Customer Reviews

In the Name of the Father: Washington's Legacy, Slavery, and the Making of a Nation

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER is a public rendering of the author's doctoral dissertation, "Civic Texts, Slavery, and the Formation of American Nationalism." The original title gives a much more accurate picture of the book's contents than does the title created for public consumption. Having begun with this reference to Furstenberg's dissertation, it may be appropriate to add that much of the text still reads like an academic dissertation, and the occasional dryness of the presentation may be perceived as a significant weakness by the general reader. The study of history need not be dull, but parts of this book are just not, shall we say, inspirational.

Another weakness for me was the occasional reference to a formative event or social movement with which I was unfamiliar and which was not explained, leaving the reference more frustrating than instructional. Several references to the Scottish Enlightenment are a case in point, but then perhaps I am the only reader who remains unenlightened concerning that event. Every now and then, Furstenberg also offers the reader an opportunity to expand his or her vocabulary. I know I've seen the word "teleological" before, but it's a valid example of some of the usages that sent me scurrying to the lexicon. The display of erudition in academic dissertations does not always translate to comprehension in a popular history book.

Of greater concern is that the general reader may believe he or she understands several terms that appear frequently and which are central to the author's presentation, but which have very specific, uncommon definitions as Furstenberg employs them. These include "nationalism," "republican," and even "autonomous." Unless the reader consults the extensive notes section at the end of the book, there is significant opportunity to misinterpret what one is reading. While inappropriate in a dissertation, explanatory footnotes on the page where such words first appear in their specialized meaning would have been helpful.

On the other hand, there is a fair amount of fascinating information to be gleaned from the book. I did enjoy learning the origin of the obviously fictitious myth of young Washington's chopping down his father's cherry tree. The fact that Jefferson argued that every aspect of the Federal government and its laws should terminate and be reformulated by the people every generation, which he defined as a span of nineteen years, must have escaped all of my public school and university history books! Madison's more pragmatic approach of "tacit assent" by the people--and even the fact that "consent of the governed" was a matter of serious debate in the 18th century--were never addressed in my educational experience. I'm glad to have that tidbit added to my understanding of the formation of American government. How 18th and 19th century schoolbooks and home almanacs inculcated morality and personal responsibility in people and how that was felt to be necessary if they were to give their tacit consent to being governed is an equally significant concept.

An interesting note on the ability of humankind to interpret beliefs to suit their purposes also appears. The concept of personal responsibility that was part and parcel of the civic texts included the firm belief that one chose one's destiny through one's behavior, application to serious pursuits, demeanor, and so forth. Virtue was always rewarded and sloth always led to depravity. External events were simply not credited with determining one's fate. Since virtue, which included fighting for one's freedom, was always rewarded, then it was argued that slaves chose their condition in life or else they would no longer be enslaved. I felt that to be an interesting rationalization for protecting white slave owners' economic interests.

There are more good "finds" in this book, too, such as the propaganda equating the continuance of British rule to the enslavement of white colonists, thus stirring up the population to support the armed insurrection known as the American Revolution. In short, I found IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER rather helpful in expanding my understanding of American politics and culture in the 18th and 19th centuries. Unhappily, I also found it to read too much like the doctoral dissertation which was its original incarnation. I would not hesitate to recommend this book to the serious scholar of American history and culture, but I am indeed hesitant to recommend it to the general reader who enjoys being entertained as well as instructed by his or her reading.

Furnestberg has written an interesting book describing how the worship of George Washington has led to stagnation in American political thinking. According to Furstenberg popular historians in the early nineteenth century depicted Washington as a man of moral self control and artists pictured him as an rock against the revolutionary change that was occurring in Europe. Also Washington was depicted by artists and historians alike as a heavenly being whose words had to be worshipped as a sacred canon. Finally the legacy of Washington and the revolutionary generation helped to legitimize slavery since white Americans were considered to have fought for their freedom as opposed to slaves who were nothing more than passive agents. I would reccomend this book for anyone who wants to see a darker side of this country's fetish with the founding fathers.

Dealing with first fifty years after the American Revolution "In the Name of the Father: Washington's Legacy, Slavery, and the Making of a Nation" asks the question, how did an entity as diverse geographically and culturally, to say nothing of socially or economically, as the United States unify into a single nation? Historian François Furstenberg gives an intriguing answer, the persona of George Washington served to full disparate threads together as his words, image, and mythical standing served as a touchstone for national identity.

Furstenberg analyzes what he calls "civic texts" to show the coalescence of a national identity. These include the words and images of the founding fathers, especially George Washington, which circulated throughout the nation in newspapers, pamphlets, almanacs, books, and paintings ranging from high art to primitive cartoons. They served to narrate a collective national spirit, in the process drawing the regions of the United States together.

Center stage in this story is the great national scar of slavery and its place in public life and private virtue. The civic texts that Furstenberg emphasizes show this clearly. This analysis is insightful in that it shows how republicanism in the early national period sought a reconciliation of its prerogatives of liberty and justice with the reality of slavery in the new nation. This irony is too great to ignore, and the place of George Washington as a slaveholder was central to successfully tying the two together. A real problem came among non-slaveholders, especially in the North, who refused to accept republicanism as legitimately supportive of slavery, thereby setting up the great crusade of the nineteenth century.

This is a powerful and evocative, as well as illuminating, book.

The book begins with Washington's death and the uncertainty left in its wake. The nation's deep emotional debt and visceral connection to him, as well as dependence on him, made it obvious that America was virtually unprepared to face the challenges ahead without him. Thus, what Washington had tried to do in his farewell address was to prepare the nation for the trials it was to face in his absence. His parting message was in large measure instructions on how to go about the business of sustaining a government ruled by the "consent of the governed." Doing so, above all else involved reciprocal responsibilities on both sides: Those governed must remain loyal to the principles laid down by the laws of the land; i.e., the constitution and the declaration of independence And in return, the government was to remain loyal to the collective voice of the people. In order of importance, Washington saw three key threats facing the fledgling nation: (1) geographic divisions, (2) political factions, and (3) meddling by foreign powers.

But as the author's sophisticated treatment shows, there was a much deeper concern with the survival of the new nation. Its fundamental dilemma, highlighted in the declaration of independence as well as the American revolution itself, was the tension created in the full meaning of the phrase "government by the consent of the governed." The American revolution, after all, was nothing if not a violent rejection of the very idea of government without such consent. But such consent, as reflected in Washington's idea of reciprocal loyalties, was itself a new kind of "Americanized social contract," forged not just by obedience to its laws, but also through a consensus shaped by principles promoted in its founding documents -- all of which were expressed through the nation's printed materials.

Thus as a result of this deeper concern, the declaration of independence and other founding documents became canonical tracts that shaped the nation's personality and reified the American polity through its civic institutions. The nation acquired a unique personality as it legitimized its institutions through the public consensus forged by the printed interpretation of the phrase "consent of the governed."

In the end then, this book is about how a national civic and political culture evolved in the aftermath of the revolution and in the years immediately after Washington's demise. It is the story of how it and its institutions were built up around this, Washington's deeper concern. It shows how Washington's philosophy (which eventually became the centerpiece of Federalist Paper #10) became the "guiding hand" that resulted in the political and civic culture we have come to know. Said differently, an important aspect of the book is how Washington's philosophy as it was disseminated through printed materials became the vehicle for American national cohesion, and how that philosophy even today is linked to every aspect of America's cultural development.

It is a sophisticated book full of nuances and cannot be speed read. It requires considerable reflection and cogitation and thus in the early going must be read carefully or the key points developed later in the book can be missed. Put simply, it is quite difficult reading.

My own primary concern for buying the book was to get to the inherent contradictions of Washington's philosophy as it embraced and tried to justify slavery. Sadly, as was the case with Lincoln and Jefferson as well as the rest of Virginia's founding quartet, Washington's position also left large gapping moral holes that could not be "squared" or resolved within the revolutionary logic that granted full freedom only to white men. In the case of each of these founding fathers, the justifications for the continuation of slavery in the face of calls for freedom for white men only, and indeed the racism that was its progeny, this perversion of his philosophy, reflected a moral poverty that cannot be easily explained away. To a man, their rationalizations could not, and still cannot withstand independent or careful moral scrutiny.

Despite this, "In the Name of the Father" is an eminently readable and important book linking George Washington's political philosophy in the early republic, his justifications for slavery, and the power of popular print culture in fashioning American nationalism. Four stars

First a disclaimer - I haven't read the whole book. After the first few chapters I've had enough. The author is a major bore and keeps pounding at the same thesis - that Washington's legacy is mostly a myth created to keep the nation together in times of turmoil. He keeps presenting arguments supporting his thesis over and over and over again and he keeps repeating the same points ad infinitum without really moving forward or presenting the opposite point of view at all. The book has some interesting facts in it, but that's not worth any extra stars - I can get those same facts from Wikipedia. Overall an extremely boring and heavily biased treatise.

Professor Furstenberg's short book tries to carry too much freight in his attempt to explain Washington's legacy, slavery, and the making of our nation, all in 231 pages.

I do not agree with the basic underpinning of the author's thinking towards the U.S. Constitution or George Washington. He grants little value to either. Somehow reinventing ourselves every generation as Jefferson once advocated would be just the right thing. No matter the current evidence from so many other countries in a difficult world. And, no matter the undoubted problems in obtaining any real consensus on fundamental constitutional change in our modern country of 300 million. In the end, this American professor from his ivory tower in Montreal sees our current population as little better than modern slaves.

Some of this book is very good. Most will enjoy the informative chapter on Parson Weems and the material on early American educational primers.

I urge the author to watch the over use of certain words and phrases when writing his next book. "Civic text" and "didactic", for two examples. Also, "inculcate"-- which popped up six times on one page (p.164.)