Presidents/Generals.....George Washington, Brilliant American President/General

[OrangeEmpire]

Or was he just the first?


Militarily, Washington's record is hit-and-miss. He wasn't a terrible general at the very beginning of the war when he still employed standard Lobsterback techniques, but he was clearly outclassed by his better-trained, better-equipped opponents. When he threw most of the rules of modern (18th-century) warfare out the window, he began to have some minor success, but it wasn't until his introduction to Baron von Steuben and his interesting, uh, training methods that Washington really started kicking rear end.

What is overlooked is his charisma. He also had a great command presence and ability to inspire troops. Back then, soldiers almost had to be romanticized into battle, for them to do well. War was much more personal, and soldiers had to literally be inspired to almost feel like it was an honor to die for Washington, when marching into battle. So, having been able to pull that off, I think whatever he may have lacked as a stategist, he more than made up for with "heart."

I'd say by the end of the war, the "myth" of Washington was at least halfway true, but it certainly wasn't the case at the beginning. Personally, I think Washington was a great leader, but merely a pretty good (though inspiring) military leader. He knew what needed to be done to win the war, but lack of money, and lack of complete support for the stratigies presented to congress made fighting the war very stressing.

Plus he gave orders but some of the officers did not follow or did not fully carry out the orders, which would today be punishable under the UCMJ Article 92.

The main reason why America Won the war was bad planning and overconfidence on the British Side.

The British were the "away" team, and didn't know the territory nearly as well as their opponents. There is also the fact that they had to play nice to keep the "hearts and minds" of the loyalists, which meant they were fighting essentially with one hand tied behind their backs in a lot of cases.

Also, America's bizarre military tactics were infuriating and frustrating to the Brits. Knock 'em out in Philedelphia, and they'll spring up in New Jersey... knock 'em out there, and they'll pop up somewhere else. A lot like fighting the junkions ("Its not hard to knock em down, it's getting them to stay down that's the trick!")...

*Side note-You could also draw parallels with the current situation in Iraq from this.

Politically and probably the most important thing is he is the man who had a chance to be a king, and it was even offered to him, but he turned it down. He also set the precident of only 2 terms, which was for the most part followed ever since, except FDR. That has to say a lot for his character, too.

 

[therealUT]

In my opinion, what made Washington stand apart was his charisma and his sincere dedication to the cause. He was not a brillaint tactician, luckily he had subordinates who were (see Benedict Arnold, Nathaniel Greene, etc.). He was also politically savvy enough to keep assure the continued confidence of the Continental Congress during even the bleakest of moments. Many cite the Valley Forge Campaign when they speak reverently of General George Washington, however, his most brilliant moment, IMO, was the Battle for Bunker Hill in Boston.

I believe his lasting legacy as President was that he stepped down after his second term, creating a lasting precedent (that one could only wish Congressmen followed.)

 

[CSpindizzy]

Washington's strength as President was that he knew nothing on governing but had subordinates who were experts at their fields. He galvanized the people to a common idea. His cabinet is what actually set up the country and worked out the kinks, often at the expense of warring with each other.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No Lighthorse Harry Lee?

 

[therealUT]

Washington's strength as President was that he knew nothing on governing but had subordinates who were experts at their fields. He galvanized the people to a common idea. His cabinet is what actually set up the country and worked out the kinks, often at the expense of warring with each other.

Basically his same strength as a General in a new kind of war...

 

[CSpindizzy]

He owes a great deal of creating this new government to a young officer many believed could have been his son...Alexander Hamilton.

 

[OneManGang]

12 presidents have been generals.

George Washington - led the Continental Army in the American Revolution.

Andrew Jackson - War of 1812, various Indian campaigns

William Henry Harrison -War of 1812

Zachary Taylor - Mexican War

Franklin Pierce - Mexican War

Andrew Johnson - Military governor of TN during Civil War, a post that carried general's rank.

Ulysses Grant - Led Union Army in the Civil War

Rutherford B. Hayes - Civil War

James Garfield - Civil War

Benjamin Harrison - Civil War

Dwight D. Eisenhower - WWII

Rank as Generals: (my opinion - your results may vary)

Ulysses Grant - A gifted tactical, operational and strategic general.

Dwight Eisenhower - Despite much back-biting by the Brits and some Americans - Ike organized and led the Allies in the largest military operations in the history of the world (Normandy, Breakout and Pursuit through France, the Battle of the Bulge, Battle for Germany) and WON THEM ALL.

Andrew Jackson - Jackson was a old school warrior even for the early 1800s. Vain, profane and fearless, Jackson relished combat and it showed. Never lost a battle - ever.

George Washington - As a general, he was hamstrung by a fractious and dirt-poor Congress. he held the Continental Army together while he and they learned how to win the war. His operational and tactical proficiency improved as the war went on but his personal leadership was the real difference-maker. The British had no-one who could compete on that level.

Zachary Taylor - Commanded American forces along the Texas border during the Mexican War and won a series of battles including the bBattle oif Buena Vista which ended the Mexican threat to Texas.

The others either held brigade/regimental commands, and therefore whilst "generals" held more tactical commands, or (Johnson) never wore a uniform but gained rank due to office.

Rank as President of the United States (again my opinion)

George Washington - set the standard for all presidents that followed.

Dwight Eisenhower - Despite a few stumbles in office - kept the Cold War from going "hot" and generally presided over a period of economic expansion and relative peace.

Andrew Jackson - leaving the whole horrendous "Trail of Tears" fiasco aside, if Jackson did nothing else he quashed an early South Carolina bid for secession and held the country together for another 20 years.

Ulysses Grant - yes, I know the rep for corruption, while personally above reproach, he was remarkable tone-deaf to appearances and too trusting of subordinates.

Andrew Johnson - Elevated by Lincoln's death to an office he never sought, he proceeded to pay for many percieved Lincoln sins - which Lincoln's stature kept from boiling over.

Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Benjamin Harrison - extra point questions on HS history exams - or $2000 questions on Jeopardy.

William Henry Harrison - served less than a month in office - most notable as a Final Jeopardy question.

 

[GVF]

In my opinion, what made Washington stand apart was his charisma and his sincere dedication to the cause. He was not a brillaint tactician, luckily he had subordinates who were (see Benedict Arnold, Nathaniel Greene, etc.). He was also politically savvy enough to keep assure the continued confidence of the Continental Congress during even the bleakest of moments. Many cite the Valley Forge Campaign when they speak reverently of General George Washington, however, his most brilliant moment, IMO, was the Battle for Bunker Hill in Boston.

I believe his lasting legacy as President was that he stepped down after his second term, creating a lasting precedent (that one could only wish Congressmen followed.)

BA got his recognition for not hangin w/GW very long?? He went back red didn't he?

 

[therealUT]

BA got his recognition for not hangin w/GW very long?? He went back red didn't he?

Prior to committing treason, General Arnold was one of the best tacticians the Continental Army had.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

There is no doubt in my mind that he was absolutely the only person that would have won the American Revolution. No other person had the tools (or the dedication) to hold that army together through the duration of the war.

What's more, his conduct in the aftermath of the war is what truly places him in the company of the greatest men to have ever lived. In the history of the world, I can think of only one armed rebellion of a colonial power that did not result in utter chaos within a decade and that's the American Revolution. The reason that this did not happen is George Washington.

First, he stopped the soldiers revolt. Then he happily handed his sword back to the civilian government. Finally, he allowed himself to be drafted back into public service (first at the Constitutional Convention, then as president) as the only moral authority universally respected enough to give legitimacy to the new government.

Washington is rightfully the father of this country.

If you'd like to discuss a man whose contributions are exagerated, perhaps you should look at Thomas Jefferson. Aside from writing the Declaration of Independence, he hardly did anything of note until he decided to destroy Alexander Hamilton. *Note-I am a Thomas Jefferson fan.

Gen. Gates should never have been given credit for Saratoga in the first place. He only got it because he neglected to give Arnold and his other subordinates their due (a piece of egotism that helped send Arnold over to the British...and nearly ended the war when Arnold tried to hand the British West Point).

His command at the Battle of Camden was an utter disaster followed by his disgraceful flight from the scene. It's fortunate that Greene was capable of salvaging the situation.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

On an interesting note, Grant served with Taylor and assimilated his bravado and fighting style.

Furthermore, Lee served with Winfield Scott and he assmilated his bravado and fighting style.

We can discuss further in detail if one wishes too.

 

[OneManGang]

Robert E. Lee emerged as the Army's superstar of the Mexican War. Winfield Scott ("Old Fuss and Feathers") gained a great respect for Lee's abilities and personal courage. Scott sent Lee on several dangerous and difficult missions that greatly aided the eventual victory and capture of Mexico City in 1847. When the War Between the States began in 1861, Scott immediatly recommended to Abraham Lincoln that he offer Lee command of the Union Army. Lincoln did so. Lee turned the offer down, however, saying he could not raise his sword against his home state and kinsmen.

It took Jefferson Davis three years to figure out what Scott and Lincoln firgured out literally on the first day of the war. By the time Lee was placed in command of the Confederate armies, in late 1864, the Union armies: the Army of the Potomac in Virginia and Sherman's Army of the Tennesse and Army of the Cumberland in Georgia and South Carolina, were beating the life out of the Confederacy. There was little Lee could do, at that point, to reverse the Union offensives.

