Talk:General officers in the Confederate States Army/Archive 1

Page started
I created this article because I would like better links for the countless confederate general ranks in our 'pedia. Most of them go to the U.S. or U.S. Army explanations for them, others to disamb. pages, still others to generic rank pages, and some to the History of United States Generals article which inspired me to make the Confederate equivalent. I believe most of these existing links are not adequate. When this page is further along I plan to send the Conf. general links to the relevant section here, should there be no objections. Kresock (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More work
More expansion done for tables, pics, the "Gen-in-chief" section, some corrections (with the help and wisdom of Hlj), and the "Legacy" section was begun. Still not satisfyied with the name "Legacy" but cannot think of something better right now. I plan to start linking the vast amount of rank links soon, mostly from infoboxes first, then bodies of pages.

Any thoughts or suggestions welcome. Kresock (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of the rank redirects I made. Just slap the on any here and they will go to the particular section on this page that deals with the rank:


 * Brig. Gen. (CSA) and Brigadier General (CSA) Maj. Gen (CSA) and Major General (CSA) Lt. Gen. (CSA), Lt. General (CSA), and Lieutenant General (CSA) General (CSA) and Full General (CSA) Militia General (CSA)

These are good for infoboxes because of the (CSA) part that most of them already use, but useful in any ACW article for the Confederate use of the ranks. I will add more if necessary down the road.Kresock (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A possible reference
Ran across a summary that was done in Journal of Mississippi History, August 1977 by Haight and Burns (no not that one! :). It claims 425 total generals. 20% of total generals were killed in action (77). 40 of Field generals (whatever that means) were killed in action. I thought that nearly everybody was on the field in those days. No remote staff.

It claims (slight differences from this article) 8 full generals, 17 lt generals, 72 maj generals and 328 BGs. 125 had been professional soldiers before the war. The largest supply came from former "lawyers, jurists" = 129! Student7 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were seven full generals, as John Hood's appointment was temporary and never confirmed (stated in the article), but would bring the total to eight. "Field" refers to line officers, as opposed to staff, men such as Samuel Cooper, who never saw combat and held administrative/war department positions. The source I used for referencing the total no. in each rank is Eichers' Civil War High Commands, and the generals killed info comes from Foote's Civil War: A Narrative third volume. Do you possibly know what Lt. General or any of the Major Generals not included in the lists of your source? What records or methods did they employ in their research? A lot of the Confederacy's official records are long gone, so info at times can be sketchy, but Eichers' work is used quite a lot on the ACW pages here. I have found a few instances of Foote's work using inaccurate data, but never used it if I knew. Perhaps more eyes on this are needed. Kresock (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to trust your research more. I came to the article with the full intention of adding some statistics but was intimidated by the impressive references. The one mentioned above was a third hand one anyway. Just summary statistics. No names for verification. I would kind of trust yours. Maybe someone can come up with a copy of the above journal but I wonder if it would have names - my one page reprint didn't make it seem like it might have been a detailed type of article. The full names of the authors (if that helps) were William R. Haight and Dr. Zed H. Burns.Student7 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

edits of November 6, 2008
I requested citations for the edits in this paragraph: "Initially the Confederate Army commissioned only Brigadier Generals in both the volunteer and regular services, but quickly added the ranks of Major General and General, in order to provide clear and distinct seniority over existing Major Generals in the state militias. The CSA rank of General would be considered the equivalent of either a Captain General or Colonel General. Eventually, in need of assistants, after Gen Robert E. Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia, he helped institute a new rank of Lieutenant General to command the new Corps structures he created in grouping his divisions. Additionally, on January 23, 1865, Gen Lee himself was appointed a General-in-Chief, which was roughly equivalent to a Field Marshal General. Thus, the CSA eventually had five separate ranks of general. They were (in order of increasing rank) Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, and General-in-Chief."

