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

RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.