
George Washington’s “Yelp Reviews” - dbasedweeb
https://daily.jstor.org/george-washingtons-yelp-reviews/
======
Agentlien
This was an interesting endeavour and I have to say a good initiative by
someone who could have just stayed in luxury and not seen the realities of
most poor travellers.

~~~
ggg9990
Washington was an exceptional man who walked away from near-total power. It’s
only been done a few times in human history.

~~~
chris_wot
What would the best book be on him? I'm an Australian and my grasp of U.S.
history is, to be frank, almost non-existent.

~~~
sparky_z
I haven't read it yet (will soon), but I've heard nothing but good things
about the Ron Chernow biography. I'm reading his biography of Hamilton right
now, and I'm really impressed. I think he strikes just the right balance
between academic rigor and narrative storytelling.

~~~
jeremyvaught
Can confirm. I read them both last summer. Amazing people, fantastic writing.

~~~
chris_wot
Thanks, appreciate the info, I'll get the book and have a read.

------
sohkamyung
That was an entertaining read. Thanks for the link.

------
billfruit
Recently having read Gore Vidal's book 'Burr', Washington come out as a poor
military leader, whose terrible military decisions prolonged the American
Revolutionary War by years. In fact none of Washington, Jefferson or Hamilton
come out as people of virtue and character as per the book.

~~~
mc32
Not having read that book, I would say you have to consider the source and why
they might have come to those conclusions. Now, it's possible Gore is correct,
but then again, why are others incorrect in their assertion, if Gore is right?

------
B1FF_PSUVM
(I have a comment that may be relevant to some other observations here, but
mostly unrelated to the piece itself, amusing as it is.)

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.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
That is quite broad, and not related to the piece. I don't disagree with you,
but it sounds like you're wandering far afield to make some other point not
even close to where the article is going. Banging on your own drum as it were.

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.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> without talking about John Locke

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.)

