Franklin & Washington audiobook

3.5 stars. Interesting concept: The friendship and partnership of founding Americans Ben Franklin and George Washington is an overlooked and crucial piece of history. This book is a great review of the events that transpired in and related to the American colonies from about 1750-1800. It's a helpful chronology, it brings in other key players without overwhelming the reader with too many to keep track of, and it successfully weaves in Franklin's and Washington's separate and joint contributions. The main focuses are the Revolution and the Constitution, unsurprisingly.I find it so interesting how hard it is for historians to denounce Washington vis-à-vis slavery. Even when they are grappling with his enthusiastic support and use of the cruel institution, and going so far as to question and criticize ol' Geo. W., they just can't stop from talking about how he managed to be "great" (in the sense of significant.) They are so rarely able to just write a scathing critique. There are many fun facts herein, and I gained an even deeper understanding of Franklin, always enjoyable.

Frankly, a great book to enrich most any Poor Richard!This is an insightful read for lovers of American history, especially when one reaches the second half of the book, where the author delves deeply into the Franklin-Washington relationship and how it affected the writing of the U.S. Constitution.In the book’s first half, one reads about well-known aspects of Franklin and Washington. Sprinkled in, however, are a number of gems. On the Franklin side, for example, there's how Franklin (under “Penn name” Richard Saunders) filled “Poor Richard’s Almanac” with pearls such as: “The Way to Wealth, if you desire it, . . . depends chiefly on two Words, INDUSTRY and FRUGALITY; i.e. Waste neither Time nor Money, but make the best Use of both.” On the Washington side, for example, there's “In warfare, experts affirm, geography is destiny. Through his chief aide Robert Orme, Braddock invited Washington [who had traveled extensively throughout the area and had a phenomenal memory] onto his personal staff [to lead the British expedition to take Fort Duquesne [later Fort Pitt or Pittsburgh] from the French.” On the general history side, one learns that the Boston Tea Party was a reaction against the East India Company’s effort to break the colonies’ boycott of British goods by “flooding the American market with cheap tea sold directly to consumers [without reducing the British tax on it].”In the book’s second half, the author describes Franklin and Washington as “enlightened pragmatists” of high character and gives many examples. In addition, in this part of the book reside numerous rare insights, which I won’t disclose to avoid depriving anyone of the pleasure of encountering them. However, I will mention the name James Wilson, one of the truly forgotten founders, who the author calls out several times as one who mightily contributed to the Constitution in many ways. I will also explain an interesting assertion which, on Kindle page 264, says that Henry Knox was Washington’s second in command. For those thinking that person was Nathanael Greene, widely accepted as Washington’s most trusted general, the reason the author is technically correct is that Greene resigned his commission in August 1793, while Knox officially became the Army’s senior officer after Washington resigned his commission as commander-in-chief four months later on 23 December 1793.Bottom-line, I think you’ll find this book to be well in line with one of Poor Richard’s other sayings: “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.” Indeed, Mr. Larson has written a thing well worth reading. Highly recommended!Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul , a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!”

Thanks to my social studies classes in grade school my imagining of the American Revolution has long been that of tri-corner hats, Johnny Tremane, and a bunch of legal tender hanging out in some New England ballroom signing papers.I know this isn’t how it happened. What I’m able to pull from my fact sheets on George Washington and Ben Franklin would fill a matchbook. George’s wooden teeth and his inability to tell a lie, oh and something about a cherry tree—Zzzz. And Ben flew kites in the rain just to eventually have your mom harp on you about taking a shower when it’s lightning outside. I’m so disappointed in my grade school social studies. These tattered old threadbare factoids about some of our most circulated currency are hardly brought up in Edward Larson’s “Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership.” Thank goodness!Now if you thought this book was gonna be George and Ben riding around the 13 colonies beating up British soldiers, trading girlfriends, and signing America’s closing papers, then you are sadly mistaken. What Larson shells out is ground floor making of America stuff leading back to the French and Indian War (which as far as the rest of the world was concerned was the Seven Years War, but lasted nine—long story) all the way up to Washington and Franklin’s deaths. Spoiler alert.Now let’s talk about those glaring omissions from 6th grade history class. I’ve got good news and bad news. Let’s start with the bad news. George Washington, let’s say, wasn’t what you’d call a Black Lives Matter kind of guy. Oh no, George was a slave owner, and he was pretty hard-headed about it too. And so was about half the delegates in the Continental Congress. George also sort of lucked into everything he ever did, and got by on charisma. Sound familiar? Yikes! But he was intelligent, a great public speaker, and had a terrific work ethic. His ability to rally people is exactly what America needed at the time, in spite of his mostly being a grump on a personal level. Strange as it may seem, I’m not sure the Father of Our Country would cut it in today’s America. Be glad you’re dead, George.The good news is Benjamin Franklin was there to be the reasonable person this country needed deal with all the red tape that goes along with Independence. Every George Washington needs a Benjamin Franklin. We could stand a few more Benjamin Franklin’s today. Ben Franklin was the kind of guy with an easygoing demeanor and a sharp wit who you wanted to get to talk to you but you knew you could never match him, and he somehow made you feel okay about it. In short, the coolest guy in the room. Trouble is, he was also a satirist, and unfortunately satire is lost on most modern Americans, and he’d probably be on the cancelled list too. But I digress. It’s a common misconception that Ben was President. Well, he was, just of Pennsylvania (First in Abolition—why isn’t this on PA license plates? It’s a great way to make all the other states look bad.) It’s true, PA was the first state to abolish slavery, so that makes Ben our reasonable, abolitionist friend who tirelessly worked to end slavery in the Constitution, but much like today, there were too many paranoid radicals who were terrified of how it would impinge upon their newfound liberty (ironic), and most importantly, their bottom line. It’s easy to see why George is on the one-dollar bill and Ben is on the hundred. Ben caught so much pushback on the slavery stuff that he finally had to say, “Look, let’s just get this Constitution out the door before we lose steam. We’ll deal with the slavery business in 1808.” And as we all know—or should know—slavery, thankfully ended in 1865 in “America Part 2: The Civil War.”Bottom line is: look, I don’t blame my social studies teachers. They were working with a curriculum that was based on a 17 chapter textbook that ranged from the pilgrims to the first Gulf War and George Washington and Ben Franklin only got about 20 pages, so yeah you’re gonna leave out some of the skeletons in America’s closet, especially to a bunch of impressionable 10 year olds. But inherent historical dryness notwithstanding, Larson does a great job picking up the slack, and I now feel like one of those social media scholars who calls people out during election season or social upheaval. Being able to do that is what this county is all about, right?Four stars.

