Burns [1], once contended that one of the most common desires in the world today was the need of a capable and visionary leader. Burn’s perspective fully expressed the desire of our contemporary society for visionary leadership. As far as the visionary leader is concerned, Washington is not only the founder of the United States of America (USA), but also a visionary strategist during the American revolution and a visionary politician during his presidency. Ellis [2], who the Pulitzer prize winner commented that Washington was the “First in War, First in Peace and First in the hearts of his countrymen” (p. 270). The purpose of this article is to analyze the visionary leadership embodied by Washington as a leader before the American revolution, during the American War of Independence and after the founding of the USA.         

Washington’s Relations with Virginia Governor and British Commanders

As the commander of the Virginia regiment, Washington demonstrated his political acumen and his visionary leadership. This is because not only did he accurately judge the rules of the game in Virginia’s political circle, but he trained his army into the most suitable troops for combat in the jungles in North America. For example, being the commander of the Virginia Regiment, he had already sensed the political game in Virginia. After he found that it was the parliament rather than the governor who had real power, he decided to circumvent Robert Dinwiddie and chose to directly communicate with John Robinson who was the Speaker of the House of Representative in Virginia [2]. In his communication with John Robinson, Washington complained that Robert Dinwiddie “left the entire Shenandoah Valley, which is the best land in Virginia, vulnerable to Indian domination” [2]. 

Washington also refuse to submit to incompetent leadership that appeared to have the ability to determine his destiny and future. In 1756, Washington found that he had engaged in a political game with John Campbell, a British commander sent to North America [2]. John Campbell embodied the privileged British aristocratic culture and his identity deeply attracted Washington. Although John Campbell lacked geographic knowledge of North America, his allegiance to the British royal family and his personal noble identity provided him the opportunity to make military decisions in North America and to determine the fate of Washington and the Virginia Regiment [2]. However, because Washington and his Virginia Regiment had participated in a variety of military training exercises throughout North America, Washington held the view that he was more capable than John Campbell and therefore opposed John Campbell’s military plans [2]. 

Later in 1758, when John Forbes planned to capture Fort Duquesne with twice the number of troops used to capture Braddock, Washington approached John Forbes to solicit support for the British army through the introduction of Thomas Gage. Washington first proposed that John Forbes should hire a large detachment of Cherokees and that the British army should learn the techniques of warfare from the Indians and anyone who had fought in North America [2].

Washington’s Prediction of the Outbreak of the American War of Independence before 1776

As a visionary owner of a Virginia plantation and a visionary commander of Virginia regiment, even before the American War of Independence, Washington had foreseen from his personal experience the outbreak of the military conflict between North American colonies and the British government. His predictions stemmed from his personal experience in the unfairness of business interactions with British companies, his witness of discriminatory and exploitative policies formulated by the British government toward North American colonies and the military threats posed by the British government. In the course of commercial cooperation with British companies, Washington changed from an ordinary owner of a plantation into a maintainer of a fair economic order and resister of a unfair trade, which reflected his personal resistance to British Empire. When doing business with Robert Carly who was a British businessman, the unfair business transaction system established by Robert Carly made Washington lost his bargain power and eventually caused Washington to fall into a debt crisis. For example, Robert Carly not only controlled various favorable factors in business, such as the quality and price of tobacco, but also claimed that all the risks should borne by Washington alone. As a consequence, Washington had to deal with his debts due to his unfair trade with Robert Carly. After 1765, Washington decided that he must take necessary measures to get rid of the unreasonable manipulation of Robert Carly. In this regard, it can be inferred that even before the American War of Independence, Washington had already started to resist the British Empire in his own life. In particular, in 1765, when the British government planned to implement the Stamp Act that later caused widespread protest in North America [2], although many Americans complained that the Stamp Act was unreasonable simply from the perspectives of legislation and taxation, Washington’s protest against the Stamp Act came from his economic perspective; more specifically, from his personal experience with the British businessman Robert Carly. 

