For example, in the first chapter, McDonald speaks of George Washington with admiration and quotes that distinguish who he was as a person and as a president, but, after a few chapters, he stops including George Washington into his deliberations. I understand the fact that he has to give details about other individuals too, however, in my point of view, I think he should have found a way to connect his organized details back to George Washington for the first chapters. Due to his failure in doing so in the beginning, I was on the verge of getting bored of the book. I was about to stop reading it since it felt like George Washington was no longer the writer’s primary …show more content…
I liked the details that the author provided for some characters in it. For instance, I liked the description of Jefferson when he was explaining how the system of George Washington worked. (40). Due to his description, it was easy for me to fully comprehend how the system of George Washington operated. Overall, this book, was an interesting and a good one to read. I gained a lot of knowledge about George Washington’s presidency. The author’s clarifications, when talking about different personalities and acts of different individuals, showed more meaning to the presidency of George Washington. He made convincing arguments by describing characters such as Hamilton, and the part people played in the presidency. Because he included such detail, I believe that anyone who is curious about George Washington’s presidency would enjoy reading it to some