At the outset of the War of Independence, an American Army was nonexistent. Only the Colonial militia, specifically that of Massachusetts, took the field against British Regulars.
Historian Russell Weigley in his 1967 book, History of the United States Army, posits that any of four days in mid-June 1775 might be considered the birthday of the U.S. Army. The date generally accepted is June 14, when the Second Continental Congress placed the militia of Boston under its control and authorized 10 additional companies of expert riflemen—six from Pennsylvania, two from Maryland and two from Virgina—to be raised.
The man most responsible for the creation of the Continental Army was Massachusetts delegate John Adams. Fiercely independent and high-spirited, Adams convinced his fellow delegates in the aftermath of the Massachusetts Battles of Lexington and Concord that it was essential to assist the New England provincial forces then laying siege to British-held Boston. On June 16, Congress approved a plan to organize the line command and the staff departments of an Army, providing for a commander in chief, two major generals and eight brigadier generals, an adjutant general’s department and offices of a commissary general of stores and provisions, a quartermaster general and a paymaster general.
But who should command this newly formed Army?
Given Congress’ aversion to a standing army that some members considered a threat to American democracy, the question had dominated congressional discussions since the outbreak of hostilities in April 1775. Again, Adams took the lead in the debate that followed. The Colonial forces already in service, Adams argued, must have heartening evidence that the whole of British North America was behind them. Arguing that the appointment of a commander in chief might weigh heavily on the minds of the delegates, Adams stated that he had someone in mind, and one only.
Sole Choice
From the perspective of 2½ centuries, history records that Congress made the correct choice in naming George Washington to be “general and commander in chief of the American forces,” to be known as the Continental Army. Was the soft-spoken Virginian the right man for the job? Were there alternatives to Washington? What were Washington’s contributions to military victory and his legacy to the modern U.S. Army?
When his fellow Massachusetts delegates heard that Adams had a preferred candidate to lead the newly formed Army, president of the Continental Congress John Hancock was convinced that Adams planned to mention his name. Hancock was far and away Massachusetts’ leading political celebrity and one of Boston’s leading revolutionaries. He had served as both president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and chairman of the Boston Committee of Safety. Like many of Boston’s leading patriots, Hancock harbored military ambitions.
According to Washington’s principal biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman, Hancock was surprised when Adams did not prolong the suspense in nominating a commander in chief. Addressing Congress, Adams said there “was a gentleman from Virginia, who was among us and very well known to all of us, a gentleman whose skill and experience as an officer, whose independent fortune, great talents and excellent universal character would command the approbation of all America.” As soon as Adams alluded to him, the embarrassed Washington departed the room.
Once Adams nominated Washington, Adams later said he had “never remarked a more sudden and sinking change of countenance” than on Hancock. Adams added, “Mortification and resentment were expressed as forcibly as his face could exhibit them. Mr. Samuel Adams seconded the motion, and that did not soften the president’s physiognomy.”
Another Contender
However, many New England delegates favored Artemas Ward, commander in chief of Massachusetts’ Colonial militia. Born in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, in 1727, Ward had served as a colonel in the Colony’s militia during the French and Indian War.
Following the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts appointed Ward to command the Massachusetts militia then gathering around Cambridge outside of Boston. It was Ward who commanded the Colonial forces laying siege to Boston. Since most of the militia surrounding Boston were New Englanders, why not the commanding general as well?
Other delegates, including Elbridge Gerry and James Warren, the president of the Massachusetts Congress, initially favored Charles Lee. Born in Cheshire, England, in 1732, Lee had served almost a quarter of a century in the king’s service and, like Ward and Washington, he had served with distinction in the war against France in the French and Indian War. After serving in the British Army, Lee had adventured to Poland, where he was a major general and accompanied a Russian army against the Ottoman Turks.
Widely considered by the delegates for his military acumen, Lee had returned to America, settled in western Virginia in 1773 and joined the Patriot cause. One newspaper deemed Lee among “the greatest military characters of the present age.” What most disqualified Lee for the highest command post was that he had not been born in America.
Gentleman From Virginia
Due to mild opposition against Washington’s appointment, congressional deliberations on naming a commander in chief continued the following day, June 15. In the interim, Adams lobbied behind the scenes to secure Washington’s election. While there is no evidence that the Virginian’s wearing of his militia uniform at the sessions of Congress signified he was angling for supreme command, it indicated Washington’s willingness to serve in a military capacity.
