Is the Solicitor General Really a General?:
In last week's oral argument that I noted yesterday, Justice Stevens referred to Solicitor General Paul Clement as "General Clement," and at least a few commenters wondered if it is correct to refer to the SG as a "General."
There's a literature on this question, actually. I think Michael Herz has it right in this article on the subject: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf, and . . . Ashcroft?. Herz argues that Attorneys General and Solicitors General aren't Generals; they're Attorneys and Solicitors. So calling Clement "General Clement" is wrong, I think. I vaguely recall seeing the opposite argument somewhere (perhaps in The Green Bag a few years ago?), but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps some Readers General can jog my memory?
UPDATE: The online etymology dictionary suggests that the unusual subject-first, adjective-second order of the phrase owes to its french origins:
There's a literature on this question, actually. I think Michael Herz has it right in this article on the subject: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf, and . . . Ashcroft?. Herz argues that Attorneys General and Solicitors General aren't Generals; they're Attorneys and Solicitors. So calling Clement "General Clement" is wrong, I think. I vaguely recall seeing the opposite argument somewhere (perhaps in The Green Bag a few years ago?), but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps some Readers General can jog my memory?
UPDATE: The online etymology dictionary suggests that the unusual subject-first, adjective-second order of the phrase owes to its french origins:
Attorney general first recorded 1533 in sense of "legal officer of the state" (1292 in Anglo-Fr.), from Fr., hence the odd plural (subject first, adjective second).
The Surgeon General is both a surgeon and a General. So watch it.
To the best of my knowledge, neither the General Counsel of BATFE, nor the General Counsel of GM, expects to be addressed by title. I think the military title originated in the 17th century, when a "general" was the grade that commanded units of infantry, cavalry, and artillery, and thus was a "general officer," which in civilian life eventually equated with "a superior."
I just saw this on a blog a few days ago. I don't actually know or even like this sort of word function analysis. I feel vaguely dirty for posting about when something is an adjective since I tend to feel that being a grammar nazi (as opposed to a logic nazi :-) ) just fouls up a dynamic language with arbitrary rules.
I suppose "general" is probably correct. The plural of SG or AG is "solicitors general" or "attorneys general," which makes me think that "general" is an adjective and not a noun. But, at the same time, it doesn't have the same meaning as "general" when one refers to a doctor or a lawyer as a "general practitioner." Rather, the "general," when attached to "attorney," "surgeon," or "solicitor" seems to denote the notion that the person is in charge of all of the others of its kind. Because of this, "General Clement" is probably correct, I think.
So shouldn't we refer to military generals as officers general?
This incidentally is why there is no rank of "Brigadier General" in most Commonwealth armies, instead it is "Bridadier". The smallest unit which permanently embodies all arms is the division which is commanded by a Major General. Bridades tend to be arm specific and thus a brigade commander doesn't exercise general command.
While our present conception of correctness is one argument against calling them Generals, a much more convincing argument in favor of doing so is that it’s fun.
I admit that while I have frequently referred to the Solicitor General as General, I have never extended the same courtesy to the Attorney General. Now, I would be very interested in hearing arguments that support that particular practice.
All the members of the DoJ would thus be attorneys general, as would members of the Solicitors office, although they would also be of the subset, solicitors general. legal officers of the state, solicitors of the state.
Clement would be the Chief Solicitor General, and Gonzales would be the Chief Attorney General.
but while all of them are general, none of them are A general.
Actually, before 1922, there was a rank of Brigadier General in the British Army and Royal Marines. It was changed to Brigadier to harmonize the rank structures of the Army and Marines with that of the Royal Navy. The Army had four general officer ranks while the RN only had three flag ranks, so they removed the "General" from Brigadier General, making it equivalent to the naval rank of Commodore.
The U.S. solved the same problem in the opposite way, by getting rid of the rank of Commodore and dividing the Navy's Rear Admirals into two categories, lower half (equivalent to a Brigadier General) and upper half (equivalent to a Major General).
Koop, incidentally, looked like a prime ass in his dress whites -- which ought to discourage 'military' pretentions, but probably won't.
For what its worth, his verdict was that it was an adjective.
Now that's interesting; I can well imagine that the South would tend to seize any chance to use "General" as a title of respect. Anyone else got examples of a particular state's usage, Southern or not?
Men known as "Colonel" in the North had to earn it. Though it was still pretentious(E.g., Henry Stimson, Robert McCormick).
On the the question raised in the thread: I am a linguistic realist, not a purist. If in the future, we replace the adjective "light" with "Lite," I can't see the problem.
But this is one of those vocabulary questions that goes beyond language. I can't see the value of using a term that /confuses/ instead of clarifies. And this whole thread indicates that some highly intelligent people--as well as me--are confused about this usage. It follows the French-inversion that we have had in the Anglophonic world since soon after 1066, when the English spoke versions of Germanic or French languages, depending on who they were. Thus, the redundancies that were worked into legal phraseology, for good reason. But many have survived into the present, due to inertia.
Perhaps we should follow the practise of other republics, and call Gonzales and his successors "Sec. of Justice." "Mr. Attorney" sounds dumb. But "Mr. Solicitor" sounds fine to my ears.
Ot the simple "Damned Lawyer." Thats good too.
(she argued Waller v. Georgia (1984), McClesky v. Kemp (1987) and McClesky v. Zant (1991))
In his memoir, Will: The Story of G. Gordon Liddy (1980), Liddy reports that by the time of the Nixon administration, it had become customary to address the AG as "General."
Do I get to wear fatigues to the office on Fridays? Do I get medals and clusters for filings with the SEC even though I am compelled by law to keep secret any personal danger incurred by such filings?
On the other hand, Washington suffers from a lack of any sort of fashion or stylistic sense. Especially the women! Would that men would wear some fashionable Prada suit, rather than a the standard blue suit from Brooks Bros.
So, yes, bring on the military whites and the ribbons. It adds a litle color to an otherwise drab city.
Of course, we all remember the short-lived "Commodore Admiral" of the 1980's (?) intended to make Brigadier Generals happy. Rear Admirals all wore two stars, so BG's had to salute even RA(LH)'s -- it really frosted their butts, so for a while, they changed the Navy rank structure to allow for a one-star admiral rank. It changed back after everyone agreed that it just sounded plain stupid (kind of like addressing the SG as "General").
What I want to know is why a Lieutenant General outranks a Major General, but a Major out ranks a Lieutenant (and they both outrank a Sergeant Major (at least nominally -- in the same way an Ensign outranks a Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy until the CWO tells the Ensign what to do next)).
The Lieutenant General was effectively the Lieutenant to the General, in the sense of "one who acts in place of another."
The word lieutenant in Lieutenant is not used in the sense of one who is subordinate to a captain, but in the broader sense.
It seems to me I remember seeing Robert Jackson and Robert F. Kennedy referred to as General. But addressing the Solicitor General as General is absurd. I think it doubtful Archibald Cox was ever called General Cox.
I think Mr. Attorney General or Mr. Solicitor General is more appropriate. Along the lines of Mr. Chief Justice or Mr. Justice.
I once asked the Clerk of the California Supreme Court how I should address Chief Justice Rose Bird as I was used to a male Chief Justice and to beginning my oral argument with "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court" and wondered whether I should say "Madame Chief Justice" or just "Chief Justice" in place of "Mr. Chief Justice." The clerk, a male, replied: "Chief Justice Bird. Do you have a problem with that?" I hastened to try to alter his apparent impression that I was an unreconstructed male chauvinist pig, explaining that I was only interested in learning what the proper etiquette was, but am not sure I succeeded.
The [Captain-]General was the officer in authority over all of the Captains, who owned their Companies. In England, each side had only one. Remember that at this time almost every officer above the rank of Captain was also a captain of a company. Captain-General was largely an administrative position, although the incumbent would be the senior military commander on that side. On the Continent, large armies might have more than one Captain-General, perhaps one "of Horse" and one "of Foot".
A Lieutenant-General had the same relationship to the Captain-General that a Lieutenant had to a Captain: He is "in lieu of" - takes the place of - the Captain when the Captain is absent. Typically, each large force in the field would have a Lieutenant-General, who would be in command unless the Captain-General was present.
A [Sergeant-]Major-General, one or more per large field force, was originally in charge of marshalling the force in battle - making sure the various units were in the correct place in the overall battle formation. He was also in charge of all of those boring support activities - supplies, quarters, setting sentries, etc. This position evolved into the lowest general officer rank, as specific duties were delegated to others.
Note that the modifier "general" arose not from command of multiple arms (although that was often the case), but from the general officer's authority over many other officers. Most Generals were "of Foot" or "of Horse", and commanded units of their own arm except under unusual circumstances. (Also, I suspect that in "lieutenant-general", the base noun is "general" and not "lieutenant", unlike the other two ranks; the plurals were probably irregular as with much of the language before Samuel Johnson).
