A Famous Friendship and the Poisonous Power of Politics

"A Revolutionary Friendship" tells more about the social and political era of its subjects than about the relationship between these Founding Fathers.

What was the relationship between the two most famous Americans—George Washington and Thomas Jefferson—like?

In his new book “A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic,” Francis D. Cogliano tries to dispel the commonly held view that the two were already “estranged” long before politics poisoned their friendship. This goal is only partially accomplished yet the book is worth reading for spurring reflections on partisanship today.

In the opening pages, Mr. Cogliano states that the men had a 30-year rapport: “For most of those three decades, the two Virginians enjoyed a productive and positive relationship that blossomed into a friendship before deteriorating at the end of Washington’s life.”  

Mr. Cogliano takes the reader through the early years of Washington and Jefferson’s interactions, their many similarities, their differences, how they eventually met, and how the American Revolution brought them together in a way that never would have happened without the military conflict.

As the author indicates, there were many similarities between the two: both were Virginians, farmers, and slaveholders. They held similar views regarding slavery (though Washington acted on those beliefs at the end of his days), married women named Martha, and played pivotal roles in the independence movement and the establishment of the young republic. Additionally, and most importantly for his book, Mr. Cogliano demonstrates how the two men were political animals, though Washington tried to resist partisanship—a noble, yet rather futile attempt.  

The First Third

The first 100-plus pages, a third of the book, is a diluted biography of both men. Mr. Cogliano presents the most common sort of material, like familiar anecdotes and quotes, similar to what’s found in a PBS documentary. This part of the book is the build up to reach the meat of the subject, though brevity would have been better.

The substance of the work is the outbreak of hostilities between the American colonists and Great Britain. This was when the two began to correspond, sending approximately 70 letters to each other.

Regrettably, Mr. Cogliano chooses to be brief about today’s common, politically driven, historical theme: the interaction between the colonists and Native Americans. Early on, he makes the broad and vague “stolen land” claim and quickly moves on. It is a more nuanced subject than Mr. Cogliano portends it to be, resulting in a statement that appears more sociopolitical than historical.

Mr. Cogliano does discuss how the glaring issue of slavery concerned both Washington and Jefferson. There is the obvious hypocrisy of fighting for the cause of liberty, while also holding people in slavery. In contrast to his “stolen land” claim, the author does a good job of dissecting the thought processes of his two subjects. He analyzes how they viewed the problem of slavery early on, their hopes for its abolition, steps they took and tried to take to express their disdain for the practice, and their final decisions and views on the issue.

But the slavery issue is a similarity between the two and not a detail of their relationship, which is supposed to be the crux of the book. Unfortunately, Mr. Cogliano gets so caught up in the details of the social and political environment that most of the book is about those issues rather than how those issues influenced the relationship between Washington and Jefferson.

The Point, and the Other Point

Cogliano writes about significant moments pertaining specifically to the two founding fathers’ acquaintance. It  blossomed into a friendship where Washington sought and took the Jefferson’s advice. They are corresponded during the war. Later correspondences came during Jefferson’s time as minister to France, which included the controversy over the Society of Cincinnati, and the creation of the new constitution, as well as during the years that Jefferson was secretary of state for Washington’s first term as president.

Throughout most of these years, however, Alexander Hamilton played a major role. He was Washington’s secretary of the treasury and Jefferson’s eventual nemesis. Yet, it’s a role that Mr. Cogliano tries to keep somewhat in the background. But such an effort seems futile since the deterioration of the Jefferson-Washington friendship hinged on Hamilton.

What Mr. Cogliano does make abundantly clear is how partisan politics has the power to tear apart friendships. “A Revolutionary Friendship” is more than an attempt to demonstrate the establishment and dismantling of the Washington-Jefferson relationship. It is a warning against the dangers of allowing partisanship to seep into the foundation of friendship.

As partisanship’s power to destroy friendships has been demonstrated in modern politics, Hamilton probably should have been part of the thesis for he represents the deteriorating power of partisanship.

There is plenty of good historic material in “A Revolutionary Friendship” that pertains to various early American topics, but the book falls short of its intended goal. There just isn’t enough here to justify the claim that the book is about Washington and Jefferson’s friendship. Too many other moving parts draw away the author’s attention. Too often it appeared as though Mr. Cogliano forgot why he was writing the book.

"A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic," by Francis D. Cogliano.

‘A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic’ By Francis D. Cogliano Harvard University Press, Feb. 20, 2024 Hardcover: 368 pages

Would you like to see other kinds of arts and culture articles? Please email us your story ideas or feedback at [email protected]