The History Book Club discussion

Encounter is providing us with a wonderful opportunity to chat with the author of the book Blood of Tyrants: George Washington & The Forging of the Presidency which will be kicked off soon and will be announced.

The author Logan Beirne will be dropping in periodically to answer any and all of your questions regarding his book.

Please begin posting your questions for the author on this thread.

Thank you and I hope you will you enjoy this special author experience here at the History Book Club. Many of you who are joining in on this discussion will be receiving your book in the future once books have been awarded.

Those of you who would also like to participate in the upcoming discussion can purchase a book from your local or online bookstore.

Regards,

Bentley

by Logan Beirne

All, Logan Beirne will be joining us for this discussion so please in advance begin asking questions concerning George Washington and his presidency here on this thread. Here is an example of the format:

Question: - Here is where you would type your question. Make sure that your question stands out in your post so it is easy for Logan Beirne to spot the question and answer quickly without wasting any time. We look forward to Logan being with us and we want to make the experience enjoyable for him too. This is a wonderful opportunity and we want to thank our friends at Encounter for their generosity.

You can start posting questions for Logan following the prescribed format. Be advised that the discussion will not begin until August 12th.

Thanks Logan for joining us.

Question: What brought you to this topic and what made you think of linking Washington to homeland security/conduct of war?

Question: In your opinion, what were Washington's best and worst military decisions during the Revolutionary War?

Question: What was it about Washington and Alexander Hamilton that made them such a dynamic and successful team during the Revolution and beyond?

Logan, you have many talents and are rather young.

Question: Do you have a definitive passion and vision for a career that you may share?

Thank you for having me, Bryan. It is a true pleasure.

I came up with the idea while sitting in Constitutional Law class as a first year law student in 2005. We were learning about the President's Constitutional powers, and my professor, Bill Eskridge, mentioned how we still debate what the few words in Article II really mean. I was amazed that after all these years we are still not quite sure what powers the President really has.

I ran downstairs into the depths of Yale Law Library and started digging through the Founders' own writings. My goal was to find that they had in mind when they created the presidency in the first place. I was amazed at what I found - they were grappling with issues that sound like they were plucked from headlines of today!

This history is quite important for two main reasons: 1. learning from the wisdom of the past can help guide us as we face analogous moral dilemmas today; and 2. very practically speaking, this history has a direct impact on us all because the Supreme Court looks to it in interpreting what our Constitution means.

I wrote this book to excite people about history and show its continuing relevance to today.

Bryan wrote: "Thanks Logan for joining us.

Question: What brought you to this topic and what made you think of linking Washington to homeland security/conduct of war?"

Steve, thank you. I bet as soon as I answer this I will think of other instances, but my initial reaction is:

His best decision as Commander in Chief was to resign. As we have seen throughout history and even in Egypt today, the military plays a crucial role in revolutions but sometimes does not know when to get out of the way. Washington was "the greatest man in the world" because he gave up the chance to be king, and instead returned to his farm after the war to make room for the new republic to take route. Now that is an incredible man. We would not have this nation without him. (and if you were looking for a more tactical answer to this question - I would say his decision to stealthily leave NYC for Yorktown)

Washington's worst military decision was to give into political pressures and attempt to defend New York City in 1776. We had virtually no navy yet faced the mightiest navy on earth - attempting to defend an island was a terrible idea! We nearly lost the war because of it.

Steve wrote: "Question: In your opinion, what were Washington's best and worst military decisions during the Revolutionary War?"

Washington and Hamilton had a fascinating father-son dynamic. They were both brilliant men who were humble enough to respect each other's genius. They quarreled at times but I think it was that deep mutual respect for one another's integrity and abilities that enabled them to prevail.

Steve wrote: "Question: What was it about Washington and Alexander Hamilton that made them such a dynamic and successful team during the Revolution and beyond?"

Thanks for the additional insight, Logan. I read some of your bio on different websites. It sounds like you have done many different things, including writing this book.

Question:What has been your favorite "thing" that you have accomplished so far?

Thank you, Mark. I appreciate this and always enjoy hearing from you.

I plan to remain as an Olin Scholar at Yale Law for the time being and am cooking up another book idea. But that may be a little ways off since I am just trying to survive this one!


Mark wrote: "Logan, you have many talents and are rather young.

Question: Do you have a definitive passion and vision for a career that you may share?"

