|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 9, 2006 19:08:20 GMT -6
Guys:
Here is anotherof those famous "I read somewhere" dealies. I read somewhere that all things being equal, seniority was determined from highest brevet rank, then, if dates and ranks were equal, USMA graduates took preference, and if all of the foregoing were equal, the officer's Graduate Number would prevail [ostensibly since no two guys could have the same number.]
There is a certain amount of logic to this, although I wouldn't want to quantify how much of a certain amount. It was, and is, the Army, after all.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 10, 2006 2:22:54 GMT -6
Guys: Here is anotherof those famous "I read somewhere" dealies. I read somewhere that all things being equal, seniority was determined from highest brevet rank, then, if dates and ranks were equal, USMA graduates took preference, and if all of the foregoing were equal, the officer's Graduate Number would prevail [ostensibly since no two guys could have the same number.] There is a certain amount of logic to this, although I wouldn't want to quantify how much of a certain amount. It was, and is, the Army, after all. Gordie HK, I remembered something about USMA graduates also but wasn't guite sure enough of what I remembered. Your rememberance matches the little I did remember, i.e., USMA graduates taking precedence over non-USMA graduates. Anyway, today I found the authoritative source for most of the confusion. The 1861 and 1863 Revised Regulations of the Army state in Article II: "5. When commissions are of the same date, the rank is to be decided, between officers of the same regiment or corps by the order of appointment; between officers of different regiments or corps: 1st. by rank in actual service when appointed; 2d. by former rank and service in the army or marine corps; 3d. by lottery among such as have not been in the military service of the United States. In case of equality of rank by virtue of brevet commission, reference is had to commissions not brevet." Clear as mud, eh? The next time I am over, I will look a bit deeper in the 1861 and Revised 1863 regulations to see what I missed. I did spot something relevant to GAC in the regulations. Both 1861 & the Revised 1861 of 1863 in Article II (italics in original): "6. Officers having brevets, or commisions of a prior date to those of the regiment in which they serve, may take place in courts-martial and on detachments, when composed of different corps, according to the ranks given them in their brevets or dates of their former commissions; but in the regiment, troop, or company to which such officers belong, they shall do duty and take rank both in courts-martial and on detachments which shall be composed only of their own corps, according to the commissions by which they are mustered in their own corps. - (61st Article of War.) 7. If, upon marches, guards, or in quarters, different corps of the army shall happen to join, or do duty together, the officer highest in rank of the line of the army, marine corps, or militia, by commission, there on duty or in quarters, shall command the whole, and give orders for what is needful to the service, unless otherwise specifically directed by the President fo the United States, according to the nature of the case. - (62d Article of War.) 8. An officer not having orders from competent authority cannot put himself on duty by virtue of his commission alone. 9. Officers serving by commission from any state of the Union take rank next after officers of the like grade by commission from the United States. 10. Brevet rank takes effect only in the following cases: 1st. by special assignment of the President when commands composed of different corps; 2d. on courts-martial or detachments composed of different corps. Troops are on detachment, only when sent out temporarily to perform a special service. 11. In regularly constituted commands, as garrisons, posts, departments; companies, battalions, regiments; corps, brigades, divisions, army corps, or the army itself, brevet rank cannot be exercised except by special assignment." So, it looks like GAC used para 6, 7 and 10 to assume command from Hazen Sully (thanks Elisabeth!) after Crawford refused the command. Later, Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 10, 2006 4:22:24 GMT -6
RCH, the General Order you referenced may be found here: freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/Custer/ago_92_01.jpgThe last page of General Order 92 (p. 29) has this interesting paragraph which may explain some of the confusion regarding company assignments in the new 7th Cav. "VIII...Captains, as they report, will be assigned temporarily to companies by regimental commanders. The subalterns appointed under the act of July 28, 1866, will be assigned to companies by regimental commanders in a manner most conducive to the interests of their regiments, and report forwarded at once to the Adjutant General." Also, in reference to the note below Gibbs's name and that of Major Price of the 8th Cav, it is a generic note following all the new cavalry regiments stating that, "In this order are recorded the appointments of those field officers only who have notified this office of their acceptance."
