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

Re: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.