Grayghost added a website citation, but I do not believe that it is adequate to validate the relationships of Confederate officers to "captain general" or "colonel general" (whatever relevance they have to the American military), Robert E. Lee's role in the creation of the rank of lieutenant general, or that general in chief was an explicit rank equivalent to a field marshal, any more than the Union Army's general-in-chief was. It was a position, a job title, but not a unique rank that would represent a separate pay grade, to use a modern expression. It would be nice to get secondary sources for all of these claims. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Initially the Confederate Army commissioned only Brigadier Generals in both the volunteer and regular services," this part of the sentence is cited as is.
 * The need to have ACSA general officers outrank the militia generals is cited later on, however not here, but that gets us to "...in the state militias." cited.
 * Lee made general-in-chief on 23 January 1865 is also cited later in the article, but my works do not mention any comparisons to the grades of "Captain General" or "Colonel General" or "Field Marshal General" so I cannot confirm or deny here. I do like the announcement (Cooper's letter) itself and I'll hopefully find a way to include it here or elsewhere.
 * Now, as for Lee requesting or suggesting Lieutenant General grades, I bet Lee was involved in the decision-making process along the line, but I've always thought Davis, the CS War Dept, and the CS Congress hashed this out. (I can't source either role myself) As Hal states, I also think we need more sources for this to stay as it is now worded. Lee's role (if any) would have to be spelled out and cited, as would that of Davis & the bunch if that is to be included. Since this has been brought up, I think we should also cite the 1, 2, 3 and 4-star modern U.S. Army comparisons as well. Should I add the { { Fact } } to them or is this discussion enough? Kresock (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kresock: Most texts on the Peninsula Campaign discuss the organizational changes Lee made, and the creation of the Corps and rank of Lieutenant Generals. Lee's takeover of the Army of Northern Virginia and the re-org played a key role in all that.  I don't see a need to slap a citation-tag on it, but often I get slapped with those, I've noticed.  The common knowledge of a retired Marine officer and Instructor from Marine Corps University is treated as highly questionable compared to the contributions from civilian civil war buffs.  Grayghost01 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hal, this article doesn't NEED to talk about the ranks of captain general or colonel general. Since folks seemed to be having problems understanding the idiomatic hyperbole of calling someone a "full bird Colonel" or a "full General", it simply needed to be made plain that there is no such thing ... that these are street slang.  If you are okay with "full" being taken out of the article, I am fine too, and thus explaining the full (no pun intended) heirarchy of rank naming is not necessary.  Conceptually, with no capital letters, a lieutenant to a colonel (lieutenant colonel) or a lieutenant to a general (lieutenant general) are self-standing concepts of rank creation and structure, and no citation is necessary for explanations of the obvious.  Similarly the prime or ranking general among brigadiers is a major general (or as the Germans would say, "Generalmajor").  And a very senior general is conceptually a captain general or with a higher rank implication, a colonel general (or as the Germans would say, "Generaloberst"). However in the Navy, one either captains or commands (or is master), and their assistants are lieutenants.  When a lieutenant, who is the assistant, must take command for some reason the lieutenant commands (thus lieutenant commander).


 * So all that THIS article needs so simply say is that the CSA had five ranks of general. The CSA General-in-Chief was, in fact, higher in rank than the Federal similarly titled position for Grant.  Why reason # 1?  Lee's rank was made superior per the general order to all other "Generals" of which there were several.  However Grant was made the one and only Lieutenant General, ranking above all else, and then given a job-title for that.  Grant was then promoted AFTER the war to a NEW rank above LTG.  Why #2?  Because the CS Congress created four ranks of general which were not G-in-C, and the US Congress only had three ranks of general, (keep in mind the senior rank LTG for Grant was what rank he was at as a General of the Armies in 1865).  It was not until after the war that the US Congress created the ranks which later were dubbed "O-10" for Farragut and Grant.  Grant was the equivalent of an O-9 at war's end, while Lee was the equivalent of an O-11.  It simply comes down to how many ranks each side had, which differed.  The CS Navy had LESS ranks than the US Navy.  But a CS Captain and a US Captain, in terms of rendering honors at sea, would see that as equivalent, and a CS Admiral would renders like honors to a US Vice Admiral.


