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

Re; The work "embarrassed''

Expand Messages
  • endeavorgot
    Dave writes: Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General shut his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders? And when a major general
    Message 1 of 30 , Jan 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave writes:

      Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General shut
      his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?

      And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
      promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why should
      those superiors offer such a promotion again?

      Dave

      A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the order
      is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re offering a
      command that had been turned down how do you explain the fact that
      Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after turning it down
      twice.
      Bill Bruner
    • Dave Smith
      ... As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not tinged with if practicable, or if we re not screwing Buell in your opinion. As far as
      Message 2 of 30 , Jan 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot" <banbruner@c...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Dave writes:
        >
        > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General shut
        > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
        >
        > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
        > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why should
        > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
        >
        > Dave
        >
        > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the
        > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re
        > offering a command that had been turned down how do you explain the
        > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
        > turning it down twice.

        As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not tinged
        with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
        opinion."

        As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
        command ever thought about giving him overall command again.

        In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management practice.

        That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second offer
        of army command.

        Dave
        > Bill Bruner
        >
      • nickrelee@aol.com
        In a message dated 1/30/2006 2:46:42 PM Mountain Standard Time, dmsmith001@yahoo.com writes: As far as Burnside goes, I ve always been perplexed why the Union
        Message 3 of 30 , Jan 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 1/30/2006 2:46:42 PM Mountain Standard Time, dmsmith001@... writes:
          As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
          command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
          After botching AotP command Burnside eventually winds up with command of Army of the Ohio during the Knoxville campaign.  Apparently Lincoln didn't think he was a total waste.
          --Nick
        • Bob Taubman
          But weren t there conditions in the telegram? Wasn t there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on his progress and battle preparations? So maybe
          Message 4 of 30 , Jan 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            But weren't there conditions in the telegram?  Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on his progress and battle preparations?
             
            So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
             


            Dave Smith <dmsmith001@...> wrote:
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
            wrote:
            >
            > Dave writes:
            >
            > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General shut
            > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
            >
            > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
            > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why should
            > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
            >
            > Dave
            >
            > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the
            > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re
            > offering a command that had been turned down how do you explain the
            > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
            > turning it down twice.

            As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not tinged
            with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
            opinion."

            As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
            command ever thought about giving him overall command again.

            In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management practice.

            That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second offer
            of army command.

            Dave
            > Bill Bruner
            >







            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




          • bjer50010
            ... Bob, Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether McKibbin should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO, McKibbin was wrong
            Message 5 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@r...>
              wrote:
              >
              > But weren't there conditions in the telegram?

              Bob,

              Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether McKibbin
              should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO,
              McKibbin was wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the
              orders themselves were conditional. And neither Buell nor Thomas
              would have been aware of the conditions for delivery, so as far as
              they knew the orders were peremptory.

              > Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on
              his progress and battle preparations?

              Only in the instructions to McKibbin. There was no condition
              imposed on the actual transfer of command from Buell to Thomas.

              >
              > So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
              >

              Afraid you have try again Bob. :-). The conditions were only
              imposed on the delivery. As I stated above, I think McKibbin was
              wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the orders
              themselves were conditional.

              Barry

              >
              >
              > Dave Smith <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > Dave writes:
              > >
              > > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General
              shut
              > > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
              > >
              > > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
              > > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why
              should
              > > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
              > >
              > > Dave
              > >
              > > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the
              > > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re
              > > offering a command that had been turned down how do you explain
              the
              > > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
              > > turning it down twice.
              >
              > As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not
              tinged
              > with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
              > opinion."
              >
              > As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
              > command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
              >
              > In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management
              practice.
              >
              > That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second
              offer
              > of army command.
              >
              > Dave
              > > Bill Bruner
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
            • Bob Taubman
              To pick a nit, if those conditions had been met, there would have been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have been no request for Buell to be
              Message 6 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                To pick a nit, if those conditions had been met, there would have been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have been no request for Buell to be relieved.
                 
                I think one is contingent on the other, and that makes the orders conditional on circumstances at that time.
                 


                bjer50010 <barry.jewell@...> wrote:
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman
                wrote:
                >
                > But weren't there conditions in the telegram?

                Bob,

                Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether McKibbin
                should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO,
                McKibbin was wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the
                orders themselves were conditional. And neither Buell nor Thomas
                would have been aware of the conditions for delivery, so as far as
                they knew the orders were peremptory.

                > Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on
                his progress and battle preparations?

                Only in the instructions to McKibbin. There was no condition
                imposed on the actual transfer of command from Buell to Thomas.

                >
                > So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
                >

                Afraid you have try again Bob. :-). The conditions were only
                imposed on the delivery. As I stated above, I think McKibbin was
                wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the orders
                themselves were conditional.

                Barry

                >
                >
                > Dave Smith wrote:
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Dave writes:
                > >
                > > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General
                shut
                > > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
                > >
                > > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
                > > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why
                should
                > > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
                > >
                > > Dave
                > >
                > > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the
                > > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re
                > > offering a command that had been turned down how do you explain
                the
                > > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
                > > turning it down twice.
                >
                > As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not
                tinged
                > with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
                > opinion."
                >
                > As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
                > command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
                >
                > In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management
                practice.
                >
                > That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second
                offer
                > of army command.
                >
                > Dave
                > > Bill Bruner
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >







                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




              • bjer50010
                ... been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have been no request for Buell to be relieved. ... Bob, To a large extent I agree with this
                Message 7 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@r...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > To pick a nit, if those conditions had been met, there would have
                  been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have been no
                  request for Buell to be relieved.
                  >

                  Bob,

                  To a large extent I agree with this statement. I think McKibbin
                  delivered the orders under conditions which HIS orders indicated he
                  was not to do. But... neither Thomas nor Buell knew that, at least
                  not at that time, so their responses are to orders that they thought
                  were clearly defined.

                  > I think one is contingent on the other, and that makes the
                  orders conditional on circumstances at that time.
                  >

                  To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
                  been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
                  disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
                  Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
                  have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
                  he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
                  neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
                  imposed on the delivery of the orders.

                  Barry

                  >
                  >
                  > bjer50010 <barry.jewell@y...> wrote:
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > But weren't there conditions in the telegram?
                  >
                  > Bob,
                  >
                  > Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether
                  McKibbin
                  > should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO,
                  > McKibbin was wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean
                  the
                  > orders themselves were conditional. And neither Buell nor Thomas
                  > would have been aware of the conditions for delivery, so as far as
                  > they knew the orders were peremptory.
                  >
                  > > Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on
                  > his progress and battle preparations?
                  >
                  > Only in the instructions to McKibbin. There was no condition
                  > imposed on the actual transfer of command from Buell to Thomas.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Afraid you have try again Bob. :-). The conditions were only
                  > imposed on the delivery. As I stated above, I think McKibbin was
                  > wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the orders
                  > themselves were conditional.
                  >
                  > Barry
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Dave Smith wrote:
                  > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Dave writes:
                  > > >
                  > > > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major
                  General
                  > shut
                  > > > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
                  > > >
                  > > > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
                  > > > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why
                  > should
                  > > > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
                  > > >
                  > > > Dave
                  > > >
                  > > > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when
                  the
                  > > > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against
                  re
                  > > > offering a command that had been turned down how do you
                  explain
                  > the
                  > > > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
                  > > > turning it down twice.
                  > >
                  > > As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not
                  > tinged
                  > > with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
                  > > opinion."
                  > >
                  > > As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the
                  Union
                  > > command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
                  > >
                  > > In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management
                  > practice.
                  > >
                  > > That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second
                  > offer
                  > > of army command.
                  > >
                  > > Dave
                  > > > Bill Bruner
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                • Bob Taubman
                  bjer50010 wrote: --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman ... been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment


                    bjer50010 <barry.jewell@...> wrote:
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > To pick a nit, if those conditions had been met, there would have
                    been no delivery of the message, therefore, there would have been no
                    request for Buell to be relieved.
                    >

                    Bob,

                    To a large extent I agree with this statement. I think McKibbin
                    delivered the orders under conditions which HIS orders indicated he
                    was not to do. But... neither Thomas nor Buell knew that, at least
                    not at that time, so their responses are to orders that they thought
                    were clearly defined.

                    > I think one is contingent on the other, and that makes the
                    orders conditional on circumstances at that time.
                    >

                    To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
                    been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
                    disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
                    Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
                    have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
                    he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
                    neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
                    imposed on the delivery of the orders.

                    Barry

                    >
                    >
                    > bjer50010 wrote:
                    > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > But weren't there conditions in the telegram?
                    >
                    > Bob,
                    >
                    > Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether
                    McKibbin
                    > should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO,
                    > McKibbin was wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean
                    the
                    > orders themselves were conditional.
                     
