Mr. Brands, I’ve known you were a genius since your masterful history of the ‘California’ gold rush! Not since De Tocqueville and Henry Adams have the global implications and actions resulting from a nation’s prematuro extraction from an almost exclusively rural culture, worldview and economy into a freshly globalized world which was still taking baby steps, and perhaps in some senses is still doing so—in comparison with the millennia at the backs of Britain and France.
America is in her infancy; she is still an ongoing experiment; and—some shall say with surety at their backs, a failure. But it is far too early to make anything approaching an informed—let alone an educated estimate of these premises.
Dr. Brands, this is an interesting proposition. One of the factors that allowed him to eventually free many of his slaves was his successful financial management of his plantation, unlike his Jeffersonian counterpart. This required an underlying "cooperation" from the slaves who worked on his plantation.
In some sense, GW had to "lead" them well in order for the place to function and be successful. (Absolutely NOT saying the trope that his slaves were "happy") Those management skills absolutely translated to the army and the executive branch of government.
Additionally, one cannot discount the time and effort that GW put into self-education on leadership. He read about successful leaders of history and tried to emulate the character traits that he thought made them successful. (I'm writing this as I procrastinate grading APUSH summer reading essay tests, of which Ellis' "His Excellency, George Washington" is one of the more-popular choices for students to read)
Washington gets heat now just because he was a slaveholder, but he clearly was not taking advantage of his situation in that context to become tyrannical. Which he also did not do as Continental Army commander and especially not as President (Some wanted him to be the King of the new nation, but he adamantly refused to be raised above his peers).
Sounds like the germination of a new biography! If so, looking forward to an HWBrands bio of GWashington!!
If you do write a bio, I'd be curious about the idea that GW wanted a commission in the British army but was denied because he was a colonial as well as the fact the British Army officer corp was so class-based. Had they given him a commission in the regular army he might never have been available to command an American independence army- perhaps the failure to get the commission created enough disgruntlement which spurred him to take on the role of commander in chief of the continental army?
As to tactical ability, yes he may have been out-maneuvered during the Revolutionary War at times- but his command and retreat was solid after his commanding general Braddock was killed even though he wasn't officially in charge- he took charge. He had two horses shot out from under him during this rear guard action as well has having bullet holes in is coat!. It reminded me of your comment about Grant at your presentation in Grand Rapids some years ago about is coolness during battle.
Speaking of Grant- didn't your bio of him say he was given a slave but gave up the practice quite readily?
Interesting hypothesis about plantation owners as "managers" and commanders though
Fascinating insight. I hope this is part of a new biography of George Washington. . .
Mr. Brands, I’ve known you were a genius since your masterful history of the ‘California’ gold rush! Not since De Tocqueville and Henry Adams have the global implications and actions resulting from a nation’s prematuro extraction from an almost exclusively rural culture, worldview and economy into a freshly globalized world which was still taking baby steps, and perhaps in some senses is still doing so—in comparison with the millennia at the backs of Britain and France.
America is in her infancy; she is still an ongoing experiment; and—some shall say with surety at their backs, a failure. But it is far too early to make anything approaching an informed—let alone an educated estimate of these premises.
Dr. Brands, this is an interesting proposition. One of the factors that allowed him to eventually free many of his slaves was his successful financial management of his plantation, unlike his Jeffersonian counterpart. This required an underlying "cooperation" from the slaves who worked on his plantation.
In some sense, GW had to "lead" them well in order for the place to function and be successful. (Absolutely NOT saying the trope that his slaves were "happy") Those management skills absolutely translated to the army and the executive branch of government.
Additionally, one cannot discount the time and effort that GW put into self-education on leadership. He read about successful leaders of history and tried to emulate the character traits that he thought made them successful. (I'm writing this as I procrastinate grading APUSH summer reading essay tests, of which Ellis' "His Excellency, George Washington" is one of the more-popular choices for students to read)
Washington gets heat now just because he was a slaveholder, but he clearly was not taking advantage of his situation in that context to become tyrannical. Which he also did not do as Continental Army commander and especially not as President (Some wanted him to be the King of the new nation, but he adamantly refused to be raised above his peers).
Sounds like the germination of a new biography! If so, looking forward to an HWBrands bio of GWashington!!
If you do write a bio, I'd be curious about the idea that GW wanted a commission in the British army but was denied because he was a colonial as well as the fact the British Army officer corp was so class-based. Had they given him a commission in the regular army he might never have been available to command an American independence army- perhaps the failure to get the commission created enough disgruntlement which spurred him to take on the role of commander in chief of the continental army?
As to tactical ability, yes he may have been out-maneuvered during the Revolutionary War at times- but his command and retreat was solid after his commanding general Braddock was killed even though he wasn't officially in charge- he took charge. He had two horses shot out from under him during this rear guard action as well has having bullet holes in is coat!. It reminded me of your comment about Grant at your presentation in Grand Rapids some years ago about is coolness during battle.
Speaking of Grant- didn't your bio of him say he was given a slave but gave up the practice quite readily?
Interesting hypothesis about plantation owners as "managers" and commanders though