Thank you very much, Kathy. You know what they say, "no rest for the wicked!"

The thing I am most proud of is my incredible family - by far! Second, I am proud of this book because it took so much commitment and drive to make it a reality. There were some nights when I was sitting in the library archives working on the 1400 footnotes thinking to myself, "enough of this!" But I kept at it and am proud of how hard I worked to make Blood of Tyrants come to life.

I hope you enjoy it!

Kathy wrote: "Thanks for the additional insight, Logan. I read some of your bio on different websites. It sounds like you have done many different things, including writing this book.

Question:What has been you..."

The format of your book divided into sections and concise chapters was very uplifting and unique. I further appreciated each light introduction and synopsis where you briefly guided the reader along.

Question: Was this your creative vision early on or was this a collaboration?

Mark wrote: "The format of your book divided into sections and concise chapters was very uplifting and unique. I further appreciated each light introduction and synopsis where you briefly guided the reader alon..."

Thank you very much, Mark. I appreciate this!

Yes, that was my vision early on. In fact, another publisher wanted me to revamp the book into a traditional biography, which I thought missed the point: to clearly depict the relevance of our history to modern issues.

I also strove to make the book entertaining because I find that history books are often dry tomes. I wanted to broaden the audience and get a large swath of readers excited about the Revolution - something informative that would keep you wanting to turn those pages. Perhaps it will help recruit some new History Book Club members!

Logan wrote: "Yes, that was my vision early on. In fact, another publisher wanted me to revamp the book into a traditional biography, which I thought missed the point: to clearly depict the relevance of our history to modern issues..."

Congratulations for staying true to your vision! You successfully pulled it off.

One never knows Logan although we do have over 6000 members already at this point in 163 countries (smile)

Just want to remind folks that the discussion itself does not kick off until August 12th.

Logan, it is an honor and a pleasure to have you here with us to discuss this book and your thoughts on Washington.

Question: What do you think Washington's position was in regards to espionage?

Thank you, Frank - the honor is mine. I am eager to hear your thoughts as you read.

Washington was a master of espionage. His ability to both feed the British false information and gather intel on their next moves enabled us to effectively fight our more powerful foe.

At the same time, he loathed Americans who fed intelligence to the enemy. He hunted such traitors ruthlessly. I am currently writing an op ed comparing Benedict Arnold to Edward Snowden. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Frank wrote: "Logan, it is an honor and a pleasure to have you here with us to discuss this book and your thoughts on Washington.

Question: What do you think Washington's position was in regards to espionage?"

Logan, I'm looking forward to receiving and reading your book. I'm about halfway through an audio book recording of Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life and just listening to Chernow's account of the Benedict Arnold West Point incident which I'm hoping is also given a great deal of attention in your book. I'm fascinated by the Arnolds, both Benedict and Peggy.

Question: How complicit do you feel Peggy Arnold was in Benedict Arnold's plot to turn over West Point to the British?

by Ron Chernow

Craig, thank you, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it. I love Chernow's Washington: A Life. Ron is a great person and he and that book were very helpful to me in writing Blood of Tyrants. You will notice that my book comes at the Revolution from a different angle than a traditional biography - I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

I think Peggy was very much involved in Arnold's general transformation into a Loyalist, but it is hard to say just how much she knew about this particular plot. The signs are all there though: 1. she certainly enjoyed money, and this would have made them wealthy; 2. she put on quite a performance for Washington when he arrived at West Point and then escaped soon thereafter; 3. Arnold's point of contact, John Andre, was her old friend! When we get to that section, I look forward to discussing with you why you think Benedict left Peggy behind as he fled.

I do give the West Point incident much attention in the book. I focus primarily on Arnold's co-conspirators (since the precedents involving them have the largest impact on modern law) but I definitely work in some discussion of Benedict and Peggy because they are so interesting.


Craig wrote: "Logan, I'm looking forward to receiving and reading your book. I'm about halfway through an audio book recording of Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life and just listening to Chernow's account of th..."

I enjoyed very much your initial introduction of James Madison (37). Given your heritage, to what extent was that formative, if any, in you life? (BTW, I find this book as enjoyable as it is informative. Thank you for giving it to us.)

Hi Dale, thank you, I appreciate this and hope you enjoy the rest of the book. I am a big fan of Madison's (but I am biased in that regard!). I would have liked to work him in more but his most prominent role did not come until after the war.

