This Historian Could Change How You Think About George Washington

Author Alexis Coe’s biography “You Never Forget Your First” illuminates surprising details about our very first U.S. president.

Photo: Courtesy of Sylvia Rosokoff
Photo: Courtesy of Sylvia Rosokoff


We see George Washington on every $1 bill and grew up learning about him in school. But how much do we actually know about the Founding Father?

Historian Alexis Coe’s biography “You Never Forget Your First,” released on February 4, portrays details about Washington, his associates, and his society in ways many Americans have never been exposed to before. 

“I'm the third woman in the last 40 years who’s written a [biography] about Washington—and the only woman [historian] in the last hundred years—and it shows,” she told NowThis. 

Coe brought a distinct research strategy to the book, using primary sources including letters and debunking common myths about the first U.S. president. She breathes life into the depiction of Martha Washington, a wealthy widower who could have remained unmarried — an anomaly for her generation — but chose to marry Washington, then made many compromises to deal with unwanted public attention. Coe also presents Mary Washington with more dignity, not as a “very difficult, self-centered, crusty woman,” like she’d been described by a past biographer.

The book dedicates sections to Washington’s early years and military leadership in the Revolutionary War, while devoting the final section to his two presidential terms, retirement, and death. The book deals frankly with many of Washington’s consequential actions beyond becoming “America’s first real celebrity”: his ownership and treatment of his slaves, “frenemies,” or Founding Fathers with whom he had a falling out, attitudes toward partisanship, and negligence of his ailing mother, Mary.

As Coe wrote in the first pages, many existing presidential biographies are stodgily titled and packaged like gifts for Father’s Day. But this book’s cover will likely catch some stares, charmed by a rare and almost cheery presentation of someone who defined the most powerful job in the world. 

Coe is the author of “Alice + Freda Forever,” consulting producer on Doris Kearns Goodwin's forthcoming George Washington series on the HISTORY Channel, and host of the podcast "No Man's Land" from The Wing. She spoke with NowThis about Washington’s relationships, mistakes, and power to set precedents, many of which are still recognized today. Below is an edited and condensed version of the conversation.

Photo: Courtesy of Penguin Random House

What were you hoping readers would take away from this book?
I’m hoping readers feel as if they have a comprehensive history that they would otherwise have to read a biography, and a book on slavery, and a book on women, and a book on the Revolution to get—all in one package.

You're also one of a small group of women who have written presidential biographies or who have recently written a biography about Washington. What do you believe you could bring to the genre with a woman's point of view and lived experience?
I think what I brought to Washington is a review of how certain conclusions have been made and found that they weren't necessarily correct. I do think that I'm free from certain obsessions that his past biographers have had, for instance about his family life. And therefore, I am open to other interpretations and pursue other primary sources. And they guide me to different places. I think this biography treats subjects that are considered foregone conclusions—like his mother is awful, his father was great, his wife was a saint—as if they're things we still have to question and prove. I've come out on the other side often disagreeing with his past biographers.  

And in your biography, why did you choose to organize the information by focusing more time on his early years and his military experience and a smaller portion of the book on his presidency?
The book covers his life as he lived it. The presidency was eight years long. He lived 50 years before the revolution. There’s a good amount of interest in his presidency because he's set all the precedents, and we often use him as a comparison because the presidency was built around who he was as a person and choices that he made. The delegates of the Constitutional convention figured out quite a lot about the presidency, but they also assumed that the man that they trusted— the only man they could imagine in the role, George Washington—would create norms for the office, and he did. And when those are violated, they're usually codified into law. For example, FDR decided he would like a third term. And after that, lawmakers said, “OK, the choice that Washington made needs to be made a law.”