 * By the way, the German army, much like our US Army, uses specific rank names and abbreviations:


 * G - General
 * GL - Generalleutnant (would be a Lt. Gen. [sic] in Wiki)
 * GM - Generalmajor
 * BG - Brigadegeneral
 * O - Oberst (would be a Col. [sic] in Wiki?)
 * OTL - Oberstleutnant
 * M - Major
 * SH - Stabshauptmann (the staff captain would baffle wikians)
 * H - Hauptmann
 * OL - Oberleutnant (the over-lieutant would be what in wiki? I can't imagine)
 * L - Leutnant


 * Any historical wiki article would have to refer to the illustrious commander of the Ghost Division (Gespenster-Division) as "Maj. Gen. Erwin Rommel" is that right? And since he was later promoted, and known as Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, what would the wiki convention be for that?  "Gen. Rommel" perhaps?  My point is that the wiki schema for "military history" fails to apply to anything or anyone properly.  All of NATO (the west) has NATO-standard ranks.


 * Summary: there were no "full" generals in the Confederacy. If it is not necessary to explain the history and purpose of rank naming and structure among western cultures, then captain and colonel level generals and the explanation thereof can be removed, or perhaps moved to this discussion session with the point that "full" and other street slang need not be inserted into the article. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I vote that we keep the General Order quotation. I want to push the Southern articles toward more fact-based realities, and citations of actual historical documents here and there is very appropriate. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved Cooper's order lower to the General-in-Chief section. I wish it could be smaller in size, or failing that replaced with a pic of the actual order or something similar. I am wondering what is meant by "III. General Orders, No. 23, of 1864, is hereby revoked." This sounds like an order that either prohibited the creation of the position or having to do with staff appointments, and if so both deserve mention in the article. I've been contemplating adding a section about staffs as to their appointments, numbers, grades, duties, etc. Kresock (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the argument given by His Excellancy, Jefferson Davis, in this G-in-C section, you can see that he understood this was a new high rank, as he feared the rank, and argued against its creation. The comparison of this to the previous advisory positions of Lee and Bragg is not correct, because Davis did not fear those positions.  Those positions were more of an Aide-like duty.  Davis only feared this new thing, this General-in-Chief, and not the aide-positions.  But I would agree that Davis performed much of the responsibilities of the G-in-C.  For those not familiar with military rank structures, the comparison that I had pointed out previously is that this G-in-C was the same as a Field Marshall.  The reason the CSA did not name it such is because of the whole aversion in the USA/CSA to having uber-generals and uber-admirals to begin with. Grayghost01 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I will bow out of this discussion and let Kresock retain primary responsibility for the article he originated. I am annoyed at having to deal with ad hominem comments. I can tell you that as a former U.S. Army officer I learned the skill of concise and unambiguous communications and as a very active Wikipedian for over five years I have learned a lot about how Wikipedia articles should be cited. These are skills that not all participants in this discussion have learned or retained. The initial request remains -- please provide secondary source verification that there were five ranks. As an example of why this is necessary, the Eicher reference that we have used throughout Wikipedia ACW articles, Civil War High Commands, does not agree with this interpretation. There is room in Wikipedia articles for disagreements between secondary sources, which can be handled in footnotes, but not for a disagreement between a secondary source and someone's personal interpretation of a primary source (the Cooper order). Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hal, since you added the citation tag without explaining what you were looking for, and without discussing it, how could we satisfy your request? Now that we know that you, specifically, question the rank for Lee, and his final rank, I can easily provide a secondary source, because Clement A. Evans covered that point decades before Eicher.  I'm sure, given time, other references could be reviewed as well.  It seemed that you were questioning the analogy of General-in-Chief to a ranking position of a general, like a Captain General.  My contribution to this article was to take out "full" general as there is no such thing as a "full" general.  It is slang speech. I'll add the aforementioned reference and page numbers. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When I added the citation tag, I created this Talk section "edits of November 6, 2008" that explained exactly what I was asking for. Hal Jespersen (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced the pic as I mentioned. Grayghost, the appointment of Lee to G-i-C had been handled here as I've always seen it, with the information provided. Everything I have read concerning the appointment leads me to believe it was made as sort of a public relations effort, to foster the hope that there was hope, so to speak. As that is my opinion it goes here and not in the article, but the page you cited for Cooper's order states "After Lee was appointed 'General in Chief' he became, like Washington for the North, the central figure in which the Confederates placed their hopes." If Lee acted as the G-i-C, then why did he surrender only his own army and not all of it? And why did he sign the correspondences with Grant, the letter to Davis about the surrender, and his farewell to those brave soldiers as "R. E. Lee, General"? I do not think Lee acted in this capacity (I might be wrong) in the few weeks that he held it. All of this of course can be counted as original research on my part, not suitable for pages here unless properly cited by reliable secondary sources. As Hal states, references used here treat the grade Lee was promoted to very, very late in the war the same way, stating that it happened, when it happened, the CS Congress act that made it, and so on. They do not convey a command structure for the Confederate Army as you have given, and that is what Hal has requested be cited.