My heritage really made the book possible. Growing up, I was often reminded of my patriot ancestors, so when I started working on modern day Constitutional issues while at Yale Law, I naturally applied the lessons of the past.

We all have such rich personal heritages -whether it is here or from the lands of our intrepid forefathers - and Blood of Tyrants is designed to explore our national heritage. I wanted make this history relevant and interesting to a modern audience.

The past is not dead and gone - it lives on in us! I look forward to discussing the book with you.

Hi Logan,

I am just beginning to delve into Tyrants, but have read some of your articles and am really fascinated with the connection you have found between our foundation and today. Leadership is such an interesting topic at any level.

Looking back how a few years removed from the intense debate on presidential power that the United States faced from 2003 to 2006 (or so) do you have any insight into where the role of the modern american presidency in wartime and on domestic issues?

Question: What do you think Washington would make of the recent Snowden issue.

Another question as our book discussion begins this week. I figured as a member here I could ask this type of question which isn't specifically related to your new book but more generally related to the book profession.

Question:

I see from the book jacket that your book's design was done by a woman with an agency and that the illustration came from the Library of Congress. And the title obviously was borrowed from the words of Thomas Jefferson. But I'm wondering if you as author got to have any input into the book cover design process? I love the look and feel of the cover and just wonder if there was any collaboration on its creation. Is the image of Washington from a specific painting? And what's the name of the font that was used on the cover and book jacket?

Thanks.

Logan, Thank you so much for joining in this discussion with us and for giving us such an interesting book to discuss!

I was intrigued by the reference to Washington's recognition of the incongruity between his leading a fight for liberty while keeping people enslaved for his own profit. (p. 17)
QUESTION: I know this is a bit off the main track of your book, but I was wondering how common manumission was in late-18th century Virginia. Was it permitted? Did any slaveholders free all of their slaves?

Our changed attitude toward slavery is a happy indication of human progress...and it is such a temptation to judge people of the past by today's standards. Yet it seems unfair to expect someone who was outstanding in some ways, to be ahead of his time in all ways...

Hi Quinn,

Thank you, I hope you enjoy it! Yes, haha, I have written some deliberately-provocative pieces recently. My goal is to get people interested and talking about how our history relates to today. I work hard to stay out of the politics and make it clear that I am merely providing an historical perspective, but my writings inevitably get pulled into the political debate.

Regarding the general question of presidential power, the book delves into these fundamental issues and I look forward to discussing them with you as we go. This history has applicability to many of today's discussions, including NSA surveillance, drones, KSM's military commission, citizens' wartime rights, bin Laden's son in law's trial, treatment of captives - I can go on and on. I look forward to quite a discussion!

Regarding the specific question of Snowden, first, the history suggests that Washington and the founders would be surprised by how much the federal government has changed. They would be instinctively wary of government programs that potentially delve into Americans' lives without adequate oversight and transparency. For example, during the Revolution, the founders opened Americans' mail, but made sure that there was thorough democratic oversight to guard against government abuse.

While they would applaud people stepping up to expose perceived abuses, they would nevertheless demand that they follow lawful channels. The beauty of the new American system was that citizens were empowered to vote in new leaders, run for office themselves, find redress via the courts, etc.

The founders feared lawlessness - while it was one thing to rebel against British laws passed without representation, it was quite another matter to break the laws of the American republic (see e.g. Shays' Rebellion). For defects in the American system, the founders required that individuals use lawful channels to expose the problem and would also be wary of Snowden's fleeing to Russia and cooperating with hostile nations.

History suggests that Washington would want to see Snowden have his day in court. Snowden would be innocent until proven guilty, but Washington would want Snowden to address his reasons for breaking the law in an open forum. Such a process might lead to further government change and the founders believed in the ability of the constitutional government they created to correct itself. They demanded that citizens step up to mend the country lawfully by voting, contacting their representatives, and running for office themselves.

Before anyone gets mad at me, please remember that I am basing this off of historical parallels and am not trying to delve directly into the current politics. I keep my personal politics, well, personal!

What are your thoughts?

Quinn wrote: "Hi Logan,

I am just beginning to delve into Tyrants, but have read some of your articles and am really fascinated with the connection you have found between our foundation and today. Leadership is..."

Thanks everyone for posting questions. Just remember to bold the word "question" so it is easier to read:

Question: ljr att a

Thanks Logan for an interesting reply to Quinn.