                    Yes they were.  McKibbbin as you say was wrong to deliver the  order.  The fact that he delivered the order is irrelevant.  It was conditional on the circumstances. 
                     
                     
                    And neither Buell nor Thomas
                    > would have been aware of the conditions for delivery, so as far as
                    > they knew the orders were peremptory.
                    >
                    > > Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on
                    > his progress and battle preparations?
                    >
                    > Only in the instructions to McKibbin. There was no condition
                    > imposed on the actual transfer of command from Buell to Thomas.
                    >
                    > >
                    > > So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
                    > >
                    >
                    > Afraid you have try again Bob. :-). The conditions were only
                    > imposed on the delivery. As I stated above, I think McKibbin was
                    > wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the orders
                    > themselves were conditional.
                     
                    McKibbin was wrong and should not have delivered the orders.  It was his error, not Buell's, Thomas, or Halleck's.  But, it's becoming similar to previous discussions and it will resolve nothing.  I'll have to agree to disagree.
                     
                    Thanx.
                    >
                    > Barry
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Dave Smith wrote:
                    > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Dave writes:
                    > > >
                    > > > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major
                    General
                    > shut
                    > > > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
                    > > >
                    > > > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
                    > > > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why
                    > should
                    > > > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
                    > > >
                    > > > Dave
                    > > >
                    > > > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when
                    the
                    > > > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against
                    re
                    > > > offering a command that had been turned down how do you
                    explain
                    > the
                    > > > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
                    > > > turning it down twice.
                    > >
                    > > As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not
                    > tinged
                    > > with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
                    > > opinion."
                    > >
                    > > As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the
                    Union
                    > > command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
                    > >
                    > > In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management
                    > practice.
                    > >
                    > > That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second
                    > offer
                    > > of army command.
                    > >
                    > > Dave
                    > > > Bill Bruner
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >







                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  • Tom Mix
                    I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly prepared to turn over command. Right? Tom ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly prepared
                      to turn over command. Right?
                      Tom

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of bjer50010
                      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:17 PM
                      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Re; The work "embarrassed''

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@r...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > But weren't there conditions in the telegram?

                      Bob,

                      Not on the actual orders. There were conditions on whether McKibbin
                      should deliver them, but not on the orders themselves. IMHO,
                      McKibbin was wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the
                      orders themselves were conditional. And neither Buell nor Thomas
                      would have been aware of the conditions for delivery, so as far as
                      they knew the orders were peremptory.

                      > Wasn't there mention made of letting Buell continue depending on
                      his progress and battle preparations?

                      Only in the instructions to McKibbin. There was no condition
                      imposed on the actual transfer of command from Buell to Thomas.

                      >
                      > So maybe there were the "if practicable" cautions there.
                      >

                      Afraid you have try again Bob. :-). The conditions were only
                      imposed on the delivery. As I stated above, I think McKibbin was
                      wrong to deliver the orders, but that doesn't mean the orders
                      themselves were conditional.

                      Barry

                      >
                      >
                      > Dave Smith <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "endeavorgot"
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Dave writes:
                      > >
                      > > Like Barry, I get the point. At what point does a Major General
                      shut
                      > > his mouth, put down his pen, and carry out orders?
                      > >
                      > > And when a major general argues with a superior over a spot
                      > > promotion, one I'm sure the officer believed he deserved, why
                      should
                      > > those superiors offer such a promotion again?
                      > >
                      > > Dave
                      > >
                      > > A Major General "shuts his mouth" and ceases objections when the
                      > > order is made peremptory. If there was a hard policy against re
                      > > offering a command that had been turned down how do you explain
                      the
                      > > fact that Burnside was re offered the command of the AoP after
                      > > turning it down twice.
                      >
                      > As I recall, the orders having Thomas relieve Buell were not
                      tinged
                      > with "if practicable," or "if we're not screwing Buell in your
                      > opinion."
                      >
                      > As far as Burnside goes, I've always been perplexed why the Union
                      > command ever thought about giving him overall command again.
                      >
                      > In other words, I can't explain it other than bad management
                      practice.
                      >
                      > That still does not, in my opinion, entitle Thomas to a second
                      offer
                      > of army command.
                      >
                      > Dave
                      > > Bill Bruner
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >







                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • josepharose
                      ... prepared ... Mr. Mix: No. Just because someone followed an order, doesn t automatically make it peremptory. As Mr. Bruner stated, There is a clear
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jan 31, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
                        prepared
                        > to turn over command. Right?
                        > Tom

                        Mr. Mix:

                        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.

