Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 5 July 2013

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q:Is George Washington's promotion to General of the Armies dated in 1776 or 1976? A:The promotion is dated from 1976 to coincide with the United States Bicentennial celebrations. An order "backdating" the promotion to 1776 was never issued. Q:Is "General of the Armies of the United States" a different rank from "General of the Armies"?" A:"General of the Armies" is a shortened version of the rank "General of the Armies of the United States" Q:Is George Washington the highest ranking United States officer? A:George Washington's promotion order to General of the Armies established he would always be the highest ranked U.S. military officer by seniority; however, at least one other person (John Pershing) holds the same rank of General of the Armies.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Order

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

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

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

1976 vs 1776

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

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

World War II Cancellation

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, we both agree that needs clarification.

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

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

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

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

Not specific and related tags

See Talk:6 star rank#Not specific and related tags for some related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant, Sherman and Sheridan

The lead of this article stated that Grant, Sherman and Sheridan held the same rank as Pershing and Washington and outranked the World War Two five-star generals. However this was contradicted later on in the article, and is also contradicted at the article List of United States military leaders by rank. I have therefore changed the lead to make it consistent with the evidenced assertion that they were equivalent to the modern four-star rank. If you change it back, please add a source, preferably after discussing it at Talk:List of United States military leaders by rank, as there had been much discussion of sources there already. Richard75 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I fact-tagged the Richard75 edit results as we don't have a source, preferably a public law passed by Congress, that defines the relationship between the civil war area and World War II area ranks of "General of the Army." I suspect Richard75's version is more accurate than the one he replaced. I personally suspect the the relative rankings were never defined. In the 1890s and 190xs there were no generals at all. Once generals were resurrected there was no reason to define their ranks relative to the ranks held decades earlier. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That info isn't really even relevant to this article. The comparison can be discussed at the General of the Army rank, but here all we need to really say is that such a lower rank existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs) -19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea and so fixed the article to remove the comparison. I also found that someone had recently redirected General of the Army of the United States to this article. I changed that to point at the General of the Army article which has a section about the post-Civil War area rank. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

I reverted the recent move to decapitalize the word "Armies". Every source and every document about this rank (including the Senate bill displayed in this very article) lists the rank as "General of the Armies" with a capital "A". -OberRanks (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the editor who moved the article was doing a maintenance sweep. Someone's already asked at User talk:Kwamikagami#Rank capitalisation if this was per a discussion. In looking at the edit comments the first move was per move per MOS and usage in article, he then plowed ahead with claiming per MOS on what look like 100+ page moves involving military ranks for many countries. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Page Move

Yet another page move attempt, both here and at General of the Army (United States). I asked Shem1805 to visit the talk page here, since these moves are against consensus and also contradict the sources rather than continue to move these pages back and forth. -OberRanks (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly articulated at Misplaced Pages:MOSCAPS#Military_terms and (for titles) at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It's also based on basic English usage (although what the military does with English is quite another thing...) All I've been doing is general housekeeping. What is your consensus for reverting me against the MOS? Shem (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect to what you are trying to do, but these are not ordinary ranks, rather special titles established by Congress - every primary and secondary source clearly lists the ranks as capitalized. I even linked the primary source on your talk page which shows both ranks as capitalized. This would be the same as attempting to move President of the United States to "President of the united states". Same kind of thing. -OberRanks (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand exactly where you're coming from - I used to think the same way myself and occasionally come across old edits of mine with every rank capitalised. But, sources are not relevant to the discussion; if they were we would capitalise every other word in an article about the military, because most sources for this stuff are the military, and they are capitalise like Old High German. What does bug me is the instant revert, followed by the same again. If you're right, then let the discussion play out on this page - if you're not, well then my edits are in accordance with the MOS and should be allowed to stand. And don't think I'd ever dream of moving President of the United States to "President of the united states" - that is just a straw man. Shem (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we now have edit warring , I will leave this alone until others comment. Ignoring primary sources in favor of Misplaced Pages MOS makes absolutely no sense. The MOS also states "in general" ranks are not capitalized. These are not ordinary ranks - they are special titles established by Congress which are clearly capitalized. -OberRanks (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the key point here is whether they are ranks or titles - if the latter, then I can see why it would make sense to keep the caps. But the article says "rank" throughout ("the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army" in the lede, for example, and 109 other occasions). I'm interested to hear a few other opinions, as I believe OberRanks is. Shem (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy (United States) moved as well. Again, clearly listed as capitalized per the Congressional order establishing this special rank. It looks like the only one you haven't hit yet is General of the Air Force (United States). Before you do, lets get this resolved before making unnecessary page moves which might have to be changed back later. -OberRanks (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, seeking out the same user who previously moved these articles against consensus is borderline canvassing. The might be said of me for asking Marc for his opinion, but he is a major contributor to this article. I believe the request to ask Kwamikagami to visit this page was done for the sole reason that it is known he will support your desire for a page move. I would suggest backing off completely and let neutral editors enter the discussion without either of us contacting anyone else. -OberRanks (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea that Kwami had previously moved this article - I drew his attention to this discussion because we've worked together on implementing the MoS in this regard at other articles - as can be very plainly seen from the context. I've backed off already, and am perfectly inclined to assume you're a good guy - I'd appreciate the same in return. Shem (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rank vs. title

