The Presidency of George Washington

by Forrest McDonald

Book Overview

In this volume, Forrest McDonald admits that George Washington was no executive genius, and notes that a number of his advisers and cabinet members were considerably more important in formulating programs and policies than he was. Nevertheless, he maintains that, but for Washington, the office of president might not exist today. McDonald asserts that Washington's reputation as a man of integrity, dignity, candor, and republican virtue was well-deserved,...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 070060359X
• ISBN13: 9780700603596
• Release Date: February 1974
• Publisher: University Press of Kansas
• Length: 224 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 6.1" x 9.1"

Customer Reviews

Good look at 1780s-90s political history

Forrest McDonald is one of the best academic historians of early American political, intellectual, and economic history. I've read several books by him and they've all been very good to excellent, and this book is right up there with them. One thing to keep in mind: This is NOT a biography. One could even argue that Washington himself is -- in McDonald's narrative -- not really the "star" at all, and that in fact others (such as Madison, Hamilton, & Jefferson) are far more important to driving the events of the early Republic. However, this depiction seems appropriate given Washington's reserved leadership style as President. In McDonald's words, "George Washington was indispensable, but only for what he was [ie, a figurehead everyone respected], not for what he did." What this book is, is a very good chronicle of the political history of our first presidential administration, covering all the important issues you would expect from the period. It is particularly strong at chronicling the emergence of the United States' first real national political parties. Though I thought this book was quite good overall, I rated it four rather than five stars for the following reasons: 1. McDonald sometimes throws in a few too many extraneous details which can dilute his points. 2. As he himself admits, some of McDonald's narrative is based on conjecture -- particularly when he describes a trip Jefferson and Madison took together to Lake Champlain. On that trip, McDonald supposes, Madison had an epileptic seizure that Jefferson witnessed, and this revelation of Madison's hidden personal weakness cemented their friendship and alliance. McDonald also engages in psychological analysis of some people -- such as Jefferson -- that comes across as not much more than speculation and conjecture, too. 3. I thought McDonald was a little too biased towards the Hamiltonian/Federalist side of the emerging partisan divide. (Though, to be fair, most historians seem to go to the opposite extreme in praising Jefferson and his faction. Even so, McDonald seemed to always assume the best intentions on the part of the Federalists, and the worst intentions on the part of the Republicans.) In sum: This is a good scholarly look at the period, but those in search of a general biography of Washington should look elsewhere.

A well written scholarly work

This book is well written and very informative. This is more of an academic history than a page-turner, such as the books by the likes of David McCullough, but then again few books are. This book will appeal to those interested in history, especially American history. It is about the first 8 years of the government of the United States. Because the constitution was not specific on many of the aspects of how the government was to be run, it was necessary for Washington, his Cabinet and the Congress to further define their roles. This book describes how the men involved and the challenges that they faced directed the evolution of the government of the United States. It describes, in detail, Hamilton's financial system, the internal challenges of Indian uprisings and the resistance to the power of the government (as shown by the Whisky Rebellion) and the relations with foreign powers (primarily with Britain, France and Spain). I especially liked the discussion of Hamilton's system of monetizing the debt incurred during the revolution and using this as the basis for a currency system. This is a very complex subject, one that few at the time (or later) understood. This book not only clearly explains his system but also shows that it was based on the British system, thereby making it less mysterious and not a completely original creation of Hamilton's. Much time is also spent on the attempts of the French and Republican politicians, such as Jefferson, to support the French Revolution, even at the risk of war with Britain. In opposition to this were the Federalists, such as Hamilton, who wanted to avoid war with Britain at all costs. A considerable amount of space is therefore spent on the Jay treaty with Britain, and the support and opposition to it. The book also shows how the challenges faced by the US and the rivalries between the men involved helped to lead to the evolution (much to Washington's dismay) of political parties. While the title is accurate, it is also a bit misleading. This book is not primarily about Washington, in fact, in most of the book he is only in the background, ratifying or rejecting the acts of others. The author's view of Washington really only becomes clear in the last two pages, where he is depicted more of a symbolic presence than a dynamic leader. Nonetheless, the book makes it clear that Washington was more than just a figurehead. He created a stronger president than the weak one desired by Congress. He brought the heads of the departments of the government (State, War and Finance) clearly under the control of the President, reporting to him and not to Congress. He refused to hand over the papers associated with the development of the Jay treaty and refused to acknowledge the Senate's right to prevent him from firing someone they had previously approved. This book thus shows how the presidency of George Washington shaped the history of the Presidency and the US.

