George Washington and James Monroe Comparison

George Washington and James Monroe both believed that our country should not become involved in foreign affairs during our early years of independence. Any international conflict could bring about war and since America was newly founded, George Washington and James Monroe, knew that if America was brought into war they would surely be destroyed. Before America got involved with other countries affairs their nation needs to be able to protect themselves first. George Washington and James Monroe knew that to obliterate any chances to be involved in a war, America had to stay out of any international conflict happening around them. Although this may have worked when George Washington and James Monroe were in office, this form of isolationism would not work in the modern world.

Although George Washington and James Monroe stayed out of foreign affairs in the beginning of the country because they had barely gotten on their feet and would destroyed if they got into a war, now America is a force to be reckoned with and has no worries of being destroyed by other countries. America has been around for centuries and they have been able to build a strong military in the event of a war, so even if we did stay out of other countries affairs we do not necessarily need to. When George Washington and James Monroe were in office the country was weak and would not be able to win against stronger and older countries, but now America is stronger with advanced technology that could be used in war and we have better allies. Even though George Washington and James Monroe may have been worried about how we would defend ourselves against other countries, today this is not really something that America has to worry about. In the event of a nuclear war, America would also be prepared, so most countries with common sense would not nuke this nation because America can just as easily nuke them back.

Without America getting involved in certain foreign affairs, it would allow a myriad of terrible events to occur in other countries. An example of this is the Holocaust because America decided to stay out of World War II and allowed genocide of many different groups to occur for years. It was not until the bombing at Pearl Harbor that America took any action. This caused many casualties before that because if America got involved sooner the war would not have gone as long as it did.

If America did not get involved in the Middle East conflict it would be end up being way different. America is the counterweight that keeps other countries goals in check, so if America was not involved Israel would have become more militant. Because America would be ignoring the situation in the Middle East, Europe would fill the diplomatic spot the nation leaves behind. The role of the external arbitrator would be passed onto different countries, including France and the United Kingdom. Non-oil producing Shiite majority nations would most likely form an alliance with Saudis and other local oil exporters. As a result of this alliance, there would probably be a higher energy price for the rest of the world.

In the event that America cuts off communication with all other foreign countries, the United States Aid to Africa would cease to exist. To combat epidemics and conflict in Africa, they are very heavily reliant on the support of the United States. All the aid money in the dictators and local strongmen would be lost and the local conflicts in Africa will most likely increase because of America’s absence. This will also result in conflict between China and Europe for influence in the African continent, but not only these two countries because Nigeria and South Africa may also start competing for the influence in that area.

During both George Washington and James Monroe’s term in office, it was during Americas early years of independence, so their goal was to stay out of conflict by ignoring foreign affairs because if America got into a war in its early years we would have been obliterated. George Washington and James Monroe knew that before we got involved with other foreign affairs and conflicts, the United States had to build up their army, warfare, and government. To have even the slightest chance to win a war, the United States had to make sure that they were ready before they got involved and make unnecessary conflict. In today’s modern world with technology and conflicts, America would cause more problems trying to stay out of them.

George Washington and James Monroe Comparison

George Washington and James Monroe both believed that our country should not become involved in foreign affairs during our early years of independence. Any international conflict could bring about war and since America was newly founded, George Washington and James Monroe, knew that if America was brought into war they would surely be destroyed. Before America got involved with other countries affairs their nation needs to be able to protect themselves first. George Washington and James Monroe knew that to obliterate any chances to be involved in a war, America had to stay out of any international conflict happening around them. Although this may have worked when George Washington and James Monroe were in office, this form of isolationism would not work in the modern world.

Although George Washington and James Monroe stayed out of foreign affairs in the beginning of the country because they had barely gotten on their feet and would destroyed if they got into a war, now America is a force to be reckoned with and has no worries of being destroyed by other countries. America has been around for centuries and they have been able to build a strong military in the event of a war, so even if we did stay out of other countries affairs we do not necessarily need to. When George Washington and James Monroe were in office the country was weak and would not be able to win against stronger and older countries, but now America is stronger with advanced technology that could be used in war and we have better allies. Even though George Washington and James Monroe may have been worried about how we would defend ourselves against other countries, today this is not really something that America has to worry about. In the event of a nuclear war, America would also be prepared, so most countries with common sense would not nuke this nation because America can just as easily nuke them back.

Without America getting involved in certain foreign affairs, it would allow a myriad of terrible events to occur in other countries. An example of this is the Holocaust because America decided to stay out of World War II and allowed genocide of many different groups to occur for years. It was not until the bombing at Pearl Harbor that America took any action. This caused many casualties before that because if America got involved sooner the war would not have gone as long as it did.

If America did not get involved in the Middle East conflict it would be end up being way different. America is the counterweight that keeps other countries goals in check, so if America was not involved Israel would have become more militant. Because America would be ignoring the situation in the Middle East, Europe would fill the diplomatic spot the nation leaves behind. The role of the external arbitrator would be passed onto different countries, including France and the United Kingdom. Non-oil producing Shiite majority nations would most likely form an alliance with Saudis and other local oil exporters. As a result of this alliance, there would probably be a higher energy price for the rest of the world.

In the event that America cuts off communication with all other foreign countries, the United States Aid to Africa would cease to exist. To combat epidemics and conflict in Africa, they are very heavily reliant on the support of the United States. All the aid money in the dictators and local strongmen would be lost and the local conflicts in Africa will most likely increase because of America’s absence. This will also result in conflict between China and Europe for influence in the African continent, but not only these two countries because Nigeria and South Africa may also start competing for the influence in that area.

During both George Washington and James Monroe’s term in office, it was during Americas early years of independence, so their goal was to stay out of conflict by ignoring foreign affairs because if America got into a war in its early years we would have been obliterated. George Washington and James Monroe knew that before we got involved with other foreign affairs and conflicts, the United States had to build up their army, warfare, and government. To have even the slightest chance to win a war, the United States had to make sure that they were ready before they got involved and make unnecessary conflict. In today’s modern world with technology and conflicts, America would cause more problems trying to stay out of them.

The Leadership Style and Characteristics of George Washington

Leadership is described as being a person who has the ability to have people follow them. There are many characteristics for being a leader or holding a leadership role. In order to be a good leader one must be able to be trusted. They must also be a person who is a visionary and knows when to be & not to be tough. You would need to be organized and be able to organize other people. You also need to be a risk taker but in a strategic way. When I look at the leadership style and characteristics of George Washington he possessed all of the above and more.

I want to first take a look at why he was considered to be such a trustworthy person. George Washington who was an ethical person of high moral character refusing to yield to temptation. With these characteristics, people had no problem following him, his charisma commanded people to follow rather than demanding them to follow. A visionary leader has a vision into the far future, can develop an effective organization and can attract others to strive also for the attainment of his/her vision so that it becomes a shared vision and they all work together in an organization that sustains the vision, its beliefs and its values. Washington was a great visionary he was able to see the big picture when it came to creating a plan of action.

On June 15, 1775, the delegates to the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, unanimously elected George Washington “to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised for the defense of American liberty.” His commission, dated June 19, 1775, designated him “General and Commander in Chief of the United Colonies”. He received it on the twentieth and he started for Boston on the twenty- first. Several factors led to his selection: his character, they knew that they could trust him; he was the best-known military person in the colonies; he was a Southerner and the delegates believed he could unite the forces of all the colonies; he was a man of wealth and presumably would be less tempted to corruption and he was known as a fearless, determined and competent leader. Another factor of great importance, although not stressed or perhaps even acknowledged by many historians and commentators, was that his ideas regarding British and colonial relations were well known and were representative of ideas shared by the delegates and those whom they represented. They shared a common vision.

