The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1896-03-19
THE GRADE OF LIEUTENANT-GENERAL.
Secretary of War Lamont has written

to Congress opposing the bill to revive
the grade of Lieutenant General with
the object of comforting it upon Gen.
Miles, the present General-in-C Chief of
the Army. The grounds of Secretary
Lamont's opposition are that the grade
has heretofore been largely honorary,
and bestowed to recognize and reward
distinguished services in the field. Gen.
Miles's services, he says, have been less
distinguished than those of other officers
who have been given the rank, and
that, judged by them alone, the two
other Major-Generals-Merritt and
Ruger-have equal claims to the dis
| tinction.
The statement of the Secretary Is
open to some exceptions. The main
object, as we understand it, in giving
the General-in-C of the United
States Army the rank of Lieutenant
General, is to place him nearer on a
level with European commanders of
like position. This is desirable for
several reasons, the principal one being
that when it is necessary for the COM
mander of our army to meet high
officers of foreign armies, it is desirable
to have ours of approximate grade.
This was the main reason for continuing
the grade of Rear-Admiral in the
Navy. On several occasions Lieut. Gen.
Scott met British officers for the purpose
of establishing boundary lines. The
probability is that we may have many
meetings between our Generals and
foreign officers in the next few years.
1t is not unlikely that n conference
between high military officials may be
necessary in settling the Venezuelan
controversy. The highest rank we now
have is that of Major-General, which is
not very high in Europe 1t is the
lowest General rank in England, where
the Major-Generals command brigades
The British army is commanded by a
Field-Marshal. Beside him there are
five other Field-ATarshals. Next in
rank are tie Generals, of whom there
are 18 on the active list. Next are the
Lieutenant-Ge Generals, of whom there are
As on the active list Next are the
Major.Generals, OF whom there are 1877
on the active list.
The Military Secretary to the British
Commander-in-Chief, and the heads of
several bureaus in the Var Department,
are Lieutenant Generals No head of
bureau is less than Major-G General |
Generals command corps, and Lieuten-
ant-Generals divisions, in the British |
Army in the field.
Our Regular Army approximates the
size of European corps, and the officer
in chief command should certainly have
as much rank as that of Lieutenant
General. There are so many different
kinds of Generals in our Army, and
the rank is so confusing, that we have
always felt that the officer in chief COM
mand should have another title, say
that Of Marshal, or Held-Marshal. For
example, during the war, the officer
who commanded a brigade of three
was Brjgadier- General. The
officer who commanded a division of
three brigades was either Brgadier
or Major-General; the commander of a
corps Of three divisions was a Major
General the commander of an army
of several corps was still only a Major
General the commander of a Military
Division of several armies was still only
a Major-General and for three years
of the war the commander of all the
armies of the United States, when we
had nearly 100000 men in the field.
was yet but Major-General. All these
officers were Generals" though they
differed as much in real rank and func-
lion as a Colonel and Second Lieu
tenant. The rebels followed more the
English idea, having their armies COM
nanded by full Generals, and their
corps by LieutenaDt-Generals.
Certainly, every military rank should
nave a distinctiveo title. 1t would be
we'll enough to retain our present system