George Washington’s “Yelp Reviews”
daily.jstor.org
daily.jstor.org
David McCullough has several tremendous US history books, including John Adams, 1776, The Wright Brothers, The Path Between the Seas.
http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/
the American revolution starts here: http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/2014/02/017-the-new-world....
It explains the roots of Washington's incredible ambition and some of his worst decisions, and contrasts them against his amazing decision to not assume the throne in the immediate post-war period, even at a crucial point: when his army needed him to and actually painted him into a corner to force him to do so, and when the nascent Republic was crumbling and he could have taken the reins with the best of intentions and restored order after a bitter and divisive war. That he didn't assume power, even for a 'short' period, is simply astounding.
I also enjoyed Washington's Secret Six, about his (even today) little-known spy ring and how they communicated, even in the midst of fashionable (Tory/loyalist/pro-British) New York society at the time. Capture would mean torture, imprisonment, and likely execution as a spy, even in the civilized world of the eighteenth century. The opsec and infosec that they practiced was, well, revolutionary. (ahem)
It's also amazing that Washington, after serving as a Colonel in His Majesty's army, was effectively a traitor against the King and so would have probably been executed had the Revolutionary War been lost, and yet it's obvious that he was never fighting for his own life: he was fearless. He was fighting for something greater.
He was keen and only attached when necessary. Playing the long game against the British that "prolonged the American Revolutionary War by years" was a winning strategy. Better to take a long time to win than to loose quickly.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de_1.ht...
> Political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita of NYU and co-author of The Spoils of War talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how presidents go to war. Bueno de Mesquita argues that the decision of how and when to go to war is made in self-interested ways rather than in consideration of what is best for the nation. The discussion includes a revisionist perspective on the presidencies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and others as Bueno de Mesquita tries to make the case that the reputations of these men are over-inflated.
To understand the USA, and modern politics in general, I find it very helpful to know a little bit of Roman history. The US were deliberately moulded by the very knowledgeable founders as a revised and improved version of the classical Roman republic. The attempt was wildly successful, and measured by most any metric it widely beats the performance of the original system.
There is one crucial point to the original Roman republic: it was founded by aristocrats who were fiercely jealous of their liberty and equality to each other. Their collegial Senate ruled since they killed their king around 509 BC, until they killed Julius Caesar some 465 years later - republicans have this 'sic semper tyrannis' thing for assassinating monarchs.
A second point is that republicans have a tight lock on the perception of the advertised virtue of their system. Whether it is actually better for the plebs, or the whole of society, to be ruled by a senate or a monarch is never to be left in doubt.
Augustus craftily shoved the monarchical empire down the aristocrats' throats by claiming the whole time that he was merely making the republic function as intended. However the immediate successors had a tougher time, and were quite probably historically smeared by senators who resorted to pens instead of swords.
The well-educated of the time were taught classics, so yes, Romans had an influence, as did the Greeks. They were protestants, more of a deist nature, but protestants. So there's that influence. Wars of religion were recent for them. Up until 1776 or so, they considered themselves Englishmen. It was a time of great philosophical minds. You can't talk about the founding of the U.S. without talking about John Locke, for instance.
It's not that the Roman metaphor is completely inaccurate, it's that it's only a tiny slice of a very complex picture. Looking at the U.S. as some modern-day version of Rome can lead to all kinds of silliness. It's fun to do, sure, but best used very sparingly. It can lead to having all sorts of huge gaps in knowledge while assuring yourself that you understand the important parts of what happened.
That was the brilliant new technology part, with the "consent of the governed" and its production.
I was just going for the Cincinnatus, anti-monarchical, angle - why go to such lengths to avoid any appearance of autocratic power, or shred of desire for it. Not even imposing on important families - or favoring them with - a presidential visit.
(For another amusing story of president-elect travel, "Plums delivered nuts safely" is a good search. Coincidentally about a life that years later ended for the reasons mentioned.)