Why is George Washington the Greatest President?

Acton PowerBlog ^ | February 17 | Ray Nothstine

[Reagan79]

Sometimes I recoil a little when somebody declares that there can be an American president greater than George Washington. Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee declared Washington, “First in the hearts of his countrymen.” Washington is great for many things, but perhaps he is greatest for the manner in which he surrendered power not once but twice.

One of the best recent commentaries written on Washington is David Boaz’s, “The Man Who Would Not Be King.” In the piece from 2006, Boaz wonderfully sums up the depth of Washington’s immense character and what that means for liberty and America. The entire commentary is worth reading but the conclusion is especially poignant:

From his republican values Washington derived his abhorrence of kingship, even for himself. The writer Garry Wills called him “a virtuoso of resignations.” He gave up power not once but twice – at the end of the revolutionary war, when he resigned his military commission and returned to Mount Vernon, and again at the end of his second term as president, when he refused entreaties to seek a third term. In doing so, he set a standard for American presidents that lasted until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose taste for power was stronger than the 150 years of precedent set by Washington.

Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Washington’s moral model of leadership is timeless. In everything he said and did, he affirmed the spirit of the American Revolution. His fellow Virginian, Thomas Jefferson noted, Washington would “rather be in his grave than in his present situation [the presidency]; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made Emperor of the world.” All Americans should study Washington because he is the embodiment the principles of liberty. His peers would all argue and did, that in America there was no leader who possessed greater virtue. Charles Francis Adams, the son of President John Quincy Adams, declared of Washington:

More than all, and above all, Washington was master of himself. If there be one quality more than another in his character which may exercise a useful control over the men of the present hour, it is the total disregard of self when in the most elevated positions for influence and example.

[Jacquerie]

His ambition wasn't political power, it was glory and fame. Both are noble goals.

[Iron Munro]

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen"

IMHO George Washington is unchallenged as the greatest president we have ever had, and probably ever will have.

He is also one of the finest men and finest Americans who has ever lived.

There have been many who rose to greatness throughout our history but George Washington is a giant among them all.

There never would have been an America as we knew it without George Washington.

The beginning of America's current downfall coincides with the time when schools stopped inculcating respect for George Washington and our Founders, and when they began teaching the politically correct history of America in place of the true history of our founding and development.

This is the picture that hangs in a place of honor in our home:

[Iron Munro]

Washington was the greatest president of the 18th century, Lincoln of the 19th and Reagan of the 20th.

Respectfully I dsagree.

I know my views are not among the majority, but here is how I see it:

In my opinion Lincoln does not deserve mention in the same sentence as Washington or Reagan.

Washington presided over the birth of the nation.

Lincoln presided over the death of 600,000 Americans who killed each other in a war he could have avoided or ended at any time.

Reagan presided over the end of the most potentially disasterous conflict in the entire known history of the world.

[William Tell]

Washington committed everything he had or would ever have to leading our Revolution. His wisdom in avoiding loss was as important as any victory on the field of battle.

There may have been many men whose personal characters were essential to accomplishing the founding of our nation. There might be disagreement regarding the inclusion of one or another. Could anyone ever doubt the correctness of including Washington? I think not.

[DuncanWaring]

I don’t know enough about his presidency to agree he’s the greatest president.

I’d certainly agree, though, that he could legitimately be called the Greatest American.

[Sherman Logan]

Except that the US would still have had nukes in the summer of 42, which would have ended the war just as easily against Germany as they did against Japan.

Jet planes, or ICBMs would not have changed the equation as much as you think. Missiles in particular were remarkably ineffective as actual weapons of war unless topped by nukes. V2s landed on UK for quite a long time, but militarily were at most a nuisance. Jets had the potential to make bombing of Germany impossible, and provide Germany with command of the air above Europe. But they would not of themselves have changed the course of the war greatly.

The big issue is of course the A-bomb, an issue I’ve read up on to a considerable extent. Germany never came remotely close to developing even the theory necessary, much less the immense industrial infrastructure. Ironically, many if not most of those who developed our Bomb had fled Europe to escape the Nazis.

Even more ironic is that the Nazis were resistant to the very idea of the Bomb, as they considered the physics behind it to be “Jewish science.”

[elkfersupper]

George Washington: first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen. But he married a widow.

Careful, I'm related to that widow through Thomas Hunt. Rumor is he donated the swamp that became Washington, DC.

It is still a swamp.

[Osage Orange]

BUMP THAT!!!

[Osage Orange]

First mules?

Interesting..........

[Old Sarge]

We will not see his like again.

If he’s out there, he’s so disgusted by politics that he refuses to appear.

Or, he’s been identified by the Left, and has already been destroyed.

[Defiant]

Summer of 45, not 42.

Germany would have had to develop their nukes before we did, of course, to be able to win the war with them. We first detonated in summer of 45, and used them in August 45. Had Hitler beaten us by a few months, it might have ended the war. He had a delivery system that would have leveled London and Moscow. He was ahead of us in 1939, and had scientists capable of doing what we eventually did. Thankfully, two things came together for us. We put unlimited resources into developing the bomb, and they did not put any resources into it.

