37118RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders
- Feb 1, 2006But in final analysis, it appears that was wrong. He was soon passed over in
favor of Rosecrans. A soldier can elect to not follow an order but he does
so at his own peril. Thomas' delayed and nearly lost the opportunity of
However, he viewed it, he was wrong. The proof? When Buell was finally
replaced, it wasn't by Thomas but Rosecrans.
The President determines the true meaning of the order and Thomas'
interpretation did not equate to the C.I.C.'s.
Rosecrans got the job that Thomas did not take.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of josepharose
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders
--- In email@example.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
> to turn over command. Right?
No. Just because someone followed an order, doesn't automatically
make it peremptory.
As Mr. Bruner stated, "There is a 'clear' difference between a 'clear'
order and a peremptory order," although I would add that it's not
always clear when an order is peremptory.
In that vein, Thomas, through Baldy Smith, argued against one of
Grant's "peremptory" orders at Chattanooga, as it could have led to
the destruction of the AotC. Grant didn't object until long
afterwards, when he intimated that Thomas had erred.
P.S. per.emp.to.ry adj.
1. Putting an end to all debate or action: a peremptory decree.
2. Not allowing contradiction or refusal; imperative: The officer
issued peremptory commands.
3. Having the nature of or expressing a command; urgent: The
teacher spoke in a peremptory tone.
4. Offensively self-assured; dictatorial: a swaggering, peremptory
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>