 * I have no problem adding to the G-i-C section on this page something stating that the grade was intended to place such an officer in command of all CSA forces, adding that the CS Congress wished it so, and adding footnotes for both Cooper and Evans, who obviously believed the act accomplished this. The context of the times must be respected. That is all that I can cite, and all that I would add. Thoughts? Kresock (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Portion in question
The CSA rank of General was the senior rank until early 1865. Eventually, in need of assistants, after Gen. Robert E. Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia, he helped institute a new rank of Lieutenant General to command the new Corps structures he created in grouping his divisions. Additionally, on January 23, 1865, Gen. Lee himself was appointed a General-in-Chief, which was the "ranking officer of the army" per the Confederate Congress, thus outranking all other officers and the four existing ranks of generals.

So the CSA, at war's end, had five separate ranks of general. They were (in order of increasing rank) Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, and General-in-Chief:

I moved the edit in question here until this is resolved. Here's what I think should happen:
 * 1) The info concerning creating lieutenant generals/corps - Discuss whether or not this info is presented as originating from Lee and properly cited as such; if it should be summarized in the "Lieutenant general" section, or if it belongs on the a)Confederate Army page, b)AoNV page, and\or c) Lee's page.
 * 2) "General-in-Chief" - as requested, the command structure as suggested by the edit needs reliable secondary sources, namely showing a five grade-system as apposed to the four previously on the page. This request has not be fulfilled. It needs to be established if "General-in-Chief" was a position\title or "pay grade" to use modern terms.
 * 3) The Evans quote - While this would do for a primary source cite showing Evans believed what the meaning of "General-in-Chief" was, but probably does not fit here.

I will wait a few days for discussion and sources, and if nothing is done I will restore the "History" section the way it was previously. And please, anything concerning rank abbreviations belongs on the task force talk, and not here. You may now yell at me people! Kresock (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kresock ... help me understand your logic. By analogy, MajGen Jackson once took a nap in the middle of an operation, frustrating Lee. Major Generals should not perform such dumb actions. But no one questions that this did not invalidate his rank? Lee had no means of communications to effect a surrender of all of the Confederate Forces. In warfare when a senior commander is captured (like Lee), it does not automatically effect the surrender of other subordinate forces all over the map. I.e. real warfare is not "capture the flag". The facts speak for themselves that Lee was appointed to a rank, and that it outranked all other generals. It is what it is. Generally I've found in discussions at Command & Staff College that most Army officers, particularly West Pointers, argue Lee's rank habitually, as if that takes away from Grant or something. Grant effectively was equal to Lee (Lee help the overall strategy too, sending Longstreet south). But the fact that the CSA had more "gradations" of rank is not a big deal. The US Navy had more "gradations" of rank than the CS Navy. It simply is what it is. I personally agree with the view that Lee's rank was above the other 7 or so 4-stars like JE Johnston. But that's not just my view, and I didn't create or make up that view. In my opinion this page should discuss the views, and simply layout what the CSA ranks were, and leave it at that. I think you have a dedicated paragraph to it, which seems fine to me.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ghost, I know you have plenty on your plate already, but here's a little of what I think. "The facts speak for themselves that Lee was appointed to a rank, and that it outranked all other generals." Absolutely, the first part is true! Everyone, everywhere that has even the tiniest military bio of Lee (primary and secondary sources) convey his appointment to G-i-C and when. The "that it outranked all other generals" idea is what is in need of citing. At the moment, this conclusion has not been supported by reliable secondary sources. Yes, such an officer should have "outranked all other generals" (logical even to me!) but it needs the secondary support that would come from military historians who have gone through the primary and other sources and have been considered reliable on Wikipedia. They would seek out any orders from Lee for personnel outside his department, or that he was paid more than the $500 + $500 CSD he was getting, or any such evidence that he held and acted as a G-i-C would in any era. This research would then be published, and can be cited on Wikipedia if deemed reliable by the community, and this type of source is what has been asked for your edit.


 * Here's a nugget I have to illustrate this point, from Ezra J. Warner's 1959 Generals in Grey, p. 182, R. E. Lee's entry: "...under the act of January 23, 1865, he had been confirmed General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States. By signing this act into law President Davis had virtually abdicated his prerogatives as Commander in Chief. Under the provisions of the act Lee manifestly attained the highest rank of any officer in the Confederate military service." Warner's work has seen service on the Wikipedia, and his opinion is this. I personally would like more and if possible newer secondary sources to back this, and your interpretation, up. As Hal pointed out, the work by the Eichers is also widely utilized here, and they convey a four-grade command structure, in four tables, and relay Lee's appointment and date as previously handled on this page; that is occured and when and which Act, etc.


 * Interesting in regard to the great Stonewall, as I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for his actions then, aside from exaustion from the Valley and lacking that awesome fire he had when off on his own. Camped, what, 3 miles out despite hearing the firing? If he felt he should or had to, I know he would have sent in his resignation, as he did when the government tried to mess with his command once before. (I'm not sure if Lee at that time had the juice to try & cashier Jackson if he lost his mind and wanted to anyway.) But whether I think Lee acted as a G-i-C or not is not the issue, just want some secondary sources offered up. I hate comparing Grant and Lee, or the armies, or whatever, so I try to avoid it. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kresock: Now I see what the issue is on the secondary sources. Okay, here's my 2-cents and I'll leave it up to you on what to do. What the Neo-Yanks do is they ONLY use secondary sources which purely give their view. Since it was a Civil War, secondary sources abound in droves with conflicting "interpretations". We are having this same debate on Great Train Raid of 1861 in which its 32 secondary sources that I've ante'd with primary information over-flowing with eyewitness accounts of even a pro-Union female diarist ... against ... one and only one secondary source, but one whom is popular among the Neo-Yanks. So guess what? Because I dared to cite 32 other secondaries in practically every sentence three times over in the article, there are about a half dozen "neutrality" and "get a dispute resolved" and "POV" tags galore.

So, you see, this is why I occasionally, and just occasionally, like to toss in an actual primary item (like Coopers order and reference to the Congressional appointment of Lee). Its very professional in an encyclopedia to have such anecdotal examples. And what's better is that when it makes the Neo-Yanks favorite secondary that they've jammed in over and over look like poo-doo ... it makes for great entertainment to see them get all bent out of shape. And they will NOT let you use any secondary source that they see as conflicting with their world view.

So anyway, any military officer knows that a congressional act and general order of rank appointment and promotion ... is a rank. If the Cooper letter is in the article, you don't even need to say anything, and readers will likely be smart enough to make up their own mind. But if you can manage to discuss BOTH points of view on the secondary references, and not let them eventually come delete it out in a month or two down the road ... my hat is off to you. Good luck. Lee was a 5-star General, and the evidence exists to prove it. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-worded the "history" section, citing the relationships to militia generals and relaying the command structure as it existed in the fall of '62. This I believe allows for future expansion (should secondary sources be given for a fifth grade of general) to be easlily tacked on there. I also added a footnote describing calling 'generals' casually 'full generals' in reference to Hal's edit there. If this footnote needs citing (or gassing) let me know. Kresock (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kresock: I'm melting with the "full" general thing. What Confederate document mentioned such a thing?  If we put that in, then add "full bird", "sarge" and every last civilian idiomatic term for rank ever used, for consistency.  I vote that it is improper, misleading, incorrect, and too idiomatic for an encyclopedic article, so my plea is to please find a way to get rid of it.  Secondly a "brigadier general" is a conceptual rank in any military that one may aspire to be.  A "Brigadier General" is a specific rank in the Confederate States Army, and it is a proper noun if an when specifically used to refer to that level of rank in the CSA or any other institution.  See how you have "Adjutant-General" capitalized above, along with a few other proper-nouns?  Then you switch.  Lastly, you mention that Lee was appointed to "this position" for the General-in-Chief rank.  Since when does an act of Congress create military "positions"?  Explain that one?  Why can't you put a secondary source to contradict Eicher, if that's whats needed, or do you think that there aren't any? Grayghost01 (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ghost: I've made the capitalizations consistent on the page, thanks for catching it, and I hope I got them all. That section was one of the first I wrote for this article, but that's no excuse. I've been keeping tabs on the discussions concerning the use of brigadier general as opposed to Brigadier General, since consensus there would alter my editing. But without consensus and/or MOS changes adopted by the ACW task force, I'll stick to the guidelines available here that the task force recommends. (In most official Confederate stuff I've mostly seen it written as Brigadier-General, ect.) Next: the Eicher reference doesn't call G-i-C a "rank" or a "position" but rather an "office". However I thought this might confuse the average reader whose probably used to equating office of this & that to political slots, not military ones. The average reader, how often we forget about them! Wording our edits to make our writing understood by as many people as possible, not just military folk, is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. This is where using "position" or "full general" and the like come into play, to aid in understanding and eliminating confusion. When I f' up and edit something that is not clear, such as I did here, others comment on it and rightly so. As far as G-i-C on this page what would you recommend we use, now that "position" "rank" "grade" and "office" appear not to be acceptable? Kresock (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kresock: The ACW Task Force "consensus" is merely a Lord of the Flies dictate, whose unrefined ways I will not cow-tow to. A brigadier general commands a brigade. A Brigadier General was the name of a specific rank in the Confederate States Army which commanded a Confederate Brigade. During the war era, it was spelled Brigadier-General and abbreviated most often as Brig.-Gen.. This hyphenated form, which you seem to be aware of, is seemingly unknown on the Island. You will not find brig. gen. or even brig.-gen. in era writings, or modern writings. On Eicher, regarding his view that the Confederate States Congress created an "office", I can only let out a rip-roaring laugh. This is where an encyclopedia offers an occasional photo, or direct quote or writing. The order from the Adjutant General of the C.S. Army obliterates Eicher's view, and so it has value by appearing in this article. (Notice the capitalized rank in the previous sentence, which is capitalized properly in that context). In regard to the biography you wrote, it is EXTREMELY common ... no ... the NORM for an officer to get promoted AFTER his promotion date on paper. None of my promotion ceremonies occurred on the paper dates. And back-dated promotions are not unusual in the military at all. My good and late-great personal friend, Colonel William "Ironman" Lee was promoted from a Marine Gunner all the way through all the officer ranks up to Colonel after World War II ended. They were all backdated to various dates during the war. Lee was presumed dead, living in a Japanese POW camp. If people cannot learn these things at wiki, where will they learn the facts? We cannot use the excuse that "military" folk do one thing, but that we will do another to presuppose dumbness of readers of wiki. Frocking is yet another phenomena of promoting AHEAD of paper promotion. My USNA room-mate was promoted to Lieutenant Commander eight years after we graduated, and was not promoted on paper until much later, more than a year. Notice my correct use of capitalization, again. I was not referring to a lieutenant commander in a navy at sea, rather I was referring to the rank of Lieutenant Commander, to which my good friend was promoted. In regard to the rank of General-in-Chief, created by the Confederate Congress, I can only tell you that it meets the full definition of that word rank, which means to have a "high position or station". Is that not what Lee had, as General-in-Chief? Therefore call it a "high station" and lets see what the Island responds with. Oh ... don't read the wiki article General-in-Chief, and don't mention its existence to the Island. The Island doesn't like it when the rest of Wiki contradicts Island rules. Another such article banned from discussion on the Island is Commanding General of the United States Army where the Island rules cannot trump the correct rank titles and abbreviations. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk)