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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.