Talk:List of United States Presidents by military rank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated CL-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CL This article has been rated as CL-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

FDR Military Service[edit]

Is the assistant secretary of the Navy a military service rank or more a political appointment? None of the other presidents listed here are listed by their political appointments. I think FDR was a great president, but there's no need to manufacture military service for those who did not serve. It in no way denegrates their contributions to history. In a week I think I will remove the comment that FDR was assistant secretary of the navy unless anyone has objections. --Abqwildcat 21:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Secretaries are civilians. Kingturtle 21:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. Technically Cheney was Sec. Defense, but while that outranks any military officer, it's a civilian job, that's the point of it. --Justanyone | Talk Oct 3rd, 2004 9:15 pm US CST.


What about an extension or new node for list of President's who served and also took part in and/or commanded specific battle(s)?

  • I disagree. This would lead to duplicate and incomplete information on both pages.--Justanyone | Talk Oct 3rd, 2004 9:15 pm US CST.
  • That is a valid point. Perhaps, then a simple asterisk or other small form of highlight along each in the list who did fit into this category and a coinciding footnote mentioning what the highlight means?
  • Both Reagan and Lincoln served during wartime without seeing combat. You could say the same of G. W. Bush (43) and Carter, since they served during the Vietnam (Bush) and Korean (Carter) wars without actually participating in those wars. However, I only changed Reagan and Lincoln. --Rogerd 08:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what "combat" Eisenhower saw during WWII. He commanded armies that engaged in extensive combat, but I hardly see how that justifies saying that he "Saw combat" as the table reads. Also, Eisenhower served the entirety of WWI stateside, so I removed WWI from the "Saw Combat" column. However, one thing i am clear on is that "ROTC" does not belong under the category "Saw Combat" for Clinton, so I am replacing it with "None" --Sonlee 13:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do believe that Eisenhower was a life-long desk officer, he was never in a combat situation. I'll find us a source for that, but he really oughtn't be be listed as a combat officer when he wasn't.---Clark Tracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the only reason to list the combat experience of a president would be a politically motivated act, and not what i would expect out of wikipediaQrv9412 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Table Rendering Sucks[edit]

This table is much wider than the display window even on high res with small fonts. I think it needs to go back to a simple list of text, which was quite easy to read, in my opinion. If SELECTED items were to be extracted for a new article (Table of U.S. Presidents by military service, for example), I think that would be fine. No arguments, I'm moving it back to a correctly rendering list of text (wikistyle would indicate that a "list" page should be a list anyway). --ABQCat 18:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The width is a problem, but the table overall has merit. Of course, I created it, I'm biased. But, you have a point. I'll see if I can get it to clean up a bit. I think I can do something, but it's kind of hard to work with it.
    • The structure is so we could easily see what information was missing;
    • They're list them in order by rank, so people know who was higher/lower, which is the point of the page (used to be ordered chronologically);
    • It shows what percentage of presidents were in the military services, which is significantly higher than I expected;
    • It shows how many of them really were famous because of their military experience;
    • It shows what KIND of military service they had... I think it informs people to know that Bush Sr. was a combat pilot, and his son chose the same service.
    • Likewise it is interesting that Gerald Ford posthumously promoted George Washington to be the highest ranking officer ever past/present/until-overruled-future; his name should be at the top of the list with Grant and Eisenhower behind.--Justanyone | Talk Oct 3rd, 2004 9:15 pm US CST.

Order of Rank[edit]

Shouldn't those with the naval rank of Commander be listed higher than those with army ranks of Major? Was the ranking system different back in WWI and previously, or is that just a mistake? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spruceh0rn (talkcontribs) .

I agree so corrected it Dainamo 14:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Rank FUBAR[edit]

For some reason it shows Lieutenant as above Captain on the page. I'm not good at editing so I don't want to meddle but Lieutenant should be BELOW Captain, not above. Also W. Bush's rank should just read Lieutenant because First Lieutenant is the highest rank of Lieutenant there is. So either change Bush's to Lieutenant or change the other Lieutenants to First Lieutenant.

(Changed the order of George W. Bush and Gerald Ford. A First Lt. in the Air Force is equivalent to a Lt. Jr. Grade in the Navy. A Lt. Commander in the Navy is equal to a Major in the other services.). Checked out the revision history for justification of rank-ordering. You have to go by pay scale to compare different service ranks. Still think Captain should be above Lieutenant... Unless there's a similar problem there.--ABQCat 21:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah I never took that into consideration. Thanks.

According to British and U.S. military ranks compared Army captains and Navy lieutenants are on the same level. -- User:Docu

Why List Deferrment?[edit]

Why Clinton's deferrment, as that has nothing to do with military service. I realize that we also list Cleveland's Conscription Act out, but if you want to go down that route, should the comments also note Bush's alleged AWOL?----EndHaiku

I think they're both worth noting, they explain why they didn't do military service. As for Bush's AWOL, it's just that, alleged. --RaiderAspect 06:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ROTC/Student deferment is a valid notation. There is nothing suspicious or shady about going to college and I don't believe having this information here is meant to damage Clinton, in other words not politically motivated. It simply explains why, during a point in time when the US had a draft, Bill Clinton ended up not serving. Also, the ROTC is a military program, there's nothing dishonorable about joining the ROTC.-- Clark Tracy 06:06 24 November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clinton in ROTC?[edit]

Was Clinton actually in ROTC? There's nothing about this on his bio page. Wouldn't that have resulted in him becoming an officer, and probably sent to Vietnam, after graduation? How does this square with his deferments and the "draft dodger" meme? --Jfruh 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Reserves and National Guard dont work that way. One does not have to show up for every drill. A service memeber accumulates points for every drill attended. A minimum number of points are required in a year to be qualified for that year. Bush met the minimum number of points according to his records, therefor no AWOL.

Ike & Combat[edit]

I believe Ike was state side in a staff role during WWI. During WWII I doubt he came under enemy fire. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Clinton and Bush[edit]

All politics aside, the notes for George W Bush and the notes for Bill Clinton are clearly not equal. In fact, the listing of all the presidents who did not serve in the military seems to exist specifically for a slam of Clinton based on allegations as proven/unproven as those about his successor, especially considering that this article is about Presidents that did serve.

If we intend to use this article to list fishy circumstances under which Presidents did or didn't serve, it seems reasonable to mention that George W Bush took a cushy job with Air National guard because his family had prestige and wealth to land him there, forcing some other young man from a poor family to go to Vietnam. Such an entry would be accurately labeled as ridiculous. Let's be honest: the Clinton entry is likewise ridiculous.

Scratch the entire list of Presidents who didn't serve, it has no right to be included in an article about Presidents who did serve. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Frog (talkcontribs) .

I disagree with this comment. This is made for information, and shouldn't be either side of the fence. We need to keep the information to only stuff that is proven, not rumors. This is an important page that gives information on who served and didn't, not meant to "slam" Clinton or "praise" Bush. Qrv9412 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link to the GWB Military Service Controversy out, there's no reason for it to be there except to bring attention to the fact that he received special treatment during his service. The fact is that this page is for informing people about the military ranks president's achieved and whether or not they saw combat, not a propaganda page. I found it inappropriate for this article, since no one else's military record was called into question, i.e. Andrew Jackson. It's more of a current events issue apparently, so I removed it. Thank you. ---Clark Tracy 06:00 24 November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR formatting & content change[edit]

Ok, pun intended :) this edit was a WP:BOLD attempt to make a few improvements, listed in no particular order

  • break apart the table for ease of editing
  • remove a notes section which may have been WP:POV, WP:NOR and was too long to be a "note"
  • begin a citation method, so that others can add and make this article easier to improve.
  • resorted table by rank and then by order of presidency
  • corrected various ranks and service according to the Smithsonian. I'm not saying they are 100% right, but in the absence of other sources, going with the Smithsonian didn't seem like a bad thing.

Comments/Questions/Criticisms/Corrections are welcomed. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the notes regarding Clinton's educational deferment are derogatory in their nature. While, the notes pertaining to Bush's non-active duty service during the Vietnam war appear to say that he flew "X" amount of hours during the war. The facts are that the F-102 was being phased out of the Air Force's inventory, as Bush was being trained to fly it. It was never deployed to Vietnam as a weapons system. Secondly, the amount of time that Bush himself actually spent attending required monthly training "meetings" is in question. Even though the "Killian memos" were said to be fraudulent, there are other people who have stated that he didn't show up to meetings like he was supposed to. In fact, the only records he could prouce were a couple of pay stubs and some orders that were damaged in a fire. It is widely known that he lost his status as a "fighter" pilot because he didn't show for a required annual "flight physical" as he was ordered to do. This is also during the period of time when he was reputed to be drinking heavily and using cocaine. He would have been tested for drugs during that physical, and that might be the reason why he didn't show up for it. What's more, when he transferred to the Alabama National Guard, he didn't show up there either. 35 members of the Alabama Air National Guard have stated openly that they knew who he was (the grandson of a congressman), they knew he was supposed to be there, and that they never saw him show up. I can cite sources for this information if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bush and Carter Changes[edit]

Before you change my edits, hear me out. I am an instructor of History and a current serving veteran. Both Carter and Bush have wartime service. Bush during Vietnam and Carter during Korea. The reason for this change is simple. You do not have to serve in theatre or combat to have wartime service. If you serve for 90 days or more on active duty you recieve the National Defense Medal which denotes wartime service. For example, I served in a peace keeping operation during the first stages of Afghanistan and during the first 6 months of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was part of a mission in support of NATO and the Global War on Terrorism. I never served in Afghanistan or Iraq. I never have fired a shot nore have I been shot at. I am still a veteran nonetheless. Not only am I credit with NATO service I am also credit with wartime service due to the fact that I served and am serving during a period of war. Both Bush and Carter served during periods of war, so they justify wartime service. This is the same as Reagan. He is justified WWII service because he served during that war. The man never served in combat or in theatre but rightly should be credited for his service during WWII. Both Carter and Bush should be rightfully credited for their wartime service as well.

Now a simple change to this would be to denote those Presidents who actually served in theatre and those who did not. For example, both Reagan and Eisenhower served during WWII. A denotation could be made either as to where they served, i.e Reagan as part of the wartime propogand effort, or Eisenhower in theatre as the Supreme Allied Commander. Or an astrik could be added to those who served in theatre.

The Eisenhower objections in above wikis are not warranted. To be a combat verteran to "be in combat" you do not have to be shot at or shoot. You simply have to serve in the theatre of operations. Thus, rightfully so, Eisenhower is a combat veteran. Yes, he served on a staff as commander, but he still served in the theater of operations, just as current generals in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing. They might have never been shot at but they are combat veterans. The statements above demean other branches of the military. By saying Eisenhower is not a combat veteran you are basically saying anyone besides infantry, armor, and artillery are not combat veterans because what you are saying is that you have to actually be shot at or shoot. That is not true. Regulatons state that 30 days in theatre justify combat experience and the award of a combat patch. One day in theatre justifies that month as being tax free pay. 30 days in theatre for an infantryman is the awarding of the Combat Infantry Badge. Those who are not infantry and come under fire are awarded the Combat Action Badge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecord (talkcontribs).

Reagan and Bush wartime service

This stuff has got to stop. Before you all change this to make a political statement allow me to explain to you how this stuff works. I am a current National Guard Officer and I teach history, so I happen to know how this all works. I have been there done that and got the t-shirt. I don't care if you do not agree with me or not on this, George W Bush should be credited with wartime srevice Vietnam. This chart does not distinguish between those who served in theatre and those who served at the time. Bush served in the Air Guard during Vietnam thus he rightfully has wartime service. This does not mean that he served in combat. This is the same with Reagan and WWII. Reagan's service was during WWII and not in theatre. There are still a lot of people in our Army and Guard who have not served a day in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, they served in the Army during war and thus should be charted as wartime service. Those who actually go into theatre will be credit with combat service.

