Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I reciently read that french general Moreau who located to America in 1804 after Napoleon exiled him was later asked by then president Madison to be Commander In Chief of American forces during ''War of 1812'' against Great Britain to which he first accepted however quickly turned it down when he heard of Napoleon's military disaster in Russia and so my thoughts are would that have been legal back then? Would American forces have served under a foreigner as CIC during the 1810's decade?
Why not? I think some of the confusion may be over the term Commander-in-Cheif. As we all know, there is only one CIC and that is the President, however, the President would have the power to offer for appointment/promotion whomever he wished to lead the army. At the time Moreau was easily the most skilled commander in America and a strong supporter of Republicanism, he would have made a very logical choice.
Afterall at that time we weren't exactly all that far removed from the Revolution when several foreigners served as generals in the American Army and were touted as heros; Marquis de Lafayette, von Steuben, Pulaski and Kosciusko. Also, it was a very common practice of the time for foreigners to serve in other countries armies. Many Prussian, French, Polish, Italian and English officers served various countries throughout the wars as a way to build their reputations and gain experience. In some cases, they were even made overall army commanders, such as Prince Eugene of Savoy who was from a minor French aristocratic background, but ended up serving the Austrian cause (often against the French) and becoming one of the greatest commanders of his age.
I think the modern-day equivalent to the post Madison was trying to fill would be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I could be wrong of course -- I often am.
I think the modern-day equivalent to the post Madison was trying to fill would be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I could be wrong of course -- I often am.
-- Nighteyes
Actually pretty similar, so it's a good comparison. Another example would be the rank "General of the Army/Armies of the United States". Basically the highest ranking officer in the army responsible for all operations.
Further, that rank would be superior to any rank currently in use in the navy, making that commander the senior officer in all combined operations, but not the direct commander of the navy itself.
Thanks guys as that's what i was trying to infer about him (Moreau) possibly being in command of all american military forces .
By the way i'm still confused as to who was over commander during that war? Was it either Henry Dearborn or Andrew Jackson?
The overall commander was Madison and his Secretary of War at the time. The U.S. Army at the outset of the war contained no one above the rank of Brigadier General (one star) as the army was so small. The position of Major General (two star) was revived for the war and several people held that rank. The rank of Lieutenant General (three star) was unused as that had been Washington's rank and no one else was allowed to hold it. At the outset of the war Dearborn was granted the title "senior" Major General, which placed him above the other major general Pinckney. However, the United States went through a whole series of generals during the war.
Basically the major generals were given command over their local theater and were the supreme commander for that area. Madison and his Secretary of War were responsible for the overall conduct of the war, but there was no singular central army commander, do primarily to the lack of a good candidate.
Moreau had been offered the "senior" Major General position and would have outranked every other officer, just like Dearborn at the beginning of the war, but would most likely have only overseen the most critical theater, the northeast, directly.
So I guess to answer your question, Dearborn was the highest ranking officer during the war (no one else ever held the "senior" designation), but he didn't have quite the power that one would associate with that position. There was a potential he would, but he proved himself to be a poor commander.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
