Who ranks who?

[luinrina]

I have a question regarding ranking. Here's the constellation:

Person 1 was commissioned 2nd Lt. of artillery in 1847 - promoted to 1st Lt. of artillery in 1850 - was made Captain of infantry in 1860
Person 2 was commissioned 2nd Lt. of infantry in 1846 - received a brevet 1st Lt. in the Mexican War - promoted 1st Lt. of infantry 1853 - was made "Captain, Staff - Asst. Quartermaster" in 1855

Who now ranks higher - Person 1 oder Person 2? There was a discussion about Joe Johnston complaining why Lee ranked higher than him when the Confederate government commissioned Generals. Davis explained to Johnston that since he had been "only" a General of Staff, he ranked lower than Lee who was a Colonel in the Cavalry. My gut reaction therefore would be that Person 1 ranks higher than Person 2 but I'm not certain.

In case it's of importance: both person 1 and person 2 graduated West Point.

Any help appreciated!

 

[major bill]

I do not believe that rank in the US Army impacted rank on the Confederate Army. Rank in the Confederate Army would be based on when the person was given that rank in the Confederate Army.

 

[67th Tigers]

The regulations state that officers serving on the staff as quartermasters etc. may not command troops, except by Presidential order. An ***'t QM is ranked as a captain, but is not a captain. Similarly, Joe Johnston ranked as a BG, but was not a BG.

 

[luinrina]

The regulations state that officers serving on the staff as quartermasters etc. may not command troops, except by Presidential order. An ***'t QM is ranked as a captain, but is not a captain. Similarly, Joe Johnston ranked as a BG, but was not a BG.

Thank you! I wonder though why they are given these ranks if they don't have that rank?

And to go a step further: Would a Captain of Staff have received the same pay a captain in the artillery/infantry got? Do you know?

 

[67th Tigers]

Thank you! I wonder though why they are given these ranks if they don't have that rank?

And to go a step further: Would a Captain of Staff have received the same pay a captain in the artillery/infantry got? Do you know?

Those that "ranked as" captains were paid as captains of engineers/cavalry (70 dollars/ month). Captains of infantry and artillery were on a lower rate (60 dollars/ month). In fact, there are two separate pay scales; infantry and artillery are on the lower scale, and everyone else on the higher scale.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's interesting to wonder whether there was kind of a tradeoff - "the ability to command is worth $10 at captain rank" - or whether it was more of "the line officers are doing a less skilled/prestigious job so need less money".
Both have the same legal effect, but the social effects might be quite different.

 

[Seduzal]

Thanks for sharing this interesting story of officers pay scale. Learn something new today.

 

[major bill]

Much the same happens today with chain of command. For example I was in a Military Police Brigade. One of our JAG was a lieutenant colonel, however, they were not in the chain of command. He had date of rank over all other lieutenant colonels, but if something happened to the general, the deputy, and the XO, he would not have became acting battalion commander.

Much the same could be said of myself. As Battle Major, although many majors had date of rank on me, but my position as Battle Major put me above other majors in the chain of command and tactical chain of command. My job was to run operations and as such I was expected to assign work to other officers to include majors and even some lieutenant colonels. I could not really "order" them to do things, but when acting as Battle Major my authority passed through the tactical chain of command and thus I was higher on the tactical chain of command.

 

[luinrina]

Much the same happens today with chain of command.

How did/do people ever remember who has what status of commanding or not commanding? This sure must have given quite a few people a headache...

 

[Saphroneth]

How did/do people ever remember who has what status of commanding or not commanding? This sure must have given quite a few people a headache...

It was probably distinctly obvious to the person in question.

It's also worth considering that the pre-war army's officer corps was a quite small fraternity.The total number of commissioned officers on the eve of the war was 1,108, and with a captain and three lieutenants per company, and ten companies per regiment, and more than fifteen line regiments (10 foot and five mounted, plus the artillery) soaking up more than six hundred officers at company level and below... it's actually quite possible that a given captain or major would know by sight or name everybody who might possibly rank him. (All the regimental majors, Lt Cols and Cols, plus the small number of establishment generals.)

 

[James N.]

Thank you! I wonder though why they are given these ranks if they don't have that rank?

And to go a step further: Would a Captain of Staff have received the same pay a captain in the artillery/infantry got? Do you know?

Usually brevet ranks were honorifics to reward service(s) but if all those so promoted were given the actual ranks there would soon be no places for them, considering the tiny size of the antebellum Army.

 

[James N.]

It's interesting to wonder whether there was kind of a tradeoff - "the ability to command is worth $10 at captain rank" - or whether it was more of "the line officers are doing a less skilled/prestigious job so need less money".
Both have the same legal effect, but the social effects might be quite different.

It was neither - the extra $10 was to compensate for the necessity of a cavalry/dragoon officer providing his own HORSE, its "accessories" and fodder! It was common practice for footsloggers (like Lt. U.S. Grant of the 4th Infantry in Mexico, for example) to also have mounts while on campaign, but unless they were detailed for some other official duty (again, like when Grant was detailed to be regimental commissary) they received no extra stipend to compensate them for it.

 

[major bill]

Officers are expected to understand the current rank structure.

 

[Waterloo50]

It was neither - the extra $10 was to compensate for the necessity of a cavalry/dragoon officer providing his own HORSE, its "accessories" and fodder! It was common practice for footsloggers (like Lt. U.S. Grant of the 4th Infantry in Mexico, for example) to also have mounts while on campaign, but unless they were detailed for some other official duty (again, like when Grant was detailed to be regimental commissary) they received no extra stipend to compensate them for it.

Apologies for going off on a tangent but what would happen if an officers horse was killed, who would have been responsible for its replacement?

 

[James N.]

Apologies for going off on a tangent but what would happen if an officers horse was killed, who would have been responsible for its replacement?

I'm pretty sure HE would, though it's probable that an officer in an important official position (like on a staff) would be able to "borrow" one until he could formally replace it.

 

[Waterloo50]

I'm pretty sure HE would, though it's probable that an officer in an important official position (like on a staff) would be able to "borrow" one until he could formally replace it.

It's a good job that those rules no longer apply, especially given the cost of an Apache helicopter.

 

[Saphroneth]

It was neither - the extra $10 was to compensate for the necessity of a cavalry/dragoon officer providing his own HORSE, its "accessories" and fodder!

Would that apply to staff officers as well?

I'm pretty sure HE would, though it's probable that an officer in an important official position (like on a staff) would be able to "borrow" one until he could formally replace it.

The system of a trooper being responsible for their mount (and having to go and buy another if the first one dies) appears in contemporary militaries; the CSA is just one example and meant that at any given time some CSA regiments could be half-strength. A variant of this system (the "Silladar" system) was employed in Indian cavalry regiments in the British army, but it was discarded in WW1 when it collapsed under pressure.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

I have a question regarding ranking. Here's the constellation:

Person 1 was commissioned 2nd Lt. of artillery in 1847 - promoted to 1st Lt. of artillery in 1850 - was made Captain of infantry in 1860
Person 2 was commissioned 2nd Lt. of infantry in 1846 - received a brevet 1st Lt. in the Mexican War - promoted 1st Lt. of infantry 1853 - was made "Captain, Staff - Asst. Quartermaster" in 1855

Who now ranks higher - Person 1 oder Person 2? There was a discussion about Joe Johnston complaining why Lee ranked higher than him when the Confederate government commissioned Generals. Davis explained to Johnston that since he had been "only" a General of Staff, he ranked lower than Lee who was a Colonel in the Cavalry. My gut reaction therefore would be that Person 1 ranks higher than Person 2 but I'm not certain.

In case it's of importance: both person 1 and person 2 graduated West Point.

Any help appreciated!

Page 388 | Military dictionary: comprising technical definitions: information on raising and keeping troops; actual service, including makeshifts and improved materiel;/ and law, government, regulation, and administration relating to land forces. By

Henry Lee Scott goes into a complete discussion of the distinction in "line" and "staff".
......The difficulty arises from the vague and uncertain meaning of the words "line of the army," which, neither in the English service, (from which most of our military terms are borrowed,) nor in our own, have a welldefined and invariable meaning. .............

 

[edgeworthy]

Much the same happens today with chain of command. For example I was in a Military Police Brigade. One of our JAG was a lieutenant colonel, however, they were not in the chain of command. He had date of rank over all other lieutenant colonels, but if something happened to the general, the deputy, and the XO, he would not have became acting battalion commander.

Much the same could be said of myself. As Battle Major, although many majors had date of rank on me, but my position as Battle Major put me above other majors in the chain of command and tactical chain of command. My job was to run operations and as such I was expected to assign work to other officers to include majors and even some lieutenant colonels. I could not really "order" them to do things, but when acting as Battle Major my authority passed through the tactical chain of command and thus I was higher on the tactical chain of command.

Its an interesting historical anomaly that at Rorke's Drift Lt Chard assumed command as his date of commission preceded Lt Bromhead's. Although technically neither was the senior officer present being outranked by Surgeon Major Reynolds and Commissary Dalton, however neither the Army Hospital Corps or the Commissariat were line appointments and hence not in the chain of command.
Even more strangely before his departure, looking for the missing reinforcement column, the Garrison Commander was also the Army's Quartermaster General, who was in the chain of command. Being a member of the Commanding General's Staff.
(One of the reasons for the disaster at Isandlwana was the ill defined command. The camp commander was not the senior officer present.)

 

[DaveBrt]

I'm pretty sure HE would, though it's probable that an officer in an important official position (like on a staff) would be able to "borrow" one until he could formally replace it.

Staff officers frequently had several horses with them since they were frequently sent off to survey ground or routes or deliver orders, etc and might need to exchange their horses after hard riding in order to be available for the next assignment.