Consider just three of Washington’s major ideas as the General. First, he must win the war, no matter how long it took. Second, it was a war for independence, liberty. Third, the purpose of this independence from Great Britain was to establish a republican, constitutional government. Being a republic, its form of government and its ruling officials would all be determined by the people. Washington, more than anyone else in that period, understood the full implication of these ideas regarding all aspects of his functions as the military leader – strategy, operations, tactics. He revealed himself as a genius in leadership as the “General and Commander in Chief of the United Colonies.”

George Washington was also seen as a tough leader. One of the reasons was his ability to pick himself up after failure i.e. Fort Necessity. He was also able to push his way through several health issues including dysentery, which during those times could have been fatal. Washington was a great statesman and this helped him to gain followers in politics. He was a very persuasive person because he could gain the trust of the politicians as well as the troops. One can list many things that make a person a great leader and when it comes to military leadership George Washington’s style is still look to today. In my opinion if a person can remain relevant and admired for their character so many years later they must be a true leader in all of its forms.

The Leadership of George Washington Essay

This is a question that inevitably arises in the mind of anyone who studies, even on a casual basis, the founding of our nation. Washington lived and worked with brilliant philosophers, thinkers, writers, orators and organizers, such as Franklin, Mason, John and Sam Adams, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, the Randolphs and the Lees, almost all of whom were far better educated than he. Yet at the three major junctions in the founding of the nation, the Revolution, the Constitutional Convention and the selection of the first President, for each position the leader chosen was George Washington. In his own day he was seen as the indispensable man, the American Moses, The Father of the Country. Why?

His contemporaries and subsequent commentators have enumerated many factors that entered into the selection by his peers for these three strategically important positions: physical size and presence, charisma, energy, multi-faceted experiences, charm, courage, character, temperament, being a Virginian, wealth, ambition, his reputation as a stalwart patriot and, especially after the Revolution, the regard, admiration and affection of the populace at all levels of society. The most commonly cited characteristic given for his emergence as the supreme leader is his character. The most infrequently cited, as far as I have observed, are his intelligence and his ideas.

The overall impression that many people have today, therefore, is that while Washington was a person of the highest moral character, he did not posses a first rate intelligence and he got most of his ideas from others, such as Franklin, Mason, Henry, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison. A factual understanding of their respective ages relative to Washington and the dates on which his views were known would prove the fallacy of the assumption that Washington was intellectually dependent upon any of them or anyone else.

I want to suggest and argue that Washington was chosen for these leadership roles because of his character and also because of his being a genius in the area of leadership. They trusted him because he had demonstrated a noble and incorruptible character and he had also shown himself to be an exceptional leader.

In the remainder of my presentation I shall, first, briefly outline the characteristics of a highly effective leader, second, illustrate Washington’s genius as a leader in his roles as commander in chief of the Continental Army, president of the Constitutional Convention and first President of the country, third, note what contributed to his being such a leader, fourth, suggest why his genius in the area of leadership has not been widely acknowledged and, fifth, suggest some things we can learn from him for our own daily living and in regard to our country.

Leadership

Leadership. For the purpose of this discussion I shall use a concept entitled “The Visionary Leader” which I came across some years ago. The visionary leader, first of all, has very clear, encompassing and far-reaching vision in regard to the cause or organization involved. This vision includes ideas and goals which remain constant no matter how long it takes to realize them and regardless of the difficulties which the leader encounters. Furthermore, the leader never allows any of the means or actions along the way to violate or invalidate this vision and its constituent values.

Secondly, the visionary leader is skillful in designing and creating an organizational culture which will make possible the attainment of the leader’s vision and ideas. In fact, creating this organizational culture may be the most lasting contribution of the leader for it will consist of the enduring values, vision and beliefs that are shared by members of the organization.

Thirdly, the visionary leader is also a person who can attract others to follow him/her in seeking attainment of the vision. But more than that, this charismatic person is able to instill in others the ideas, beliefs and values of the vision so that they become empowered to move beyond the leader’s and their own expectations.

In brief, the visionary leader has a vision into the far future, can develop an effective organization and can attract others to strive also for the attainment of his/her vision so that it becomes a shared vision and they all work together in an organization that sustains the vision, its beliefs and its values.

Another characteristic of a truly effective leader is that she/he always focuses simultaneously on two seemingly different configurations, yet to such a leader they are always inextricably related, such as:

  • strategy and tactics
  • goals and objectives
  • big picture ideas and little picture details
  • statesman and politician
  • profound and practical
  • architect and plumber
  • wisdom and application
  • futuristic ideas and present actions

Of all the founding fathers George Washington alone demonstrated fully the threefold characteristics of a visionary leader and the intellectual and moral capacity, over a long period of time and in the course of manifold difficulties, to maintain coherency between long range ideas and goals and short term actions.

This is why, I believe, we can assert that George Washington was America’s supreme genius in leadership and thus became the Father of Our Country. Consider this assertion in terms of his roles as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army of the Revolution, the president of the Constitutional Convention and the first President of the United States of America.

Examples of Washington’s Leadership

I shall utilize these two concepts of leadership – the visionary leader and the leader who can maintain coherence between the vision and current actions – in briefly evaluating Washington’s roles as general of the Continental Army, president of the Constitutional Convention and the President of the United States.

General Washington

On June 15, 1775, the delegates to the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, unanimously elected George Washington “to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised for the defense of American liberty.” His commission, dated June 19, 1775, designated him “General and Commander in Chief of the United Colonies”. He received it on the twentieth and he started for Boston on the twenty-first.

It is clear that several factors led to his selection: his character, they knew that they could trust him; he was the best known military person in the colonies; he was a Southerner and the delegates believed he could unite the forces of all the colonies; he was a man of wealth and presumably would be less tempted to corruption and he was known as a fearless, determined and competent leader. Another factor of great importance, although not stressed or perhaps even acknowledged by many historians and commentators, was that his ideas in regard to British and colonial relations were well known and were representative of ideas shared by the delegates and those whom they represented. They shared a common vision.

Consider just three of Washington’s major ideas as the General. First, he must win the war, no matter how long it took. Second, it was a war for independence, liberty. Third, the purpose of this independence from Great Britain was to establish a republican, constitutional government. Being a republic, its form of government and its ruling officials would all be determined by the people.

Washington, more than anyone else in that period, understood the full implication of these ideas in regard to all aspects of his functions as the military leader – strategy, operations, tactics. He revealed himself as a genius in leadership as the “General and Commander in Chief of the United Colonies.”

Consider, first, his role as a visionary leader. I have already shown that Washington had the vision of an independent, republican, constitutional government controlled by a free people. He also envisioned this nation as contributing to the uplifting and happiness in the years, even centuries, to come of the whole world. (This vision is now being fulfilled as an increasing number of the nations of the world become democracies.)

As a visionary leader, Washington developed an organization with an organizational culture which achieved the goal of winning the war for independence. This, as Washington well knew, would be just the first step in the founding of a republican, constitutional government. During the eight years of the American Revolution, General Washington spent far more time, thought and energy as the organizer and administrator of the military forces than he did as a military strategist and tactician. Without Washington’s persistent, intelligent leadership, the army as an organization would have collapsed from within, unaided by British military might.

