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

Re: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Feb 1 3:50 PM
    • 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 2 of 30 , Feb 1 4:00 PM
      • 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 3 of 30 , Feb 1 4:40 PM
        • 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 4 of 30 , Feb 1 5:24 PM
          • 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 5 of 30 , Feb 1 5:33 PM
            • 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 6 of 30 , Feb 1 6:11 PM
              • 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 7 of 30 , Feb 1 6:15 PM
                • 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 8 of 30 , Feb 1 6:38 PM
                  • 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 9 of 30 , Feb 1 6:45 PM
                    • 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 10 of 30 , Feb 1 9:10 PM
                      • 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 11 of 30 , Feb 1 9:12 PM
                        • 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 12 of 30 , Feb 2 3:45 AM
                          • 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.