This was a decent effort by The History Channel, a network that has dependably sidetracked itself with forays into junk hoarding and alien conspiracies. Timing a Washington bio in conjunction with Presidents Day was sensible, and they promoted it non-stop to get the interest of viewers not generally interested in, well, history. And who better to center it on than the pre-eminent figure in US history? Very relevant choice, both on the calendar, and to shed light on a man who has taken a recent beating by the PC revisionist mob lately.
They did a great job in fleshing out how Washington's early years formed him into the man and leader he would gradually become, encounter by encounter. His bungling of the mission into the Ohio Country started the French and Indian War, an expensive struggle that eventually led to taxation and Revolution. Failure being the best teacher, he was cool under fire during the Braddock disaster. Every step of the way, Washington wrote voluminously; being his own PR department, in an effort to rise in military and societal prominence. The experiences he faced, and his descriptions of them, give us insight into what forged this raw and unprepared enthusiast, encounter by encounter, into the leader we are familiar with. The series serves this learning process, both for him and us, well.
But Washington is like many prominent people of his time, or any time for that matter. A complex character ardently dedicated to the independence of a nation's people against a tyrant, yet a slaveholder. A man who groomed his impeccable image with preparation and self-restraint, yet obtained vast land-holdings, some by questionable dealings. And was his self-promoting (while appearing humble) pursuit of command of the army from Congress motivated by pure patriotism or somewhat his contempt for the British army? just how did this man manage to hang onto command when he got it, after defeat upon defeat? And, what was his motivation to return from private life to lead a very troubled new nation? This series does a decent job addressing many these questions, while permitting the viewer to think along, all in just six hours. It is brilliant in that regard.
Now, the nit-picky stuff that we hyper-historians love to point out. The usual production goofs: The defeat at Fort Necessity during the driving rain, except the sun is out; the young commander drilling his raw Virginia recruits on musket and bayonet when he himself hadn't been trained (and one militia man actually fires his musket without the lock secured); the opinions of some of the guest historians that Washington's escape from New York was due to his brilliance, when in fact luck, weather, and Howe's hesitancy were more important in getting him out of a mess of his own design; attacking active Trenton sentry posts in the dark of night, when in fact it was already morning and the Hessions were hung over; the curious omission of how Washington drove the British out of Boston with that undisciplined rabble he first encounters at Cambridge; how pivotal Benedict Arnold was in the first three years of the war to the patriot cause; and... having Henry Knox played by a tall, slender actor. (C'mon, Knox was a blimp!)
I appreciated the balance in considering Washington's apparent character contradictions and tactical errors; especially he being the quintessential advocate of freedom while holding slaves. I thought these considerations were even-handed, especially the one's made by the African-American historians. Washington is looked at, as they say; "warts and all", a man of his times and situations. Is he called to task for many transgressions and failures? I think, yes, and fairly. Is there an attempt to wipe him from the prominence of our history which seems in vogue these days? No, and again, fairly.
Just who was he then? A sports commentator might say, "Hereza guy...who at least a half dozen times, strapped America on his back, and single-handedly kept us in the game, carrying us across the goal line!" And THAT would be pretty much spot on. No Washington...NO United States.
They did a great job in fleshing out how Washington's early years formed him into the man and leader he would gradually become, encounter by encounter. His bungling of the mission into the Ohio Country started the French and Indian War, an expensive struggle that eventually led to taxation and Revolution. Failure being the best teacher, he was cool under fire during the Braddock disaster. Every step of the way, Washington wrote voluminously; being his own PR department, in an effort to rise in military and societal prominence. The experiences he faced, and his descriptions of them, give us insight into what forged this raw and unprepared enthusiast, encounter by encounter, into the leader we are familiar with. The series serves this learning process, both for him and us, well.
But Washington is like many prominent people of his time, or any time for that matter. A complex character ardently dedicated to the independence of a nation's people against a tyrant, yet a slaveholder. A man who groomed his impeccable image with preparation and self-restraint, yet obtained vast land-holdings, some by questionable dealings. And was his self-promoting (while appearing humble) pursuit of command of the army from Congress motivated by pure patriotism or somewhat his contempt for the British army? just how did this man manage to hang onto command when he got it, after defeat upon defeat? And, what was his motivation to return from private life to lead a very troubled new nation? This series does a decent job addressing many these questions, while permitting the viewer to think along, all in just six hours. It is brilliant in that regard.
Now, the nit-picky stuff that we hyper-historians love to point out. The usual production goofs: The defeat at Fort Necessity during the driving rain, except the sun is out; the young commander drilling his raw Virginia recruits on musket and bayonet when he himself hadn't been trained (and one militia man actually fires his musket without the lock secured); the opinions of some of the guest historians that Washington's escape from New York was due to his brilliance, when in fact luck, weather, and Howe's hesitancy were more important in getting him out of a mess of his own design; attacking active Trenton sentry posts in the dark of night, when in fact it was already morning and the Hessions were hung over; the curious omission of how Washington drove the British out of Boston with that undisciplined rabble he first encounters at Cambridge; how pivotal Benedict Arnold was in the first three years of the war to the patriot cause; and... having Henry Knox played by a tall, slender actor. (C'mon, Knox was a blimp!)
I appreciated the balance in considering Washington's apparent character contradictions and tactical errors; especially he being the quintessential advocate of freedom while holding slaves. I thought these considerations were even-handed, especially the one's made by the African-American historians. Washington is looked at, as they say; "warts and all", a man of his times and situations. Is he called to task for many transgressions and failures? I think, yes, and fairly. Is there an attempt to wipe him from the prominence of our history which seems in vogue these days? No, and again, fairly.
Just who was he then? A sports commentator might say, "Hereza guy...who at least a half dozen times, strapped America on his back, and single-handedly kept us in the game, carrying us across the goal line!" And THAT would be pretty much spot on. No Washington...NO United States.