The Tale Untwisted

[Saphroneth]

The date is wrong then, because quite obviously the War Department thought his date of rank was July 18th, 1862 and issued a formal order to that effect.

Upon what date did they issue that formal order?

The appointment of new general officers for the last few months are listed in War Department General Order No. 181, dated November 1, 1862. Here are the new Major Generals (USV) with their date-of-ranks:

Well, the answer rather seems clear that something changed between the August 1862 army list and November 1, 1862. Since we have the August army list and it gives a different date to the November 1, 1862 order.

Certainly, the November 1, 1862 order changes things relative to the August army list, but that doesn't change that the August army list was what was in force in September.

Indeed, the Foster quote (which 67th also supplied) serves to indicate that it is quite possible for a general's date of rank to be changed and made later, which supplies the final evidence that such a thing is possible; this thus explains all the available information without having to argue that the August 1862 Army List is simply wrong.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Where were Foster and Parke during the Antietam Campaign?

Reno, who was a Captain in 1860, having seniority over Sumner, a Colonel in 1860, seems kind of ridiculous, at least as of August 1862. Sure, Reno was almost certainly better in the long run, but things weren't to that point yet.

 

[Saphroneth]

Where were Foster and Parke during the Antietam Campaign?

Foster was left in command of the Dept. of NC, as per his report (linked on the previous page). Parke is listed as being Burnside's chief of staff at Antietam.

 

[trice]

No, if you read above, you'd know that the date of rank was changed between the original appointment, and the final Commission.

Reno's original date of rank (and Parke's and Foster's) was 26th April, 1862, that being the occasion of the fall of Fort Macon. The fall of said fort being the cause for the promotion. The surviving two (Parke and Foster) received a letter after the Maryland campaign stating a mistake had been made, and the date of rank was changed to the 18th July (the formation of 9th Corps).

Edit: Perhaps you don't understand how these promotions were awarded:

1. The President appoints the recipient to a higher rank, and has the appointment sent, along with the attestation papers for the office to sign and return. They now wear that rank insignia, and have seniority as the President stated.
2. The President later nominates the officer to the Senate, who may consider it, and either endorse or reject it. If they reject it, then the appointment ceases, and the officer reverts to their lower rank.
3. If endorsed by the Senate, the President signs the Commission, setting the date of rank as they wish and confirming the rank and seniority.

Once appointed, the officer holds that rank, in the stated seniority (which is still liable to be altered), until either confirmed or rejected by the Senate. Once seniority is set at confirmation, any changes must go through the Senate.

It appears you must be from some foreign country and/or not have a good understanding of the details of how the US government actually works.

Lincoln submitted Reno's first nomination on December 23, 1862 (Reno has been dead a little over three months). Sedgwick's nomination was submitted the same day. These require approval by the Senate.

During this period of the Civil War, the Congress in question would be the 37th Congress from March 4, 1861 to March 3, 1863. That Congress met in these sessions:

• Special: March 4, 1861 – March 28, 1861
• 1st: July 4, 1861 – August 6, 1861
• 2nd: December 2, 1861 – July 17, 1862
• 3rd: December 1, 1862 – March 3, 1863

In order for the Senate to accept or reject anything, the Senate must be in session. As a result, any confirmations you find will be within the range of the above sessions. If you find any confirmation that has a date outside those ranges, they are simply wrong.

In addition, any legislative business of the 37th Congress that has not been resolved by the end of the 37th Congress expires with the Congress. This means that any nomination by the President expires with the Congress on March 3, 1863. As a result, the promotions of any officers sent to the Senate by Lincoln which were not accepted or rejected simply expire and must be submitted anew. This includes both Reno and Sedgwick (unless they were specifically rejected).

The 38th Congress (resulting from the Election of 1862) was in existence from March 4, 1863 to March 3, 1865. That Congress met in these sessions:

• Special: March 4, 1863 – March 14, 1863
• 1st: December 7, 1863 – July 4, 1864
• 2nd: December 5, 1864 – March 3, 1865

As a result, Lincoln submitted the new nominations for both Sedgwick and Reno and probably a few others to the new 38th Congress. Sedgwick was submitted March 7th and confirmed on March 10th. Reno was submitted March 5th and confirmed March 9th. Both were pushed through in the short Special session of 1863.

