• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Posthumous Promotions

DocRDS

Head Maffs Monkey
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 21, 2012
3,472
6,425
The Great Beyond
So the U.S Grant People are trying to get him "Promoted" to "General of the Armies" for his 200th birthday.


Rather than the "Was Grant a better president than advertised" (yes) or "Was Grant an underrated general" (Yes--waiting for dem southern boys to ride in here), I don't understand this deal with promoting people long after they have passed.

I do get the "Rank Inflation" as our country has grown in Power. Washington only ever made Lt. General (3 stars), but got upgraded after Grant, Sherman, SHeridan, Pershing, Every WW2 General (4 Stars), and then the 5 Stars got "promoted" ahead of him. Does it even matter? Washington as a General was not the finest tactician, but from a brass balls standpoint outshines pretty much everyone. I just don't understand this need to "rank" previous Generals by grade/rank.

I sort of get making Washington the honorary highest ranking officer, but this jump to align everyone else behind him smacks me as dumb. Especially as they are all long gone. I remember they wanted to give Schwartzkoff a 5th star, but even that seemed silly.
 
Grant wasn't a bad person. He was, however, considered slovenly by his contemporaries. As a president, he was prone to cronyism in his appointments, and those appointments (and their actions) reflect poorly on his presidency as a whole.
 
Ironically enough Grant's resurgence is a bit due to 'wokeism' as he helped suppress the original KKK and Reconstruction was generally favorable towards ex-slaves under his admin, before the 1876 election Fiasco.

Still don't think its worth promoting him to a higher rank--that's the part that mystifies me.