Scan barcode
A review by sherwoodreads
The Great Divide: The Conflict between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation by Thomas Fleming
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.
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.