I guess I rate him a little below Lee only because he did not skillfully wield large armies as Lee did (Washington didn't have any!). I read a 4-volume biography of Washington about a year ago and was kind of surprised how much less fighting occurred in the Revolution as opposed to the Civil War. However, Washington was the man for the job. His inspirational qualities as a leader held the Continental Army together. I think he would have been bitterly disappointed in Lee for deserting the cause of the Union.
I disagree about the “Union”. It was really all the same principle. Not that it would be any easier - as it was not for Lee, despite the glib speak of haters here.
Sounds like you read the great Freeman books.
No, there wasn’t as much fighting, and there weren’t nearly as many troops as the CW. Perhaps this lack of excitement is part of the problem. The RevWar gets no respect, nor Washington. It’s as if it was a blip and a foregone conclusion.
Washington had much less strengths to build upon. MUCH less. He basically had no professionals - except the blessed foreigners who came to fight for him. He had hardly any troops, none whom were really professionals except maybe more after von Steuben came to “regulate” them. And virtually always starving and always naked. Along with almost no equipment.
People speak like the Confeds were in this position but they had much better base to build on. There were indeed problems with supply but they had their own mills as well as cotton, and already had a normal societal network of food to use. Especially since it was basically region-based, and not truly “civil war” as the Revolution was - mixed in everywhere, rebels and redcoats everywhere. Never mind many West Point graduates.