Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington

by Peter R. Henriques Narrated by George Wilson

Overview

In Realistic Visionary the renowned George Washington scholar Peter Henriques seeks to humanize the first president without diminishing him. Henriques's Washington makes mistakes, is sensitive to criticism, and is slow to accept blame, but he is also the greatest man of his age, a relentless pragmatist who could nonetheless envision what a free and united America could be for "millions unborn."Rather than revisiting Washington's life in its entirety, Henriques constructs a biographical portrait by addressing the vital themes and events through which Washington the man is revealed. What emerge most clearly in Realistic Visionary are Washington's successful struggle to channel his monumental personal ambition into public service and his unrivaled ability to turn his ambitious visions for the fledgling nation into reality.

Editorial Reviews

Bookshelves buckle under the weight of biographies of George Washington, but noted scholar Peter Henriques's Realistic Visionary deserves special notice. This spare (256-page), erudite "portrait" doesn't attempt to retrace the entire life of Washington; rather, it concentrates on key themes and events that reveal the first president as he really was. As historian Joseph J. Ellis notes, the chapters on slavery and religion are especially beguiling and significant.

Publishers Weekly

In a short biography, Henriques (The Death of George Washington) weighs in on many debates surrounding America's first president. Born-again Christians like to claim that Washington was an evangelical, but Henriques says it wasn't so: the Virginia Anglican was sporadically involved in his local church, but he was not theologically "orthodox" and his interest in religion was "perfunctory." Henriques is extremely generous when describing his subject's attitudes toward slavery. While acknowledging that Washington owned slaves all his life, Henriques emphasizes the ways Washington's views on slavery evolved and insists that the master of Mount Vernon "be judged against the standards of his day, not ours." The women in Washington's life also come under scrutiny. Washington was happily married to Martha Dandridge Custis, but he may have carried a torch for his friend Sally Cary Fairfax. In a strained psychological argument, Henriques suggests that Washington "channeled" whatever "passions" he had for Fairfax into the founding of America. Throughout, the prose is clunky ("The story of... Washington and slavery has much material in it for those desiring to engage in the `ecstasy of sanctimony' "). And Henriques's ultimate conclusion-that Washington was a man of great character, always willing to do his duty, even when it cost him his privacy and an easy retirement-is anodyne. 15 b&w illus. (Apr.) Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.

Ron Chernow

Make space on the groaning shelf of Washington scholarship for a fine new volume. Peter Henriques has illuminated the often elusive first president by tackling some of the thorniest issues in his life—his religious views, his ambivalence toward slavery, his marriage to Martha, his ardor for Sally Fairfax, his friendship with Hamilton, his ultimate feud with Jefferson—and he has handled these delicate topics with such erudition, sound judgment, and penetrating insight that the reader comes to trust him as a valued guide on every page.

Joseph J. Ellis

A deeply thoughtful appraisal of Washington’s career and character. The chapters on slavery and religion are especially beguiling. Henriques’s approach allows him to zoom in on the most salient and controversial issues with a focused clarity not possible in a conventional biography

New York Times Book Review

[Henriques] is fair-minded and thoughtful, and because he possesses no other agenda than a desire to uncover the real man, he is convincing when he concludes that ‘if one defines "Christian" as the evangelicals do... George Washington cannot be properly referred to as a Christian.’

Booklist

Should Washington receive censure from posterity for being a slaveholder or approbation for freeing his slaves? Did he marry the richest widow in Virginia out of affection or avarice? Henriques opines as evidence allows (the Washingtons destroyed their correspondence), eliding from the speculative to the more concrete in addressing the better-documented public Washington.... Writing in straightforward style free of scholastic hairsplitting, Henriques helps meet the current fascination with Washington.

Blogcritics.Org

If you’re a fan of history, this is a quick, informative read that you’ll enjoy.

