Talk:General of the Armies/Archive 1

image

Question has been raised regarding the image on this page. The Institute of Heraldry published this image and there are corresponding documents from 1945 that this was the suggested insignia if the rank had ever been reestablished. Documents from the National Archives (of which I am an employed historian) support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 May 2004

Then you will presumably have no problem providing a cite to the relevant documents in the National Archives? -- The Anome 08:52, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas MacArthur

The documents from General MacArthur's service record, discussing six star rank, are in St. Louis, Missouri. They can be requested under the Freedom of Information but you would have more luck going to College Park, Maryland which has extensive material on both Chester Nimitz and Douglas MacArthur and the proposal for a six star rank during the Second World War. The image which is apparently such a controversy was published by the Institute of Heraldry some years ago. Its no longer on thier website since, as stated in the article, it was a conjectural insignia and was never made official.

The websites for the National Archives are:

http://www.archives.gov/facilities/md/archives_2.html

http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records.html

You can also call 314-801-0800 which is the customer service number for St. Louis

US Grant

The General of the Armies
Said "I think that war is barmy"
So he threw away his gun
Now he's having lots more fun

Wasn't US Grant made a six star as General of the Armies during the Civil War? Tomtom 1509est 15 June 2004

He was made General of the Army which was considered a title. His actual rank was Lieutenant General -User:Husnock 15 Jul 2004

And even that was controversial; Grant was the first lieutenant general since Washington. But the intent was the same: to make it official that he outranked everyone else in the Army. But

"By order of senority, it was decided that General Pershing (still living when the rank of General of the Army was created in 1944) would be senior to all the newly appointed General of the Army officers. Thus, Pershing has become considered a six-star general in that he was superior to all five-star generals."

doesn't follow -- Pershing could have been considered a five-star and he'd still have had 25 years' seniority over all the WWII five-stars.

True, but being a rank higher would be more of a symbolic gesture.

--wwoods 03:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Washington's Rank

"The appointment was not considered a promotion to six star general, but rather a symbolic promotion that made Washington the senior United States military officer. By Presidential Decree of President Gerald Ford, it was proclaimed that George Washington would always remain senior and could never be outranked by another officer of the U.S. military."

I have trouble understanding the above excerpt from the article. If the promotion was merely "symbolic" then Washington's actual rank would be Lt General. Then the statement "could never be outranked by another officer of the U.S. military" would be false because there have been many generals higher than Lt General.

Didn't President Ford have the authority to promote officers? If so and if nobody has legally challenged the promotion, then woudn't it make Washington's promotion to "General of the Armies" legal( or official or at least de facto). Or did President Ford state that he intended the promotion to be merely "symbolic"?

The Bill promoting Washington to General of the Armies was very lengthy and a part of the tremendous celebrations that were occurring in 1976 as part of the bicentennial. Washington is regarded actually as three ranks. 1) Commander-in-Chief from the Revolutionary War, 2)Major General from his recall during the French-Quasi War, and 3)General of the Armies posthumously promoted in 1976. So, if you get technical, his rank is General of the Armies since thats the last one he held, albeit after he was dead. The thing about him being senior to every other officer was part of the bill promoting him, giving Washington the honor of beocming the senior most officer of the US military, past present and future. -Husnock 07:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proper Name

Is the rank "General of the Armies" or is it "General of the Armies of the United States" ? -unsigned 30Oct05

It is referred to in general usage as General of the Armies. The full title of the rank is General of the Armies of the United States. The article reflects this in the opening paragraph. -Husnock 07:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt washington first?

he is the more importnat of the 2 if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.203.108 (talk • contribs) 10:23, April 1, 2006 (UTC)

He may have been the more important, but did not achieve the rank until after Pershing, poshumosly in 1976 by President Ford --rogerd 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generals of the Army?

Shouldn't the plural of "General of the Army" be "Generals of the Army"? All other titles containing multiple words (i.e. Secretary of Defense, Chief of Police) are plurilized this way (i.e. Secretaries of Defense, Chiefs of Police). "General of the Armies" would seem to be the appropriate pluralization if it reffered to a general of more than one army, wihch it does not.

It does refer to more than one army in the grammatical sense, but we shouldn't get to technical about it all -in any event, it doesn't refer to more than one general - Washington was not a "Generals of the Army" as there was only one of him, but when refering to the seperate rank of General of the Army it would be proper to speak in the plural, like "MacArthur and Eisenhower were both Generals of the Army". - Matthew238 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General of the Armies refers to the fact that the United States Army consists of several Armies, i.e. U.S. First Army, U.S. Third Army, U.S. Fifth Army, etc. Theoretically each of these might be commanded by a General of the Army, and the commander of the entire United States Army would be commanded by the General of the Armies. Since 1903, we have had the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, which was only filled by someone holding the General of the Armies rank, Pershing from 1921 to 1924. Before 1903, the senior officer was the Commanding General of the United States Army, which was never filled by someone holding the General of the Armies rank. Does this clear it up? --rogerd 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington's Executive Order

Does anyone know which executive order was mentioned in the article (or better, the source that mentions it!) of Ford making Washington most senior in the military (From the article: "By executive order of President Gerald Ford, it was also determined that George Washington would always remain senior and could never be outranked by any other officer of the U.S. military."). Thanks! –Pakman044 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second this question. The wikipedia has comments about "Department of the Army Special Order Number 31-3 of March 13, 1978, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1776" on both the George_Washington and General_of_the_Armies pages but Public Law 94-479 states "such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976." I'm unable to find a reference to "Army Special Order Number 31-3" other than on the wikipedia and sites that seem to be extracting from or mirroring the wikipedia.

As the text of Army Special Order Number 31-3 does not seem to be available (and may not exist at all) I changed 1776 to 1976 as that's in line with what Public Law 94-479 states. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - as I was reviewing the text after changing from 1776 to 1976 I realized it would be simpler to not mention special order 31-3 until this data can be properly sourced. As the removed text will no doubt get buried in the edit-history here it is.

, and formalized in Department of the Army Special Order Number 31-3 of August 13, 1978, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1776. The appointment confirmed George Washington as the most-senior United States military officer - more senior than Pershing because the date of Washington's posthumous commission predates Pershing by 143 years, but still subordinate in authority to the Commander in Chief. By normal US Military policy and precedent, no person may be elevated in seniority before their original date of appointment or enlistment.

Here is the original text from George_Washington's page which can be edited/restored once special order 31-3 is sourced.

Making up for lost time, and to maintain George Washington's proper 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 the congressional joint resolution s:Public Law 94-479 on January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976, and formalized in Department of the Army Special Order Number 31-3 of March 13, 1978, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1976.

Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: as an update on this - I found a reference to "Army Order Number 31-3" (it's not "Army Special Order Number 31-3") on http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/cg&csa/Washington-G2.htm and have contacted the people at that site about getting a copy of the order as searches for things related to order 31-3 only seem to find Wikipedpia articles. I also tried to track down if there is such a thing as an "Army Order" without luck and am also thinking this business of permanently ranking George Washington above everyone else may only apply to the U.S. Army and not to the U.S. armed forces as a whole. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text from article

Since George Washington is considered to be the most senior army officer, permanently outranking all other army officers, it could be infered that his rank is that of a six star general since the rank of a five star general has already been established.

I removed this because this can't really be "inferred" from anything. Why would we infer six stars in particular? Why not a billion? Why not five gold stars instead of five silver stars? This statement is meaningless and adds little to the article. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General of the Armies Is Not A Rank

General of the Armies is not a rank, it is an honorary title. I served in the military -- in the US Army -- and have been reading military history for over 40 years, and never until I came across the Wikipedia, was this ever given an inkling of consideration, including during the Bicentennial. This is like a child's writing -- six star general! Give me a break. It's fun, but to put in that it is a "rank" is ludicrous. -unsigned anon user

See below. Its a well established rank and has been held by two people. -Husnock 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Such Rank or Grade

There is no "Rank" or "Grade" of six star General of the Armies or Admiral of the Navy. Try a hitch in the service: you will not find this information in any military publication. That is because there is nothing outside of the minds of Wikepedians that holds that there is such a rank or grade.

I've seen these discussions morph from some pleasant speculation about the possibility of there being a six-star rank to something akin to a papal bull: THERE IS A RANK HIGHER THAN FIVE-STAR GENERAL/ADMIRAL. Outside of the Wikipedia dogma, there is no such thing. These were honorary titles. It makes Wikipedia look, frankly, ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.144.0.66 (talk • contribs) 15:53, September 25, 2006 (UTC)

That rank does not currently exist, but did in the past. See http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-5m.htm from an official Navy web site. Also, the promotions of Pershing and Washington (posthumously) were acts of congress which can be verified via congressional web sites. --rogerd 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole of the article cited above, and all it says on the question is:

"As to the question of Pershing being a six-star general, there can be no answer unless Congress creates the General of the Armies rank again and specifies the insignia. Pershing does rank ahead of the Five-star Generals, he comes right after Washington, but he chose his own insignia and he never wore more than four stars."

We should remove all references to "six stars" and just say that Washington, Pershing and Dewey rank ahead of everyone else and leave it at that. Richard75 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Six Stars" - I agree. There has not now nor has there ever been a six-star insignia. There has, however, been discussion in Washington of a six-star rank, so it's worth describing here.[1] Rklawton 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have left in all of the discussion of six stars, but made it less dogmatic to conform with NPOV policy. Richard75 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Rklawton 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur

When MacArthur was proposed for the rank in 1955, Eisenhower, who had been outranked by him during their time as serving five-star generals due to MacArthur's having been appointed to the rank two days earlier, was the sitting President. For constitutional reasons, he could not have been promoted to the rank, had Congress been willing.

What were these constitutional reasons? --VAcharon 08:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's in the legislation creating General of the Armies. The legislation specifies that these ranks would never again be used. Rklawton 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not a matter of "constitutional reasons," simply statutory reasons? Was there anything preventing Congress from passing another General of the Armies bill appointing MacArthur to that rank? Is there any place on the web I can read the legislation in question? (I no longer have access to a law library or depository library, unfortunately.) --VAcharon 20:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Ranks

There are actually three ranks (well, maybe 2½) being discussed here, and the main difference is whether or not the office has authority over the Navy. Search the .gov websites for accurate information and read the actual ranks used in official documents (not speeches).

"General of the Army" has superior command over the United States Army only (ground based forces). Ulysses S. Grant's official title was "General of the Army", which he actively commanded. Grant did not officially command the Navy. This makes sense, because it was difficult for an officer to command the Navy from land because of the immense impracticality of communications. During the Civil War, the Navy was under the command of a succession of Rear Admirals, although when the Army and Navy engaged in a few joint operations, Grant did write the battle plans.
"General of the Armies" has superior command over all land, sea, and air military forces. While this title was held by Pershing, it was awarded while he was inactive and as such was seen as symbolic.
The superior "General of the Armies of the United States" is the official title granted both by law and by Executive Order to George Washington. Since he may never be outranked, it makes sense that he hold a unnique title. Washington had actively held the official title "General and Commander in Chief" [2]. Both GOTAOTUS and GACIC are one-of-a-kind titles. Washington had no civilian Commander-in-Chief superior to him; although he was to take his orders from Congress, he was "hereby vested with full power and authority to act as you shall think for the good and welfare of the service", a flexibility that would be scary today. The solid reality is solidified in that the Continental Army and fledgling Navy would not respect command from Congress. Although the same impracticality of communications existed between the land and sea as later during the Civil War, both army and sailors considered Washington to be the supreme military commander regardless of anything that came out of Congress.

--Corwin8 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something could be added about all that. There is already a separate page, General of the Army (United States), which this page is not technically talking about. - Matthew238 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search of dot gov for "General of the Armies of the United States" [3] seems to indicate that Pershing held this title. What confuses me is Public Law 94-479 which says "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." The implication there is that General of the Armies of the United States is a new title it it would only be held by George Washington so that "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list." So this is only about the U.S. Army and not all of the armed forces? What's been written here about "General of the Army", "General of the Armies" and "General of the Armies of the United States" makes perfect sense but I'm having a hard time tracing this to the text of the law. This page, http://www.army.mil/cmh/faq/FAQ-5star.htm, is interesting reading on the subject. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backdating George Washinton's appointment to 1776

Today the text "...congressional joint resolution s:Public Law 94-479 January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald R. Ford on October 11, 1976, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1976" was edited to change the effective appointment date to 1776. The s:Public Law 94-479 made the appointment effective 1976. There may be a back dating to 1776 in that the Wikipedia used to cite Army Order 31-1 that apparently gives Washington a rank effective 1776. I e-mailed the Army last week about getting a copy of Order 31-1 as what was said in Wikipedia about this order conflicts with the desires of the U.S. Congress. Today I got this response back:

From: CMH Answers at http://www.hqda.army.mil (Address mangled a little as a despam tactic)

Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:38 PM

To: 'Marc Kupper'

Subject: RE: Army Order Number 31-3 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Dear Mr. Kupper,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding an Army order.

Unfortunately, this is not one of the orders we have online and do not know

which Army organization published it. We would also like to advise you that

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Anyone can put anything

on this public website. No one seems to monitor or update the specific

entries. We are familiar with President Gerald Ford signing a law that

placed General Washington as the senior five-star general for the nation.

Other than that, we are not sure what order was implemented to make this

happen.

Sincerely,

Gary

Dr. Gary A. Trogdon

Chief, Public Inquiries Section

U.S. Army Center of Military History

103 Third Ave, Collins Hall

Fort McNair, D.C. 20319-5058

I still have an interest in tracking down Army Order 31-3 but in the mean time feel that the date of George Washington's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be 1976 as that date is citable. At present the only "official" reference to this order seems to be http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/cg&csa/Washington-G2.htm. The problem I have with this is that I suspect whoever did this web page copied the info from wikipdedia as I have been able to locate zero references to the order other than the wikipedia and it's mirrors. I have also not been able to track down that there is such an animal as an "Army Order" or "Army Special Order" much less that they get numbered with things like 31-1.

Another issue is that "General of the Armies of the Unites States" is supposed to be about all military services and I would assume a U.S. Army order would only apply to that branch of the military. Thus if a copy of Order 31-3 shows up I could see adding something to the main page that says "The U.S. Army recognizes...." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - From http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/cg&csa/Washington-G2.htm I clicked on "Table of Contents" and found http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/cg&csa/CG-TOC.htm - The web site apparently has a copy of a book written in 1983 meaning that the contents of the web page probably was not copied from wikipedia (unless the Army has a time warp device). With that in mind I'll think about a revision to the main page that references Order 31-3 but would also include a note that this applies to the U.S. Army. For the most part I'd be copy/pasting text directly from the book (with attribution plus it's a U.S. Government publication meaning copyright should not be an issue) rather than trying to get creative on just what Order 31-3 means. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Clue for Army Order 31-3

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-3931(197812)42%3A4%3C202%3AAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

"Promotion of George Washington: Secretary of the Army Clif- ford L. Alexander, Jr., signed Department of the Army Order Number 31-3 on 13 March 1978, ..."

JSTOR wants $12 for the text of the article, you'd think the Army would have had it. Anyone have access to JSTOR who can lend a hand? — MrDolomite • Talk 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've put out a couple of requests at likely places where I could view the article. The one sentence synopsis was helpful in that it stated that it's "Department of the Army Order Number 31-3" and not a "Special Order" or some other name though it's a little disturbing that Google for "Department of the Army Order Number" returns four pages that are essentially this topic and one(!) other page, http://boards.law.af.mil/ARMY/BCMR/CY1998/11000-12999/9811319.rtf, that's looks like the results of a military hearing though the good news was the Order # was about an officer's promotion implying these are the things that are used as part of the promotion process. The implication though is that the phrase wording is not quite correct. "Department of the Army Order No." returns two pages (both about the same thing). Shortening it to "Department of the Army Order" locates 143 pages. It's not the thousands I was hoping for but presumably we are on the right track in terms of the wording. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this website, http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/index.html, which has sections for DA General Orders and others. Maybe it is in there, or we can contact them for assistance. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it interesting that http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/index.html skips over section 31 which I believe covers officer promotions. I have determined that the Military Affairs article that’s available via JSTOR is a general purpose column that announces a long list of promotions. It’s possible the part about George Washington is only one or two sentences and so far it looks like it would cost me at least $5 for an inter-library loan (plus other unknown costs…) to see the article. I’ll keep looking for this but in the mean time there is some good news in that I got an e-mail today from Dr. Trogdon of the U.S. Army Center for Military History, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/ who says his assistant has located a copy of the order put out by the Secretary of the Army (I assume he means Order # 31-3). It was at the National Archives (NARA) and he is postal-mailing it to me. I then used NARA's search functions without success to see if I could locate this myself and so am I'm hoping the postal mailed copy will come with NARA's indexing data so that I can cite that when I post a scan of this order on the wikipedia plus perhaps I can then persuade the Army ePubs people to add section 31 with at least 31-3 which can then be cited. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Order arrived in the mail today. I unplugged my scanner this morning to deal with a conflict issue with a USB hard drive but once that's fixed I'll scan it in. It reads

                          Department of the Army
                          Washington, D.C. 30310

ORDERS 31-3                                             13 March 1978


The following officer is promoted posthumously in the Regular Army of
the Unites States as indicated.

Authority: Joint Resolution of Congress dated 19 January 1976, approved
by the President of the Unites States on 11 October 1976.

                                    Grade                    Effective
Name, Branch                     promoted to                   date
------------                     -----------                 ---------
Washington, George, USA         General of the Armies       4 July 1976
                                of the Unites States

BY DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT:
                            Clifford L. Alexander, Jr. (signature)
                            Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.
                            Secretary of the Army

I'm happy to see this as it had bothered me that the promotion was originally reported as being backdated to 1776 which conflicts with what Congress and the President had authorized. There are three other pages, the first is a cover sheet which I'll scan in and the second is a three page document titled Index to Army Records for Researchers. Google for that phrase finds http://www.sauruspress.com/archive/Index_to_Army_Records_for_Researchers_Dec2006.pdf which is the March 2006 version (despite the Dec-2006 in the URL) and what was sent to me was the February 2007 version of the list. It's not clear who maintains this index though I'd guess it's the Center for Military History. There seem to be similar lists at

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/records.htm (this seems to be nearly all of the first two of the three pages)
http://www.archives.gov/research/order/vets-records.html
http://fortdouglas.org/milrecords.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nynassau/nara.html

I need to think about how I want to deal with this list. Ideally, the CMH would keep the last version available on their web site. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I've added it to wikisource at s:Order 31-3 as well. It was great to see it had the 1976 effective date and the "...Armies of the United States" rank title, both of which are perennial discussions. It would be great to come up with Pershing's. — MrDolomite • Talk 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MrDolomite - The pile on my poor desk finally exploded and tonight I was able to scan in the original order. I just realized that I'm not sure what to do with it. Presumably it's "source data." I'd never even heard of the wikisource thing you used and as it's late I'll upload the things to wikipedia for now and you can move the images or I'll figure out wikisource in a couple of days when I should have break. I cropped these images to strip off the blank area at the bottom of each page plus removed a page outline on the right edge as it looks like it was photocopied at NARA, faxed to CMH, and photocopied again, and postal mailed to me. If you want an uncropped scan or different resolution then please send me a note. I scanned/uploaded at 300dpi as I've had good luck with e-mailing that resolution to others and having them print a decent copy. Obviously we could crop like mad and hack it down to 75dpi. I'll see what I can learn about Pershing's promotion.
- Image thumb|left|Cover Letter for Orders 31-1
- Image thumb|none|Orders 31-1

Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing's official title and promotion order

I got curious about the recent anonymous edits by 213.65.194.57 - There are four edits that seemed reasonable (other than the person did not seem familiar with wiki protocol) that added some useful date about Pershing's title and promotion but the edits still bothered me a little.

21:55, 28 April 2007 213.65.194.57 - Added large chunk of text to the top of the talk page. This turns out to be copy/pasted from http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/armyorank/blgoa.htm which is a commercial site I have deleted the first part as it's a copyright violation. I have copy/pasted the second part here as it'll need more research to see if it's valid and to source it. It's supposed to be the text of Public Law 45 from 3 September 1919 about the title "General of the Armies of the United States" and presumably it's also about Pershing though he's not mentioned by name.

"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 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 provisions of the 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."

22:00, 28 April 2007 213.65.194.57 - Added source/attribution "(Arlington National Cemetery Website)" to the text added earlier to the talk page. The source was about.com site. Arlington National Cemetery's website is www.arlingtoncemetery.org but it looks like there's only one page that's relevant to the General of the Armies issue. The page http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historical_information/five_star_officers.html has the following text:

Note: only two Americans were awarded a rank above five stars:

Gen. of the Armies John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, Arlington National Cemetery; and
Gen. of the Armies George Washington, Mount Vernon, Virginia (President Washington's was awarded retroactively).

It's unfortunate the page uses abbreviated titles and also does not use Washington's official title of "General of the Armies of the Unites States." I'll assume the author of this page does not know the full titles.

10:02, 29 April 2007 213.65.194.57 - Edit to main page to expand Pershing's title from "General of the Armies" to "General of the Armies of the United States". This edit is fine with me for now as the title with "of the United States" does seem to exist though I see that the shorter title is still used lower down in the page and the page may need to be moved as it's using the shorter name.

10:07, 29 April 2007 213.65.194.57 - Edit to main page to source Pershing's promotion as ", Act of US Congress of 3 September 1919 (Public Law 45)." That is pretty useful to know. The date seems accurate. I'm bothered by "Public Law 45" as about.com seems to be the only source of that data and is the only site that has a copy of this law. Hopefully it can be dug up in the U.S. national archives.

Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing's promotion order - See JSTOR link[ http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718(199310)57%3A5%3C27%3ATAMATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R]] From google search on "Public Law 45" JSTOR: The American Military and the Principle of Civilian Control ... After the war, on 3 September 1919, he became General of the Armies of the United States; ... 338-41, particularly 338; Public Law 99-433, 99th Congress, ... — MrDolomite • Talk 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in chief

I removed the following comment made by User:IRelayer on April 3[4] to answer the question here.

"Don't all presidents "actively command with complete authority all branches of military forces of the United States" or am I missing something...unless National Guard is counted, then only if they are federalized...correct/incorrect?"