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 10, 2006 8:52:02 GMT -6
Re Reply 76 above: under 7, 10, & 11, it looks as if Custer was skating on thin ice in getting Sully dumped from the Washita campaign, doesn't it? He cited his higher brevet rank, but shouldn't Sully have outranked him in line by virtue of being district commander? I suppose the "commands composed of different corps" could have been the get-out clause -- but as I'm reading this, that only works "by special assignment of the President". Whereas in this case it seems to have been merely by special assignment of Custer's pal Sheridan. Was it legit? Or was poor old Sully treated unfairly?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 10, 2006 11:34:52 GMT -6
The General Fry mentioned by Benteen in his letters to Goldin wrote a book about brevet rank
As he explained it brevets were commissions in the Army at large. Officers were commissioned in their branch and regiment, and when serving within their regiments and I think branch (a command made up of companies of one branch but coming from differrent regiments) the brevet rank could not be used. When a command was made up of units from differnt branches the brevet or at large commission could be excercised. This also applied to commands made up of Regular Army, U. S. Volunteers, Militia, and Marines.
It appears that while only Sully and Custer were present, there was no problem; Sully was in command. The trouble had to do with impending arrival of Col. Crawford who was a full Colonel. If Crawford had been a Lt Col or Custer and Sully had been Cols, Crawford would have been outranked by the Regulars and there might have been no trouble.
The problem was that Sully assumed command in his Regular Army brevet rank of Brig Gen (Volunteers and Regulars serving together). Custer was a Brevet Maj Gen of the Regular Army so he too issued an order assuming command, but since Crawford had not arrived, he continued to serve under Sully.
I haven't seen the orders that each man issued, Sully is said to have also argued based on his status as district commander while Custer is said to have argued that Sully was outside the boundries of his district. There was a lot of latrine lawyering going on, but it was all looking toward the time when Crawford would arrive.
rch
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 12, 2006 0:52:30 GMT -6
Re: seniority of 28 Jul 66 Capts According to Kautz' "Customs of the Service for Officers" the dates appointments were accepted determined rank. This is available on line as www.usregulars.com and there is a link to on another thread. It's under "Lieutenant" in paragraph 13. Kautz didn't refer to the practice directly. He was writing about the practice of appointing non-commissioned officers as Brevet 2nt Lts. This was common before the Civil War when there were no full 2nd Lt vacancies. Kauts wrote, "If appoined Brevet Second Lieutenants, as in the case of original vacancies, they rank from the date of their acceptance . . . ." I think he means here the date the acceptance is received by the War Department. The 28 Jul appointments were made to fill original vacancies. This would explain why in the end West, who had been a full Colonel of Volunteers ranked 5th behind Keogh and Myers. Their seniority was in the hands of either the post office or the telegraph or a combination of both. rch
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 13, 2006 12:07:24 GMT -6
Re: West Point standing and promotions
Except when new regiments were added to the Army, the only officer vacancies were among 2nd Lts. In general West Point graduates got the first call on those vacancies at graduation time. Later in the year the remaining vacancies would be filled by appointments of civilians. One of the exceptions to this rule was the appointment of Edward Eckerson in May 1876, but he had previously held a commission. Reilly and Crittenden were both appointed from civilian life on 15 Oct 75. I think there were also 2 or 3 other 2nt Lts wih the Terry, Crook, and Gibbon who were appointed on 15 Oct 75.
After 1867 I have been able to find only two 2nd Lts appointed to the 7th directly from civilian life, Richard Alexander (12 Dec 72), who died in 1875 and Reilly.
Promotion of West Point graduates by class standing can be seen in three sets of classmates who joined the 7th.
1867: John Johnson stood 24th and was promoted to 1st Lt 1 Nov 67. Edward Godfrey stood 53rd and was promoted to 1st Lt 1 Feb 68. 1869: James Porter stood 16th and was promoted to 1st Lt 1 Mar 72. William Craycroft stood 18th and was promoted to 1st Lt 2 Dec 75. Charles Braden stood 19th and was promoted to 1st Lt 9 Dec 75. 1872: George Wallace stood 9th and was promoted to 1st Lt 25 Jun 76 and then to Capt 23 Sep 85. Charles Varnum stood 17th and was promoted to 1st Lt 25 Jun 76 and then to Capt 22 Jul 90.
