Talk:General of the Armies

• Talk:General of the Armies/Archive 1
• Talk:General of the Armies/Archive 2

George Washington

In the section regarding George Washington, the appropriate paragraph says:

To maintain George Washington's position as the first Commanding General of the United States Army, he was appointed, posthumously, to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States by congressional joint resolution Public Law 94-479 January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976. The law established the grade as having "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present", clearly making it superior to General of the Army. The Department of the Army Order 31-3, issued on March 13, 1978 had an effective appointment date of July 4, 1776.

Yet, if you look at the actual Order 31-3 (wikilink is provided), the "effective appointment date" is not 1776, but 1976. There's even some invisible text below the above paragraph that says:

Do NOT change GW's effective rank date to 1776.

That is INCORRECT, see the links to wikisource above

and the Talk:General_of_the_Armies#Possible_Clue_for_Army_Order_31-3

Thanks, User:MrDolomite 2007-03-18

Hence, I've reverted it back. --MicahBrwn (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If the effective date of the promotion to General of the Armies is 1976 (rather than 1776), that would mean that George Washington is still outranked by Pershing (and Dewey), as it means Pershing received his promotion 57 years before Washington. If two soldiers have the same rank, the one who received it on an earlier date is considered the senior of the two officers. But the intent of Order 31-3 is clearly to make Washington senior to all US military officers, past and present. So having an effective date of 1976 doesn't make sense.

An example of this is the General of the Army/Fleet Admiral ranks given during WW2- the dates of promotion were sequenced one day after another, in order to make a clear order of seniority between the officers.

The wikilinked document (Order 31-3) is only a cover letter (what is in the rest of the document?). The cover letter scan doesn't specifically give an effective date of promotion, only the typed text at the bottom of the page- so we're supposed to trust this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.98.215 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_94-479 has the effective promotion date of 1976. Period. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

regarding "The wikilinked document (Order 31-3) is only a cover letter (what is in the rest of the document?)." Thanks for spotting that. I have cleaned up the s:Orders 31-3 page to show both the cover letter and the order itself. There used to be a link on the page to the 31-3 image but it was hard to spot as it was on top of the cover letter image. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I personally believe that George Washington's rank of "General of the Armies of the United States" is a different and higher rank than John J. Pershing's "General of the Armies" which is why the dates of promotion would not matter. I have not, however, been able to find the actual promotion order of JJP to determine the wording. And, if you page through the edit histories of the various articles, I think the difference has come up previously, but no final answer was discovered. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the act of Congress authorizing the Pershing promotion:

An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States.
September 3, 1919 [H.R. 7594] [Public Law 66-45]
41 Stat. 283

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.

Approved, September 3, 1919.

The date of rank issue is apparently resolved if the 1798/1919 General of the Armies grade is treated as distinct from the 1976 General of the Armies grade, as implied by the authorizing legislation:

1799 (1 Stat. 752):

...a commander of the army of the United States shall be appointed and commissioned by the style of "General of the Armies of the United States,"....

1919 (41 Stat. 283):

...the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived...and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed....

1976 (Public Law 94-479):

...the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present.

Under this interpretation, one grade of General of the Armies of the United States was created in 1799, was revived in 1919, and expired with Pershing in 1948. Then, in 1976, Congress created a new grade with the same name that is superior to the original grade. So Washington outranks Pershing by virtue of holding a higher grade, not by seniority of appointment within the same grade.

It's confusing and a bit of a stretch, but it's at least consistent with the text of the law and it does reconcile the 1976 date of rank with the Congressional intent to promote Washington above Pershing.

- Morinao (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Who but the US Army would go through all the effort to have two grades with the same name, and yet different? Your tax dollars at work. :) But it does make sense. The quotes and information are excellent resources, thanks for finding them. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How can we be sure it's just a higher grade of the same rank? Usually with military ranks it's clearer than that, they have different names for different ranks (rather than having two grades of the same rank, with the same name). If Pershing's and Washington's ranks are two different ranks, it could be that Washington's can be considered a 7-star rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.98.215 (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated section

The section in this article labeled as "American Revolutionary Era" is word for word the same as this section in the History of Generals article. This was as a result of the former editor SJ who, as we may remember, was copying and pasting, redirecting, and duplicating large portions of articles about U.S. generals. SJ is now under an indef blocked and I fell we should repair this piece of the damage. -OberRanks (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

General Pershing Authentic Reference

It is crucial to this discussion to understand that while only Congress can create a military rank, only the President can promote Generals. That's why an Act of Congress created the grade General of the Armies of the United States in 1976, and then shortly thereafter President Ford posthumously promoted Washington to that rank. Both Congress' bill and Ford's executive order can be found on Thomas' and this is authentic and verifiable.

The issue here is I'm having trouble finding an authentic reference to verify Pershing's promotion.

While there are plenty of informal references on Pershing's promotion related to this article, and some comments in .gov and .mil websites (which are not as reliable as they used to be), they do not agree on the EXACT WORDING of Pershing's grade. Some refer to his promotion as General of the Armies, but some as General of the Armies of the United States. However, the latter grade was only created by an Act of Congress in 1977 and this is easily verifiable.

The senate resolution for Douglas MacArthur (which is posted in the article) states that he is "to be promoted to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States which is revived for this purpose". In Pershing's own service record (although it was badly burned in the 1973 National Archives Fire), there are several documents he signed as "General of the Armies of the United States". So, the term did exist before 1977. Current references from the Army, NPRC, and the Institute of Heraldry currently all state "the highest rank in the United States military is that of General of the Armies of the United States which has only been held by two people in history" and then goes on to describe both Washington and Pershing's promotion history. -OberRanks (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When I search both the official Thomas Register, and the Executive Orders of Woodrow Wilson, I can find absolutely no authentic wording of Wilson's promotion of Pershing. Because the .mil and .gov websites appear to contradict themselves, without the exact wording, how can we can't know for sure? Corwin8 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The massive changes you are making to the article are going against the established references. George Washington DID NOT HAVE a senior rank. He was senior by date of commission. The references for all of this are in the article and have been hammered out over several years by several editors. Please refrain from making such major changes to this article without discussing them first. You may wish to start a sandbox or temp page, i.e. General of the Armies/Temp of something like that. -OberRanks (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) for purposes of subsection (b) of this section only, the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present.

(b) The President is authorized and requested to appoint George Washington posthumously to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976. Public Law 94-479}} This authentic reference seems to completely disagree with your claim that Washington did not have a senior rank. Please refrain from making sweeping claims that are so obviously wrong. Corwin8 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seven Star General Argument

George Washington was not a seven star general. He was a General of the Armies, exactly the same as Pershing. The only difference is that out of respect for him as the first commander of the military, he is given a senority above Pershing which he would have anyway since his commissioning date is obviously some 120 years prior to Pershing. We have also had this conversation MANY TIMES before over the past several years and it has been agreed upon by all editors of this article that no effort should be made to change this article to imply that there is even a higher rank than General of the Armies. General of the Armies of the United States is the long title and the full version of the rank's name which is frequently shortened to "General of the Armies" - it is not a separate rank. -OberRanks (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article is about General of the Armies. It goes into detail about ranks that have nothing to do with this topic. And it's important to note that Pershing and Washington were not awarded the same ranks. The exact wording of Washington's official rank is General of the Armies of the United States and by law is senior to Pershing. The exact working of Publishing's rank is General of the Armies. Corwin8 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have studied military history for twenty years and work as a military historian and archivist for NPRC. I also wrote a talking paper for AFN for their military history commercial on this rank. I can tell you with 100% clarity that "General of the Armies of the United States" is a single rank that is frequently shortened to "General of the Armies". These two titles are not separate ranks. We have had this discussion with many editors over the years and everyone who has had a long term edit history with this article has come to this conclusion. Please, PLEASE do not insert disputed information like this. It will only led to the article being protected and your edits eventually removed. -OberRanks (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, this is not your article and you do not own it. Stop reverting, you already have two. If you want to discuss, then discuss, but your above claims are completely unsubstantiated by any of your references and are disproved by my references. If you revert again, I will report you as violating the 3RR rule. This is not your article. I respect the credentials you claim you have, but there are too many false, unsubstantiated, and irrelevant material in the version you seem to stubbornly insist. Corwin8 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm copying thsi section which explains why your edit doesnt make a lot of sense:

The senate resolution for Douglas MacArthur (which is posted in the article) states that he is "to be promoted to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States which is revived for this purpose". In Pershing's own service record (although it was badly burned in the 1973 National Archives Fire), there are several documents he signed as "General of the Armies of the United States". So, the term did exist before 1977. Current references from the Army, NPRC, and the Institute of Heraldry currently all state "the highest rank in the United States military is that of General of the Armies of the United States which has only been held by two people in history" and then goes on to describe both Washington and Pershing's promotion history. -OberRanks (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are basically saying that you believe John Pershing was a junior rank to George Washington. In a sense, Pershing was at the "six star level" and Washington was at the "seven". That is completely against what established sources state. This exact same conversation was held several months ago with a user called Shaheenjim. SJ continued to push heavy POV edits, stating that the US had a seven star rank (at one point even arguing for an eight star position) and this was reverted time and time again. Several users (not just me) worked to hammer out iron solid references that "General of the Armies of the United States" was single rank which is shortened to "General of the Armies". This was agreed upon ahd has stood unchallenged since then. You are now pretty much appearing to restart the exact same dispute that SJ had. On top of this, your statement that is "completely unsubstantiated" just isn't the case. The 1919 law for Pershing's promotion and the 1945 bill for MacArthur's all very clearly stated "General of the Armies of the United States" - your statement that this term wasn't used until the 1970s just isn't true. In addition, there is not a single source that states General of the Armies is a separate rank from the longer version. So, to conclude, I'll post this dipsute to the relevant boards and get other editors involved. In the meantime, I have placed the appropriate dispute tags on the article. This is nothing personal, we have just gone through this before on this article and the last user who attempted to make these sweeping unsubstantiated edits did so completely against consensus. -OberRanks (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill from the 1950s states "General of the Armies of the United States"

To bolster my case, this a direct copy from the National Personnel Records Center official training presentation on military ranks:

General Officers hold a rank known as "General" of which there are four “grades” (titles). General officers are the highest ranking officers in the military. The chart on the right displays the four standard general ranks. During and immediately after World War II, two higher ranks, "General of the Army" and "General of the Air Force" were created as five star positions. An even higher rank is used in the Army, called "General of the Armies". It is considered a "six star rank" and has only been held by two people in history (John Pershing and George Washington)

In addition to Pershing's public law and MacArthur's promotion bill from the Senate, which both state "General of the Armies of the United States", there is no source which states that in the 1970s Washington was given an even higher rank. The sources state he was given the *same* rank but had seniority over Pershing due Washington's earlier service as the first Commanding General. This is the main reason why the current edits are not accurate.

Also, see the photo to the right. The edit "The grade General of the Armies of the United States did not previously exist" when refering to the 1970s promotion is seemingly contradicted by the fact that the 1950s promotion order clearly states "The grade of General of the Armies of the United States". if it didn't previously exist, how can it be mentioned in a document from the 1950s? -OberRanks (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically this whole argument is null and void, no five star officer ever served at the same time as a General of the armies of the united states of admiral of the navy or flag admiral. The fact that we have a page for a six star rank that was never assigned is pushing things, and seven stars is therefore clearly out of the question. If you insist on adding this information to the article it will be interpreted as vandalism on your part unless you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the bills explicitly state seven stars, show the authorization for the seven star insignia, and cite this information to reliable sources. Failure to do all of this leaves the argument that Washington was a seven star in the original research box, and OR is not permitted on Wikipedia. As a note of caution, I am not above protecting the article if it comes to that; however I would very much so like to avoid that if at all possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with TomStar. In its present form, the statements that Washington has some kind of senior rank to Pershing is basically WP:OR and fails to meet WP:BURDEN. In addition, the statement that this rank did not exist until the 1970s, whereas before a junior rank existed simply known as "General of the Armies" is directly contradicted by references from at least five separate sources which all state the rank 9with its full title) was held as far back as Pershing's appointment. Thus, the original opening paragraph read as:

General of the Armies (or in its full title, General of the Armies of the United States) [Ref/Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955] is the highest possible rank in the United States Army. This should not be confused with the rank of General of the Army, which is the rank immediately below. This rank is currently vacant, and it has never been used by an active duty Army officer at the same time as General of the Army, so it is not entirely clear how the two ranks would legally compare to each other.

Unless a valid source can be presented to show this in incorrect, I move we change the opening paragraph back to the way it was. As for the *rest* of the article, only minor corrections are needed. It actually looks like a favor was done by gutting some of the repeated statements from other articles on the rank of general, so thanks for that. -OberRanks (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Re: "The grade General of the Armies of the United States did not previously exist" is actually incorrect. See http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0210_67.sgml which was written by "COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR, SEPTEMBER 20, 1924" which states "THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1919, 41 STAT. 283, PROVIDES IN PART: THAT THE OFFICE OF GENERAL OF THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IS HEREBY REVIVED," The entire document is great reading on into the history of the rank and its lack of consistent naming throughout Army history. As you can tell from that link, even the government had trouble figuring things out. There are laws and dates and citations within that which I have previously attempted to track down but to no avail. Possibly other editors have resources who can obtain the original documents which would provide citations to improve the entire article. — MrDolomite • Talk 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• My two cents is to rollback the article prior to the massive edits and then protect it. Then documentation and citations be found and inserted into a draft version of the article. Right now the edits and wars and massive amounts of {{fact}} has made the less than useful to a non-editor reader of WP. — MrDolomite • Talk 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Corwin8, the user actually did a good job at removing some of the duplicated information from other general articles. It is the opening section which is the biggest problem (much as it was under SJ). We also might not need to protect the article if all can agree here. -OberRanks (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

...and it is in difference to this fact that I did not protect the page when it initially appeared on the milhist talk pages with an accompanying note for assistance. I'd prefer to not use admin tools to lock out editing for the article or block other users, I'm content to watch this play out here and see what develops. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added Frequently Asked Questions to the talk page based on what appears to be consensus and the overwhelming amount of reference material. If we are in agreement, I will restore the article to reflect that "General of the Armies of the United States" is the same rank as "General of the Armies" and that Washington does not hold a superior 7 star type rank. I'll wait 24 hours or so to give time for any further inputs. -OberRanks (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to work this out with OberRanks. I think that we can agree that we both have a passion about this topic. I did just add a cite to the opening referencing Washington and PL 94-479. What I now find confusing is that while Public Law 94-479 states the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, according to OberRanks' verified reference, this grade had already been created in the past specifically for Pershing. Moreover, I found a Thomas' Register entry stating that the grade had been created for Pershing back in 1919, directly verifying OberRanks' cite. What I cannot find is direct documentation that Wilson promoted Pershing to GOA or GOAUSA and the exact wording of the title. I can't find Wilson's order in Thomas' or in any official Presidential reference.

Also, my GUESS - and I have no facts to back this up yet - is that the grade GOA is created by Congress for a specific individual, the President then promotes that individual to that grade, and then the grade is rescinded (I have no reference for this). OberRanks, can you help with this, please? Corwin8 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help you with Wilson's actual order, but there are a number of contemporary news accounts documenting the issuance of the order:

"Names Pershing To Permanent Rank", The New York Times, p. 3, September 4, 1919:

The bill authorizing the President to appoint a permanent General, which was hurried through the House and Senate during the last two days, reached the White House this afternoon. The President immediately approved it. Contrary to general belief, the bill did not contain General Pershing's name. It merely gave the President authority to name a General from among these officers of the army who had distinguished themselves in France....The President, without delay, sent word to the War Department to prepare a new commission for General Pershing....He signed the commission, told Forster to send the nomination to the Senate, and when notified that the body had confirmed the appointment, to return the commission to Secretary Baker for delivery to General Pershing on his arrival.

"Senate Confirms Rank Of General Pershing", The New York Times, p. 4, September 5, 1919:

Amid applause from Senators and spectators, the Senate today, in open executive session, unanimously confirmed the nomination of John J. Pershing to the permanent rank of General of the regular army, as a reward for his services as commander of the American Expeditionary Force....The special act reviving the rank for General Pershing makes his title "General of the Armies of the United States," and provides that no officer shall take precedence in rank over him. The rank has not been held since the death of General Sheridan.

"Pershing's Title In Doubt", The New York Times, p. 21, September 12, 1919:

Somebody made a mistake in General Pershing's new commission, Chairman Kahn of the Military Committee told the House today, which might cost the General some of the pay and allowances carried with the new title. While Congress made him "General of the armies of the United States," the War Department made him "General in the regular army." The experts are now looking for a way to unwind the tangle and still leave it technically correct.

"Pershing's Rank Is 'General Of Armies'", The New York Times, p. 18, July 10, 1921:

"John J. Pershing, General of the Armies, Chief of Staff." That is the way the Commander of the former American Expeditionary Forces signs official orders, as shown today in the formal order permitting army officers to wear white mess jackets at night and restoring the use of the Sam Browne belt....There has been considerable misunderstanding as to General Pershing's rank and title in the permanent military establishment. When Congress passed the bill to give him his present rank, President Wilson nominated him to the Senate to be "General in the Army." The nomination was withdrawn when it was discovered that his new title was different. The order concerning uniforms shows that his proper rank and title is "General of the Armies."

Those last two just go to show that this rank has been confusing people for 90 years! However, by the year of Pershing's death, the Army definitely believed his title was "General of the Armies of the United States," as evidenced by Pershing's entry in the 1948 Official Army and Air Force Register (p. 2381):

John J. Pershing. (O1)....brig. gen. 20 Sept. 06; accepted 20 Sept. 06; maj. gen. 25 Sept. 16; accepted 30 Sept. 16; gen. (emerg.) 6 Oct. 17; accepted 8 Oct. 17; General of the Armies of the United States 3 Sept. 19; accepted 8 Sept. 19; retired 13 Sept. 24.

Even when the War Department used "General of the Armies" as a shorthand, it still considered his full title to be "General of the Armies of the United States," as can be seen on p. 1 of the 1923 Army Register, where Pershing's entry is listed first among general officers under the heading of "General of the Armies" but records his actual rank in the permanent establishment as "Gen. of the Armies of the U.S."

- Morinao (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See the section above, entitled "George Washington" which compares the text of the bills from 1919 and the 1970s. One says the rank was re-activated, the later says it was established. There is also the 1950s senate resolution which clearly references a rank called "General of the Armies of the United States". it seems to be simply Congressional clerks not knowing what they're talking about. Might be worth writing up in the article about the bizarre history of the rank's mention in Congressional bills. The main issue here is saying Washington is a senior rank to Pershing...right now that appears to be the only thing anyone has a problem with. The rest of your edits are fine and, as stated above, appear to have cleared out of the duplicates stuff from the other general articles so good for that. -OberRanks (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New version of article

I have poured out my 20+ years of knowledge about this rank and have basically rewritten a totally new version of this article. I feel it incorporates the questions raised on both sides of the above discussion and I was careful to keep nearly all of the original material introduced by other users. The current version is much easier to follow and takes the rank in its chronological order (most histories of this rank start with George Washington which is actually backwards). Edits, comments, and justified changes are more than welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to be involved with this article, drifted away, though am still quite interested. My planned future research was to track down the original source material for the General of the Armies ranks and appointments done in the 1800s. I wanted to nail this down from very good sources, such as the Congressional Record, before adding anything about this to WP. You can see some my research notes about this at Talk:6 star rank.

I have some concerns about the current article but not the time do chase down reliable source documents and do to the edits. There are two items in the lead that got my attention.

• What's the source for the flag image? The Institute of Heraldry's general officer flag page does not list it.
• Can Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955 be added to wikisource? It's used as a source for two somewhat POVish and/or possibly OR statements. "The rank is considered superior to the five star rank of General of the Army" and "is considered by military sources to be the equivalent of a six star general." Exactly who "considered" this? There's a slippery slope into synthesis.

One comment to Corwin8 - I found some New York Times articles about General Pershing's promotion and saw that they spelled it out as "General of the Armies of the United States." We likely should move this article. Hopefully you have access to a library with newspaper archives. The whole appointment process was a fascinating political battle. Not so much about if Pershing should be promoted but what the title should be given that some other other WWI generals were being considered for promotion. The actual promotion is an interesting story too. President Wilson was leaving for a planned trip to the west. Immediately after congress authorized the promotion a courier literally ran the document over to Wilson for his signature and also signing the promotion order. It seems in this last minute rush a key detail was overlooked. IIRC, it had something so do with either the wording in the congressional record or the timing of its publication relative to the promotion. Thus in the purest technical sense the promotion had not happened. I could not find a follow-up article that explained how this was resolved. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly against moving the article to its full name since the common usage is the shortened version. I also know next to nothing about Wikisource. As far as its six star status, that mainly comes out of MacArthur's promotion package from 1945. -OberRanks (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about references about Pershing in this article!. Public Law 66-45 is not in Wikisource, and as I have repeatedly, often written, THERE IS NO AUTHORIZED SOURCE STATING THAT WILSON PROMOTED PERSHING! And again, THERE IS NO AUTHORIZED SOURCE STATING THAT WILSON PROMOTED PERSHING! I cannot find it, it does not exist. Congress can create a rank, but only the President can promote a general.

And, before I forget, THERE IS NO AUTHORIZED SOURCE STATING THAT WILSON PROMOTED PERSHING!Corwin8 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The information that I had stated that Wilson promoted Pershing to the exact title of "General of the Armies". But now, the Executive Order does not seem to exist. If, as Marc Kupper mentions, the promotion was attempted to be done in haste and/or it is possible that Wilson never properly logged the promotion through official channels, we must begin to admit that, in light of the lack of an authentic government source, there exists the distinct possibility that Pershing was NOT properly promoted!!! Corwin8 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember we have to have references for everything. If we start attempting to figure out what may or may not have happened, we are treading into WP:OR. Interesting point you made - Wilson was kind of an "out there" President. Wasn't he in the KKK at some point? -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson's peculiarities are irrelevant to this discussion. BTW, both the Wilson Library, and official documents in the National Archives (ignoring speeches) refer to Pershing's exact title as "General of the Armies" and Washington as "General of the Armies of the United States". HOWEVER, I've been in touch with the Wilson Library as well as other sources and there exists the horrible possibility that Pershing was never officially promoted to GOA by President Wilson. If this is true, then I wonder if President Obama can be persuaded to correct this oversight of history? Assuming that Public Law 66-45 of 1919 is still in effect (and legally, it is) then under the Executive Power clause of Article II, Section 1, Para 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the Office of the President (different from the sitting President) may well have it within it's legal authority to exercise PL 66-45. Therefore, the authority of PL 66-45 for President Wilson to promote Pershing is also legally owned by President Obama. Who knows, OberRanks, you might make some history yourself here! Corwin8 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - there is a possibility Pershing was never promoted. All of the "kings men" tried their best. The problem had nothing to do with any Wilson's peculiarities. There's another part to the story I remembered as I was going to sleep last night. During WWI Pershing was promoted to major general. Apparently the promotion was good until he "returned to the United States." After the war Pershing remained in France for quite a while and as he had not "returned to the United States" he was still a major general. Eventually he finished his business in France and was on a ship back to the USA. Thus we had Pershing sailing across the Atlantic and president Wilson about to leave on an extended trip. That created the time pressure to figure out how to allow Pershing to remain a general. There seemed to be no disagreement at all that he deserved a promotion. The issues were that the USA was no longer at war and so it no longer needed generals (I believe the ranks had all been revoked at the end of the war). There was also an issue in that we could not promote Pershing to a rank senior to any of the Allied ranks. After much discussion someone thought of a solution to the dilemma which was to resurrect General of the Armies of the United States and to promote Pershing. This was great as General of the Armies is not really a "general" meaning he would not outrank people from other Allied countries. Essentially we created a rank that's not recognized by other countries and used that to honor Pershing.

OberRanks or Corwin8 - If either of you live in Contra Costa County then please e-mail me. I'd love to wikisource the material about this saga but don't have the time. I can show you how I found it, and if needed, help with scanning the stuff. It's fascinating material though much of it will not be directly applicable to this article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are looking good, just two things: a) there really is no need to state a great amount of information of George Washington in the opening paragraph - in fact this same material appears to be repeated in part in the section about Washington. I did remove it, but only because it appears further down in the article. The intro paragraph should just be a "snapshot" about the rank and its history.

The following two statements appear to have minor issues

While General of the Army denotes an Army rank, General of the Armies denotes authority over all armed forces, including Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

A few problems with that statement; I believe its true, but there has never been an active duty General of the Armies who commanded all five branches of the service. When Pershing was General of the Armies, there as no Air Force, the USCG was just barely out of civilian control (as the Revenue Cutter Service), and very few Marines and Navy personnel were under Pershing (although there were some). As for GW, his promotion was posthumous and he never exercixed active command over anything but the Army and Navy

Any and all United States military ranks are constitutionally subordinate to the President of the United States, as per Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution.

I removed that because it really has nothing to do with this subject. You can put it on another article that talks about military ranks, by all means. So, good edits, just some minor changes here are there. Thanks for your input! -OberRanks (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, about your remark above that Washington "never exercixed active command over anything but the Army and Navy". Well, along with the Militia, that was the ENTIRE U.S. Armed Services at the time! So unless Ben Franklin represented the USAF in a balloon, Washington commanded the entire U.S. armed services with the authority of a GOA. While we are on the subject, is it my imagination or do I see a pattern of you shortening and questioning Washington's appointment here while expanding on Pershing and excusing Pershing's lack of references? I see that more than once, you were the one that took Washington from the top spot in this article and threw him down on the bottom - while also questioning the wording of Washington's appointment. Certainly Washington's appointment to General of the Armies of the United States has more historical significance than Pershing's. And not only was Washington's appointment the only one with a strong legal precedence and genuine and unquestioned paper trail for his appointment, but Washington was the only soldier to ever exert complete military authority over the U.S. Armed Services! What gives? Corwin8 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Pershing's appointment (the order is on file within his record at NPRC). Also, as far as Washington, we should not have his section first as this is extremely confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Washington's promotion was the final promotion ever made to this rank. In historical order, Pershing was appointed, World War II came about, MacArthur's promotion effort occurred in the 1950s, and then Washington's occurred in the 1970s. To start with Washington and then get into Pershing and all the others is working backwards.

Regarding Washington's section, feel free to expand it. We should very careful about saying the term "General of the Armies" was used during the Revolutionary War (it simply was not). Also, the opening paragraph of the article should not really go into too much detail about any of the three persons connected with rank - that's what each section is for. And, as agreed, its okay to say Washington is senior to Pershing (he is) but we should make it clear he doesn't have a different rank.

On a side note, the hidden text at the beginning of the article, asking other users to not change the article to reflect Washington had seven star general status, is not directed at you but to future editors and, per TomStar, this needs to stay in since any such statement would be Original Research. Hope that answers all of your questions. -OberRanks (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I restored the George Washington section to the way you had it. -OberRanks (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I never wrote that General of the Armies was used during the Revolutionary War - I NEVER wrote that, I wrote that he exercised the equivalent power! DO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT I WROTE! Damn, you call yourself an historian? You can't even read clear text! Honestly, I don't see your intention here as being devoted to the truth here.

And I absolutely do not understand how not putting Washington last is confusing to anyone - he's the only person with a paper trial to the promotion, and once again WHY you are ignoring the inconsistencies in Pershing?

BTW, you are wrong about Washington again. according to the President Ford Library, Washington's appointment to GOA was effective July 4, 1776. Corwin8 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That was established long ago by another editor. The [formal promotion order] even says 1976 on it. I'll make sure we get the right section up for your changes to the GW section. -OberRanks (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn it, OberRanks, read the scanned copy of the promotion order and tell me when Washington's effective promotion date is! {http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Order_31-3]. Tell me the effective date on it - tell me! I'm calling D.C. and Presidential libraries and you are incorporating rumors?????? I really want an admin here, because you have no respect for facts and are without a doubt here with an agenda. Corwin8 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the matter on the Administration Noticeboard as this is degenerating into personal attacks. As far as that order...it says "Effective Date - 4 July 1976". I also reviewed the George Washington section and the top part of the section you wrote reads as follows:

Since his death, George Washington had been listed on the United States Army rolls as a retired Lieutenant General. During the years of the American Revolution, George Washington was not answerable to the Continental Congress (or its President) and actively commanded with complete authority, over all branches of military forces within the United States. In this respect he commanded with the same authority as a General of the Armies of the United States, although he never held that exact title in his lifetime.

Washington retired as a Lieutenant General (three stars) and, as a result, was technically "out ranked" by later four and five star generals from the Civil War, World War I, and World II.

In recognition of George Washington's permanent place in United States history, on 11 October 1976 George Washington was posthumously promoted to the full grade of General of the Armies of the United States by Executive Order of President Gerald R. Ford.

Washington's promotion to General of the Armies of the United States is effective July 4, 1776.

The promotion was authorized by a congressional joint resolution on January 19, 1976. The exact text of the legislation is as follows:

The rest of the section looked unchanged from previous versions. To might want to take it cool and back down a bit. If you start making personal attacks and inserting OR and POV, that will help no one, least of all you. -OberRanks (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

An editor wrote in another talk thread "I also know next to nothing about Wikisource."

Wikisource is a storage area for source material for articles. If something is free of copyright then it's usually uploaded to wikisource and then referenced by articles. If you have a non-free image you would upload it to Wikipedia. Examples of where wikisource are used for this article are wikisource:Orders 31-3 and wikisource:Public Law 94-479. With the first I got a copy of the Army order for the 1976 promotion, scanned that, and also transcribed the content.

Thus when I asked "Can Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955 be added to wikisource?" it's so people can see an actual copy of this resolution. I likely can chase down a copy myself but I believe one of the regular editors of this article has a copy. If you have a copy but don't know how to upload to wikisource then drop a note on my talk page and I'll upload it for you. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The resolution is already an image on Wikipedia. It is displayed in the section on MacArthur in this article. -OberRanks (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I thought we were looking for a Pershing related document and so missed that one. I'll wikisource it but also want to put up a text version. OCR and I have never been friends and so it'll take a while. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded this to wikisource:Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955. Could someone please double check the transcription? Wikisource has a text quality system which I've set this to 75%. If it looks good then there's a template on the talk page where you can add your name as a proofreader. (just do comma and add your name). Thank you.

Note that I left the original file on Wikipedia. Technically I should have moved this to Commons but MediaWiki does not allow you to rename files and so I uploaded a new copy to Commons using the name "Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955.jpg." As I made a copy rather than move we'll need to manually fix up the links to image on Wikipedia and then CSD that. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotion order for Pershing

I did some checking into this and his promotion is listed in his (badly damaged) service record at NPRC. Also, here is the official rank chronology from his biography as published by the Army General Staff:

BGEN 20 Sept 06; Accepted 20 Sept 06; MGEN 25 Sept 16; accepted 30 Sept 16; GEN 6 Oct 17; accepted 8 Oct 17; General of the Armies of the United States 3 Sept 19; accepted 8 Sept 19; retired 13 Sept 24.

I think someone had actually already posted that, but the record of his promotion is on file with the Army as occurring on September 8, 1919. This is backed up by the appointment order on file in his service record. -OberRanks (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See also this link which verifies his date of rank from an official Army source document. -OberRanks (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy of Public Law 66-45, September 3, 1919 that authorizes creation of the rank General of the Armies of the Unites States. I'm deciding on the best way to wikisource this. I did not have a dime handy and so took a photo on the microfilm reader and uploaded it here. I think for wikisourcing I'll go back with a dime. I'm not sure if the printed will by much better than what's in the photo other than it'll be flat. (I needed to angle the camera down to avoid the ceiling lights). The source text is Public Laws of the United States of America, passed by the Sixty-Sixth Congress. 1919-1921.

I also looked up Senate Joint Resolution 26 of January 21, 1955 for MacArthur. This was never voted into law and so is not contained in the volume for 1955. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At User talk:TomStar81#General of the Armies Corwin8 wrote

Forgot to add - today, the Wilson Presidential Library told me that there are no records indicating Wilson formally promoted Pershing as GOA. The press at the time reported the senate's authorization for the promotion, yet there is no evidence Wilson ever promoted. Lastly, the Army has no record of Pershing's promotion from Wilson. OberRanks has ignored this, except to excuse it by guessing that maybe it was lost in a fire. There is no direct evidence that Pershing was promoted to GOA. Corwin8 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Corwin8, the press at the time reported congress' authorization and then President Wilson's signing the promotion. While we are missing the actual Army Orders there is a huge amount of indirect evidence that Pershing was promoted to GOA. For example, there was a joint session of Congress on September 18, 1919 to welcome Pershing as General of the Armies of the United States. Pershing signed documents, including general Army Orders annual readiness reports, etc. as General of the Armies, Secretary of War. Army publications, popular magazines, military budgets, etc. from the early 1920s consistently refer to him as General of the Armies of the United States. Other than one NY Times article about a snafu there's not a hint in any publication I've ever seen that there was an issue with the promotion.

We would need a very reliable source stating that he was not promoted in order to be able to add anything about this to the Wikipedia article. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

George Washington's Status

I found the order and yes, it's effective 1976. I inserted the order in the article but what OberRanks what are you doing? I'm on the phone calling Presidential Libraries for Wilson and Ford, and you are incorporating rumors? What is it with you and Pershing? Washington is the most senior appointment and deserves to be at the top of this article! Look, I really want an admin here because by my count you have reverted this article FIVE TIMES with rumors and bad info (I NEVER wrote that Washington was at GOA - read it, I wrote that he exercised the same authority)! I really want an admin here because I am researching facts, and you obviously have an agenda about Pershing.

BTW, I had previewed my comment above about Washington and 1776, and incorrectly hit "Save". I tried to fix it, but as I was editing it, you were posting. I wanted to delete the above, GW's effective date is 1976. There was an editing conflict for this talk, and so I'm starting this new discussion on George Washington's Status. Corwin8 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat - Washington deserves to be at the top of this article. Corwin8 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are citations to verify Pershing, and none to contradict. "Washington deserves to be at the top of this article" – is that according to any reliable sources, or just your opinion? snigbrook (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article from editing until such time as the issues can be resolved on the article talk page. Let me know if you need assistance. JodyB _talk 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Request we restore it to the last good version reach by consensus. Corwin's recent edits removed sourced material and changed the correct order of the article, in the process inserting a factually incorrect statement that Pershing wasn't ever "really" promoted to general of the Armies (I found two sources that he was). -OberRanks (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear from this talk page that during the past 48 hours there has been quite a dispute over Pershing and his rank. If you wish to ask for asisstance in sorting this out then please read WP:DR. Ask for help at WP:3O. I'm really not here to decide the issue as that is not my purpose. I am just trying to prevent folks from getting blocked and making this a battleground. Dispute resolution is the place to go. The fact that you guys are so passionate about is a good sign but keep it on the talk page. JodyB _talk 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Corwin will probably not now negotiate or converse any further since the article is exactly the way he wants it. Warning messages are removed, Washington is listed first, and the article states Pershing wasn't "really" promoted to this rank. I was hoping we could restore it to the way it was so it force some kind of conversation on the matter. -OberRanks (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You requested the protection and you got it. Now talk with him and involved others per WP:DR. That's what dispute resolution is for. JodyB _talk 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I plan to make a list of the problems with the current version and post the matter on WP:RFC. I am somewhat doubtful we will hear from Corwin until the article is unprotected and the user will restore their edits again, perhaps leading to further protections. -OberRanks (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "I plan to make a list of the problems" - please don't. It'll turn into a huge wall of text. My own take on this is that the article is still very much in development. While there's unsourced POV material, OR, and synthesis it's not so gratuitous that I've ever bothered with cleaning that up as my main focus is locating sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See below for the four main issues with the disputed version of the article. Of interest here is that Corwin8 has yet to contribute to the dispute resolution - in fact, the user went dark and quiet the minute the article was protected and hasn't made a single edit since. -OberRanks (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection Edit Request

{{editprotected}} The current version of the article clearly violates WP:OR. User:Corwin8 is proposing a theory that John Pershing was never really promoted to the rank of General of the Armies [1]. This is contradicted by every established source regarding this rank (see this as an example). The current version of this article states unsourced theories that are clearly false. In addition, Corwin8 is very likely to avoid discussion in the dispute resolution process since the article is in the present form that this user desires. Request an administrator restore the article to the last good version that was reached by consensus as a means of promoting discussion with the user. Corwin8 has not posted a single comment since the article was protected, RFC was begun, and four major points were listed above for discussion (see above). -OberRanks (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For all concerned, the article was reverted to a pre-edit war state and dispute resolution was started (see below). -OberRanks (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Dispute Resolution

To provide an accurate record of the origins of the current dispute resolution, the article was rewritten to a version by User:OberRanks (me) [2] which I felt cleared up a large amount of problems with the text. User:Corwin8 significantly modified this article to a version which I believe treads on Original Research and fails to meet WP:BURDEN. [3]. When attempting to revert the changes, an edit war ensued, and I contacted the Wikipedia Admin Board asking for protection [4] The article was later reverted back to a pre-state that incorporated neither Corwin8's or my version to avoid an appearance of favoritism and encourage discussion [5].

The section immediately below deals with my main concerns with Corwin's version of the article. -OberRanks (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Problems with Corwin8's version of the article

To start the dispute resolution process, here are the main problems of the article.

1. The statements that Pershing was never legally promoted to General of the Armies are false per at least four sources: 1)Pershing's service record 2)Army officer rolls published in 1925 3)Army officer rolls published in 1948 3)Newspaper articles of the World War period 4)Douglas MacArthur's promotion order and service record.
2. A warning notice at the top of the article was removed, advising editors that no attempt should be made to change the article to reflect Washington was a 7 star general. This was agreed upon to be present by four editors and actually connects with the same conversation about this topic held about a year ago. The recent edit war removed this notice and it needs to be put back.
3. The George Washington section needs to be at the bottom of the article. As this is a history article, the proper historical order of this rank's history is:John Pershing (1919), World War II effort (1945), Douglas MacArthur (1955), and George Washington (1976). I believe this is also stated in WP:MOS. For someone unfamiliar with this topic, it is extremely confusing to begin at the end and then work backwards.
4. The current content of the George Washington section is actually okay. I simply feel we need to avoid stating over and over again that Washington is the most senior officer of the military. He is - by seniority. We should avoid any reference to saying he held a different rank than Pershing.

Those four points are the only problem I have with the article. I will post to WP:RFC and open it up for discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As this article is about a rank, not about the question of who is the highest ranked soldier, the first section (after the lead) should probably be about the origins of the rank, either as a separate section or about Pershing as the first promoted to it. snigbrook (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply to the four points. 1) There is no statement that Pershing was never legally promoted. Maybe it was in a previous version of the article? 2) Yes, the warning about the 7-star rank needs to be there. I've been contending there is no six-star rank either but that's another battle. 3) The order is not important to me but I would agree that a logical order for when the ranks were authorized and issued makes it easier to read the article. 4) I'd love to get rid of all rank comparison speculation. It's unsourced POV material. This includes the section on Dewey. The only reliably sourced ranking is in s:Public Law 94-479 which states "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington" which leaves open that officers may have the same rank as Washington." When I was editing in the past I was always careful to either use the exact wording as in PL 94-479 or something close. Nowhere does it say "George Washington outranks all" but rather "no one outranks George Washington." It's an important distinction. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was all in the older version. The article has been reverted to a pre-edit war statement. The various versions are linked - the abovew section on the edit protected article has both Corwin's version and the last one I worked on. The rank comparison section was heavily re-written per the very concerns you brought up and the six star general section (proposed for MacArthur) was also massively expanded. Those two sections were actually never a point of contention. -OberRanks (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Corwin's claim that Pershing was never really promoted to the rank of General of the Armies is (I hate to say it) absolutely ludicrous. Every military text book in existence that mentions Pershing speaks of him holding this rank, his service record has documentation of this rank, and check out this link with at least five separate statements that Pershing was a General of the Armies [6]. I can perhaps imagine that we cant find the actual paper Wilson signed promoting Pershing (it might have been destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire) but Pershing was obviously a General of the Armies. On that point, there can be absolutely no doubt. -OberRanks (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen Corwin claiming that "Pershing was never really promoted" but rather has made the accurate statement that we are having a difficult time finding copies of the authorization for the rank, issuing the rank, and the Army order that established the rank. Three pieces of paper and the ones that matter are the two most likely to have been lost or damaged in the fire. We do have reliable sources that the Army considers him to hold the rank. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement Corwin added was "George Washington was the only person known to have been properly and legally granted the rank of General of the Armies". That is Original Research. Pershing quite obviously held the rank and is recognized as such by every established military source that is in existence. While it might be an interesting history essay about Wilson and the actual piece of paper and that kind of thing, the fact is that such statements fail WP:BURDEN. There is no source to say Pershing wasn't ever really promoted and thousands to say that he was. -OberRanks (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied from above as it relavent to this section: -OberRanks (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat - Washington deserves to be at the top of this article. Corwin8 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are citations to verify Pershing, and none to contradict. "Washington deserves to be at the top of this article" – is that according to any reliable sources, or just your opinion? snigbrook (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a new talk section on this. Corwin8, why do you believe that Washington deserves to be at the top of this article? While I believe chronological order makes an article easier to read I'm amenable to persuasion. For example, I see a good case for Pershing, Washington, and then MacArthur as MacArthur was only proposed for the rank. This also makes sense to me as the Washington promotion has no linkage to MacArthur. My main interest is making the article more readable and also structuring it so that material about the rank as it existed in the 1800s can get added in the future. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From a pure history standpoint (as this is a history article), the order should take the reader from 1919 to 1945 to 1955 to 1976. Going from 1976 back to 1919 then forward agin would be confusing. Likewise taking the reader from 1919 to 1976, skipping 1955 and then added that on in the end. It is just not how a history text is supposed to be written (I also think this is on WP:MOS somewhere). -OberRanks (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a "rule" on which way the items should be ordered. Using the order Pershing, MacArthur, and Washinton makes sense to me. However, I'm assuming good faith on Corwin8's part. Related to this is that long ago I decided if someone wants to restyle, redo a document, change the grammar, etc. to not nit pick over it. There's far less stress for everyone.

I will get nit-picky over facts, citations, etc. and agree that "George Washington was the only person known to have been properly and legally granted the rank of General of the Armies" is OR and that should not have been added. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Marc I agree with you on each of your points without reservation. However, I would be also interested in seeing the actual promotion orders or reading more about how/when Pershing assumed the rank. One of the interesting aspects of this matter, is that a few weeks after Wilson signed the bill into law, he became incapacitated. I agree with Corwin that a law authorizing the rank and the actual promotion are two different things. However, unlike Corwin, I'm not willing to overlook the fact that he assumed the rank and that this went unchallenged. The logical conclusion is that he was duly and legally promoted. It's the how I'd like to see uncovered and published here - and not Corwin's opinions on the matter. Rklawton (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Corwin8's contributions

I've asked Corwin to contribute to the discussion [7]. The only edits this user has made have been on the talk page of the admin who reverted the article to its pre-edit war state [8]. -OberRanks (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to the message on TomStar's page (copied with Tomstar's permission):

I don't mind the rollback. I do mind when I make phone calls and do research and then OberRanks ignores the research and deletes my cites. I'm not constantly in front of my computer, so I can't constantly monitor the discussion. But my frustration came out when I couldn't even get OberRanks to engage in a discussion - while I wrote on the items' talk page my reasons for my edits. OberRanks has treated that page as if it belongs to him. The issue I consider to be the most important is that George Washington belongs at the top of that page and I couldn't even get OberRanks to engage in that discussion, except that he thought that putting Washington at the top was "confusing". If I can't get OberRanks to engage in a discussion before any changes are made, and if he insists on treating the article as if any disagreement with him is automatically wrong, and if his cites are completely missing, what are my options here? I never wrote that Washington was GOA during the Revolutionary war, yet he accused me of this. There is no historical record that President Wilson ever officially promoted Pershing, yet he quickly removes those facts. If he is a biographer for Pershing, then he should admit it, but I find him dismissive, and his discussion posts cold and impersonal. Maybe I'm upset, but I can't stand him ignoring facts he does not like and treating users like objects to be ignored. Corwin8 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Running a search on Amazon, there are at least six professional military textbooks that state Pershing was a General of the Armies [9]. I should add this on top of the primary sources, i.e. Pershing's service record, Army officers rolls, and the Arlington National Cemetery database. There are no sources that state Pershing was never legally promoted - with respect to Corwin8, his claims of phone calls to the Wilson Presidential Library and verbal statements do not justify such a contradicting statement. Per WP:SOURCES I think that is sufficient to say that any statements made that Pershing was not really a General of the Armies, not really promoted to General of the Armies, or never really legally a General of the Armies fall into WP:OR an fail WP:BURDEN. If everyone can agree on that, then perhaps that matter can be closed.

We've also had at least three editors agree that the 7 star general warning should stay - this on top of the agreement already reached on this subject over a year ago when this same topic was discussed before.

Corwin8 also appears to enormously upset about a claim that the user was accused of stating General of the Armies was a rank during the Revolutionary War. To clarify, the intention was not to state Corwin8 said this (to my knowledge, the user didn't) but rather to simply share an opinion that we should be very careful to never state this in the article since the rank did not exist until the 20th century. This was not an accusation against Corwin, but rather a general feeling about the article.

As for the claim that I "didn't engage in discussion", this very talk page is full of discussions with Corwin8 on this subject. In response to Corwin's personal statements about me (cold, impersonal, treats users like objects etc) I will quote the golden rule of Wikipedia: "Comment on the content, not the contributor".

If Corwin can agree to the above statements, that leaves the order of the article sections. Again, I say stick to history: 1919, 1945, 1955, 1976. -OberRanks (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change the lead

I have three concerns with the lead:

1. "This should not be confused with the rank of General of the Army, which is the rank immediately below." is technically WP:OR as we don't have a source that says General of the Army is immediately below.
2. The second paragraph with "This rank is currently vacant ... each other." is OR, unencyclopediac, and false.
3. We don't have a reliable source for the flag. The image notes say they got the flag from http://tmg110.tripod.com/usarmyh7.htm which does not cite sources. The Institute of Heraldry's general officer flag page does not list it.

I know of two public laws that define where "General of the Armies" stands in relation to other ranks.

1. PL 66-45 from September 3, 1919 says "any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence of said officer is hereby repealed." PL 66-45 allows other ranks to be equal to General of the Armies.
2. PL 94-479 from January 19, 1976 says "such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." PL 94-479 puts General of the Armies of the United States higher than any other ranks which is why I said the second paragraph of the lead is false.

FWIW, PL 94-479 and S.J. Res. 26 (1955) both "revived" the rank while PL 94-479 "establishes" it. The implication is that Washington got a new rank with the same name. While it'll be OR to claim Washington's version is different we need to be careful to say "revived" for Pershing/MacArthur and "established" for Washington.

I'd like to propose this as the lead:

---

General of the Armies of the United States is the highest possible rank in the United States Army. General of the Armies has been held by John J. Pershing and was posthumously awarded to George Washington. In 1955 there was a proposal to appoint Douglas MacArthur to this rank. The rank of General of the Armies is senior to, and should not be confused with, the five-star General of the Army.

---

Besides commenting out the flag image a change that may not be apparently is I changed from dmy to mdy dating as that's the format used for all public laws, resolutions, etc. related to this rank. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction looks good. See also my earlier version of the article that incorporated a section on the 1945 proposal for this rank. That is a "fourth section" that we haven't really talked about. Noone seemed to have an issue with it actually. The source was the large promotion package put together by the Army for Operation Downfall. The promotion package is filed in DM's service record which is where the six star image comes from as well (believe you and I talked about that before too). Anyway, the World War II promotion effort from 1945 (which didnt succeed) is also an integral part of the rank's history. -OberRanks (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Rklawton (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That earlier version looks good too and so I merged the two into a new proposal plus added more detail and ref cites. This proposal has a couple of minor issues which of which is a question for OberRanks about the 7-star comment.

• That the 7-star comment includes cites. Does the comment need to say "7-star?" I believe the intent of the comment is to make it clear that people should not make assertions that GW has a superior rank than JP?
• The ref for the last line looks like a real promotion order.

---

General of the Armies of the United States is the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army. Only two soldiers have been granted the rank of General of the Armies; John J. Pershing in 1919 to honor his service in World War I and George Washington in 1976, as part of the American bicentennial celebrations, to commemorate his leadership and involvement in the founding of the United States of America. Douglas MacArthur was considered for the rank, but a formal promotion order was never issued.

The rank of General of the Armies is superior to, and should not be confused with, the five star rank of General of the Army.

---

I did the text above without indents to make it easier to copy/paste. We also need to add a section about the rank in the 1800s but I have not started on that until reliable sources get lined up. We have a reliable hint of the earlier rank in PL 66-45 of 1919. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a major problem over the past year with several different editors, some of them anon ips, arriving on the article "fresh out of the blue" who then began to make statements like Pershing was a sir star general and Washington was a seven. Another thing that quite often happened was that people would start stating that the rank "General of the Armies" was a separate rank from "General of the Armies of the United States" and therefore Pershing had a lower rank than Washington. That is clearly not the case as demonstrated by every source about the rank. This I feel warranted an intro warning that no one should change the article to reflect such statements since it has happened many times over the past two years - much like the 1776 and 1976 thing for the Washington order. We can of course reword it, that is totally open to change if others feel they have a better way of wording the warning. -OberRanks (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New lead - editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Admin - please replace the article lead with the text that's below including the comment block (you'll need to grab the text in edit mode to get the comments and <ref>s. The new text gets inserted between the {{POV}} and "==History==." We are also removing the flag image that's included immediately before the lead text.

---

General of the Armies of the United States is the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army. Only two soldiers have been granted the rank of General of the Armies; John J. Pershing in 1919 to honor his service in World War I and George Washington in 1976, as part of the American bicentennial celebrations, to commemorate his leadership and involvement in the founding of the United States of America. Douglas MacArthur was considered for the rank, but a formal promotion order was never issued.

The rank of General of the Armies is superior to, and should not be confused with, the five star rank of General of the Army.

---

Thank you --Marc Kupper|talk 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've moved the HTML comment to an edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/General of the Armies as I feel this is a better method. If this is not satisfactory, please replace the request here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Article

Since this was a large point of contention with Corwin8, I've started this new section to deal with what order the sections of the article should be in. I feel the following makes the most sense

1. Intro paragraph (see above)
2. John Pershing (1919) - Speaks of the origins of the rank and the first promotion
3. World War II (1945) - Speaks of Operation Downfall and the unsuccessful proposal to create a six star rank. Also deals with the "reverence" that Pershing had during this period and Secretary of War Stimson's statements about the rank General of the Armies
4. Douglas MacArthur (1955) - Speaks of the 1950s bill to promote MacArthur which was never passed due to the complications about MacArthur's seniority, promotion pay, and general desire to not be promoted to this rank.
5. George Washington (1976) - Speaks of the effort to promote Washington, largely to give him seniority over the 4 and 5 star generals from WWII and over Pershing

In the above order, we literally have "A leads to B leads to C leads to D". To understand why Washington was promoted, one must first understand the events in World War II and the elevation of MacArthur. To understand those events, one must first follow the original history behind Pershing's appointment to the rank. To start with Washington and then jump back to Pershing puts the events out of order. Yes, all of us might be able to figure it out, but someone totally unfamiliar with military history or the history of this rank could very easily read the article and think Washington was the first person to hold the rank. In the order proposed above, this prevents a misunderstanding. The feeling that Washington "deserves" to be at the front of the article is well and good, but from a history text standpoint that puts the events out of order and is confusing to non-military history readers. -OberRanks (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

At some point we will have

1. Intro paragraph
2. George Washington (1799) - Rank is created and it then expires. Washington is a Lt. General at his death.
3. Ulysses S. Grant (1866) - The rank is revived.
4. John Pershing (1919) - The rank is revived.
5. World War II (1945) - as you have it.
6. Douglas MacArthur (194? to 1964) - After the WW II efforts it seems there were regular efforts to promote MacArthur with the 1955 S.J.Res. being an example.
7. George Washington (1976) - as you have it

The origins of rank will likely be woven in among the people. For example, with Pershing there's a statement that only one person should hold the rank at any one time. This was dropped for Washington (1976).

I'm fine with not including sections on Washington (1799) and Grant (1866) until these get nailed down with reliable sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I italicized above the two questionable sections. From what I have discovered, the rank did not exist until Pershing held it in 1919. Grant was called "General of the Army" and Washington simply called "General" in the Continental Army and then "Lieutenant General" in the U.S. Army. I doubt you will find any source to the contrary. If you were to actually find a document using the term "General of the Armies" prior to 1919 we could of course reexamine the issue. -OberRanks (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this which is from 1915. Specifically, see the long footnote 1. Any thoughts? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty neat find. Sounds like it existed on paper only in 1799. Important still to state it did not exist during the Revolutionary War adn that Washington didn't hold it. As you can see on the very same text, Grant and others held "General of the Army" (without the Armies). I think someone also found a newspaper clipping regarding the statements in 1919 that Pershing held the same rank as Grant even though the name was different. We can certainly add this all in to an intro section. -OberRanks (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that says "it did not exist during the Revolutionary War?" If not, then we can't put that in the article. Likewise, we don't have a reliable source that states "Washington didn't hold it." We can document what the sources say and readers can make their own inferences.

I'm pretty sure the rank was more than on paper in 1799. For example, look at this. I'm having trouble figuring out which physical book this is. It's part of an at least ten volume set and people have made a real hash of the volume names, ISBNs, etc. I did find volumes four and ten on line. A local library has volumes 1 to 9 and so I put in a request for volumes 3 and 9.

From what I recall, the 1799 rank was planned for Washington. Initially they talked with him about reactivating Lt. General. Washington was old, tired, and did not relish going back to the work he knew was involved in being a Lt. General. General of the Armies was then proposed as a figurehead rank. Washington would not need to "do" anything. As it is, I thought Washington did participate in an advisory role as giving advice and opinions was something he he could still do. Thus he was doing exactly what he would have done as General of the Armies. The non-war with France wound down and Washington died at the end of 1799. That's why I called it "Washington (1799)" in the list above. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a source document showing its existence in the Revolutionary War. Without one, to say that it existed priot to 1799 would be WP:OR. The standard rank arrangement in 1782 was Brigadier General, Major General, and Washington's special rank of simply "General", sometimes called "General and Commander-in-Chief" or simply "Excellency". After the war it was codified into Lieutenant General. Remember also there were still Captain Generals running around but by the time the US got around to making a four star rank, Captain General had simply become "General". I think that's where the idea for a "General of the Army" came from. Anyway, the 1799 find was great - we simply should just say that the earliest record of the rank was from 1799. I agree also it was meant for Washington. -OberRanks (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the idea of "General in the Armies" comes from the French and English. The French have used it since the early 1500s and the English since the mid 1650s. Your thinking about the origin makes sense too. I agree that it was not a formal rank in the USA until 1799 though you will find the middle letter from 1775 on this page amusing.

One issue if we are using primary source documents is that we'll need to take extra care about wording such as "the earliest record of the rank." It would be better if we had secondary sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Comment is requested due to several edits made in the article regarding Pershing's status as a General of the Armies, the removal of warning messages embedded in the article text, and reordering the article out of chronological order

---

Please consider that rank is defined by the law creating it and subsequent laws modifying it. Those looking to make logical sense of the law will often find themselves disappointed. The law is not mathematical, and is generally created by those skilled in the art of language and frequently illiterate in both history and logic. Therefore, this article should focus on ranks titled "General of the Armies". We should avoid our own speculation on how these ranks relate to each other except as described by legal authority or other reliable sources. Public speculation has no bearing or merit here, even if the speculation is published.

For example, George Washington received the Posthumous rank of "General of the Armies" with a date of rank of 1976 but outranks Pershing who also received the rank of "General of the Armies" with an earlier promotion date simply because the law creating Washington's rank specifically says so. What number of "stars" this represents is immaterial because the law creating Washington's rank does not describe the insignia, nor does it delegate the responsibility for creating one. Public speculation on an insignia design never authorized is immaterial.

Here's another example. Pershing was authorized to create his own insignia of rank, and chose to use four golden stars. The number of stars has no bearing on the fact that he out ranks all other general officers save Washington - simply because the legislation creating his rank made it clear that he does. In short, the insignia is simply a symbol for the law and what it authorizes and nothing more. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Legislative history

For a capsule history of the relevant legislation prior to 1924, see 4 Comp. Gen. 317, which can be found online here or here, and which I've transcribed below:

4 Comp. Gen. 317

A-5105, September 20, 1924, 4 Comp. Gen. 317 ARMY PAY - RETIRED GENERAL An officer appointed General of the Armies, pursuant to the act of September 3, 1919, 41 Stat. 283, upon his retirement is entitled, under the provisions of the act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stat. 118, to the pay and allowances he was receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of his retirement. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, September 20, 1924: There has been received your letter of September 8, 1924, presenting for decision the following question: Will General John J. Pershing, who was appointed pursuant to the act of September 3, 1919 (41 Stat. 283), be entitled, in his retirement, to the pay and allowances that he is receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of retirement? It is understood that General Pershing was placed on the retired list September 12, 1924. The act of September 3, 1919, 41 Stat. 283, provides in part: That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; * * * Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act. Section 4 of the National Defense Act, as amended by the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat. 760, provides: There shall be one general, as now authorized by law, until a vacancy occurs in that office, after which it shall cease to exist. Such difficulty as exists results from the fact that the act of 1919 revived the office of "General of the Armies of the United States," while the office in existence when the act of 1882, hereafter referred to, was passed was that of "General of the Army of the United States" (Sec. 1095, Revised Statutes, and act of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 223); and the fact that Section 1274, Revised Statutes, limits the pay of officers retired from active service to 75 percent of the pay of the rank upon which they are retired, while the act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stat. 118, contains a proviso: That the General of the Army, when retired, shall be retired without reduction in his current pay and allowances; * * *. The act of 1919 revived an office which had existed at some time in the past and which had lapsed either by repeal of the law creating it or by prohibition against filling it. Section 1094 of the Revised Statutes provides that the Army of the United States shall include "one general," with a proviso, evidently based on the provision contained in the act of July 15, 1870, 16 Stat. 318: That when a vacancy occurs in the office of general or lieutenant-general such office shall cease, and all enactments creating or regulating such offices shall, respectively, be held to be repealed. The office was, however, continued in existence, or in effect revived, for Gen. P. H. Sheridan by the act of June 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 165, and lapsed with his death August 5, 1888. After the office was revived in 1866 and before the limitation upon filling a vacancy was enacted in 1870, Gen. William T. Sherman had succeeded to the office vacated by General Grant on his elevation to the Presidency. The act of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 223, provided: That the grade of "General of the Army of the United States" be, and the same is hereby, revived; * * *. Section 9 of the act of March 3, 1799, 1 Stat. 752, provided: That a commander of the army of the United States shall be appointed and commissioned by the style of "General of the Armies of the United States," and the present office and title of Lieutenant-General shall thereafter be abolished. It thus appears that the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States;" that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States;" and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theaters, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small Regular Army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army, and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, it would be fruitless to inquire. The office of general was revived, specifically the pay theretofore authorized for the General of the Army by the act of 1870 was fixed as the pay of the revived office, and, except as specifically otherwise provided, all other attributes of the office of general attach to the revived office. The provision for allowances was a modification of the prior laws applicable to the office of general, and the reference to the pay fixed by the act of 1870 was probably thought necessary to completely fix the emoluments of the revived office and was not a fixing of the pay proper of a new and different office. It should be observed that Congress was providing a reward for exceptionally meritorious service, and the design was to so specifically fix the emoluments that the matter could not become one of embarrassment to the recipient because of doubt as to what was intended to be provided. In the matter of aids to the general, it has been held he was entitled to the number prescribed for the General of the Army, 27 Comp. Dec. 275 and 280. Any other attribute, right, privilege, etc., of the office not specifically modified would necessarily also apply to the office, including the act of 1882. The act of 1882 first established the compulsory retirement of officers at the age of 64, and the proviso here considered was a part of that provision, evidencing a purpose to provide for the office holding the title of general otherwise than under Section 1274, Revised Statutes. The act of 1882 was applicable to General Sherman upon his retirement in 1884. General Sheridan died before reaching the age for retirement, and General Grant after the expiration of his terms as President was reappointed to the retired list under the act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 434, authorizing the appointment on the retired list of the Army of one person having the qualifications indicated "with the rank and full pay of such General, or General-in-Chief." Of the three officers who, prior to 1919, held the permanent title of general, but one reached the retired list upon retirement for age, and he received the benefits of the 1882 act. Another was placed upon the retired list by a special act and with a special pay, to wit, full pay of general. So far as a policy of Congress can be gleaned from the limited occasions arising, that policy would seem to be that the general when retired shall suffer no reduction of emoluments. Answering your question specifically, I am of opinion that under the act of 1882 Gen. John J. Pershing will be entitled in his retirement to the pay and allowances he was receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of retirement.

In brief, in 1924 the Comptroller General ruled that Pershing's 1919 office of General of the Armies was identical to the office created in 1799 for Washington and revived in 1866 for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Since the Grant/Sherman/Sheridan office allowed its incumbent to retire at full pay, the Comptroller General ruled that Pershing was also entitled in his retirement to the full pay of his active-duty rank, rather than the standard 75 percent.

It thus appears that the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States;" that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States;" and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theaters, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small Regular Army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army, and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, it would be fruitless to inquire.

The Army Judge Advocate General recounts a similar legislative history in the footnotes of his office's decennial compilations of the laws pertaining to the U.S. Army, e.g.:

• Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (1940), Military Laws of the United States, 1939, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office

The standard postwar references for the rank of General of the Armies are an influential pair of articles by Frederick Bernays Wiener, a prominent lawyer and retired Army colonel. Most U.S. Army secondary literature on this topic seems to cite one of these articles in the footnotes.

A five-part article, published in 1945, recounts the history of the ranks of lieutenant general, general, General of the Army, and General of the Armies:

• Wiener, Frederick B. (June 1945), "Three Stars and Up: Part One", Infantry Journal, LVI: 51–54

• Wiener, Frederick B. (July 1945), "Three Stars and Up: Part Two", Infantry Journal, LVII: 33–37

• Wiener, Frederick B. (September 1945), "Three Stars and Up: Part Three", Infantry Journal, LVII: 37–40

• Wiener, Frederick B. (October 1945), "Three Stars and Up: Part Four", Infantry Journal, LVII: 41–45

• Wiener, Frederick B. (November 1945), "Three Stars and Up: Part Five", Infantry Journal, LVII: 51–55

A two-part article, published in 1970-71, discusses the five- versus six-star controversy in particular (but predates the 1976 Washington promotion).

• Wiener, Frederick B. (December 1970), "How Many Stars for Pershing?", Army: 28–34

• Wiener, Frederick B. (January 1971), "Five is Higher Than Six When Fact and Legend Clash", Army: 42–48

Wiener concludes that Pershing's 1919 office was the same four-star generalcy created for (but not filled by) Washington in 1799 and revived for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan in 1866. Moreover, Pershing's four-star grade is actually junior to the five-star grade of World War II; the argument here, which I am not sure I completely buy, is that the 1919 clause — "any provision of existing law that would enable any other office of the Army to take rank and precedence over said office is hereby repealed" — was aimed specifically at Pershing's rival and Congress' nemesis, then-Army Chief of Staff Peyton C. March, and did not apply to grades created later; Wiener dismisses as legally unfounded the copious contemporary literature to the contrary, which he attributes to sentimental Pershing acolytes such as Stimson and Marshall. (This reasoning obviously would not apply to Washington's 1976 grade.)

- Morinao (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a fantastic bit of data though it also complicates the article a little. I suspect we'll be ok if we stick to the facts and report that in 1924 the Comptroller General said "this" rather than revising the relative ranking system throughout Wikipedia based on his comments. Also, thank you for wikifying the Comptroller General's comments. I'll need to see if I get get copies of the Frederick Bernays Wiener articles. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no question that Washington's 1976 grade is senior to the World War II five-star grades ("such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades in the Army, past or present" P.L. 94-479), so we wouldn't need any revision of the relative ranking system. Still, Wiener does seem to have a colorable argument that Pershing's 1919 grade (as distinct from Washington's 1976 grade) was actually junior to the five-star grades.

Wiener argues that Pershing inherited the same four-star grade conferred on Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, based on the legislative continuity set forth by the Comptroller General and others. The only difference is that clause in the 1919 law that repeals any existing laws that would allow any other officer to outrank Pershing. Wiener argues that that clause was targeted specifically at preventing Pershing from being outranked in the grade of General of the Armies by Peyton C. March, who had also been nominated for promotion to that grade.

During World War I there was a bitter rivalry between Army Chief of Staff March and AEF Commander Pershing over who was subordinate to whom. March's position was that a 1917 law granted the Chief of Staff "rank and precedence over all the officers of the Army." Pershing's position was that he "commanded the American Expeditionary Forces directly under the President." (Cline, Ray S. (1951), Washington Command Post: The Operations Division, United States Army in World War II, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, p. 18–19).

After the war, President Wilson asked Congress to pass legislation to reward both Pershing and March with the permanent grade of general. Without such a law, Pershing and March would lose their four stars, which were authorized only during the World War I emergency, and revert to their permanent two-star grades. By then Pershing was being lionized as the conquering hero, while March was viewed as merely a rear-echelon staff officer, so in his letter to Congress Wilson specified that Pershing should be given precedence over March (quoted in Hearing before the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, July 22, 1919):

After mature reflection, I earnestly recommend that you give the permanent rank of general to John J. Pershing and Peyton C. March, expressing the law in such a way as to give precedence to General Pershing; and that you give the permanent rank of admiral to William S. Benson and William S. Sims.

Accordingly, the Act of September 3, 1919, that authorized Pershing's promotion also specified that "any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed." This was understood at the time to refer specifically to the May 12, 1917 law that elevated the Chief of Staff (i.e. March) over all other officers in the Army (Dickinson, John (1922), The Building Of An Army: A Detailed Account of Legislation, Administration and Opinion in the United States, 1915–1920, New York: The Century Co., p. 319):

Any provision of existing law which would enable any other officer to take rank over the holder of the office of "general" was repealed. (This provision was introduced to do away with the provision of the act of May 12, 1917 which gave the chief of staff precedence over all other officers of the army).

Note that the clause says "any provision of existing law...is hereby repealed." It does not say anything about not being outranked by grades created in the future. Moreover, the one clause in the 1944 five-star law concerning the General of the Armies states merely, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Act of September 3, 1919...or any other law relating to the office of General of the Armies of the United States." So Wiener argues that Pershing's seniority remained unchanged and certainly was not elevated over the newly created five-star grades, whatever Stimson and many members of Congress may have believed.

Could be, very interesting indeed. Since Pershing was never on active duty at the same time as the five stars we will never know. Most of this was actually covered in the World War II section before the article got reverted due to the edit war. A big point with Stimpson was to never say that Pershing outranked British Field Marshals - his words were so carefully chosen that he never confirmed or denied the 6 star status. The Operation Downfall package was a totally different thing - plans were full speed ahead for a real 6 star general but it never made it past the very initial stages and was never considered official. In a sense, the World War II effort was little more than a "good idea" and to this day the Army does not consider any of the material proposed for a 6 star general in 1945 (including the insignia) in any way official. This is also one of the reasons why its very hard to find published material about he 1945 proposal. -OberRanks (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If MacArthur had actually been promoted to General of the Armies in the 1950's, maybe Pershing would have been retconned into a six-star grade at that point, but as it stands Pershing remains a (very senior) four-star.

(Again, it is incontestable that Washington's 1976 grade is senior to the five-star grades, since its authorizing act explicitly gives it precedence over all other grades, past or present. But Pershing never had that.)

- Morinao (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to have the article broken up as before: cover the initial history, Pershing's appointment, WWII Operation Downfall proposal, MacArthur's 1950s effort, and Washington's 1976 appointment. As long as we avoid theories and speculation it should be a very fine article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago we discussed merging "General of the Army" and "General of the Armies" and the proposal failed for a number of reasons. It is also without a doubt that Pershing was considered a "special 4 star" during World War I - after all, he wore four gold stars. Pershing was elevated in his status only in 1944 when Stimpson stated that "the General of the Armies to be superior to the grade of General of the Army" and thus people started thinking of Pershing as if he were a 6 star general. When he died, there was even a proposal to have a six star flag created, appaarently. When Operation Downfall was in progress in 1945, the promotion order for MacArthur was going to have him wear 6 stars. Likewise, in 1955, Macarthur was to be "promoted" to General of the Armies from five star rank, seeming to imply it was a higher rank. If we could possible restore the World War II and MacArthur section of the article (which was never under contest by Corwin8 as far as I could tell), some of this text could be more easily accesable. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pershing didn't wear four gold starts during WWI. His promotion came afterwards - and it was that promotion which authorized him to design his own insignia. Rklawton (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tail-end of WWI era was my understanding (Sep 1919). That is a good point, when he actually started wearing teh gold stars. -OberRanks (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The war ended the year before. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add the word "era", sorry. You are correct, he was promoted after the cessation of hostilities but before the demobilization of the National Army. By 1920, he was wearing gold stars and calling himself as a "General of the Armies" and signing documents that way. Should be included in the article, without a doubt, that he didnt start going by this rank until AFTER World War I. -OberRanks (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring World War II Section and MacArthur Section

{{edit protected}} Request that from this version [10], we restore only the sections entitled "World War II and Six Star rank" and "Douglas MacArthur and the Renewed Effort". These two sections were never in dispute and directly relate to discussions currently underway in the legislation section being discussed above. The edit dispute focused around the Pershing and Washington sections and not the WWII/MacArthur section. It would be easier to conduct discussions on article improvement if the most recent version of the uncontested sections were in the article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be clearer about how those two sections should fit around the current layout of the page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably is actually a bad idea to attempt this - a bit messy with removing large chunks of the article. We can wait until the article gets unprotected, especially since the page version is now linked above for others to review. -OberRanks (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Promotion process

note - this was a sub-thread of the "Main Problems with Corwin8's version of the article" thread above but it got lost in the smoke and so I'm moving it to a separate section. I'm asking this question to better understand what sources we should be looking for with regard to General of the Armies. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Something I'm not familiar with is what the "process" is for senior officer promotion in the U.S. Army. I believe it's this

1. The U.S. congress authorizes the rank by issuing a public law. At that point the President has ten days to sign, veto, or to leave the law unsigned (in which case it becomes law). Before we had the Thomas system where was the disposition of a law recorded?
2. Assuming the authorization bill becomes law the President then issues a "directive" as Commander in Chief to promote the person. Where does the directive get filed?
3. Someone at the Army takes the President's directive and types up an "Orders" which then get signed by the Secretary of the Army. Where do Orders get filed? Is there an index of all the orders issued?

For Washington there was a 17 month (523 day) delay between the President Ford signing s:Public Law 94-479 and s:Orders 31-3 being issued. Is it normal for people to sit on a Presidential directive for 17 months? The reason I'm asking about this it to better understand what we are missing for the General of the Armies promotions and the most likely places to look for the missing documents.

I believe for Pershing the window is much smaller than 17 months. The public law was passed on September 3, 1919. From what I read, President Wilson signed it, and also issued the directive that very day. On September 12 there was a Senate joint resolution that on September 18, 1919 at 2pm there would be a joint session of Congress to welcome Pershing, General of the Armies of the United States. It appears we have a 15 day window to hunt through. Pershing arrived in New York on September 10, 1919 which trims it down to nine days. The most likely day is the 10th as there was a welcoming parade and other events that day. I'll look through the news archives the next time I'm in the library. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya forgot a step. The Senate has to approve promotions to and within the general officer ranks. Rklawton (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be at step 3.5? It's my understanding that public laws need to pass both the house and senate votes before they are presented to the President. That's what I have at step 1. After the President signs (step 2) it goes back to the Senate for approval (step 3) and then the president issues the directive as commander in chief (step 4)? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically. It's usually:

1) Congress passes a bill authorizing a grade, almost always specifying that any appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

2) President signs the bill into law.

3) President nominates an officer to be appointed to the grade.

4) Senate confirms the officer's nomination.

5) President issues the officer's commission.

Step 4 is usually the bottleneck, not step 5; the actual commission is often issued as of the date the Senate voted to approve the nomination. For example, as of 1981 the Pershing Papers contained a copy of Pershing's commission as permanent general, dated September 4, 1919, the day his nomination was confirmed by the Senate ("Senate Confirms Rank Of General Pershing", The New York Times, p. 4, September 5, 1919; footnote 67 in Smythe, Donald (December 1981), "The Pershing-March Conflict in World War I" (PDF), Parameters, XI (4): 53–62).

Occasionally Congress passes a bill that names a specific officer for promotion without requiring Senate confirmation, usually in retirement or posthumously (e.g. Leslie R. Groves, Roy S. Geiger), in which case the officer can be advanced as soon as the President signs the bill.

- Morinao (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Morinao. That and the sources you linked are great. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection

I asked for, and was approved, to have the article unprotected. I restored only the sections which were non-controversial and with which there were no complaints or problems before the article protection. This leaves "Section 1" (the history section) containing the bulk of material that we have discussed, i.e. the initial creation of the rank in 1799, the creation of Pershing's rank in 1919, and the final version in 1976. The floor is now open to make this into the format that we agreed upon and any and all editors are free to start making changes. -OberRanks (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for whoever embedded the 7 star general warning into the edit template. I didn't even know that was possible! -OberRanks (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to this. I went and restored the World War I section, which contained more information but was not controversial except for the statements that Pershing was never legally promoted to General of the Armies. Per our consensus discussion, this was WP:OR thus it is not included.

The George Washington section from 1976 is also restored, I think actually the same way Corwin8 had it (but I'm not 100% sure). The main concern there was the debate to put George Washington first in the article which, I think we all agreed, would have put the sections out of order. This leaves for last the "history" section which ties into the 1799 document and the grade of General of the Army from the Civil War being a sort of predecessor rank. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotection. I'm still waiting for the two books I ordered to come in. Hopefully one of them will have the public law that created the rank in 1799. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can actually find the full text of laws enacted before 1875 online. If you know volume and page number of a law in the Statutes at Large, you can plug them into Template:USStat for a direct link (saves you some browsing). For example, you can find the full text of the 1799 law at 1 Stat. 752. - Morinao (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Highest rank?

The current article has "the main intention of Public Law 94-479 is to firmly state that George Washington is the highest ranked soldier of the United States Military."

I don't see that at all. Public Law 94-479 says "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington." This allows for someone to have the same rank as Washington which is the case for Pershing, and Grant.

The statement is supported by the first footnote which has "Pershing does rank ahead of the Five-star Generals, he comes right after Washington." Unfortunately, if we use that as "canon" then it means the United States Navy's historical department has the final say in the United States Army's highest rank. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't be the case for Pershing or Grant. They couldn't be the same rank. Their dates of promotion precede Washington's, and so they would outrank him if they had the same rank. Since the law states that this is not the case, then they must have different ranks, and Washington's - which comes later - must be higher. You'll have to explain the Navy bit; I don't understand. Keep in mind that it is often not appropriate to apply logic to legislation. Congress is not bound to be logical. If Congress passes a law that says Washington is a "Private" and outranks everyone, then that's how it is. And all the other privates still get yelled at by their sergeants. Rklawton (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the main items which have discussed many times is to avoid anyone changing the article to reflect that Washington had a different rank than Pershing- this was the cause of all that seven star stuff that kept on coming up. The way I read it, it seems as if there is a rank called "General of the Armies" that was held by Pershing and Washington. Grant held "General of the Army" which was the inspiration for the 1919 rank of General of the Armies. Grant's rank was, itself, inspired by the 1799 idea for "General of the armies". Then you have the 1945 version and the 1955 attempt - never succeeded but everybody thought they were for a six star general. At last we have 1976 - a supreme rank outranking everything else, even though it had the same name. Confusing, but I have an idea as to how to write it all up. -OberRanks (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Grant was a General of the Armies of the United States. Once I've nailed the 1799 issues down I'll look for Grant's authorization and the senate's consent.

Rklawton, Congress has not passed a law that says Washington outranks everyone. Rather, they were very specific in saying no one has a higher rank than Washington. This allows others to have the same rank as Washington. Congress was also specific in saying that General of the Armies of the United States (GoAoUS) has "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." Both Pershing and Washington are definitely GoAoUS and there's much strong evidence Grant was too.

Do you know which public law defines ranks people of the same grade based on their date of promotion? I want to read it to see if it's broad enough that we could apply it to GoAoUS without falling into WP:OR. Also, some of these ranks have sunset clauses such as the end of the war, retirement, or death. Is there a public law that specifically addresses the "rank" of someone, and their relative ranking, when their former rank no longer exists? I suspect, absent a ruling from Congress on this specific issue, that the Wikipedia article needs to be silent on the relative ranking of Grant, Pershing, and Washington.

The "Navy bit" is that the Wikipedia article made a claim about the "main intention" of Public Law 94-479. It supported this claim with two items. 1) The public law itself which flatly contradicts the claim. 2) a citation from the Navy (see this) that put Washington ahead of Pershing with "Pershing does rank ahead of the Five-star Generals, he comes right after Washington." If the Wikipedia article is using this citation as its basis for the claim that "Washington is the highest ranked soldier of the United States Military" then we have the Navy, and not Congress or the Army making that call about an Army rank. Also, I believe it's OR to say Washington is "highest ranked soldier of the United States Military" as the Navy did not say that either. Congress specifically made GoAoUS one of the "grades of the Army" and not the entire "United States Military." The U.S. Army in turn issued Orders 31-3. I'm not aware of similar orders stating Washington's grade or rank within the other armed services.

This is why I've been saying we need to be careful to stick to the exact wording the Congress and/or the Army used and to not add any interpretation of our own. If a reliable source, such as the U.S. Comptroller General, makes a statement then we can use his or her statement but again need to be careful to stick to the exact wording and the context. For example, "in 1924 the U.S. Comptroller General ruled 'xxx' in response to 'xxx'."

WP:NOR is explicit on this point. Any rewording needs to be very careful to not add or remove any meaning or to add any interpretation, arguments, speculation, ideas, etc. unless we show that it comes from a reliable source. Somewhere there is guideline or essay that says "show, do not tell." We can "show" the evidence to the reader and if they conclude that Bugs Bunny outranks GoAoUS then that's their business. We can't "tell" the reader anything, regardless of how strong a case we believe we have. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of MK's points. I also recently rewrote the history section to cover the various incarnations of this rank. Edits and changes to reflect more accuracy are more than welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree with NOR, and I'm confident we'll proceed with all due caution. My argument "the ranks are different" is based on the idea that the others would outrank him because their dates of rank would be earlier. OK, and to argue against myself, it would be just as easy to read this as "the ranks are the same" and the date of rank doesn't matter because Congress over-road this convention (or law) by placing Washington over the others explicitly. Ha! So in the end, if we avoid OR and doing too much interpretation for ourselves (something you two are not inclined to do anyway), then I'm sure I'll be satisfied with your results. I think looking up rank precedence would be a helpful and wished I'd thought of that. It'll be interesting word-smithing this for the readers so that it's short, simple, and supported. However, I feel we've now got the right editors working on it. Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: Confusion results when the terms rank and grade are used interchangeably. The two terms are conflated in everyday usage, but they can have distinct technical meanings. Grade refers to the officer hierarchy (major, colonel, general, etc.), while rank, in the strictly legal sense, refers to seniority within a grade. Most of the time the distinction between the two terms is inconsequential, but here it's probably a good idea to keep the distinction in mind.

For example, above someone wrote: "Public Law 94-479 says 'no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington.' This allows for someone to have the same rank as Washington...." This is incorrect. The law might allow for someone to hold the same grade as Washington—it doesn't specifically say—but what it does say is that that no one will be outranked by him. Keeping the language straight will probably help in understanding the laws and getting the article right. Cheers. —Kevin Myers 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Also not to be confused with pay grade. In the U.S. some pay grades encompass more than one rank. E4 can be either a Specialist 4 or a Corporal, and E9 includes three ranks: Sgt Major, Command Sgt Major, and Sgt Major of the Army. While no officer ranks share the same pay grade, there's no reason they can't. Also the same "name" for a rank could apply to different pay grades. For example, an Army or Marine "Captain" (03) is far lower ranking than a Navy "Captain" (O6). Incidentally, a Marine captain serving on board a navy vessel is addressed as "Major" as a courtesy and to prevent confusion. Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Order

I'm back. Sorry, but my job doesn't permit me the luxury of sitting at a computer all day (I used to but I found it too lonely). I haven't read any of the changes to this date. I just want to emphasize my prime point here. Because of George Washington's importance in U.S. history, and because he is, forever more, the highest ranking military officer in the history of the U.S., I feel strongly that George Washington MUST be at the TOP of this article. Only two U.S.officers have the rank of GOA - Pershing (maybe, maybe not) and Washington. It's completely illogical to put Washington near the very bottom of this article. And it's totally ridiculous to put him below people that don't even hold the rank in the first place! Corwin8 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feelings have little to do with this article. It's an historical subject and logical to present the subject in chronological order. If you want to feel better about it, then consider that with Washington at the end, the article closes on a high note. I wouldn't object to putting Washington in the lead, either. However, telling us what MUST be done is the hight of tendentious editing and will get you subject banned. Let us know if you are going to "insist" that something "must" be done, and I will initiate the subject ban process forthwith. On the other hand, if you're willing to work *with* other editors, I have no objection. Rklawton (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The new rewrite has an intro history section in the beginning and Washington is actually talked about as one of the first things in the article. We could even move the portrait back up there. The events of 1976, though, should stay at the end of the article because, from a historical point of view, that is the end of the story. -OberRanks (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The picture of Washington is now the first thing in the article with a narrative about his status. -OberRanks (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1976 vs 1776

I'm get a bit suspicious of several anon ip address which appear to be "hitting" the article, making sneaky changes back and forth between Washington's date of rank as 1776 and 1976. Sometimes the ips will change it, and then immediately change it back while other times the ips will change it to 1776 and leave it, apparently hoping no one will notice. This on top of the edit warning message clearly displayed stating not to do this. These changes and reverts are cluttering up the edit history and they appear to have recently started, right after the article was unprotected. Can we investigate the source of the ip addresses? If they are all coming from the same place, then it might be a single editor with a grudge or a bone to pick and they are using this method to disrupt the article. -OberRanks (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The ip addresses resolve to different locations. One is in the Pittsburgh area, one in France, one in Tampa and another in the southern U.S. There really is no further way to associate these with users unless a checkuser request can be justified which it cannot at the moment. We just need to keep it watchlisted. JodyB _talk 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

World War II Cancellation

According to his service record, the proposal to promote MacArthur to General of the Armies was dropped on August 18th, 1945 (before the Japanese surrender). The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. That isn't the case and needs to be clarified. -OberRanks (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's now 0330 here, so this will be brief.

Yes, the FORMAL surrender was 2 Sept, but Gyokuon-hōsō was 15 Aug, 3 days before 18 Aug.

The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. - Agreed. But not JUST because of the bombs.

The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. - No. The current version is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as "the Army waited until after September 2nd", which, as we both agree, would be wrong.

Yes, we both agree that needs clarification.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I put four days after the surrender because the time difference made V-J Day August 14 in the U.S., which is presumably where the Army office that cancelled the promotion was located. - Morinao (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like your redraft. As to 3 or 4 days, I'm not fussy and will "go with the flow". Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Regarding the date, I figured the Pentagon is in the same time zone as Times Square and that famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse is dated August 14. - Morinao (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Equivalence of grades =

The military laws of the United States, 1915, Volume 1, Issue 915 (also titled War Department, Document No. 472.), a document prepared by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, United States Army and published by the Government Printing Office in 1915, states that the July 28, 1866 grade "General of the Army of the United States" is a revival of the March 3, 1799 "General of the Armies of the United States." The relevant section of the document:

The grade of "General of the Armies of the United States" was created by section 9 of the act of March 3, 1799 (1 Stat. 752). The office, though not expressly referred to in any of the acts for the reduction or disbandment of the forces raised in contemplation of war with France, ceased to exist in 1802, not having been mentioned in the act of March 16, 1802 (2 id., 132), which determined the military peace establishment. The grade was revived under the title of "General of the Army of the United States," by the act of July 25, 1866 (14 id., 223), and was conferred upon Lieutenant-General Grant ... The office ceased to exist, as a grade of military rank, at the death of Gen. W. T. Sherman on February 14, 1891.

The September 3, 1919 Act that authorized the office to which Pershing was promoted specified that the office of General of the Armies of the United States authorized for Pershing was a revival of the office "General of the Armies of the United States":

An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States.
September 3, 1919 [H.R. 7594] [Public Law 66-45]
41 Stat. 283

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.

Approved, September 3, 1919.

If Grant's rank was legally the same grade as the 1799 "General of the Armies of the United States," and Pershing's rank was legally the same grade as the 1799 "General of the Armies of the United States," aren't they the same rank? --Archimedean (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)