Acutally, the full title is Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the American Revolution. It’s a scholarly book (I’m impressed I got through this one; I usually find scholarly books too dry) by historian John Ferling. And, surprisingly, it was fascinating. The first chapter or two — the set up of the years leading to the Revolutionary War — were pretty dull, but once the war started it picked up in both pace and interest. I kept commenting to Russell that Ferling must have really liked the war, because it showed in the writing. And, by the end, I was totally amazed that the Americans won the war. By all accounts, the colonies should have lost. I guess if I knew that, I totally forgot it.
But this book is first and foremost a portrait of three central leaders of the Revolution. Ferling made Washington out to be, well, human. Which, Russell tells me, isn’t anything new. Ferling asserts that Washington was ambitious and vain, but came through honorably when he needed to. He also totally believed in the idea of a republic. As a general, he was great in the beginning of the war, being assertive and daring when he needed to. But as the war wore on, he became cautious and over-reliant on the French. And obsessive about attacking New York. Still, in the end Washington came off as a pretty decent figure.
Not so much for Jefferson. Ferling had one thing good to say about him: the man could write. And that’s about it. He was a lousy leader, he was a spoiled rich Virginia planter, he was racist and unenlightened. Made me wonder about the spin that surrounded Jefferson. How on earth did he become so respected? (As a side note, Ferling doesn’t much like Franklin, either.)
And then there’s Adams. Ferling’s thesis here was that Adams, while ambitious, was easily the most hard-working, diligent, honest leader who did everything in his power to assure the independence of the colonies. I got the impression that Ferling believes that Adams has gotten a bad historical reputation over the years and was doing everything in his power to reverse that. And it worked; I have more respect for John Adams now.
The ending chapters had the same fault as the beginning, except they were blissfully shorter. He did deal with the issue of slavery at the end, and how each of the three dealt with it (and they came off the same way: Washington was human, but noble in the end; Adams, stalwart; and Jefferson, a racist flake). A good read.
The Book Nut 