Quite obviously biased in favor of the first president and against the second through fifth, which is fine, except that it omits many relevant facts, seemingly only discussing events that back its cause and omitting others. It's as if the ghost of the long dead Federalist party has risen again and is attempting to defend itself. But there are reasons this party was the first American one to die, but these are never truly discussed, yet should have been if we are to understand its supposed greatness. In addition, a number of speculations and imputations that cannot be proven are made, often without making it clear exactly, their dubious nature. On the other hand, the book's almost month-by-month chronicle of the first four administrations is really helpful in understanding the whole context of what was happening at the time. It also digs out not a few interesting, though usually unimportant nuggets that other books don't. Just be sure that you have read other books about the period so that as you're reading you can mentally fill in the many lacunae.

The good:
- visits the details of all 4 of the first administrations
- often digs out minor nuggets that other books don't mention, e.g. John Marshall actually defended the clearly unconstitutional Sedition Act before he was on the SCOTUS
- takes a definite point of view

The bad:
- often omits important facts that would have provided a more balanced perspective
- speculates about motives and reactions that are not necessarily proven by the evidence, and does not state that these are such
- ignores the counter-arguments about its own planks, e.g. if the Federalists were so great, why did the party die out?
- mentions the work of other historians, but fails to footnote the references (despite many other footnotes)
- mostly ignores some important developments, e.g. Marbury v. Madison which gets only a paragraph
- continually uses the word "swatch" when it means 'swath" (generally poor editing)

Conclusion:
- worth reading, but not until you have read a number of other books on the topic so that you can spot the errors/omissions

Though the title promises an examination of the deepening divide between Washington and Jefferson after the revolution separated the colonies from Britain and established the republic, this is actually an examination of three lives, interactions, and philosophies: those of Washington, Jefferson, and James Madison.

Probably Fleming left Madison out of the title partly because the two juggernauts overshadow just about everyone else except possibly Lincoln, but also because Madison was always a follower. At first of both, and according to Fleming he was guilty of no little amount of weaseling as he complimented Washington, confided in him to be confided in in return, and then turned around and betrayed him to Jefferson, to whom he became devoted--disastrously, as Fleming endeavors to show.

Fleming is clearly comfortable in the period. He quotes from a wealth of primary sources, and he sketches the characters of the "founding fathers", bringing them and their passions into three-d focus. The book is immensely readable, even bringing to life subsidiary figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and a few of the wilder sorts like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.

Where it could be considered weak is in the increasing sense of partisanship as the tone becomes more snide when illustrating Jefferson's failures. Which were legion, even before Jefferson, in his retirement, set out to rewrite history, justifying his own errors and lauding his ideology and condemning Washington. Jefferson is referred to more than once as the "master of Monticello," and at the end, the "Unwashington." Then there are the asides refuting unnamed historians, especially toward the end when Fleming shifts to a long essay about the presidency, and how he views the legacies of Washington and Jefferson.

However, I hesitate to ding Fleming for his passionate side-taking; though historians are supposed to be objective, I tend to look askance at anyone claiming objectivity. Not a human trait! Fleming's prejudices are right out front, and anyone curious as to his conclusions can visit the extensive notes, and bibliography, to follow the tracks of his thinking.

Overall a vigorous reading experience; I find myself wanting to read more about his take on Washington, after I refresh myself with a reread of Flexner's monumental biography.

‘A conflict between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?’

According to this book by Thomas Fleming, there were many conflicts between the Founding Fathers about the role of government in the United States of America, and the most important of these was between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, respectively the first and third presidents of the United States of America, had very different views of the role of government and specifically of the presidency. In the introduction to this book, Mr Fleming writes that: ‘Washington was first, last and always a realist’, while ‘Jefferson tended to see men and events through the lense of a pervasive idealism.’

How did these differences in character and leadership style impact on the government of the fledgling nation, and do those differences still have an impact on the present? What is the role of government and how should presidential power be exercised?

Mr Fleming provides a detailed examination of the differences in leadership style between Washington and Jefferson, as well as the different experiences which they each bought to the presidency. Before I read this book, I knew that Washington was the general who led the colonies to freedom during the American War of Independence and was unanimously elected as the first President. I knew that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, had served as the United States Minister to France and as the first United States Secretary of State under President Washington before becoming the third president. I knew very little about either the fact or causes of the political differences between them.

In this book, Mr Fleming explains the development of the Constitution, which followed the Articles of Confederation approved by the Second Continental Congress. While achieving independence from Britain left the United States at peace, the structure of government was unsettled, its power weak. This appears to have been key to the development of Washington’s political ideology, favouring a strong federal government. Jefferson favoured the rights of the individual states. Although these differences clearly shaped their individual presidencies, they have also continued to have an impact on US politics since.

And is one model of presidency better than the other? Or have both models (in their different ways) strengthened the Union? Certainly, at the time the United States came into being, a more centralized model of government would seem (to me at least) more effective in addressing the challenges facing the new nation. But the needs of nations and the ways those needs are met can change over time.

I enjoyed reading this book and learning more about the differences between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington seemed more practical, and focussed on effective management as well as leadership, Jefferson more of a passionate idealist believing that inspiration would serve instead of management by government. Two very different men, two very different (but complementary) visions. Each wanting what he saw as best for the USA.

While my positive impression of George Washington (gleaned some decades ago) remains largely intact, Mr Fleming’s book makes me question aspects of Thomas Jefferson’s influence. I suspect that I’ll be doing some more reading about Thomas Jefferson in the future.

Note: My thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the opportunity to read an advance copy of this book.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith