext of trying to get along with one another. States seldom worked together, even to solve joint problems (Washington's legwork in getting Maryland and Virginia to cooperate in attempting to expand navigation on the Potomac River is the rare exception).
Larson details Washington's constant efforts at encouraging - behind the scenes - the formation of a much stronger central government. Larson argues, successfully, that Washington's very presence went far in helping the Constitution to be created, considered, and then ratified. After willingly giving up power at the end of the Revolutionary War, people trusted Washington. Instead of becoming a military despot, he retired to his plantation. Instead of seizing power in a vacuum, he encouraged people to work together and find compromise. So, by 1787, Washington's reputation was incredibly high, and any cause that he backed or appeared to back, would gain favor with others.
Larson provides lots of footnotes to supplement the easy-to-read narrative. Once the Convention was over and the delegates all returned home, Washington - while staying home - launched a furious correspondence with anyone and everyone to drum up support for ratification in pretty much all of the states. Washington worked especially closely with James Madison. It is a shame that they fell out later on once Washington became President. While Washington himself did not attend the ratifying convention in Virginia, his presence was felt there and it was needed as Patrick Henry and a few others were strident anti-federalists.
While this cannot be known for sure, I have to think that if you had to pinpoint a single reason why the Constitution was ratified it would be that everyone (Washington included) knew that he would become the first President and that he could be trusted not to abuse the great authority that was given to that office. Had that not been a given, I seriously question if the ratification would have been successful. And I think one can say with certainty that, even if it were successful, the office of the President would be a much weaker one than the one that transpired and still exists. As Larson says on page 288: Rather than gain respect by becoming President, Washington gave respect to the presidency by holding it." I think that perfectly sums up how Washington was viewed by his countrymen and how high the level of respect for and trust in him was.
If you are looking for a deep discourse on Washington the slaveowner, you will not find it here. If you are looking for criticism of Washington, you will find very little. Unlike his time as a young man, when he was rash and impetuous, or his time as a general when legitimate questions could be raised about his tactics and decisions, or even his later time as President, when political factions came about and his policies came under scrutiny, this period of Washington's life is relatively free of such conflict. While Larson is favorable to Washington, I think it is more a function of the time period under examination than it is an attempt to ignore obvious faults.
Given that the focus is on such a narrow slice of time in Washington's life, this book is best read if the reader is already quite familiar with Washington in particular and the Revolutionary era in general. This is not the type of book to use just to drop in on Washington without having knowledge of the events of the prior decade. That is not meant as a slight towards Larson's work, because it is excellent. This would be similar to picking up a book about some specific aspect of Abraham Lincoln's life, without having the general context of his life and times - you're just going to be lost. This is an excellent work on an often ignored time period of Washington's life.
Grade: A
At this point, Washington - to many - was already a revered figure. His long service to the country, in one form or another, dates back to just before the French and Indian War in the early 1750s. Washington, while not a brilliant tactical general, commanded immense respect from many quarters both in his army and in Congress, not to mention in the colonies overall. However, Washington had to deal with an unexpected conspiracy amongst many officers who wanted to use the military to overthrow Congress. The officers had legitimate beefs with Congress (mainly lack of pay), but Washington knew that military overthrow of a civilian government body that ostensibly controls that military was potentially disastrous. Washington skillfully snuffed out the conspiracy by essentially embarrassing the plotters; he did this by making a speech about his own lengthy service, how he had greatly aged during it, but was proud to have sacrificed those years given the importance of the cause they were fighting for.
Larson then follows Washington home to his plantation in Virginia, Mount Vernon. But, after almost a decade away from home, Washington was restless and soon set out on a long and arduous journey to survey his Western land holdings. He had many parcels of land in western Pennsylvania, around present-day Pittsburgh, and south of there into what is now West Virginia, and even some further west that he did not make it to. Since Washington had last been in this area many years earlier, squatters had moved in. I found the most humorous part of this book to be when Larson detailed Washington's dealings with these squatters - they refused to leave his land! By this time especially, if not before given his place in the Virginia aristocracy, Washington was not used to being told no, especially by people who were, speaking strictly in terms of social class status, much inferior to him. Also, they were in the wrong since Washington did have title to these lands. But he didn't have his army with him, so he had to sue them, which took years to resolve.
The bulk of the book though is focused on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Washington's reluctance to accept the role not only of a delegate on behalf of Virginia but to be the presiding officer of the Convention. While Washington rarely spoke in debates, and generally refrained from giving explicit opinions in public, Larson shows that in fact Washington was quite active in the cause to create a new system of governance. Washington viewed the Articles of Confederation and the current Congress as all but useless since the federal government (if one could even be said to be in existence at this time) had almost no power. Pretty much all powers rested with the states, who of course did not usually even make a pretext of trying to get along with one another. States seldom worked together, even to solve joint problems (Washington's legwork in getting Maryland and Virginia to cooperate in attempting to expand navigation on the Potomac River is the rare exception).
Larson details Washington's constant efforts at encouraging - behind the scenes - the formation of a much stronger central government. Larson argues, successfully, that Washington's very presence went far in helping the Constitution to be created, considered, and then ratified. After willingly giving up power at the end of the Revolutionary War, people trusted Washington. Instead of becoming a military despot, he retired to his plantation. Instead of seizing power in a vacuum, he encouraged people to work together and find compromise. So, by 1787, Washington's reputation was incredibly high, and any cause that he backed or appeared to back, would gain favor with others.
Larson provides lots of footnotes to supplement the easy-to-read narrative. Once the Convention was over and the delegates all returned home, Washington - while staying home - launched a furious correspondence with anyone and everyone to drum up support for ratification in pretty much all of the states. Washington worked especially closely with James Madison. It is a shame that they fell out later on once Washington became President. While Washington himself did not attend the ratifying convention in Virginia, his presence was felt there and it was needed as Patrick Henry and a few others were strident anti-federalists.
While this cannot be known for sure, I have to think that if you had to pinpoint a single reason why the Constitution was ratified it would be that everyone (Washington included) knew that he would become the first President and that he could be trusted not to abuse the great authority that was given to that office. Had that not been a given, I seriously question if the ratification would have been successful. And I think one can say with certainty that, even if it were successful, the office of the President would be a much weaker one than the one that transpired and still exists. As Larson says on page 288: Rather than gain respect by becoming President, Washington gave respect to the presidency by holding it." I think that perfectly sums up how Washington was viewed by his countrymen and how high the level of respect for and trust in him was.
If you are looking for a deep discourse on Washington the slaveowner, you will not find it here. If you are looking for criticism of Washington, you will find very little. Unlike his time as a young man, when he was rash and impetuous, or his time as a general when legitimate questions could be raised about his tactics and decisions, or even his later time as President, when political factions came about and his policies came under scrutiny, this period of Washington's life is relatively free of such conflict. While Larson is favorable to Washington, I think it is more a function of the time period under examination than it is an attempt to ignore obvious faults.
Given that the focus is on such a narrow slice of time in Washington's life, this book is best read if the reader is already quite familiar with Washington in particular and the Revolutionary era in general. This is not the type of book to use just to drop in on Washington without having knowledge of the events of the prior decade. That is not meant as a slight towards Larson's work, because it is excellent. This would be similar to picking up a book about some specific aspect of Abraham Lincoln's life, without having the general context of his life and times - you're just going to be lost. This is an excellent work on an often ignored time period of Washington's life.
Grade: A
December 5, 2014
Factually powerful but somewhat ponderous and slow, Larson's work is not for the casual historian but is well worth the time and trouble with adept. This is an amazingly detailed work on a period of Washington's life which is rarely investigated and Larson is superb in his work. I just wish his style was as lively as say Ellis!
November 19, 2014
Disclaimer: I received this book through the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ giveaway program on the premise that I would review it. My copy is an Advance Reader’s Edition, and changes will be made in the final version, including an index and more illustrations.
George Washington, “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,� has had a great number of books written about him. However, most of them are general biographies of his entire life, or focus on his two most active periods, being Commander in Chief of the American revolutionary forces, and being the United States of America’s first president. This book covers the period between those two, when Washington was trying to retire to his day job as a farm owner and landlord.
As one might expect, Washington being away in the war for eight years had done Mount Vernon no favors, and there was much to set right. In addition, land that he owned in the west was either mismanaged or infested with squatters. For these personal reasons, and because he feared that the newly settled lands might pull away from the new republic unless there were good communication routes, Washington sponsored building a navigable waterway up the Potomac River.
