George Washington's Role in the Revolutionary War

Military History Mid-Term Test

George Washington’s Role in the Revolutionary War

George Washington (1732-1799) was an instrumental figure in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). This is because the victory of the continental army against the British army was due to his leadership as the army general and the commander in chief of the Continental Army. This essay explores George Washington’s role in the Revolutionary War.

First, George Washington had experience of the battlefield before the Second Continental Congress appointed him the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in 1773. Earlier in 1755, George Washington participated in the War against the French where the Indian Army (French allies) ambushed and badly defeated the British Army. Washington was with British General Braddock at the time of ambush. He also documented his other experience in the 1754 journal where he apparently loved the experience of war. This implied that he was courageous at visionary. In fact, his experience of defeat by the French made him determined to defeat the British Army. Nonetheless, his long service in the British Army where strategic retreat was the norm was his tactical weapon during the Revolutionary War.

George Washington’s experience in the military proved critical during his tenure as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. Washington successfully applied tactical retreat during the Combat. This was because he knew that the British were well organized but had logistical difficulties transporting 300 soldiers daily to the battlefield. Washington employed tactical retreats helped his soldiers regroup, re-strategize and, above all, fight for another day (Palmer, 2012). The goal of the retreats was to weaken the British’s morale by making the war costly on their side. Eventually, the British gave up the fight and the Continental Army won the fight.

However, Washington’s leadership was also crucial in his fight against the British. He respected the Continental Congress and did everything within his powers to prevent army mutinies leveled against the civilian government (Brookhiser, 2009). As such, Washington secured the financial and morale support of the civilian government and the public in the course of the Revolutionary War.

In conclusion, George Washington was a military genius and tactician who used his wit and leadership skills to enhance victory for the Continental army during the Revolutionary War. Washington enhanced the rule of law and discipline within the Continental Army, which enhanced his victory on the battlefield.

The Effectiveness of American Military Strategy and Organization during the War of 1812

The War of 1912 was a military confrontation between the US and the British military. The conflict started in 1812 and lasted for 32 months. The conflict arose from the American expansionism desires, the British restriction of American trade in North America, the British support for native militias within the United States and the British impressments on the American seamen. This essays discuses the American strategy and organization during the War of 1812.

The Americans had not war strategy and were poorly organized. President James Madison declared war against British forces in 1812 without prior strategy of what lay ahead of the country’s militia. The first American invasion of Canada was disastrous. The fact that the federal government relied on state militia groups thereby making a centralized command system hard to materialize caused the problem. As such, some of the American forces refused to cross the border into Canada. At the same time, the commanders failed to concentrate their forces towards a single target by preferring to disperse their forces in multiple fronts. The strategy weakened the American forces. For instance, General Hull ordered his forces to retreat when he heard that the American post at Mackinac Island had surrendered to the British forces without a single short. General Hull’s fear amounted to an advantage to Tecumseh, the leader of Shawnee tribe, because he knew that American forces surrendered due to their fear of tribal militias like his.

The American assault on Niagara River in 1812 was also disastrous. The American forces planned to divide Upper Canada in half, terrorize Canadian masses and revenge for General Hull’s surrender. However, the American forces lacked adequate training and equipment and experienced logistical problem. The conflicts amongst senior American military officials also contributed to the ineffectiveness of American forces at Niagara River.

In conclusion, the American forces lost the War of 1812 due to poor military strategy and organization. As such, American forces failed to utilize their military strength and resources to the fullest. The American military should have planned for the War and integrated state militia to strengthen their line of command.

The Significance of the Mexican War and the Mexican Cession on the United States

The Mexican War, commonly referred to as the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) was one of the bloodiest wars in the American history. From the United States’ point of view, Mexican War claimed 935 regular army officers and 613 volunteers on the combat zone while 4714 regular army officers and 6256 volunteers died from disease (Bowman, 2009). This essay explores the significance of the concept of Manifest Destiny on the Mexican American War and the major outcomes of the War.

The American notion of Manifest Destiny was the principle cause of the Mexican-American War. The concept of Manifest Destiny was an American belief that American settlers were destined to occupy the entire North American continent (Correia, 2009). The belief was based on the American sense cultural superiority. As such, Americans had the ambition of spreading civilization to the entire continent and beyond. The American government strategized on how to realize the idea of Manifest Destiny through territorial annexation. In this case, the victim of territorial annexation would be Mexico.

The Mexican American War began with the Annexation of Texas by the American Forces starting in 1836 to 1845. As such, Mexicans threatened to fight the US. Nonetheless, the Americans retaliated by attacking Mexico from three fronts. That is, from the North via Texas and from the east via the Port of Veracruz and through the west (California and New Mexico). Eventually in 1847, American forces captured Mexico City due to their bravery and sound equipment. As a result, the U.S. had an upper hand in the negotiations that followed the defeat of the Mexicans. The defeat of the Mexicans resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which in turn led to the end of the conflict. The Treaty enabled the American to acquire more than 500, 000 square miles of Mexican territory (Bowman, 2009). Additionally, the U.S. gained international prominence as a super power in1848. The newly acquired status would later on influence the American belief in spreading the ideals of democracy and human rights to its neighboring countries and beyond.

In conclusion, the Mexican Americans War shaped the current relationship between Mexico and United. This is because the War led to the defeat of Mexican forces, brought in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The later created the American sense of military superiority over Mexicans.

Comparing and Contrasting Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis: The Two Main Leaders of the America Civil War

It highlights issues surrounding Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis; how their similarities and differences influenced the outcome of the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) and Jefferson Davis (1808 – 1889) were the two main leaders in the American Civil War (1861-1863) (Stucker, 2011). Lincoln was the US president while Jefferson Davis was the president of the Confederate States of America. Both leaders were born on Kentucky. Davis and Lincoln were he Commander-in-Chiefs of the Confederate Army and the Union Army.

Abraham Lincoln being the US president was the Commander-in-Chief of the Union Forces thereby making him the highest-ranking military office in the land. As such, Lincoln could exploit the military power of the United States to his advantage. This was because he had the power to appoint generals to command Union Army troops. This implies that he had the power to choose any individual he felt qualified for the job. In addition, Lincoln was eloquent and intelligent which enabled him to influence military officers and the nation on his side. His intelligent nature enabled him to plan, foresee and implemented public policy effectively (Stucker, 2011). For instance, Lincoln chose Olysses S. Grant to serve as a Union General because Grant was diehard warrior who never lied to experience defeat on the battlefield (Katcher, & Hook, 2003). Eventually, President Lincoln’s side won the campaign because enemy surrendered to their call.

On the contrary, Jefferson Davis was the military and political leader of 11 states that formed the Confederate States of America. As such, he did not have the military power and resources to enable him win the campaign. However, Davis had sound formal education having graduated from Transylvania University, Kentucky, and West Point my military academy as a Second lieutenant. He also had vast military experience because he had fought as a leader of his regiment during the Black Hawk and Mexican American wars in 1832 and 1846-1848 respectively (Katcher, & Hook, 2003). As such, Davis had sound military experience and academic compared to Lincoln, who never had the experience of a battlefield but served as a militia leader. In addition, Davis selected General Robert E. Lee, a fierce warrior to command his army.

In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson were all leaders of the rival camps during the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson had a military upbringing, were all commanders-in-chief of their armies. However, Lincoln’s charisma, intelligent nature, higher military position and a wider resource base and political influence earned his an added advantage.

ReferencesTop of ForTop of Form

Brookhiser, R. (2008). Founding father: Rediscovering George Washington. Paw Prints.

Bowman, J. S. (2009). Chronology of wars. Infobase Publishing.

Correia, D. (2009). Making destiny manifest: United States territorial expansion and the dispossession of two Mexican property claims in New Mexico, 1824–1899. Journal of Historical Geography, 35(1), 87-103. Top of Form

Katcher, P., & Hook, R. (2003). American Civil War commanders: 4. Oxford: Osprey.

Palmer, D. R. (2012). George Washington’s military genius. Washington, D.C: Regnery Pub.

Stucker, A. (2011). Lincoln & Davis: A Dual Biography of America’s Civil War Presidents. AuthorHouse.