|
|
Post by markland on Nov 21, 2006 11:30:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Nov 21, 2006 14:08:50 GMT -6
You are nothing short of remarkable, Markland!
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 21, 2006 18:30:16 GMT -6
Billy:
That was clever of you to tell readers of another thread that they would have to find Sherman for themselves. I wonder how many will. Thanks a buch for the links and the work that you do for all of us.
Gordie
|
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 21, 2006 18:52:43 GMT -6
I think I just fell in love with General Sherman!!!!
Gordie
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 22, 2006 3:55:00 GMT -6
Me too. Isn't he wonderful!!
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 22, 2006 5:53:48 GMT -6
I think I just fell in love with General Sherman!!!! Gordie Perhaps our two South Carolina board members may think different but I agree. His comments are to the point, witty and devoid of political "double-talk." Too damned bad that we don't have enough of that type of person in a leadership position today in DC. Has anyone yet gotten to his comments about New Mexico? If not, be prepared to laugh out loud while reading! Or his thoughts about the Signal Corps. Diane, the Sherman comments brought out a thought. Should there be a thread devoted to the Army command and their personalities? That subject has been touched on in almost all threads at one point or another. Perhaps I only need to finish my caffeine transfusion to forget the thought? Be good, Billy |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Nov 22, 2006 8:35:34 GMT -6
Ask and ye shall receive.
The new board is waiting for you, Billy. It's called "Army Command" and is right above "Seventh Cavalry Members" in the "In Search of . . ." category.
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 22, 2006 8:54:35 GMT -6
Great idea.
Didn't Grant make a similar joke about Texas at one point -- that the only reason he could foresee for going to war with Mexico was if they refused to take Texas back?! You can just imagine the two of them sitting around over the cigars and whisky and chuckling at each other's one-liners ...
One of many things that's striking in this report is how very little the 7th Cavalry's done compared with the other cavalry regiments. Sherman positively commends several -- but when he gets to the 7th, he's almost making excuses for them. Looking at what the others have achieved, it can only be Custer's tireless self-promotion that earns the 7th its "crack regiment" reputation. If Mackenzie, say, or Alexander, had been similarly inclined, they could have wiped the floor with the 7th. Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Nov 25, 2006 18:05:40 GMT -6
I read that part too. And I didn't get the impression that Sherman was "almost making excuses" The 7th did what it was ordered to do. Great idea. Didn't Grant make a similar joke about Texas at one point -- that the only reason he could foresee for going to war with Mexico was if they refused to take Texas back?! You can just imagine the two of them sitting around over the cigars and whisky and chuckling at each other's one-liners ... One of many things that's striking in this report is how very little the 7th Cavalry's done compared with the other cavalry regiments. Sherman positively commends several -- but when he gets to the 7th, he's almost making excuses for them. Looking at what the others have achieved, it can only be Custer's tireless self-promotion that earns the 7th its "crack regiment" reputation. If Mackenzie, say, or Alexander, had been similarly inclined, they could have wiped the floor with the 7th. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 25, 2006 19:47:02 GMT -6
Alfuso, I want to say that he was damning them with faint praise. Honestly, if you look at it, excluding Washita, the 7th was pretty ineffectual the entire time they were in the West.
I was more surprised that, if memory serves correctly, he called the 6th Cav. the best cavalry regiment in the army.
Be good (or careful,)
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by prospector4memory on Nov 28, 2006 21:27:28 GMT -6
Great find there brought a moment or two of amusement.
Anyone remember the year Congress for to allocate payroll for the Army?
How was that resolved?
|
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Dec 1, 2006 14:13:27 GMT -6
For fiscal year 1875, which ended June 30, 1875, congress appropriated only one-half the funds necessary to pay the salaries for the authorized strength of the officer corps. The shortage in the pay of officers was covered by a deficiency appropriation in April, 1876. This technique of under appropriating for authorized expenditures was frequently used by congresses of the day in order to present the illusion of a balanced budget. Not only Army officers suffered from this chicanery. In fiscal 1875 congress also under appropriated $150,000 due under treaty obligations to the Sioux and Cheyenne. The total shortage to the Indians accumulated through 1875 amounted to over $400,000---which, given the commodity prices of the day, and the treaty obligation to provide one pound of meat and one pound of flour per person per day, amounts to the equivalent of over 2,000,000 daily rations over a period of about 6 years. The shortage for fiscal 1875 was made whole by a deficiency appropriation also passed in April, 1875, in large part due to the efforts of Army officers, notably Merritt and Crook, who reported Indians on the reservations were starving and if they weren't fed they would have to be fought.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Dec 1, 2006 20:40:20 GMT -6
Many officers had to borrow money, often at usurious rates, in order to survive these little games of the Congress. This in addition to having to convert their pay from currency into specie [only hard money went far in the West], which cost them anywhere from 20-30% in exchange. Same for the other ranks - so one can see why the frontier Army was not exactly the place to be. Even when the money was appropriated, the paymasters were not always punctual in payments.
Gordie
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 2, 2006 7:53:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 3, 2006 5:04:08 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff, Billy. Sobering that they're still so embroiled in tying up loose ends from the Civil War ... and astounding to think they've got pensioners from the war of 1812 to pay for!
There are a few pointed references here to the change of uniform. Wonder whose idea that was, and how much it cost? It must have cost more than could be saved by trimming a few troop numbers, or making clerks work longer hours ...
|
|
