Sgt John Anderson 99146 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It just seems like they would instantly promote leaders to General during this era due to the high number of extremely young Generals that you hear of. maybe some of you history buffs can enlighten me on how that was possible? Were General ranks just handed out during the Civil War era? 2014-04-11T10:38:59-04:00 Sgt John Anderson 99146 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It just seems like they would instantly promote leaders to General during this era due to the high number of extremely young Generals that you hear of. maybe some of you history buffs can enlighten me on how that was possible? Were General ranks just handed out during the Civil War era? 2014-04-11T10:38:59-04:00 2014-04-11T10:38:59-04:00 Sgt John Anderson 99149 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I realize they had to pretty much form an entire new army from scratch to make up all of the numbers, but it would seem that there were enough older vets there prior to the civil war that would make up the top leadership. Response by Sgt John Anderson made Apr 11 at 2014 10:40 AM 2014-04-11T10:40:32-04:00 2014-04-11T10:40:32-04:00 CW2 Jonathan Kantor 99153 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Officers were, in a way, given the promotion to General as an appointment back then.  Taking a new position could earn a star and a lot of the time, old retirees coming back in to serve would be given a high rank as an enticement.  Give a man a Division, he may want to come in and get his star.  Also, we had far fewer ranks back then.<br> Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 11 at 2014 10:45 AM 2014-04-11T10:45:28-04:00 2014-04-11T10:45:28-04:00 MSG Wade Huffman 99182 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In some cases, you are partially correct... I believe that there were many more general officers (as a percentage of the force) during that time then at any other time in our history.  "Generalships" were in some cases the result of political favors and/or cronyism, but the vast majority of the appointments stemmed from attrition.  This was from both battlefield looses and also it was also not uncommon during that period for a General to be relieved and replaced on the spot.  <div>It's also very important to realize that much of your perception may be based on the fact that most of us studying the Civil War period are focusing much more equally on BOTH armies (CSA and GAR) vs any other period when you would naturally consider only the number of General Officers in the US Forces.    </div> Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Apr 11 at 2014 11:17 AM 2014-04-11T11:17:50-04:00 2014-04-11T11:17:50-04:00 PO1 William "Chip" Nagel 99585 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As a History Geek it sure looks that way doesn't it! Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 11 at 2014 7:45 PM 2014-04-11T19:45:32-04:00 2014-04-11T19:45:32-04:00 2014-04-11T10:38:59-04:00