Should Gen Sheridan have been commanding in the field?

[quincannon]

I am not sure how it was then Beth, and by that I mean the law (not regulations) regarding general officers, but today if a general officer declines an assignment, he will be placed upon the retired list PDQ. A general officer serves at the pleasure of, and those assignments have mandatory term limits. You can be appointed, and reappointed to the same assignment, and that does happen, but if you decline, you concurrently decide to retire.

[Beth]

Jul 21, 2015 23:34:16 GMT quincannon said:

I am not sure how it was then Beth, and by that I mean the law (not regulations) regarding general officers, but today if a general officer declines an assignment, he will be placed upon the retired list PDQ. A general officer serves at the pleasure of, and those assignments have mandatory term limits. You can be appointed, and reappointed to the same assignment, and that does happen, but if you decline, you concurrently decide to retire.

I guess I can understand that--people would start to cherry pick assignments, but isn't there someone in the chain of command that says this guy is more of a diplomat and plays well with others, we need him here--while officer B can read a battlefield like a book, we need him there?  Was Eisenhower given his position in WWII based on seniority or his abilities?

[quincannon]

Eisenhower had the permanent Regular Army rank of Lieutenant Colonel when he was wearing four stars on D Day.

There were just so very few general officer positions, so there was not a heck of a lot of leeway, nor a bounty of talent. Lot of good people in the company and field grades but they would not be back up the list until the late 80's and 90's.

[royalwelsh]

Jul 21, 2015 21:24:44 GMT quincannon said:

Granted (pardon the pun) Justin, but putting my Ulysses hat on, I suspect that I would not have had someone commanding the Department of Dakota in whom I did not have full faith and confidence in as both an administrative and field commander, and part of commanding includes sitting on a subordinate when that subordinate requires sitting on.

Terry had great value to the Army, it is just that his value was not in the job he was given. We have both seen this before in our respective careers. In fact we have both probably held jobs ourselves where we were not the best fit.

I suspect had Sheridan accompanied Terry, as Grant accompanied Meade, Terry would have become a supernumerary, and he would have resented it and Sheridan, and whomever he thought instigated the act until his dying day.

QC,

And yet this was Terry's second time as commander of the Department of Dakota, and he held the position for 13 years the second time.....what does that say?

RW 

[quincannon]

It says that at the time we did not suffer an embarrassment of riches.

[quincannon]

I think it may be time to reflect a little on the persons and personalities that inhabited the top field grade and general officer ranks of the Army in the twenty or thirty years that followed the ACW.

Don't believe there is any better place to start that than a book called Generals in Blue. Can't remember the author. My dad had a copy I gave him many moons ago, and I think my son got it when my dad passed away. Every general officer in the U S Army during the ACW is covered, even the ones who were promoted and never confirmed by the Senate near the end of the war, like the founder of the city where I live William Palmer (promoted to BG but the confirmation process lapsed at the end of the war)

The book follows their post war service, and what you see is that the young kick ass commanders were largely reduced back to their permanent regular ranks. Many said no thanks. Others were offered slots well below what they had been. Some of them said no thanks. Others still got pretty good jobs especially when the Infantry expanded after the war, but within a few years shrank again, and they became excess.

If you can find a copy it is worth a read through, but ask yourself how an Army could not find top jobs for guys like Chamberlain and Wilson, and people of that caliber, or could not find a way to keep talent.

For Dave and Duane, there is a companion called Generals in Gray, and for those GO's that survived it tells the tale of how many of them were instrumental in rebuilding the south, people like Hampton, Gordon, Wheeler, and many others less well known. 

[Beth]

Very good idea.

The author is Ezra Warner-- Amazon 

Beth

[royalwelsh]

Still amazes me that Duane and Dave don't make the point that the victorious resources rich North had over 100K more dead than the defeated resources poor South in preserving the Union.......

RW 

[quincannon]

Strategic offense vs. strategic defense, accounts for a lot of that.

[dave]

Jul 22, 2015 18:23:39 GMT royalwelsh said:

Still amazes me that Duane and Dave don't make the point that the victorious resources rich North had over 100K more dead than the defeated resources poor South in preserving the Union.......

