Referring to "X" Generals

[Cavalier]

Was it considered proper military etiquette to refer to Civil War generals that remained in the army after the war as "General So & So" even though they had been reduced in rank after the war? By way of a courtesy, so to speak?

I assume that officially he would always be referred to at his present reduced rank.

John

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

This is very interesting but also so confusing to me.

You have Regular and Volunteer commissions and then the brevet ranks, what a headache.

 

[dlofting]

Yes officers were usually addressed using the highest rank they had during the Civil War, even though their post war regular army rank was often lower.

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

I've seen mention of volunteer-only officers by brevet rank 30 or 40 years after the war - and many of these guys never made it above Captain, yet get referred to as "Colonel."

 

[jackt62]

Best example might be George Custer, whose highest regular rank attained was Lt. Col., but he is often referred to in his post-war career as General Custer, his rank in the disbanded volunteer army.

 

[GELongstreet]

Custer also was a Brevet Major General in the Regular Army.

 

[Cavalier]

Thanks very much to everyone who responded. So I would address Custer as General even though his actual rank in 1876 is Lieutenant Colonel.

John

 

[Ole Miss]

In the Old South every retired Confederate officer was addressed as Colonel
Regards
David

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

A bit off the main topic. Enlisted ranks, there were no brevets or a difference between the Regular and Volunteers?

 

[REBVojak]

Custer's regular Army rank in 1866 was Captain, which he resigned. Through his father-in-law's political influence he was offered the colonelcy of one of the newly raised Colored Cavalry regiments but declined. The next best offer was the lieutenant colonelcy in the newly organized Seventh Regiment under Colonel Smith.