                        Joseph

                        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
                        manner.
                      • Tom Mix
                        But 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
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          But 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
                          higher command.
                          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.
                          Tom

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                          Behalf Of josepharose
                          Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
                          prepared
                          > to turn over command. Right?
                          > Tom

                          Mr. Mix:

                          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.

                          Joseph

                          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
                          manner.








                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Bob Taubman
                          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,
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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?
                             
                            Strange.

                            Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:
                            But 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
                            higher command.
                            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.
                            Tom

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of josepharose
                            Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" wrote:
                            >
                            > I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
                            prepared
                            > to turn over command. Right?
                            > Tom

                            Mr. Mix:

                            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.

                            Joseph

                            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
                            manner.








                            Yahoo! Groups Links













                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                          • William H Keene
                            ... order to give him seniority over Thomas? In order to make it cut and dry that Rosecrans was the senior officer. ... What subterfuge?
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Why was it necessary to change the date of Rosecran's promotion in
                              order to give him seniority over Thomas?

                              In order to make it cut and dry that Rosecrans was the senior officer.

                              > If it was as cut-and-dried as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?


                              What subterfuge?
                            • Tom Mix
                              I don t know about that nor see where it matters. Rosecrans got the job because Thomas passed on the opportunity when it was literally handed to him. That is
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment

                                I don’t know about that nor see where it matters.

                                Rosecrans got the job because Thomas passed on the opportunity when it was literally handed to him. 

                                That is the indisputable fact.

                                 Rosecrans got the job when Thomas left Buell in command when Thomas had the offer literally in his hand to replace Buell. 

                                Thomas did not take the job handed to him and it was then given to Rosecrans. 

                                Thomas was the right man for the job but apparently Thomas did not feel that he (Thomas) was the right man since he did not take the command handed to him.

                                 Proof?

                                Thomas had the order in his hand to replace Buell but simply did not do it. Buell was left in command by Thomas’ decision to not act on the order to replace Buell.

                                Tom

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                                Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:32 PM
                                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

                                 

                                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?

                                 

                                Strange.

                                Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

                                But 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
                                higher command.
                                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.
                                Tom

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                                Behalf Of josepharose
                                Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
                                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" wrote:
                                >
                                > I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
                                prepared
                                > to turn over command. Right?
                                > Tom

                                Mr. Mix:

                                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.

                                Joseph

                                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
                                manner.








                                Yahoo! Groups Links













                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                 

                                 

                              • James F. Epperson
                                ... 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
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> 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
                                  problem.

                                  JFE
                                • Bob Huddleston
                                  A good question. In the Old Army, seniority was sacrosanct, something that the conservative Rebels carried over into the PACS. But early in 1862, the US
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    A good question.

                                     

                                    In the Old Army, seniority was sacrosanct, something that the conservative Rebels carried over into the PACS.

                                     

                                    But early in 1862, the US Congress changed that, for theUS forces at least:

                                     

                                    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever military operations may require the presence of two or more officers of the same grade in the same field or department, the President may assign the command of the forces in such field or department without regard to seniority of rank.

                                     

                                    Approved, April 4, 1862

                                     

                                    12 Stat 617. Issued as General Order # 37, April 8, 1862

                                     

                                    The most famous – and important example of this was the selection of George Meade to command the Army of the Potomac, over the heads of several of his fellow corps’ commanders right before Gettysburg .

                                     

                                    So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.

                                     

                                    Take care,

                                    Bob

                                    Judy and Bob Huddleston
                                    10643 Sperry Street
                                    Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
                                    303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

                                    "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

                                     


                                    From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                                    Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:32 PM
                                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

                                    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?
                                     
                                    Strange.

                                  • Bob Taubman
                                    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
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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
                                      problem.

                                      JFE







                                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                    • nickrelee@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@comcast.net writes: So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@... writes:
                                        So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
                                        I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
                                        --Nick
                                      • Bob Taubman
                                        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
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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 Thomas(no relation)
                                          p. 270
                                           


                                          nickrelee@... wrote:
                                          In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@... writes:
                                          So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
                                          I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
                                          --Nick

                                        • Tom Mix
                                          GO STEELERS!!!! ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:31
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            GO  STEELERS!!!!