Scott was a VERY good strategist and tactician but knew he was far too old for field command in 1861, Lincoln had virtually no military experience whatsoever but trusted Scott and generally did what Scott suggested although he came under media assault for doing so.

Absent Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was force to choose from a stable of mediocrities for his commanding generals - the names read like a who's who of military ineptitude: Irwin McDowell, George McClellan, John Pope, McClellan (again), Henry Halleck, Ambrose Burnside, and - to an extent - George Meade. Lincoln followed Grant's career in the Western Theater and after Chattanooga, named him to command the all the Union armies. Grant's strategy from late 1863 on killed the Confederacy.

It is interesting to conjecture that had Lee accepted Scott's and Lincoln's offer in 1861, the Civil War would have ended in Union victory long before it did (the South had nobody in his league - nobody.) Further, there is every possibility that Robert E. Lee - NOT Andrew Johnson - would have been the 17th President of the United States.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Did he truly write the DoI or did he just rip off his fellow Virginian's writings? I can refer you to a certain writing by George Mason that looks awfully like Jefferson's. And Mason wrote his first.

 

[OneManGang]

Dumas Malone, whose magisterial biography of TJ covers six (count 'em) volumes has this to say regarding TJ and the Declaration (Vol 1, Pg 221):

He did copy a good deal from a particular and previous writing of his own. Beside his writing-box he spread out the charges against the King which he had sent to Virginia. These constituted the substantial foundation of the longest section in the Declaration. Another paper, which his fellow Virginians adopted before their constitution, was also available to him: the Declaration of Rights, largely drafted by George Mason and afterwards renowned. The phraseology of the even more famous philosophical paragraph in the intercolonial Declaration (the 7/4/76 one) is similar to this and may reflect its direct influence. Jefferson could have drawn on George Mason for his own statement of fundamental human rights, and he would have thought this not amiss, but the ideas were in his mind already. They belonged to no single man but, in his opinion, were the property of mankind. Certainly, they were the property of the American Patriots, whose mind he was trying to express, and it really made no difference where they came from.

So, strictly speaking - yes, he did borrow heavily from Mason. But, then too, he also borrowed heavily from things he (Jefferson) had written previously as well. As Malone points out, to Jefferson, once Mason's text had been adopted by Virginia, it became the property of ALL Virginians to use as they saw fit. Both Mason and Jefferson were great men and did much to advance Liberty in this country and ultimately around the world.

Can't we leave it at that?

 

[CSpindizzy]

No not really. Considering that Jefferson gets sole credit for the DoI in schools across the country, I think it's disingenuous to put him on a pedestal of such a founder of such ideas. Jefferson is placed in a godlike stature when much of what he wrote was taken from others and much of what he preached was not even practiced by him.

 

[OneManGang]

If anyone has a right to take umbrage at the "Jefferson wrote the Declaration" thing, it's John Adams. He and Jefferson were commissioned by the Continental Congress to write the document as a team.

Mason was not given such a commission.

This is one of the things I despise about modern historiography. They get so caught up in the minutiae they lose the big picture. Also they will use any excuse to discredit, to belittle, any "dead white guy" just because they can. The modern historical template is Jefferson = bad, Fidel = Good. I'm Old School and proud of it. I think Fidel Castro is a brutal murdering dictator who has single-handedly set back the cause of Freedom and Liberty in Central and South America by 100 years.

Jefferson wrote the actual document, that much even Adams agrees to. Where he got the inspiration from is a matter of trivia. For that matter you can find phraseology in the Declaration from Locke, Rousseau, the Magna Carta and Plato.

So, you would prefer that Jefferson just made the whole thing up, or what? I sorry but I just don't get your point.

Are you looking for footnotes and cites in the Declaration? "We hold these truths*..." (*G. Mason, VA Declaration, 1775. hence forth cited as Mason ___)? Somehow that just would not inspire me to do very much.

This was a document designed to inspire and explain, if Jefferson felt that someone else said it better than he could, he used the other person's ideas.

Get over it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

There is a difference between being inspired and basically copying almost word for word. There is a difference between being inspired by someone from 2000 years ago and basically taking context from a guy's writings who is right up the road from you and still alive. There is also a difference between teaching that Jefferson was solely responsible for this and him actually taking ideas from one of his contemporaries.

Perhaps it would be better said that Jefferson was not the sole innovator for said document. Common ideas such as liberty, freedom, natural law, etc. are one thing. But taking entire sentences from a contemporary source and being solely credited for it are another. We give Jefferson so much credit for his thought as if it were completely original. This is one example that shows this is not always the case.