Agreed that the key point is the rank vs. title distinction, although even if it's treated as a rank many style guides make an specific exception for this case to avoid ambiguity.

The current U.S. government style guide treats General of the Army/Armies as a title for capitalization purposes:

Titles of the military:

General of the Army(ies): United States only; Supreme Allied Commander; Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Joint Chiefs of Staff; Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; the Chief of Staff; but the commanding general; general (military title standing alone not capitalized)

The government's been pretty consistent about treating the Pershing-era General of the Armies as an office associated with a special pay grade. Here's an example from the 1920's that distinguishes between the capitalized General of the Armies office and the lower-case four-star general grade:

Gen. Pershing did not become "General of the Armies of the United States" until September 3, 1919, when that office was revived. The act of October 6, 1917, did not authorize the appointment of a "General of the Army of the United States" within the meaning of the acts of July 25, 1866, and July 15, 1870, but did authorize the appointment of the Chief of Staff and the commander of the United States forces in France as generals for the period of the then existing emergency only, and provided that the pay of the grade of general shall be $10,000 a year with allowances appropriate to said grade as determined by the Secretary of War.

The pay of the office of General of the Armies of the United States is $13,500 a year....

Another government example distinguishing between lower-case grades and upper-case General of the Armies, from Pershing's entry in the Official Army Register (e.g. 1947 ed., see also MacArthur's entry on p. 1502 in the same volume for upper-case General of the Army):

Pershing, John J....Cadet M. A. 1 July 82; 2 lt. 6 Cav. 1 July 86; 1 lt. of Cav. 20 Oct. 92; capt. 2 Feb. 01; brig. gen. 20 Sept. 06; accepted 20 Sept. 06; maj. gen. 25 Sept. 16; accepted 30 Sept. 16; gen. (emerg.) 6 Oct. 17; accepted 8 Oct. 17; General of the Armies of the United States 3 Sept. 19; accepted 8 Sept. 19; retired 13 Sept. 24.

General of the Army is clearly a rank, but other style guides often make a capitalization exception for this specific case to avoid ambiguity:

Capitalize titles that would otherwise be ambiguous....Thus, Foley, the speaker of the House could be unclear, especially to a young reader; even if senator and president are not capitalized, Speaker of the House often should be, and stylebooks that prescribe equivalents of Rule 3-14 often make this title an exception. Similarly, General of the Army, a specific rank above four-star general, would often be ambiguous if lowercased.

Same thing for Admiral of the Navy: it was considered both an office and a rank, and was capitalized to avoid confusion with a four-star admiral in the Navy.

As if that's not confusing enough, the most common but infrequent alternatives to capitalizing the entire titles are "general of the armies of the United States" and "general of the Army". "Army" is always capitalized because it's general of the Army, but "armies" is lower-case because the United States has several field armies.

