why do people think that Washington didn't want to lead the army?
824693
I don't know about leading the Army, but I don't think he was to high on being the first President.
861498
Although I highly doubt that he will leave of his own will, if he did leave I think it would leave a big slot to fill for whomever stepped into it. He's made such a mess of things with the military. It would be great if he left, one way or the other, but it would be intersting to see who would step in to his place. Anyone with prior military experience I think would be better for the job.
182235
i read an article that said that men in the military would not feel comfortable, therefore would lack trust--and since they are entrusted with each other's lives, then it would be dangerous.\n\ni don't really understand that line of argument...you are given orders--then you carry them out, as i see it.\n\njust contributing
765072
He actually lost more battles that he won, but thanks to some good commanders around him he won two strategic battles against the British - Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781\n\nIn actual fact as a military strategist he was pretty hopeless, but thanks to those around him America gained its Independence.\n\nIf Washington had been allowed to dictate the strategy for every battle we would be singing "God save the Queen" and flying the Union flag.\n\nHowever, thanks to Hollywood and some romantic ideals we see him both as a great patriot (which he was), and as a great leader (which is highly debatable).
806580
You are talking about the contraband they followed the armies throughout the South the problem was the armies had no way or motivation to care for them.  Read "The Uncivil War" the Yankees raped, hung and abused them great liberators.  That might have why most of them stayed loyal or may-be they did listen to the yankee lies!\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
165548
They were just obeying orders.  The soldiers would have been shot if they refused to fight the revolutionaries.  Nevertheless, a lot of them did desert to aid the revolutionaries, and a lot more elected to stay in America when the war was over.\n\nAs to why they were sent over here to fight by their government, it was because America was a great economic prize that England did not want to give up.
1185249
Northerners weren't gung-ho about going to war and especially about being drafted. In New York City, a riot of draft resisters broke out at Tompkins Square Park in Manhattan. Bloody mess. Also most northerners didn't know how to use firearms because they never hunted for wild game. It was new to them. Also the North couldn't find a military leader. They changed them like shirts until U.S. Grant took over. To get soliders the north recruited from Ireland and Germany.
330593
Just a response to beatifulblondie. "It gets us nowhere as a country to bad mouth our leader." This country would not exist if our forefathers had that attitude. Remember our leader was once "King" George, not just clueless George. Having the courage to bad mouth our "leaders" when they are wrong is what  keeps us a "free" nation.
638169
He wanted to conquer and rule Europe...that's not really like a tyrant...that's more along the lines of an Emperor who is expanding his empire.  He was not a great leader of France...he was a military conqueror.  (See George W Bush)
479250
I'd wonder what was wrong with his own country that he feels the need to serve another one in the military.  Then I'd wonder if he had a incorrect view of this country's military.  It isn't all glamorous like the commercials say, and there is certainly nothing wrong with serving your own country honorably.
367250
I think that they would be amazed with all the government red tape. Jefferson believed in limited government involvement in peoples lives. Washington being a general would be surprised in the military both foreign and domestic. And I think they would be surprised on how much of a world powerhouse (the United States) the 13 original rebel colonies turned into. They would be pleased in all the good things and distressed with all the bad.
147525
Yes, $$.  But also moral.  Washington suffered a string of significant defeats.  Moral was low because of that.  Then the conscripting period was coming to and end and many soldier wanted to go home.  One also cannot discount the huge task of communications in those days when there were no phones and such.  There is a reaaallly good movie recommended by public schools to its students to understand this topic.  A&E's "The Crossing", starring Jeff Daniels as George Washington.
235943
That should be, "Are there any contributions from George Washington?"  Then my next question would be, contributions to what?  To his country's independence?  To the office of President?  What?\n\nClearly, Washington contributed a great deal to the success of the Americans against the British.  By using unconventional tactics, he was able to leverage the few advantages the Americans had into military success.  As President, he set an example of putting statesmanship above politics that was followed by the best of his successors.
832763
You would think so, wouldn't you?\n In today's world, it is next to impossible for most officials to fulfill the promises they made during the campaign.\nOh, sure, most intend to do everything they can to achieve those promises.  Unfortunately, that is not how it works in the real world.\nPractically nothing gets passed into law the way it was intended because so many compromises have to be made just to get it through the house.\nSo, even if the elected official goes to Washington or the State Capitol with visions of making huge changes, well it just isn't going to happen.  They soon learn that they have to become something  besides the wide-eyed eager beaver they thought was going to change the world.\n  So, no matter how upright and honorable they might be at the beginning, it becomes very obvious they have to resort to dirty tricks and sneaky ways just to conform.  \nAnybody that doesn't conform just doesn't get anything done.
629181
Yes, I knew that. It's one of a number of incidents which imply that the American forces were, then as now, a rag-bag of ill-disciplined, over-aggressive peasants. They could never have defeated the British Army left to themselves. \n\nIn the Lexington incident, a band of these armed peasants surrendered, and in accordance with the rules of war the British ceased firing and sent two officers to collect their weapons. These officers were unarmed, as the peasants well knew. The peasants refused to hand over their weapons to the officers. They fired on the officers and killed them. \n\nThe Lexington Incident was in the minds of the writers of the Constitution when they referred to "militia" (not "army," notice) and the "right to bear arms." In reality Lexington was no glamorous victory. It was a disgraceful incident showing the Americans' contempt for the rules and rights of war. Nothing changes, does it?\n\nYou are probably aware that the Americans never defeated the British. The British were defeated by a French contingent, who then asked George Washington to take the surrender. The reason they asked Washington to take the surrender was to increase the humiliation of the British soldiery, for Washington's incompetence, rashness and stupidity were all legendary. He could never have defeated the British army, or any other, without the aid of properly trained and equipped foreign troops led by competent generals. France, seeing an opportunity, sent boat-loads of trained soldiers to assist the poor man.\n\nIt's a great shame really. North America could have been quite a decent place to live if it hadn't been for the French interfering.
830749
Hm that is an interesting idea.\n\nWell I think Washington would approve of Bush trying to increase Homeland Security and such.  I think that Washington, however, may be mad with Bush's use of the troops or at least how he treats the troops.  (How there wasn't enough armour both on soldiers and on vehicles)\n\nThat's just my opinion about another's opinion.  I like seeing that you like asking unbiased questions.  That's good to see.
494394
That, my friend, is the problem with those people that think that way.  They do not think about the fact that they enjoy the freedom to speak out against their government because millions of men and women have died defending that right.  Anyone who ever says taht we should just dump the military all together is woefully ignorant of the truth.  not only does the military fight to rpeserve our rights, and show the world what it feels like to have those rights, but it also provides millions of jobs in not only the US, but around the world.  Having a massive military helps our defense and our economy in a big way.  If we got rid of the military all together in just an instant (historically speaking) the US would fall into absolute turmoil economically and would likely sink bacck deeply into the depression that plagues us still today.  Gettign rid of the military woudl make us defenseless to attack by our enemies, powerless to defend our friends, and knock out from under us a major economic leg that we stand on.  All in all, it would just be plain stupid to get ris of the military.