Pretty much everyone knows that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington  were prime movers and shakers both pre-and post the American revolution and that their work did as much as any human efforts to shape this country. Libraries of books have been published about both of them. Hours of instruction have been spent exploring their lives and writings. What, then, you might ask yourself, as I did myself, does the world need with still more?Edward J. Larson  answers the question in fairly short order, but I'm going to lead here with what I found his most trenchant point, even though it occurs near the end of the book. The matter of Slavery. The debates about slavery and the constitution are pretty well-known. The argument about the relative influence of large states and small states became intertwined with with how to count slaves. On the one hand, the more people you have in your state, the greater your influence in the house of representatives. On the other hand, if slaves were property and not really people, how could you count them at all? The 3/5 compromise whereby each slave counted as 60% of a person for census purposes was the result. Thus was the nation founded on a logically absurd, not to mention inhumane, premise.Most writers pass this off as a sort condition of the times with little more consequence than knee-britches and cocked hats. That's always bothered me, and Larson is the first historian I've read who takes it head on.There was a thriving and powerful abolitionist movement in the colonies, not the least of which was based in Franklin's Pennsylvania. The movement recognized slavery as a hideous wrong, and he was part of the faction who opposed it.Even though he had some house slaves over the years, he had freed them by the time of the revolution and he had argued eloquently against notions of Negro inferiority. The constitutional debates were filled with vitriolic rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Most memorable for me was the remark Larson quotes by one of our most quoted orators. The same man who called, "Give me liberty or give me death," when the time came to toss out the Articles of Confederation, yelled to all and sundryThey Will Free Your Niggers! Such eloquence from a scion of the enlightenment, no?The final document (this I did not know) forbad even discussing, let alone acting on, the question of slavery until 1808, twenty years after the nation would be established. Thus did these courageous men turn into cowards when confronted with the deepest moral conflict of their time. And dare I say we are still paying the price.Though urged by close friends to free his slaves, Washington could not bring himself to do so during his life, instead leaving manumission to a time after his wife had died. I might also mention that Jefferson, too, brilliant though he was, couldn't quite figure out how to let go of his mistress/chattel Sally Hemings or her (his, too, of course) mixed race children. Such a dilemma. Poor guy.But back to the other 250 pages or so of Franklin and Washington. I've done a fair amount of reading on the period, and Larson is certainly correct in stating that despite their separate accomplishments, no one has much explored how the relationship between the two men began, developed, and influenced this particular "course of human events."That Washington was a surveyor is fairly well-known. That he used his surveying work to get the inside scoop on available land and thus build his freehold far beyond what it would have otherwise been is much less known. At least to me. Nothing wrong with that. In a system of primogeniture, the third son competing with not only two brothers but a couple of half-brothers needed every advantage he could get.Franklin had it just as bad or worse, trailing in birth behind five older brothers. He was every bit as enterprising as Washington, but chose, as most of us know, to write, print, publish, and invest rather than to join the landed gentry. Or, as Washington did, to join the military.Both became prominent in their own ways and undoubtedly knew of one another, but their paths ran parallel for decades without significantly touching one another  (Franklin being twenty years the senior), finally converging during first continental congress in 1774.Astoundingly, Franklin was sixty-nine at that time, yet still had the energy to exercise leadership far beyond the capabilities and energy of lesser and younger men.Washington had built himself a considerable military reputation as a British officer, had married well, and had become a man of property and influence.How could two men with such disparate skills, separated by a generation of years and constellation of life experiences, work together amid the crises that finally resulted in a group of ragtag colonies defeating the army of the world's preeminent war machine?Larson doesn't make it explicit, but it seems obvious that their different backgrounds and styles complemented one another. Washington, the stalwart soldier, tall, commanding, accustomed to being listened to and obeyed. Franklin, the convivial joiner, intellect, scientist, founder of discussion groups on every conceivable subject. The theorist as well as a practical realist who founded libraries, invented machines and spectacles, and created homespun mottoes to live by.Washington could command a room simply by walking through the door. Franklin could start a conversation with about anyone on any subject. And do it a at least two languages. Thus a diplomat and a general. The revolution needed both. Washington appears in our mythology in full military regalia. Franklin dared to look rather ridiculous in a fur hat that enthralled the French and their romantic image of America when he was ambassador. The revolution needed both. And, though the two men apparently were never really hugs and loving close, they formed a potent team that had as much to do not only with the success of the revolution but in reflecting and even forming the character that became us.

Interesting perspective. A bit dry but it is a historical biography of 2 great American icons. What fortune early America had to have these men, among others, to build our nation.

Well written and concise account of the in-person and philosophical meetings, overlaps, and disagreements between Franklin and Washington. Nicely done.

