Would Washington's Reputation Be Better Or Worse If He Hadn't Been President?

Would Washington's Reputation Be Better Or Worse If He Hadn't Been President?

  • Better

    Votes: 4 3.7%
  • Worse

    Votes: 72 66.1%
  • The Same

    Votes: 33 30.3%

  • Total voters
    109
He won the last one though. Isn't that what people would remember?
He won due to massive assistance of the French,I think that's how a lot of people's gonna remember it.Defeating the British thanks to a 2:1 ratio and having the French navy blockade Yorktown isn't exactly a wondrous achievement people are going to be amazed by.
 
He won due to massive assistance of the French,I think that's how a lot of people's gonna remember it.Defeating the British thanks to a 2:1 ratio and having the French navy blockade Yorktown isn't exactly a wondrous achievement people are going to be amazed by.


Yet he was given the Chair at the Constitutional Convention, and then twice elected unopposed. So his reputation obviously predated his Presidency.
 
Yet he was given the Chair at the Constitutional Convention, and then twice elected unopposed. So his reputation obviously predated his Presidency.

That's because regardless of his questionable military skills,Washington was undoubtedly incorruptible and a real leader of men.But it is only during his actual presidency that his incorruptibility is fully demonstrated.

A major problem was that incorruptibility and managerial skills aren't exactly what generals are remembered by the most.It's generally their success records and ingenuity that's most memorable.
 
Last edited:
Trenton .

That's just one of the few battles he'd won.It's arguably the only battle that he had ever decisively defeated a superior enemy.Most of his battles were defeats.That's a major problem.People won't look that kindly at his record.A lot of people will argue someone like him should have been replaced long ago.I really like the guy,but frankly,G.W's military record is far from stellar.
 
He won due to massive assistance of the French,I think that's how a lot of people's gonna remember it.Defeating the British thanks to a 2:1 ratio and having the French navy blockade Yorktown isn't exactly a wondrous achievement people are going to be amazed by.

I'd be astonished if I met almost anyone who knew that.
 
I'd be astonished if I met almost anyone who knew that.

Precisely because that battle really wasn't that remarkable?Probably not in the US,but if you ask people about the Battle of Yorktown and what's the Battle of Waterloo,I think a lot more people will know what the latter is,but not the former.Most people outside of the US probably won't even know who GW was without him being the first president of the US.
 
Washington's military skill was keeping an army in the field, that take far more skill than winning a battle. He had to deal with a chain of supply that was chaotic at best.
 
Don't see why.

Robert E Lee was never President of anything except a small college, and didn't even win his war, yet this doesn't seem to have detracted much from his fame. And Washington would figure at least as importantly.

Robert E. Lee is only really well known now because of the "lost cause" mythology.
 
Washington's military skill was keeping an army in the field, that take far more skill than winning a battle. He had to deal with a chain of supply that was chaotic at best.
It's an important skill,I agree,but winning battles are important,it's pretty much the end game.People generally remember the latter part,and you really need the latter part to win wars(being good at logistics only contributes to your ability to win battles,it's not so much as the end game as winning battles itself).
 
Last edited:
Top