|
Post by markland on Sept 3, 2006 11:47:23 GMT -6
Diane dear, you are so mean! Here, we have the entire adult household suffering from a big night of eating 24 oz. porterhouse steaks, too much red wine/beer/martinis and old age and you give us a placebo!
Hmmmm...wonder if I have the fixings for a Bloody Mary?
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 3, 2006 11:55:50 GMT -6
Sounds the best plan, Billy.
So, two returns. Bizarre. Great to have the November 9th date for Sheridan ...
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 3, 2006 19:34:02 GMT -6
Neither the 31 Jul or 27 Aug 67 date for Weir's promotion reflects a date that any of the known Capts of the 7th left the regiment. One or the other of the dates may be the date the last of the original captaincies fell vacant due to cancellation or declination.
What was the effective date of the 1867 Register? If it was before 27 Aug, the 31 Jul date must be correct. Otherwise the Register for 1868 may yield an answer.
Also remember that Yates was stiil listed as Reg QM of the 2nd Cav though 28 Oct 67, even though he was appointed Capt of the 7th effective 12 Jun.
Wasn't Weir serving with Smith at district HQ at this time? Kautz in "Customs of the Service" says that a brigade commander who didn't have officers of the QM or Commissary Depts on his staff could assign a regimental QM or Comm to the staff. The duty at the regimental level would then be performed by an acting QM of Comm. The official record for the regiment would not be changed. This may have been possible because regimental QMs and Comms already had the approval of the Sec of War. This is similar to Nowlan's appointment to Terry's staff.
Keogh's temp appointment to Co I is interesting. It may mean that when he originally joined the regiment there was still an intent to permanently assign officers to companies by seniority. The second regimental special order may reflect a decision by the War Department to abandon the practice.
rch
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 3, 2006 21:23:55 GMT -6
The August, 1867 regimental return states the following (which throws everything into confusion): Ft. Harker, KS-"Dropped from Field and Staff in Regimental Commissary by reason being promoted Captain in 7th Cavalry to date from Aug. 27, '67 as yet unassigned to a company." And trust me, I looked over that August date extremely carefully!!! rch-- Why wouldn't this be definitive? Rather than a name with a possibly mis-transcribed date next to it, this statement makes it pretty clear I would think. What would supersede it? Are we all wrong & 27Aug67 is correct? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 4, 2006 2:51:33 GMT -6
The effective date of the 1867 Register was August 1, 1867. And yes, it was in my plans to get the 1868 Register so no problem. I will get that after going through either the 2d or 7th Inf. returns (1874-1883/1884 respectively) today.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 6, 2006 9:55:45 GMT -6
Fred
I didn't mean to confuse the issue. I was thinking of my seat about the two dates. I thought the 31 Jul date was correct, but the Aug date and the coincidental 31 Jul date for Weir's brevets made me wonder if a mistake had been made.
However since the Register had effective date of 1 Aug, it's clear that the 31 Jul date is the correct date of rank. I think Weir was doing the duties of commissary until the 27 Aug, which was either the day he sent in his acceptance or the date the War Dept sent him the final notification.
rch
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 6, 2006 17:54:02 GMT -6
rch--
Thanks for the information. I will accept 31Jul67 as Weir's correct DOR to CPT.
Billy--
You agree, right?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Hostler on Sept 6, 2006 21:01:39 GMT -6
Markland, I noticed in the 1867 Army Register you posted: http: //freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/Army%20Register/AR1867_100-101.jpg, that Alfred Pleasonton was appointed Major in the 2nd Cavalry. Is this the Gen. Alfred Pleasonton that Custer served under as a member of his staff during the C.W.? This would mean he was junior to Custer in rank after the re-organization. Very ironic if so. The info you posted is fascinating. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 7, 2006 8:32:48 GMT -6
Two responses to questions: rch-- Thanks for the information. I will accept 31Jul67 as Weir's correct DOR to CPT. Billy-- You agree, right? Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I would never disagree with you & RCH without iron-clad supportive evidence I don't know why I had not thought of this before but I took a look at the 1875 Army Register for Weir's dates. His date of rank as Captain is still listed as 31 July 1867. It also still shows the dates of his brevets as 31 July 1867. Hostler, good catch! I had not noticed that myself. As to your question, I think the answer is yes. Per Heitman (and there is only one Alfred Pleasanton), Pleasanton was promoted to major in the regular Army on 15 Feb 1862 and then promoted to brigadier general of volunteers on 16 July 1862 and major general of volunteers on 22 June 1863. He was mustered out of the volunteer service on 15 January 1866 and resigned his regular army commission on 1 January 1868. His retirement was on 3 October 1888 as major to date from 19 October 1888 per Act of 19 October 1888. I need to look up that Act of 19 October 1888 to see what benefits to retirees were included. All, I will start working on getting the 1875 Register scanned so that the last one prior to LBH is available to you. Billy
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 7, 2006 10:27:07 GMT -6
Thanks for your efforts, Billy.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 8, 2006 15:36:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 8, 2006 18:59:15 GMT -6
Billy--
Thanks for confirming it.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2006 4:24:30 GMT -6
Great stuff, Billy.