With a critical presidential election less than nine months away, millions of Americans are looking for guidance before they cast what might be the most important vote of a lifetime. Perhaps they would be wise to turn their attention from the din of social media to American history for both reassurance and inspiration. A good starting point in their search could be Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward J. Larson’s FRANKLIN & WASHINGTON: The Founding Partnership, an impressive joint survey of the lives of “the indispensable authors of American independence and the two key partners in the attempt to craft a more perfect union…”Aimed at the general reader and, given the accomplishments of both men, eschewing any attempt at comprehensiveness, Larson’s account comprises three acts. The first --- focused on the French and Indian War --- examines the foundation of his subjects’ relationship, one that endured for more than three decades, and their connections in the period before the American Revolution. In the second section, Larson recounts their respective roles --- Washington on the battlefield and Franklin mostly in European diplomacy --- in achieving what must have seemed to both at many moments an improbable victory in the Revolutionary War. Finally, he analyzes their contributions to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution of the new American nation, with particular attention to their divergent views on the issue of slavery.Emerging a generation apart from two radically different backgrounds --- Franklin the 15th of 17 children of a working-class Boston family, who left home at age 17, eventually landing in Philadelphia where he made his fortune in the printing business, and Washington, the scion of a well-to-do family of Virginia planters --- at first they would seem to share few traits that would allow them to work “shoulder to shoulder on the patriot cause.” Indeed, the two did not meet until 1755, when Franklin was already 49 years old, and Washington was just beginning to emerge as a public figure as a result of his military exploits on America’s western frontier. But as Larson demonstrates, “they shared a republican ideology and progressivist faith that relied on human reason and divine providence rather than traditional ways and established dogmas. They sought truth and accepted facts. Life could get better, they believed. Theirs did.”Following on the drama of the eight-year-long Revolutionary War --- when Washington masterminded a disorganized and chronically underfunded army to achieve victory over the world’s most imposing military force, while Franklin deployed his considerable skill as a negotiator to secure France’s decisive support for the war effort --- the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, to which Larson devotes a great deal of attention, may seem arid by comparison. Yet it was in those debates that the foundation of an enduring republic was laid, along with the roots of some of the controversies --- notably, the conflicts between large and small states --- that define our politics to this day.Chief among those controversies was slavery, the issue that Larson argues “shaped the Constitution.” On this issue, the views of Franklin and Washington could not have been more divergent. Washington, the owner of Mount Vernon, was master to some 300 slaves, ones he treated with barely a modicum of kindness. Though the urbanite Franklin at one time owned a handful of house slaves, his views on the issue evolved over his long life, culminating with his assumption of the presidency of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society just before the opening of the Constitutional Convention.Franklin was nothing if not a pragmatist, and for all his principled opposition to the evil of slavery, he realized that some form of compromise, however odious it might be to him personally, had to be reached if the states had any hope of achieving the unity he had believed, since crafting the Albany Plan of Union in 1754 was essential to the growth of a new nation. Though the Constitution as ratified granted slaves only 60 percent personhood and barred any attempt at abolition before 1808, Franklin persisted in attempts to restrict slavery between the date of ratification and his death in 1790, an effort that “served to confirm his benevolent, philanthropic, and forward-looking nature.”Larson, who already has produced two books about Washington and another on the Constitutional Convention, is unabashedly sympathetic toward his subjects, though it appears he has a special affection for Franklin, the Renaissance man whose accomplishments in science, literature and philanthropy he touches on only briefly. Washington, he writes, governed “with a granite, tight-lipped self-control that made him the stoic father figure for a nation that adopted Franklin as its favorite uncle.” Despite their differences on substance and in style, theirs was a relationship of mutual admiration and respect, as “each recognized the other’s goodness and greatness.”While fully reckoning with their shortcomings, Larson is intent on leaving the reader with portraits that reveal both Franklin and Washington as extraordinary leaders. “Despite their flaws,” he writes, “Franklin and Washington have held up better under examination than most leaders of any age. Theirs was the founding partnership that launched a nation.” Facing the far different perils of our own age, is it too much to expect our current leaders, as these two men did, to rise to the challenges the times pose to them?Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg

This book strikes its mark far better than most side by side biographies can. Larson doesn't get bogged down in reciting the oft told tales about either of these men. While that means that Washington's blunders in the 1750s get more time than his achievements at Yorktown, it serves to hone the point of the book well. Larson wanders for the first 1/3 before hitting stride near the middle and finishing with a final 100 pages that are nearly brilliant.

Well written and balanced, it focuses more on the similarities of Washington and Franklin while extending the differences to illustrate the continuing differences In our country today as well as explaining how their strengths and weaknesses are reflected in our countries strengths and weaknesses. A great primer for anyone interested in a comprehensive view of these complicated, yet monumental men who almost singlehandedly created our country.