Stupid name for a rank, if you ask me. Fleet admiral is much cleaner. :) -Morinao (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"both rank & title' Indeed. I can't imagine leaving "Armies" without cap. TREKphiler 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The MOS clearly treats rank the same as titles i.e. as common nouns: "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles". The important distinction (perhaps what you intend here with different terminology?) is between rank (common noun) and formal name of an office (proper name): "The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun, so it is correct to write 'Louis XVI was the French king' or 'Louis XVI was King of France'". Jojalozzo 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My aim was to show that even style guides that use lowercase-rank/uppercase-office treat General of the Armies as an office, as illustrated by the internally consistent examples from reliable sources that distinguish between the "grade of general" and the "office of General of the Armies."

Moreover, even though General of the Army is a rank and not an office, many style guides that lowercase ranks still make a specific exception for General of the Army for clarity's sake. - Morinao (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Page Move

With the page now move protected due a third page move attempt, this is an attempt at a consensus. The proposal is to move "General of the Armies" to "general of the armies" due to this entry at a Misplaced Pages MOS page. The same proposal is apparently present at all the other United States "super rank" articles, mainly Admiral of the Navy (United States), General of the Army (United States), and General of the Air Force (United States).

• Oppose: These are special ranks created by Congressional edict and primary sources clearly list the ranks as requiring capitalization due to their special nature as both ranks and titles. The primary source listed in this very article confirms two of the ranks as capitalized in a United States Congressional document. Another user also located a professional style manual which shows the ranks capitalized as well . -OberRanks (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The question is not where these are ranks, that much is definately established. If they were simply ranks, we should be following MOS guidelines. The question should be if these ranks also constitute as titles. When I look at how U.S. law is usually written, they tend to follow grammatical form. Why would congress capitalize these "special ranks" and not others? Neovu79 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree it should be implied that this discussion pertains only to General of the Armies. We would have to repeat this at the other articles, but perhaps summarily depending on the outcome here. -OberRanks (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for General of the Armies only: after reading OberRanks's above document stating that is is also a position of office, I'm inclined to support leaving General of the Armies alone, however that still doesn't show that the other ranks, i.e. General of the Army (United States) is also a title. Neovu79 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move based on clarity. If someone writes "George Washington was a general of the armies" then the reader has no idea if Washington was a General, a General of the Army for multiple armies, or, a General of the Armies." Thus I'd have an exception to Misplaced Pages:MOSCAPS#Military terms for General of the Army, General of the Armies, and Admiral of the Navy as the rank's titles have common English words that are also commonly used in that order when the title of that rank is not the intent of the writer. -(sectioning of comment by Marc Kupper, time stamp below)
  • As these articles are about ranks created and defined by the U.S. Congress it makes sense to match the wording and capitalization used in the public laws in both the article title and within the body of the articles about those ranks. Both Public Law 66-45 (when the rank was revived when the intent that President Wilson promote Pershing in 1919) and Public Law 94-479 (which prompted G. Washington) consistently use General of the Armies of the United States throughout the text of those laws. Public Law 78-482 was the law that created General of the Army which also uses that case consistently, and refers to General of the Armies of the United States using that case. PL 78-482 is also a good example of where the use of capitalization in the rank titles provided clarity on what was being referred to. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: the wording used should follow the official record, as shown below, in Public Law 66-45. The way it is stated therein should take precedence. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the overwhelming consensus here that the original change to "general of the armies" was not supported, I've gone ahead and changed the article back to its original state with the correct capitalization. I suggest we do the same at General of the Army (United States). -OberRanks (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose based on clarity, per Marc Kupper; and common usage. I'm not sure that capitalization in the original legislation is the final word, given that the law creating the five-star Navy rank defines it as "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" but the title eventually collapsed to just "fleet admiral," even in subsequent legislation (e.g. Officer Personnel Act of 1947). However, "The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun," according to WP:Job titles, so I would capitalize both General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy as being more offices than ranks, which is how most legislation and newspaper style guides seem to have treated them. Also, it's pretty rare to find a reference where they're not capitalized, so it would be a big divergence from the norm to use lowercase. I would also capitalize General of the Army and General of the Air Force to avoid confusion with a general in the Army/Air Force (an exception borrowed from a non-military style guide ); and Army/Navy/Air Force should be capitalized regardless, since in all of these cases they are the proper nouns naming specific organizations, not the common nouns for generic groups of soldiers/sailors/airmen. - Morinao (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I find all this chaff about what the Congress capitalise pretty irrelevant; a quick Google search brings this (a Senate document) as the first hit. All the ranks in it are capitalised, and that's not what we do at Misplaced Pages. Ergo, if US state bodies are in the habit of capitalising ranks wherever they appear, their capitalisation of "general of the army" (etc) has no bearing. I'm open to the suggestion that the articles under discussion are offices, but I don't think it's been shown that they are, and as written the article currently describes them as ranks throughout. I'm also going to apply the MoS to all those field marshals and fleet admirals that OberRank so blithely recapitalised - I take it that the MoS does apply in this case? Shem (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that page to be different considering that it's a "list" of pending officer confirmations. I find that lists in general don't follow proper grammar. Neovu79 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lost you there. I haven't edited either the article about field marshal or fleet admiral for quite some time. -OberRanks (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's easy to find instances of ordinary ranks being capitalized, but can you find a solid reference for lowercase "general of the armies," "admiral of the navy," "general of the army," or "general of the air force"?

Also, if you don't like the references already on this talk page, what kind of evidence would you like to see to convince you that General of the Armies is an office as well as a rank? - Morinao (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shem, Congress is the body that created and defined these ranks. Thus what they say is relevant. The most reliable sources are the text of the public laws because for each of those many people have poured over them in detail to make sure they got everything right. As to if they are "offices" - see s:Public Law 66-45 which is for "the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States". In my mind, an overriding goal for Misplaced Pages is clarity and consistency. WP:MOS exists to promote this. The MOS does not demand that we slavishly adhere to every directive if that will cause an article's wording to be unclear. The WP:MilTerms part of MOS also states that consensus on the capitalization of military terms gets handled via consensus on the talk pages which is what we are doing here. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose only on the ground of clarity, whatever the sources say. The overriding principle should be to avoid ambiguity, as discussed above. Richard75 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The question in my mind is not whether the public law 66-45 capitalizes, as following such things would cause us to bounce all over the map and thus are not a good guide for our own usage. The question is whether this is a rank (no caps) or a title (caps). I think either argument could be made it this case.—kwami (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Style governed by sources is inappropriate except where a very broad consensus is achieved. I think a distinction needs to be made between usage that refers to the rank (which is lower-cased except when followed by a person's name, the same as job title) and usage that refers to the correct formal name of an office (which is capitalized). I propose that when the office is being referred to that "the office of" proceed the capitalized term to remove confusion with references to the lower-cased rank. I can support the capitalized article title assuming the precise topic is the office and not the rank and as long as office and rank are clearly distinguished in word and style. Jojalozzo 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a draft attempt to resolve Office/rank distinctions, preserving the article title and references to the office of General of the Armies but lower casing references to the rank of general to the armies. Here is a diff with the current version of the article. Please edit at will. Jojalozzo 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this invents a distinction that does not exist. In 1919 Congress created an office of General of the Armies whose occupant outranked all other Army officers, per PL-66-45 below, and there was no rank of "general of the armies" separate from the office. Then in 1976 Congress created a rank -- not an office -- with the exact same name. Distinguishing between an uppercase General of the Armies office and a lowercase general of the armies rank would be confusing, ambiguous, historically unfounded, and unique to Misplaced Pages.

If you can find a reliable source to cite that dual capitalization for this title, I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't think you can. - Morinao (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and such a thing will open the door again to this idea that George Washington held some kind of 7 star mega rank above Pershing. That problem previously caused a tremendous edit war on the article leading to numerous board discussions, a page protection, and extensive discussion. It was such an issue that to this day there is a permanent notice on the page cautioning users to avoid any reference to Washington holding a different rank from Pershing. Morinao speaks wisely - very wisely. -OberRanks (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, like "Secretary of Homeland Security" this term is a unique entity and proper noun, so should always be capitalised. XLerate (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, any and all page moves and edits which use lowercase. Based on the sources listed, capitalizing each word except "of" and "the" appears to be the correct syntax. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Annoyed. Encyclopedia editors should be aware of the difference between the terms "rank" and "grade". It's painful reading the above discussion. But yeah, the page is at the right place. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies of the United States - public law 66-45

I uploaded the text of Public Law 66-45 to http://sites.google.com/site/marckupper/uploaded. The quality is poor as it's from an original document that apparently had the pages stuck together, it was then microfilmed, and I took a photo of the section on the microfilm reader. Before uploading this to wikisource:Public Law 66-45 I'd like to make sure I've transcribed the text accurately. Please feel free to edit the text directly rather than noting "so and so needs to be corrected."

