book should prove fatal to the widelyheld belief that the founding fathers were of one mind on most topics and had only minor disagreements.
Fleming clearly demonstrates the enormous rift between Washington and Jefferson, which was so wide that Jefferson considered his presidency to be "The Revolution of," overturning the Washington presidency and similar Adams presidency.
Throughout this book the reader is left with little doubt who the author sides with, His sympathies are clearly with Washington to the point he almost seems to have an axe to grind with Jefferson.
On the other hand, he clearly documents statements by Jefferson that show that he had some pretty radical ideas, and that he suffered from a selfimposed blindness to the realities of his beloved French revolution.
He also demonstrates that the realities of holding presidential office made it difficult for him to live by many of these ideas.
Still, the author's overall bias left me feeling like the case for Jefferson's radicalism was someone overstated,
Nonetheless I still recommend this book, Even with the author's bias coming through, it is a refreshing antidote to the sterile descriptions of the founding fathers as a monolithic body, all marching toward the same goal with the same opinions.
This book points out many conflicts between Washington, Jefferson, and many other personalities and are still relevant today.
Fantastic book! I enjoyed hearing the challenges we take for granted in the creation of this great 'social experiment.
' Washington was the right person at the right time his leadership largely helped create and maintain the union.
The actions of those around him the deference and reverence is not a surprise, What was a surprise was the doublecrossing of Jefferson who comes across as seriously flawed, There was a great deal about the role Madison had in the conflict between these two, siding with Washington at first, then Jefferson, then back to Washington.
The discussion of the role of France in early America was also a great addition, especially considering that if Yellow Fever hadn't impacted Napoleon's plans regarding America, or history may have been remarkably different.
We have a tendency to think of the bitter conflicts between politicians and political parties as something that is a relatively new phenomenon, but Fleming clearly illustrates that bitter feuds and political underhandedness existed from the beginnings of our history.
This book defines the conflict between Washington and Jefferson and how their interpretation of the sentiments of the founding fathers and the constitution still influences politics today.
Fleming is very biased toward Washington's leadership style and political acumen and attributes many of the problems in establishing the United States as emanating from Jefferson's inability to govern effectively and his passion for France and his support of the French Revolution.
I would have liked to see a more evenhanded approach to the contributions of these two imposing leaders.
Presenting this view of history does make one have hope that the United States can survive as a strong nation in spite of the "dirty politics" that have existed throughout our history.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone, It started out good but the authors hatred of Thomas Jefferson destroys it, Jefferson is not one of my favorite founding fathers but this book made me feel sorry for him.
I have read other books by this author and liked them, that is why I gave itstars.
I hope this book is a result of poor editing!
I was intrigued by the title and subject matter and therefore sat down to read this book with anticipation.
I thoroughly enjoyed the authors writing style and the subject matter, He spends a good story and makes it seem believable, While I do not doubt that there was a conflict between Washington and Jefferson I saw nothing that would convince me it was as bad as the author would have you believe.
Nor do I believe that Jefferson was as bad in making decisions as you would be led to believe.
He may have not been the best president but neither was he a fool, I would consider this to be an example to revisionist history writing, I would read this book for entertainment but would not consider it to be accurate by any means.
When writing about events that took place overhundred years ago you can make the facts and I use that term loosely say anything you want.
I received this book as an ARC from Net Galley, I would rate it atstars,
Though the title promises an examination of the deepening divide between Washington and Jefferson after the revolution separated the colonies from Britain and established the republic, this is actually an examination of three lives, interactions, and philosophies: those of Washington, Jefferson, and James Madison.
Probably Fleming left Madison out of the title partly because the two juggernauts overshadow just about everyone else except possibly Lincoln, but also because Madison was always a follower.
At first of both, and according to Fleming he was guilty of no little amount of weaseling as he complimented Washington, confided in him to be confided in in return, and then turned around and betrayed him to Jefferson, to whom he became devoteddisastrously, as Fleming endeavors to show.
Fleming is clearly comfortable in the period, He quotes from a wealth of primary sources, and he sketches the characters of the "founding fathers", bringing them and their passions into threed focus.
The book is immensely readable, even bringing to life subsidiary figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and a few of the wilder sorts like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.
Where it could be considered weak is in the increasing sense of partisanship as the tone becomes more snide when illustrating Jefferson's failures.
Which were legion, even before Jefferson, in his retirement, set out to rewrite history, justifying his own errors and lauding his ideology and condemning Washington.
Jefferson is referred to more than once as the "master of Monticello," and at the end, the "Unwashington.
" Then there are the asides refuting unnamed historians, especially toward the end when Fleming shifts to a long essay about the presidency, and how he views the legacies of Washington and Jefferson.
However, I hesitate to ding Fleming for his passionate sidetaking though historians are supposed to be objective, I tend to look askance at anyone claiming objectivity.
Not a human trait! Fleming's prejudices are right out front, and anyone curious as to his conclusions can visit the extensive notes, and bibliography, to follow the tracks of his thinking.
Overall a vigorous reading experience I find myself wanting to read more about his take on Washington, after I refresh myself with a reread of Flexner's monumental biography.
Thomas Fleming is an author I have not read in the past five plus years, In the past I have read a number of his books both nonfiction and fiction, I have even had correspondence with him regarding one of his books in the past, I have always enjoyed Flemings passion for history,
The basic debate between Washington and Jefferson is still an ongoing debate today on the role of government.
Fleming states
Washington beliefs came out of the problems he had as head of the Army, the problems of funding the Army and the country at the time.
Therefore he preferred a strong federal government that could provide a strong military defense for the country and a strong financial foundation for the country.
On the other hand, Jefferson preferred a confederation of states instead of a national government,
Fleming paints Washington as the practical farmer and dynamic leader and Jefferson as the dreaming idealist who failed to lead and left the country at the end of his tenure as president, in debt, without income, without an army, and on the verge of war with Britain over a trade embargo.
The book is well written, lightly documented but with the clean, snappy prose that Fleming is noted for.
I enjoyed reading the book and dissecting Flemings views but I wonder if Jefferson was quite as scatterbrained as Fleming paints him.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible, David Rapkin narrated the book,
.