From the Publisher

"Should Washington receive censure from posterity for being a slaveholder or approbation for freeing his slaves? Did he marry the richest widow in Virginia out of affection or avarice? Henriques opines as evidence allows (the Washingtons destroyed their correspondence), eliding from the speculative to the more concrete in addressing the better-documented public Washington.... Writing in straightforward style free of scholastic hairsplitting, Henriques helps meet the current fascination with Washington. "—author of Booklist

"[Henriques] is fair-minded and thoughtful, and because he possesses no other agenda than a desire to uncover the real man, he is convincing when he concludes that ‘if one defines "Christian" as the evangelicals do... George Washington cannot be properly referred to as a Christian.’ "—author of New York Times Book Review

"A deeply thoughtful appraisal of Washington’s career and character. The chapters on slavery and religion are especially beguiling. Henriques’s approach allows him to zoom in on the most salient and controversial issues with a focused clarity not possible in a conventional biography "—Joseph J. Ellis, Mount Holyoke College, author of His Excellency: George Washington

"Make space on the groaning shelf of Washington scholarship for a fine new volume. Peter Henriques has illuminated the often elusive first president by tackling some of the thorniest issues in his life—his religious views, his ambivalence toward slavery, his marriage to Martha, his ardor for Sally Fairfax, his friendship with Hamilton, his ultimate feud with Jefferson—and he has handled these delicate topics with such erudition, sound judgment, and penetrating insight that the reader comes to trust him as a valued guide on every page. "—Ron Chernow, author of Alexander Hamilton

"If you’re a fan of history, this is a quick, informative read that you’ll enjoy. "—author of Blogcritics.Org

Booklist

Should Washington receive censure from posterity for being a slaveholder or approbation for freeing his slaves? Did he marry the richest widow in Virginia out of affection or avarice? Henriques opines as evidence allows (the Washingtons destroyed their correspondence), eliding from the speculative to the more concrete in addressing the better-documented public Washington.... Writing in straightforward style free of scholastic hairsplitting, Henriques helps meet the current fascination with Washington.

Product Details

BN ID:	2940169302820
Publisher:	Recorded Books, LLC
Publication date:	03/11/2008
Edition description:	Unabridged

Read an Excerpt

Realistic Visionary

A Portrait of George Washington

---

By Peter R. Henriques

University of Virginia Press

Copyright © 2006 University of Virginia Press
All right reserved.
ISBN: 0-8139-2547-9

---

Chapter One

His First Proving Ground

George Washington and the French and Indian War

If it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive.

-William Shakespeare

One of the most inspiring aspects of George Washington's life is the growth of the man. He was not, to cite Nathaniel Hawthorne, "born with his clothes on, and his hair powdered," nor did he make "a stately bow on his first appearance in the world." Although numerous traits prominent in the mature man are clearly evident, the George Washington of the French and Indian War was in many ways not the same man as the George Washington of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, it was the events of the earlier conflict that shaped his character and philosophy and thrust young Washington into the spotlight, thus setting the stage for him to emerge as the central and indispensable figure in the founding of America. It is a fascinating story, with its share of irony and tragedy, and it is perhaps the best place to begin the search for the flesh-and-blood figure of history. Lacking significant documentation, much of Washington's early life will remain forever shrouded in mystery and thus be particularly susceptible tomythical interpretations such as the young boy who destroyed his father's cherry tree and then brought him to ecstasy by boldly confessing to the act with the immortal words, "I can't tell a lie."

George Washington did not become America's greatest leader by chance. He was not randomly chosen like those lucky winners of the multimillion-dollar lotteries that seem to fascinate Americans with their promise of great success without great effort. Good fortune certainly played a role. As Thomas Jefferson noted, "Never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great." Time and time again, Washington was the right man at the right place at the right time. Yet, if good fortune was involved, George Washington had a great deal to do with the final result. He agreed with those who counseled that it is foolish to expect great results without great effort. Time was limited and not to be wasted. As he later advised his nephew, "every hour mispent is lost forever." George Washington was profoundly ambitious and eager for honor and glory, and his life cannot accurately be understood without grasping these fundamental and absolutely essential facts. In Paul Longmore's telling words, "Throughout his life, the ambition for distinction spun inside George Washington like a dynamo, generating the astounding energy with which he produced his greatest historical achievement, himself."

