Talk:United States military seniority

Previously unsectioned comments

Reason moved: Style: U.S. not US …Guy M… L.V. ^(soapbox) 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to www.history.navy.mil/bios/dewey_george.htm George Dewey was commissioned Admiral of the Navy on 2 March 1899.

On July 25, 1866, the U.S. congress established the grade "General of the Army of the United States" for Ulysses S. Grant, and later appointed William T. Sherman (on 4 March 1869) and by Act of 1 June 1888 the same grade was conferred upon Philip H. Sheridan. The rank for Grant, Sherman and Sheridan is "General of the Army of the United States" not "General of the Army".

I removed Robert E. Lee from the main part of the list, but kept his mention at the bottom. While he certainly held a U.S. rank, "General-in-Chief" was not a Union, but a Confederate rank, and even if it was included as a rank of the United States, there is no way of knowing what rank/seniority to give it in relation to the others.

ACW

This is an odd list. It starts by saying that it is for 5-star officers, but 5 stars were not awarded until WWII. And if it is only 5+ stars, the article is misnamed.

Robert E. Lee was the equivalent of a modern 4-star "full" general [O-10] and his general-in-chief title in 1865 was not a promotion in terms of rank. In fact, Samuel Cooper continued to outrank him. (And Lee wore the 3-star insignia of a Confederate colonel!) If the title general-in-chief is noteworthy, recognize that two Union officers held it as well before Grant: George B. McClellan and Henry W. Halleck. Both were formally major generals [2-star, the highest rank at the time].

For my own sanity, I have limited myself to American Civil War articles, so don't intend to edit this one, but others may wish to correct the record. Hal Jespersen 02:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

True, 5-stars did not come into existence until WWII, but I think the point is that of listing 5 star equivalents, and also ensuring that this list does not become full with the listings of the literally hundreds (thousands?) of Americans who have been Generals in the last 200 years.

As for Robert E. Lee and General-in-Chief, he is not on the main list, but is merely a footnote, althought you might be correct in stating that General-in -chief is not a rank but a position - theere were Union Generals who held this position who were only Major Generals.

Lee is in the main table as it displays on my browser and then there is also a footnote. However, I'll point out another anomaly with the page: the first column, Order, is unexplained. Hal Jespersen 11:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed Lee - I thought he had allready been removed (see above discussions) - as for Order, the page says Listed by rank then seniority (date appointed to the rank) - Matthew238 01:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee

I removed Lee again. I think from the above discussions that he should not be here. I also removed the note about him at the bottom, as General in Chief was a position, not a rank (If we included the position we should also include the Union generals with this position - yet this is not a listing of positions) - Matthew238 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

Well, despite my saying I'd keep my hands off, I decided to clean up the page anyway. It probably should be renamed to be List of U.S. military leaders, 5-star and higher, but I don't feel like changing all the links to it. Hal Jespersen 23:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I changed a little

1. As is the custom, I only added a link the first time something is listed.
2. I changed some titles - for example "General of the Armies of the United States" was changed to "General of the Armies", which I believe is the correct title. Same for "Fleet Admiral" etc.
   1. General of the Army of the United States and General of the Army are the same rank - the first being the proper title of the Civil War era, the second the proper title used in WWII (see main article)
3. I left it without the ordering, yet this ordering might be usefull as it shows which ranks are equivalent (eg. Fleet Admiral = General of the Army), and which ranks are not (General of the Armies outranks General of the Army, and George Washington outranks them all - even though his rank is the same as John Pershing. - Matthew238 07:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That info on who ranked whom would be better expressed in a textual way, rather than a column that says Order and has numbers in different fonts without explanation. Hal Jespersen 17:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of January 2007

Ok, taking comments/questions/gripes/complaints on the new layout. Based it off of List of United States Presidents by military rank. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of Rank?

Now that I reworked the table, I realized I'm not sure if Grant's 4 star rank/title General of the Armies is really equivalent to the modern 4 star Admiral (United States) or General (United States). Speak up if you know and can WP:REF it. Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is equivalent and it is footnoted in the Grant bio article. Hal Jespersen 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The First 4 Stars?

