Celebrated as the “Father of America,” George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War and later served two distinguished terms as the first U.S. President. His pivotal role in shaping the nation has garnered widespread admiration from historians and laymen alike. Despite there being criticism of Washington being a violent slave owner and his stance towards New Englanders, author David McCullough generally upholds the high praise for Washington that is typical of American history. In this essay, I propose that McCullough’s portrayal of Washington might be excessively favorable, tending to overlook Washington’s missteps, magnify his achievements, and ascribe to him successes that were, in reality, the collective efforts of many.

During his leadership of the American troops, Washington made several critical mistakes, yet McCullough tends to gloss over these errors. At the infamous backwoods incident, when Washington was defeated by his poor judgment and inexperience, the author still praises him for his “conspicuous courage under fire and a marked ability for leadership.” Even if Washington lost this battle due to poor leadership, the author ignores this and continuously stresses Washington’s valor instead. Similarly, when George Washington was selected to become the Commander-in-Chief, he was completely inexperienced and never exposed to real military action. Indeed, never in his life had he even directed a regiment or a siege. However, in McCullough’s estimation Washington was “better suited than any of the others Congress might have in mind.” As for another famous example, Washington was known for his extreme distaste for Americans in the Northeast, otherwise known as “Yankees,” considering them as “dirty, mercenary spirits.” McCullough brushes this over by mentioning that George Washington “had no difference of a view towards the Yankees then the British...” It is thus clear throughout the book that David McCullough is biased towards George Washington’s mistakes and shortcomings— perhaps more attached to his legend than to reality.

Moreover, McCullough’s account excessively venerates Washington’s successes. While Washington’s leadership qualities are undeniable, the portrayal often neglects the harsh realities faced by his troops. He was showcased in the book for “besting” his troops despite insufficient arms. He is also portrayed as “exemplarily patient,” “bearing up under a weight of worry and work that only few could have carried.” However, the truth is that Washington did not suffer as the Americans troops did.  During the brutal winter at Valley Forge, while soldiers succumbed to the cold, diseases, malnutrition and even death. In one of the most infamous camping spots, Valley Forge, over 2000 people died because of the disease and the cold, harsh climate. Washington resided comfortably in the Ford Mansion, a luxurious three-story home with shutters, dormer windows, multiple bedrooms, ballrooms, and so much more. It was a stark contrast to the living conditions endured by his men. Similarly, McCullough asserts that without Washington, “the revolution almost certainly would have failed.” This dichotomy between leader and troops is glossed over, with McCullough emphasizing Washington's supposed shared hardships and leadership while understating the severity of the soldiers' suffering. Furthermore, McCullough's assertion that Washington’s leadership was indispensable to the American Revolution's success exaggerates his individual contribution, overshadowing the sacrifices that characterized the war effort for most Americans.

Another critical aspect of McCullough’s bias is shown in his repeated tendency of giving credit to Washington for collective achievements. For example, upon the British withdrawal from Boston, McCullough highly praises Washington for his role in the withdrawal, describing his work as due to his “undoubted intelligence.” Moreover, he is full of “assiduity, skill and bravery.” In essence, McCullough gives full credit to Washington. However, as is evident from the text, the main reason the British withdrew was due to the harsh winter winds, driving snows of the bay area, and increasing incidence of diseases that killed many. General James Grant himself announced that “we cannot remain during winter in this place, as our situation is getting worse…” This shows that McCullough attributes the British withdrawal to Washington’s leadership, even though all the evidence suggests the withdrawal was in fact owed to the weather. Similarly, the pivotal crossing of the Delaware River, a logistical feat largely organized by Henry Knox, is disproportionately attributed to Washington’s leadership, sidelining Knox's and others’ instrumental roles. The river crossing was no small feat. It is astounding to imagine how Knox organized and executed the transportation of eighteen cannon and fifteen horses across rivers of ice. However, the author spends little time describing Knox’s contributions. Instead, he praises Washington for his “calmness,” describing this event as revealing of Washington’s “wisdom and conduct” and that the “United States are indebted for the late success of your arms.” Though Washington’s contribution was certainly a major factor in winning the war, the author presents him as the greatest or almost sole contributor, failing to acknowledge other factors that led to the revolution’s miraculous success.

Washington played a crucial role in America’s fight for independence, leading an inexperienced army to victory against the British Empire. However, McCullough’s portrayal of Washington in his book lacks balance. While it acknowledges his achievements, it tends to overlook his flaws and the contributions of others. This one-sided view paints an overly positive picture of Washington. To truly understand history, especially the role of figures like Washington, we must approach it with objectivity. We need to critically analyze events without bias or exaggeration. By doing so, we can gain a more accurate understanding of the past and appreciate the complexities of historical figures. This approach is essential to prevent distortions in historical narratives and ensure a truthful depiction of history so we can better understand the present. In the wise words of George Santayana, “those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Bibliography

McCullough, David. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

National Park Service, “What Happened At Valley Forge,” November 6, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/vafo/learn/historyculture/valley-forge-history-and-significance.htm.

Wallace, Willard. Appeal to Arms. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.