A FREE COPY from NET GALLEY to review

Although not quite as good as his earlier work on Sherman, this is by far above the norm in this genre. Lots of familiar ground is covered but in a way that kept me turning. Especially his emphasis and insight into GB not commissioning Washington, what great events turn on such small details

When truth be told so many heroes are exposed the author gives a compelling case that Washington was truly a leader that was a cut above and perhaps sent by One above also. Good reading.

A well researched exploration of the military side of the American Icon. While it isn't the first to do this it is one of the best

The author's painstaking research and attention to detail is obvious in the writing of this book. There were many facts that I only discovered after reading this!

Historian Robert O’Connell is also the author of “Fierce Patriot: The Tangled Lives of William Tecumseh Sherman,” which I thought was the best and most balanced biography of Sherman that I have yet read.

In this book, O’Connell applies an analogous reconsideration of George Washington and his importance to the American Revolution.

O’Connell argues that the American Revolution should be viewed not in the rosy glow of sanitized history, but as the radical movement it was: one, according to O’Connell’s description, sounds a lot like some aspects of the current political climate: that is, it was characterized by inflammatory and provocative strains of populism fueled by dangerous rhetoric, rather than, as many histories would have it, the restrained tones of the European Enlightenment. Moreover, at least half of early colonists, the author points out, were illiterate, and heard only what they wanted to hear. They were “credulous and impulsive,” and apt to be persuaded by conspiracy theories.

O’Connell also makes the astute observation that British authorities lived in such a different reality than did the colonists, that their actions were increasingly inappropriate and counterproductive, without their awareness of how or why. When armed confrontations ensued, the British Army, called redcoats for their uniforms, didn’t help matters. Far away from home, they didn’t always behave well. O’Connell observes that the arrival of redcoats was often accompanied by burning, looting, and rape. All of these actions, bruited in colonial newspapers, writes O’Connell, “kept the revolutionary fires burning.”

It is here that the role of Washington became so important. Without his insistence on decorum, discipline, and moderation, the American Revolution may have well devolved into the morass of violence that characterized the late stages of many other revolutions, including that of France, very much in the minds of Americans of that time. The main reason the American Revolution did not degenerate into mass slaughter, argues O’Connell, can be summarized in two words: George Washington.

O’Connell shows that in every revolution that did not turn into an internecine bloodbath, it was because of the domination of “a towering individual.” He cites the influential roles of Vaclav Havel, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, adding that “George Washington was the archetype for this brand of leadership.”

How, O’Connell wondered, did Washington become that man, one who could tame and guide the Revolution? One big factor, he claims, was that Washington wanted to be considered a member of the elite gentry, and strove to behave in that way at all times. He was very conscious of his image and his legacy, and endeavored to shape it and construct the record about it. To that end, notes O’Connell, Washington was “utterly self-controlled, secretive, indirect, and ultimately strategic.”

(His adherence to the social system he wanted so much to dominate did have unfortunate effects on his generalship, the author points out. He was more apt to favor and promote perceived social equals without talent than those he considered beneath his station, no matter their skills. Daniel Morgan, for instance, now recognized as one of the most gifted battlefield tacticians of the Revolution, was undervalued by Washington.)

O’Connell also credits many of Washington’s achievements to his extraordinary luck. He regularly and literarily dodged bullets for much of his life. He also had far more physical grace and strength than many of his peers, which served him well throughout his life. He was a quick learner and a master of detail. And he had no end of chutzpah, in part a reflection of his towering ambition. These factors enabled him to reach the very pinnacle of American society.

Evaluation: O’Connell is an excellent storyteller. Reading history by him is akin to reading an exciting adventure novel, but one in which you are able to learn a lot, not only about real historical figures, but about their eras and the battles in which they fought. This book, offering a new reconsideration of a familiar figure, is eminently readable and consistently interesting.
Any of O’Connell’s books are highly recommended for those who might otherwise eschew reading history.

I received this ARC from Random House and NetGalley in exchange for an impartial review. This is an interesting twist on George Washington and the American Revolution. The author looks at the subjects as revolutionists and compares them to other revolutions and revolutionary figures. Rather that a complete history of General Washington, the author concentrates on his childhood and military career. Washington from a young age dreamed of becoming a soldier. The book deals extensively with his military career in both the French and Indian War and especially during the American Revolution. It took me a while to get into the book and to warm to the authors viewpoint, but I enjoyed his discussion of the Revolution. He discusses the central role of George Washington in both the success of the Revolution and it preventing it from turning into the bloodbath that was the French Revolution and other revolutions throughout history. Washington was always a calming influence in preventing the bloody excesses that define other revolutions.

Especially revealing to me were the author’s view that the British had lost the Revolution from the start and never had a chance of winning. This view was based on his belief that the British were wrong in their belief that the revolutionary spirit in American was only felt among a handful of revolutionary leaders and not the general populous. He does an excellent job of proving this British belief wrong and that in spite of their victories on the battlefield, they were failing miserably in gaining the hearts and mind of the citizens. And without that they never had a chance of success.

One reason for this failure that astounded me, was the extent of the abusive behavior of the British military. I knew about the bitter conflict in the South between the Patriot and Tory factions, but I never knew of the atrocities committed by the British throughout the Colonies. Any chance they had of gaining the support of the populous was lost by this poor behavior. It was surprising to me to learn the extent of looting and rapes committed and the British forces. It was to Washington’s great credit that he strictly forbid this type of vengeful reprisal by American soldiers and this kept the public opinion battle firmly on the side of the Colonists.

Overall this was a fascinating look George Washington and the American Revolution, and especially at Washington’s primary role in the success of the war and the remarkable government that was formed. The America that we know never would have existed without George Washington.

Not quite what I expected. While this book did shed a different light on a few aspects of Washington's life, there were some issues with the writing that I have problems with. The author uses terminology that is somewhat trendy but inappropriate for the late eighteenth century. There is no reason to overuse the term 'rage militaire' as much as he does. My biggest issue is with the author's use of the initials 'GW' when refering to George Washington throughout the book. That works fine in a John Wayne movie but not in a Washington biography.