As the policy formulated by British government for exploiting the bounty of the American interior was seriously unfair and discriminatory to the people of the North American colonies, Washington held the view that although the interests of the North American colonies seemed to be consistent with the interests of the British Empire on the surface, the two sides were actually opposed with each other. As a result, he decided that there was no need to abide the policies set by the British government anymore. In 1763, the British government issued an announcement claiming that the land from Great Lakes to Gulf of Mexico belonged to American Indians and North American immigrants were not allowed to settle in [2]. Washington sensed that the real intention of British government’s policy prohibiting North American colonists from emigrating to Ohio territory was to reserve the land to themselves and confine the colonial people to the Atlantic coastline. Washington’s judgment regarding the policy from the British government was justified. In 1770, the British government granted a piece of land on both sides of the Ohio river to British investors, allowing them to establish a new colony named Vandalia. Especially in 1774, when Earl Hillsborough ordered that only regular British troops, not Militia in North America, could obtain colonial land [2], Washington believed that it was not necessary to obey such an unfair decision.

With regards to the British government’s taxation policy toward the North American colonies, Washington believed that if the British government continued to exploit the colonies, a conflict between the Btritish and the colonies would inevitably occur. When the British government passed the Townshend Act, imposing a new import tax on the colony in 1768, Washington contended that protesting solely through written documents would make no sense. He urged North American colonists to exert pressure on the British government by boycotting British goods, believing that boycotting would also benefit many impoverished North American colonies. Additionally, Washington’s hostility toward the British government was heightened significantly in 1774 by the British Government’s Intolerable Acts against the North American colonies; as a result, he supported the establishment of a Continental Association to strictly regulate the import of British goods from the North American colonies. These evidence has showed that even before the American revolution, Washington had already combined his personal experience with the grand goal of the independence of North America colonies.

The British government’s military threat to North America colonies also prompted Washington to be prepared for the upcoming revolutionary war. When Robert Mckenzie, who served in the British army, warned that the North American colonies must obey the decrees issued by the British government and that all the resistance in the North American colony was unlikely to succeed, Washington believed that the war between North America and the British government was inevitable. For this reason, he deliberately purchased a sash and epaulets for his uniforms, inquired about the price of muskets and ordered a book by Thomas Webb entitled A Military Treatise on the Appointments of the Army by Thomas Webb. In 1775, when the news of the military conflict in Lexington and Concord reached Philadelphia, Washington wrote to Thomas Gage that “unhappy it is thought to reflect, that a Brother’s Sword has been sheathed in a Brother’s breast and that, the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with Blood”. As he envisioned that the war against the British army had become forthcoming, he also purchased five books on warfare and was officially prepared for declaring war with the British government [2].

Washington’s Appeal to the Establishment of a Regular Army

As a visionary leader, Washington attached great importance to the establishment of a regular army. He argued that only the establishment of regular army could help to resist and defeat the British army. Even after the victory of the revolution, he still actively appealed to the congress to establish a regular army to ensure national security of USA. In the early days of American War of Independence, Washington served as a militia commander. Based on his personal experience with militia, Washington argued that although militia might be a supplement to regular troops, only regular army were suitable for long-term combat with the British army Washington argued that this was because no matter how patriotic and enthusiastic militias were, they had some serious disadvantages, especially their loose discipline. In 1775, he repeatedly complained about the lack of discipline of militias when he was in New England and how difficult it was for militias to achieve victory in the battlefields. For this reason, he always advocated the establishment of a strong regular army comparable to the British army. 

Moreover, Washington also personally compared the disparity in terms of the military capabilities between his army and the British army. He found that compared with the British Army, as the turnover rate of the militia was too high, the combat effectiveness of the militia lagged far behind the regular army. Thus, it was necessary to build a regular army to reduce the high turnover rate and enhance the combat effectiveness. One of the major reasons lied in the fact that the soldiers in the army commanded by Washington were mainly North Americans who volunteered to join the army [2]. Although volunteerism was an expression of faithfulness and patriotism in the American Revolutionary War, it posed a serious problem to the army: the mobility of soldiers. One of the serious consequences of the mobility of soldiers was that it was impossible to form an experienced combat force in his army. For example, Washington complained that “to maintain a post within Musket shot of the enemy for six months together and at the same time to disband one Army and recruit another, within the distance of twenty odd British regiments”. For this reason, before entering Morristown, Washington proposed to Hancock to establish a well-trained regular army to engaged in the long-term combat with the British army. Since he was persistent that building a regular army was a necessary factor for achieving victory in American war of independence, the Continental Conference ultimately agreed his proposal [2]. Thus, the Continental Army was formed to fight against the British army.

The Change of Washington’s Military Strategy from Frontal Attack to Fabian Choice During the American War of Independence

As a visionary military leader, Washington began to realize that since the British Army was more advantageous than the Continental Army, he should implement a more defensive strategy rather than a frontal attack strategy. His acceptance of Fabian choice also implied that he admitted the American war of independence would be a protracted struggle [2]. In this perspective, it made more sense for him to implement a more defensive strategy in order to gradually wipe out the British army while preserving the strength of the Continental Army.

At the beginning of the war, Washington preferred to implement the frontal attack tactics and launched formal large-scale offensive attacks, hoping to quickly achieve victory in American War of Independence [2]. When the British government refused to sign the North American peace treaty and began to attack New York, Washington faced three options. The first option was that he could adopt a marauding operation to gradually eliminate the strength and morale of the British army, avoiding full-scale engagements in favor of hit and run guerrilla’s tactics [2]. The second option was that Washington could implement both tactical engagement and withdrawal strategies. Such a strategy may give him the opportunity to effectively attack the main force of the British army while preserving the strength of the Continental Army. The third option was that Washington could simply launch frontal attacks and formal large-scale attack on the British army. Among these three options, Washington initially chose the third one, but it did not prove to be a successful strategy for Washington. In June 1776, his army was defeated by Richard Howe in Long Island and Manhattan. Although Nathanael Greene later strongly advised Washington to adopt a more defensive strategic deployment, considering that New York was still the most critical area in the northern region, Washington ignored his suggestions and insisted on adopting an offensive strategy and was very fortunate to achieve victories in two gambling battles in Trenton and Princeton [2].

After winning these two battles, although Washington still had the idea of continuing to launch active offensives, he decided not to make his army take risk in other battles. As a result, Washington decided to adopt a more defensive strategy called Fabian choice. Washington’s primary goal in implementing the Fabian choice was no longer to occupy or defend the territory, but to preserve a military’s strength or conducting a series of tactical engagements to inflict casualties on the British army. For example, In 1777, during the battle of Brandywine Creek, the British Army launched an attack on the Continental Army. Considering that the British Army had received far better military training than Continental Army and that Washington lacked the experience of leading large battles beyond his view, Washington resolutely withdrew from the battlefield to preserve the strength of the Continental Army [2].

Despite the fact that Washington implemented the Fabian strategy, he never gave up seeking and seizing any important opportunities that may arise to launch a frontal attack on the British army. For example, in another battle in Germantown, although Washington designated four offensive routes to attack the British Army, his plan eventually failed because it was too complicated to be executed by his army. Nonetheless, in another battle at Albany, Washington seized the opportunity to launch an offensive battle. In 1777, the army led by the Benedict Arnold and the Continental Army led by Horatio Gates together caused a serious setback to the British army. They hit the British army so hard that even the British government had to weigh the possibility of withdrawing from the war and the French government began to consider whether to join the war. Although Fabian choice never matched Washington’s original ideas of launching frontal attack to annihilate the British Army, in order to preserve the lives of the loyal soldiers, Washington still regarded the change of military strategies from frontal attack to Fabian choice was both necessary and important [2].

Washington’s Management of the Army

As a visionary leader, Washington implemented strict but affectionate management in the Army in order to improve the combat effectiveness of the troops he led. Because Washington understood that only when an army had strict discipline could it have strong combat power, he insisted that officers and soldiers should follow the rules and disciplines in the army. For example, he stipulated that officers should strictly restrain their own wives and the death penalty would be imposed on all deserters in the army [2]. Although Washington was strict with his followers, he also paid attention to establish friendly interpersonal relations with his followers. Even if the Virginia Regiment was not a regular army and the recruited soldiers were as ideal as he expected, he still loved his soldiers and showed a father-like love, affection and care towards them.

Moreover, in order to maintain the combat effectiveness of his troop, Washington attached great importance to the hygiene and health management in the army. His rapid response to the spread of smallpox was an important manifestation of his visionary leadership in the army. When the American War of Independence broke out, smallpox was rapidly spreading in North America. Because Washington had contracted smallpox when he was young, he was well aware that smallpox would spread on a large scale in a dense military environment. Surely enough, smallpox quickly spread among the crowded camps in Valley Forge. Considering that smallpox would prevent at least one quarter of the soldiers from performing military missions, Washington ordered all soldiers in the Army to be vaccinated by smallpox. He also set up a special hospital in Philadelphia to implement this policy and even her wife was encouraged to receive the vaccination of smallpox in a tent [2].

In addition, because morale is the external manifestation of the military’s spiritual strength and an important factor affecting combat effectiveness, Washington attached great importance to spiritual encouragement and the boosting of the military’s morale. In May 1776, in the face of the British’s move to increase troops on Staten Island, Washington hoped that patriotism and revolutionary convictions would make up for his army’s lack of military strength and experience. He purposely reminded them that they “participate in something larger than themselves [3]. He also appealed to his army that: “Remember officers and soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty-that slavery will be your portion and that of posterity, if you do not acquit yourself like men” [2].

Washington’s View and Policy on Slavery

“The successful conclusion of the War of Independence in 1783 brought George Washington face-to-face with a fundamental dilemma: how to reconcile the proclaimed ideals of the Revolution with the established institution of slavery” [4]. Washington also demonstrated his visionary leadership when it came his policies on slavery. Although Washington promulgated the policy of giving freedom to slaves who had participated in American War of Independence and even during his presidency he privately acknowledged the moral justice of the liberation of slaves and the mismatch between the slave system and the economic development in the 18th century, he ultimately decided to not to abolish slavery during his tenure. Washington was well aware that the moral considerations and economic needs should give way to more important needs, that is, as a newly independent president of the USA, he needed to contain and prevent the emergence of any risk factors that may divide his country [2].

From a moral point of view, because Washington believed that slavery was not in line with the spirit of independence in 1776 and the idea that “all men are created equal” (US history) proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and that the revolutionary ideology made emancipation of slavery inescapable [5], he always upheld the view of emancipating slavery. Although Washington absolutely did not condemn slavery in public, or even gave the public the impression of opposing slavery, he gradually relaxed his control over slaves in his private life. Before he died, he made a will to free more than one hundred slaves of his own. For example, he pointed out that the slaves he owned would be set free and no slaves he owned should be sold or transported abroad under any pretext. He also emphasized that even if slaves were set free, they could not be abandoned to their fate. The younger ones must be guaranteed that they would learn at least one life skill and the older ones must be guaranteed that they would be taken care of in the rest of their lives [2]. Especially for the elderly and sick slaves, they should be taken care of by his heirs. In particular, he mentioned Billy Lee who was one of his faithful slaves. Because of Bill Lee’s physical disability, Washington underlined that Billy Lee “should be provided with a small annuity along with room and board”. In order to prevent his children from not complying with his will after his death, Washington sternly pointed out that the release of slaves must be carried out with religious piety [2]. This made it clear that Washington himself advocated the abolition of slavery. At the end of his life, he was more determined than most Virginia plantation owners to abolish slavery. He was also the only politician in Virginia who put the proclamation that “all men are created equal” (US history) in declaration of Independence into practice.

From an economic point of view, Washington believed that slavery was an inefficient social system that had not adapted to the eighteenth century plantation business model in the USA. However, whether he should immediately abolish the slave trade or gradually abolish the slavery itself, Washington was well aware that he should tackle this problem very seriously as it contained the political annihilative power that would be able to destroy the newly established country. Ultimately, he made a plan not to immediately emancipate slaves out of his political prudence [2]. Although some people may regret his moral silence, it must be admitted that this decision was made based on his sound judgment and prediction in relation to slavery and the future development of the USA. In face of the strong sense of history, morality and power narcissism, Washington’s approach to slavery clearly reflected his political wisdom as a visionary leader.

In addition, the family problem was also considered as another important factor that made it difficult for Washington to liberate slaves. Ellis [2], pointed out that although there was no direct evidence, it was still reasonable to believe that one of the deterrent factors to the abolition of slavery was Washington’s wife Martha who did not share her husband’s principled aversion to slavery as she hoped to pass the slaves on to her surviving heirs in the Custis and Dandridge lines as part of her estate [2] Therefore, it can be inferred that the reasons why Washington was reluctant to deal with problem of slavery was partly because he had a tough family problem that needed to be dealt with.

Washington’s Policy towards Indians

In dealing with the issue of Indians, Washington, as a vision leader, attempted to resolve territorial disputes between the White and Indians through negotiation and establishment of treaty. Washington declared that a just Indian policy was one of his highest priorities in handling the Indian issue and “the governments of the USA are determined that their Administration of Indian Affairs shall be directed entirely by the great principles of Justice and humanity” (Washington’s Mount Vernon). Although Washington’s efforts to handle the issue of Indians peacefully was never realized, it still played a positive role in promoting the development of the Indian tribe and the peaceful coexistence of whites and Indians.

Washington’s policy toward the Indians was firstly influenced by his understanding of the Indians when he was young. In 1753, when the 21-year-old young Washington was on a mission in bring a letter from Virginia governor Robert Dinwiddie to the French commander in the wilderness of North America and meet with the Indian leader whose name was Tanacharison. Tanacharion told Washington that “both you & the English are White. We live in a Country between, therefore the land does not belong either to one or the other; but the GREAT BEING above allowed it to be a place of residence for us”. Tanacharison’s message to Washington left a deep and lasting impression his heart and not only did he record it in his diary titled The Journal of Major George Washington, he still carried it when he became the president of the USA. As a result, Washington pointed out that “Indians being the prior occupants possess the right of the Soil ... To dispossess them ... would be a gross violation of the fundamental Laws of nature and of that distributive Justice which is the glory of a nation” [2]. Considering that the Indians had lived on this land of the North American continent for generations, Washington believed that the policy of direct confiscation of Indian land was incompatible with the Indian concept. 

Washington hoped that Indians and American immigrants could get along peacefully in North America. Washington believed that the fate of the Indians was an important part of the unfinished mission of the American Revolutionary War and should not be ended in a tragic way. During his first term, Washington negotiated with the chiefs of the Indian tribes and arranged for them to accept the resettlement plan he and Knox designed. Since he was the commander of Virginia Regiment before, he had an in-depth understanding of the lives of the Indians and regarded them as a familiar and a formidable opponent. He believed that the alliance with the Indian tribal chiefs would even more important than with other European countries. Hence, Washington established a connection with an Indian chief named Alexander McGillivray. Alexander McGillivray not only had a good education but also had excellent diplomatic skills and also enjoyed a high leadership position among the Indians. In 1790, Washington hosted Alexander McGillivray and other chiefs with high-level diplomatic etiquette [2]. Washington not only signed the Treaty of New York with them, but also issued the announcement in1790 that prohibited anyone from entering the federally protected Indian lands by law [6]. On another occasion, when Henry Knox told Washington that about 76,000 Indians settled in the area between Allgeghenies and Mississippi, of which 20000 were warriors. Washington and Knox together proposed the establishment of a sovereign and independent Indian homeland and he even agreed with Knox’s view that Indian tribes should not belong to any state.

However, Washington’s efforts to save Indians and Indian land eventually failed. Georgia was the first state that violated the announcement by selling a piece of land to the west of the state boundary to Yazoo companies. In 1791, since the expeditionary force commanded by Arthur St. Clair was wiped out by the Indians, Washington was forced to agree to launch military operations against Indians in the Ohio area under the pressure from the Congress [2]. Although Washington’s efforts to protect the status of the Indian tribe did not succeed, he made a positive contribution to the integration of the Indian into the American society after the revolutionary war.

Washington’s Concerns on Education

As a visionary leader, Washington paid special attention to study and education. His attitude towards education stemmed from his personal life experience. Although compared with other politicians, Washington did not have a good educational background, he also tried to make up for the lack of education through continuous learning. For example, he copied 100 precepts from The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversations. He had also accumulated valuable experience in military operations on the various battlefields. As the commander of Virginia Regiment, Washington also recruited and trained soldiers to have the ability to actively and effectively fight in the specific environment of North America. As he felt that his army knew better than British army on how to launch a successful battle, he made his own suggestions to John Forbes who was sent by the British government on how to seize Fort Duquesne in 1758 [2].

After American War of Independence, in an effort to cultivate excellent military and national leaders for the development of American society, Washington proposed to Congress to establish a national university and national military academy. This was because Washington believed that the establishment of the National University was not only crucial for the social development of USA, but also reflected the pursuit of the USA to be independent of Europe in terms of ideology and cultures [2]. Moreover, he also held the view that since the art of war was both comprehensive and complex, it is crucial to study and conduct research on military skills, which was something important for ensuring the the security of a country [7]. In his first state of the union message, Washington appealed to the Congress to fund existing colleges and prepare for the establishment of a new national university, but the negligence from the Senate and the House of Representatives left him disappointed. However, Washington did not give up the idea of establishing a national university and even in the last two years of his tenure, he once again attempted to establish a national university [2]. It can be inferred that as a politician, Washington demonstrated his visionary leadership in terms of the reform of higher education in the USA.

Washington’s View on Cultivating Talents

As a visionary leader, Washington deeply recognized the important role played by talents during the war time and peaceful time. He attached great importance to selecting and cultivating talents and encouraged them to make contribution to his country both in war time and peaceful time. 

During the American War of Independence, Washington leveraged excellent and suitable talents and enabled them to play an important role in achieving victories in battles. Although, as a supreme commander, he had not received formal higher education, not only did he not consider that he was inferior; instead, he found it more necessary to select someone better than himself to be his assistants. For example, his trusted assistants included Joseph Reed, Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, etc. During the capture of Boston, a group of senior officers were there to assist him, such as Charles Lee and Horatio Gates, both of whom were experienced former senior officers in British army. In the early days of American War of Independence, when Washington was more inclined to launch frontal attacks, Charles Lee suggested to Washington to rely on guerrilla and militia tactics to fight against the British army. Horatio Gates also proposed to Washington to abandon the frontal attack tactic in Boston based on his military experience and repeatedly proposed Washington to take more defensive strategies [2]. Although both Nathanael Greene and Henry Knox were newcomers to Washington’s army with no military experience, they were selected as important assistants by Washington based on their military knowledge and outstanding qualities. For example, Nathanael Greene was not only smart, but also very disciplined in the army. Henry Knox had extensive knowledge of military engineering and “he demonstrated his resourcefulness in December 1775 by transporting the British cannon captured at Ticonderoga over the ice and snow on forty sleds driven by eighty yoke of oxen to the Cambridge encampment” [2].

After the end of the American War of Independence, as the first president, although Washington had the right to appoint government officials, there was no precedent for how to recruit officials and how to manage the government and the federal government had no rules on this issue either. As Washington clearly understood from the lessons of history that it was necessary to prevent the military from interfering in politics and ensure that the principles of civilian administration were carefully implemented to prevent dictatorship and tyranny, he insisted that his staff should be civil servants of well-educated people, thus forming the first cabinet system in American history. “His abiding respect for civilian authority, most especially his insistence on strict obedience to the principle of civilian control over military, eventually become one of his greatest legacies” [2]. The advantage of the cabinet system was that Washington not only could effectively expand his administrative controls, but also designate the most suitable talents to deal with professional issues. For example, he chose James Madison as his most trusted judicial and administrative advisor who later became an informal liaison between himself and the Congress. James Madison also convinced Thomas Jefferson to become the Secretary of State for Washington administration. Alexander Hamilton was also elected as the Treasury Secretary of the USA. During Alexander Hamilton’s tenure, he analyzed the US fiscal data and found that the total debt in the USA had reached US $ 77.1 million. In order to tackle the problem of debt, he proposed a strategy to establish a national bank to manage the settlement of all investments and debts at the federal level. Despite the opposition from republicans at the time, Alexander Hamilton’s financial strategy did gradually improve the economic situation in the USA. In addition, Washington appointed Edmund Randolph to serve as the cabinet’s attorney general. Washington was very satisfied with his administrative team. In June 1790, he commented unequivocally that “he feels himself supported by able coadjutors... who harmonize extremely well together” [2].

The Worldview of Realism of Washington

Washington’s visionary leadership was also reflected in his worldview of realism. Such a worldview made him abandon idealism’s outlook on life and upheld a more pragmatic worldview, which had a positive and far-reaching impact on his military strategy as well as his foreign policies.

It seemed that Washington’s early years of hardship and the threat of death during the French-Indian War and the American War of Independence led him to form a realism perspective. During the French-Indian War, since Washington’s militia showed a typical selfishness of human nature, he concluded that a victory in war could not be achieved by virtue of militias’ altruism and dedication to the country. For example, Washington once described his militias who refused to build a fortress unless they are paid tobacco, even though the fortress was actually designed to protect their own family from the enemy. On another occasion, while a Canadian and Indian patrol brigade was approaching Winchester’s headquarters, almost all militias expressed their desires to leave the army when their service expired. Although many of those who joined the army at that time were motivated by a sense of patriotism, Washington was able to soberly realize that relying solely on ideals and beliefs could not guarantee victory in the war [2].

Washington’s worldview of realism was also reflected in his foreign policies. He has always held the view that the behavior of the country will be driven by interests rather than Idealism. From the perspective of realism, Washington thought that history would eventually prove that a neutral foreign policy that helped to avoid war with any European power would benefit the long-term interests of the USA [2]. In 1790, there was a small-scale military conflict between the British and the Spaniards in Nootka Sound. The British claimed to enter the USA from Canada and replace Spain to control the western America. Washington immediately convened a cabinet meeting to discuss countermeasures with his assistants, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Henry Knox [2]. Washington intended to avoid any military conflict with the British government because USA at the time had neither military capabilities nor economic strength to resist British invasion. His primary task was to reinforce the control the eastern region of Mississippi River. He argued that although the Spain still occupied Florida and Mississippi, but this is only a temporary situation, these areas would eventually be controlled by American immigrants [2].

Although Europe was the main battlefield in international affairs at the time, Washington firmly refused to the let Europe prevented him from making sound judgment on the long-term interest of the USA. Washington believed that since the American War of Independence had brought great disaster to his country economically and militarily, he must never venture into war with the British Army again. He insisted that the long-term interests of the USA lay in the west of the USA rather than in Europe. When the war broke out between British government and France in 1793, Washington realized that the military conflict in Europe would have a serious impact on the American political environment. Surely enough, the republicans took advantage of the spirit of Independence in 1776 and incited many American to launch large-scale demonstrations and protest, demanding Washington to declare war with Britain [2]. When the French Prime Minister Edmond Genet appealed to Washington to form an alliance with France to expand their revolutionary ideology of the free empire globally, Washington urgently called a cabinet meeting to declare the USA’ policy of maintaining neutrality in diplomacy [2]. Bacevich [8], stated that “he was instead the founding father of American realism...Washington did not counsel his countrymen to turn away from the world but to approach it warily and without illusions” (para. 10).

Moreover, Jay Treaty in 1794 was also an important event in the history of early American diplomatic relations, which reflected the worldview of the realism upheld by Washington and his visionary leadership. Even in the early days of the founding of the USA, there existed an ideological conflict between the Federalists represented by Hamilton and Washington and the Republicans represented by Jefferson. The views of the Federalists emphasized that since the USA was a newly established country, it needed to maintain friendly relations with European countries, especially the United Kingdom, in order to develop in a more peaceful and positive international Environment. In 1794, when the British army continued to station on the Northwest border of the USA on the grounds that the USA had violated the Treaty of Paris [2]. Washington sent John Jay to negotiate with the British government who finally signed Jay's Treaty, recognizing the British hegemony in the economy and navy [2]. The significance of Jay treaty was that it was the first important attempt of the USA and British government to evaluate and plan their relations after the independence of the USA. Specifically, the British government was concerned about whether the USA can help to maintain the global order set by British government and still acknowledged the leading positions of British government in the global political arena and Washington was more concerned about whether the USA could define its fundamental interests in the global political environment and gain international recognition [2].

However, as soon as the news of signing of Jay Treaty reached the USA, it brought severe criticisms and those who opposed the treaty thought it was a manifestation of the betrayal of American national interests. Many critics at the time, including Jefferson, believed that the treaty would turn the USA into the British government’s colony again [2]. Nonetheless, Washington had always insisted on the importance of maintaining trade relationship with the British government, claiming that Jay treaty actually helped to secure important space and time for the newly established the USA to develop and flourish, brought the USA the long-term interests and viewed Republican’s resistance against Jay Treaty as mere domestic partisan disputes [2]. Washington expressed that the newly established the USA had neither military power nor economic power to fight against powerful European enemies, such as the British government. In his estimation, at least in 20 years, the USA should try its best to maintain positive trading relationship with foreign countries and minimize political connections and confrontations with foreign countries [9].

In addition, from the perspective of realism, Washington also pointed out that “there can be no greater error to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. This is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard” (U.S. Embassy & Consulate in the Republic of Korea). That is to say, Washington believed that the diplomatic relationships among different countries were different from interpersonal relationship among different persons. Although the interpersonal relationship could be built on the basis of mutual trust, the diplomatic relationship was always based on the national interests [2]. To this end, what Washington implied was that the treaties and international alliances with other countries were not permanent, they were likely to be abandoned once the national interests of the USA changed. From this perspective, Washington held the view that Jay treaty served as the best temporary consideration in terms of the domestic political and economic situation and the diplomatic environment faced by the USA at that time [2]. However, with the passage of time, the attitude of the USA towards Jay Treaty may also change.

Washington’s Attitude towards the Establishment of a National Sovereign Government after American War of Independence

As a visionary leader, Washington thought that the American Revolution achieved two goals: The American independence and American nationhood [2]. However, Washington also found that the newly established country had a loose confederation system, with thirteen states acting independently, for which a federal government should be needed to force states to perform their duties [2]. 

Although Republicans may consider a national sovereign government to be a violation of the spirit of independence in 1776, Washington was well aware of the importance of establishing a federal government from his personal experience in leading the Continental Army [2]. During the American War of Independence, the British government had become the most capable and efficient government in the world; however, when Washington led his army into Valley Forge, the Continental Conference could neither provide him financial assistance nor the source of troops as the North American colony lacked an effective federal system [2]. This also made Washington realized that the victory of the war depended not only on the willpower and morale of the soldiers, but also on a central system that could quickly mobilize the needed resources [2]. To this end, Washington held the view that it was necessary for the USA to have a effective federal government. 

Moreover, Washington was not concerned that a confederate government would be transformed into an authoritarian regime because of its excessive power. On the contrary, he believed that if the confederate government was too weak, it would be as incompetent as the Continental Congress during the American War of Independence [2]. In1798, Washington sensed that “tinkering with the Articles of Confederation no longer seemed a reasonable or realistic alternative” [1] and a new government must have the right to make laws for the entire country. In his Farewell Address, Washington reiterated “the centralizing impulses of the American Revolution were not violations but fulfillment of its original ethos” [2]. Specifically, he proposed that the USA needed to established a small navy to police its coastal line and project American commerce from predatory Islamic pirates in the Mediterranean. The USA needed to establish a national military academy in order to cultivate a regular army. The council also needed to pass legislation to provide subsidies to the US manufacturing and agricultural sectors [2]. In short, he expanded his appeal for federal authority and hoped that this newly independent country would become a single nation rather than a confederation of states. He envisioned that:

There will assuredly come a day when this country will have some weight in the scale of Empires ... the strategic stakes were huge, stretching geographically across a continent and chronologically across the next century ... a federal government fully empowered to harness and manage the enormous energies and resource entailed in such a large-scale imperial project [2].

When John Adams was elected as the next president of the USA, Washington was very pleased because it meant that the Federalists’ policies could be continued.

The Location of the US Capital and the Establishment of the Presidency

Washington was elected President of the USA twice in 1789 and 1792 and enjoyed high prestige in the hearts of the American people. At that time, monarchy prevailed in all countries except the USA, but Washington set a precedent for the term of the US president not exceeding two terms [10]. This has enabled the democracy and republic of the USA to be reinforced and developed and more importantly, leaving the American people with a valuable democratic tradition. 

Regarding the location of the national capital, both the north and south members of Congress wanted to set the capital in their own territory. In 1790 Congress finally reached an agreement that the Potomac River area selected by Washington would be the capital’s location. To commemorate Columbus’s discovery of the New World, Washington named the capital District of Columbia. He also enlisted a talented Architect-Pierre L’Enfant-who shared with him a “think big and bold” approach to build the capital into a world class city that would last for centuries [11]. In addition, Washington also envisioned “the capital as a focusing device for national energies that overcame regional jealousies and a place that would perform the same unifying function geographically that he performed symbolically” [2].

In conclusion, Washington is not only an indispensable visionary leader for the USA to gain independence from British government, but also an indispensable visionary leader who maintained the national unity and peace in a fragile early period (Henriques, 2006). He exercised visionary leadership and made a positive contribution to the liberation movement of the USA, the establishment of the USA and the social development of USA. To this day, the lasting influences of Washington’s visionary leadership are still apparent in the USA. He deservedly is considered as the “First in War, First in Peace and First in the hearts of his countrymen” [2].

1. Burns, J.M. Washington: The American Presidents Series: The 1st President, 1789–1797. Henry Holt and Company, 2004.

2. Ellis, J. His Excellency: Washington. Vintage Books, 2004.

3. Harry, S.L. and J.J.M. Jeffrey, editors. Military Leadership from George Washington to Colin Powell. The University Press of Kentucky, 2017.

4. Hirschfeld, F. George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press, 1997.

5. Freehling, W.W. “The Founding Fathers and Slavery.” The American Historical Review, vol. 77, no. 1, 1972, pp. 81–93.

6. Saunt, C. A New Order of Things: Property, Power and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733–1816. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

7. Sparks, J. The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages and Other Papers, Official and Private. Vol. 6. Arkose Press, 2015.

8. Bacevich, A.J. “What Isolationism.” Los Angeles Times, February 2006, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-02-oe-bacevich02-story.html.

9. DeGregorio, W.A. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. 7th ed., Barricade Books, 2009.

10. Peabody, B.G. “George Washington, Presidential Term Limits and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, 2001, pp. 439–453.

11. Rees, J.C. George Washington’s Leadership Lessons: What the Father of Our Country Can Teach Us about Effective Leadership and Character. John Wiley & Sons, 2006.