Unfortunately for George, it quickly became apparent that the Articles of Confederation weren’t a sufficient framework to run the new country on. The Continental Congress couldn’t pay its bills, including the back pay of the Revolutionary Army, because the individual states didn’t want to give them any money. And the Articles didn’t allow them to force payment. (Kind of like how certain countries are perennially behind on their dues to the United Nations in the modern day.)
Bad money policy led to hyperinflation in some states, while too strict a money squeeze in Massachusetts led to Shays� Rebellion when debtors could not get relief.
So a convention was called to fix some of the problems with the government–only to have it taken over by those who felt a wholesale overhaul and a new constitution was the only way to go forward. Washington was reluctantly called forward to chair the convention and give it the public gravitas it needed to be taken seriously.
The convention adopted a strict rule of secrecy as to its proceedings, and Mr. Washington took this very seriously, not writing any of the details in his diary or personal letters. As he seldom spoke on the floor, what was going through his head, and what backroom conversations Washington might have been having are mostly unknown to us.
Still, the convention came up with an innovative three-part federal government with checks and balances built in. Not everyone liked all the compromises made, but as a process for amendment was included, it was sent to the states, who mostly voted for ratification.
The problem for Washington at that point was that the new Constitution called for a strong central executive, the President. And there was just one man the Federalists trusted to be the first, Washington himself. So he spent the first Presidential campaign not running for office, but desperately trying to get on with his personal life before it was wrested away by his country again.
There’s an epilogue which briefly covers the Presidential years and Washington’s later life. There is a long endnotes section and several black and white illustrations.
Mind you, this story isn’t all good news. George Washington, like everyone else, had his flaws. The most pressing one is that he was a slaveowner, one of the biggest in Virginia. He seems to have been ambivalent on the subject of slavery, regretting its “necessity� but always finding it economically unfeasible to do without buying more slaves, and only making good on his promise to free his personal slaves in his will…with the actual freedom to be after Martha Washington’s death.
For more on one particular slave of the Washingtons, see this article: .
However, it seems likely that his slaveholding helped the Southern states accept the Constitution and the idea of a President more willingly than they otherwise would have. And Washington’s patriotism and sense of civic duty were strong influences on the early shape of the United States government.
As with other biographies that only cover a limited time span, students will want to supplement this volume with a more general biography. I’d recommend this book for high schoolers on up, as the subject matter is a bit dry for most younger readers� tastes.
George Washington, “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,� has had a great number of books written about him. However, most of them are general biographies of his entire life, or focus on his two most active periods, being Commander in Chief of the American revolutionary forces, and being the United States of America’s first president. This book covers the period between those two, when Washington was trying to retire to his day job as a farm owner and landlord.
As one might expect, Washington being away in the war for eight years had done Mount Vernon no favors, and there was much to set right. In addition, land that he owned in the west was either mismanaged or infested with squatters. For these personal reasons, and because he feared that the newly settled lands might pull away from the new republic unless there were good communication routes, Washington sponsored building a navigable waterway up the Potomac River.
Unfortunately for George, it quickly became apparent that the Articles of Confederation weren’t a sufficient framework to run the new country on. The Continental Congress couldn’t pay its bills, including the back pay of the Revolutionary Army, because the individual states didn’t want to give them any money. And the Articles didn’t allow them to force payment. (Kind of like how certain countries are perennially behind on their dues to the United Nations in the modern day.)
Bad money policy led to hyperinflation in some states, while too strict a money squeeze in Massachusetts led to Shays� Rebellion when debtors could not get relief.
So a convention was called to fix some of the problems with the government–only to have it taken over by those who felt a wholesale overhaul and a new constitution was the only way to go forward. Washington was reluctantly called forward to chair the convention and give it the public gravitas it needed to be taken seriously.
The convention adopted a strict rule of secrecy as to its proceedings, and Mr. Washington took this very seriously, not writing any of the details in his diary or personal letters. As he seldom spoke on the floor, what was going through his head, and what backroom conversations Washington might have been having are mostly unknown to us.
Still, the convention came up with an innovative three-part federal government with checks and balances built in. Not everyone liked all the compromises made, but as a process for amendment was included, it was sent to the states, who mostly voted for ratification.
The problem for Washington at that point was that the new Constitution called for a strong central executive, the President. And there was just one man the Federalists trusted to be the first, Washington himself. So he spent the first Presidential campaign not running for office, but desperately trying to get on with his personal life before it was wrested away by his country again.
There’s an epilogue which briefly covers the Presidential years and Washington’s later life. There is a long endnotes section and several black and white illustrations.
Mind you, this story isn’t all good news. George Washington, like everyone else, had his flaws. The most pressing one is that he was a slaveowner, one of the biggest in Virginia. He seems to have been ambivalent on the subject of slavery, regretting its “necessity� but always finding it economically unfeasible to do without buying more slaves, and only making good on his promise to free his personal slaves in his will…with the actual freedom to be after Martha Washington’s death.
For more on one particular slave of the Washingtons, see this article: .
However, it seems likely that his slaveholding helped the Southern states accept the Constitution and the idea of a President more willingly than they otherwise would have. And Washington’s patriotism and sense of civic duty were strong influences on the early shape of the United States government.
As with other biographies that only cover a limited time span, students will want to supplement this volume with a more general biography. I’d recommend this book for high schoolers on up, as the subject matter is a bit dry for most younger readers� tastes.
January 5, 2020
While this volume purports to be a biography of Washington during the critical gap between his service as Commander of the Continental Army and his inauguration as President of the United States, it in fact spreads far beyond in time and subject matter. For example, many pages are devoted to the Constitutional Convention with hardly a word about Washington.
Larson’s scholarship lays one popular (though widely disbelieved) myth to rest, that of the war-weary Washington retiring to Mount Vernon and not involving himself in politics until his nation called him to serve as its first President. Even before he left New York City upon resigning his commission, Washington was concerned that the new country’s weak government until the Articles of Confederation. That his concerns were expressed privately rather than publicly reflected the nature of the man, and followed his lifelong pattern. Washington vigorously pursued improving himself and his estate, but he also recognized that his prosperity and that of the nation were fused. His life is a study of a man very aware of the unique position he occupied and imbued with the sense of destiny in his future.
A good book, well written.
Larson’s scholarship lays one popular (though widely disbelieved) myth to rest, that of the war-weary Washington retiring to Mount Vernon and not involving himself in politics until his nation called him to serve as its first President. Even before he left New York City upon resigning his commission, Washington was concerned that the new country’s weak government until the Articles of Confederation. That his concerns were expressed privately rather than publicly reflected the nature of the man, and followed his lifelong pattern. Washington vigorously pursued improving himself and his estate, but he also recognized that his prosperity and that of the nation were fused. His life is a study of a man very aware of the unique position he occupied and imbued with the sense of destiny in his future.
A good book, well written.
December 24, 2016
This was quite an informative read -- not just concerning a lesser-known period in Washington's life, but also re the development and ratification of the Constitution, and the political goings-on leading up to the first presidential and congressional elections.
While this is not the focus of the book, it may suggest some careful publicity -- or even duplicity -- on the part of the Federalists who worked so hard to get the constitution ratified. If I remember what I've learned about the Federalist Papers, they took a somewhat narrower view of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare Clause than the drafters initially intended.
While this is not the focus of the book, it may suggest some careful publicity -- or even duplicity -- on the part of the Federalists who worked so hard to get the constitution ratified. If I remember what I've learned about the Federalist Papers, they took a somewhat narrower view of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare Clause than the drafters initially intended.
April 15, 2020
Excellent!
This was a very well-written account detailing the activities of George Washington during the six years after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until his Presidential inauguration in 1789. Larson did an incredible job detailing the influence GW had on the shaping our government, and the unanimous respect and admiration GW held by the public masses. Exceptional!
This was a very well-written account detailing the activities of George Washington during the six years after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until his Presidential inauguration in 1789. Larson did an incredible job detailing the influence GW had on the shaping our government, and the unanimous respect and admiration GW held by the public masses. Exceptional!
July 13, 2017
In , Larson focuses in on Washington's life between the end of the Revolution and the beginning of his Presidency. During this time, Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, which set up the new structure of government that would replace the problematic Articles of Confederation.
April 22, 2018
Summary: An account of the life of George Washington, between his retirement as General of the Continental Army in 1783 until his inauguration as the first president under the new U.S. Constitution.
