From frequent opportunity of seeing Washington between 1794 and 1797, William Sullivan described him as “over six feet in stature; of strong, bony, muscular frame, without fullness of covering, well-formed and straight.  He was a man of most extraordinary strength.  In his own house, his action was calm, deliberate, and dignified, without pretension to gracefulness, or peculiar manner, but merely natural, and such as one would think it should be in such a man.  When walking in the street, his movement had not the soldierly air which might be expected.  His habitual motions had been formed, long before he took command of the American Armies, in the wars of the interior and in the surveying of wilderness lands, employments in which grace and elegance were not likely to be acquired.  At the age of sixty-five, time had done nothing towards bending him out of his natural erectness.  His deportment was invariably grave; it was sobriety that stopped short of sadness.”

The French officers and travellers supply other descriptions.  The Abbe Robin found him of “tall and noble stature, well proportioned, a fine, cheerful, open countenance, a simple and modest carriage; and his whole mien has something in it that interests the French, the Americans, and even enemies themselves in his favor.”

The Marquis de Chastellux wrote enthusiastically, “In speaking of this perfect whole of which General Washington furnishes the idea, I have not excluded exterior form.  His stature is noble and lofty, he is well made, and exactly proportionate; his physiognomy mild and agreeable, but such as to render it impossible to speak particularly of any of his features, so that in quitting him you have only the recollection of a fine face.  He has neither a grave nor a familiar face, his brow is sometimes marked with thought, but never with inquietude; in inspiring respect he inspires confidence, and his smile is always the smile of benevolence.”

To this description, however, Brissot de Warville took exception, and supplied his own picture by writing in 1791, “You have often heard me blame M. Chastellux for putting too much sprightliness in the character he has drawn of this general.  To give pretensions to the portrait of a man who has none is truly absurd.  The General’s goodness appears in his looks.  They have nothing of that brilliancy which his officers found in them when he was at the head of his army; but in conversation they become animated.  He has no characteristic traits in his figure, and this has rendered it always so difficult to describe it:  there are few portraits which resemble him.  All his answers are pertinent; he shows the utmost reserve, and is very diffident; but, at the same time, he is firm and unchangeable in whatever he undertakes.  His modesty must be very astonishing, especially to a Frenchman.”