  • I think it has to mean something other than just an "official" designation, which are often somewhat arbitrary. Serving in the military, at the same time a war is going on, should not, for the purposes of this list at least (and for many other purposes, regardless of any medals given - they're given out like candy anyway), be counted as active service. What exactly counts as a war anyway - there are always lots of different operations going on? - Matthew238 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan and Bush Changes/Military Service First of all, as a veteran, I take great offense to your statement of medals being handed out like candy. Certain medals are "handed out like candy", others are not. Medals and ribbons in our military tell the story or history per se of the person that wears them. Medals such as conflict ribbons and campaign medals are given to anyone who was in support of that operation or conflict. Other medals are achieved through action, service, or gallantry. Those are few and far between as you go up in rank of medal. At the very least, there is no reason to deny Reagan WWII service. Under Army Regs, both Reagan and Bush would have served during those wars as long as they completed more than 30 day active service. If Reagan served in Europe or Asia should not be the question here. He served in the Army in support of the war effort. Effectivly he is a veteran of WWII and served during WWII. The reason he was not in combat was due to health issues. This would be the same for coastal artillery, for example. They guarded our coastal areas during WWII but did not serve overseas. They are WWII veterans none the less. They provided for the total war effort. Bush, by serving active duty time, would have been in service during the Vietnam War.

To say that any soldier serving during time of conflict did not serve during that conflict is a slap in the face. Every soldier on active duty at this moment, wether in theatre or not, is training or working in support of the current conflict. For example, I was in Europe on a peacekeeping operation in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, i.e. The Global War on Terror. I served proudly during war time and it should be noted. Just because orders have yet to send me to combat should not lessen my, not any other soldier's efforts. A change in orders could have sent me to Iraq or Afghanistan. However, that does not take away my war time service. If you want to get nitpicky about this, then we need to denote service in theatre. For example. If a soldier served in support of the Global War on Terror, his or her bio would state that service. If a soldier served in support of the GWT with service in Operation Iraqi Freedom, then the GWT service and OIF service would be denoted. What that would tell me as the reader is that that soldier served during war, denoted by the GWT, and served in a combat theatre, denoted by the OIF. If you want to go that far, then should Carter be denoted for service in Korea even though from what I understand never sat foot in the war zone?

You statement about what denotes war leaves me to question your realiability in making decisions on this matter. Yes, there are many other operations at this time and other times. There are Operations Other Than War, i.e. Somalia, Panama, and Grenada. And peacekeeping, i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Korean DMZ. However, if you agree with it or not, we are at war. It is called the Global War on Terrorism. OIF and Afghanistan are two pieces of that war. Anyone who serves during that time is justly credited with service during a time of war.

  • I don't think official pronouncements are the be-all-and-end-all of the situation. Some actions ar called "war", others are called other things - it is often quite arbitrary. To say that anyone in the military at this moment in time is seeing active service in the "War on Terror" is I think pushing it. Saying someone is not on active service is in no way diminishing them or their service - people working in factories, in civil defence, etc. did and do a lot. Those in London who endured the blitz saw more violence and faced more danger than many soldiers on active service. I'm not saying that something which is not active service is "less than" in some way, I'm simply saying that it is "different to", and the articles should make a rational distinction. Maybe this problem can be overcome by, instead of simply having a column saying "active service", and then listing a war or 'none', we could have a column saying "notes", and then giving a brief description of a person's time in uniform. - Matthew238 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the notation being put on Bush since he did not serve in a support capacity for Vietnam, however, he did serve on Active Duty during Vietnam. Reagan, I will totally disagree. He is a WWII veteran by regulation and definition. He served in a capacity in direct support of the War making training and propoganda films. This gives WWII verteran status.

Cleanup January 2007[edit]

Ok, I removed the ?'s from the column heading "Highest rank". Please note any other areas needing cleanup. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably the other ?'s, and of course the answers to them. Phrases like "became a nation hero", "sucessfull leadership" etc. - Matthew238 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, should both List of United States Presidents by military service and List of United States Presidents by military rank link to this talk page. And is the formating really the best (same with List of United States military leaders by rank), and an improvement on the previous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew238 (talkcontribs). 21:22, 21 January 2007
  • {{cleanup}} removed, since it was from January 2007. If there are additional issues, please retag and list them in a new section. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 12:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All "veteren" means is that one was in the military. They do not have to be in combat or serve during a war to be a veteran. It doesnt matter if anyone "likes" how medals are awarded. The National Defense Medal is given to everyone who served in any capacity during wartime. It has nothing to do with being in theater or battles -there are other awards for that. Anyone who has really been in the service knows this.

Bush did not have service time in Vietnam. In fact he had no active duty service at all. The F-102 fighter jet that he "flew" was being phased out of service by the Air Force as Bush was being trained to fly it. Neither that jet, nor George Bush were ever deployed to Vietnam. I served in the military too, and Air National Guardsmen were called "Weekend Weenies." It didn't matter whether they had a National Defense Medal or not. Active duty who served on a full time basis didn't have a whole lot of respect for guys who would only committ to serve one weekend a month, usually to fill out civilian resume's. In Bush's case, there is much discussion, and much controversy about how many times he actually showed up on weekends when he was supposed to. Also, if you go to the lengths of saying that he had 336 hours of flying time, you should also mention that he was removed from flight status for refusing to show up for an annual "flight physical" by a qualified Air Force doctor. (Civilian doctors do not, and can not certify one for military flight status. Anybody who ever served in the A.F. knows that). Simply put, those of us who served full time, and showed up for military formations, and movements like were ordered to do, do not consider George Bush as one of our peers. We consider it an insult to our honorable service that anyone would refer to his "polite" avoidance of serving in wartime as being a "veteran."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just stopped by to say this is a great page. After the re-write, it's clear and concise. How do I nominate it for a "did you know" on the main page? It should not have taken me this long to find this! CsikosLo 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's Military Service[edit]

I removed the "service note" that Woodrow Wilson was President (and therefore C-in-C) during WWI. First, it's not really military service anymore than service as SecDef or SecNav count for Cheney or FDR (see above). Secondly, we would need to add C-in-C service for every president, ever, and particularly to those who were president during any time U.S. troops saw combat. Lordjeff06 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you. Wilson was President during World War One and that should count for something. I am putting it back in because its a MAJOR WAR . I totally object to you removeing this Magnum Serpentine 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok its back in after some difficulties.Magnum Serpentine 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the C-in-C for each president is over the top clutter, but the note about Wilson and FDR being president during world wars is appropriate (not like this is the first place people are going to look for WW info :). I was WP:BOLD and added those two short notes. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This issue was settled. So I stopped monitoring it then on 8 January I come back and lo and behold its changed again. I have manually reverted it back. Let me warn now if this gets changed I will request a Semi-Protect and for Wikipedia to watch to prevent an EDIT War Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of military rank[edit]

i think military should exclude those who have only served in the reserves as this isn't really military service and only confuses people into think that it is. Sherzo 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this not military service? I was commissioned as an officer through ROTC and served 10 years in the National Guard. I served active duty time and overseas for over 1 year. I have friends on their third combat tour. I recieved the same DD-214 that everyone in service does. I am considered a veteran as well, regardless if I did active time or not. It is military service regardless. Reserve and National Guard is a component of the active force. Denying that fact is a slap in the face to anyone who has served. Reserve forces have been activated for every major war we have been in. They were activated for WWI, WWII, Korea, and yes Vietnam.(Ask C Battery of the 1-138th FA out of Bardstown, KY. They will tell you how they lost men at Firebase Tomahawk.) Unless you are under a rock you will note how a vast number of the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are currently reserve and guard.BluecordBluecord 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Headers[edit]

Made the headers more consistent by adding Army or Naval ranks where they were absent, including the conjectural insignia for Washington’s 6-star (designed by the US Army Institute of Heraldry), removed rank insignia from Buchanan’s E-1 section (since E-1’s do not wear rank insignia). Sg647112c (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

reverted vandalism[edit]

I fixed some blantant vandalism. (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --JayHenry (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


George Washington was in charge of the Virginia Regiment.... formed in 1754, not the Virginia Militia which had been formed in the 1600's. Before that, I assume he was in the British Army? Deathlibrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington was never in the British Army; he wanted a commission in the 1750s but did not get it. He was in the Virginia militia, like most Virginians of his age and social standing. He also was commissioned as colonel of the Virginia Regiment, often confused by writers with the militia, but actually a full-time colonial unit that he hoped to make as dependable as a British Army regiment. —Kevin Myers 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

President-Elect Barrack Obama[edit]

When he is sworn in as POTUS, he should be included in those listed under those whom have not served.-- (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

General of the Armies insignia image[edit]

Since there is no official insignia for George Washington's rank, General of the Armies, no images for one should be added this section. However, because there was a conjectured insignia (emphasis mine), it is appropriate for inclusion on the General of the Armies page itself, with the appropriate discussion and notations. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


George Washington was the Commander of the Armies (notice the plural) but only held the rank of Lieutenant General (3 stars). As Commander of the Armies he was in charge of the entirety of American fighting forces at the time. It wasn't until 1976 on the celebration of the nations bicentennial that he was given the honorary rank of 5 start general (not authorized until 1944). Eisenhower on the other hand EARNED the rank of 5 star but was General of the Army. He had command of all SOLDIERS in his theater and all other warriors (Navy, Air Corps, Marine Corps) whose mission was directly related to his campaign. If a unit's mission did not fall under his objectives, he was not in charge of that unit.

So, it seems this article is WRONG! While Washington may have had all US forces under his command, he was not the highest ranking military officer to become President.

Timneu22 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Timneu22, your information is useful and valuable to this article. I suggest you add your information to the Service notes section of Washington and Eisenhower. Are those the only disputes? Kingturtle (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes these are the only disputes. Sorry but I don't have time right now to add this. However, I'm not sure "service notes" is the right place to put it. I think Eisenhower should probably be above Washington. Just my two cents. Timneu22 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Per the wikisource:Public Law 94-479, Washington is at the top. Period. It does not matter who or what he or other presidents actually commanded or how their ranks were awarded. Barring an additional act of Congress, he is the highest ranking military officer of the United States of all time. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What we should do is leave Washington at the top, but in the Service Notes area explain the Eisenhower technicality. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And, reference the wikisource that MrDolomite put here. maybe it is already? Timneu22 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading the law a little closer, I agree with my original arguments. Is the intent of this page to list the highest rank a president had before he was president? If so, Washington had this rank well after he was dead. It really doesn't seem like he held the highest position. Timneu22 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't be around until Tuesday, so I'll have to wait until then to discuss it. Cheers! Kingturtle (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually still watching this page. I don't htink the information is right; Washington didn't have this rank as president. — Timneu22 · talk 02:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

43 Presidents[edit]

I only counted 43 Presidents. I didn't take the time to go through and check which one was left out because someone might have any easy answer. Obama is the 44th, so why aren't there 44? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland: one man, two separate terms. — Timneu22 · talk 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Political Party[edit]

Why is the Political Party column only in the "did not serve" table? It smacks of pointing this out for partisan reasons. I suggest removing it from this table - I can do so if no objections. The alternative is adding it to the other tables, but it really is extraneous to this page, and just widens the tables. goodeye (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I took them out. Czolgolz (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnson - Lieutenant Colonel in the Navy?[edit]

OK - So how is it that LBJ was a Lt. Col. in the Navy? I assume this is supposed to read "Commander", but I want to let someone who was more involved in the creation of this article address this observation. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(O-5)US Navy O5 insignia.svg Commander[edit]

Rank order Highest rank Branch President Combat experience Service notes
18 Lieutenant Colonel United States Navy (U.S. Naval Reserve) Lyndon B. Johnson World War II Awarded Silver Star medal by General Douglas MacArthur for his role as an observer on a B-26 bomber mission.[1][2] (Controversial.).[3][4]
Not having heard any reasons to the contrary, I have just gone ahead and made this change on the page. KConWiki (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

LBJ & Nixon[edit]

According to their bio articles, the highest ranks were Lieutenant Commander, not Commander. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ American Warriors Home Page
  2. ^ Commander Lyndon B. Johnson, USNR from the Naval Historical Center
  3. ^ Caro, Robert (1982). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-49973-5. "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history, because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star." 
  4. ^ Tillman, Barrett and Sakaida, Henry. "LBJ’s Silver Star: The Mission That Never Was". Retrieved 2009-03-22. "The fact is LBJ never got within sight of Japanese forces."