In December of 1783, having successfully led the Continental Army to victory over and the departure of the British from New York City, George Washington stepped down as Commander in Chief to return to his plantation at Mount Vernon. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States, under a new constitution that created a much stronger federal government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation.
In this book, Edward J. Larson explores a period in Washington's life often lightly covered by other biographies, the five plus years of Washington's "retirement" from public life. Ostensibly, all Washington wanted to do is to develop his farms and realize a return on his investment in western lands. His own fortunes had suffered during the war and these were the years he hoped to have a chance to rebuild them. What Larson chronicles in this work is how Washington in both private and public ways continued to be active in American affairs, reflecting a deep concern for the development of the country he helped birth.
The concern began when he visited or attempted to visit his own western holdings, only to discover the inadequacies of government under the Articles of Confederation. There was no respect for property ownership or the rule of law, and the continued presence of native Americans prevented him from visiting one of his properties. Had he gone, he probably would not have survived. Efforts to develop navigation on the Potomac exposed another weakness, no effective governance of interstate commerce in what was basically a confederation of sovereign states and a weak national government.
It was clear that the new country's survival was imperiled unless the Articles of Confederation could be modified or replaced. Washington became a correspondent with others across the former thirteen colonies who recognized the need for a stronger form of government. These concerns led to the authorization of a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The question was whether or not Washington would attend, and likely, preside. Larson describes the dilemma he faced, to go with the risk of possible failure, or to remain home and doom the convention to likely failure. He went, and presided.
One sees the wisdom of Washington and the framers in establishing and enforcing a "gag rule" that prohibited discussing deliberations outside the convention. This allowed for ideas to be proposed that might have been quickly shot down. Larson traces Washington's crucial work at several critical impasses, particularly around the tensions over representation between large and small states.Ìý
Washington continued to exercise an important, but behind the scenes role during ratification, working with key contacts on political strategy in key states like Pennsylvania, New York, and his own Virginia, while staying in the background as the presumptive nominee for president, which everyone expected, including Washington, as much as he longed for his plantation.
Not everything in this account is glowing or fits our idealized picture of Washington. George and Martha Washington, between them, owned over 300 slaves and his own involvement in slavery was reflected in the treatment of the Three Fifths Compromise in terms of representation, and the fugitive slave clause (Article Four, Section 2, Clause 3). Only on his death did he release his (not Martha's) slaves. Likewise, Larson makes clear that from about the beginnings of the Revolutionary War on, Washington ceased to take communion, or believe in the deity of Christ. He believed in a God, and in divine providence, but even the minister closest to him knew of "no fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation."
Larson makes a strong case in this work that Washington was the "indispensable man" not only in the war, and in establishing the presidency, but also in the forging of a constitution that created a strong federal system. He helped cultivate the growing consensus that there was a need for a new constitution. He was perhaps the one person convention delegates would trust to preside. He stayed in touch with key figures in the states during the ratification process. It might be argued that Article Two that described the Presidential powers particularly had Washington in mind. Even in "retirement," Washington recognized how important was establishing a system of government that ensured respect abroad, prosperity at home, and westward development. Larson shows how Washington, reluctantly perhaps at times, acted to make these three critical priorities possible.
In December of 1783, having successfully led the Continental Army to victory over and the departure of the British from New York City, George Washington stepped down as Commander in Chief to return to his plantation at Mount Vernon. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States, under a new constitution that created a much stronger federal government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation.
In this book, Edward J. Larson explores a period in Washington's life often lightly covered by other biographies, the five plus years of Washington's "retirement" from public life. Ostensibly, all Washington wanted to do is to develop his farms and realize a return on his investment in western lands. His own fortunes had suffered during the war and these were the years he hoped to have a chance to rebuild them. What Larson chronicles in this work is how Washington in both private and public ways continued to be active in American affairs, reflecting a deep concern for the development of the country he helped birth.
The concern began when he visited or attempted to visit his own western holdings, only to discover the inadequacies of government under the Articles of Confederation. There was no respect for property ownership or the rule of law, and the continued presence of native Americans prevented him from visiting one of his properties. Had he gone, he probably would not have survived. Efforts to develop navigation on the Potomac exposed another weakness, no effective governance of interstate commerce in what was basically a confederation of sovereign states and a weak national government.
It was clear that the new country's survival was imperiled unless the Articles of Confederation could be modified or replaced. Washington became a correspondent with others across the former thirteen colonies who recognized the need for a stronger form of government. These concerns led to the authorization of a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The question was whether or not Washington would attend, and likely, preside. Larson describes the dilemma he faced, to go with the risk of possible failure, or to remain home and doom the convention to likely failure. He went, and presided.
One sees the wisdom of Washington and the framers in establishing and enforcing a "gag rule" that prohibited discussing deliberations outside the convention. This allowed for ideas to be proposed that might have been quickly shot down. Larson traces Washington's crucial work at several critical impasses, particularly around the tensions over representation between large and small states.Ìý
Washington continued to exercise an important, but behind the scenes role during ratification, working with key contacts on political strategy in key states like Pennsylvania, New York, and his own Virginia, while staying in the background as the presumptive nominee for president, which everyone expected, including Washington, as much as he longed for his plantation.
Not everything in this account is glowing or fits our idealized picture of Washington. George and Martha Washington, between them, owned over 300 slaves and his own involvement in slavery was reflected in the treatment of the Three Fifths Compromise in terms of representation, and the fugitive slave clause (Article Four, Section 2, Clause 3). Only on his death did he release his (not Martha's) slaves. Likewise, Larson makes clear that from about the beginnings of the Revolutionary War on, Washington ceased to take communion, or believe in the deity of Christ. He believed in a God, and in divine providence, but even the minister closest to him knew of "no fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation."
Larson makes a strong case in this work that Washington was the "indispensable man" not only in the war, and in establishing the presidency, but also in the forging of a constitution that created a strong federal system. He helped cultivate the growing consensus that there was a need for a new constitution. He was perhaps the one person convention delegates would trust to preside. He stayed in touch with key figures in the states during the ratification process. It might be argued that Article Two that described the Presidential powers particularly had Washington in mind. Even in "retirement," Washington recognized how important was establishing a system of government that ensured respect abroad, prosperity at home, and westward development. Larson shows how Washington, reluctantly perhaps at times, acted to make these three critical priorities possible.
January 25, 2017
I received this book through a Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ First Reads giveaway. While American History isn’t my forte (I tend to favor British History for whatever reasons), I still love reading about our presidents and believe there is always more to learn about their beliefs, interests, and accomplishments.
This was actually the first book I’ve ever read about Washington although I have a few others waiting in line on my shelves, one Larson actually mentions in his intro written by Ron Chernow. By the time I was about a quarter of the way into the book, I’d wished that I’d picked up Chernow’s book first to get more of a foundation to work off of.
As the cover clearly states, this book is dedicated to the very specific time frame of 1783-1789 when Washington had entered his self-proclaimed “retirement.� Anyone who reads this book will discover that retirement clearly didn’t suit him as he took a very active role in drafting and supporting the Constitution in addition to managing Mount Vernon and his various land holdings.
I found the progression of the book to be a bit of a crash course since I haven’t seriously tapped into American History prior to Andrew Jackson for a good ten years. The narrative also reads like a textbook. Some history books have a conversational tone to them which makes them a breeze to read through, but this one was more like a research paper—not particularly a bad thing, but you may not find yourself compelled to read it for several hours straight. Larson also favors using lots of alliteration, although I believe it’s unintentional, it causes for some very awkward sentences.
Syntax issues aside, this book is incredibly well-researched and begins to pick up the pace prior to Washington’s election. Individual Rights vs. State’s Rights are called into question, and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists go at each other blow for blow. Larson delves into the uncertainty of whether the Constitution would be accepted or not (at great length), and at times it almost seems like a miracle that the Civil War didn’t come around in the 1780s. In short, as Larson says at one point, the Anti-Federalists consistently speculated that there was “an elite conspiracy to subjugate America.�
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington, particularly regarding his feelings about the presidency and the direction he envisioned our country to take. Larson’s book is also an excellent chronicle of government and politics during the late 1700s as his research encompasses many of the key players who helped shape the Constitution as well as the election process. Overall this was a great read, if just a little slow to get through.
This was actually the first book I’ve ever read about Washington although I have a few others waiting in line on my shelves, one Larson actually mentions in his intro written by Ron Chernow. By the time I was about a quarter of the way into the book, I’d wished that I’d picked up Chernow’s book first to get more of a foundation to work off of.
As the cover clearly states, this book is dedicated to the very specific time frame of 1783-1789 when Washington had entered his self-proclaimed “retirement.� Anyone who reads this book will discover that retirement clearly didn’t suit him as he took a very active role in drafting and supporting the Constitution in addition to managing Mount Vernon and his various land holdings.
I found the progression of the book to be a bit of a crash course since I haven’t seriously tapped into American History prior to Andrew Jackson for a good ten years. The narrative also reads like a textbook. Some history books have a conversational tone to them which makes them a breeze to read through, but this one was more like a research paper—not particularly a bad thing, but you may not find yourself compelled to read it for several hours straight. Larson also favors using lots of alliteration, although I believe it’s unintentional, it causes for some very awkward sentences.
Syntax issues aside, this book is incredibly well-researched and begins to pick up the pace prior to Washington’s election. Individual Rights vs. State’s Rights are called into question, and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists go at each other blow for blow. Larson delves into the uncertainty of whether the Constitution would be accepted or not (at great length), and at times it almost seems like a miracle that the Civil War didn’t come around in the 1780s. In short, as Larson says at one point, the Anti-Federalists consistently speculated that there was “an elite conspiracy to subjugate America.�
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington, particularly regarding his feelings about the presidency and the direction he envisioned our country to take. Larson’s book is also an excellent chronicle of government and politics during the late 1700s as his research encompasses many of the key players who helped shape the Constitution as well as the election process. Overall this was a great read, if just a little slow to get through.
May 7, 2015
Americans are aware of George Washington's role in the American Revolutionary War and his actions as the nation's first president. But what was Washington doing from the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until his inauguration as the nation's first president in 1789? This is the subject of Edward J. Larson's book. Larson reminds us that people were shocked on both sides of the Atlantic when Washington announced his retirement at the end of the Revolutionary War and expressed his wish to retire to Mount Vernon and farm his estates. Unfortunately, the new government created under the Articles of Confederation immediately began experiencing difficulties. The states bickered among themselves, the weak unicameral Congress could not pay its bills, raise revenues, or launch an effective foreign policy. George Washington, and other leaders, realized that the Articles of Confederation needed to be either strengthened or replaced to salvage the independence so recently won. Edward Larson follows the story of a reluctant Washington who felt duty bound to leave Mount Vernon, preside over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and guide the new Constitution to ratification. This book is a fascinating account of Washington's role in a pivotal period in our nation's history.
February 8, 2020
"General George Washington ... retired. Although a spoken act, like so much that set him apart, it was less what he said than what he did."
Edward J. Larson, The Return of George Washington: 1783-1789
>>Read by Mark Bramhall
app 11hrs
Edward J. Larson, The Return of George Washington: 1783-1789
>>Read by Mark Bramhall
app 11hrs
November 2, 2014
I had the privilege of having dinner with Dr. Larson and was able to delve deeper into this book. Washington was an amazing man: imagine being the most popular man of his time, the most powerful man, and the wealthiest man at the same time and giving up all powers as general to go tend his plantation and allow the people to form their government! it was only after 5 years that due to popular demand he returned to government. History in so many other countries would be so different if other countries we have the luxury of a leader like George Washington.
January 2, 2015
I thought I knew the complete George. Until you read this great history of the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and the beginning of his first presidential term, you may not know George, at all.
June 15, 2018
Brought this. Epic story alive as today's news
The authors detail and references are impeccable. The excitement and uncertainties are faithfully captured and retold. Breathes life into each player!
The authors detail and references are impeccable. The excitement and uncertainties are faithfully captured and retold. Breathes life into each player!
May 26, 2018
Well written and clear timelines. Pieces of history of the forming of our nation I hadn’t studied before.
January 3, 2015
Is there really more to write about George Washington? Almost as soon as he was in the grave, biographies began appearing, often multi-volume such as John Marshall’s six-volume Life of Washington. Two centuries later, that tide continues to come in. But what more can be known? Too often, new biographies repackage old analysis for a new generation. Worse, as with the other Framers some new biographies are less interested in discussing their subjects than in molding their lives into cudgels for modern political battles (think Glenn Beck’s frequent appeals to Jefferson or the Nation arguing what James Madison would have thought about the NSA). Fortunately, with The Return of George Washington: 1783-1789 Edward Larson, a history professor at Pepperdine University, reminds readers not only that when it comes to the Framers there is still much to consider. Larson from the first acknowledges that plenty of others have written about Washington and written well. Larson, however, focuses on the years between Washington’s surrender of his commission and his assuming the presidency, a period in which Washington played a role insufficiently examined and yet central to the establishment of the US. In particular, Larson cogently evidences that Washington’s was crucial to both the success of the Convention in Philadelphia and the Constitution’s eventual ratification. At the same time, he dives into the long simmering question of whether Washington was as loath to abandon retirement as he claimed. . Moreover, like the best political histories, Larson’s book speaks to our present but in a subtle voice, his arguments at once evident yet never explicit.
Perhaps it should be no surprise that biographers often neglect Washington’s years of retirement: it is easy to cheer for an American Cincinnatus as he surrenders authority (King George III remarked incredulously to painter Benjamin West about Washington’s return to private life that “If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world�). What if anything can really be learned from the interregnum? Even in Washington’s most well-known public function in those years � presiding over the Constitutional Convention � he is usually eclipsed by the more intellectual Framers such as Madison and Hamilton. While Washington was not a major contributor to the Convention’s discussions, choosing to maintain his taciturn public demeanor, Larson sees this oversight as near unforgivable. Washington, as he sees those crucial years, was indispensable. Absent Washington’s participation the Convention likely never would have occurred. And just as his tactical skills were essential to victory in the American Revolution, so too was Washington prestige decisive in the the Constitution’s eventual ratification. In short, had Washington died on his way back to Mount Vernon in 1783, thrown from his horse or choked on his meal, the United States might never have emerged.
Many readers will know at least something about the structural failings of the Articles of Confederation, which left the newly independent colonies with a national government hardly worthy of the name (“national government� actually a misnomer since the Articles referred to the collective states not as a nation, but a “league of friendship�). Fewer readers will know of the failings of individual state constitutions, the reform of which, in Larson’s view, were just as crucial to the Framers. Some states, particularly Pennsylvania, established governing structures that might be charitably described as unstable. Ironically, the agreement produced at the Philadelphia Convention can be seen in no small part as a reaction against this volatile experiment in democracy. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was radical by later republican standards. It created a unicameral legislature whose members were limited to a single two year term, vested executive power in a twelve member Council, and judges who served at the pleasure of the legislature. The system resulted in chaos as control shifted between two rabidly partisan factions. With each election, the ascendant faction would fire all the judges. Taxes would be imposed, two years later repealed at the next election, and then be imposed again. To the Framers, it looked on the edge of anarchy.
Larson’s discussion of these worrying trends does an excellent job linking them to the building pressure to revise the national government. From Mount Vernon, Washington watched the Articles of Confederation fail to meet even the minimum standards he thought required for stable government. Like his neighbors, he read in the newspapers of the newly independent states bickering over issues of territory and trade. New York, the states� leading port, fixed tariffs on the imports and exports of other states. States printed their own money, spawning rampant inflation. More than just watching these events, Washington corresponded with his former comrades voicing his concern that the new nation was on the road to ruin.
Washington’s view were not all second hand. One of America’s largest property owners, Washington possessed title to vast tracts on the “frontier� of western Virginia and Pennsylvania. A tour of those holdings in 1784 deepened his doubts about the new nation’s prospects. “Imagine,� writes Larson, “the surprise of isolated settlers when the legendary general appeared unannounced at their doors in the backwoods.� More surprising was that the general could get there at all: roads on the frontier were at best rudimentary. As for his property, in one place he faced squatting members of a religious sect. In another, a tenant with neither the means nor inclination to pay his rent (and the total absence of any legal authority to which he might appeal to enforce the lease). Native Americans fought settlers. If this was the State of Nature, it was a Hobbesian state to be sure. Evidence of government authority were nowhere to be found. As Larson explains:
A lack of national power lay at the heart of the matter. Scarcely a year had passed since Britain signed a treaty recognizing American sovereignty over the entire region east of the Mississippi River, south of the Great Lake and North of Florida. The British continued to occupy forts in the remote corner of this region northwest of the Ohio River, however, where they traded with the native peoples for furs…With virtually no funds or forces the United States government was powerless to secure the frontier. Moreover, Virginia ceded its claim over the old Northwest to Congress in 1784, making its defense entirely a national problem.
