The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-08-20
AMERICAN LIEUT.. GENERALS.
SOME IMPORTANT PREVAILING Err
RORs CORRECTED.


United states Army.
Pine Crest Villa, Maitland. Fla. Aug.
at seems very hard to make even the
intelligent people of the country fully I'M
6erstand that the rank and title of lieu
tenant general has no permanent place
IN the organization of the United States
Army. either now or in any part of its
mast history. And the same is true of the
higher rank and title of full general Both
had a permanent place in the Confeder
ate States Army, and are an old estab-
ushed feature in the armies of many
foreign countries, in some of which is
also added the rank and title of field mar
shall The rank of full general prevailed
in the old continental army, but was held
only by Gen. George Washington the
then ommander-in-chief of the colonial
forces
The official records show that on Jan.
l. 1852, Washington was general and
commandments" in the continental
service, and among his officers that later
on lived in Georgia were Maj. Gen. Ma
thaniel Greene and Maj Gen. Anthony
Wayne and Brig. Gen. Lachlan Mcintosh,
an eminent Georgian. A year after this
Mai Gen. Henry Knox became com
mander-in-chief' until June, 1854, when
he left the service, and in August the
command was given to Lieut.. Col Josiah
Hamer. brevet colonel, who was later
on made a brevet brigadier general and
"general-in-chief" of the United States
Army by the first Congress under the
constitution adopted Sept. 20, 1888. So it
seems that the title of COMMANDMENTS
chief gave way to that of 'general-ln-
chief" as the regular army of the new
republic took on a permanent form. No
provision, however, was made in the new
army organization for the rank and file
of full general or lieutenant general,
neither of which were considered neces-
sary to perfect the service.
l am discussing this subject because the
editor of leading Georgia daily news
paper in reply to the recent inquiry, How
many lieutenant generals have there been
in the United States army since the time
OF organization replies that five per-
sons only have reached this highest honor
in the United States army, viz: George
Washingto Gen. Winfield Scott Gen.
L. s. Grant, en-. w. T. Sherman, Gen.
Philip H. Sheridan. With Sheridan's
death the office became extinct" There
are four errors in this reply-"this high
est honor" Gen. Scott, when the Office
became extinct, ana uVG persons only.
Now the highest honor" is that of full
general, held only by Grant, Sherman and
Sheridan. Then Gen. Winfield Scott was
only a lieutenant general by brevet, and
Sheridans death did not extinguish the
office as he died a fun general. In
fact there never was any such office"
in the army, all appointments to that
rank being made by special acts of Con
gress. Lastly, the name of, Gen. John
NJ. Scho6eld, the last lieutenant general
appointed by special act of Congress. and
now on the retired list, is not given,
which would make six including Gen.
SCOTS breVet
Nor is there any such "oflce" as gen
eral in chief or commanding general"
TO which any officer Of high rank can lay
legal claim. Congress, by special acts,
mas created in the past the rank and title
OF full general and of lieutenant general
and in some cases made the holder gen
eraI-in-chief or commanding general of
the army. In ordinary cases, however,
the President commander-in-chief of
the army and navy, has used his own dis
erection in the assignment of an officer to
ne known as the commanding general.
The assignment of Maj. Gen. Nelson A
Miles to this position did not and does not
now, enutle him to be made a lieutenant
general because Gen. Schofeld was given
that rank. The latter officer has held
many distinguished positions in the ser
vice, was man Of high culture and
soldier of unquestioned ability. In many
lhlngs he was the peer of any one of his
predecessors, no two of which bore any
resemblance to each other, either physi-
caAy mentally, morally or otherwise.
Washington declined TO be full general
m the United States army In 1898, having
peen made a lieutenant general, because
under the constitution the President was
commander-in-chief. This, however, was
not the case when he held the rank OF
IuII general and comma nder- in-chief" OF
me Old Continental armies There cannot
wen be two omnianders-in-chief of one
army, and as this position is filed by
ISs!dent Mckinley, it becomes some
p2ay duty to explain why an article head
eu Ihe United States Army and Its Conn
nmanaers, in Frank Leslie's Popular
cSohth.y for May, is given as by Maj.
NeH' Nelson A. Miles cOmmander-in-
.HeI The article is not only full of his
toneai end biographical blunders but con-
a""S criticisms on his predecessors that
are poth unjust and unbecoming the sue
ssor OF gallant soldiers now IN their
IGNORED graves. But IN as bad taste is
we injection into the body of che article
preceding the final paragraphs with the
~"'OSIaph signature OF Gen. Miles, is a
tl'ufe and laudatory sketch of himself
- no later explanation hos been made il
sale TO presume tnat the overweening
~ VI zen. Miles was responsible for
Wese bunders.
,ll Is but proper to state here. In con-
,lus'2n that Gen. Scott persisted in claim
-o 'Idt his nrevet rank of lieutenant gem
a. was superior to Cen Grants more
,e.ent rank Of fun lieutenant general, ana
we TACT stands out with significant
taoHnlHehce that In his old age after he
os s" turned his back upon his native state
ol virginia and remained loyal 10 the
a.'Su, congress, so carried away by the
ss1n.'ntry of the younger generals in the
- To-, neglected to make Scott a full lieu
,l"nl general In his declining years. No
soS.u,-.aI except Washington was more de-
,Flhg OF this honor that in later years
ora 10 less worthy commanders. There
many reasons to suppose that the
la'iA oil Lieutenant general will not soon
t'viNed SO far neither Gen. Miles nor
y 81 MS subordinate commanders have
tbJ" tne night 10 ask Congress to confer
'4 rank and title upon them The Phil
,n,. campaigns may yet give us a hero
'P"n whom % bestow the honor