Both Great Britain and France, the two superpowers of the eighteenth century, claimed the Ohio Country west of the Allegheny Mountains and had vague ambitions for it, but until about the middle of the century, neither of the great powers was in a position to assert control over the area. The driving force in Virginia was a group of expansionists centered in the Northern Neck, part of the vast section of Virginia north of the Rappahannock River controlled by Thomas 6th Lord Fairfax. Members of the Fairfax, Lee, Washington, and Mason families combined with powerful merchants in London and, enlisting the aid of the future governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, formed a new land company, the Ohio Company. In 1749, the company was awarded a grant of 500,000 acres of land, contingent upon its building a fort and settling a number of families there within a specified period of time.

Knowing France also claimed the territory, Dinwiddie, now acting governor, sought permission and advice from the home government on how to best proceed against her and received the authorization he sought: "You are to require of Them peaceably to depart ... & if, notwithstanding Your Admonitions, They do still endeavour to carry on any such unlawfull and unjustifiable Designs, We do hereby strictly charge, & command You, to drive them off by Force of Arms." After receiving this green light in mid-October of 1753, Dinwiddie needed an envoy to carry the message to the French, as well as to ascertain their intentions for the region.

With the advantage of historical hindsight, we can see that George Washington's appointment as Dinwiddie's emissary was one of the decisive moments of his entire life. At first glance, he would seem to be an unlikely candidate for such an important mission. He was only twenty-one years old, spoke no French, and had no diplomatic experience. Yet, there were several points in his favor. He was a surveyor with some knowledge and experience of Virginia west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and he possessed the physique and strength to undergo the difficult and dangerous journey. While certainly not among the first rank of the gentry, he was of gentry standing, and Dinwiddie, having formed a favorable impression of him, had earlier appointed him a major in the militia and adjutant general for southern Virginia. Perhaps most importantly, Washington had the firm support of his major patron, William Fairfax of Belvoir, one of Governor Dinwiddie's most influential councilors. It was Colonel Fairfax who almost certainly alerted him to the opportunity. Washington, who soon professed, "My inclinations are strongly bent to arms," jumped at the chance to enhance his reputation and "offered himself to go" as the Governor's envoy.

Aided by Christopher Gist, an experienced frontiersman who knew the art of the forest, and a few servants and Indians, Washington's winter journey to deliver Dinwiddie's letter to the commandant of the French forces in the Ohio Country at Fort Le Boeuf near Lake Erie contained material for future legends. Braving terrible weather, almost unbearably cold temperatures, intractable forests, uncertain Indian allies, and French resistance if not outright treachery, Washington survived an apparent assassination attempt by an Indian guide and the capsizing of his raft into the freezing Allegheny River. He reported to the Governor in January of 1754 that the French totally rejected Great Britain's claims and were making plans to seize the still vacant but critical forks of the Ohio River (present-day Pittsburgh). In the words of Washington's journal, "They told me it was their absolute Design to take Possession of the Ohio, & by G<2m> they would do it." His journal was soon published to considerable acclaim in both America and Great Britain. The House of Burgesses awarded him a sizable bonus of fifty pounds as an expression of their appreciation for his difficult undertaking. Suddenly, George Washington was becoming noteworthy.

The advanced stage of French preparations (Washington had counted well over two hundred canoes ready to ferry men and supplies) induced Dinwiddie to move quickly. He desired to send a group of workmen to build a fort at the forks of the Ohio and also to raise a sufficient military force to protect it from the hostile French. Such designs cost money, and Dinwiddie was hard pressed to win support from the General Assembly. Already angered at Dinwiddie for other reasons, many Burgesses argued over whether the effort was primarily aimed at helping the Ohio Company, whether the disputed land belonged to Pennsylvania instead of Virginia, and even whether the French posed a serious threat to basic Virginia interests. Young George Washington was not among the doubters. The chance to advance the interests of Great Britain, Virginia, and the Ohio Company, to deal a blow to the hated French, and, perhaps most significantly, a chance to advance his own position and perhaps win great honor in the process was irresistible. Words of Shakespeare's Henry V are applicable to Washington: "If it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive."

Honor and glory would not come easily. Ordered to Alexandria in January of 1754 to organize a small force of soldiers to march to the forks of the Ohio, Washington found little enthusiasm for the enterprise and slim pickings for the troops. He quickly informed the Governor, "We daily Experience the great necessity for Cloathing the Men, as we find the generallity of those who are to be Enlisted, are of those loose, Idle Persons that are quite destitute of House, and Home, and I may truely say many of them of Cloaths.... There is many of them without Shoes, other's want Stockings, some are without Shirts, and not a few that have Scarce a Coat, or Waistcoat, to their Backs; in short, they are as illy provided as can well be conceiv'd." He commented on what a difficult task it was to "manage a number of selfwill'd, ungovernable People," a theme he would return to on numerous occasions.

Despite the difficulties, Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, marched his motley band of soldiers to Winchester toward the Ohio River, where work on the fort was already under way. To his great frustration, when he arrived at Winchester, the promised wagons and teamsters were nowhere to be found. Considering the nature of the emergency, he took matters into his own hands. The lengths to which he was willing to go are indicated by a warrant for his arrest, issued by the Frederick County Clerk on April 15, 1754, on charges of trespassing. After failing to serve the warrant, the sheriff noted on its reverse side that "the within named George Washington would not be taken. He kept me off by force of arms."

Washington soon learned of a significant new development. The French forces had advanced from their northern strongholds in sufficient strength to take control of the vital forks of the Ohio River, although they allowed the beleaguered workmen to return unharmed to Virginia. (The French quickly built a significant fort there and named it Fort Duquesne after their governor of Canada.) Eschewing a cautious approach, which the changed circumstances warranted, the callow young officer proceeded toward the fort, seemingly eager to engage the French. It is unclear what Washington hoped to accomplish by pressing his men forward toward the Ohio River. Perhaps a contemporary critic had it right: It resulted from his "being too ambitious of acquiring all the honour, or as much as he could, before the rest joined him." His rash decision was to have unforeseen consequences.

The Jumonville Affair and Washington's later capitulation at Fort Necessity shed the first blood of what would become known as the Seven Years' War, which is referred to more commonly in America as the French and Indian War. As Sir Horace Walpole, the diarist and son of the late prime minister, noted, "The volley fired by a young Virginian in the backwoods of America set the world on fire." In one of history's greatest ironies, that young Virginian ended up being the most famous and revered man of the entire age. In the long term, his volley triggered truly epic events-the removal of France from North America, the American War for Independence, and the French Revolution. In the short term, the ensuing events revealed just how much George Washington had to learn in conducting military operations.

His small party of Indian allies, led by Tanacharison, called Half King by the British, soon discovered a French party of about thirty-five men camped not far away. Without knowing their intentions and despite the fact that Great Britain and France were officially at peace, Washington gave the order to attack! The clash at Jumonville Glen, named for the commander of this small French party, occurred on May 28, 1754. Not surprisingly, there are conflicting accounts of what happened in the brief skirmish that was Washington's baptism by fire. Also not surprising, the French, caught completely unaware, were quickly subdued. Apparently, Jumonville was wounded and captured, asserting as best he could in view of the language barrier that he was on a diplomatic mission, not a military one. His efforts were brutally cut short when the French-speaking Tanacharison, in an effort to bind his tribe irrevocably to the British, tomahawked and scalped him and then ceremoniously washed his hands with Jumonville's brains! It appears that other wounded prisoners were also scalped before Washington, most likely appalled at what he had just witnessed, was able to reassert control. The historian Fred Anderson asserts that the massacre of the wounded, mentioned in some primary sources, is completely ignored by Washington, but in fact Washington did alert the governor to Indian atrocities: "There were 5, or 6 other Indian, who servd to knock the poor unhappy wounded in the head and beriev'd them of their Scalps." This would help explain the unusually high ratio of dead to wounded reported to Governor Dinwiddie. Washington declared ten Frenchmen were killed and only one was wounded, while normally in such clashes the wounded significantly outnumbered the dead.

Whatever private misgivings or doubts Washington may have had, his public pronouncements were defensive and arrogant, and privately, he seemed excited by the thrill of battle. He confided to his favorite brother, Jack, "I heard Bulletts whistle and believe me there was something charming in the sound." He further boasted to Governor Dinwiddie, "If the whole Detach[men]t of the French behave with no more Risolution than this chosen Party did I flatter myself we shall have no g[rea]t trouble in driving them to ... Montreal." He certainly did flatter himself. These were the boastful words of a young and inexperienced leader with little sense of the realities he was facing.

Jumonville was a French diplomat, and, in the eyes of the French, had been on a mission comparable to Washington's. Now he had been wantonly murdered and the French vowed revenge. Washington's augmented but still small force of several hundred men soon found themselves holed up in a quickly constructed fort, aptly named Fort Necessity, facing a combined French and Indian force of about seven hundred men led by Jumonville's irate brother. Catastrophe loomed. Perhaps seeing the course of events more clearly than Washington, his Indian allies deserted. By the end of the first day of the Battle at Great Meadows, more than a third of Washington's men lay dead or wounded, and the little fort was flooded by torrential rain. Colonel Washington had every reason to expect his own life might end the next day (July 4th) when the French stormed his inadequate bastion.

Rather than storming the fort, however, the French were willing to parley. Fearful that reinforcements were close by, the French commander decided to seek Washington's sword rather than his life. He offered to allow Washington and his men to capitulate and return to Virginia if Washington signed a document agreeing the French had mounted the attack only to avenge the assassination of their minister, Jumonville. The document was in French, the night was rainy, and the translator, a Dutchman by the name of Jacob van Braam, was less than perfectly fluent in French. Nevertheless, in signing the document, Washington unwittingly gave the French a great diplomatic and propaganda victory, for essentially he admitted that he, not the French, had initiated the conflict. In the words of one Frenchman, "There is nothing more unworthy and lower and even blacker, than the sentiments and the way of thinking of this Washington.... he lies a great deal in order to justify the assassination of Sieur Jumonville which ... he had the stupidity to confess.... It would have been a pleasure to read his outrageous journal under his very nose." A British writer mourned that Washington's signing of the articles of capitulation was "the most infamous a British subject ever put his hand to." Stung by the harsh criticism, the young major, who was inordinately sensitive to criticism and strongly blame-aversive, declared in his own defense, "That we were wilfully, or ignorently, deceived by our interpreter to the word, assassination, I do aver, and will to my dying moment" (emphasis in the original). (Many years later, in 1787, he wrote some remarks on a proposed biography by his aide, Colonel David Humphreys. In them, he described Jumonville's party as an advance "detachment to reconnoitre our Camp to obtain intelligence of our strength & position" prior to the attack on Fort Necessity with a force that he now recollected as consisting of fifteen hundred men. In his comments, he conveniently ignored the fact that his attack on Jumonville precipitated the French assault on Fort Necessity.)

Whatever the facts, the war had begun. Officials in Great Britain decided they could not allow the French to control the forks of the Ohio and thus sent over two regiments of British regulars under the command of General Edward Braddock to do what Washington and his ragtag force of colonials had been unable to do. The British were dangerously overconfident. As Fred Anderson notes, "It was a madly ambitious plan approved by men studying maps in London unaware that their ignorance of American geography, politics, and military capacities had foredoomed it to failure."

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Realistic Visionary by Peter R. Henriques Copyright © 2006 by University of Virginia Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Videos