CHAP. 56.—An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States.    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 Presi- dent is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of exist- ing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.    Approved, September 3, 1919.

September 3, 1919. Army. Appointment of Gen- eral of the Armies of the United States, au- thorized. Pay, etc. Vol. 16, p.320 Precedence of other officer repealed.  Vol. 40, p. 46. Proviso. Limitation.

Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I should give a source for the above

Public Laws of the United States of America

Passed by the Sixty-Sixth Congress.

1919-1921

In the table of contents

General of the Armies. An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States. September 3, 1919. 283.

The "283" at the end is the page number. I found the description in the table of contents interesting as it says it's creating the office while in the body of the law it's being revived. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Using Google I found some other copies of the above law and compared them. It is identical to versions in:

• The federal statutes annotated: containing all the laws of the United States, Supplement, 1919

The text I transcribed is a little different than:

• Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, Volume 4 identical wording except it's missing the sentence at the end with "Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act."
• A-5484, NOVEMBER 6, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 428 Identical except it's missing "and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed:"
• The Chicago daily news almanac and year book for 1920 - The wording is identical though their style guide apparently asks that the rank capitalization be "general of the armies of the United States" and it's an "act of congress" instead of "Act of Congress."
• About.com page about the rank Random word and puctuation changes. I'm guessing this is a poor transcription that was also never double-checked. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this to wikisource:Public Law 66-45 and so any future changes should be made at that location. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies vs. General of the Armies of the United States

This article does not make it clear that the rank of General of the Amries of the United States (the rank Washington recieved in 1976), and General of the Armies (Pershing's rank) are seperate ranks to be treated as such. As proof here is the public law by which Washington recieved his rank.

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington of Virginia commanded our armies throughout and to the successful termination of our Revolutionary War;

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington presided over the convention that formulated our Constitution;

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington twice served as President of the United States of America; and

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;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

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

(b) The President is authorized and requested to appoint George Washington posthumously to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976.

Approved October 11, 1976.

Public Law 94-479

As it says right in the text the grade is that of General of the Armies of the United States. It also states, that MacArthur was to be promoted to this rank not that of General of the Armies here.

File:Douglas_MacArthur_promotion_order_to_General_of_the_Armies.jpg The point of all this is that ranks are being hoplessly confused.--Questions99 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This was beat to death over numerous discussions. They are NOT separate ranks. The situation got to such a point that a warning template was added to the article to discourage users unfamiliar with the article history from adding the very info which is being proposed here. Per the template:

Please read before editing: Editors and contributors are asked to observe the following when editing this article: Do NOT change this article to reflect that George Washington held a 7 star rank senior to John Pershing. Per the NPRC and the Department of the Army, Pershing and Washington held the same rank. Washington is senior due to Public Law 94-479. Do NOT change the dates given in this article for George Washington's promotion. The promotion is dated from 1976 to coincide with the United States Bicentennial celebrations. An order "backdating" the promotion to 1776 was never issued. Do NOT move this page to "General of the armies" without establishing consensus for the move. The currently agreed upon title is "General of the Armies", moving to a new page requires consensus to that effect. The subject matter in this article is maintained through consensus established on the talk page with other editors. Therefore, if your edits are reverted please raise the matter on the talk page in order to avoid edit warring.

Its been agreed upon to avoid any attempt to state that General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are separate ranks. -OberRanks (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not to be ambushed as an attempt to say they are seperate ranks. I am farmiliar with this topic. This is to point out an obvious confusing similarity beetween the to "ranks" if you will. You have not given any reason for your position. I think they are because, Washington has Superiority to Pershing and all whom may ever obtain his rank. Clearly I am not in agreement with User:OberRanks, so that alone shows the falseness of the Template disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questions99 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That template was placed by an administrator (not me) after massive consensus and also as an effort to warn future editors that any changes along these lines would be seen as an effort to re-spark an edit war and add nonsensical information. In fact, this is actually a "revert-on-sight" issue and not a content dispute, since to state there is a 7 star rank above Pershing which Washington held is clearly false information - much like stating that an atom of hydrogen has an atomic number of 17 instead of 1; clearly false and therefore immediately revertable.