As a visionary leader, Washington also attracted both military and civilians to follow him to victory. He faced the realities of short term enlistments, desertions, very poorly clad and equipped soldiers, recalcitrant congressional and state legislators and wavering loyalty to the Glorious Cause among the populace. Yet enough soldiers and civilians so trusted him, believed in him, loved him that they stayed with him and his ideas.

Three pivotal episodes illustrate this charismatic appeal. After the 1776 Christmas day battle at Trenton after the crossing of the Delaware, many of the soldiers were ready to leave because their enlistments were up. Washington urgently appealed to them to step forward and stay with him in this noble cause. Hesitantly at first, but then almost completely, the soldiers stepped forward because of their trust in and regard for Washington. In that moment, he saved the army and the revolutionary cause.

The battle at Monmouth, New Jersey in 1778 also revealed his charismatic leadership and his genius as a battlefield tactician. In this crucial battle with Cornwall’s army, the American troops were in retreat and disarray when Washington took personal control. Lafayette said that “his presence stopped the retreat” and Hamilton also wrote “Other officers have great merit in performing their parts well, but he directed the whole with the skill of a master workman…I never saw the General to so much advantage.” The British retreated to New York.

By his presence among his officers at their Newburgh, New York, encampment in March l783 Washington’s personal standing with the officers saved the Cause from being lost, even though in terms of battles it had already been won. There was a conspiratorial movement among many officers because they had not been paid and recognized adequately for their years of sacrifice. Washington appealed to their reason but it was probably due as much to their emotional ties to him that, after his dramatic meeting with them, they affirmed their loyalty to the Cause and dropped all conspiratorial intentions. Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner wrote: “Washington had saved the United States from tyranny and discord.” He then cited Jefferson’s comment: “The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of the liberty it was intended to establish.” (See Washington, The Indispensable Man, pg. 175.)

Washington excelled in all three roles of a visionary leader; he excelled equally in maintaining coherence between his long term goals and specific, current actions. We see this time and time again in his unfaltering commitment to the idea that in a republic the military must always be subject to civilian control. He made this clear in innumerable letters, orders, addresses and especially by his actions that the army must always act in accordance with Congressional decisions, even when he disagreed with them. These decisions involved such basic things as the selection of officers, planning of strategy and the equipping and paying of the soldiers.

The climatic action in this regard, of course, was Washington’s carefully staged resignation as “General and Commander in Chief” at Annapolis on December 23, 1783. The response of the Congress, written by Jefferson, noted that Washington had always recognized the civil authority’s supremacy over the military.

Washington understood the essential ingredients necessary for the establishment of a constitutional, republican government: control by the people, respect for the government, personal as well as public virtue and their inextricable relationship, respect for each other, civil over military authority and others. These ideas were not to be violated in the midst of a war. Thus, when soldiers went out to forage for food and supplies, they were ordered to show respect for all the citizens even if a lack of it might have facilitated a greater return from their foraging. Washington knew that the use of unethical and disrespectful means to attain short range gains could prevent the attainment of long range goals. As the General and Commander in Chief, George Washington became America’s true hero and, to use our terms, America’s role model because of his exemplary character revealed with his unexcelled visionary leadership and his ability to maintain coherence between his far-reaching ideas and his immediate words and actions.

President, Constitutional Convention

As the unanimously elected presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, which met in Philadelphia May 25 to September 17, 1787, Washington again demonstrated his genius in leadership. We must ask again, why was he chosen as the leader by this group which Jefferson termed “an assembly of demigods”? One reason, certainly, is that the delegates knew that the most respected, beloved and even idolized person in the country was George Washington. As on previous occasions, however, he was also selected for this crucial role because of his character and because he was a recognized leader who was skillful in reconciling various views; in short, he was a supreme politician.

I wish to stress, however, that he was also chosen because his ideas in regard to constitutionalism were widely known and were shared by most of the delegates. They knew that they could trust him not only because of his outstanding character but also because of his ideas in regard to constitutional government. George Washington’s thinking on constitutional issues has not been adequately recognized by historians and commentators. This neglect or lack of understanding has been corrected by Dr. Glenn A. Phelps, professor of political science at Northern Arizona University, in an excellent book entitled George Washington & American Constitutionalism.

He wrote, Washington’s “writings reveal a clear, thoughtful, and remarkably coherent vision of what he hoped an American republic would become. These notions began to emerge early in the 1770s, took on a sharper, clearer perspective during the Revolution, and changed little thereafter. His words, many of them revealed only for family and friends, reveal a man with a passionate commitment to a fully developed idea of a constitutional republic on a continental scale, eager to promote that plan wherever and whenever circumstance or the hand of Providence allowed.

“This interpretation challenges the conventional view of Washington in several others ways. First, I maintain that Washington’s political values changed very little over time regardless of who his ‘secretary’ was; the various messengers seemed not to have affected Washington’s message. He was no political chameleon willing to change his colors to conform to the interests and ideas of his brilliant counselors. The contribution of his better-educated ghostwriters, steeped in philosophy, certainly improved upon his stolid prose, but the substance remained distinctively Washington’s.

“Second, Washington’s constitutional vision – drawing on elements of classical conservative republicanism and continentally minded commercialism – developed years before he ever met Hamilton, Madison, and the other Founders under whose spell he was supposed to have fallen. Thus, claims that Washington was chosen as a mere figurehead for the nationalist movement that emerged early in the 1780s underestimate Washington’s contribution. The nationalists did not merely capture Washington’s growing national reputation to lend authority to a cause of their own making. Rather, they looked naturally to him for leadership because his views were already well known and firmly established. Indeed, many of his ideas presaged the nationalist program.” (pgs. viii-ix)

Some of Washington’s basic ideas were: a strong union, a legislature chosen by the people, a written constitution, the rule of law, an executive with power to enforce the law, supremacy of congressional or national law over state laws, a permanent national military establishment and civil control of the military. As noted above, these and other fundamental ideas were well developed in Washington’s mind long before the Constitutional Convention was held.

In terms of leadership of the Convention, he was equally effective as a visionary leader and a long range/short range thinker. His style, however, changed for he was a presiding officer and not a general. His influence and power were utilized in personal conversations, meetings with the Virginia delegation where he voted and sometimes was on the losing side, and when the delegates met as a committee of the whole during which someone else presided. It was a very well organized convention, including all sessions being held in secrecy with no disclosures of the proceedings to anyone else. The power of Washington’s presence was seen when a delegate accidentally dropped a confidential document on the floor. When discovered, it was given to Washington who sternly addressed the delegates about the issues of confidentiality and secrecy. The mere thought of any one of the delegates ever receiving his displeasure over this prevented any of them from ever claiming the document.

The success of the Convention, both in terms of its process and outcome, testify to the genius of Washington’s leadership, just as its final confirmation by the American people did. Historians and commentators of that day and subsequent years credit Washington’s and also Franklin’s endorsements for bringing about the ratification of the Constitution to be the law of the land.

President, United States of America

It was no surprise to anyone in the nation, including George Washington, that he was unanimously elected as the first President of the new nation and four years later that he was reelected to this preeminent position. Just as with his other calls to duty by the people, Washington was chosen not only on the basis of his character and leadership skills but also because the people knew and trusted his ideas and commitments. These ideas were spoken, written and lived out during the Revolution, many were already included in the Constitution and still others were well known.