If Congress did not serve the needs of these settlers, another power � Spain or France � would surely fill the void. Larson cites Washington’s letters to Richard Henry Lee, “The ties of consanguinity which are weakening every day will soon become no bond.� Should the settlers find avenues of trade through some other power, Washington wrote to another correspondent, “they [the settlers] would in a few years be as unconnected to us, indeed more so, than we are with South America…� Washington even goes so far as to worry that these frontier communities will in short order begin to look on the states much as the colonies had looked on Great Britain, as a distant occupying force and “would soon be alienated from us.� Comfortable retirement depended on the economic viability of Washington’s frontier holdings. Further, as a patriot, he saw the national experiment as wholly dependent on the country’s ability to control and develop those western territories.
Larson points to this alignment of Washington’s public and private interest as central to his decision to join the movement to reform the national government. Previous attempts had failed. How could another attempt succeed? The nationalists � John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Henry Knox, among others � understood that they needed the anchor of Washington’s gravitas. Though he fully supported the Nationalists� efforts in private, Washington was slow in his willingness to do so publicly. Hamlet-like in Larson’s characterization, Washington went back and forth on whether or not he would attend the Philadelphia Convention. Some biographers see this as Washington being intentionally coy, trying to maintain his Cincinnatus aura. Larson, however, aligns with those who see his sentiment as heart-felt: Washington enjoyed private life and was loath to return to service.
So why did he finally agree? Washington saw the stakes as cataclysmic. Absent success, the nation would fail. All his sacrifices for Revolutionary victory would have been in vain. As Larson describes Washington and Jay’s exchange:
…[their letters] betrayed far more fundamental concerns than mere fears of losing the West, simple hopes for a national market economy, and plain desires to repay government creditors, though those issues certainly weighed heavily on both men. Their letters spoke in terms of calamity and commotion, loss of public virtue and disposition to do justice, and breakdown of the social fabric under the excesses of majority faction. Liberty itself was at risk…much as it had been in 1776 � but this time the threat came from within, which made it worse�. “We are going and doing wrong, and therefore I look to Evils and Calamities,� Jay wrote.
With such stakes, it is no surprise that Washington returned to public life as a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention.
The specifics of the Convention has been handled elsewhere in exhaustive detail and Larson does not focus on this well tilled soil. Instead, he looks at the failure of previous efforts at reform and why Washington’s participation made the difference in Philadelphia’s success. Only five states sent delegations to the last effort, dubbed the “Annapolis Convention.� Yet with Washington’s prestige behind
this enterprise, states not only participated but stacked their delegations with influential figures. Nationalist newspapers and even those less strongly aligned trumpeted Washington’s participation. America’s Cincinnatus was taking the field again to save the new nation.
Washington’s importance was noticed by those who came to be dubbed “anti-Federalists.� Patrick Henry, for example, saw a powerful central government as a threat to liberty and recognized that Washington’s participation might make a decisive difference. In protest, Henry made the historic blunder of refusing his appointment as a delegate. Had he instead traveled to Philadelphia, refused to take the oath of secrecy sworn by the other delegates, and organized from the first against the new Constitution, Henry might very well have been able to undermine any hope of ratification by crucial Virginia. The States would have remained united in no real sense, leaving the United States stillborn. Henry, however, made his choice and proved unable to block the new Constitution after it emerged.
Larson offers some interesting thoughts on the crucial compromises required to achieve agreement. The author possess a fascinating if subtle argument here about those Americans who view the Constitution as holy writ. While the Framers were brilliant and their achievements undeniable, we do them a disservice if we imagine the Constitution as perfect. The Constitution was not drafted primarily a legal document; the Framers were politicians and their product was � and is � a political document. As with any political effort, success was possible only through hard-fought compromises. Larson cites the correspondence of several delegates after the convention still worrying that this or that compromise went too far. They worried, however, not strictly based on their parochial interests, though these of course played a part, but also because of the risk that the whole system might collapse. Perhaps some see Washington as simply projecting the interests of his class onto the nation as a whole, but one cannot deny that his interests, when compromised with those of more urban and manufacturing minded delegates such as Hamilton, served to set the nation on a course that allowed it to do what many of his generation thought impossible: survive and prosper for more than two centuries.
And brilliant as the delegates were, they made serious unforced errors. Larson points to two examples: the first, much considered elsewhere, was the utter political-tone-deafness required for them to choose to omit an enumerated bill of rights. This proved a near-fatal stumbling block when they submitted the Constitution to the States for ratification. Less discussed was the byzantine presidential election system. As Larson argues, this system was ideal to ensure Washington’s election as the first president. Later, however, it lurched the young republic into its earliest political crisis. As early as the first election absent Washington, the weakness of the Framers system became plain. Adams, as the Federalist candidate, received the largest number of electoral votes and became the 2nd president. However, the runner-up who became Vice President was Thomas Jefferson. The two men hated each other (Jefferson no less than Hamilton seemed to define himself based on his collection of political nemesis). Jefferson from the first did everything in his power to undermine the administration in which he was supposed to serve. If anything the Framers� system led to still worse results in the election of 1800. Under the original system, each elector cast two votes with winner becoming President. Unfortunately, 1800 ended in an electoral tie. The election was thrown to the House where the president was only selected after 35 wrenching ballots. No surprise that its replacement was the topic of the Constitutions first structural amendment.
Of course that failed system did succeed in electing Washington. Washington’s agreement to take up that office was in fact a crucial factor in ratification. “Washington’s signature on the transmittal letter and accompanying resolutions,� writes Mr. Larson, “ensured they would command attention. Indeed, they made it look as if the Constitution came from him.� An independent executive, which many perceived as a threat to liberty, was among the Framer’s most controversial innovations. Popular perception that Washington would be the first to occupy that office endowed it with an aura of honor and helped blunt these misgivings. Indeed, anti-Federalists who saw the presidency as a possible precursor to monarchy were often unfairly accused of “attacking the general.� Patrick Henry lamented that, while none could worry about Washington’s republican virtue, the office’s next occupant might prove of a less noble spirit. Worries about a distant future, however, proved a weak rallying cry. Washington’s popularity won the day.
While excellent, Larson makes a few irksome choices. Just as he has favorite Framers, so to he has one about whom he also dislikes. These Framers, Hamilton and Adam’s chief among them, he often caricatures to an unfortunate degree. Yes, Hamilton was by any standard deeply flawed. Too often he saw political issues in near-apocalyptic terms. He never met a political disagreement that he could not push into a fierce and abiding hatred. The political schemes he hatched tended towards the dazzlingly intricate, often collapsing under their own weight. Such failings however in no way diminish from his many contributions � organizing the Treasury Department, creating the tariff system that funded the Federal government, ordering the fiscal house of the indebted nation to make it credit worthy, and establishing a sound currency to name just a few � that cemented America’s economic and political success. Similarly, John Adams suffered from an unfortunate combination of vainglory and concern that he was never earning the respect he deserved. Like Hamilton, however, the nation might well have failed absent his willingness to refuse the powerful voices who called for the young nation to declare war on France (Hamilton) or Britain (Jefferson). Larson also crams Washington’s entire presidency into the book’s scant final pages. This choice distracts from his topic while adding little to his central arguments. Such shortcomings, however, cannot much detract from an otherwise insightful and informative work.
As with many Framers, no writer will ever be able to claim the last word on Washington. Readers never tire of exploring the lives and decisions of these men. Some read out of curiosity. Others read out of a sense of longing for an imagined mythic generation of perfect patriots. Looking backwards, Americans often think of the Constitution as inevitable. Larson punctures such dreamy notions. He reminds us that the Framers were, first and foremost politicians: men often driven by interests, background, and even petty gripes. To those who imagine that impersonal dynamics � not individuals � drive history, he offers the counter example of an indispensable man at a most pivotal time. Despite his flaws, Washington was that rarest of historical characters: he left the public stage when many assumed he would be crowned king. He returned when his nation needed him, despite his preference for retirement. Thus he remains ever, as Lee eulogized him, “first in war � first in peace � and first in the hearts of his countrymen.�
Originally published in Open Letters Monthly
Perhaps it should be no surprise that biographers often neglect Washington’s years of retirement: it is easy to cheer for an American Cincinnatus as he surrenders authority (King George III remarked incredulously to painter Benjamin West about Washington’s return to private life that “If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world�). What if anything can really be learned from the interregnum? Even in Washington’s most well-known public function in those years � presiding over the Constitutional Convention � he is usually eclipsed by the more intellectual Framers such as Madison and Hamilton. While Washington was not a major contributor to the Convention’s discussions, choosing to maintain his taciturn public demeanor, Larson sees this oversight as near unforgivable. Washington, as he sees those crucial years, was indispensable. Absent Washington’s participation the Convention likely never would have occurred. And just as his tactical skills were essential to victory in the American Revolution, so too was Washington prestige decisive in the the Constitution’s eventual ratification. In short, had Washington died on his way back to Mount Vernon in 1783, thrown from his horse or choked on his meal, the United States might never have emerged.
Many readers will know at least something about the structural failings of the Articles of Confederation, which left the newly independent colonies with a national government hardly worthy of the name (“national government� actually a misnomer since the Articles referred to the collective states not as a nation, but a “league of friendship�). Fewer readers will know of the failings of individual state constitutions, the reform of which, in Larson’s view, were just as crucial to the Framers. Some states, particularly Pennsylvania, established governing structures that might be charitably described as unstable. Ironically, the agreement produced at the Philadelphia Convention can be seen in no small part as a reaction against this volatile experiment in democracy. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was radical by later republican standards. It created a unicameral legislature whose members were limited to a single two year term, vested executive power in a twelve member Council, and judges who served at the pleasure of the legislature. The system resulted in chaos as control shifted between two rabidly partisan factions. With each election, the ascendant faction would fire all the judges. Taxes would be imposed, two years later repealed at the next election, and then be imposed again. To the Framers, it looked on the edge of anarchy.
Larson’s discussion of these worrying trends does an excellent job linking them to the building pressure to revise the national government. From Mount Vernon, Washington watched the Articles of Confederation fail to meet even the minimum standards he thought required for stable government. Like his neighbors, he read in the newspapers of the newly independent states bickering over issues of territory and trade. New York, the states� leading port, fixed tariffs on the imports and exports of other states. States printed their own money, spawning rampant inflation. More than just watching these events, Washington corresponded with his former comrades voicing his concern that the new nation was on the road to ruin.
Washington’s view were not all second hand. One of America’s largest property owners, Washington possessed title to vast tracts on the “frontier� of western Virginia and Pennsylvania. A tour of those holdings in 1784 deepened his doubts about the new nation’s prospects. “Imagine,� writes Larson, “the surprise of isolated settlers when the legendary general appeared unannounced at their doors in the backwoods.� More surprising was that the general could get there at all: roads on the frontier were at best rudimentary. As for his property, in one place he faced squatting members of a religious sect. In another, a tenant with neither the means nor inclination to pay his rent (and the total absence of any legal authority to which he might appeal to enforce the lease). Native Americans fought settlers. If this was the State of Nature, it was a Hobbesian state to be sure. Evidence of government authority were nowhere to be found. As Larson explains:
A lack of national power lay at the heart of the matter. Scarcely a year had passed since Britain signed a treaty recognizing American sovereignty over the entire region east of the Mississippi River, south of the Great Lake and North of Florida. The British continued to occupy forts in the remote corner of this region northwest of the Ohio River, however, where they traded with the native peoples for furs…With virtually no funds or forces the United States government was powerless to secure the frontier. Moreover, Virginia ceded its claim over the old Northwest to Congress in 1784, making its defense entirely a national problem.
If Congress did not serve the needs of these settlers, another power � Spain or France � would surely fill the void. Larson cites Washington’s letters to Richard Henry Lee, “The ties of consanguinity which are weakening every day will soon become no bond.� Should the settlers find avenues of trade through some other power, Washington wrote to another correspondent, “they [the settlers] would in a few years be as unconnected to us, indeed more so, than we are with South America…� Washington even goes so far as to worry that these frontier communities will in short order begin to look on the states much as the colonies had looked on Great Britain, as a distant occupying force and “would soon be alienated from us.� Comfortable retirement depended on the economic viability of Washington’s frontier holdings. Further, as a patriot, he saw the national experiment as wholly dependent on the country’s ability to control and develop those western territories.
Larson points to this alignment of Washington’s public and private interest as central to his decision to join the movement to reform the national government. Previous attempts had failed. How could another attempt succeed? The nationalists � John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Henry Knox, among others � understood that they needed the anchor of Washington’s gravitas. Though he fully supported the Nationalists� efforts in private, Washington was slow in his willingness to do so publicly. Hamlet-like in Larson’s characterization, Washington went back and forth on whether or not he would attend the Philadelphia Convention. Some biographers see this as Washington being intentionally coy, trying to maintain his Cincinnatus aura. Larson, however, aligns with those who see his sentiment as heart-felt: Washington enjoyed private life and was loath to return to service.
So why did he finally agree? Washington saw the stakes as cataclysmic. Absent success, the nation would fail. All his sacrifices for Revolutionary victory would have been in vain. As Larson describes Washington and Jay’s exchange:
…[their letters] betrayed far more fundamental concerns than mere fears of losing the West, simple hopes for a national market economy, and plain desires to repay government creditors, though those issues certainly weighed heavily on both men. Their letters spoke in terms of calamity and commotion, loss of public virtue and disposition to do justice, and breakdown of the social fabric under the excesses of majority faction. Liberty itself was at risk…much as it had been in 1776 � but this time the threat came from within, which made it worse�. “We are going and doing wrong, and therefore I look to Evils and Calamities,� Jay wrote.
With such stakes, it is no surprise that Washington returned to public life as a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention.
The specifics of the Convention has been handled elsewhere in exhaustive detail and Larson does not focus on this well tilled soil. Instead, he looks at the failure of previous efforts at reform and why Washington’s participation made the difference in Philadelphia’s success. Only five states sent delegations to the last effort, dubbed the “Annapolis Convention.� Yet with Washington’s prestige behind
this enterprise, states not only participated but stacked their delegations with influential figures. Nationalist newspapers and even those less strongly aligned trumpeted Washington’s participation. America’s Cincinnatus was taking the field again to save the new nation.
Washington’s importance was noticed by those who came to be dubbed “anti-Federalists.� Patrick Henry, for example, saw a powerful central government as a threat to liberty and recognized that Washington’s participation might make a decisive difference. In protest, Henry made the historic blunder of refusing his appointment as a delegate. Had he instead traveled to Philadelphia, refused to take the oath of secrecy sworn by the other delegates, and organized from the first against the new Constitution, Henry might very well have been able to undermine any hope of ratification by crucial Virginia. The States would have remained united in no real sense, leaving the United States stillborn. Henry, however, made his choice and proved unable to block the new Constitution after it emerged.
Larson offers some interesting thoughts on the crucial compromises required to achieve agreement. The author possess a fascinating if subtle argument here about those Americans who view the Constitution as holy writ. While the Framers were brilliant and their achievements undeniable, we do them a disservice if we imagine the Constitution as perfect. The Constitution was not drafted primarily a legal document; the Framers were politicians and their product was � and is � a political document. As with any political effort, success was possible only through hard-fought compromises. Larson cites the correspondence of several delegates after the convention still worrying that this or that compromise went too far. They worried, however, not strictly based on their parochial interests, though these of course played a part, but also because of the risk that the whole system might collapse. Perhaps some see Washington as simply projecting the interests of his class onto the nation as a whole, but one cannot deny that his interests, when compromised with those of more urban and manufacturing minded delegates such as Hamilton, served to set the nation on a course that allowed it to do what many of his generation thought impossible: survive and prosper for more than two centuries.
And brilliant as the delegates were, they made serious unforced errors. Larson points to two examples: the first, much considered elsewhere, was the utter political-tone-deafness required for them to choose to omit an enumerated bill of rights. This proved a near-fatal stumbling block when they submitted the Constitution to the States for ratification. Less discussed was the byzantine presidential election system. As Larson argues, this system was ideal to ensure Washington’s election as the first president. Later, however, it lurched the young republic into its earliest political crisis. As early as the first election absent Washington, the weakness of the Framers system became plain. Adams, as the Federalist candidate, received the largest number of electoral votes and became the 2nd president. However, the runner-up who became Vice President was Thomas Jefferson. The two men hated each other (Jefferson no less than Hamilton seemed to define himself based on his collection of political nemesis). Jefferson from the first did everything in his power to undermine the administration in which he was supposed to serve. If anything the Framers� system led to still worse results in the election of 1800. Under the original system, each elector cast two votes with winner becoming President. Unfortunately, 1800 ended in an electoral tie. The election was thrown to the House where the president was only selected after 35 wrenching ballots. No surprise that its replacement was the topic of the Constitutions first structural amendment.