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway for the purpose of writing this review. No other compensation was offered or requested.A dual biography of Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) and George Washington (1732-1799) is, I will state right up front, is a good idea. Both men were instrumental in moving the American Colonies from loyal but disgruntled subjects of the British Crown to the United States of America, an independent country with its own constitution chosen by those who lived there. This volume details the times these friends cooperated, and some of their differences.The first point of concentration is the French and Indian War, in which both Franklin and Washington worked to protect their individual colonies, but found common ground and began corresponding.Both men were industrious, and self-made at the beginning. Washington, however, only a few years into adulthood became considerably wealthier by inheritance as a series of family deaths wiped out his close relatives. Having started industrious, he then worked to make his plantation more successful, as well as becoming known as a soldier and leader of men when his colony needed him.The book talks about how the men became disillusioned with British rule, both in general, and due to personal slights. Franklin was more diplomatic by nature, and spent quite some time abroad, first in England trying to mitigate the various taxes imposed after the Seven Years’ War, and during the American Revolution, convincing the French to support the rebelling colonies.Meanwhile, George Washington became General Washington, leading the American troops through many lean years of hardship until the British occupation was finally broken.After the war ended, both Franklin and Washington had learned the dangers of too little coordination between the colonies, jealous of their own prerogatives. The once vibrant Continental Congress had most of its best people move on to military service or their individual state governments, while petty men served in the broader congress. The Articles of Confederation gave each new state its own full powers, which meant that they could starve the national government and refuse to pay the veterans of the revolution on time.A better government was needed, and so a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, which turned into the creation of the American Constitution. Franklin was elderly and nearly bedridden by this point, but still managed to show up (the meeting hall wasn’t too far from his house) and help out, while Washington presided over the convention. It was pretty obvious that George Washington was the only one to be trusted as head of the new government, so his ideas were also listened to.But one of the big differences between Franklin and Washington was their attitudes towards slavery. In his early career, Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, because that was how you got ahead in business, but exposure to Quaker ideas and abolitionism through his printing business caused Franklin to realize the moral implications of the practice. (Plus he’d been an indentured servant once, so didn’t buy the “benevolent master” argument.) He freed his own slaves and urged others to do the same, eventually founding a major Abolitionist society.Meanwhile, George Washington came from the planter class of Virginia. Although he seems to have begun realizing the immorality of slavery sometime during the American Revolution due to interacting with free black people, Washington kept his reservations private. He needed slaves economically, and reacted badly to anyone who disrespected him including slaves who ran away.Thus, Washington was not thrilled when Franklin sent a petition to the first Congressional session of the new United States, one of several that asked the government to restrict the slave trade, and even ban slavery altogether. The protections in the Constitution for slavery had been a hard-fought compromise, and President Washington didn’t want the country torn apart again. (Congress kicked the can down the timeline to 1808, the first time allowed under the Constitution for restriction of the slave trade.)George Washington freed his own slaves in his will…to take effect after the death of his wife. Martha Washington, realizing that this was an open invitation to kill her, freed them early, but not her own slaves. Anti-slavery people took this as a sign that Washington had meant for slavery to end altogether at some point, while pro-slavery people saw it as just a nice private gesture that did not set a precedent for themselves.There’s a center section of color pictures, extensive endnotes, and a full index.Because the focus is on the connection between the two men and where their interests coincided and diverged, other portions of their lives get much less focus. So while I do recommend this well-researched book to the student of American history, you’ll also want to read individual biographies of those involved to get a fuller picture.