Evaluating him as the first President in terms of the visionary leader, it is clear that Washington had a very well developed and coherent vision with both long and short range goals. Some of these ideas were: the absolute necessity and even sacredness of the Union, faithful obedience to the Constitution, the development of a distinctly American national character, establishment of a government that would be trusted by the people, the role of the federal government in the furtherance of industry, commerce, education and what today we call the infrastructure, the need in a republic for public and private virtue, independence from all forms of foreign dominance and the maintenance of liberty. Some of these ideas and others were presented in the “Circular Letter” which he sent to all the governors in 1783 at the conclusion of the Revolution, in innumerable state papers, in personal and public letters and they were emphasized at the end of his presidency in what is known as the Farewell Address.

Washington, within the sparse but basic stipulations of the Constitution, was responsible for the creation of a federal government. He did so and we live today with and by much of what he created. His skill as an organizational leader can be seen by his doing this as a strict constitutionalist and by his belief that Congress was primarily responsible for the creation of domestic policies and laws while the President was responsible for carrying out the policies and enforcing the laws. At the same time, Washington made clear that the development of foreign policy, including treaties, was the responsibility of the President. Washington carefully observed the role and authority of Congress while he also protected the role and authority of the President. We again see that he was a very sophisticated and skillful politician as well as being a well informed constitutionals. Yale history professor Edmund Morgan, in his little book, The Genius of George Washington, makes this very clear. He was, states Morgan, a genius in his understanding and use of power, including when to give up power as demonstrated in his

resignations as General and Commander in Chief and as President.

As a visionary leader President Washington continued to be a charismatic leader who kept the loyalty and affection of the people. He nourished this through his tours to all the states and through innumerable public appearances. However, when principle demanded that he act in such a way that would engender serious opposition, he stuck to his principles and in time the people, discovering that he had acted wisely, renewed their regard and affection. The two major events causing such situations were his declaration of neutrality during the French Revolution and his signing of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain.

As in his previous two important positions, Washington was not only a supreme visionary leader, he was equally supreme while President in keeping the details of his administration, the big and little necessary current decisions, subservient to the larger issues and ideas at stake. The Jay Treaty and the Neutrality Act again illustrate this. Washington’s vision of a strong and independent “empire” required that the new nation be given time to grow, as he knew it would, and therefore, it must not become embroiled in any actions which would prevent this growth. Endless illustrations could be given of his balancing long range goals with short range actions in a coherent manner and are given in George Washington & American Constitutionalism and other books.

While the genius of George Washington was, as Edmund Morgan contends, in the use of power, I believe that this was just part of an even broader and deeper configuration which reveals him as our nation’s supreme example of the genius of leadership.

What Made Washington a Genius as a Leader?

While no one can fully explain the factors that combined to produce a Washington, Lincoln, Plato, Luther, Edison, Einstein or any other monumentally transformational person, we do know some of the streams that formed, as it were, the mighty Washington river.

The first, of course, are the givens of life, that with which he was born. Most obvious were his physical characteristics – height, strength, energy and physical coordination. His brain or intelligence is also a given. Generally unmentioned as a given is temperament. Students of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator suggest that George Washington would have tested as an ISTJ. I have attached as an appendix to these remarks a description of the characteristics of an ISTJ given by Otto Kroeger and Janet Thuesen in their book, Type Talk, page 215ff. Ray Choiniere and David Keirsey, using a somewhat different typology, Guardian Monitor, describe how Washington fits this pattern in their book, Presidential Temperaments. His driving ambition, love of detail, patience, determination, sense of responsibility and other conspicuous traits that made him the person that he was are related to the temperament with which he was born.

Another contributory stream was that made up of family and friends – his parents, his brother Lawrence and the Fairfax family. His father was apparently a strong, humane and entrepreneurial person. His mother was obviously a very determined, acquisitive, demanding mother. His brother was educated, cultured and militarily oriented. The Fairfaxes were courtly and very affluent. Something from all of these and other people can be seen in Washington.

Religion contributes a great deal to explaining Washington’s profound moral consciousness and morally sensitive conscience. While he was very reticent to express any personal religious views there can be no question that his religious convictions caused him very early, as he once said, he had “always walked a straight line.” (See Paul F. Boller, Jr., George Washington & Religion.) His serious participation in Freemasonry may also have contributed to his character.

Henry T. Tuckerman (Essays, Biographical and Critical, Boston, 1857, pages 7-8, 10-11, 21-22) comments on this moral factor in Washington’s life and its relation to his intelligence. “The world has yet to understand the intellectual efficiency derived from moral qualities – how the candor of an honest, and the clearness of an unperverted mind attain results beyond the reach of mere intelligence and adroitness – how conscious integrity gives both insight and directness to mental operations, and elevation above the plane of selfish motives affords a more comprehensive, and therefore a more reliable views of affairs, than the keenest examination based exclusively on personal ability.” (See Appendix B for his full comment.)

Washington’s profound morality, unselfish nature and self control coupled with what was obviously a good intellect enabled him to out think all the other generals and Founders. Of them all, he had the best long and short range ideas and how to maintain coherency between them.

Washington’s deep respect for every person and his never failing, except on very rare occasions, good manners and self control can be traced back in large part to his internalizing as a youth the 110 “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” It is obvious that these became second nature to him. Just as he did not have to waste energy and thought in dealing with moral issues so he did not have to waste them either in deciding how to treat others; he treated everyone in a courteous and respectful manner. Another stream entering this river was that Washington always sought to learn more in order to improve himself.

Who knows from whence these traits came? He was a great listener, he was a keen observer of people and events and he read far more widely and deeply than has been generally assumed. (See pages 213-225 in Paul K. Longmore’s The Invention of George Washington for an exhaustive account of Washington’s reading.)

More than a contributory stream and more like a small river made up of a number of its own streams was the river bringing the models Washington chose for himself. These he deliberately, systematically and creatively melded together to form the George Washington whom he then portrayed. He saw life as a theater in which we all play our parts and he certainly had in his mind the character that he wanted to play and did play. This does not imply any lack of personal integrity or a multi-polar personality. It does mean that George Washington, in a real sense, invented himself by creating an original model from several that he had in mind and then lived by that model.

There were, at least, four such models that he used. One was the Roman model of Cato from Addison’s play “Cato” about a virtuous Roman. Washington saw the play many times, memorized parts of it and had it acted at Valley Forge. He also thought of Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer, who left the plough to lead the army that saved Rome and then went back to farming, refusing the role of “Dictator” offered by the Roman Senate. (See Garry Wills, George Washington and the Enlightenment.) Another model was that of the Patriot King, a role made popular in Washington’s time by the English writer Bolingbroke (see Longmore, pages 184-86). The Patriot King always had the people’s welfare at heart. A fourth model for Washington was that of the Father.

In addition to these four major models, Washington experienced many other major figures who influenced him. There were the royal governors of Virginia, the landed gentry and their leaders with whom he lived and worked while in the Virginia House of Burgesses for fifteen years and British generals Braddock and Forbes. Washington keenly observed them and learned from them all.

Even considering all these influences, models and the givens in Washington’s life we still cannot fully comprehend what made him the George Washington whom we know through his writings, his achievements and what was written about him. The best answer, I believe, is that the Washington whom we know is Washington, the Father of the Country, whom George Washington invented and portrayed. He was a genius in this creation as one part of his being a genius in leadership.

