I don't think so.
2006-06-19 10:21:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by i'm_a_goodie 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Comrade, I believe George Washington was good man in history! I don't think that he believed every single words and promises from England once he declared for independency. Not even an offer to be a King. And why England need two Kings??
2006-06-14 01:14:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Podpolkovnik Herman 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, George Washington was asked to be king,he declined any post originally it wasn't until several years later when we still had no formal leader and were in need that he finally excepted the presidency it was with the term restrictions that we still have today.This was to prevent the new world from becoming A copy of what they had just fought to get away from.(Very UN-selfish of him if you ask me ,I don't know if I could have been as gallant.)
2006-06-14 01:13:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by foreversmilingirish 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it in fact was George Washington who was asked to be King, and refused. that there should be no monarchy they this country be allow to elect it's ruler or president.
2006-06-14 01:32:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by antoineaguice 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes,but the founding fathers did not want a king after all they had fought to get away from a king (George)
2006-06-14 01:18:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by puppyhera 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ah, a wonderful question for an AP United States History student, AP United States Government and Politics student and “West Wing” aficionado (much like myself). To start with, George Washington, among the many Founders, was perhaps the most vital to our development as a nation. Without his leadership, it is unlikely that America would have won the Revolutionary war and it is entirely inconceivable that American democracy would have survived to date.
Many figures during the period emphasized the need for independence (Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry come to mind). Other individuals were crucial in organizing the States’ collective agreement (Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were essential in this respect) perhaps most notably with the Albany Plan of Union. Thomas Jefferson authored The Declaration of Independence and Alexander Hamilton set in motion the replacement of the Articles of Confederation. In effect, Hamilton formed what was supposed to be a convention for the review and improvement of those Articles and instead wrote the nation’s a new Constitution.
However, other individuals may have performed all these actions without posing a serious threat to our political development. Washington’s many responsibilities were without a doubt the most imperative and the most difficult and could have only been achieved by such a stalwart figure as him.
Washington orchestrated a war effort with a lack of men and supplies. He single-handedly devised a plan to defeat the British at Trenton, winning America’s first battle. His leadership gave the war credibility and eventually led to an alliance with France. Later, he held mutinous troops together at the Battle of Valley Forge. In the dead of winter without adequate food, Washington was the prevalent force maintaining discipline and unity.
Washington received the British surrender at Yorktown, but soon after, he returned to Mount Vernon in order to farm. He was the most prolific figure of early American history and could have easily swayed the masses to crown him their king. Revolutionary communities created innumerable likenesses of him for public display--a fact that is quintessentially rendered within the story of Rip Van Winkle by Irving. His title character awakes to the quiet Kaatskill Mountains town he had known decades before, but years later, at the time of the American Revolution. The most notable change he recollects is the absence of tributes to King George III replaced by another George altogether. Washington’s face, like a Roman emperor, stood at every corner. Quite simply, although it is not specifically recorded, it is no doubt that many of our nation’s early leaders, soldiers and citizens desired the steady hand of George Washington as a monarch.
Under the Articles of Confederation, our nation lacked a head executive and its executive branch was rather weak. Unable to collect taxes, resolve disputes between the states or even coin a national currency, the Federated government was in need of serious changes.
The Constitution was not immediately accepted as the answer to all these problems. Opposition from States, which would lose considerable power as a result, and from less authoritarian leaders, concerned about governmental intrusion much by the powerful executive this Constitution created--both States and Anti-Federalists seriously challenged the Constitution’s ratification. Nonetheless, all parties trusted the reluctant leader in George Washington. He had grudgingly accepted the position of Constitutional Convention President. Without his presence, it is unlikely that a Constitution as comprehensive as ours would have been created and ratified.
Our Constitution’s detractors were becalmed by Washington’s approval and could not argue against the idea of a powerful executive when an executive like Washington waited in the wings. He would be unanimously elected by all states and would serve two terms. He established our most foundational principles. In addition to the two-term tradition, he began the tradition of a Cabinet of personal advisers. He set the mold for Inaugural addresses and addresses on the State of the Union. These are just a few examples of his many notable contributions. The American Presidency would simply not be what it is today without his overwhelming legacy.
George Washington was this nation’s first President. A man who could have been king, but achieved much greater historical prominence through his personal restraint, Washington would likely regard himself most primarily as an American citizen and farmer. He became the identity of American leadership and standards. His significance within American History and Government is unmatched. Statesman, General, Politician, President and First Citizen: George Washington is the epitome of Americanism.
2006-06-15 06:12:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tenor1 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, this is true. He was a humble man and refused such a title.
I don't understand why people who don't know the answer would post wrong answers on these boards. If you don't know, don't answer. You are giving out false information.
2006-06-14 00:57:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by notyou311 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but he said no because that was the type of government they just fought a war against so he wasn't too keen on the idea.
2006-06-14 00:45:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kelsey 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Here's a good link that should answer your question. Read Number 4.
2006-06-14 00:49:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not really. He avoided it by naming his office the presidency, and by only staying in power for two terms.
2006-06-14 00:46:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Casey 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is heard that it was like that.But I think he wanted democratic form of Govt and had chosen designation of President.
2006-06-14 00:50:56
·
answer #11
·
answered by leowin1948 7
·
0⤊
0⤋