Did you ever consider whether King George or George Washington would be better suited to lead? King George was not a bad leader as everyone claimed he was. King George and George Washington were both good leaders, but when you look deeper, you will realize who really was the better leader; King George. Thus, I believe King George would be better suited to lead, because King George was taught to be a leader since he was little, King George took care of his men well, and King George did what was best for the people. First of all, King George was raised being taught how to be a good leader since he was little, and he was born into a long history of kings and queens that all were experienced leaders. Hence, if he was taught by experienced leaders …show more content…
Although, the way of treatment that the two leaders had differs greatly. King George dressed his men in equal uniforms, to neatly present them. Not to mention, he had money to train them, and they were well fed and treated. On the other hand, George Washington had his men in ragged clothing that didn’t match, and most had no shoes to protect their feet from the ground. George didn’t train the soldiers, and they were starved and cold in the harsh weather. This shows how George Washington treated his men terribly, while King George kept his men well-fed, clothed, and sheltered. If King George was the leader, then he would treat soldiers much better than George Washington would. Also, when George Washington was near the British soldiers during the war, instead of telling himself that his soldiers were too weak, cold, hungry, and tired to fight, he pushes them to the extreme to try and defeat the British soldiers. Although, George Washington’s side did win, he pushed his men too much, resulting in many deaths from starvation, freezing, or even from just being too weak and tired. King George wouldn’t, and didn’t, push his soldiers to fight unless they were strong enough to do
Kamehameha and George Washington also had quite a few differences about how they ruled their country. One major difference is how they used the tax collected from citizens. Since Hawaii was a prominent trading center, Kamehameha utilized the tax, which consisted of different items, and gave it to the ali’i of different ahupua’a (HawaiiHistory.org). Conversely, Washington used the tax, which was money, to repay the national debt since the US had recently been in a war. Moreover, another considerable difference is about the national boundaries.
Other soldiers did not agree with this claim. Towards the end of camp, I started to believe the claim that our General did not care for us. On the very last days of camp, I had finally made my decision on whether to re-enlist or not. I decided that I was not going to re-enlist. It was not worth re-enlisting if George Washington could not keep his own soldiers alive.
George Washington and many other generals rented out rooms or whole farm houses for the entire encampment. Most of the time the soldiers cut down trees for firewood, went in the surrounding countryside to gather food, and when the weather improved trained for battle. Many soldiers survived because they experience hardships before in Washington’s Army. 2. Were there any soldiers that didn’t respect George Washington?
George Washington Williams, an African American legislator, and Kande Kamara, an African colonial subject, both experienced some of the most brutal products of European Imperialism. Williams, in the late nineteenth century, toured the Belgian controlled Congo and witnessed the harsh measures King Leopold implemented to maintain absolute control and bleed the country of its resources. Kamara, on the other hand, bore witness to the end result of overzealous imperial ambitions when he was forced to fight for the allies in the trenches of WWI. These two men’s experiences, although considerably different, both shed light on Europe’s colonial philosophy of racism and ethnic superiority and its position of immense power during this period.
In Document B, “George Washington was presenting Congressional Committee to soldier at Valley Forge.” He hoped that he could get more equipment, food, and needed supplies for the soldiers to survive and stay healthy. He was willing to do whatever it took to help the soldiers that weren't sick to stay healthy, and the ones that were sick to get better. He showed true leadership, and that is why I would have stayed in the war.
Although unrelatable and underappreciated in the eyes of modern history, George Washington shows his greatness through his character. Contemporary culture often neglects to recognise Washington’s greatness. Sadly, he has become a figure so far removed from the ideals and lives of modern Americans, that his name often provokes boredom. Nonetheless, his character proved to be perfect for what America needed during his life. His greatness was largely due to chance.
The founding fathers were smart men who the world looked up to because of their smart decisions, actions, that directed the U.S. to what it is today. But sadly in today’s society most people either have forgotten the things they did for us, or they just do not care. The founding fathers were great men who led this country to victory in war and on the political front. And often early U.S. history is portrayed as moving smoothly for the colonies turning into the a country of its own , but in reality it was just the opposite. George Washington our first president had problems figuring out ways to control the new nation as it progressed under his leadership.
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis are very similar in many ways and very different in many ways as well. Davis was president of the Confederacy and Lincoln was president of the United States of America. To start off early as possible, both Davis and Lincoln were both from Kentucky, and lived approximately 100 miles away from each other. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were both presidents during the time of the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass are American heroes with each exemplifying a unique aspect of the American spirit. In his recent study, "The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" (2007), Professor James Oakes traces the intersecting careers of both men, pointing out their initial differences and how their goals and visions ultimately converged. Oakes is Graduate School Humanities Professor and Professor of History at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written extensively on the history of slavery in the Old South. Oakes reminds the reader of how much Lincoln and Douglass originally shared.
When the year of 1807 came around, the way that America elected a president changed. In previous elections, only the rich men were able to vote which as a result whoever promised more the wealth was elected for president. When the common man was able to vote in 1807, the type of candidate to win the election change. As seen in the election of 1828 the person who was more relatable to the people, won because the common man was able to vote and so they used that opportunity and elected whoever they thought was going to help them. Overall the people preferred Jackson over Adams because Jackson was able to relate to the people better, and because he was a symbol of the American dream.
Being a good leader does not necessarily mean shining in the spotlight. Some of the most revolutionary and successful leaders are the ones who worked the lights. Self-awareness, self-direction, vision, ability to motivate, and social awareness are the characteristics of a good leader according to SIY Leadership Institute (SIYLI). There have been many accomplished and renowned leaders in America since (and before) the 1770’s, ones whose names are universally known and others who are unfamiliar. Of the latter is Alexander Hamilton, who showed potential since the minute he was put on earth, for no matter what obstacles were thrown in his way he forged ahead and never threw away his shot.
When comparing Sam Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, we can see that there are some similarities and differences between the men. Perhaps the most notable relation this group has, is that they were all formal presidents and had some type of power or ownership. The qualities of all four men are often seen as opposed to each other. One similarity for example, with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was that they were prosperous Virginian plantation owners and held slaves. Jefferson and Adams were both well educated people and knew about the law.
Edward Mitchell 10/22/2016 English 10 Essay Unit 1 Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson played a large role in motivating the fight toward freedom in the weeks leading up to the Revolutionary War and immediately following it. Each believed in the fundamental right to be free from rule. Patrick Henry appealed to the people’s fear of war. Thomas Jefferson was able to convince people that together, they could form a new nation. The writings of each man reveals a very chaotic time in America’s history and the leadership, determination, and boldness of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson ensured that when change came, the people were ready for it.
The soldiers were inadequately trained and lacked ammunition, food, and other provisions. They sometimes even went without clothing and went barefoot in the winter. However, General Washington was able to give them direction and encourage them to persevere. The common soldier would prove important.
Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were both born 120 years apart. They were also killed ten days apart in the same month, years apart of course. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were one of the biggest influences on Slavery and Civil Rights. As well as being great leaders during their times. Both of these men were similar, but also had their differences.