George Washington found the job of commander in chief of the colonial army thankless and exhausting for all the following reasons EXCEPT:

The regular desertion of his soldiers who wanted to return to look after their own affairs

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The contempt and distrust with which the British army officers treated him

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The fact that his soldiers often refused to obey orders of which they did not approve

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

His lack of enjoyment of or interest in the military life

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

The youth and inexperience that made it difficult for him to know the best course to pursue

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is D His lack of enjoyment of or interest in the military life
George Washington was assigned the job of commander in chief of the colonial army on June 19, 1775. Washington was selected over other candidates such as John Hancock based on his previous military experience and the hope that a leader from Virginia could help unite the colonies.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. When an army commander arranged to transport his battalion of soldiers, he considered

30 -

seater,

40 -

seater, and

50

-seater buses. In all three cases, he found that

10

seats were left vacant. What is the smallest number of soldiers in his battalion?

Q. Which of the following rulers recruited Muslim fighters to serve as soldiers in his army?

Q. Hans is the royal chef of King Phillipe. George serves in the King's army as his commander. Both Hans and George retired on 3rd August, 1276. Who was more likely to get gifted land in return for their services?

Q. Joseph Glatthaar’s Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the Civil War, but it uses more soldiers’ letters and diaries—including rare material from Black soldiers—and concentrates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black regiments than do any of its predecessors. Glatthaar’s title expresses his thesis: loyalty, friendship, and respect among White officers and Black soldiers were fostered by the mutual dangers they faced in combat.
Glatthaar accurately describes the government’s discriminatory treatment of Black soldiers in pay, promotion, medical care, and job assignments, appropriately emphasizing the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the opportunity to fight. That chance remained limited throughout the war by army policies that kept most Black units serving in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions. Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in his war, was twice as great. Despite these obstacles, the courage and effectiveness of several Black units in combat won increasing respect from initially skeptical or hostile White soldiers. As one White officer put it, “they have fought their way into the respect of all the army.” In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments. “Prior to the war,” he writes of these men, “virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices.” While perhaps true of those officers who joined Black units for promotion or other self-serving motives, this statement misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists who became officers in Black regiments. Having spent years fighting against the race prejudice endemic in American society, they participated eagerly in this military experiment, which they hoped would help African Americans achieve freedom and postwar civil equality. By current standards of racial egalitarianism, these men’s paternalism toward African Americans was racist. But to call their feelings “powerful racial prejudices” is to indulge in generational chauvinism—to judge past eras by present standards
Q. The author implies that the title of Glatthaar’s book refers specifically to which of the following?

Q. S1: Japan captured Indian soldiers of the British army during the Second World War and were known as Indian Prisoners of War.

S2: Around 40,000 soldiers threw off their allegiance to the British and fought for India's freedom.

Select whether the above statements are True or False.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program