Also, I know that Alexander Vandegrift was the first |USMC 4 star, in 1945. But I wasn't able to figure out who was the first Army 4 star. Be bold if you find it. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington, Dewey and Pershing

Pershing's title was "General of the Armies of the United States," not General of the Armies [1]. He held the same rank that Washington was eventually awarded. So I have put the three of them together in the same section. Richard75 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, gotcha, from here and his marker at Arlington it does confirm that Pershing had the GotAotUS "long title". Thanks for fixing that. But, by s:Public Law 94-479, Washington's GotAotUS is supposed to outrank all others. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I left Washington at the top of the list, but I am confused as well. It made sense when I thought his promotion was backdated to 1776 (according to some Wikipedia articles), but according to Wikisource and this website, as well as the page you found, it was only backdated to 4 July 1976. Maybe an Executive Order just overrides the normal rule of seniority by date of appointment. Meanwhile I am trying to find other sites with the text of the order, so I can straighten out the 1776/1976 problem. Richard75 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The resolution says "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington," not that no one may hold the same rank. The grade, not the man, was given "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army." All sources I can find, including the army's website, state that Pershing's and Washington's titles are the same. Therefore, I am combining them. Zoofroot 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I was researching different army ranks and this page has really confused me. My questions are:

• Why does the 4 star general table have "General of the Army/General" in the title? Isn't the 4 star "General" and the 5 star "General of the Army"? (http://www.goarmy.com/about/ranks_insignia_officer.jsp)
• Why are so few people listed in the 4 star table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.215.110 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Click on the link General of the Army in the section title to read the explanation. 2. Read the second sentence of the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert of Good Faith Edits

Just had to revert a fairly large expansion of the rank Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies to Civil War era officers. This appeared to be original research, as neither of these ranks existed during or immediately after the Civil War. While the 1866 version of "Full Admiral" and Grant's rank of "General of the Army of the United States" possibly carried the same authority, they were not the same ranks nor was there any attmept to ever appoint Sheridan, Farragut, or Porter posthumously to these ranks. To state otherwise would be original research, thus removal of the material. -OberRanks (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have elaborated a detailed explanation for the revisions related to the grade Admiral of the Navy at Talk:Admiral of the Navy (United States). It is reproduced here:

In making my alterations, I was very careful to avoid inclusion of original research. Each of the statements I introduced was referenced from a reputable published source (all from the late 19th or early 20th Century). That the grade was held three times was stated in "Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society for the Years 1915-1916" (1918); that it was held by David G. Farragut, David D. Porter, and George Dewey was asserted by Edward S. Ellis in "The Life Story of the Hero of Manila for Our Boys and Girls" (1899); that each officer ascended to the rank in the year given is also from Ellis; that Congress revived the rank on 2 March, 1903, and re-enacted it in identical terms the following day is taken nearly verbatim from the April 1, 1912 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (The actual relevant text reads: "The office of Admiral of the Navy was re-established by the act of March 2, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 995, chap. 378, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 981, re-enacted in identical terms by a portion of the naval appropriation act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 1045, chap. 421."; I included this in the reference note).

Under United States law, a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States can only be overridden by a later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. To date, the court has addressed the question of re-establishment only in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (though United States v. Steam Vessels of War Seaboard Texas Beaufort, Jan 15, 1883, includes the description "David D. Porter, now Admiral of the Navy"; his official reports were also entitled "Report of the Admiral of the Navy"). That decision supersedes all other declarations, including the several statements by senior Navy officials in the Congressional Record and elsewhere that Dewey's rank was superior.

I think this constitutes a very well-cited revision, and establishes clearly that the alterations to the article are not original research.

The rationale for the revisions related to the grade General of the Army of the United States has been discussed in detail at Talk:General of the Armies. In brief, the offices held by Pershing, Washington, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan are legally the same. The Judge Advocate General of the Army records (in various editions of Military Laws of the United States published between the 1890s and 1940s):

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 Comptroller General of the United States also ruled, in 1924, that the offices were legally one and the same:

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 historian Frederick Bernays Wiener, a prominent lawyer and retired Army colonel, also arrived at this conclusion. (More detailed information on all three of these sources is available at Talk:General of the Armies.

Brief outlines are also given in the footnotes of the current version of the article. (These outlines were also available before this updated list was reverted several weeks ago.)