How was he as a general, really? How was he as a president? How did he become so unanimously popular?

>ask a question about history on a history forum
>"you don't need to know"

What's your game, lad?

(You) could say I'm a collector of sorts.

>How did he become so unanimously popular?
People love a Cincinnatus.

>how was he as a general

Pretty blah. Hated his own men. Not a lot of experience or training. Biggest victories came with a lot of help. Never showed any particular genius for strategy. Like other major officers of the time, he got the job because he was rich and aristocratic, not because of merit.

>how was he as president.

Pretty good. It's not so much as his policies. But he knew he'd be a major figurehead and he knew it was important for him to set the tone for his predecessors. He wielded an enormous amount of good will from both politicians and the public, and he used it responsibly. A more egotistical and less competent person could have really screwed it up. I guess you could say Washington did a great job by just not screwing up, which I think might be more important and harder than it sounds.

>how did he become so unanimously popular

Cult of personality. He was the commander-in-chief (because he was a rich aristocrat that got very lucky), and because he won. Therefore, he was a hero. Therefore, everybody loved him, and to this day they worship him like some kind of saint. And, oddly because of that, he ended up doing a good job because of it. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess?

Uh, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

He was born rich, married into an even richer family, and most of his money came from private business. It was the slave business, but still private. He didn't particularly care for public service, and most of his thoughts were about going back to his private farm.

Now, indeed, he was a shrewd business man. He was always looking for investment opportunities. He went back "west" to Pennsylvania, and bought up a lot of land for speculation, hoping that settlers would migrate out there, and he could sell it for more than he had bought it for. And he was interested in building canals, the highways of their time, and he sought both private and public investment into canal building, but that was something that would have risen all ships, and everybody would have gotten a return on their investment (ideally, some of the ventures failed.) But none of those were scams.

As for the colonies paying him money, the single biggest issue was getting the colonies to pay for the money they had promised the officers of the Revolutionary War. Something the Colonies had promised, and reneged on. I don't see how that can be described as a scam at all. If anything, Washington paid a lot of the officers what they were owed out of his own pockets, simply to avoid more violence.

>Uh, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

So why don't you Google it instead of rambling on for three irrelevant paragraphs?

For the same reason you're still posting.

>Hated his own men
can you saucce me on this? or at least elaborate.

You're the one claiming he scammed people, post a source kiddo.

>General

Decent. He was personally brave and was good at choosing subordinates (with some notable exceptions). He also ran a good intelligence operation. Tactically he was average, but given his situation it's to be expected he wouldn't win much even if he was a good general.

>President

Outstanding. He set all the good precedents that helped create a stable nation and used the federal government just enough to keep unity without going to far.

I don't have any sources, sorry.

Washington served as a colonel in the British Army, where he led highly trained professional for-life soldiers.

When he led the Continental Army these were all scrappy, untrained volunteers that were constantly leaving to go back to their jobs, and in general had none of the discipline he expected.

And he regularly complained about them in his letters. And it wasn't the sort of complaints like "Well these guys lack training and discipline, but they're trying their damndest and they're taking on the most powerful army in the world. They've got real fighting spirit, even if they're the underdogs, and I love them for it."

You could really tell he just plain despised them and he hated they were what he had to work with.

>Not a lot of experience or training.
Except he had a fuck ton of experience and proper training and you know, being heavily involved in the French-Indian War.

This nigga got it right. Even I love a Cincinnatus

>Outstanding. He set all the good precedents that helped create a stable nation
This pretty much. Other popular revolutions have ended with far more corrupt post-war governments. He didn't go full Stalin or anything.

>How was he as a general, really?
Mediocre

>President
Utter shit and quite literally Hamiltons sock puppet.

>unanimously popular
Supposedly he had an electric personality, but as the General of the Army during the Revolution, he could've had the charisma of a damp rag and still been the first President.

>How was he as a general, really?
He was great at retreating which isn't an insult. Being able to keep his army together during what would be an otherwise chaotic time shows great leadership.

If there were two things he could do right it was drill an army and run an effective retreat

Horse shit.

>he was very handsome

It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is that Washington stepped down after two terms. To voluntarily give up the kind of power he had amassed is nearly unheard of. That alone makes him a great man.

we would have been better off if he didn't tho