The Reason for the Mystery

Why is it that just recently, two hundred years or so after his death, are we coming to appreciate the depth and breadth of Washington’s intellectual and organizational contributions in the founding of the nation and the institutionalization of those characteristics that have made the United States great?

I believe that the answer points again to the fact that he was eminently successful as the Father of the Country, a title bestowed on him but one which he also appropriated and lived. A truly successful and effective father is one who never claims credit for his achievements in being the father and who inculcates his ideas and values in his offspring so well that they, in fact, do not realize themselves from whence these came; they, therefore, tend just to take them for granted or to credit themselves for them. We all know the story of the college sophomore who was amazed at how seemingly uninformed, even stupid, was his father, only to discover later how informed, bright and wise his father had become. The ideas that Washington had and lived became so imbued in American institutions and culture, because of his skill as a visionary leader, that we have failed to realize from whence they came, namely, from our national Father, George Washington.

Why Was George Washington a Good Leader? Essay

Leadership is something that many aspire to, but few achieve in full measure. It has been defined as being a combination of charisma, integrity, determination, flexibility, resourcefulness, creativity, self-confidence, a sense of responsibility, the ability to communicate, and consistency. George Washington had all these qualities, and it is therefore somewhat ironic that although he was truly a great leader, he never aspired to be one.

Washington’s greatness can be judged by the way in which he fulfilled three important roles during the foundation and early years of the United States; Firstly, as commander in chief of the Continental Army, secondly as president of the Constitutional Convention, and thirdly as the first President of the country. Washington was unanimously elected by the delegates to the Continental Congress “to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised for the defence of American liberty.” on June 15, 1775.

The reasons given can be gleaned from the writings of those who were there, and in the main they appear to be George Washington’s character, his trustworthiness, and his reputation as being the best colonial military commander. Washington created the Continental Army; his organisational and administrative skills, coupled with the trust of his citizen soldiers, enabled him to weld them into a fighting force able to take on the British … and win.

Had it not been for Washington, a large part of the Continental Army would have left at the end of their enlistments just after the Battle of Trenton, and his leadership on the battlefield was never better demonstrated than at the Battle of Monmouth, when he took command and not only stopped the American retreat but forced the British to fall back to New York. In the end, Washington’s determination to win the war was greater than that of the British not to lose it.

As president of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington exhibited the same leadership qualities he had shown on the battlefield, and it is little wonder that his ideas – a written constitution, a strong union with an elected legislature, an executive with the power to enforce the rule of law, the supremacy of national laws over state laws, and the creation of a permanent army controlled by the civil power – became central to the creation of the United States. It is small wonder, therefore, that Washington was unanimously elected to be the first President of the United States of American, and that four years later he was re-elected.

But in some ways Washington’s true greatness can be measured by what happened afterwards. He retired to his estate at Mount Vernon to resume his career as a farmer and, with the exception of a short period when President John Adams asked him to serve as commander-in-chief of the United States Army, Washington took no further part in national affairs. Only a truly great leader would have done that.

The Life of George Washington Truett

Baptist church is one of the most prominent Christian denominations. It has a long history, which goes as far back as the 17th century, in the United States. The church has had many preachers who have made significant contributions to the church’s history. One of the most influential pastors in Baptist history is George Washington Truett. This illustrious individual was able to leave a lasting legacy through his work in the church for over four decades. This paper will provide a biographical sketch of his life, highlighting the most noteworthy contribution that Truett made to Baptist history.

George W. Truett was born to a rural farming family on May 6, 1867. His parents, Charles and Mary Truett, built a home for their family in Hayesville, North Carolina. While Charles and Mary had only attained minimal formal education for themselves, they wanted their children to have a good education in order to increase their chances of succeeding in life. They therefore sent their son to Hayesville Academy where Truett proved to be an exceptional student. He graduated in 1885 and was given the responsibility of becoming the superintendent and teacher at the Crooked Creek School.

Truett had been raised in a devoutly Christian home and he was introduced to the bible at an early age. However, he was not converted until 1886. In this monumental year in his life, he attended a Methodist revival in Hayesville. Following a preaching by J.D. Pulliam, Truett surrendered his life to Christ and therefore became a Christian (Durso 19). However, Truett did not begin his ministry immediately after his conversion. Instead, he came up with an idea for a private school.

He managed to gather enough resources to implement this idea in 1887 where he established the Hiawassee Academy. Within a short time, Truett was forced to leave his newly founded school since his parents decided to move the family to a bigger farm in Texas. The family settled in Whitewright, Texas and became a part of the local community. While in Texas, Truett had the ambition to become a lawyer and to this end he attended Grayson College. Truett was initially opposed to becoming a preacher. He therefore objected to initial attempts by the Church in Whitewright to ordain him. However, the members of the Whitewright Baptist Church were convinced that Truett was meant to be a pastor. Due to the strong conviction of the church leadership and its congregation, he was persuaded to become a minister in 1890.

This marked the beginning of Truett’s long and illustrious ministry in the Baptist Church. Following his ordaining, Truett started preaching in Sherman but he also got a job at the Baylor University as a financial agent. He joined the University as a student in 1893 and he graduated in June 1897 (Caner and Mehmet 64).

After graduation, Truett decided not to pursue a professional life using his degree and instead turned to preaching. In the East Baptist Church where Truatt served, he established himself as a great preacher who was able to deliver powerful sermons to his congregation. Truatts Stint at the Waco based church was brief as he was soon asked to transfer to Dallas. He took up the position of pastor in the First Baptist Church and he continued to hold this position until 1944. Under his stewardship, the church experienced immediate growth and this expansion continued until his death.

Truett engaged in numerous church related activities in the early 20th century. He travelled to West Texas to preach to cowboys who were on cattle drives and also preached to soldiers during the First World War. He made his famous “Baptists and Religious Liberty” address in 1920 at the request of the Baptist leader J.B. Gambrell. Smith documents that Truett ministered not only in the US, but also in the world centers in London, Stockholm, Paris, and Berlin (60). Over the course of his 47 year old ministry, George W. Truett managed to give numerous sermons that have been compiled into ten books.

George W. Truett is credited with making a number of notable contributions to Baptist history. The most significant contribution is that he championed for religious liberty in the US. Through his Religious Liberty address, made on May 16, 1920, Truett presented the most compelling argument for religious liberty in America (Durso 268). This speech was made at a time when the government was working towards infringing the religious liberties of the Church. Truett declared that the government should respect the constitutionally guaranteed right of the church to enjoy freedom without government interference. His advocacy contributed to the increased protection of the church from attempts by the government to infringe on its freedom. Due to his contribution in this area, the religious liberties enjoyed by American Christians today are regarded as a Baptist innovation.

Many statements were made about George Truett both during his lifetime and after his death. Speaking of Truett’s ability to deliver sermons in a forceful and compelling manner, Dr. J.B. Hawthorne acknowledged that “I have heard many of the world’s famous speakers, but never in all my life has my soul been more deeply stirred by any speaker than it was the day at Marietta by the boy out of the mountains” (Caner and Mehmet 61).

