Popular history trends to portray Washington as the man who did everything right, and John Adams as the man who blew it...

Gentleman Johnny's party train coming through

So basically, his strategic 'fsilures' were usually not self-inflicted but forced by the odds against him?

How can one man be so perfect

ikr

best president

Here's the rough story, you'll have to check the internet for the whole thing...

1. Washington working for the british during the french & indian war.

2. Went out to the western frontier (Ohio)

3. Fucked things up so much, he caused the loss of too many men, material, forts, money.

4. As a result of the financial losses, England decides to pass a bill taxing the colonies for their defense during the war.

5. These are the taxes that so outraged the colonists and caused them to result.

Bottom line... Washington accidentally CAUSED the revolutionary war. All because he was a very shitty general.

Bonus research: look for his expense report.

Is that somebody's actual rack?

Good for you, really.

>Starts French and Indian War
>Literally leads the resulting rebellion decades later
It almost sounds like a edgy plot

Honestly this .
It's highly unlikely that America would have won the Revolutionary War without Washington. A crappy general tactically, but was absolutely crucial in not only keeping the whole thing going but also being an icon to all the patriots throughout the colonies.

At the same time, the Revolution could not have been won without the French, without Spain, without Britain's financial issues, without the Southern campaign being successful, without the Battle of Saratoga, without etc., etc., etc.
Anyone who studies the American Revolutionary War soon becomes boggled at how incredibly insane that a collection of backwater colonies in a faraway land somehow managed to stave off one of, if not THE, greatest imperial power in world history.

A generally arguable statement could be that "America did not win the war, but that Britain lost it."

Also, on #3., you're forgetting the part where he inadvertently sparks a world war.

I love the part where he holed his troops up in a fort, but forgot to clear the wood line past musket range, resulting in the enemy pelting the fort from cover with impunity.

the fighting retreat from Boston to Valley Forge is pretty damn cool

His slave cook Hercules ran away from the White House and was never caught.

I guess the fact that the UK was the 'greatest' empire in world history made the opportunity to humiliate them too great to pass up (for the French and Spanish).

That backfired tremendously for the French. They couldn't afford to get involved from the beginning but we're hoping for exclusive trading rights with the States. They were already hundreds of millions of livres in debt.

Imagine their faces when the war ended and they were told America had decided to trade with the British empire.

to be fair it's still kind of shocking how quickly the US state became neutral with the British.

Most of the big battles of independence don't seem to have death tolls above double figures. It wasn't like Haiti, for example.

>managed to stave off one of, if not THE, greatest imperial power in world history.
>Ameridumps actually believe this

God damnit, why didn't the Painter paint him in Army Dress Greens and not the ugly as fuck Marines ones?

Not only that, but
>Airborne Badge

I remember watching a documentary on the History Channel, years and years ago, and I distinctly remember one of the commentators saying that Washington was thinking about it, but desisted from the idea after John Custis died and he was left without an heir.

Is this just """""""""History"""""""""" Channel bullshit, or is there any basis for the claim?

history channel documentaries often take an interesting idea, with just a kernel of truth, and frame an entire documentary around it. He probably considered/mused about it in a diary or something.

This.

>Some historical figure makes a flippant comment about something in passing
>Take it as gospel and make a show about it
>"COULD [insert name] really [insert claim]?? THE TRUTH MAY BE TOO SHOCKING TO REVEAL"

History channel is sensationalist rubbish.

>History channel is sensationalist rubbish.
It has to be when it is a private company trying to make their margins.

When there is public support for the arts and humanities, these companies aren't dependent on hooking people with sensationalist lowest-common-denominator tripe.

I read that, while he was shit in the heat of battle, he was great at setting things up, and logistics, basically.

By listening to Hamilton Washington reached the nadir of his popularity right before he resigned. The people would have lynched them both if he didn't. Emperorhood was never on the table after he refused to help the Revolution in France or allow American mercenaries to take part.

Not saying it was the wrong call, just that the religious fervor surrounding the cult of Washington failed at the moment he admitted he and America couldn't do everything under the sun and just let God back their every play as the post-colonial warhawks believed he would.

American warhawks believed God literally underwrote their every decision since Britain (retired from the field/surrendered unconditionally before the august majesty of Washington's pearly white teeth). And that every action was either predestined (Calvinist etc) or possible only though His will (protestant grab bag of American heresies and cults).

In many of these views, one American alone could defeat all of Europe, reconquer the holy land, best the Barbary pirates in a skiff made of paper, and still turn water into wine, etc etc.

The truth wasn't so fanciful. Britain was broke so it wrote America off as a loss, that's all.

Hamilton pushed for an alliance with Britain notwithstanding all emotional logic to create a broken wasteland in Europe which would buy America time to build up.

Jefferson in Hamilton's view instead pushed for the dominance of a French power that could absorb the whole continent and deal with America from a position of strength. The only thing that would restrain this newborn Franco-Roman empire would be it's sympathy for "The Revolution TM".

In short, realpolitik vs moral alignment.

Emperors must always appear to choose moral alignment to maintain their infallible mystique. However, by doing so Washington would have weakened his position and created a powerful enemy to contest his supremacy.

TLDR: History did not afford Washington the circumstances necessary for Emperorhood.

>without a military campaign being successful and without American battle victories, winning the war could not have been won

Did you happen to tie your own shoes this morning, too?

Is this true, Veeky Forums?

So wait, McClellan and Washington were the same?

What the fuck.

Are you blaming the revolutionary war on him? Wasn't he just a colonel?

Not him, but as a cornel he helped bumble his men into a French fort and attack it, this starting the mess.

fucking ivy leaguers