In his piece titled “The Greatness of George Washington”, Gordon S. Wood is trying to show the reader that George Washington was great not because of his intellect or his military genius, but because of his virtuous character. When you look closely at George Washington’s life, it is evident that he was not a prominent scholar, especially when compared to some other Founding Fathers. Although he was brilliant at running his plantation, Washington never went to college, and, as Jefferson said, his “‘colloquial talents were not above mediocrity” (Oates 135). For these reasons, it is hard to imagine Washington “expressing his views on Plato in the Jefferson and John Adams did” (Oates 135). Also, even though his role as general during the Revolutionary …show more content…
In 1783, Washington was the victorious general of the continental army, and many people viewed him as a hero. Therefore, it was “widely thought that Washington could have become king or dictator” (Oates 138). After all, other great generals, like “Cromwell, William of Orange, Marlborough- all had sought political rewards commensurate with their military achievements” (Oates 138). However, Washington was happy to go back to his plantation without any political compensation. This act was “unprecedented in modern times” (Oates 138), since generals during this era typically tried to gain political power from their victories. The whole world was surprised and awed by this unusual behavior. John Trumbull even described it as “a Conduct so novel, so inconceivable to the People” (Oates 138). Washington “acquired instant fame as a modern Cincinnatus” and “a living embodiment of all that classical republican virtue the age was eagerly trying to recover” (Oates 138). Even today, most people expect a reward when they are victorious. Washington separating from politics would be like a modern basketball star winning a championship, and then not taking the trophy. By surrendering his sword, Washington astounded the entire world, because this behavior was very unorthodox, and it demonstrated …show more content…
Washington said that a political party could “‘set up a broomstick’ as a candidate”, and if the party supported it, the party members would “command their votes in toto” (Oates 143). Washington thought that political parties made it so “distinctions of character no longer mattered”. In other words, Washington disliked how people would vote for their party’s candidate without taking into consideration the candidate’s character. This problem has been a very relevant issue during America’s history, since it feels like political parties are sometime more important to people than the character of their leaders. George Washington was elected president because of his amazing virtue, but ever since Washington’s presidency, partisan politics have interfered with people’s decisions. Because of this, even though some politicians may not have great morality, they may still be elected, simply because a political party supports them. Even in today’s upcoming election, people with questionable character might be elected, because political parties are backing them up. Washington was upset with politics at the end of his life because he believed leaders should be chosen based on their morals, not on their political affiliations. And, even though many people today do choose their leaders based off of