37144Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders
- Feb 2, 2006To say it was standard operating procedure is just an easy way to excuse political expediency. Obviously there was some honour attached to the seniority system in the military but as you have pointed out it was politics trumping tradition.
josepharose <josepharose@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bob Taubman wrote:
> Fortunately they got it right when they had to replace Rosecrans.
> "In Don Piatt's biography of General Thomas he described a scene
in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet
discussed Buell's successor. Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in
favor of General Rosecrans for the vacancy and Secretary of War Edwin
M. Stanton favored General Thomas. After listening patiently to both
men, the President said, "Let the Virginian wait; we will try
Rosecrans. Piatt also stated that he was in Secretary Stanton's
office when he returned from the conference with the President, and
that his first words were, "Well, you have your choice of idiots; now
look for frightful disaster."
> - General George H. Thomas, The Indomitable Warrior, Wilbur
> p. 270
Unfortunately, it appears that some people overlook how things were
done in the US Army of the time.
Rhea noted: "Placing Burnside under Meade would constitute a serious
breach of military protocol."
Longstreet had written: "I thought it unwise and not military to
choose a junior for assignment over his senior officers, and
prejudicial to the espirit de corps and morale of any army, except
under most eminent services."
This was jus another case of military politics trumping military
tradition, common sense, and reasonableness.
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:
- << Previous post in topic