“Franklin and Washington: the founding partnership,” by Edward J. Larson (William Morrow, 2020). For much of this book I was not impressed: Franklin and Washington spent a lot of time not knowing or later not being in contact with one another; the linkage between them seemed forced. But eventually I saw the light: Larson is saying that the two of them---not just Washington---were the essential men for the creation of the United States. This is a combination of short but astute biographies, describing each of their lives and how they rose. Franklin was almost by definition the self-made man. After the apprenticeship with his brother and his elopement to Philadelphia, he built his successful printing business, gained notice as a writer, was chosen for increasingly important posts in Pennsylvania, and worked constantly as a scientist and inventor. He earned enough money that he was able to retire from business in his early 40s and devote his life to philosophy, government, and discovery. He was famous. Washington came from landed gentry and married very well. But as a youth he was ambitious and bold, commanding an expedition to the Forks of the Ohio (eventually Pittsburgh), where he attacked a French mission---but later was outmaneuvered and forced to surrender to French and Indian forces, signing a letter in French that he did not understand that later proved to be quite embarrassing. But he published his journals and began making a name for himself as a heroic young Virginian. His goal was to become a commissioned British officer, but learned through bitter experience that the British considered the colonials a contemptible force. He served in Braddock’s expedition to punish the French, and warned the general that he did not know how to fight in American forests. When Braddock’s force was ultimately defeated, it was Washington who organized the successful retreat. Now he became more famous. Each of the two men gradually understood that the British would not treat the colonists as equals. They both tried to prevent the conflict. Franklin was sent to England to plead the colonists’ cause, and was greeted and seen as an important diplomat. But he too was ultimately humiliated, by his treatment in Parliament. As the years passed the two men corresponded, and occasionally met. Each knew the other as an important figure, first in the drive for independence, then during the war (Washington eventually learning generalship, Franklin successfully gaining financial and military support from the French), and then in the creation of the Constitution---both wanted a strong central government, not just a collection of states. They were never great friends, but better perhaps they were allies in the important work of creating the United States. A quick read, with some good color plates.https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062...

Interesting idea for a dual biography of two of the greatest (and most biographied) founding fathers. It’s a short book and given the towering stature of the two stars, it is in no way comprehensive or inclusive. Also, Washington and Franklin are rarely tied together (the way, say, Washington and Hamilton are), since they didn’t really work together exactly. What the author does instead is to show how their paths frequently intersected, then has each one representing a faction of the FF — basically, Franklin is the northern intellectual wit, Washington is the imperious but rather humble southern aristocrat. Because these factions were very much a part of the “United” states at that time (and really, remain so today), it works very well. Larsen uses the two mens’ positions on slavery as a telling example — Franklin owned house slaves but unconditionally freed them early in his life then became the president of an abolitionist group, while Washington owned many slaves, didn’t treat them all that well, and only freed them in his will (and even then, only after his WIFE had died, though in fairness, she owned most of them when they got married). For the most part, the book proceeds linearly and we see how the two men shaped the union — Washington’s role as president of the Continental Congress which drafted the Constitution was among his finest hours, comparable perhaps to his decision not to seek a third term (which could’ve basically turned him into a king — he was very conscious of how he has shaping the presidency). Anyway, I thought this was an excellent dual biography and really enjoyed gaining a different perspective on these two American heroes.Grade: A-

American DyadA detailed, compelling retelling of the American Revolution from the dual perspectives of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. As with the best history books, it has a conversational and easy-to-follow narrative that drops you right into the time period. This book makes its main subjects the protagonists of their own wartime action- and political intrigue-filled adventure. The author masterfully weaves together the separate plots of a landed, slave-owning military General from the south fighting on desperate battlefields, helped immensely behind the scenes with funding and finding foreign allies by one of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds of the age. While both Washington and Franklin are usually portrayed as outsized, larger than life characters, this book humanizes them. Washington suffered from hemorrhoids. Franklin is ridiculously frail, but active. By narrowing the focus, this book provides a different take on the usual revolutionary war recitation of dates, battles, with a grand finale in Philadelphia with a new constitution. While the author praises its title stars, other Founding Fathers are treated less reverentially. Patrick Henry comes off as an outright racist. Anyone who’s watched the HBO mini-series “John Adams” will be surprised by the characterization of the verbose lawyer as a pompous self promoter. While it must have been nice to have Washington on his side, Alexander Hamilton’s sole appearance is reduced to a mere cameo.