And though he did set so many precedents—and though he was reluctant to be a leader— it seemed like he did ultimately want to adhere to those precedents by the end, or want others to adhere to them. So what do you think Washington would think of President Trump and our current state of affairs? 
Washington would be horrified by Trump. You can give me any example, and I can describe how he would be horrified. I think the one that's most relevant to the moment is the role of foreign influence. Washington, in his farewell address, warned citizens that any leader who asked favors of foreign countries would be beholden to them. And Trump requested that Ukraine investigate Biden’s son, and Washington would assume that he [Trump] would be beholden to Ukraine.

click to play video

In the chapters where the government starts to become more legitimate, it seemed like Washington and his peers became concerned about how we appeared on the international stage, even though we were a brand new country. And there was also, I thought, a sense of righteousness among citizens at that time. How do you feel that history squares with America today?
During the Revolution, it was really important to Washington that we view ourselves as better than the British. And because the British wouldn't recognize America as a sovereign nation—they would only treat America as in the throes of rebellion— they’d excuse themselves from the rules of war, which meant that could return prisoners whenever they wanted; they could mistreat Americans. And they often committed atrocities, which Washington made sure were well-documented and circulated. And that showed the world that this was a serious country. This was not a lawless land. They intended to take their place among nations that were hundreds of years old—just as soon they won the war. It also showed domestically that the British could not be trusted.

And as far as citizens, what’s interesting is that Washington made a lot of mistakes, too. One of the greatest mistakes he made was the first attempt to tax citizens. If we remember anything from our history textbooks, it’s “no taxation without representation.” That’s what Washington and the other founders fought against. And when it came time to tax citizens, he turned to people who couldn’t vote because they didn’t own land [Editor’s note: only white men who were older than 21 and owned land could vote as of the nation’s founding in 1776].

But they could produce whiskey. And so he implemented an excise tax, and they were unhappy because it was unfair. They [these citizens] didn't elect the people who were telling them that they had to pay these taxes, and they also didn’t have the cash. So they wrote letters, and they protested, and they went unheard.

Washington sent tax collectors, and they [citizens] tarred and feathered them. Washington decided to sidestep the Constitution, get the judicial writ, and he actually rode in a carriage along with a militia to confront his own citizens. This has never happened since. He thought better of it right before he gets to the battlefield and goes home, which is pretty good because when they got to the battlefield, there was no one there. So he got really excited about this confrontation, took it personally, thought it was the first domestic challenge to the government. And he completely overreacted.

You spend a lot of time recognizing slavery in this book and debunking the myth that Washington freed his slaves. In one section, you write that Washington warned overseers not to physically discipline slaves—not because it was inhumane, but because it would be less efficient. How were you expecting readers might reckon with this narrative depiction of our First President’s connection to slavery?
Readers may be surprised that the Washington they’ve read about who emancipated his slaves in his will, who supposedly had a change of heart, was actually very much ruled by fears about his legacy and his desire to build up his wealth and maintain it—and also by his personal acts of aggression. He was painted it as a sort of kind slave master, and that simply doesn't exist. There is an incident in which Washington slaps an enslaved man because he can't lift an entire log by himself. It's important we read about that incident as it exists rather than just being told, “Washington had slaves. It was tough work.” We don't get a lot from that. And it doesn't mean that we should cancel Washington; it means that we need to view him a little bit differently.

We learn a lot about Washington's relationships that he lost when he became president in the book, and many of his mistakes, as you noted, and many of the things that he was reluctant about doing. Is there a larger message there on being a young leader?
It’s good to remember that Washington wasn't born great. He wasn't destined to be anything, and as a young man, he made a lot of mistakes. He wasn't politically savvy, and he didn't get what he wanted. But he learned over decades how to run a business, how to run a military, how to run an administration by reading and watching and listening to people who he considered smarter than himself. And I think that all those things worked quite well for him.

It seems like older men kind of took him under his wing at an early age because they could see that he was eager.
To an extent. I think we should give his mother credit for who he became and who he was.

He did have certain advantageous relations and certain clients, shall we say, when he was a surveyor. But otherwise, he's mostly self-made, as much as anyone who inherited 11 slaves when he was 10 years old can be.