When Washington’s Leadership Took Hold

Integrity is one thing, but all that Washington accomplished would never have come to pass without singular ambition.”

Events in our times may give us pause to reflect on the qualities we desire in presidential leadership. Many of the qualities we seek — along with an important one that has fallen out of fashion — were originally found in this nation’s first and most indispensable leader, 250 years ago: George Washington.

Embarking on an audacious (and some would say, foolhardy) mission to stand up to the most powerful empire the world had ever known, the 13 colonies needed a nearly perfect man to lead the charge, and they got him. But what made this man ideal for the mission? What was he really like, beyond the wooden teeth and the cherry tree and the square-jawed strength in his portraits?

A background like Washington’s might have turned out a lazy, entitled, self-obsessed, and arrogant man. He had, after all, grown up with every advantage and acquired the greatest fortune in America largely through inheritance and marriage. But Washington had an inner drive to be respected, not just envied. And that respect, he was determined, would be more for his character than for his wealth. It would be freely given, not demanded, not forced.

Throughout his life, those who knew Washington spoke first and foremost of his integrity. He was amiable and adept at socializing, but never spoke rashly, at length, or out of turn. He valued his word and never gave others any reason to doubt it. He did what he said he would do, and more; he freely admitted his failures and very rarely pointed out those of others. His patience was long, his utterances short and to the point. And of course, he took great care to always speak the truth.

Integrity is one thing, but all that Washington accomplished would never have come to pass without singular ambition. His ambition built Mount Vernon into the very model of agricultural excellence, and it drove him to pursue a military career as well.

Since every community in those days had a militia, military leadership was a common pursuit of those who sought respect. Washington entered military service at age 20 and rose to the rank of major within two years; character and skills pushed him ultimately to the top. By the age of 30, after his service in the French and Indian War, he had already become the most admired and experienced military leader born in America.

So when the Continental Congress chose him as commander of their brand-new army in 1775 (See my column, “May 10, 1775: Allen, Arnold, and Washington,” May 2025), it was an easy decision for them. What they got was not only the richest, most respected, and most experienced American military officer; they also got an extraordinary individual whose greatest quality is practically unknown in public life today: Humility.

It seems almost quaint — silly, even — to focus on humility as an essential leadership quality, but it was essential to Washington’s appeal. He would work hard, show incredible bravery, achieve the impossible, and then insist he didn’t deserve the promotions and accolades. He said so to Congress in his acceptance speech in 1775, and repeated such self-deprecation many times throughout his life. It is this absolute refusal to brag or boast or even to simply bask in adulation that won over nearly everyone in America. They all admired and respected him, but his humility made them love him.

Later on, Washington’s humility became essential in another way: He was offered absolute power several times in the years that followed and always refused it. Let us pause to reflect on just how remarkable that is. Every other world leader constantly sought to seize and expand their power; it is simply what was done, and what drove history. But Washington consistently warned against giving too much power to any man, even himself.

After the war, he could have taken the reins of the new nation and acted as king, and most would have agreed. But he pointedly resigned his commission and went home to Mount Vernon. When Alexander Hamilton dragged him out of retirement to preside over the Constitutional Convention, he was reluctant. A few delegates suggested the creation of a royal throne for the United States, with Washington upon it. The suggestion angered him so much that he openly threatened to abandon the project.

After the Constitution took effect, Washington accepted his election as president modestly, exercised only the powers specifically given to the president, and nearly refused re-election. After his second term, he did go home, and even though the Constitution did not originally limit the number of presidential terms, all presidents voluntarily followed his example for 140 years.

Washington developed several innovative agricultural practices during his career as a planter, while relying on enslaved people to implement them. He also demanded that people who escaped bondage during the Revolution be returned by Great Britain, but his views changed in later life. He stipulated in his will that the 123 people he owned would be freed after he and his wife had both died, the only Founding Father to do so. In the event, his widow, Martha, began releasing people almost immediately after his death.

And so it was, 250 years ago, that these fractious, rebellious colonies had the most outrageous stroke of luck in history, in the selection of just the right man, at just the right time. Without him, we probably would not have survived and surely would not have established such a successful democracy. We could use such luck today.

Jonathan Bill taught history in Peninsula schools for 32 years. Recently retired, he still lives on the Key Peninsula. This column concludes his series marking the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolution.