Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

37132RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • Harry Smeltzer
    Jan 1, 1942
    • 0 Attachment

      There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.




      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
      Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:31 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders


      Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.


      “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”


      Go Seahawks!!

      "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
      > Why was it necessary to change the date of
      > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
      > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
      > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

      I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
      notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
      changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this


      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:



    • Show all 30 messages in this topic