The US Constitution gives the President command of all military forces. When George Washington was the commander in chief of the continental army the constitution wasn't written yet. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Six-Star image

From time to time people add the conjectural design that's to the right of this talk-section to the main General of the Armies article. I believe this image was conjecture on the part of a wikipedia editor and the image not based on an official image or it's description from the U.S. Government.

The article also has a section on the Insignia which says

In 1945, the Institute of Heraldry prepared a conjectural insignia which would have incorporated a sixth star into the five-star design of General of the Army. As no proposal to appoint a new General of the Armies was ever firmly developed, the United States Army has never officially approved a six-star general insignia.

I've often wondered if this section is true. The Institute of Heraldry web site only mentions General of the Armies once [5] where it says

The title of General of the Armies was established after World War I. No special insignia was developed and General Pershing wore four stars. He was the only person appointed as General of the Armies.

The text that this page was based on must have been created before 1976 when Washington was appointed. I'd imagine though that the original source text was done after 1945. My point here is that there's nothing about six-stars, conjectural designs, etc. The Institute of Heraldry is working through a large backlog [6] and it's possible there were six-star proposals. I'm undecided though if the best people to contact for a source/citation on if there ever were six-stars would be the Institute of Heraldry itself or the United States Army Center of Military History. Another avenue is that I live near a large public library and will ask the reference librarian if there's a way to search newspaper and/or magazine articles from ~1944/1945 about six-star generals. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source

The image is printed on a letter that it is in the service record of Douglas MacArthur. I believe 314-801-0850 is the number to verify (Archival Records Branch at NPRC). I was there about two years ago and saw the famous letter myself. It is part of a very large package that was put together in 1945 when the War Department was talking about promoting MacArthur to 6 star. An in-line citation would do nicely, but I haven't figured out how to write those on Wikipedia yet. -OberRanks 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you OberRanks - I did a minor edit to what you added to use <ref> to flag the source reference you added. Hopefully someone who lives in the Overland / St. St. Louis, Mo. area can drop by the The National Personnel Records Center as presumably MacArthur's record is a fat one and also available as an archival record. I'm also going to add this talk thread to the talk page for the image itself as the image is used by several pages on the Wikipedia. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of rearranging

Note that I rearranged the article. - Shaheenjim 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I did not like the edits as I felt it was a more interesting article before where it started out with two rather interesting historical figures before getting into the details and other minutia. I'm fine with the new layout though did not look into all of the changes to see what material was added/removed.

One problem I do have with the new layout is that it starts out with "Rank's Origin" and that may be inaccurate. See the CMH page [7] where it seems "General of the Armies" existed as early as 1800 or 119 years before Pershing was appointed. The CMH page is confusing though it seems there was talk of appointing someone, presumably George Washington, to General of the Armies in preparation for a war with France. Note - the previous version of the article did not have a section on the rank's origin and so it was a moot point. What does need more research is the rank's origin as the CMH page only talks about suspending appointments to the the rank in 1800 but does not discuss when or why the rank was created. Thus if you are going to have a section on the rank's origin, and particularly as it's the very first section of the article, it needs to be researched. In the past we swept the fact that we don't know the rank's origin under the rug by not mentioning it.

To add to the origin confusion is that the General of the Armies section on Washington mentions his appointment to Lieutenant General as part of the war with France. Thus why does the CMH page talk about General of the Armies?

I believe better for for now to just discuss the actual appointments to the rank (something that we do have accurate/reliable citations for) and to add a note here on the talk page that the origin needs to be researched. With that in mind I changed the section header name of the first section from "Rank's Origin" to "John Pershing." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That change is fine with me. Also note that even before I made my edits, the article dealt with some of the minutia before it got to Washington. I just combined sections that dealt with the same thing, and made them their own sections, rather than subsections of something else. - Shaheenjim 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about sources

Note that I made some changes to the article. Place comments about lack of sources here. - Shaheenjim 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would help if we could cite the original speculation by congress, the military, etc. involving the six-star rank. It is unfortunate that the largest sections of the current General of the Armies article is the one on "Six-Star Rank?" and it currently has no citations/references. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the article lists several sources for its information: A quotation from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. Letters between MacArthur advocates and government officials attempting to obtain the six-star promotion at the MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk. And a congressional record appendix from February 1962 (pages A864-A865). It just doesn't list another website that is easily verifiable. - Shaheenjim 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen those and they would be a good start for digging up the data. For example, we have no idea of when or where the Henry L. Stimson statement was made. The MacArthur letters seem easier to track down and the congressional record appendix seems easiest of them all. Ideally the source data eventually becomes available and added to wikisource. I'm just concerned that things get bandied about over the years and articles about a subject can drift away from accuracy. For example, for a while the General of the Armies article said that George Washington's effective promotion date was July 4, 1776. The article cited source materials and all that and once those were dug up we were able to verify that the correct effective promotion date was July 4, 1976. I suspect part of the problem with Wikipedia is that at times people have contributed by copying from a from copyright reference and so were somewhat coy about the source of the data and now we are left with teasing out what's correct/factual data and what should be removed or revised. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the promotion order in 1976 was backdated to 1776 to make GW the senior most officer of all times...I think... -OberRanks 14:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The backdating to 1776 turned out to be entirely speculation (or possibly vandalism) on Wikipedia. Public Law 94-479 is a copy of the public law enacted by Congress and Orders 31-3 (plus cover letter) is a copy of the actual U.S. Army promotion order that resulted from this public law. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't they trying to make Washington the most senior general ever? If his promotion took effect after Pershing's, it seems like Pershing would be the senior general. - Shaheenjim 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That part has been a puzzle with me. Public Law 94-479 seems clear enough when it says "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list" and "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." Both the public law and the Army promotion order have the promotion taking affect on July 4, 1976. There is an earlier/similar situation where Pershing was a four-star general though also a General of the Armies. During WWII five-star generals were created and yet Pershing outranked them by virtue of Congressional action and Army Regulations governing rank and precedence, until his death on July 15, 1948 [8].