                                             

                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                                            Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:31 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
                                            problem.

                                            JFE







                                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                             

                                             

                                          • Harry Smeltzer
                                            There was no stooping involved. This was SOP. Harry ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.

                                               

                                              Harry

                                               

                                              -----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
                                              problem.

                                              JFE







                                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                                              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                               

                                               

                                            • William H Keene
                                              ... Equally famous was the selection of Sherman over Thomas to command the Military Division of the Mississippi. Lesser examples -- Pope placed over the
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...> wrote:
                                                >...
                                                > The most famous - and important example of this was the selection of George
                                                > Meade to command the Army of the Potomac, over the heads of several of his
                                                > fellow corps' commanders right before Gettysburg.

                                                Equally famous was the selection of Sherman over Thomas to command the Military Division
                                                of the Mississippi. Lesser examples -- Pope placed over the corps commanders of the Army
                                                of Virginia; Canby placed over the Department Commanders of the Military Division of West
                                                Mississippi.
                                              • William H Keene
                                                Its possible that the recent experience of Pope and Fremont affected the decision in this situation. Fremont resigned rather than serve under Pope giving the
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Its possible that the recent experience of Pope and Fremont affected the decision in this
                                                  situation. Fremont resigned rather than serve under Pope giving the dates of commission
                                                  as his reason.

                                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                                                  > huddleston.r@... writes:
                                                  >
                                                  > So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it
                                                  > was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a
                                                  > junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his
                                                  > sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his
                                                  > comission back dated. I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding
                                                  > him. So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the
                                                  > congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same
                                                  > grade without worrying about dates.
                                                  > --Nick
                                                  >
                                                • Bob Taubman
                                                  How often was it done? Why is it SOP? Harry Smeltzer wrote: There was no stooping involved. This was SOP. Harry ... From:
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    How often was it done?  Why is it SOP?


                                                    Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:
                                                    There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.
                                                     
                                                    Harry
                                                     
                                                    -----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
                                                    problem.

                                                    JFE







                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                                     
                                                     

                                                  • josepharose
                                                    ... in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet discussed Buell s successor. Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in favor of General
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> 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
                                                      Thomas(no relation)
                                                      > p. 270


                                                      Mr. Taubman,

                                                      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.

                                                      Joseph
                                                    • DORR64OVI@aol.com
                                                      In a message dated 2/1/2006 6:36:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickrelee@aol.com writes: I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        In a message dated 2/1/2006 6:36:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickrelee@... writes:
                                                        I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
                                                        --Nick
                                                        You have this backwards.  Lincoln changed Rosy's date when he promoted him and not after Thomas protested.  When Rosy and Thomas met, the Virginian learned of the date of the commission and then later found out about the back dating.  In any case, the President could pick whom he wanted but mindful of the military traditions, the backdating was done.
                                                         
                                                        Kent Dorr
                                                      • Harry Smeltzer
                                                        See Will s post concerning other examples. But it was done because seniority was very important to these guys. And it was not only done for Army command.
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment

                                                          See Will’s post concerning other examples.  But it was done because seniority was very important to these guys.  And it was not only done for Army command.

                                                           

                                                          Harry

                                                           

                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                                                          Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:11 PM
                                                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

                                                           

                                                          How often was it done?  Why is it SOP?



                                                          Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                                                          There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.

                                                           

                                                          Harry

                                                           

                                                          -----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
                                                          problem.

                                                          JFE







                                                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                                          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                          civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                        • William H Keene
                                                          ... My examples were not of backdating, they were examples of juniors over seniors.
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > See Will's post concerning other examples.

                                                            My examples were not of backdating, they were examples of juniors over
                                                            seniors.
                                                          • William H Keene
                                                            ... Yet the dating of Rosecrans rank made the situation match the tradition.
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
                                                              wrote:
                                                              > ...
                                                              > This was jus another case of military politics trumping military
                                                              > tradition, common sense, and reasonableness.

                                                              Yet the dating of Rosecrans rank made the situation match the
                                                              tradition.
                                                            • Bob Taubman
                                                              To say it was standard operating procedure is just an easy way to excuse political expediency. Obviously there was some honour attached to the seniority
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Feb 2, 2006
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                To 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 civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, 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
                                                                Thomas(no relation)
                                                                > p. 270


                                                                Mr. Taubman,

                                                                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.

                                                                Joseph






                                                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

                                                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                                civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.