How did he move through the ranks? I’m not sure what ranking existed back then. Did he go through the following ranks.
Colonel,Brigadier General, Major General, Lt. General, General?
I know as a member of the landed gentry he was in a respectable position and offered the rank of his deceased half-brother Adjutant General Lawrence Washington. So what ranks did he actually move through?
I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
Washington’s original rank was Major in the Virginia colonial militia (this was when Virginia was still a British colony). He was appointed in 1753. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in 1754 and Colonel in 1755. These appointments were made by the Governor of Virginia. He resigned from the militia in 1758.
In 1775 the Continental Congress appointed him to the rank of General in the Continental Army (this was seen as the equivalent of being a Major General). He resigned from the military in 1783.
In 1798, it appeared there would be a war with France. Washington was named to the rank of Lieutenant General (three stars) and placed in command of the United States Army. The war did not occur but Washington held the rank until his death in 1799.
In 1978, Washington was retroactively appointed to the rank of General of the Armies, which is the highest rank ever created in the United States. His appointment to this rank was backdated to 1976.
According to Ron Chernow’s “Washington A Life” (p. 38)
“…(Robert) Dinwiddle presented him (Washington) with a commission as lieutenant colonel. Almost twenty-two, Washington was emerging as a wunderkind to be reckoned with in the world of Virginia politics”…
What is the average age of a Lt. Colonel today?
38 according to this link.
The appointment in 1976 implies that Washington retroactively outranks all others but does not specifically address the Pershing issue. The issue wasn’t exactly resolved during Pershing’s lifetime when they started making 5 star generals. Pershing wore 4 gold stars.
Militia companies were organized by the well-to-do. They always appointed themselves officers and made others of their class officers. From Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner:
This could not happen today in a professional army. It wasn’t very good practice even then. The Revolutionary War taught the colonists that militia could not fight armies. Yet, the U.S. did not want a standing army because those tended to become corrupt and take power away from the civilian politicians.
As always, the Constitution served up a compromise. The second amendment talked about “a well-regulated militia” without defining what that could possibly be. We’re still suffering from that lack of precision, though presumably “well-regulated” had a stronger meaning in their minds than it does today.
As Loach notes about Pershing, it is indeed a little ambiguous. But I think that, since (a) Public Law 94-479 provided that Washington as General of the Armies would “have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past and present” (emphasis added), and (b) only he was appointed by that Act of Congress, and (c) it came after Pershing’s death, Washington outranked - and still outranks - Pershing.
This is only until Loach himself receives his well-deserved promotion(s), of course.
Sorry. Just got around to looking at your replies. Thanks Exapno Mapcase. Exactly what I was looking for :
Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner:
Quote:
In Virginia, as in all the colonies, every community supported a volunteer militia company, presumably a military force but more closely resembling a men’s drinking and political club. … [After the death of his older brother] George sought the office. He went after it in the Fairfax manner: not by becoming proficient in military matters, but by paying semi-social calls on influential members of the government. Thus following the mores of an aristocratic world, he secured, at the age of twenty, the title of major and the responsibility of training militia in skills he did not himself possess.
Thank you all. As always, very helpful.
davidmich
As noted, the issue was never officially resolved during Pershing’s lifetime. However, the theory is that a General of the Armies (plural) commands more men and is responsible for more things than a General of the Army (singular). Therefore, as a practical matter, it can be asserted that General of the Armies is a 6-star rank.
Pershing was the highest-ranking officer in American history during his lifetime. But seniority is based strictly on date of commission, and makes no distinction between current and posthumous/postdated commissions. Therefore, Washington is now the highest-ranking officer in American history, and will be until the end of time.
Not sure if this is a whoosh. But, no, it was 1976. It was backdated to the Bicentennial. Here’s the text of Public Law 94-479. And here’s a copy of the official order.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good explanation of the whole General of the Army vs Armies and the 5-star/6-star Pershing rank question. As mentioned above Gen Pershing lived until 1948 so he was alive, although retired and very elderly, when the 5-star General of the Army rank was created in 1944 for US generals to be equal to foreign Field Marshals during WWII.
The promotion of Washington for the Bicentennial was clearly meant to officially elevate him to the highest achievable US armed services rank both past and in perpetuity so yes, he outranks Pershing. Although it’s hardly a slight to Pershing’s service, and I doubt his family would argue that he should outrank the father of our country*!*