An edit of the General of the Armies article that seems supportable is to put the section about Washington first and to support this with an explanation that although Pershing was promoted to the rank first Washington "outranks" Pershing based on the text of Public Law 94-479 promoting Washington which states "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the order the way it is now. A chronological listing, where Washington's section is after Pershing's, helps people to understand how the thinking about the rank evolved. Which is good, since the thinking has changed over time. (First it was a 4 star rank, then it was a 5 star rank, then it was considered for a 6 star rank.) For chronological order's sake, I actually also think that it's good to have the Insignia and 6 Star Rank sections in between Pershing and Washington, since they deal with MacArthur, who was between Pershing and Washington's promotion.

Anyway, if the law said that no one should outrank Washington, it sounds to me like that leaves open the possibility that other people could tie him for the same rank. Even that other people could have the same rank as him, and have it take effect earlier for them than it did for Washington. Although that is contradicted by the sentence in the article that says, "The rank ensures that George Washington will always be the most senior United States military officer, forever outranking all other military officers." Maybe that's an overstatement, and I should change it to say, "The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington." What do you think? - Shaheenjim 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington" sounds great to me and it's definitely better than the current text. Your comments about the order make sense too. I just looked at the references list and got depressed as they all reference "six-star generals." I thought we buried that one. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I changed that line. And I added a section below to the talk page telling people that I changed it. - Shaheenjim 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review of my edit

I added the following two passages to this article: "Some people have interpreted General Pershing's seniority to five-star generals to mean that General of the Armies is a six-star rank. However, it could alternatively be said that General of the Armies is a five-star rank, and Pershing's seniority is merely a result of the fact that he achieved his rank earlier than the other five-star generals."

"However, it has been speculated that if the United States ever created a six-star rank, it might be called General of the Armies."

I'm not an expert, but they seemed like an accurate reflection of some of the discussion I've seen elsewhere. I think they help to clarify the issue. But feel free to delete or correct my additions if they're wrong. - Shaheenjim 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to speculate, but not on wikipedia. We shouldn't insert opinion or speculation. If you have an Army or DOD publication or web page that says so, go ahead and include it. If you don't, then it shouldn't be here. See WP:NOR --rogerd 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify what I did. I didn't add speculation of my own. My edit just clarified speculation that was already in the article. Also, justification for some of the things in my edit are provided in the sentences that follow them in the article. - Shaheenjim 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority of George Washington

The article used to say, "The rank ensures that George Washington will always be the most senior United States military officer, forever outranking all other military officers." But I don't think that's true. He only ties General Pershing's rank; he doesn't outrank him. I think Pershing's promotion to General of the Armies of the United States even took effect earlier than Washington's promotion (which I think took effect on July 4, 1976, despite some allegations that it took effect in 1776). So I changed that line to, "The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington." Feel free to change it back if you think it was right before. But don't change it unless you're sure. - Shaheenjim 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States military tradition says GW outranks every officer. A hard core source is the book "Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff" which quite firmly says that George Washington is the senior United States officer of the entire U.S. armed forces for all time without exception. General Pershing has never been considered to equal Washington in any way shape or form. -OberRanks 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis does the book make that statement? If Pershing and Washington have the same rank, it seems like they would be equal, and Washington wouldn't outrank Pershing. - Shaheenjim 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is an official publication of the United States Army and therefore can be considered a primary source when it speaks of seniority in the Army. The rank is also mentioned in several biographies of George Washington which give reference to his seniority as well as in a number of ROTC textbooks. I'll find a couple of more titles (I plan to rewrite the bulk of this article in a few weeks when I can find a chance and clear up some of this confusion). -OberRanks 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the book says he has seniority. I'm just asking: *Why* does he have seniority? What is the basis of it? How did the book's author determine that he has seniority? - Shaheenjim 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it has something to do with the senority/linear number senority list used by the Army of the United States Retired Officer Rolls which would recognize George Washington as being senior to every other United States officer. Beyond that, I guess you would need to contact the United States Army if you needed a more detailed explanation. For the purposes of this article, though, using "Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff" as a primary source should be more than enough to justify the statement. And, like I said, I intend to rewrite the article and add more sources in a few weeks. -OberRanks 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the senority/linear number senority list is. What do you have to say about this, Marc Kupper? - Shaheenjim 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get in a multi-page discussion, let's clarify what exactly your asking here. Are you saying you don't personally agree with the source? If so, thats an invalid argument since a publication by the United States Army would be considered acceptable by Wikipedia as a primary and valid source. As far you wanting to know why the United States military declared Washington the senior most officer, that's a very lenghy answer and outside the scope of this article. The simply point of the fact is...they did. -OberRanks 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the US Army published something that said that 2+2=5, would you consider that to be valid and indisputable too? I haven't decided yet whether or not I should dispute the source. But I certainly haven't accepted it yet. - Shaheenjim 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how its a major publication of the Center for Military History, and used as a reference text by the National Archives of the United States, you would be alone in your view that it is a source to be disputed. And I doubt that a statement that George Washington, the first President of the United States and Commanding General of the American Revolution, is the senior-most officer of the military can be compared to "2+2=5". But, if thats what you're saying, you're welcome to your opinion. Like i said, in a few weeks when I have some time, i will try and rewrite this thing and add far more sources than the one we are discussing. Until then, best. -OberRanks 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Research

Oops - I've been really busy at work this week. My main "source" for GW rank relative to others is Public Law 94-479 which promoted Washington to General of the Armies. The U.S. military follows congressional directives and the directives that seem relevant are:

Whereas it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list
... 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.

I interpreted that as

No one should outrank Washington - that does not mean that someone can have equal rank.
General of the Armies has rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present. This is not specific to George Washington but rather is about the rank "General of the Armies" and thus applies to everyone who has been or may be awarded this rank.

OberRanks, fortunately, Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff is available on line [9]. Could you please point me to where it says "George Washington is the senior United States officer of the entire U.S. armed forces for all time without exception. General Pershing has never been considered to equal Washington in any way shape or form?" There's a page [10] that mentions his promotion to General of the Armies but there's nothing about how this affected his rank relative to others. It's important to find a specific citation as George Washington having precedence over all other others would seem to contradict congressional desires and law.

Also, I've looked several times at sites such as http://www.army.mil/leaders/ in vain for official Army sources on a rank structure that includes figures such as George Washington. For example, this search [11] finds 13 pages and not a single one of them mentions George Washington's rank relative to others. If it is United States military tradition that "GW outranks every officer" then either I have no idea of what words/phrases to search for or it's not a publicly acknowledged tradition. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a couple more searches

On the www.army.mil site's search "most senior" "George Washington" - this found 12 pages - none of which supported that GW had any sort of rank, much less the most senior, in the Army.
I did a search for "history" to see what the Army says about GW as he would have been it's first Commander in Chief of the official Army. http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH-V1/ is AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY (written in 2004)
- Page 64 has a sidebar on "GEORGE WASHINGTON AS MILITARY COMMANDER" but does not mention General of the Armies nor any recognition of his rank/seniority.
- As volume 1 covered 1775 to 1917 I went to volume II, http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH-V2/, to see if GW gets mentioned but that turned out to not be the case. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen the famous internet version. It is actually very good, but the hardcopy book that originally came out had a bit more in it; I think the whole George Washington seniority thing was covered in an essay. The First Edition that I saw was in the Military Records Branch at the National Archives in St. Louis. I don’t have ready access to that, but as I said above, I’ll rewrite this guy in a few weeks and add more sources and clear up the confusion. Speaking with 22 years of military history work behind me, I can say for certain that no one in the U.S. military establishment views anyone as being senior or equal in rank to George Washington. But, yes, we need a source, so I will find one. I’m sure there are dozens out there; I know for certain that a number of ROTC instruction textbooks speak on the issue as do some texts at West Point.

One of my main concerns up above was not so much about the source and material, but that the other user was saying even if we did have a source he wouldn’t personally accept it, asking for a detailed description of why the Army made such a determination and saying that some sources can be viewed as “2+2=5”. I hope that doesn’t come up again since a source is a source, of course of course. -OberRanks 15:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't personally read it, but just got an e-mail that the book "ROTCM 145-20, Department of the Army, ROTC Manual, American History 1607-1953", used at West Point, states that George Washington is the senior United States officer of all time and can not be out-ranked by anyone. Pershing does hold the same rank, but would be junior to GW by nature of the statemant that GW is senior-most amongst all officers for all time. -OberRanks 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that you have a source for the statement. I'm saying, the source might be wrong. Just as it would be wrong if it said 2+2=5 is wrong. You shouldn't believe everything you read. Even if it comes from the Army, and especially if the facts seem to contradict it. - Shaheenjim 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff we need to make sure then that if an earlier version is located that seems to contradict or conflict with the version that's on line that we understand why the book was revised. It's possible there was a statement about GW that, with further research, turned out to be incorrect. It's also possible there's a later edition (the on-line version is dated 2005) that adds further clarification. I just read though the on line version. It's pretty interesting and, in summary, this book seems consistent with the idea that the "most Army senior officer" position was first occupied by GW and that it had been passed on to others. GW is recognized as the first and was recognized again in 1976 with the title "General of the Armies of the United States" which may or may not place him above Pershing. There has also been a fair amount of uncertainty, misunderstanding, and controversy surrounding the title, duties, power vested to, etc. of the Army's most senior officer.

I believe I understand Shaheenjim's reasoning though introducing “2+2=5” was a distraction. I believe the point is that if GW is regarded as "always to be the most senior United States military officer, forever outranking all other military officers" then this is sure not clear from the current Army web sites and documents. Just because a single sentence in a single document *may* be interpreted as supporting "most senior of all time" does not mean this is the official Army or U.S. policy/position. Acknowledging GW as the most senior Army officer of all time is a strong unequivocal statement on an important issue and not something that would be buried away. The current www.army.mil site does not even seem to have a page dedicated to GW! Thus if there is a statement somewhere about GW being the most senior of all time it may be a “2+2=5” meaning either it's mistaken or will need extraordinary supporting documentation.

"ROTCM 145-20, Department of the Army, ROTC Manual, American History 1607-1953" seems to be a hardcover work published in 1956 with a second edition published in 1959 with the same title though with "1607-1958" on the end. There are web references to a "1607-1985" edition but that seems to be a transposition error (58 into 85) as the seller of this copy (there's only one) indicates it was published in 1959. It seems ROTCM 145-20 has been out of print since 1959. It would be interesting to know what the exact quote about GW was as it may reflect the Army's thinking about him at the time (or may be entirely in error...). Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the addition of the claim "United States military tradition views George Washington as senior to John Pershing, given Washington's role as the Commanding General of the American Revolution and his role as the first President." to the article as this does not seem to be supported by the current www.army.mil web site and current references. ROTCM 145-20 Department of the Army, ROTC Manual, American History 1607-1953, which is cited a reference for this claim, was superseded in 1959 and then went out of print. As the book is both out of print and would be in the public domain (US Gov. work) can the full/exact text be provided along with the page numbers? A scan of the relevant pages would do. Also, is this United States military tradition or United States Army tradition? Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OberRanks, I'm sorry, but I decided to delete the bit about United States military tradition as General Casey is stated as being the "senior military leader of the Army and all of its components." [12]. For the record, the phrase in question is

United States military tradition views George Washington as senior to John Pershing, given Washington's role as the Commanding General of the American Revolution and his role as the first President.^[1]

Please see Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule and keep the discussion to this talk page. Also, please see WP:RULES#Key_policies points 1 to 6. I believe all of us are in agreement that we want to improve the Wikipedia article. I've looked pretty hard, without success, for any evidence of this tradition you spoke of. The current wording "The rank ensures that no United States military officer outranks George Washington." is accurate and reflects what's stated in public law 94-479, Washington's promotion order 31-1, the www.army.mil web site, and the military documents that we have been able to examine so far. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your removals, MK -OberRanks 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

I did have a problem that the other party removed the SecWar statment and readded several lines of "some people have said" and "it has been speculated". Since we are discussing the sources of the article, statments about speculation should be removed. And my initial edits were not in error, they were improving the article. User:Shaheenjim for some reason reverted all of these edits. I have added them back in. As far as I know, no one gone above 3 reverts yet. Lets all work to keep it that way. -OberRanks 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why statements about the speculation should be removed. The fact that we're discussing the sources doesn't mean that statements about the speculation should be removed. I think your edits made the article worse. - Shaheenjim 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I added a factual statement from the Secretary of War and put in a picture from the promotion package of Macarthur...all of which you reverted for no reason. And I say again: "Some people have said" and "it has been speculated" were the only things I removed since these are unsourced statements. Who has said this? What primary source has speculated this? Please review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before removing my legitimate edits again. Lets not have an edit war. Thank you. -OberRanks 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ibid to "let's not have an edit war." I'm tired and will take a look at the article later as a quick glance at the edits/revisions confused me. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the "Stimson's quotation" section of this talk page. - Shaheenjim 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stimson's quotation

The article used to say:

"Henry L. Stimson was asked whether Pershing was a six-star general. Stimson stated that Pershing was superior to a five-star general but, as he was no longer active in the military and had never worn more than four General's stars, he should not be seen as holding six-star rank."

But it was recently changed to say:

"Henry L. Stimson was asked whether Pershing was a six-star general. Stimson responded that:

It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. I have advised Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action.

By this statement, Pershing was declared superior to a five-star general but, but as he was no longer active in the military and had never worn more than four General's stars, he was never viewed as holding six-star rank."

Now, it may be true that Stimson said that. But is the new quotation all he said? The prior version of the article seems to imply that Stimson also specifically addressed whether it was a six star rank or a five star rank. The new version of the article doesn't have that in his quotation. It just leaps to the conclusion that it's a five star rank based on additional reasoning that is not attributed to a source. If we have the rest of Stimson's quotation, then we should add it. And if we don't have the rest of the quotation, then we should revert to the previous version or something like it, since it attributed the reasoning to a source. - Shaheenjim 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I fixed it. - Shaheenjim 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur section

The MacArthur promotion image looks pretty interesting and I believe it would be worthwhile to add a section dedicated to MacArthur. A section order that seems to make sense is

John Pershing
Insignia
MacArthur
Six-Star Rank (let's get rid of the question mark)
George Washington

This would allow the MacArthur to focus on facts directly related to MacArthur's promotion. OberRanks certainly seems to have the material available. This would then provide a segue into the six-star issue. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you want to make the MacArthur stuff a separate section. But I propose that it should be after the Six Star Rank section. The article could stay essentially as it is now, except the first half of the current Six Star Rank section would be the new Six Star Rank section, and the second half of the current Six Star Rank section would be the MacArthur section. - Shaheenjim 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I added it. - Shaheenjim 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks very nice. Once minor bit of confusion, and I'm not sure if it's an error or something I misunderstood, is the third paragraph which starts out with "The matter of MacArthur's sixth star was not finished with this first proposal for the promotion." Is this about the second proposal for promotion or did the events in 1945 not proceed far enough to be considered a "proposal?" Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who wrote it, but it looks to me like it's referring to a subsequent proposal. I wouldn't call it an error, but it's a little unclear. I changed that sentence to, "But some people continued to push for MacArthur to get promoted." Also note, it looks like there were three things that might be considered proposals, not just two. The first was in 1945. The second was in 1955. And the third were the letters from 1962-1964. - Shaheenjim 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No general outranks GW?

IN the writing it states that no person outranks the George Washingtion! So why does isn't he a 7-star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizub4 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one outranks him, but there are other people who are still the same rank as him. - Shaheenjim 04:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you think the US should give him 7?70.161.98.54 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what I think. If you want George Washington to have 7 stars then write to your congressperson. If legislation approving a 7-star insignia is passed then this will get documented in the Wikipedia article. Actually, you might as well cover all bases and ask that he be made a 13-star general, one for each of the original colonies. In the mean time, get a dollar bill, flip it over, and see that GW has his eye on 13 stars. :-) Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Maybe they should give him 13 stars! Can't picture how they would fit 13 on his arm though.Bizub4 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. There are dozens of great figures in the history of the US. If we give each one an honor that the last one didn't have, it would get excessive. We'd end up with like a 30 star general, and it'd be ridiculous. - Shaheenjim 04:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ ROTCM 145-20, Department of the Army, ROTC Manual, American History 1607-1953 published in 1956.

[1] ROTCM 145-20, Department of the Army, ROTC Manual, American History 1607-1953 published in 1956.

[1]