rch
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 5, 2008 22:26:51 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. Elisabeth & RCH, last night I started rereading Utley's Frontiersmen In Blue dealing with the antebellum frontier army since it has been many, many years. Utley states, without a source, the following regarding officer promotions in the antebellum army on p. 31: "Officers advanced strictly by seniority-in their regiments through captain, in their corps (infantry, cavalry, engineers, and so forth) through colonel, and in the army at large beyond." RCH, you can confirm, but this from what I remember seeing in the post-CW army (excluding new regiments or consolidated regiments), was the same practice. I had to start from page one and folks, we all did good work on this thread! Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by rch on Mar 6, 2008 12:19:39 GMT -6
Billy,
Utley is the earliest source I ever had for how promotions worked. Since then I've seen the 1861 Regulations and other works that confirm what he wrote, and those rules were followed after the Civil War. However when promoting men to general officer rank the President could depart from seniority. This was how Crook was promoted from Lt Col to Brig Gen.
rch
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 6, 2008 15:19:55 GMT -6
I believe Utley to be correct.
Within the regiment, you got your next rank, to 1LT and then CPT, based on your seniority number matched against the other officers in your regiment (incl. those detached).
To get to MAJ it was different...you had to compete with the seniority numbers of all the officers in the Army within your branch/corps (cavalry, artillery, infantry, engineers, etc.). This gets tricky, because I don't think you could accept that promotion unless you had a slot open...so if you made Major, and there were already two Majors in your regiment, you either had to deny the promotion, or take leave unassigned, or get a Major's position in another regiment...is how I THINK it worked.
Same to LTC and full COL, except that there are a lot of staff jobs available to those ranks that didn't require you to find a slot inside any given regiment...you were "at large" in the Army.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by rch on Mar 6, 2008 16:44:08 GMT -6
Clair,
There were probably cases were officers denied promotion for there own reasons, but they would have been very rare, because promotions were relatively rare. If you were the senior captain of cavalry and a vacancy occured among the majors of any cavalry regiment, you could pack your bags. There were no staff positions that field officers could be assigned to that would create a vacancy. There were 10 colonels of cavalry. They might be on leave or be assigned to recruiting or West Point or to help the president paint the White House, but they were colonels of their regiments until they died, retired, were promoted, or were dismissed. Even if officers were suspended, as were Custer, Reno, and Benteen, no vacancy occured.
rch
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 10, 2008 8:30:26 GMT -6
rch,
Didn't Benteen originally turn down promotion to Major of a black regiment? Would that be an example of being offered Major, but voluntarily turning it down? He held out for a Captaincy in the 7th, and then we know later DID take a Majorcy in the black 9th U.S. Cavalry.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by rch on Mar 10, 2008 16:09:03 GMT -6
On another thread Markland posted a link to information from the 1867 Army Register. There was a long list of men who declined appointments. Pleasonton declined an infantry Lt Col's appointment. Neither Custer nor Benteen are listed as declining higher appointments. It's possible that both men made informal declarations that they would not accept those appointments.
It took over 16 years for Benteen to be offered a majority, so he probably jumped at the promotion.
rch
|
|
Carl
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by Carl on May 22, 2011 20:25:43 GMT -6
The Act of July 28, 1866 authorized 4 new Regiments of Cavalry. 1/3 of the original Captains were to be selected from the Regular army and 2/3 from volunteers who had served at least 2 years in the Cavalry during the war. Successful applicants had to pass an examination.
.....................The following 8 Captains were appointed to fill original vacancies with date of rank July 28, 1866 .....................They are listed in order of seniority in the Army Register of August 1, 1867
William Thompson, born 1813, ex-Col lst Iowa Cav, Bvt Brig Gen Vols (ex-congressman) Frederick William Benteen, born 1834, ex-Col 138th US Col Inf Myles Walter Keogh, born 1840 Ireland, ex-Maj adc Vols, Bvt Lt Col Vols (2d Lt 4th Cav 1866) Edward Myers, born 1830 Germany, 1st Lt 1st Cav, Bvt Lt Col RA, (enl 1st Drgs 1857-62) Robert Mayhew West, born 1834, ex-Col 5th Pa Cav, Bvt Brig Gen Vols, (enl Mtd Rif 1856-61) Louis McLane Hamilton, born 1844, 1st Lt 3rd Inf, Bvt Capt RA,(Grandson of Alex. Hamilton and Louis McLane) Albert Barnitz, born 1835, ex-Maj 2d Ohio Cav Michael Vincent Sheridan, born 1840, ex-Capt adc Vols, Bvt Maj vols, (2d Lt 5th Cav 1866) (brother of P. Sheridan)
......................The following two were appointed to fill original vacancies with date of rank July 28, 1866 ......................Morrow was appointed Major 9th Cavalry on Mar 3, 1867 and Robeson resigned Jun 8, 1867.
