Washington, the Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner Book Review

Note: Hi, when I review books, or anything really, I’m big on discussing what works and what doesn’t work. That often involves spoilers, and seriously I do mean SPOILERS. While that may not seem as much of a big deal with a non-fiction book like the one below, if you’re still not cool with spoilers, that’s totally fine. I have a spoiler-free review that you can read on Goodreads. But if you’re cool with spoilers, then let’s sit back and chat about this book.

A Brief Summary

-Taken from Goodreads–

After more than two decades, this dramatic and concise single-volume distillation of James Thomas Flexner’s definitive four-volume biography “George Washington,” which received a Pulitzer Prize citation and a National Book Award for the fourth volume, has itself become an American classic. Now in a new trade paperback edition, this masterful work explores the Father of Our Country – sometimes an unpopular hero, a man of great contradictions, but always a towering historical figure, who remains, as Flexner writes in these pages, “a fallible human being made of flesh and blood and spirit – not a statue of marble and wood… a great and good man.” The author unflinchingly paints a portrait of Washington: slave owner, brave leader, man of passion, reluctant politician, and fierce general. His complex character and career are neither glorified nor vilified here; rather, Flexner sets up a brilliant counterpoint between Washington’s public and private lives and gives us a challenging look at the man who has become as much a national symbol as the American flag. 

What works

• I enjoyed this to an extent. I really liked the first half of the book, leading up to the Revolutionary War, because it read more like a biography. It was fascinating reading how much more complex of a figure George Washington was than what I had learned in school. 
  

What May or May Not Work

• The second half of the book I didn’t enjoy quite as much. It read more like half-biography, half-poli-sci lecture. On the one hand, I had no idea how messy the founding of the United States really was, which was great to read about. But on the other hand, the book got super technical and with what was written about Hamilton’s financial plan and the many, many struggles that Washington faced during his two presidential terms, a lot just went over my head. I can understand that it would be hard to separate the last 15-20 years of Washington’s life from the political scene he found himself in, but it was a little hard reading through it in this book.

Honorable Mentions

•  “an example of Washington’s ‘impudence’ is supplied by a note written – as it happened in Martha’s absence – to a handsome window, Annis Boudinot Stockton, who had sent him an ode in his praise with the coy request that he give her absolution for writing poetry. Washington replied that if she would dine with him “and go through the proper course of penitence, which shall be prescribed, I will strive hard to assist you in expiating these poetical trespasses on this side of purgatory. He might even prescribe that she write more poetry. ‘You see, Madam, when once the Woman has tempted us and we have tasted the forbidden fruit, there is no such thing as checking our appetites, whatever the consequences may be.’ on thinking this passage over, Washington clearly considered it a little fresh – but he liked it too much not to send it. To ton things down, he added that he deserved nothing more from Mrs. Stockton than ‘the most disinterested friendship has a right to claim.'”
• Gilbert Stuart’s justification for dwelling on Washington’s false teeth was “that the effigy of so major a historical figure should be more a factual document than the likeness of an ordinary citizen.” I can respect that, just as I can also respect that Flexner hints that Stuart might just be a bit petty and was ‘motivated in his relation of Washington also by rage. No other man’s rage did Washington’s historical image more harm.” 
• There were so many instances mentioned where Washington’s path could have changed away from becoming the 1st president (or the number of times he had near-death experiences)

Side Questions

• John Parke Custis “Almost uninterfered with by his stepfather, Jackie ripened into the monster he was to become.” Monster is such a strong word, and when he was mentioned later, I never got the “monster’ impression, so I’m still not entirely sure what Flexner meant by that.

Would I read this book again?

• There were some interesting parts in this, but I’m not sure if I would read it again. If I did, it will probably a long time from now.
  

If you’ve read Washington: The Indispensible Man, what are some of your thoughts? Share in the comments below!