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

RE: [civilwarwest] Hooker and Burnside

Expand Messages
  • Bob Huddleston
    The United States Congress gave the president the authority to appoint officers of equal rank but later date of commission over those who had been commissioned
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The United States Congress gave the president the authority to appoint
      officers of equal rank but later date of commission over those who had
      been commissioned earlier.

      "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
      States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever military
      operations may require the presence of two or more officers of the same
      grade in the same field or department, the President may assign the
      command of the forces in such field or department without regard to
      seniority of rank.

      "APPROVED, April 4, 1862" 12 Stat 617. Issued as General Order # 37,
      April 8, 1862

      Notice the date: I suspect this was done as a slap at McClellan.

      So the answer to your question is that Hooker could be commanded by
      *any* major general, irrespective of the date of their commissions, if
      the president so chose.

      So could Burnside, and, indeed, he was eventually placed under Meade's
      command, although he initially operated in the Overland Campaign as an
      independent corps, directly under Grant. The chain of command did not
      work out, so Grant assigned the Ninth Corps to the Army of the Potomac.

      When Meade was appointed commanding general of the Army of the Potomac
      on the eve of Gettysburg he was outranked as a major general by three or
      four of the other corps commanders.

      Note: this act did not give the president authority to appoint a
      brigadier general over a major general. However, if the BG held a brevet
      as MG, then the president could order him on duty as a MG, then appoint
      him over someone who held the substantive rank of MG. I do not know if
      this happened, but it might have.

      The Confederate Congress never gave Jefferson Davis equivalent authority
      so he was stuck with the original five full generals (Sidney Johnston
      was replaced by Braxton Bragg).

      Take care,

      Bob

      Judy and Bob Huddleston
      10643 Sperry Street
      Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      303.451.6276 Adco@...

      -----Original Message-----
      From: kamills [mailto:kamills@...]
      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:11 AM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com; antietamdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Hooker and Burnside


      Hello Group

      I have a question regarding Hooker and Burnside. After being
      relieved of command of the AOP, Burnside maintained an almost
      independent command of his 9th Corps because of his rank and his
      previous command of an army. By placing him directly under any
      commander, be it east or west, he would virtually outrank them,
      thus his independent status.

      Why didn't this happen with Hooker while he was at Chattanooga?
      Hooker held the same rank (as far as I know) when he commanded the
      AOP, but when he came back, he only had command of a division
      while Burnside held the same rank and still maintained an
      independent command.

      What was the differnce between the two? I hope you understand my
      question

      Thank you
      Andy





      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.