Gen’l Washington and the five stars.
January 2nd, 2009 From
>X-Sender: msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:28:22 -0500
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>From: Marc James Small
>Subject: Re: Gen’l Washington and the five stars.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>Washington’s highest rank during his lifetime was Lieutenant General. He
>was appointed to the position of General of the Armies, but this was an
>office, not a rank.
>
>Pershing was promoted to ‘General of the Armies’ but no rank was ever
>specified and he only wore four stars. He was paid as an active-duty full
>general, though, until he died: a field marshal never retires, and his
>grade was equated with theirs.
>
>In the Second War, things were regularized a bit. We ended up with
>’General of the Army’ as MacArthur didn’t want the same grade as Pershing
>(they had never gotten along) and Marshall didn’t want to be ‘Field Marshal
>Marshall’. We ended up with ‘Fleet Admiral’ as Ernie King detested the
>British and so objected to the use of their grade, ‘Admiral of the Fleet’.
>
>If something happened to move our first President up on the retired list,
>I’d not heard about it. I doubt if he did, either.
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!