One thing your book shows us is that the Founders were not perfect, they go beyond our textbooks.

Question: did you run across any information that GW and the Founders opened up mail, read the contents,and sent it along?

Hi Craig - it is great to hear you like the cover because I did collaborate on it! The cover went through a couple iterations. In fact, one of the Goodreads images an old cover that we played with last year.

I picked the title, subtitle, and suggested we use a cover image of Washington that was both striking and a bit unusual. I picked that particular image because I found it so intriguing and the designer then worked her magic to put it all together! (I will have to check for you re the image name and font since the designer handle those specifics - the Library on Congress image library likely has the image on file online if you have a chance to check that out).

Our goal was to convey the fresh perspective of the book while staying true to the history. You will notice the map inserts, slightly thicker pages, deckled page edges, pictures, etc. - what do you think of those features? I suggested those and the publisher was very kind and open to my ideas. I think it definitely increased their printing costs but they were passionate about the book and willing to go the extra mile. I hope you like them.

I personally love the way a book can transport you back in time and wanted to encourage that with the look and feel of the book itself.

I was a bit more involved in these aesthetics than most other authors but I imagine most book covers et al are a collaboration between the author and the publisher's designer.

Craig wrote: "Another question as our book discussion begins this week. I figured as a member here I could ask this type of question which isn't specifically related to your new book but more generally related ..."

Logan, we also like your involvement here with our group members and the time that you are willing to invest to dialogue with them and interact with them via your very complete and interesting responses. Please keep it up and you are also welcome to participate on the weekly non spoiler threads too. The sky is the limit (smile).

Very interesting Logan. One thing to me that seems to set Washington apart from every president following him is that he is the only president that did not actively seek power. It seems the modern system has put the best politician in power (not necessarily the best leaders).

I have another follow up question, and I appreciate your candid responses, and your imagination in formulating these lessons from the past for modern circumstances. One thing that is particularly interesting to me is the difficulty of our modern war with such blurred battle lines. It seems that Washington's time the lines were at times equally blurry, so my question is...

Question Given Washington's reverence for law and the judicial process, how do you feel he would handle cases like that of Dzhokhar Anzorovich "Jahar" Tsarnaev.

Mary Ellen, thank you for this excellent question. Manumission was quite uncommon - in fact, it was not even legal in Virginia until the end of the war (1792). And after, it was rarely done.

Washington and other founders did increasingly see just how horrible slavery was. Warped by the prevailing culture, they had been raised to believe the institution was acceptable but came to see the glaring inconsistency between fighting for liberty yet owning people. But they often did too little to correct it. As they struggled to unite the nation, they knew the South we break away of they threatened their "property." Like Washington, many Southern farms were highly dependent on slave labor. Therefore they punted the issue to later generations, in hopes the country might then be united enough to resolve it.

Washington predicted that slavery would tear the country apart. Boy was he right.

Mary Ellen wrote: "Logan, Thank you so much for joining in this discussion with us and for giving us such an interesting book to discuss!

I was intrigued by the reference to Washington's recognition of the incongrui..."

Hi Bryan, I sure did. The patriots opened the mail of suspected Loyalists in order to get intel on Britain's plans. When abuses were reported, Congress placed the local committees on safety in charge of checking the process. Such committees were often comprised of most adult male patriots in the town so this meant widespread oversight at a local level.

This was obviously far from perfect but they went to great lengths to ensure oversight and transparency in the process. They were very worried about government overstepping its bounds.

Bryan wrote: "Thanks Logan for an interesting reply to Quinn.

One thing your book shows us is that the Founders were not perfect, they go beyond our textbooks.

Question: did you run across any information th..."

Another great question Quinn, these are the types of things I think about all too much!

I wrote a piece on this for Reuters back in April: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate... (please forgive me if I am not linking correctly - thumbs and a phone can only do so much!)

In a nutshell, Washington's urge would be to hang him instantly. But the fact that Tsarnaev is an American citizen would require that he receive due process.

Quinn wrote: "Very interesting Logan. One thing to me that seems to set Washington apart from every president following him is that he is the only president that did not actively seek power. It seems the modern ..."

Thank you, Bentley! We greatly appreciate all of your help.

Bentley wrote: "Logan, we also like your involvement here with our group members and the time that you are willing to invest to dialogue with them and interact with them via your very complete and interesting resp..."

And I yours (smile) - we are glad that the kickoff is officially complete and folks are very much enjoying your book and things are humming.

I think one of the most interesting things about Washington is his decision to retire back to Mt. Vernon. You wrote about his reluctance to step in to the political power as a factor that endeared him to people all over the country.

Question: In today's society, do you think there is even room for the reluctant politician? Is there room for the man who resists power, or is power swallowed up by the men who want it most?

Awesome guys, keep the questions coming.

FYI-You don't need to bold the whole question. Just the word question. This would be Todd's example:

Question: In today's society, do you think there is even room for the reluctant politician? Is there room for the man who resists power, or is power swallowed up by the men who want it most?

Todd wrote: "I think one of the most interesting things about Washington is his decision to retire back to Mt. Vernon. You wrote about his reluctance to step in to the political power as a factor that endeared ..."

Great question Todd, I think about this often. For all of our sake, I hope there is still room for politicians like Washington.

Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing - Washington himself was quite ambitious. What I think defines people is how they channel that ambition. For Washington (and curiously Lincoln and many other great leaders), their goal was to make a mark on history by making the world a better place. Therefore, when Washington won the United States its independence, he had completed his mission and was ready to retire.

Too often today, politicians' primary ambition is more power for themselves. I am not so cynical as to suggest that today's leaders do not also seek to better their country, but I do think their ambition drives them to seek more and more power. I think this is a crucial distinction between Washington and others - his outlook was much more selfless.

I think there is room for more like Washington today since I have faith in the electorate to recognize such qualities.

One question I received privately is: "How do you pronounce your last name?"

This is one I have heard my whole life - it is my father's fault haha! It is pronounced "Burn" like sunburn.

People sometimes try to say Bernie instead, but that just reminds me of that old movie Weekend at Bernie's.

So don't let the extra vowels throw you, it is as simple as Burn.

Logan, you mention on page 41 that “Washington viewed alcohol as “the source of evil”…” and it appears you were referring to excessive personal consumption.

Question: How did Washington balance this view of alcohol considering his Distillery produced 11,000 gallons of whisky in the final year of the 18th Century?

Question: When you close your eyes and think of George Washington, what comes to mind? Is the young man in this introduction the person you envisioned?

That is really a great question Jerome.

Mark wrote: "Logan, you mention on page 41 that “Washington viewed alcohol as “the source of evil”…” and it appears you were referring to excessive personal consumption.

Question: How did Washington balance t..."

Good catch, Mark! Washington's Scottish farm manager James Anderson encouraged him to build a whiskey distillery adjacent to the gristmill. Washington agreed because it was good business.

Spirits were heavily consumed during the era - in part because it was more sanitary than the water. Washington indeed saw heavy drinking as a vice but was not a teetotaler by any means. He liked a good drink himself - perhaps too much, because he deliberately limited his intake rather than risk relaxing the strict control he held over his emotions. He was adamant about maintaining proper control and decorum and too much alcohol had the opposite effect.

He was a man of moderation, and way ahead of his time.

(ps - the distillery is back functioning and selling bottles once again!)

Jerome wrote: "Question: When you close your eyes and think of George Washington, what comes to mind? Is the young man in this introduction the person you envisioned?"

I definitely agree with Bentley - great question, Jerome! When I close my eyes, I see the man at the end of the book. Washington learned from his youth and matured into a wise, powerful leader who made the United States possible.

I find stories like Jumonville especially fascinating because they made Washington the man he became. They show his amazing ability to learn and adapt while staying true to his core values.

Textbooks convey a sense they the founders were deities who would inevitably win the war. This could not be farther from the truth. Instead, I find Washington and the founders to be even more impressive when you view them as real men and women who struggled and triumphed over tremendous odds.

I am inspired by the man that Washington became.

Logan, a great question (Jerome) and a great answer.

Thanks, Logan. I think we always tend to superimpose the Washington we are familiar with onto those parts of him that we don't know as well.

Logan wrote: "He [Washington] was a man of moderation, and way ahead of his time..."

Thanks Logan, that's what I figured. I can't fault a prominant businessman with a bit of capitalistic instinct.

I hope to tour Mount Vernon (for the first time) and I'll certainly buy a bottle from the distillery.

Question:How would you describe the young Washington? Would you have handled the expedition differently?