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

Re: "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.