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

RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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/



       

       

    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.