Enjoyed this book to the very end. There are, of course, other books that have covered both Washington and Franklin in greater detail as can be witnessed by the almost 50 pages of notes. What was so interesting was seeing the similarities which propelled both to be the "Founding Fathers" and how they worked together, although at a distance most of the time, and the stark difference when it came to slavery. Washington, with over 300 slaves and unwilling, even at the time of death, to free them, and Franklin became an outspoken critic of slavery in the years leading up to his death. At the time of the Constitution's writing, I best sum it up by a quote from Robert Hunter (Grateful Dead lyricist and a fan of Franklin as witnessed by the song Franklins Tower) who penned "stoke the fires of paradise with coals from hell to start'. Unfortunate as it is, it is what had to happen in order to get the Southern states to vote to agree to vote for the Constitution. The "3/5" proclamation is as explained in this book, was the only way to move forward. However, I do wonder what would have happened if the Northern states did not look to compromise. There must be a fiction book about that somewhere!

At 274 pages (without the Notes--which are quite interesting), this merits reading, especially now before the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections. The first half of the book was a revelation to me about the French and Indian Wars. I did not realize Ben Franklin led troops into the western Pennsylvania wars with France! We learn how these two men (30 years apart in age and viewpoints) forged a lasting friendship, treated each other with respect, even when they disagreed and learned from each other for the greater good of the new United States of America. As a codicil to Franklin's will, Ben bequeathed Washington (then President) a final reminder of of America's independence and the importance of the people's liberty to elect their President and representatives. He gave Washington his humble wild Crab apple tree walking stick with a gold head wrought in the form of a cap of liberty, instead of a crown as many walking sticks of that period had. This to remind him of the wild nature of the new country and to govern through popular ascent not military might or divine right.

Ben Franklin was born in January of 1706, George Washington in February of 1732. Despite their age difference of 26 years, the two became friends and off-and-on colleagues, sometimes working together and meeting often, at other periods separated by tasks and distance.--This book is an easy read, largely because the author knows when to skip ahead. The Seven Years War is short. The problems of our government under the Articles of Confederation are given, but not narrated month-by-month.---I found the seventh chapter, "Darkness at Dawn," most important, as Professor Larson shows how many framers of our venerated Constitution proclaimed that nothing in it would end slavery. Except for Franklin, they gave up humanity to save the United States and not a split-off renegade south.---Parenthetically, I note that Archbishop Joseph Rommel of New Orleans in 1962 excommunicated three Catholics, one of whom was president of "Save Our Nation, Inc." The nonsense that excluding Blacks from many aspects of American society would "Save our Nation," was strong among the writers of our constitution in 1790.

Two years ago I embarked on a president reading challenge - where I would read books on each president. I have stalled out on that (hopefully just temporarily), but it's sparked a genuine interest in everything American Revolution/Constitution related. When I saw this book first mentioned I knew I wanted to read it. I can't seem to get over my obsession with George Washington and I hadn't read anything on Benjamin Franklin since my college years. I was interested in seeing how Mr. Larson would connect these two great figures. And I have to say that I really enjoyed this book. I learned a ton of new things, took a bunch of notes, and had a great time reading this book. It reads extremely easily and was very enjoyable. It's loaded down with a lot of information, but it's not bogged down with it. It gives a pretty good broad overview on everything that went on during that time period while really getting into the similarities and differences of Washington and Franklin. I really enjoyed this book. I'd definitely recommend this one if you're a history buff!

With the subtitle, "The Founding Partnership", author Edward J. Larson traces the efforts of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington from before the Revolutionary War to the death of Washington in 1799 (Franklin died 9 years earlier). This is not a dual biography as much as an examination of the ideas, ideals and practical efforts of two very diverse men who led the way in nation building. The final chapter examines their views and policies on slavery. Both had slaves when they were young, but Franklin freed his few slaves and later became the leader of the first Abolitionist society in North America, while Washington only gradually saw the contradiction in his having slaves after fighting for the liberty of all Americans. He would provide for the freeing of all his slaves in his Last Will and Testament, but only at the death of his wife. Published just weeks before the Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd by law enforcement in Minneapolis, these final chapters have poignant relevance.