I think that jet planes in sufficient quantities would have been a game changer. Control of the air over all of Europe and over Britain would have given the Germans the ability to devastate Britain without enduring much pain in return. The impressive statistics about how many planes Rosie the Riveter was able to produce would have been meaningless. The skies above all our tanks would have been filled with Germans strafing and bombing. Patton could not have done his thing. The landings an Normandy and Sicily would have been blown to smithereens. Just a few examples of the impact jet planes would have had if developed in 1942 instead of 1944.

Yes we were lucky that the scientists instrumental to our building of the bomb were the Jews who left Germany to escape the Nazis. Had Hitler been the same man, but not anti-semitic, I imagine many of those who fled would have stayed and built the bomb for the Germans instead of for us. But had he not been anti-semitic, he would not have been able to rally his country around hatred of a villain, so maybe the two go hand in hand.

There were other things I could mention--the bad decisions made by Hitler during the war, the bad Russian winter as they stalled outside Stalingrad, the breaking of the German enigma machine (which depended on some luck). Development of radar at just the right time. Normandy was a close one, and depended on the Germans falling for our deception. The point is, there are a lot of little things that went our way that allowed us to win the war. It was by no means preordained that we would win.

[Ditto]

James Thomas Flexner, in Washington : The Indispensable Man

For those Freepers interested in our history and the Founding of this country, this book is the best I have ever read. Washington was our gift from God. We would never have been a nation, or at least a nation worth living in, without him.

We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

[Ditto]

Lincoln presided over the death of 600,000 Americans who killed each other in a war he could have avoided or ended at any time.

Jeff Davis and the Confederates could have 'avoided or ended at any time" as well, but they didn't

Don't mean to turn this into a Civil War thread, but if Lincoln hadn't done what he did, would this nation turned into Bosnia-Serbia-Croatia third world hell hole where they all speak the same language but just hate the s*** out of each other for no other reason than hate?

Give Lincoln credit for stopping that.

[RJS1950]

Having read several biographies and some of his writings, I’m not convinced that glory and fame were all that important at that point in his life. He was already considered the greatest military hero and the father of his country and I believe that he might have really wanted to retire to his plantation.

[Liberty Wins]

Authors have called him “Bulletproof George” because of the way he fearlessly charged into the front during battles. During the battle of the Monongahela, the first battle of the French and Indian War, every officer was shot off his horse, including General Braddock, but Washington was the only officer left on horseback out of a total of 86 British and American officers.

The next day Washington wrote a letter to his family explaining that after the battle he had taken off his jacket and found four bullet holes through it, yet not a single bullet had touched him; several horses had been shot from under him, but he had not been harmed. He told them:

“By the all powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.”

Washington openly acknowledged that God’s hand was upon him, that God had protected him and kept him through that battle.

However, the story does not stop here. Fifteen years later, in 1770 — now a time of peace — George Washington and a close personal friend, Dr. James Craik, returned to those same Pennsylvania woods. An old Indian chief from far away, having heard that Washington was in the vicinity of the battle, traveled a long way just to meet with him.

He sat down with Washington, and face-to-face over a council fire, the chief told Washington that he had been a leader in that battle fifteen years earlier, and that he had instructed his braves to single out all the officers and shoot them down. Washington had been singled out, and the chief explained that he personally had shot at Washington seventeen times, but without effect. Believing Washington to be under the care of the Great Spirit, the chief instructed his braves to cease firing at him. He then told Washington:

“I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle....I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.”

A verifying account was given by Mary Draper Ingels, who was captured by a band of Shawnees from her home in Virginia in 1755. While still a captive at the Indian camp, she overheard discussions between the French and their Indian allies describing the inability of the chief, Red Hawk, to hit Washington during the battle.

Mary eventually escaped and traveled a grueling 1000 miles to return to her home, where she related this story many times.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“Washington was the greatest president of the 18th century”

Pretty much a back-handed compliment, given only 2 were president then.

I won’t say what I think of Lincoln.

[Jacquerie]

I was speaking more in generalities about the man.

By war’s end, his military glory was certainly secure.

Even the most strident anti-federalists along with the rest of America were comfortable with, and expected GW to be president if the constitution was ratified. Delegates to the federal convention so much as knew that when they designed the office.

GW’s trusted adviser, Alexander Hamilton, counseled that his fame would decline if he refused the presidency.

I don't mean to imply anything negative about GW. His higher sense of duty was incredible. IIRC, he never took a dime in salary for his services.

[Iron Munro]

Jeff Davis and the Confederates could have 'avoided or ended at any time" as well, but they didn't

I agree, many could have done something to avoid or stop the war and carnage but only one of them was President.

Lincoln essentially killed states rights and established, by force, the dominance of the central federal government.

And that has led us directly to where we are today.

In fact, I think it is clear that we are close to turning into something like a "Bosnia-Serbia-Croatia third world hell hole where they all speak the same language but just hate the s*** out of each other".

Just listen to the hateful rhetoric from the left and from the government itself about conservatives, the Tea Party, and critics of Obama and the government.

[Ditto]

I agree, many could have done something to avoid or stop the war and carnage but only one of them was President.

What was Jeff Davis? Dog Catcher?

Lincoln essentially killed states rights and established, by force, the dominance of the central federal government. And that has led us directly to where we are today.

And that's total nonsense.

[Sherman Logan]

Pretty much a back-handed compliment

WEll, no. Since in the same comment I stated that he was the greatest of all.