RW 

RW
I believe there a couple of factors that caused additional Union casualties:
1) The southern climate and terrain caused many soldier deaths on both sides yet the Rebs were more inured to the heat/humidity and diseases such as Malaria than Union soldiers. I have listed a web site below which gives some figures that are fairly accurate which notes that Federal battle deaths totaled a little over 16,000 yet they had over 64,000 more deaths from diseases.
2) The enlistment rolls and muster rolls for the majority of Confederate units were lost and many additional casualties must be considered.
3) Grant's Overland Campaign of 1864 was almost entirely composed of Federal attacks against Rebel entrenchments which engendered more Union casualties.
4) Finally the Union had more troops enlisted than the Confederates which added to the disease death figures I believe and the Rebs were better enabled to desert than the Yanks who were unable to blend into the surrounding countryside which affected the Appomattox surrender figures. Lee's army bled men for over a week before surrendering.  
Regards
Dave

www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

[royalwelsh]

Dave,

I think larger Union armies being more vulnerable to disease is a very important point.

RW

[Beth]

Jul 22, 2015 21:00:48 GMT royalwelsh said:

Dave,

I think larger Union armies being more vulnerable to disease is a very important point.

RW

It was a huge factor-I believe more people died of disease than of wounds

link  

Camp sanitation is important

[dave]

RW
Sadly recent events have clouded the issue of Southern Heritage even more with the increased pressures to eliminate any and all statues, graves, monuments and the state flag of Mississippi. It is political correctness gone wild. The Confederate Battle flag was taken over and used by vile hate groups such as the Klan, Nazis and the Council of Conservative Citizens for examples. The state of Mississippi added the Confederate Battle flag to it's flag in 1894 but the usage by South Carolina and other groups started in the late 1940 with the Dixie Democrats party.
The War was a regrettable part of American history but it did happen and we cannot pretend it did not. The Confederacy was doomed from the start due to the disparity of populations and industry with the North as Shelby Foote had said "the North fought the War with 1 hand tied behind their back". Slavery was the cause of the War period. Yet we must realize the temper of the times and men and governments made decisions by the dictates of their consciences and their God. They chose poorly and the South has struggled ever since.
But remember this, slavery was introduced in 1619 and remained legal until 1865 all during this time period it was under the Stars and Stripes! It was a shared sin by all Americans not just the South. 4 states fought with the Union and were slave states till 1865.
The "Lost Cause" was a cruel dream and affliction and caused great additional harm that led to Jim Crow and misery that followed.
My poor state, region and nation are suffering but we will not yield nor bow but over come as we always have.
Sorry for the long screed but I wanted to share with you the conflicting emotions some folks down my way have.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

Dave, this too will pass and perhaps in the end we will have a different and more realistic view of the Civil War, its effect on history and how we should deal with the difficulty of recognizing that Confederate Veterans and their families lived, died and sacrificed as much as Union veterans. I personally believe that Confederate symbols have a place in history, but we just have to figure out where. I also suspect if you dig into a few of those Union generals statues a that are hanging around on city squares and county courthouses, you would find that quite a few of them were absolute scoundrels as well.

The ironic thing is that I suspect that the whole ban the flag thing wouldn't have happened if the State of NC had the sensitivity to lower the flag on the Confederate Monument on the capital grounds to half mast instead of standing on a law that probably shouldn't have been enacted to begin with. Right or wrong too many hate groups have used that flag as the emblem of their own hate and to stand on 'it's our heritage' only added to the fire.

[quincannon]

The American Civil War was the inevitable result of the actions of the Continental Congress in 1776. Were we to have a nation, or not. Adams and southern delegates probably led by Rutledge compromised, for Adams thought it was more important to have a independent nation, some of whose states held slavery legal, then not to have a independent nation at all

Now that is off my chest.

One of the causes of Union casualties often overlooked is the manner in which units were raised. Union volunteer units served for periods of time. The time varied throughout the war, but when the time was up, they went home, to be replaced in the structure by a new unit, just raised, with zipola experience. There was no organized replacement system to continually feed new people into already seasoned units.

The Confederate Army did just the opposite. They tried to fill old units with new blood, therefore avoiding spikes in readiness and un-readiness. This system suffered from numbers of people available, but I think it was the superior of the two.

Brand new fresh units make costly mistakes as they climb the learning curve, and mistakes are calculated in bodies, dead bodies.