Washington College Magazine
Founding Fortune: The George Washington Book Prize
by Marcia C. Landskroener M'02
Historian Ron Chernow had already decided that his next book project would focus on George Washington.
Writing about Alexander Hamilton for the past five years, Chernow says, was to spend five years in the company of George Washington. This spring, when Chernow was awarded the inaugural George Washington Book Prize for his groundbreaking biography Alexander Hamilton, his decision was cinched.
From Alexander Hamilton
The relationship between Washington and Hamilton was so consequential in early American history—rivaled only by the intense comradeship between Jefferson and Madison—that it is difficult to conceive of their careers apart. The two men had complementary talents, values, and opinions that survived many strains over their twenty-two years together. Washington possessed the outstanding judgment, sterling character, and clear sense of purpose needed to guide his sometimes wayward protégé; he saw that the volatile Hamilton needed a steadying hand. Hamilton, in turn, contributed philosophical depth, administrative expertise, and comprehensive policy knowledge that nobody in Washington's ambit ever matched. He could transmute wispy ideas into detailed plans and turn revolutionary dreams into enduring realities. As a team, they were unbeatable and far more than the sum of their parts.
Nonetheless, the two men had clashing temperaments and frequently showed more mutual respect than true affection. When Charles Willson Peale painted Washington in 1779, he presented a manly, confident figure with a quiet swagger and an easy air of command. In fact, Washington wasn't nonchalant and could be exacting and quick to take offense. While he had a dry wit, his mirth was restrained and seldom expressed in laughter. He did not encourage familiarity, fearing it would encourage laxity in subordinates, and held himself aloof with a grave sobriety that gave him power over other people. In addition, over time he became such a prisoner of his own celebrity that people couldn't relax in his presence. Gilbert Stuart noted the fierce temper behind the fabled self-control, and his later paintings of Washington show something hooded and wary in the hard, penetrating eyes. The self-control was something achieved, not inherited, and often masked combustible emotions that could explode in fury. "His temper was naturally irritable and high-toned, but reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and habitual ascendancy over it," Jefferson later said perceptively. "If ever, however, it broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath."
Those who met Washington in social situations were usually taken with his gallantry and convivial charm. Abigail Adams fairly cooed when she met him, reassuring John that "the gentleman and soldier look agreeably blended in him." Working with him in cramped quarters, however, Hamilton had many chances to see Washington's irritable side and sometimes ungovernable temper. Washington was extremely fond of Hamilton, preferring him to his other aides, but he did not express his affection openly. Hamilton always addressed him as "Your Excellency," and it irked him that he could not penetrate the general's reserve. But Lafayette noted that Hamilton, in turn, held something back. The notion that Hamilton was a surrogate son to Washington has some superficial merit but fails to capture fully the psychological interplay between them. If Hamilton was a surrogate son, some suppressed Oedipal rage entered into the mix. Hamilton was so brilliant, so coldly critical, that he detected flaws in Washington less visible to other aides. One senses that he was the only young member of Washington's "family" who felt competitive with the general or could have imagined himself running the army. It was temperamentally hard for Alexander Hamilton to subordinate himself to anyone, even someone with the extraordinary stature of George Washington. At the same time, he never doubted for an instant that Washington was a great leader of special gifts and the one irreplaceable personage in the early American pageant. He had the deepest admiration for Washington, even if he didn't wallow in hero worship. He had misgivings about Washington as a military leader—the general did lose the majority of battles he fought in the Revolution—but not about him as a political leader. Having hitched his star to Washington, Hamilton struck a bargain with himself that he honored for the remainder of his career: he would never openly criticize Washington, whose image had to be upheld to unify the country.
So diffident was George Washington in speech that John Adams described him as a great actor with "the gift of silence." Washington knew that he lacked verbal flow, once writing, "With me it has always been a maxim rather to let my designs appear from my works than by my expressions." Yet this taciturn man had to cope with an unending flood of paperwork as he dealt with Congress and state legislatures while also issuing orders and arbitrating disputes among deputies. All the managerial problems of a protracted war—recruiting, promotions, munitions, clothing, food, supplies, prisoners—swam across his desk. Such a man sorely needed a fluent writer, and none of Washington's aides had so facile a pen as did Hamilton.
Being Washington's chief secretary was much more than a passive, stenographic task... Hamilton's advent was thus a godsend for Washington. He was able to project himself into Washington's mind and intuit what the general wanted to say, writing it up with instinctive tact and deft diplomatic skills. It was an inspired act of ventriloquism: Washington gave a few general hints and, presto, out popped Hamilton's letter in record time. Most of Washington's field orders have survived in Hamilton's handwriting.
- Excerpted from Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton, pp. 88-90.
