George Washington Research Paper

713 Words3 Pages

George Washington In America, had such a leader was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army the services and his achievements are unique in the world 's history, every American know him, he’s George Washington. George Washington was a commander, chief engineer, chief of intelligence, soldier, judge, statesman, quartermaster and not only take orders from Congress but also to advise Congress on legislative matters. Washington established important precedents of American government that were not explicitly addressed in the Constitution and he was died in December 14, 1799. China has an old saying “for a family to a impact on a person is a great”. George Washington was born into a mildly prosperous Virginia farming family. His father …show more content…

He saw action in the French and Indian War and was eventually put in charge of all of Virginia’s militia forces, at the Federal Convention, and as chief executive. Is first time he to be the army’s leader. In 1753, George Washington was 21-year old,he was a raw, young and ambitious man. he was first sent to the Ohio Valley to confront the growing French presence in the region. His actions sparked the French and Indian War. French and Indian war events and aftermath started Americans on the path to independence. It was a decisive role in the war and George Washington was a pivotal figure in the French and Indian War. The war experiences not only taught him valuable lessons about command and politics, they also caused him to re-examine his professional and personal goals. The war shaped his perceptions of the relationship between the colonials and the British, made him has more goal and ambition. Washington stand out from the …show more content…

. . and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. It was slow in operation, being little aided by invention of imagination, but sure in conclusion. Hence the common remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best; and certainly no general ever planned his battles more judiciously. But if he deranged during the course of the action, if any member of his plan was dislocated by sudden circumstances, he was slow in re-adjustment. The consequence was, that he often failed in the field, and rarely against an enemy in station, as at Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern. Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstacles