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

RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
      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 2 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
        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 3 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
          --- 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 4 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006

            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 5 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
              --- 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 6 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006

                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 7 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                  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 8 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                    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 9 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                      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 10 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006

                        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 11 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006

                          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 12 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                            --- 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 13 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                              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 14 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                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 15 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                  --- 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 16 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                    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 17 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006

                                      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 18 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                        --- 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 19 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                          --- 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 20 of 30 , Feb 2, 2006
                                            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.