Truett was able to attract the attraction of clergymen outside of his denomination. Following his death, the Temple Emanu-El Rabbi David Lefkowitz stated “He was a great churchman, and above all, a great man. He, above all others, purified the soul of Dallas and lifted it to the heights” (Durso 262). There is common agreement that Truett left a lasting legacy on the Christian Church landscape in the US. The historian Douglas Southall Freeman declared that “It would be difficult to exaggerate the influence of Dr. Truett’s positive preaching on American ministers in a critical age” (Larsen 740). For all his greatness as a speaker, Truett was criticized for his lack of ability in expository preaching and coming up with original interpretations of the bible. The historian Powhattan James noted that Truett would not be credited for “profundity of thought, or brilliance of rhetoric, or originality of exegesis, nor cleverness of homiletics” (Larsen 741).

The United States has numerous famous preachers in its history. This paper set out to provide a biographical sketch of the life of George Truett, who is one of the greatest preachers the country has ever had. To this end, it has discussed his life, conversion, and ministry. The paper has singled out his advocacy for religious liberty in the US as Truett’s most noteworthy contribution. It has then reviewed some of the things that were said about Truett by his contemporaries and historians. From this paper, it is evident that Truett was a great man and a spectacular preacher of the Gospel.

Works Cited

Caner, Emir, and Ergun Mehmet. The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents. Tennessee : B& H Publishing Group, 2003. Print.

Durso, Keith. Thy Will be Done: A Biography of George W. Truett. Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2009. Print.

Larsen, David. The Company of the Preachers. Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2001. Print.

Smith, Shelton. Great Preaching on Revival. Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1997. Print.

Washington’s Farewell Address: The Importance of Unity to the American People

Time was running fast and the period that George Washington was to be in office had come to an end. Being the first president and having seen what the country needed, Washington felt obliged to leave the country in a peaceful state.

Citizens were in a state of confusion, unable to imagine a government without Washington. To help in restoring people’s confidence in the succeeding regime, he decided to sensitize the public that leaders cannot achieve anything on their own. Moreover, he touches on various issues that are critical for prosperity of America.

Addressing the nation, Washington begins by insisting on the importance of unity to the American people. He warns the Americans that unity of all states is paramount in protection of their freedom (Washington, 2004). He continues by stating that the greatest enemy of America will be the person whose main agenda will be to divide Americans along any ideologies.

In this regard, Washington wants all Americans irrespective of religion, gender, ethnicity or race to work towards enhancing the culture of togetherness. Citizens should first of all consider themselves as Americans before grouping themselves along other aspects. It should be noted that Americans are not exhorted to stick together in good times only, but also in hard times for example during credit crunch (Whitney, 2003).

It is upon every citizen to avoid any person who seems to interfere with the unity of the American States. The west will need some products from the east same with the south and the north. Washington enumerates the benefits received so far through combined effort, and the many more that are expected. Additionally, he highlights the dangers of a divided nation.

In addition, Washington points out the dangers that can occur if political parties are used wrongly. The Federalist Party, which selectively promoted interests of some people, adds to the weight of Washington’s point that political parties can be manipulated.

He argues that political parties are necessary in any human society, but warns that they should be accepted with a pinch of salt (Washington, 2004). Washington emphasizes that the tendency of political parties to take sides in foreign matters like War is harmful to the country. According to him, the country will be better off if it remained neutral regarding foreign matters.

In his view, America should refrain from making permanent friends or enemies since this will lead to partiality which is not good for the nation. Washington warns that political parties are only beneficial in dictatorial governments. However, they must be placed under control in democratic governments since they have a tendency of diverging attention of governments from critical issues.

Furthermore, Washington coaxes Americans to always protect and uphold the new constitution. He tells them that though the constitution might not address every issue that they would have wanted, it is a mile stone in steps towards controlling the nation.

In this regard, Washington urges Americans to protect the constitution from power hungry politicians, who will seek to weaken it for their selfish interests in the name of developing the nation (Hargrove, 2000). Though he categorically states that he does not think he has been a good president, Washington warns that human beings get intoxicated by power. Consequently, he warns Americans to be careful with whom they choose to lead them.

Stressing on the importance of the constitution and the negative impacts of political parties, Washington points out the benefits of decentralized method of governorship (Whitney, 2003). Americans are encouraged to ensure that too much power is not concentrated in one office, because this will lead to despotic and diabolic dictators whose main agenda will be serving personal interests.

Moreover, he wants the succeeding governments to avoid public debts. While he accepts that debts are sometimes inevitable, he wants governments to pay back as soon as possible because debts enslave nations. However, Washington goes ahead to state that this does not imply that the nation should not offer financial assistance. Most importantly, Washington stresses on the importance of peace by outlining the effects of rebellions.

Washington emphasizes on the role of religion in society. He says that religion is a fundamental ingredient in enhancing morality. He argues that it is difficult for a leader to brag of good leadership qualities without a religious background. Religiosity instills good behavior in people and thus will play an important role in ensuring that there is unity and harmony among citizens (Washington, 2004).

On top of that, Washington underscores the importance of education in development of a nation. He tells Americans that the nation will prosper only if the average level of education is increased.

Having been a president, Washington knows what the country needs for prosperity. He points out what he thinks has made his time in office successful. Though he is leaving office, Washington wants Americans to know that they are moving in the good direction. Lastly, Washington is aware of the fact that his advice might not be taken serious at that point in time, but he hopes one day people will reflect on what he says for guidance.

References

Hargrove, J. (2000). Washington’s Farewell Address: History Speak. Dayton: Lorenz Educational Press.

Washington, G. (2004). Washington’s Farewell Address to the People of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Whitney, G. (2003). American Presidents: Farewell Messages to the Nation, 1796-2001. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Washington, Jefferson and Parker’ Role in the US History

George Washington (1732-1799)

As the first elected president of the United States of America, George Washington is associated with several achievements. To begin with, he was in the forefront in creating and institutionalizing strong, well organized, and steadily financed government that was inclusive of the states with the US territory.

Previously a soldier and a leader of a regiment, George Washington’s government was very successful in establishing a very firm united nation out of the remains of a series of military campaigns against the British government (Conlin 35). George Washington is accredited for having initiated different government rituals and forms that have persisted to the present day. For instance, inaugural speech and cabinet system of governance were the creation of George Washington.

The current transitional process was first implemented by George Washington. After serving two successful terms in the office as an elected president, George Washington facilitated peaceful and structure transition to John Adams. This act established a strong foundation for democracy and acceptance of the will of the people of America. George Washington was the first president to accept the voice of the people who democratically elected his predecessor.

Due to the peaceful transition, America has remained ahead of other states and countries in promoting democracy and respect of the laws on elections (Brinkley 37). This might have not been possible if George Washington did not lay the foundation for the same. In fact, Washington earned the title of the ‘Father of America’ when he was still active in the public life as political figure and popular leader.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

As one of the founding fathers of the US and the third president of the post independence America, Thomas Jefferson is attributed with several achievements which permanently changed the history of the US in a positive way. To begin with, Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, which internalized the ideals of the post revolution America.

While still in the office as the president, Jefferson passed the religious freedom statute in Virginia, which is associated with the current freedom of religious affiliation in the modern American society (Conlin 41).

Lastly, Jefferson was the founder of the University of Virginia, which has since grown into a center of excellence with more than five million alumni. Jefferson’s statute was significant and formed the foundation of his declaration, which abolished slave importation in the US. Some of the current civil rights such as equality and freedom of association were expanded from Jefferson’s statute.

John Parker (1827-1900)

Born in 1827, Parker faced the reality of slavery at a tender age of eight years. He proceeded to serve as a slave for close to two decades under the control of a doctor before purchasing his freedom. As a slave, his position on social justice, need for fair income redistribution, and personalized inspiration to transformation among the minority races in the US ignited the engine for later civil rights movements across the US (Brown 29). His fame as a social justice crusader climaxed with the daring mission of freeing over a thousand slaves.