William P Robeson Jr, born 1837, ex-Lt Col 3rd NJ Cav, Bvt Brig Gen vols Albert Payson Morrow, born 1841, ex-Lt Col 6th Pa Cav, Bvt Col Vols
.................The following two were appointed with Date of rank July 28, 1866, but declined
Charles Lane Fitzhugh, born 1838, lst Lt 4th Art, Bvt Brig Gen RA, ex-Col 2d Prov NY Cav, Bvt Brig Gen Vols John Birdsall, born 1840, ex-Maj 13th NY Cav
These were the original 12 appointed Captains of the Seventh Cavalry. 3 were lst Lts in the existing Regular army. (Myers, Hamilton, Fitzhugh). The remainder were ex volunteer officers, although Keogh and Sheridan had been appointed 2d Lts in 1866). Birdsall was on the list who would be cancelled if his letter of acceptance was not received by May 10, 1867.
.................The following two had Date of rank July 28, 1866 but their appointments were cancelled. .................Apparently 2 of the above 12 were named in their place
Henry A Cole, born 1838, ex-Col lst Md Cav Edward Washburn Whitaker, born 1841, ex-Lt Col lst Conn Cav, Bvt Brig Gen Vols (Medal of Honor)
.............. The following was given date of rank Mar 6, 1867, originally vice Morrow, but later changed .............. to Original vacancy (he was also Lt Col Mil Sec to Lt Gen Sherman at this time)
Lewis Mulford Dayton, born 1835,ex-Maj AAG Vols Bvt Lt Col vols, 2nd Lt 2 Inf 1866
............... The following lst Lt was promoted effective Jun 8, 1867, vice Robeson, resigned
Lee P Gillette, born 1832, ex-Capt 1st Neb Cav (lst Lt 7th Cav Jul 28, 1866)
.................... The following two were appointed to original vacancies (there were still 2 open), as of June 12, 1867
George Wilhelmus Mancius Yates, born 1843, ex-Capt 13th Mo Cav, Bvt Lt Col vols, (2nd Lt 2d Cav 1866) Joseph Prentiss Sanger, born 1840, lst Lt 1st Art Bvt Maj
...................... Sanger declined, and the following was appointed, date of rank July 31, 1867
Thomas Benton Weir, born 1834, ex-Lt Col 3rd Mich Cav, lst Lt 7th Cav Jul 28, 1866
....................... New York Times, Nov 2, 1866 mentions officers appointed, including Benteen, Whitaker ....................... and lst Lts Gillette, Weir, H.W. Smith among others. Also this Captain
Edward Francis Winslow, born 1837, ex-Col 4th Iowa Cav, Bvt Brig Gen vols
......................... The dates on the Presidents letter to the Senate nominating them were ....................... Dec 11, 1866 - Robeson, Sheridan (accepted Oct 23), Keough, West, Morrow (acc. Oct 26) ........................Dec 29, 1866 - Hamilton, Benteen (accepted Nov 24) ........................Jan 23, 1867 - Thompson (accepted Dec 29), Barnitz (accepted Jan 10) ....................... Mar 2, 1867 - Myers ....................... Mar 6, 1867 - Dayton ....................... Dec 3, 1867 - Gillette, Yates (Weir ?)
Of these 20 Captains or potential Captains, 6 were Brevet Brigadier Generals (1 in the Regulars) and 3 more later became Generals - Benteen (with Brevet), Sheridan and Sanger.
It is unclear how the relative seniority of those with same date of rank was determined.
|
|
Carl
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by Carl on Jul 1, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6
On Brevets awarded to the volunteer officers appointed to the Regular Army in 1866/67. It appears that these Brevets, many with date of March 3, 1867, were in one sense - haphazard. Was there political pull involved ?
A comparison (using the 1868 Army Register) of the 4 new Cavalry Regiments The 12 Captains had Brevets of: 7th - 1 Colonel, 8 Lt Colonels 8th - 1 Colonel, 4 Lt Colonels, 4 Majors 9th - 1 Colonel, 2 Lt Colonels, 2 Majors 10th - 1 Lt Colonel, 4 Majors
Furthermore only the 7th had any lst Lieutenants with Brevets higher than Major Cooke and T. Custer were Brevet Lieutanant Colonels
What factors were involved to get the 7th more and higher Brevets than the other Cavalry Regiments ?
Carl
|
|