A technical question: with, for instance, that whole swathe of captains appointed 28 July 1866, what was it that determined the order of seniority? We've queried that earlier with regard to Benteen versus Keogh, but it rears its head again when one sees how many others were senior to both of them.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 9, 2006 8:55:11 GMT -6
Great stuff, Billy. A technical question: with, for instance, that whole swathe of captains appointed 28 July 1866, what was it that determined the order of seniority? We've queried that earlier with regard to Benteen versus Keogh, but it rears its head again when one sees how many others were senior to both of them. It has got to be seniority of some sort. Looking through Heitman, it looks like they went in order of the date of rank of their former commission if regular army. If those were the same, they appear to have gone to the next lowest rank. If appointed from the volunteer services, it looks like the date of rank of their highest volunteer rank. Somewhere in the Leavenworth library, that there has to be an answer. Fred or RCH, any help would be appreciated! Here is the basis for my initial conjecture though. McLelland, Curwen, enlisted 11/17/49-11/17/1855 & 8/7/56-6/11/61; commissioned 2Lt. 5/14/61; 1Lt. 7/17/62. No volunteer service. Van Vliet, Frederick, commissioned 2Lt. 8/5/61; 1Lt. 7/17/62. No volunteer service. Thompson, Lewis, commissioned 2Lt. 2/19/62; 1Lt. 10/28/62. Volunteer service as a 90 day enlisted man. Kerin, Joseph, enlisted 1/3/53-1/3/58 & 8/5/58-10/31/61; commissioned 2Lt. 10/26/61; 1Lt. 12/23/62. No volunteer service. Bernard, Reuben, enlisted 2/19/55-9/14/62; acting 2Lt. 1/5/62-9/14/62; commissioned 2Lt. 7/17/62; 1Lt. 6/21/63. No volunteer service. Here is where it gets tricky.Thompson, William, commissioned Capt. 7/28/66. Previous highest rank was Col., 1 Iowa Cav on 6/20/64. Benteen, Frederick, commissioned Capt. 7/28/66. Previous highest rank was Col., 138 USC Inf. 7/15/65. Keogh, Myles, commissioned 2Lt. 5/4/66; Capt. 7/28/66. Previous highest rank was Maj. in volunteers, 4/7/64. Nolan, Nicholas, enlisted svc. 12/9/52-9/22/62; commissioned 2Lt. 7/17/62; 1Lt. 7/5/64. Carpenter, Louis, enlisted svc. 11/1/61-9/20/62; 2Lt. 7/17/62; 1Lt. 9/28/64. Col. USC Cavalry 11/2/65.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 9, 2006 14:08:00 GMT -6
Billy and Elisabeth--
I am not sure about the 19th-century. In fact, I am not even sure about today, though I see no reason why the army would have changed its system from when I was in it. Back in the 1960s-1970s your DOR started from the time of commission, i.e., from the date you first went in the service as an officer. Generally, the USMA might set its graduation day a day or so earlier than ROTC colleges, so the West Pointers would have seniority over all other officers who became 2LTs in that graduation class. (Before the Vietnam conflict became too hot, OCS had been suspended, at least for the army). 1LT was an automatic promotion, 18 months-- to the day-- from when you became a 2LT. After promotion to 1LT, things became a little dicier. From there on out, it depended on your "efficiency" report (naturally, they have changed the name of this report, so it is something different today; typical!).
There was even a thing call the "5-percenter list," though I cannot recall whether or not that was ever an "official" list for promotion, but those were the top guys who received their promotion to the next grade earlier than the others. Every year or 6 months-- I forget-- a list would be published showing all the promotions to the next highest grade, & you had better be on that list, regardless of when your promotion was due. If you were not... trouble. I think if you missed 3 lists in a row, you were finished, doomed to remain in your current grade-- "passed over" in the argot.
Anyway, classmates would soon be separated in date of rank, because of these "efficiency" reports. They were your life, your career, your future. One bad one & it was usually, poof, a lot of time down the drain. You could also be damned by faint praise, believe me! I saw my best friend go down in flames that way! It can be a very touchy system & many times I wonder just how good it is. I am not really sure it makes for the best officers & certainly not sure about the best generals. There are a lot of "corporate" boys walking around w/ stars on their shoulders, and you all know-- much better than I-- how that game works.
No help, I am sure, though it may give you some sort of reasoning to use. Sorry.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|