Armies of this era were usually divided into right and left wings, perhaps with a separate reserve. A group of units within a wing might be "brigaded" together for convenience in battle if the army was really large (very unusual in the English Civil War), and the leader of that group might be called a "brigadier", but this was an informal, ad hoc appointment.
These armies also had other "generals", such as a "quarter-master-general", a "waggon-master-general", "paymaster-general", "judge-advocate-general", "chaplain-general", etc. These were offices - duty positions - not ranks. They were often held by civilians. Each was in charge of all of the other quarter-masters, waggon-masters, paymasters, judge-advocates, chaplains, etc. Incumbents were addressed conversationally by their real ranks, if any: "Colonel", "Captain", "Master", "Reverend". Not "General".
It is these support positions, not the military ranks, that provide the correct analogy for "attorney-general" and "solicitor-general". The Attorney-General is the lead attorney for the government, in charge of all the government's legal business. The Solicitor-General (contra the English nomenclature) is the senior litigator for the government, in charge of government's litigation. Of course, this grossly oversimplifies both positions, but you get the idea.
The proper form of conversational address for the incumbents of both positions is the same as for any other attorney - "Mister _____" or "Counselor", or whatever is the local tradition. An exception would be if the incumbent had another civil title, such as "Doctor", "Judge", or even "General".
I assume but can't prove that the army kept this title for the overall commander of a large independent force, but eventually shortened it to just "general" - and since companies stayed rather small while armies grew to the tens of thousands, it also was necessary for the army to borrow or invent several other titles for ranks between Captain and General, and for the formations they commanded. Finally, as Brigades (originally commanded by a just plain "General") came to be lumped together into Divisions, Corps, Army Groups, and Armies, several grades of General became necessary.
So, what was the job of the Field Marshal? Supervising the Sergeants Major-General?
Also, what about the Soviet rank of "Colonel General"? Do they still use that in Russia? How did that fit into the rest of the rank structure? I believe that a Colonel General was superior to a Major General, but subordinate to a Marshal.
"In addition to being a postmaster, I'm also a general. And we both know, it's the job of a general to, by God, get things done. So maybe you can understand why I get a little irritated when someone calls me away from my golf."
But since the Solicitor General is a post in the Justice Department, I would think that the argument for calling him a General too would be a bit more strained.
Well, there's a particular Saturday Night Live sketch with Christopher Walken involving a Confederate colonel named Angus...
Attorneys general, courts martial and sergeants major are just a few examples where French grammar remains in certain fixed English phrases, mostly legal or military terms. These not only place the noun before the adjective, but properly pluralize the noun; though pluralizing the adjective is a common error -e.g., "sergeant majors". There is one English phrase, a legal term but also used in more general contexts, that displays French grammar but is not generally "properly" pluralized. In its case, the adjective gets pluralized, perhaps because most people don't realize it is an adjective (actually a past participle).
Any guesses?
First, someone mentioned the Solicitor General appearing in "uniform" and wondering what such a uniform would look like. For those who have watched a Supreme Court oral argument, the Solicitor General (and his deputies) are in "uniform"--since nobody I know actually wears a morning coat anywhere else. So in that sense, Paul Clement and his deputies are in uniform.
Second, a prior post mentioned FAIR v. Rumsfeld, and initally wondering, upon reading the transcript, whether the Judge Advocate General made the argument since the transcript referred to "General Clement."
I was in the gallery when the FAIR case was argued. Interestingly, the very day FAIR was argued, approximately 30-40 JAG officers were sworn into the Supreme Court bar, all resplendent in their Class A uniforms.
Since, as a lawyer, I do not believe in coincidence, i was curious as to how such a fortuitous swearing in date might have been arranged. It seems that William Suter, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, is a retired Army Major Genereal--and former Chief Judge of the United States Military Court of Review. That anwered that.
Also, the Texas Lieutenant Governor is addressed as "Governor."
Boa constrictor? No, not really a legal term
Court martial? Nope, not a participle.
The Choir Invisible. Grr.
I give up.
I imagine if you pluralized it as "treasures trove" people would look at you funny.
"Courts martial" is one of those that unfortunately seems to be giving way to "court martials" in popular usage. I suppose sergeant majors will be next.