History tends to cast the early years of America in a glow of camaraderie when there were, in fact ,many conflicts between the Founding Fathers - none more important than the one between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Their disagreement centered on the highest, most original public office created by the Constitutional Convention: the presidency. It also involved the nation's foreign policy, the role of merchants and farmers in a republic, and the durability of the union. At its root were two sharply different visions of the nation's future.
Acclaimed historian Thomas Fleming examines how the differing characters and leadership styles of Washington and Jefferson shaped two opposing views of the presidency - and the nation. This clash profoundly influenced the next two centuries of America's history and persists in the present day.
©2015 Thomas Fleming (P)2015 Audible Inc.
I am an avid eclectic reader.
Thomas Fleming is an author I have not read in the past five plus years. In the past I have read a number of his books both non-fiction and fiction. I have even had correspondence with him regarding one of his books in the past. I have always enjoyed Fleming’s passion for history.
The basic debate between Washington and Jefferson is still an ongoing debate today on the role of government. Fleming states Washington beliefs came out of the problems he had as head of the Army, the problems of funding the Army and the country at the time. Therefore he preferred a strong federal government that could provide a strong military defense for the country and a strong financial foundation for the country. On the other hand, Jefferson preferred a confederation of states instead of a national government.
Fleming paints Washington as the practical farmer and dynamic leader and Jefferson as the dreaming idealist who failed to lead and left the country at the end of his tenure as president, in debt, without income, without an army, and on the verge of war with Britain over a trade embargo.
The book is well written, lightly documented but with the clean, snappy prose that Fleming is noted for. I enjoyed reading the book and dissecting Fleming’s views but I wonder if Jefferson was quite as scatter-brained as Fleming paints him. David Rapkin narrated the book.
I thought this would be a fair comparison of Washington and Jefferson. Instead it is nothing but a slam on Jefferson and a book of praise on Washington. Of course Washington is deserving of this praise. I don't deny that. But to say just about everyone of Jefferson's policies were anti-Washington and a detriment to the American people is a little crazy. The author actually states that Jefferson's embargo that caused dismay in Massachusetts is a root cause for the civil war. Really a root cause for the civil war ? This book is nothing but a slam on Jefferson. I'm guessing to jump on the anti-Jefferson bandwagon and to sell copies of his book.
On a better note the narration was very good.
Wow is this terrible history. I find the originators of the US Government to be fascinating individuals, multi-faceted and complex. Thomas Fleming, on the other hand, seems to view the founding fathers as political footballs, to be deflated and inflated at will. Jefferson, in this treatment, comes across as a sociopathic madman without a shred of consistency or credibility. Even in McCullough's John Adams, where Jefferson is something of a villain, the historical icon comes across as more interesting and genuine.
This author treats absences as evidence, and runs with omissions regardless of supporting evidence. I'm sad that I've spent several weeks of driving trying to listen to this.
The author provides a LOT of historical information regarding both Washington and Jefferson that aren't generally provided in even a college level American history class. However, the author is also clearly vitriolic regarding Jefferson. Instead of providing the contrast between a very "libertarian" type view of government as espoused by Jefferson and a more centrist view of Federalism by Washington, the author ascribes to Jefferson an almost pathologically anarchistic position. It's clear from the writing that the author prefers Federalism with a president who is strong rather than a president who merely is the figurehead for Congress, but he allows no middle ground.
A more dispassionate view of both the "Federalist" and "anti federalist' positions of these two presidents would have provided a more balanced historical view of how these two shaped the country that is the United States. Jefferson certainly was not without his conflicts and hypocrisies, and his views of majority rule (no matter what), but he was hardly pathological. Conversely, Washington, who favored a very strong Central Federalism, is portrayed as without flaw, which would have been unique in the annals of humanity.
The narrator doesn't portray a character, but his narration is clear, understandable and sustained well throughout this book. It never seems "too long" and he clearly portrays the author's position regarding Washington and Jefferson.
I hope to find some additional in depth views of both Washington and Jefferson - by other writers who both concur and differ with Fleming's position in favor of Federalism and Washington over Jefferson.
well worth the purchase.
The inherent conflict lives on between the executive and the legislative branch to this very day. If you are a knee-jerk lover of Jefferson you will probably hate this book. If you think Washington was merely a puppet of his 'evil' advisor, Hamilton, you will probably hate this book. But, if you want to understand why the revolutionary generation revered Washington and why posterity, those generations who came of age under the Virginians Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, dismissed him - read this book. The narrator, however, leaves much to be desired.
Story is well - researched. I've read many of the other authors quoted in this work, but he does a very good job of the timing and juxtaposition between Washington, and Jefferson.
Furthermore, this is yet another work that further ensconces my feeling and opinions of some of the key players.
Excellent narration. I'm very happy with Rapkin's job narrating. After listening to several books narrated by Scott Brick, I thought I'd never find any other narrator that didn't annoy me. I'd become spoiled with excellent narration!
Rapkin does fantastic however. In fact well enough I'll seek out books he's narrated.
Overall, we'll done.
I value history for what it teaches, but had not developed a passion as some do. Only when my curiosity led me to wonder about the who and how of my country's birth to blossom ideas for a speculative story I was writing, did I listen closely in awe. Well done on every level.
Love a good mystery.
I enjoyed the book and learned a lot about many charactors, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, that shaped our country. alot of the content was not taught in history classes
Report Inappropriate Content