Reno being deceased for six months, Lincoln obviously did not expect that Reno would would be taking command in the field. The date-of-rank in the 1863 nomination of Reno would be, for practical purposes, only a matter of honoring a dead hero and political PR. However, the date-of-rank given in the War Department Special Order No. 181 of November 1, 1862 for Reno is July 18, 1862.

Do you have an order from Lincoln or the War Department showing this April date-of-rank we can look at?

 

[trice]

Upon what date did they issue that formal order?

As noted in my earlier posts November 1, 1862:

The appointment of new general officers for the last few months are listed in War Department General Order No. 181, dated November 1, 1862. Here are the new Major Generals (USV) with their date-of-ranks:

APPOINTMENTS MADE IN THE VOLUNTEER FORCE CALLED INTO SERVICE UNDER THE ACTS APPROVED JULY 22 AND 25, 1861, AND JULY 5, 1838.

General Officers.
To be Major Generals.​

Brigadier General William S. Rosecrans, of the United States Army, March 21, 1862.
Brigadier General Philip Kearny, of the ; United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862, (since killed in battle.)
Brigadier General Joseph Hooker, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General Darius N. Couch, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General Israel B. Richardson, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General Henry W. Slocum, of the United State3 Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General John J. Peck, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General George W. Morell, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General William F. Smith, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General John Sedgwick, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.
Brigadier General Horatio G. Wright, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.
Brigadier General John G. Foster, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.
Brigadier General Jesse L. Reno, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862, (since killed in battle.)
Brigadier General John G. Parke, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.
Brigadier General Robert C. Schenck, of the United States Volunteers, August 30, 1862.
Brigadier General Stephen A. Hurlbut, of the United States Volunteers, September 17, 1862.
Brigadier General Schuyler Hamilton, of the United States Volunteers, September 17, 1862.
Brigadier General Gordon Granger, of the United States Volunteers, September 17, 1862.
Brigadier General J. D. Cox, of the United States Volunteers, October 6, 1862.
Brigadier General James B. McPherson, of the United States Volunteers, October 8, 1862.
Brigadier General Lovell H. Rousseau, of the United States Volunteers, October 8, 1862.

 

[67th Tigers]

It appears you must be from some foreign country and/or not have a good understanding of the details of how the US government actually works.

Huh. Most of what you've written is technically correct, but it is incomplete.

Officers took rank upon their appointment by the President. This (usually) happens before referral to the Senate. Hence what you've done is ignored everything that happened before Reno died, and are focusing entirely on what happened post-mortum.

Reno had received an appointment to be a Major-General of Volunteers from Lincoln just before the Maryland Campaign, with a date of rank set to be the 26th April 1862. This was the authority he had during the Maryland campaign.

Reno had also been appointed to the "rank" of Corps Commander by Lincoln, which gave a raft of special privileges. In effect, the law had created a higher grade of MG, to which Reno was assigned.

Incidently, General Orders regarding promotions are merely collected summaries of events which had usually already happened. Otherwise Reno and Sedgwick would only have been wearing one star on 14th.

 

[Saphroneth]

One of the sections in the army list is "Appointments which have expired by constitutional limitation, not having been confirmed by the Senate". An example of someone in this category in the 1863 Army List is George Morell's MG rank, which is listed as having expired March 4 1863; despite that expiration without confirmation, Morell was referred to as a MG in the August 1862 army list (date of rank July 4 1862) and correspondence from the Northern Virginia and Maryland campaigns refers to him as a Major-General.

There is also a section for appointments "negatived" by the Senate, and thus withdrawn by the President. Even in this case however some of them were re-appointed.


This should serve as sufficient confirmation that it is entirely possible for an officer to be appointed to a rank by the President, serve in that rank, be recorded as that date of rank in the Army List, and yet not at any point be confirmed by the Senate. It simply means the rank expires after a constitutionally limited period (which by eye looks like eight months).

The final point to make here is of Orlando B. Wilcox, whose date of rank was 21 July 1861 even though he was not nominated until he was freed from prison over a year later (he's not on the August 1862 Army List at all, in fact) and the President (reportedly) submitted the nomination three times in total before it was confirmed.

In combination with the example of someone's rank where the date of rank was changed (Foster) and the 1862 Army List giving Reno's date of rank as April 1862, this is sufficient to indicate both that Reno was a MG with date of rank April 1862 as of August 1862 and a process by which that could both happen and be changed:

1) The President nominated Reno (and Foster, and Parke) with a given date of rank (specifically that of the point at which he was in a significant battle, as with Wilcox)
2) This was not confirmed, but Reno served with that date of rank applying, including in July. (As with Morell serving under the July 4 1862 nominated rank in August.)
3) This was his current rank for all intents and purposes when the August 1862 Army List was compiled. (As with Morell, who has his July 4 rank in that army list.)
4) This would, thus, be his current rank during the Maryland Campaign unless positive evidence could be found to the effect that the date at which (5) happened took place before September 14 1862.
5) At some point, Foster and Parke had their date of rank moved later, to a different symbolic date (18 July) which is when they show up on the 1863 Army List. The same happened to Reno, though of course by the time of the 1863 army list he was dead.


Thus, to demonstrate that Reno's date of rank was 18 July 1862 as of the Maryland Campaign it would need to be demonstrated that the change in his date of rank took place in August or in 1-14 September 1862.

 

[trice]

Huh. Most of what you've written is technically correct, but it is incomplete.

Nope. All of what I just posted is correct and complete.

Officers took rank upon their appointment by the President. This (usually) happens before referral to the Senate. Hence what you've done is ignored everything that happened before Reno died, and are focusing entirely on what happened post-mortum.

Not ignored by me. This is just you creating a strawman to attack.

Reno had received an appointment to be a Major-General of Volunteers from Lincoln just before the Maryland Campaign, with a date of rank set to be the 26th April 1862. This was the authority he had during the Maryland campaign.

If so, then you no doubt can post a copy of the order saying this about Reno. I have asked for this previously, but I have not noticed you posted an image, a reference that can be verified, or a link to the order. All you have to do to establish your position is to do so.

Reno had also been appointed to the "rank" of Corps Commander by Lincoln, which gave a raft of special privileges. In effect, the law had created a higher grade of MG, to which Reno was assigned.

Please post a reference, a link, or an image of this appointment so that we can verify what you are referring to here.

Incidently, General Orders regarding promotions are merely collected summaries of events which had usually already happened. Otherwise Reno and Sedgwick would only have been wearing one star on 14th.

Yes, I knew that before you mentioned it because I actually read the order before posting about it. The first line of the order itself says that is what it is doing:

Promotions and appointments in the Army of the United States, made by the President since the publication of "General Orders," No. 93, of August 9, 1861. ​

The last such War Department order listing appointments was No. 93 of 1861, so this lists every change from August 9, 1861 to November 1, 1862. In addition to his promotion to Major-General (USV), Joe Hooker is also listed for this one: "Major General Joseph Hooker, of the United States Volunteers, to be Brigadier General, September 20, 1862, vice Mansfield, died of wounds received in battle."

What this means, of course is that the US War Department believed that the date-of-rank of Major-General Reno was July 18, 1862 when the order was issued on November 1, 1862. This is also the date-of-rank approved by the US Senate -- which means it is the date-of-rank submitted to the Senate in Lincoln's nomination.

So, incidentally, there was no need to post this to me.

Now, all this is very simple. Documents are produced by the War Department when an officer is promoted. There were actually fill-in-the-blank forms for this purpose in the War Department. If you are right, all you need to do is to produce one from the War Department notifying Reno that he was being appointed to the rank of Major-General with the earlier date-of-rank you are claiming. Please do so.

It may well be that Reno was recommended for promotion with that date in mind. This might explain why that date was used in the link you gave to the registry. It does not appear that he was actually promoted by the War Department with that date-of-rank. If he was, there would be a document promoting him and a later, second document correcting to the actual date-of-rank.

Noteworthy is that all of the July 4, 1862 Major-General (USV) appointments are in McClellan's Army with the date probably related to the end of the Seven Days and McClellan's recommendations for promotions:

Brigadier General Philip Kearny, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862, (since killed in battle.)​

Brigadier General Joseph Hooker, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General Darius N. Couch, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General Israel B. Richardson, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General Henry W. Slocum, of the United State3 Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General John J. Peck, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General George W. Morell, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General William F. Smith, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

Brigadier General John Sedgwick, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862.​

​

There are four men with a date of July 18, 1862:

Brigadier General Horatio G. Wright, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.​

Brigadier General John G. Foster, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.​

Brigadier General Jesse L. Reno, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862, (since killed in battle.)​

Brigadier General John G. Parke, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862.​

Foster, Reno and Parke had all been made "Acting Major-General" by order of Ambrose Burnside on April 2, 1862. All 13 of those men seem to be using or referred to as "Major General" as their rank in correspondence in August 1862; the McClellan men are using it in late July. Horatio Wright's appointment was reconsidered and overturned in March of 1863.

• The appointment date for Hooker was July 16, 1862. (Porter was this date, nominated and confirmed earlier, then cashiered.)
• The appointment date for Kearney, Couch, Morell, Richardson, Slocum, Peck, Smith and Sedgwick were all July 25 1862. (Morell supported Porter and never confirmed.)
• The appointment date for Foster, Reno, and Parke were all August 20, 1862.

My guess: whatever was said to Foster, Reno and Parke earlier, by the time they were going to be appointed times had changed. Politics -- inside the Army and out -- ensured that Burnside's men would be ranked below McClellan's men. As a result, they were given dates-of-rank after McClellan's men and appointed after them. That would not have happened without McClellan being fully aware of it in August and September of 1862.

 

[67th Tigers]

Foster, Reno and Parke had all been made "Acting Major-General" by order of Ambrose Burnside on April 2, 1862.

They had received appointments as major-generals of volunteers directly from Lincoln. They would have signed the attestment papers for that rank already. That's how these things work.

Look at Reno's signature. It remains "brigadier-general, commanding second division" throughout April, because he had not been promoted. When Burnside declared his division to be a corps d'armee, he started calling the brigades divisions, and major-general would normally be the rank of a division commander.

Foster signs himself "brigadier-general" on 29th July, but "major-general" on 7th August. This is the period in which he (and hence Reno and Parke) received their second star.

The question is, when was their seniority changed?

 

[trice]

They had received appointments as major-generals of volunteers directly from Lincoln. They would have signed the attestment papers for that rank already. That's how these things work.

Then all you have to do is to show the text of these documents, or a source that includes them, or post a link to the documents. I have asked you for it more than once. Do you have such a thing to share with us? Or is it unavailable to you?

Look at Reno's signature. It remains "brigadier-general, commanding second division" throughout April, because he had not been promoted. When Burnside declared his division to be a corps d'armee, he started calling the brigades divisions, and major-general would normally be the rank of a division commander.

Foster signs himself "brigadier-general" on 29th July, but "major-general" on 7th August. This is the period in which he (and hence Reno and Parke) received their second star.

So? What does that have to do with their official date-of-rank? As I pointed out in my last post, Burnside issued an order making these men "Acting Major Generals" as far back as April 2nd.

The question is, when was their seniority changed?

No, that is wrong because it does not address the root of the date-of-rank issue. The question is when was their date-of-rank first established?

Burnside cannot set their date of rank and he cannot make them major-generals. You know the process, obviously, but you do not produce simple documents that would validate your view when asked. Please post the text of the documents, or images of them, or links to them. When were these men notified of their appointments and date of rank?