Of course that failed system did succeed in electing Washington. Washington’s agreement to take up that office was in fact a crucial factor in ratification. “Washington’s signature on the transmittal letter and accompanying resolutions,� writes Mr. Larson, “ensured they would command attention. Indeed, they made it look as if the Constitution came from him.� An independent executive, which many perceived as a threat to liberty, was among the Framer’s most controversial innovations. Popular perception that Washington would be the first to occupy that office endowed it with an aura of honor and helped blunt these misgivings. Indeed, anti-Federalists who saw the presidency as a possible precursor to monarchy were often unfairly accused of “attacking the general.� Patrick Henry lamented that, while none could worry about Washington’s republican virtue, the office’s next occupant might prove of a less noble spirit. Worries about a distant future, however, proved a weak rallying cry. Washington’s popularity won the day.
While excellent, Larson makes a few irksome choices. Just as he has favorite Framers, so to he has one about whom he also dislikes. These Framers, Hamilton and Adam’s chief among them, he often caricatures to an unfortunate degree. Yes, Hamilton was by any standard deeply flawed. Too often he saw political issues in near-apocalyptic terms. He never met a political disagreement that he could not push into a fierce and abiding hatred. The political schemes he hatched tended towards the dazzlingly intricate, often collapsing under their own weight. Such failings however in no way diminish from his many contributions � organizing the Treasury Department, creating the tariff system that funded the Federal government, ordering the fiscal house of the indebted nation to make it credit worthy, and establishing a sound currency to name just a few � that cemented America’s economic and political success. Similarly, John Adams suffered from an unfortunate combination of vainglory and concern that he was never earning the respect he deserved. Like Hamilton, however, the nation might well have failed absent his willingness to refuse the powerful voices who called for the young nation to declare war on France (Hamilton) or Britain (Jefferson). Larson also crams Washington’s entire presidency into the book’s scant final pages. This choice distracts from his topic while adding little to his central arguments. Such shortcomings, however, cannot much detract from an otherwise insightful and informative work.
As with many Framers, no writer will ever be able to claim the last word on Washington. Readers never tire of exploring the lives and decisions of these men. Some read out of curiosity. Others read out of a sense of longing for an imagined mythic generation of perfect patriots. Looking backwards, Americans often think of the Constitution as inevitable. Larson punctures such dreamy notions. He reminds us that the Framers were, first and foremost politicians: men often driven by interests, background, and even petty gripes. To those who imagine that impersonal dynamics � not individuals � drive history, he offers the counter example of an indispensable man at a most pivotal time. Despite his flaws, Washington was that rarest of historical characters: he left the public stage when many assumed he would be crowned king. He returned when his nation needed him, despite his preference for retirement. Thus he remains ever, as Lee eulogized him, “first in war � first in peace � and first in the hearts of his countrymen.�
Originally published in Open Letters Monthly
October 6, 2018
(Audible)
Heavily researched from period documents, diaries and letters, this book covers the period from when General George Washington resigned as military commander in chief until the moment he is sworn in as the first president of the United States.
So we're talking Constitutional Convention.
Brace yourself for a LOT of political wrangling, Roberts Rules of Order, and philosophical debate about what the new country should/could look like and why words matter, why structure matters, why balance of power matters.
Reshuffle the united deck of cards that banded behind the Declaration of Independence. It's all up for grabs as a new nation tries to be formed. Name dropping, reputations from the continental congress, from the War for Independence matter and line up on all sides of the debates.
There is much information about how the 3/5 rule for counting property (slaves) evolved and the massive debate about whether or not the bill of rights (first 10 amendments) needed to be added.
I found it quaint that Washington felt he should not indicate a desire for chair of the constitutional convention OR the first president of the United States because that was not appropriate. His definition of statesmanship was being willing to serve if called, but to not campaign, deal or negotiate to get there. (Though clearly there was campaigning on his behalf that he knew about).
How different our elections might be if the candidate wasn't allowed to campaign. Then again, it might be the same. Only 2nd and 3rd parties do the campaigning for the candidate without coordination FROM the candidate as to what to say and what was being promised . . . kind of sounds like SuperPacs.
The main takeaways that I picked up out of this book were:
Washington was more a breathing human being and less a martyr or God. His relationship with his mother . . . . well . . .wow . .. even being General of a winning rebellion, President of a new nation wasn't good enough? SERIOUSLY woman, you needed a laxative!
The concept of being a land speculator, land rich but money poor as a way to wealth bankrupted Jefferson, nearly did so to Washington (thankfully his wife had money) and was the cornerstone of a slave based economy. There was a wide spread belief in middle and southern states that Real Estate was the only honorable way to wealth and dignity. The Northeastern states who believed in trade and commerce were treated with disdain. That wasn't an "honorable" way to have wealth. Kind of wonky thinking.
Washington was not religious. He didn't go to church and there's evidence that while he believed in a higher power, he abandoned the idea of a trinity and Jesus as son of God and man.
Washington liked to party. He enjoyed the company of friends and was entertained by the theater, music and conversation with pretty women.
Washington and LaFayette remained pen pals for a very long time. I like this about them.
Why not give the book 5 stars? There were portions that sometimes felt repetitive. As an audiobook (and listening to it at a speeded up rate) the book moved quickly and I picked up on the repetition. If you were reading a little here and there, it might not feel like that. In fact it might be helpful when you circling back on an idea and Larson reminds you "this is that person, this is that movement, this is the piece that was happening over here."
RECOMMEND
Heavily researched from period documents, diaries and letters, this book covers the period from when General George Washington resigned as military commander in chief until the moment he is sworn in as the first president of the United States.
So we're talking Constitutional Convention.
Brace yourself for a LOT of political wrangling, Roberts Rules of Order, and philosophical debate about what the new country should/could look like and why words matter, why structure matters, why balance of power matters.
Reshuffle the united deck of cards that banded behind the Declaration of Independence. It's all up for grabs as a new nation tries to be formed. Name dropping, reputations from the continental congress, from the War for Independence matter and line up on all sides of the debates.
There is much information about how the 3/5 rule for counting property (slaves) evolved and the massive debate about whether or not the bill of rights (first 10 amendments) needed to be added.
I found it quaint that Washington felt he should not indicate a desire for chair of the constitutional convention OR the first president of the United States because that was not appropriate. His definition of statesmanship was being willing to serve if called, but to not campaign, deal or negotiate to get there. (Though clearly there was campaigning on his behalf that he knew about).
How different our elections might be if the candidate wasn't allowed to campaign. Then again, it might be the same. Only 2nd and 3rd parties do the campaigning for the candidate without coordination FROM the candidate as to what to say and what was being promised . . . kind of sounds like SuperPacs.
The main takeaways that I picked up out of this book were:
Washington was more a breathing human being and less a martyr or God. His relationship with his mother . . . . well . . .wow . .. even being General of a winning rebellion, President of a new nation wasn't good enough? SERIOUSLY woman, you needed a laxative!
The concept of being a land speculator, land rich but money poor as a way to wealth bankrupted Jefferson, nearly did so to Washington (thankfully his wife had money) and was the cornerstone of a slave based economy. There was a wide spread belief in middle and southern states that Real Estate was the only honorable way to wealth and dignity. The Northeastern states who believed in trade and commerce were treated with disdain. That wasn't an "honorable" way to have wealth. Kind of wonky thinking.
Washington was not religious. He didn't go to church and there's evidence that while he believed in a higher power, he abandoned the idea of a trinity and Jesus as son of God and man.
Washington liked to party. He enjoyed the company of friends and was entertained by the theater, music and conversation with pretty women.
Washington and LaFayette remained pen pals for a very long time. I like this about them.
Why not give the book 5 stars? There were portions that sometimes felt repetitive. As an audiobook (and listening to it at a speeded up rate) the book moved quickly and I picked up on the repetition. If you were reading a little here and there, it might not feel like that. In fact it might be helpful when you circling back on an idea and Larson reminds you "this is that person, this is that movement, this is the piece that was happening over here."
RECOMMEND
July 17, 2022
This was a really fun read and it was not as dry as I was thinking it might be.
As plenty of people mentioned it, the book deals with Washington and his life after the Revolutionary war. All he wanted to do is go back to Mount Vernon and tend to his land (along with many of his slaves), but that is not where his life took him.