Our First Administration

"The Presidency of George Washington" is exactly what its title implies. It is the story of the Washington Administration. It is not a biography of George Washington, nor is it even a book which revolves totally around George Washington. It is the story of the people, issues and events which made up the administration of George Washington.The book starts out with an introduction into the United States of 1789. The regions and interests, as well as the political alignments, which supported and opposed the adoption of the Constitution are explained in some detail. The economy, trade, finance and the neighboring powers of Spain and England all laid the background for America's experiment with its new Constitution.The first task facing Washington was the establishment of the National Government. While reading this book we come to understand just how little guidance he had from the Constitution. Many of the practices which we take for granted derive, not from the Constitution, but from precedents established by Washington and his successors. The title of address for the President and the role of the heads of the executive departments, which were to become the cabinet, were among the first issues to be addressed. The role of the Senate in granting "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters had to be defined. An early trial occurred when President Washington appeared in the Senate to present his proposals and ask for advise and consent. After this awkward exercise, the practice was established that the executive would formulate policies and negotiate treaties, which would then presented for advice and consent.The power of removal of executive officers also had to be refined. It was presumed by some that any officer who required Senate confirmation for appointment, also required Senate consent for removal. It was the Washington Administration which established the principle that executive officers could be removed by the President without Congressional approval. This was an issue which was to be resurrected during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.Beyond organizational problems, the towering challenge facing the administration was that of finance. The debts of the Continental Congress and the states raised a myriad of issues. Should debts be paid? Should the debts be paid at par? Should payment be made to the bearer, who had often bought the bonds at a discount, or should some or all of the payment be made to the original lender? Should the national government assume the debts of the states? All of these issues had important consequences to the credit worthiness of the government. The assumption of state war debts had unequal impacts, depending on whether the individual state had serviced its debt or let it accumulate. Ultimately the Hamiltonian proposal to assume the war debt of the states and to pay the holders of the bonds was adopted, with the concession of the location of the national capitol in the South to win necessary

Excellent history of the most critical US presidency

The general consensus is that the two greatest US presidents were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I firmly believe that and in my opinion, Washington was the greatest. Before he became president he did something very rare in the history of the human race. After the victory in the war of independence, his stature was such that he could have been "elected" king. However, his honor was such that he had to be persuaded to run for president and then re-persuaded to run for a second term. He then thoroughly rejected any thought of a third term. The nation that he led was still very fragile and every action by Washington or congress that was not explicit in the constitution would establish a precedent. Furthermore, the world was still a dangerous place, with the French revolution and subsequent European war creating a dangerous environment for the new nation. His actions in building the new government and keeping it out of foreign entanglements fully justify the admiration that he receives. This book kept my attention from the first page as the early years of the new government are described. For this is a book about the Washington administration rather than Washington the man. So many legends in the annals of history were there and setting the tone for over 200 years of continuous government. You also learn of the emergence of political parties, as Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and Adams among others vie for power and influence. Alexander Hamilton is the most interesting of these giants, as he successfully creates the financial institutions that made the country fiscally sound. The more I read about Washington and that period of history, the more I am impressed by him. I have no idea what would have happened if he had been different, but it is a sure bet that it would have been worse. It is unfortunate that we teach our children nonsensical myths like the one about the cherry tree. The truth is so much more inspiring, and he truly deserves the accolade of "the father of his country."

Excellent and Concise Bio of Washington's Presidency

Forrest McDonald is an excellent writer. He produced a wonderful full length bio of Alexander Hamilton that I recommend to anyone interested learning about our government's start and the role played by the man second only to Washington in ensuring that these United States succeeded in laying a firm foundation for self government.This book is one of McDonald's two contributions to the Univ. of KA's "Presidency Series." It is splendid.McDonald concisely explores the challenges presenting themselves and issues demanding attention from our new and untested government. In just under two hundred pages, the author does an excellent job of boiling down the topics to their essentials and describing how the nascent government struggled to define its role, the meaning of it's constitutional structure, the balance of factions and America's relation to warring European giants.His book accomplishes this with brevity, clear and concise writing and in an interesting manner. Along the way are fascinating tidbits. For example, neither Washington nor the Senate knew what "advise and consent" meant regarding treaties. About to send negotiators to several indian tribes, Washington walked down to the Senate to seek their advice on instructions for his agents. As the Senate sat dumbfounded, and then finally began to debate the seven points Washington sought advice on, it became clear how impractical legislative micro management of treaty making would be. Washington turned on his heels and left in disgust when it became obvious the Senate could not give him clear and definative advice. Thereafter, it was mutually agreed that the Senate's role would revolve mainly around "consent" and come when the President presented negotiatied treaties to that body for consideration and not before the treaty making in the form of advice. And thus has it been, evermore.This is a very good book that will inform those interested in learning how our government got up and running and how important Washington and the players around him were in charting the course for our young government.