Lieutenant Generals and full Generals

[major bill]

When reading about the Civil War one must keep in mind the Confederate General rankings and Union General rankings were not synonymous. While the Confederacy had 17 Lieutenants Generals, the Union only had one Lieutenant General, General Grant. In fact Grant was only the second Lieutenants General ever in the U.S. Army (General Scott was a only a brevet Lieutenant General). The Confederacy also had 8 full Generals while the Union had zero.

 

[dlofting]

Why did the Union not authorize the creation of full General positions (as well as additional Lieutenant Generals)? It certainly would have helped with some of the seniority issues that came up from time to time.

 

[major bill]

George Washington was a Lieutenant General and I think it had something to do with no officer out ranking General Washington. This is probably the reason General Scott was only a brevet Lieutenant General at the start of the war. During the war Grant was promoted to Lieutenant General and thus the same rank as General Washington, but making Grant a full General would mean he would have out ranked Washington. To solve this both Washington and Grant were made full Generals (four star Generals) in 1866. Washington was later promoted to General of the Armies when General Pershing was made one. During World War Two there were a hand full of Generals of the Army (five start generals). Because General of the Armies out rank General of the Army, Washington and Pershing are considered six star generals but Pershing never added a sixth star to his collar.