There was much that the appointment of a Virginian offered Congress. Though he was not well-known outside the halls of Congress or outside Virginia, Washington possessed the proper credentials. He was viewed as an American hero of the French and Indian War and had served as the commander of the Virginia militia in that war. Despite his reluctance to participate in some of the most volatile discussions in Philadelphia, Washington was greatly admired. His character was unchallenged and above reproach. Moreover, Washington’s appointment would ensure Southern support of the struggle against the British. Appointing a Virginian as commander in chief might prove politically expedient and could ease sectional tension in Congress.
Unanimous Decision
As Congress debated the appointment on June 15, Washington stayed away and was unaware of the deliberations. Following a lively debate, Congress resolved “that a General be appointed to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American liberty.” Congressional delegate Thomas Johnson of Maryland then proposed Washington. No other name was put forward. The election was unanimous.
Meeting with friends that evening, Washington was duly humbled and wanted it understood that he would not accept the position for the pay of $500 a month that Congress was proposing. Washington’s motive was simply to serve his country. All he requested from Congress was to cover the expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
On June 16, 1775, Washington returned to the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia to address the Continental Congress. As president of the Congress, Hancock told the assembly that he had “the order of Congress to inform George Washington, Esq. of the unanimous vote in choosing him to be General and Commander-in-Chief. … The Congress hopes that the gentleman will accept.”
Washington bowed and said, “I am truly sensible of the high honor done me in this appointment, yet I feel great distress from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important trust.” He continued: “I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with.”
Birth of an Army
Now that Congress had named Washington as commanding general, the legislative body turned its attention to appoint Washington’s chief lieutenants. According to the plan of organization, there were to be two major generals, five brigadier generals and an adjutant general. Having compromised on Washington as commander in chief, Massachusetts demanded that Ward be chosen “first major general,” but he was not designated second in command.
As adjutant general, Congress selected newly promoted Brig. Gen. Horatio Gates of Virginia. Like Lee, Gates had a distinguished service record in the king’s army prior to the War of Independence. Washington then recommended Lee to be the second major general. Adams was not enamored with Lee, but felt Lee was the best man for the job.
Brigadier generalships were allocated throughout the Northern Colonies to compensate for the fact that three Virginians occupied four of the senior positions in the Continental Army. To New York’s and Connecticut’s chagrin that they did not possess a major generalcy, Congress increased the number of major generals by two on June 19, naming New York aristocrat Philip Schuyler and Connecticut’s Israel Putnam as the third and fourth major generals.
On June 23, 1775, Washington and his entourage, including Lee, departed Philadelphia to join the Continental forces besieging the British in Boston.
Ten days later, Washington assumed command of the Continental Army in the field at Cambridge. Through eight years of war, Washington commanded the Continental Army, which evolved into the U.S. Army. During the dark days of the Revolutionary War, Washington’s greatest contribution was his ability to maintain the Continental Army in the field until he eventually triumphed at Yorktown, Virginia, with the aid of France, on Oct. 19, 1781. As long as the Continental Army existed, the spirit of resistance against Great Britain remained alive throughout the Colonies.
Enduring Legacy
Yet, Washington’s enduring legacy to the modern U.S. Army transcends his martial triumphs. In today’s era of partisan politics, where the lines between civil and military authority often are blurred, Washington ensured that the country’s military forces must always be subordinate to the will of Congress and not to an individual or a political party.
When several of his officers conspired to use the Army as a political force in a March 1783 attempt to demand delinquent pay, Washington immediately quelled what became known as the Newburgh Conspiracy. His actions saved the U.S. from military tyranny and civil discord, establishing the precedent that the Army must never be an instrument to dictate civilian government.
When the War of Independence concluded with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Washington appeared before Congress, then assembled in Annapolis, Maryland, and formally resigned his commission on Dec. 23, 1783. In February 1784, he wrote to his close friend Marquis de Lafayette, “I am not only retired from all public employments, but I am retiring within myself.”
That did not happen. The victorious general who humbled the British Empire was destined for higher station in the years ahead.
* * *
Col. Cole Kingseed, U.S. Army retired, a former professor of history at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, is a writer and consultant. He holds a doctorate in history from Ohio State University.