On a perfect spring evening in May, 200 history buffs gathered at Washington's Mount Vernon Estate on the Potomac to celebrate yet another historic moment: the announcement of a monumental book prize that recognizes outstanding published works that contribute to a greater understanding of the life and career of George Washington and/or the founding era.
The award, conceived by Washington College's C. V. Starr Center for the American Experience, supported by Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, and funded by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, carries a $50,000 prize. It is the nation's largest literary prize for early American history—far greater than those accompanying prestigious literary awards such as the Pulitzer Prize for History at $7,500, the National Book Award at $10,000, and the Bancroft Prize at $10,000.
Chernow, considered one of today's best writers of history and biography, beat out two other finalists for the Prize: Rhys Isaac for Landon Carter's Uneasy Kingdom: Revolution and Rebellion on a Virginia Plantation (Oxford) and Gordon Wood for The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (The Penguin Press). The finalists were selected by a three-person jury of distinguished scholars of early American history: Don Higginbotham, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina; Philip D. Morgan, Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University; and Barbara Oberg, Senior Research Historian at Princeton University and General Editor of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson.
"Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton is a magnificent achievement, bringing new life to an often-overlooked founder and restating how essential the Washington-Hamilton partnership was to the creation of the republic," said Ted Widmer, Director of the C. V. Starr Center at Washington College. "This is a most worthy first recipient of the George Washington Book Prize."
In his remarks during the award ceremony at Washington's historic estate, Chernow surprised the audience by announcing that his next project would focus on the prize's namesake. The careers of Hamilton and Washington were closely intertwined.
During the Revolutionary War, Alexander Hamilton served under Washington as an artillery captain and military aide-de-camp. In the early days of the republic, Hamilton was George Washington's top policymaker, giving shape to the first federal government. The principal author of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton would write up to five or six essays a week. A member of the Constitutional Convention and the first Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton went on to oversee the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the forerunner of today's Federal Reserve.
His accomplishments are all the more astonishing when one understands Hamilton's difficult upbringing, as well as his early death at 49. Born illegitimate, and orphaned at age 12, Hamilton was just a teenager when he began working at a trading house on St. Croix. Clearly intelligent and driven to achieve, he attracted the attention of patrons who recognized his potential and sent him to New York to be educated. While still a student at King's College, Hamilton caught the revolutionary fever.
According to Chernow, "Hamilton was a quintessentially American type who created himself through what he read. He was a fanatic for self-improvement, and he retained everything he learned along the way."
The Founding Father considered to be the forebear of modern America, Alexander Hamilton understood that political power is predicated on financial power. Still, Chernow says, "Hamilton's accomplishments would have been inconceivable without George Washington."
We invited Chernow to talk about the significance of the Washington Book Prize, the relationship between Hamilton and Washington, and the renaissance of interest in the Founding Fathers.
Were you at all surprised to win the first George Washington Book Prize, for a book about Alexander Hamilton?
I was surprised to be nominated, for the simple reason that I didn't know the award existed. I felt more than a little humble being nominated in the company of Gordon Wood and Rhys Isaac because they are two of the really prominent names in the field, senior to myself, and have dedicated their careers to the 18th century.
I was not trained as an historian; I have two degrees in English literature. Thirty-five years ago, I thought I was headed toward a brilliant career as novelist and literary critic. I spent a lot of years polishing my fiction, but I was consistently discouraged every time I wrote fiction, and consistently encouraged every time I wrote nonfiction. What I discovered in my 30s in writing history was that I reacted to real people and events with the emotional intensity a true novelist has to his or her creations. Sitting in the library doing research, these figures became so alive in my imagination. I thought, this must be how it feels when you're writing fiction; the characters take up residence in your imagination.
What attracted you to George Washington as subject matter for a new biography?
I am fascinated with George Washington for a number of reasons. George Washington as seen through the eyes of Alexander Hamilton was a very different person from the one I encountered in other history books. He is no less great a figure, but more emotional and temperamental. Washington came alive to me in a very full way, seen through Hamilton's respectful but critical eyes.
Describe their relationship.
The two men perfectly complemented each other. Washington was our greatest politician, but not our greatest policymaker; Hamilton was our greatest policymaker, but not our greatest politician. Washington had everything that was necessary to complete Hamilton's career. Still, it was not quite a perfect marriage. There was less emotional intimacy. And it was not really a father/son relationship. Hamilton was too headstrong to play the eternal son, even though George Washington would have played the eternal father.
Ron Chernow, pictured here accepting the George Washington Book Prize at Mount Vernon, will visit campus in September
You may have heard about the results of a poll we conducted before Washington's birthday, noting his slip in the consciousness of the American people. What do you make of that?
