Talk:General of the Army (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Basic Grammar: Do NOT capitalize ranks unless necessary!

Someone needs to go back to middle school and learn some basics here. I have corrected it before and it keeps getting switched back. Perhaps they need to read a simple AR on proper use of rank as well. Grades are NOT capitalized unless used as a title. For instance, "General Smith is coming," or "Colonel Smith ranks below Brigadier General Williams." Compare this to "The general is coming," or "The rank above colonel is brigadier general." Notice that ranks are only capitalized when used immediately before a name.

This needs to be fixed.

[edit] General of the Army of the United States

General of the Army of the United States is the full title of the military rank for Generals Ulysses S Grant, William T Sherman and Philip H Sheridan.

The Congress of the United States, by Act of 25 July 1866, appointed Grant to the office of General under the title of "General of the Army of the United States. Sherman succeded General Grant in the grade of General of the Army of the United States on 4 March 1869. By the Act of 1 June 1888 Sheridan was appointed General of the Army of the United States.

[edit] Modern usage

What is this talk about possibly apointing Colin Powell to a Five Star rank. What would be the point? Wouldn't it be essentially honorary. It would also go against the idea of the Chairman being first among equals, and would have one single individual with 5 stars, outranking all others, something not seen since the Civil War. - 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"In 1994 and 1995 there was some consideration by President Bill Clinton and his senior staff of nominating Colin Powell for the rank of General of the Army, but they decided against it because . . . Powell was then viewed as a possible Republican presidential canidate in the 1998 election."

I'm confused. There was no presidential election in 1998. Is this referring to the 1996 presidential election, or the 1998 congressional elections?

--68.41.122.213 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"In 1994 and 1995 there was some consideration by President Bill Clinton and his senior staff of nominating Colin Powell for the rank of General of the Army, but they decided against it because could not guarantee it would pass Congress and (probably more importantly) because General Powell was then viewed as a possible Republican presidential candidate in the 1996 election."

The nomination was considered mainly as a reward for his contributions in desert storm as well as for what's become known as the powell doctrine. George Stephanopoulos confirms that this was considered and rejected for the stated reasons in his memoir "All Too Human: A Political Education."

The problem with making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a 5-Star assignment is the same problem with confiring the same rank on the individual Chiefs of Staff. For your information, the Chief of Staff job has NEVER been made the absolute final assignment of the person who holds the job. Indeed, before World War II, most Chiefs of Staff went on to other assignments after the end of their statutary term of office. For example, McArthur was Chief of Staff in the 1930's, and went on to his Philippino assignments and his World War II and Korean War assignments. Pershing was the first Army Chief of Staff who retired from the job. Imagine someone today becoming Chief of Staff, or Chairman, getting promoted to GA, and then having to be demoted to GEN when he moves on to another assignment. Likewise, traditionally, the holder of the Chief Of Staff has been a holder of the rank of GEN prior to his appointment, but Army Regs state that any officer can hold a position that requires a rank superior to the one he holds if he is judged "promotable" to that rank. Several of the early Chiefs Of Staff were only Brigadier or Major Generals until they were appointed to the job, and then were promoted to Lieutenant General, or General when that became permanent. Since it is not Congress' intention to make GA a permanent rank, it would be hard to use it for a general temporary rank.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not argueing with your standpoint at all, I'm merely relating what I've read in Clinton Memoirs. AndyinMN 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian presidents

It is impossible that

the office of president cannot legally be filled by an active duty U.S. military officer

bcz nothing but a constitutional amendment can add any requirement for becoming president beyond those of the Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office. What the article should say in General of the Army (United States)#Modern usage, is that the law requires the inactivation of any active duty U.S. military officer who becomes president (and perhaps other offices?) and forbids calling the president to active duty -- in wording that reflects the relevant statute's specific provisions. (And that statute should be cited.)
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed this unless someone can cite the actual regulation...

Regulations concerning the rank of General of the Army state that any officer holding the position will remain on active duty for life. It was for this reason that Dwight Eisenhower resigned his commission to serve as President of the United States, since the president cannot legally serve as an active duty U.S. military officer.

Roadrunner 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cite http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/quick_links/military/ranks.html Not sure if it was because of "permanent active duty", but he definitely resigned in 1952 and was subsequently reinstated by JFK in 1961. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Bradley

Why was Bradley promoted to General of the Army in 1950? Was it kind of an honorary thing, or was it done because of the Korean War? Everyone else was promoted during WWII.Isaac Crumm 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Bradley was promoted when he replaced MacArthur in Korea. //67.183.110.58 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Bradley didn't replace MacArthur, that was Matthew Ridgway. Bradley was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Technically, MacArthur was answerable to him, so it made sense for Bradley to get a fifth star. Ridgway continued with four stars. J.T. Broderick 02:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Army

Well, remember that technically the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority. So this "first among equals" argument is baseless since he cannot exercise command. Remember, we did not have a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during or before WWII. Only when the Department of Defense was created did this come about.

As for this retirement issue, yes, many early chiefs of staff went on to other jobs. But in recent decades, all chiefs of staff and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have retired. None has gone on to other military assignments.

[edit] "Second highest rank"

This article describes General of the Army as the second-highest rank, implying that General of the Armies is higher, ie. a "six-star" rank. However there is no evidence that the GoArmies rank is a really a six-star rank (see the discussion in that article, and in its talk page for details). Should the ranks be regarded as being equal, but they just have different names, being created by different acts of Congress? (Pershing and Washington would still outrank everyone else because of seniority by date of appointment). I suggest the opening sentence of this article should be changed to reflect that, but I want to get a consensus first to avoid an edit war. Richard75 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have since changed my mind -- see Army vs Armies? below. Richard75 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army vs Armies?

Ok, based on this, I'm all confused about if they are really one rank with different names, or actualy different ranks.

As will be seen from the above, 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 theatres, 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, would be fruitless to inquire. from http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/armyorank/blgoa.htm
 — MrDolomite | Talk 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What the article seems to be saying is that Washington, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Pershing were all the same rank, and that the 5-star generals of WW2 were of a different rank:

It will be further noted that the temporary grade of General of the Army (five-star) established by Public Law 481, 78th Congress, approved 14 December 1944 and made permanent by Public Law 333, 79th Congress, approved 23 March 1946, did not revive any prior such grade and, therefore, the generals appointed under the provisions of these acts are in a separate category from Generals Washington, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Pershing.

It then goes on to say that the Army intended that the WW2 generals should not outrank Pershing and the others:

It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. In a press conference during September 1944, Secretary of War Henry Stimson commented: "I have advised Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action. This concurrence, however, is contingent on the understanding that a distinction will be made between the title conferred by the newly advanced rank and the title now accompanying the higher rank of General of the Armies held by General John J. Pershing." It is also interesting to not that Army Regulation 600-15 dated January 1945, and not rescinded until August 1945, listed the three top "grades of rank" in the descending order of General of the Armies, General of the Army, and General.

The 1944 Act of Congress, which you can read here, says that it does not affect the 1919 Act that promoted Pershing, or any other law relating to the rank of General of the Armies.

Then the 1976 congression resolution authorising President Ford to promote Washington to General of the Armies said: 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.

If I read all this right, then the List of United States military leaders by rank should have the Civil War generals above the WW2 generals. I still think that we should try to avoid using the term "six-star general," though, because no such insignia has ever been officially approved, and the term seems to attract such disdain from people who have actually served in the military (see above).Richard75 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just said that, even the US State Department and the National Archives websites call it a six-star rank, so maybe it's okay. Richard75 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article recreated from redirect

I have undone the revision which merely redirected this article to General (United States). They are NOT the same rank. And there is no problem leaving them as separate articles. If that was the case, then all military rank articles throughout should be merged into a single article. Um, no. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they are currently the same rank. The General (United States) article explains very clearly that the ranks are currently different. So it's not as if covering them both on the same article will cause people to think they're currently the same rank. But the history of the ranks is intertwined. The General (United States) article already covers all the information that is included in this article, so there's no need to have separate articles. Overlap should be minimized. This is not the same as saying that all military rank articles should be merged into a single article, because the history of all military ranks are not intertwined. It's just these few. For further discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. - Shaheenjim 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

"This rank is only used in time of war where the commanding officer must be equal or of higher rank than those commanding forces from other nations. The last officers to hold this rank served during and immediately following World War II"

Both of these sentences are untrue as Bradley got his fifth star in 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.222.30 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Korean War was going on when Bradley got his star. And that was closely following World War 2, which had only ended about five years before that. So I think it's ok, but I'll defer to other people about this. - Shaheenjim 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official rank names

Is there a difference between the rank "General of the Army of the United States" and the rank "General of the Army"? Was Grant's rank officially called "General of the Army of the United States" or just "General of the Army"? And was Eisenhower's rank officially called "General of the Army of the United States" or just "General of the Army"?

I'm sure that some people often use the two terms interchangeably, but I'm not sure that's correct. I think Grant's rank could only be given to one person at a time, and Eisenhower's rank could be given to multiple people at one time. I wonder if that difference was reflected by different titles? - Shaheenjim 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • For the Eisenhower-era rank, it is officially "General of the Army", per s:Public_Law_78-482 which enacted it. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. But is the difference in rank names significant? Is it really supposed to reflect a difference in the meaning of the rank? Or am I just making something out of nothing? - Shaheenjim 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for not Adopting the rank of Field Marshal

Ignoring the unlikely General Marshall story, stating that Field Marshal was seen as a "European Rank" is clearly speculative and without any logical foundation in the first place. Every other officer rank name existed in Europe first and it is more likely that equality would be sought as it had been by adopting the previuosly avoided rank of Admiral in the nineteenth century US Navy. It seems clear from records, and the posthumous promotions in grade, that the intent is that no general officer should outrank "General" George Washington hence would it not seem mopre plausible that this was the principle reason (although perhaps not the only one)? Dainamo (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The General Marshal story doesn't seem that unlikely to me. I wouldn't want to be called Marshal Marshal. It sounds dumb.
Also, the other officer rank names also came from Europe, but most of them have been in use for the entire history of the US. The fact that the US went for hundreds of years without a Field Marshal would explain why it would be seen as a European rank. It may be true that didn't stop them from adopting the Admiral rank, so they'd be inconsistent there, but the government is inconsistent about a lot of things, so that's not really all that surprising.
Also, even if they didn't want anyone to outrank Washington, they could've just posthumously promoted Washington to Field Marshal.
In any case, you might be right that the reason was related to Washington. But could you cite the records that say that? - Shaheenjim (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenhower

The article implies that Kennedy made Eisenhower a General of the Army. Perhaps this is inadvertent. Eisenhower actually attained the rank during World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)