Re: Say what? Prentiss wasn't captured?
- --- In email@example.com, Jfepperson@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/13/2003 12:06:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,someone
> josepharose@y... writes:
> > I just came across an oddity in the ORs, and I thought that
> > here might be able to explain it.ranking
> Two speculative thoughts come to mind:
> (1) There may have been some thought of an exchange of high-
> officers, thus Prentiss would be back soon.Mr. Epperson:
> (2) The order might well be mis-dated by the people putting the
> OR together. A lot of the documents that were put in the OR
> actually bear no date, but were given a date during the process
> of putting the series together.
> I think #2 is much more likely. It could be confirmed by going
> to Washington and seeing if the original piece of paper from
> 1862 is dated.
The full text of the order, although even this appears to have been
abridged in the two digital copies I have seen, is:
SPECIAL ORDERS, HDQRS. DISTRICT OF WEST TENNESSEE,
Numbers 49. Pittsburg, Tenn., April 9, 1862.
1. Brigadier General John McArthur will assume temporary command of
the Second Division of this army.
2. Major General C. F. Smith is hereby temporarily appointed to the
command of the post of Savannah. If deemed advisable, troops
arriving may be detained in sufficient numbers to relieve the
present garrison of their now too heavy fatigue duties.
10. Brigadier General John Cook will report for duty to Brigadier
General B. M. Prentiss, commanding Sixth Division, who will assign
him to a brigade.
By order of Major General U. S. Grant:
J. A. RAWLINS,
Not only do the other parts of the order indicate that the date is
correct, but order 35, immediately preceding it in the ORs was
issued the same day and order 40 was promulgated the day after.
I doubt that there was any prisoner exchange contemplated which
formed the basis of such an order.
A mistake, surprising in that Prentiss had been captured three days
earlier, seems more likely.