The achievements of Parker have inspired many liberation movements among the colored population in the US over the years. For instance, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery in the US was possible due to his earlier activist campaign against slavery and unfair treatment of the minority races in the US (Brown 34).

Works Cited

Brinkley, A. American History: Connecting with the Past, Volume 1. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011. Print.

Brown, M. John Parker. New York: Wiley and Sons, 2001. Print.

Conlin, J. The American Past: A Survey of American History. Alabama, Al: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

General George Washington. Life of the Commander in Chief

Background information of Commander George Washington

The life of George Washington before assuming presidency started like every other American’s at that age and era. Born to a planter family in Virginia in 1732, he possessed total manners, knowledge and morals necessary to become a gentleman in his community just like thousands of other young men in Virginia.

His life took a unique direction when he pursued western expansion studies and military arts during his education. His career in the Military started taking shape in 1754, when he was appointed a lieutenant colonel. He participated in the French and Indian wars where he was General Edward Braddock’s aide.

Historical sources from the government indicate that Washington was in the line of fire twice during the war. His closest escape was when a series of four bullets tore through his military jacket. In another encounter, (nps 4) indicates that two horses were shot from under him. Despite the close encounters, George Washington clearly gained valuable skills in the war that would help him later during America’s fight for independence.

In addition to the French-Indian war George Washington also participated in the revolution movement between 1774 and 1775. Before the onset of the revolution, (nps 5) notes that Washington had served as a Virginia Burgess for 16 years. As a burgess, Washington was part of a team that oversaw the governance of colonies in Virginia.

In 1774 however, Washington was among other burgesses who opposed excessive taxes imposed on residents by the British colonialists. According to the (nps 5), George Washington had settled back to an ordinary lifestyle as a planter, but was incensed by the exploitation that Americans suffered under the British merchants. He also loathed the restrictive British regulations and become a firm voice of resistance to the restrictions (The White House 42).

The onset of the revolutionary wars saw Washington take the battle front line once again. (The White House 42) notes that Washington was voted the Commander-in-Chief of America’s Continental Army during the second continental congress held in Philadelphia.

Barely two months into his election on July 1775, had Washington led his poorly trained troops to the battle fields. Noting the weakness of his troop, Washington’s strategy was to use brains to strategize rather than brawn, since the British army was stronger (Lengel 13). According to (nps 56), Washington also used the “element of surprise” to his advantage.

A point in case was the 1776 attack of the Hessian Troops. This attack occurred in Trenton, New Jersey and succeeded pushing the British troops out of New Jersey into New York. Although this was a brief success, (The White House 42) is of the opinion that Washington’s skills and boldness managed to move the American troops across the icy Delaware River and into the subsequent actions that helped them recapture New Jersey.

Their success made the Americans more confident about their abilities to win the Independence war against the Britons. Ever strategic, Washington was quick to support fellow commanders of the American troops as seen in some of his letters to Major General Greene and other (Sparks 16)

George Washington’s leadership skills came to the fore once again in 1977 when he re-organized the military departments in the troop that he lead for purposes of improving services provided to the soldiers. It was apparent to Washington that the already weary troops needed rejuvenation from whatever quotas. Earlier, the troops had lived in a log-hut city, where they had taken expert training for purposes of improving their skills in the battle fields.

In June 1778, Washington led the Continental Army to a successful battle against the Britons in New Jersey (nps 2). This however was not the end of the way. Washington led the American troops for another five years, until they finally defeated the better-equipped and larger British troops led by General Cornwallis. This happened in October 1781 at Yorktown, where the major, but last revolutionary war battle occurred.

Commander of Forces

After the revolutionary war in 1783 to 1879, Washington went back to Mount Vernon and concentrated on restoring the farm which has considerably deteriorated in his absence. The American historical revolution war files notes that he traveled near the Ohio River to inspect his land.

Having become a popular figure in the national circles, it is noted that Washington recorded an increased number of visitors to Mount Vernon in his diary. During the constitutional Convention held in May 1787, Washington was unanimously elected to the presiding officer post. Although he did not make significant direct contributions to the convention, his mere presence is said to have given the proceeding some prestige (Lengel 36). Notably, Washington had become a respected war hero in America by then.

During the convention, Washington supported the idea of having a powerful central government. This time in Washington’s life has been subject to much discussion. While some political analysts see Washington as a War hero who was “simply brought into the constitution convention to act and speak in his honorary capacity”, some see him as a pro-active leader who took the lead in reforming the union (Ray 2007).

Although one can only deduct Washington’s role in reforming the confederation from his actions, earlier in 1780 he has expressed his fears that the states in the confederation would at some point separate into 13 individual entities. He also feared that congress powers would decline thus loosing the respect of a grand American representative body (Ray 207). The constitution was later submitted to individual states for ratification, after which Washington was unanimously elected the United States president in 1789 (Lengel 45)

George Washington took office of the presidency in April 1789. During his term, he laid the foundations of the presidency in America by ensuring that the executive structure that thrived during his presidency would accommodate other presidents in the future (The White House 46). He did this by establishing the judicial and executive branches of the government.

Having fought in the American Revolution War and knowing the pains of working under colonial masters, Washington was quick to guarantee the survival of the US as an independent nation and sovereign power free from any outside influence. As suggested in the thesis of this research paper, Washington drew quite some lessons from his experiences in the battle fields during his two terms in the presidency.

When he first established the functioning of the federal government, Washington surrounded himself with consultants and supported who he vetted for knowledge and skill. Much like a commander and his lieutenants, Washington delegated most of the responsibilities of running the government to these people. After all, he trusted them to do a good job, and they did. He valued people’s opinion, but the decisions would be solely made by him. This was the case with his cabinet, where he would hold cabinet meetings to discuss issues.

Based on opinions raised in such meetings, Washington would then make the final decisions. Just in military camps, solarnavigator.net defines Washington as a systematic, energetic and orderly president. He is further defines as decisive, an enthusiast of consistency and intent on achieving the general goals.

Having learnt the powers of togetherness and consolidating people during his days in the military, he toured the southern states in and New England states in an attempt to reconcile these two geographical regions.

Unfortunately, Washington did not succeed in mending the widening rivalry between leaders Thomas Jefferson from New England states and Alexander Hamilton from the Southern state. His support of fiscal policies proposed by Hamilton, who was also the secretary of Treasury, earned him attacks from Jefferson’s camp (The White House 42).

The rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson followed Washington into his second term. Having been re-elected president in 1792, the war between France and England become a real test for Washington. France was an official ally to the United States, while Britain was the leading trading partner with the country.

Since he did not want to support either party, Washington maintained that America would remain neutral about the war. The Jefferson camp, was however pro-French, while the Hamilton camp supported Britain’s cause. Just to reinforce his country’s position, Washington issued a public statement on April 1793 declaring America’s impartiality in the war. He further discouraged American citizens against sending any war materials or aid to the warring parties.

According to (nps 56), the president strongly believed that the right foreign policy was vital for the young nation that America was at the time. (nps 12) further suggests that George Washington reasons for pleading America’s neutrality during the British-French war, was out of concern that taking sides in the war would shatter America’s new government right in the middle with some people supporting Jefferson while others supported Hamilton.