It saddens and astonishes me that Washington of all people is becoming something of a forgotten person. It shows a worrisome lack of knowledge of American history. While I admire all the founding fathers, Washington was the only indispensable person. If I were to rank them, Hamilton would come in second. In history, there is usually someone in the wings who could have done the job, but maybe not as brilliantly. Then there are certain people who perform a certain function that no one else could. Only George Washington could have kept the Continental Army together and embodied the spirit of a nation that hardly knew it existed. He personified the country.
I was tremendously struck writing the Hamilton biography that in spite of the Founding Fathers' fear of factions, after 1789, American politics very quickly degenerated into partisan backbiting, even more than we see today. The one person who transcended that was George Washington. Hamilton, however much I love him, was swept up in that party backstabbing as much as Jefferson and Madison. Nobody other than Washington was immune to it. In retrospect, this is a feat no less great than his leadership of the Continental Army. It was not a foregone conclusion that the country would survive. With fears ranging from civil war to the secession of states to foreign subversion, it was not foreordained that the country would last. Washington gave us those two critical terms of stability and prosperity we needed to get the country going. We historians have our work cut out for us in terms of disseminating news of Washington that used to be common knowledge.
What particular challenges does Washington pose to modern historians?
It's become more difficult for modern audiences to understand him. The idea of a politician who rises above politics is tough for people to fathom. He represented the gentlemanly ideal—conduct that today seems old-fashioned and stuffy. When I decided to do the Hamilton book in 1998, before David McCullough published John Adams, books on the Founding Fathers were risky business in the publishing world. These books had not sold as well as books on the Civil War and World War II. Why is that? Founding-era figures stood on the other side of a cultural divide from us. It's harder for people to identify with them. The dress and appearance and powdered wigs create a misleading impression that these people were quaint or genteel, and much less interesting. The very opposite is true—they were warriors and revolutionaries. It is more difficult for readers to feel a direct emotional connection when reading about an age before photographs, which is why we're lucky that we're going through a golden age of historical writing. In earlier generations it was mostly an academic monopoly. Now we have quite a number of talented writers, both popular and academic, doing very engaging books about Washington and the other founders that are reaching a broader audience.
Why is it important that today's readers understand the historical figures who helped shape our country?
It's important that we understand these figures not only for whatever inspiration we can derive from them, but because we as a country are experiencing a moment in history when we are debating those same fundamental issues—issues that require our knowledge of the founding documents and institutions that still define what we can and cannot do as a nation, and what we are. There is an urgent practical necessity to understand the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The fundamental nature of checks and balances is now at the center of current debate.
Politicians of both parties tend to invoke the founders to support their particular viewpoint. Yet the founders were scarcely of one mind. Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on almost nothing. While Hamilton was for an independent judiciary, for instance, Jefferson thought the judiciary should bow to the will of Congress. We go back to the founders as a way of enriching our own debate. They thought deeply about these issues, and they were certainly great minds in American history.
How do you foresee the George Washington Book Prize influencing the study and writing of history?
Right now we're going through a vogue for books on the founders. At this moment, the need for a prize to stimulate scholarship and reading in this field might not seem imperative. The nice thing about this prize, and its endowment, is that it will guarantee an audience for well-written and important books about this era. I can easily imagine a time when the Founding Fathers will go out of vogue, and this will put the spotlight on them again. For the general reading public, it will help to stimulate interest in good books on the founding era. I think that the institutions that started this prize would like to spotlight books of distinction that the intelligent lay reader can pick up and enjoy. It's nice to think one can straddle that line between academic and popular histories.
What else remains to be said of George Washington?
When I was working on the Hamilton book, everyone said I wouldn't find anything new. Yet I did find 50 new articles and essays. So I have not ruled out the possibility of finding new material. With Washington it will be harder, but sometimes it's just a question of looking places no one else has looked.
Three of our best historians have recently tackled George Washington: Joseph Ellis with His Excellency, David McCullough in 1776 and David Hackett Fischer with Washington's Crossing. It may be significant that they largely focused only on single moments in Washington's life. I had the luxury with Hamilton to read his papers through—all 22,000 pages. That's physically impossible with Washington's papers. The new edition of Washington's papers may total 90 volumes. Who can possibly wade through it all? But as a biographer, I want to give a full picture of Washington.
So many who knew Washington when he was alive referred to his immensely charismatic personality. I would really like to capture and dramatize that. In many Washington books, the early years tend to be more exciting than his years in office. I may have a special advantage in dealing with Washington's later years because of my experience writing Alexander Hamilton. I understand the political dynamics that tie Washington more directly to his administration. And I know the cast of characters fairly well at this point. w
Marcia Landskroener, managing editor of the Washington College Magazine, is spending her summer with Alexander Hamilton.
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782