After the war, the country was in chaos. Everything from war debt to having a national/central government to deciding how much power each state held was all up in the air. Due to each state having an opinion on these huge government issues, Washington was eventually persuaded to step in and unite the people in coming up with a new form of government that will help them get out of the immense debt and lead them to a more industrious country.
This is where they decided to go to a Convention that had representatives from all of the original states. Not much is known about the actual debates as it was highly secretive but eventually it led to a compromise between states on how much power a central government would have and how much say will individual states have. This was in my opinion the more boring part of the book. While important to discuss, it was very dry and just not interesting in the slightest to learn about individual states and their overall complaints.
While this is not much of a review, the author did a great job in directing key events in Washington's life. A lot of it is written through correspondence. There is an incredible amount of quotes in this book (basically every other sentence), which makes this book more enjoyable in my opinion. Also, there is a bunch of images in the middle of the book that summarize key events in Washington's life.
Overall the book is well written without being too tedious in the amount of details it presented. There is a good amount of details on some of the big complaints from each one of the states that made the Convention drag and the overall implementation of new government take much longer than it needed to (plus the anti-federalists and their concerns).
As plenty of people mentioned it, the book deals with Washington and his life after the Revolutionary war. All he wanted to do is go back to Mount Vernon and tend to his land (along with many of his slaves), but that is not where his life took him.
After the war, the country was in chaos. Everything from war debt to having a national/central government to deciding how much power each state held was all up in the air. Due to each state having an opinion on these huge government issues, Washington was eventually persuaded to step in and unite the people in coming up with a new form of government that will help them get out of the immense debt and lead them to a more industrious country.
This is where they decided to go to a Convention that had representatives from all of the original states. Not much is known about the actual debates as it was highly secretive but eventually it led to a compromise between states on how much power a central government would have and how much say will individual states have. This was in my opinion the more boring part of the book. While important to discuss, it was very dry and just not interesting in the slightest to learn about individual states and their overall complaints.
While this is not much of a review, the author did a great job in directing key events in Washington's life. A lot of it is written through correspondence. There is an incredible amount of quotes in this book (basically every other sentence), which makes this book more enjoyable in my opinion. Also, there is a bunch of images in the middle of the book that summarize key events in Washington's life.
Overall the book is well written without being too tedious in the amount of details it presented. There is a good amount of details on some of the big complaints from each one of the states that made the Convention drag and the overall implementation of new government take much longer than it needed to (plus the anti-federalists and their concerns).
March 28, 2024
I listened to this audiobook while taking my Granddad on a road trip to visit his baby sister. He had his hearing aids in for the first part of the drive, but I'm not sure if he was listening to the book or not since he made no comments about it. But, that also means that there were parts of the book that I didn't hear due to his commentary, stories, and musings (which are always fun but usually unexpected). With that being said, I did learn a lot about G.Wash and his life in the post Revolutionary War Era. I was a bit surprised that out of his two "adopted" sons he had more of a relationship (via written correspondence) with Lafayette than Hamilton. However, I was not surprised that Hamilton was instrumental in Adams getting the Vice Presidency, and ensuring that the vote was not overwhelming. I liked the use of primary sources throughout this book; some of which I use in my government classes. I think this would be a book that I would buy the physical copy of so that I could annotate it. I can understand G.Wash being a sought after dinner (and ball, play, tea, etc.) guest, I was surprised that he was such a popular dance partner. We all know that B.Frank is a ho, but Washington being so open to frivolity was unexpected. That G.Wash was so aware of how his presence and opinion could sway decisions was exactly what I expected of him. There was a comment during the 3rd part of the book about the egos of the Revolutionary War men and I chuckled at that, because that's not necessarily how they are taught in school (except for Hamilton and Jefferson, of course). Overall, this was enlightening and interesting and was a good choice for the road trip (even if Papaw wasn't paying attention).
December 15, 2018
Well researched, and written, with all the detail I was looking for.
I wanted to know more about the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and Washington being elected President. Edward Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner, delivers.
When Washington resigned his commission in 1783 no less than his rival, King George III, proclaimed him the greatest man of the age. Washington feared for his new country, especially that chaos would replace colonial America. He worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get the new Consitution written and ratified, using his considerable skills as an influencer with real integrity, to do that.
Few realize that the colonies were in serious debt after the war. This was a key reason the USA needed to be organized as a country. Our experiment in Democracy continues to this day, in large part because of the foundation laid by our first President, George Washington.
Highly recommended.
I wanted to know more about the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and Washington being elected President. Edward Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner, delivers.
When Washington resigned his commission in 1783 no less than his rival, King George III, proclaimed him the greatest man of the age. Washington feared for his new country, especially that chaos would replace colonial America. He worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get the new Consitution written and ratified, using his considerable skills as an influencer with real integrity, to do that.
Few realize that the colonies were in serious debt after the war. This was a key reason the USA needed to be organized as a country. Our experiment in Democracy continues to this day, in large part because of the foundation laid by our first President, George Washington.
Highly recommended.
April 6, 2017
An excellent, comprehensive read into the life of George Washington, minus the romanticized cult of personality surrounding the man himself.
This is an introspective look into the faults, flaws, and failures of a man whose moral compass was tested time, and time again as he sought freedom in a country that was consistently on its last limb.
It should also teach Americans how to appreciate the men we have deified over the past 200 years, and recognize that like all of us, they too were forced to make choices that were too large for any one man; their trials shaped a nation that was nearly torn apart two dozen times before it came to form, and the choices they made, for better or worse, forged a country that would one day shape the fate of the world.
This is an introspective look into the faults, flaws, and failures of a man whose moral compass was tested time, and time again as he sought freedom in a country that was consistently on its last limb.
It should also teach Americans how to appreciate the men we have deified over the past 200 years, and recognize that like all of us, they too were forced to make choices that were too large for any one man; their trials shaped a nation that was nearly torn apart two dozen times before it came to form, and the choices they made, for better or worse, forged a country that would one day shape the fate of the world.
February 16, 2018
I am always interested in reading about the men and women of history. In the case of "The Return of George Washington" while I learned things about him there were points that I lost interest. I was expecting to read about Washington and yet he disappeared for sections at a time. Granted, he was referred to as "silent Washington" at one point and I know there was some merit to his silence. For even in his "silence" he was still writing letters and was a formidable presence. I still would've liked to have learned more about George Washington than the Conventions, the Constitution, and all the players involved. That being said, I still found this very informative and an enjoyable read.
January 17, 2019
A solid, if unspectacular read, although that may be partly due to the difficulties in its remit. While this is supposed to be a history of Washington between the Revolutionary War and his time as president, it's really more about the change from the Articles of Confederation to our current form of government. This is unavoidable, but for most of the book, the focus is really on the process, featuring George Washington. Its difficult for the book to stay fully on the topic of Washington at times and it makes the book feel a little more scattered than it could be.
January 20, 2020
No study of the life of George Washington is complete without reading this book. If you’ve only read of Washington at war or even just in school, you’ve an incomplete portrait of the man. The way he spent the years between the end of the war and his election as our first president show how his mind remained active politically while his heart remained at home on Mount Vernon.
January 15, 2022
Great book about the intervening years of Washington’s public service between relinquishing command of the continental army at the end of the Revolutionary War and the being sworn in as the first President of the United States. It was leadership during this time that lead to development and then ratification of our constitution. I enjoyed the writing and learned new information, which is always a positive outcome.
July 22, 2017
Casi dos años después de iniciar la lectura, hoy la concluyo con especial ánimo. Excelente estilo y estructura de cómo un personaje como George Washington, a quien se endiosó como Presidente siempre promovió la fuerza de congreso y la separación de poderes. ¡Vivan Las Repúblicas.
September 3, 2017
Excellent
Shelved as 'finish-later'
September 26, 2022Bookmarking at pg 50
April 11, 2017
I enjoyed reading The Return of George Washington. I learned quite a bit about George Washington's actions and thoughts during the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and the start of his first term as President. The book seemed to be well-researched. It includes a lot of details about the Constitutional Convention, and I found those to be most interesting to me.
November 13, 2022
An excellent, scholarly, and valuable book, well deserving of the Pulitzer! It covers the interesting, and seldomly written about, time frame between leaving the military at the end of the Revolutionary War and becoming President, including the Continental Convention, ratification of the constitution, and the presidential election process. It did bog down a bit and it sometimes seemed to be moving in real time. sigh. The 5th star is.for the stellar content.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.