Not that this is what you're doing, just laying out the history of why this point must be taken so strictly. Every two to three years since article creation, there has always come to pass that a user will attempt to separate Pershing and Washington's rank under the idea that there is a "7 star rank" in the U.S. military - the last time this happened, the user attempting to make the changes was very nearly banned after trying to put forward a radical theory that Pershing's promotion has been forged and he never really was a General of the Armies. After edit warring, block warnings, and finally a back down under threat of a topic ban, it was agreed by total consensus to place the template to avoid any future such edit wars.

In any event, the article also clearly spells this all out in the first sentence that there is a "long title" and a "short title", much like "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" which is the official full name of the rank Fleet Admiral. Same concept here and we don't need to change it. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see this has come up again. This matter has been discussed several times and is in the archives herein. I think the article is clear enough on the matter, and consensus was reached. Therefore, it should not be changed and I agree with OberRanks. Let the WP:DEADHORSE be. Kierzek (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable six-star insignia?

This page (and several others related on Misplaced Pages) show the six star insignia shown here.

It's claimed to have been made by the Institute of Heraldry and put into McArthur's file as a draft insignia in case he had been promoted to General of the Armies. The reference provided is his personnel file, but that's not easy to access without paying a fee or traveling to St. Louis. Does anyone have the actual document or can you provide another reference? There's some circumstantial evidence that this is a hoax. I'm tempted to pay the $60 to get an official copy of his record to verify, but perhaps someone can save me the trouble? Circumstantial evidence against are (1) The Institute of Heraldry's own webpage that does not show this design and says only this about General of the Armies "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." (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Insignia_Rank/general_officers.aspx); and (2) Unverified blog post of someone claiming to have access to the files and having found no such design (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/102630-general-of-the-armies-6-star-insignia/). It could very well be that the claim for the six-star design is true, but additional evidence would certainly be nice. RelativelyCertain (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've seen the package, its in a large brown manila folder in box #7 of his nine box record. I've heard in recent years, his record was put on CD, but the cost is several hundred dollars due to his status as a "PEP Record" (Person of Exceptional Prominence). The 1945 six star general proposal is also mentioned in several auto-biographical texts and was attached as an addendum to the 1955 Congressional proposal package. Authors who have cited the package in his record text I know of first hand are John Keegan - I think Steven Ambrose also wrote of this as well. I should also bring up that when this insignia first appeared on Misplaced Pages, now a few years back, it was heavily discussed and verified by some pretty seasoned editors, most of them connected with the Douglas MacArthur article. Side note, that blog is actually really fascinating. It mentions a second way this insignia might appear which I have never seen before. I might just take this to the horse's mouth...write the Secretary of the Army directly and lay out what we know, what we've read, and ask what the official stance is on this insignia. That will take some time, and there is no guarantee of an answer, but I will share one when I hear and scan any letters I receive. P.S.- Meanwhile, some other editors more familiar with the MacArthur autobiographies cited on his main article can perhaps add better citations here. -OberRanks (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) -OberRanks (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I contacted the Secretary of the Army and will post here the response. Should be interesting... -OberRanks (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Answer!

I just received a VERY large package in the mail from the IOH about this rank insignia. Very fascinating stuff - there is a six star general "projected" insignia, recognized in 1964 by the Army but never worn or held by anyone. The insignia also was expanded to cover possible promotions of Navy and Air Force officers to this rank - possible meaning that a Navy officer so promoted would be known as a General of the Armies. On top of everything - and this a bombshell - the 6 star sketch in MacArthur's record from 1945 is completely unofficial. It was drawn by a member of his staff with no endorsement or recognition. The projected insignia in 1964 resembled the 1945 sketch, but during WWII there was nothing officially recognized. When I have time, I will revamp the article with all this new info and upload some of the PD images the Army mailed me. But, at last, we have an answer. -OberRanks (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles