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

Re: "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.