Talk:Moses Rawlings

Final Rank
In the second reference listed, it names Moses Rawlings' final rank as Colonel, not Lieutenant Colonel. However, in the multitudes of letters that we have from General Washington, Rawlings is sometimes referred to as Lieutenant Colonel and sometimes as Colonel. My preference is for Colonel since we have a solid reference for that rank and personal correspondence can be considered informal at times, even between a general and a colonel. Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that Rawlings was given a brevet rank of colonel after the war (usually this involved a two-rank jump, though) or was appointed a colonel in the Maryland State Militia after 1783, but he did not attain a rank above lieutenant colonel while in service in the Continental Army. The primary lines of evidence are Washington's General Orders and Rawlings' two memorials (official memorandums). As was the custom/practice of the time in verbal and written correspondence, lieutenant colonels were referred to as "colonel" even though that was not their true/official rank. This tradition is followed in the many letters from Washington or Congress in which Rawlings is mentioned, as you noted. However, on the few occasions when Rawlings' precise rank needed to be specified, Washington was consistent in referring to him as "lieutenant colonel." This is one example from Washington's General Orders of February 1779, just a few months before Rawlings resigned. See the second paragraph from the bottom:

Washington General Orders (February 16, 1779): Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 3, Subseries G, Letterbook 4.

Moreover, Rawlings wrote two memorials (formal memorandums that typically address a significant grievance) to Washington and Congress in 1778 and 1785 in which he, himself, indicates that his rank was lieutenant colonel both in 1778 and at the end of his career in the Continental Army:

Rawlings to Washington (August 1778): U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 360, microcopy M247, roll 51, item 41, v. 8, p. 365.

Rawlings to Congress (November 28, 1785): U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 360, microcopy M247, roll 51, item 41, v. 8, pp. 361–363.

In the August 1778 memorial, Rawlings opens his long text with "To his Excellency George Washington...the Humble Memorial of Lieutenant Colo. Moses Rawlings." In this memorial, Rawlings complains about the fact that the Marylander officers in his regiment, including himself, were passed over for promotion while in captivity.

In his post-war memorial of November 1785, Rawlings continues the complaint of not being promoted to full colonel. He discusses the fact that during his 13 months in captivity after the Battle of Fort Washington Washington and Congress reorganized the Army to 88 regiments and that promotions to colonel were made accordingly, except in his case because of his inability to rebuild his much-diminished unit to the size of a full regiment (and also the poor support from the state government of Maryland).

No reference to Rawlings being promoted to full colonel exists in the Journals of the Continental Congress, either.

Your second reference, Heitman (1914), is a very good secondary source, but it does contain some errors. Heitman's note that Rawlings was promoted to full colonel is one such error, probably introduced because of the issue of lieutenant colonel vs. colonel in the period documents. I'll leave it up to you whether you find my discussion persuasive enough to revise your article. By the way, thanks for adding this article on Rawlings! Tfhentz (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References
The "Notes" and "References" sections should be combined into a single "References" section. Folklore1 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For what purpose? A casual glance shows that each section has a distinct purpose. Also, briefly looking through several other articles, inlcuding biographies, shows that keeping them seperate is a fairly standard practice. Some articles may use different names for the sections (bibliography being used frequenty), but the basic idea is present in many articles. Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)