It’s noteworthy that during his presidency, Washington would spend huge amounts of effort trying to reconcile the two factions. An observer can conclusively state that Washington was of the belief that people serving in the same government could not afford to be divided because governance would suffer. The differences between Jefferson and Hamilton led to the birth of political parties in America.

Although reluctant at first to side with either Hamilton or Jefferson, Washington at some point had to throw caution to the wind and support Hamilton’s fiscal policies, which promised to free America from a looming economic crises and a large external debt incurred during the war (Lengel 47).

By following Hamilton’s proposal, Washington’s government established a central bank for purposes of funding the national debt and put in place a strong, but effective tax system. The tax system assured the government of continuous revenue, which would be pumped back to the society through services.

Even in presidency, Washington’s days in the war field still had a grip on him. When Pennsylvania rebels defied federal power on taxes, Washington took his position at the head of the Military and managed to effectively use his presidential authority to quell the Whiskey rebellion (Archiving early America 42)

His restrain for war was evident when he started peace negotiations with Britain in order to avoid a recurrence of war between the two. The culmination of the exercise was the Jay Treaty that was signed in 1975. Although the Jefferson faction was opposed to the treaties ratification, Washington was able to use the immense prestige he had in Congress to have the treaty ratified.

At a time when the house requested that Washington releases all pertinent correspondence and documents for consideration before they could approve the funds necessary to enforce the treaty, Washington was resolute about the powers of the executive and their separation from the House of Representatives.

Being part of the Constitution convention that came up with the American constitution, Washington retaliated the mandate of the house of representatives and stated categorically that agreeing to their request for the documents and correspondence on the treaty would be tantamount to allowing the house overstep its mandate (nps 12). In his message to the House of Representatives, George Washington made it clear to representatives there in that their approval or lack of it would have no lasting consequence on the Jay treaty.

Washington further stated that the treaty had been submitted to Senate for advice and consideration, and therefore the request by the house was be of no immediate or necessary consequence. In his conclusion, Washington called for the need for every government sector to stick to the boundaries as set forth in the constitution (nps 13).

In his non-compliance statement, it is evident that George Washington had a clear understanding of the constitution and its mandate to different arms of the government. Having been a delegate in the constitutional conventional before going to the American revolutionary war, it is logical why he had such a grip on the constitution.

Washington left the presidency in March 1797, and although there were calls by his supporters to run for a third term, he honorably retired into his Vernon estate. By the time of his retirement, it is noteworthy that America’s financial system was well on a success course.

More to this, the Indian threat that had existed to the east of Mississippi was almost resolved and the controversial Jay treaty with the 1795 Pinckney’s treat with Spain had succeeded in enlarging America’s territory, while resolving diplomatic difficulties that had existed between America and the respective countries.

This was not only an advice to uphold political integrity, but a stern warning to Americans to keep off foreign interference. A nationalist to the core, Washington would accept the post of Army commander a year after his retirement albeit reluctantly. During this time, the war with France looked imminent. He however did not take an active role in his post.

Conclusion

The life experiences of General George Washington in the Military forces had no doubt laid a firm foundation for him and fellow Americans. His days started as an inexperienced young American, who regardless of the power and stature of the opposing troops, mobilized his troops to soldier on. This gave him invaluable leadership skills, which he would later use in his days as president.

He also learnt negotiations skills as commander in the military. Even when his troops did not impress congress with their performance in the war, Washington had to plead his case for the troops to get more training, supplies and government support (Sparks 3). Over the years, his negotiation skills improved tremendously and he would convince congress that giving up or substituting him was no option. Such skills later helped him in his days as president.

Crossing the icy waters of the Delaware River to ambush the British troops and force them to retreat into New York was among the strategic highlights of George Washington in the Military. Although this success would closely followed by a failed attempt to capture New York, George Washington’s acts have been revered as not only courageous, but giving hope to already despairing troops.

As one person eulogized him, George Washington lived the war, lived the peace and ensured that America’s politics was set on the right foundation. His discipline and dedication to his country, the right institutions, separation of powers, sovereignty and political responsibility was no doubt a result of his life experiences, most of which were gained from his days in the Military.

Works Cited

Archiving Early America. “.” 2002. Web.

Lengel, Edward. General George Washington; a Military Life. New York: Random House, 2005. Print.

Nps,Web “George Washington; Commander-in-Chief.” 2005. Web.

Ray, John. “George Washington’s Pre-presidential Statesmanship, 1783-1789” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27. No 2, (1997): 207-220. Print.

Sparks, Bowen. The Writings of George Washington Being His Correspondence Addresses Messages and Other Papers. New York: BiblioBazaar LLC, 2009. Print.

The White House. “.” 1998. Web.

Napoleon’s Siege of Toulon and Washington’s Siege of Boston

General Jean François Carteaux led the first phase of the siege with the assistance of the “Carmagnoles” army troops. Some of the areas affected by the siege included Ollioules, Marseille, and Avignon. The siege of Toulon began exactly on the eighth day of September. On the other hand, General Jean François Cornu de La Poype led the Alpine Maritime Army to assist in revamping the strength of the siege. He had a total of 6000 men in his troop.

Some of the initial targets included the Mount Faron fort and La Valette-du-Var. It can be recalled that the latter personality was deviant to Trogoff, who was a tough and ruthless British chief. In order to outwit the Italian army from controlling Toulon, General La Poype ordered yet another troop of 5,000 soldiers to reinforce the team.

The initial attack launched by General Carteaux did not succeed as per the set goals. The idea of the allies was to build several fortifications that could act as potential barriers to the enemy. Some of the walls built included Saint-Charles, Saint-Côme, and Saint-Philippe. A huge artillery battery was positioned by Napoleon Bonaparte in order to manage the plans of the rival camp. Hence, its central point of siege became Fort Mulgrave.

This was basically supposed to repel the enemy from the site. Besides, a total of 300 canons were set up to assist in the siege mission. The command of the army was later assumed by General Jacques Dugommier. He strongly believed the viability of the plan devised by Bonaparte. When the allies attempted to take over the “Convention” artillery, they failed and retreated.

After the successful siege, Napoleon Bonaparte’s celebrity. He was promoted and respected beyond borders. Napoleon also met face to face with those who would become Grand Officers in later days.

On the other hand, Washington’s siege of Boston was carried out in quite a different way. Britain had held Boston for a long time. The Continental Army that was mainly comprised of former colonial militiamen led the siege. The siege was punctuated by a series of wars ranging from Bunker Hill battle to the American Revolutionary war. Even the battle that took place in June 1775 was part and parcel of the siege.

At this time, the colonial force was poorly trained to fight, and that is why the British army defeated it. However, this army equally suffered heavy casualties inflicted by the colonial forces. The new Continental Army was taken over by General George Washington in July 1775. In other words, he became the commander of the army. Dorchester Heights was later fortified by Washington’s men in March 1776. This was close to Boston.

Nevertheless, the siege did not last for long because the British army realized that George Washington could easily defeat them. The main disadvantage of the town was that it was not strategically positioned to fight American troops. It was indefensible to the American armies. Therefore, they had to evacuate the town as soon as possible to avoid heavy casualties from the enemy troops. This explains why the siege ended on the seventeenth day of March.

While the siege of Toulon witnessed major crossfire between the two opposing camps, the Boston’s siege was rather peaceful because one side withdrew before the onset of full attacks. However, both Napoleon and Washington emerged as victors in both sieges.