 

[trice]

Here, BTW, is what a nomination by President Lincoln to the Senate would look:

March 05, 1863​

​

To the Senate of the United States:​

​

For the reasons stated by the Secretary of War, I present the nomination of the persons named in the accompanying communication for confirmation of the rank which they held at the time they fell in the service of their country.​

​

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.​

-----

WAR DEPARTMENT,​

Washington, March 5, 1863.​

​

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.​

​

SIR: The following-named persons having fallen in battle after having received appointments to the grades for which they are herein nominated, I have the honor to propose that their names be submitted to the Senate for confirmation of their rank, as a token of this Government's approbation of their distinguished merit. This has been the practice of the Department in similar cases, brevet nominations and confirmations having been made after the decease, of gallant officers.​

​

To be major-generals.​

Brigadier-General Philip Kearney, of the United States Volunteers, July 14, 1862. (Killed in the battle of Chantilly.)​

Brigadier-General Israel B. Richardson, of the United States Volunteers, July 4, 1862. (Died of wounds received at the battle of Antietam.)​

Brigadier-General Jesse L. Reno, of the United States Volunteers, July 18, 1862. (Killed in the battle of South Mountain.)​

​

To be brigadier-general.​

Captain William R. Terrill, of the Fifth United States Artillery, September 9, 1862 (Killed in the battle of Perryville.)​

​

I am, sir, with great respect your obedient servant,​

EDWIN M. STANTON,​

Secretary of War .​

 

[Saphroneth]

What this means, of course is that the US War Department believed that the date-of-rank of Major-General Reno was July 18, 1862 when the order was issued on November 1, 1862. This is also the date-of-rank approved by the US Senate -- which means it is the date-of-rank submitted to the Senate in Lincoln's nomination.

And they believed that the date of rank of Major-General Reno was 26 April 1862 when they published the August army list:

This means that the date of rank was changed (and Reno's seniority with it), at some point between 31 July and the earliest reference of Reno's DoR being 18 July. The question is when this happened, not that it happened, because we have official documents giving one date of rank and we have official documents giving the other.

 

[67th Tigers]

Then all you have to do is to show the text of these documents, or a source that includes them, or post a link to the documents. I have asked you for it more than once. Do you have such a thing to share with us? Or is it unavailable to you?

So? What does that have to do with their official date-of-rank? As I pointed out in my last post, Burnside issued an order making these men "Acting Major Generals" as far back as April 2nd.



No, that is wrong because it does not address the root of the date-of-rank issue. The question is when was their date-of-rank first established?

Burnside cannot set their date of rank and he cannot make them major-generals. You know the process, obviously, but you do not produce simple documents that would validate your view when asked. Please post the text of the documents, or images of them, or links to them. When were these men notified of their appointments and date of rank?

Again, the promotion is often (and in this case, was) made before any reference to the Senate. The officer in question was sent a letter informing them of their promotion, and date of rank, along with a copy of the oath and attestment papers. To accept, the officer took the oath (which was witnessed), signed the attestment papers, and sent them back to the War Officer to be filed. They may now put up their extra star, and have seniority as per that order. It has not yet been sealed, and is liable to change until the moment POTUS signs the final Commission.

With Foster, the promotion apparently happened between the 29th July and 7th August 1862. Since Reno was simultaneous, it is in the same time period.

However, Foster, Reno and Parke had a new appointment issued at some point before 1st November 1862, changing their seniority from 26th April to 18th July. It would not surprise me, given the time for things to travel, if 18th July wasn't the date of the original issue (i.e. simultaneous with Burnside's division being made a Corps, and hence his brigadiers raised to division commanders). The question remains, when did Foster, Reno and Parke get a new promotion issued. When did they sign the new attestment papers and send them to the War Office? That's is the only unresolved question.


BTW, you are completely misunderstanding Burnside's order. He had no power to make Foster, Reno and Parke Major-Generals in an capacity. He gave them jobs which normally would be filled by Major-Generals by the regulations. However, Burnside was still only a division commander, and his subordinates were brigade commanders. Hence they are still BG's and still sign themselves as BG's. Real divisions were only formed in July when 9th Corps was created by the disposable parts of Burnside's command and the Port Royal command. Burnside did something similar with the AoP cavalry when he once referred to the cavalry brigades as "divisions." They had not been raised to divisions, and wouldn't until the Cavalry Corps was formed, but Pleasonton took it upon himself to start styling his brigade as a "division," whereas the others correctly took it as a typo.

 

[trice]

And they believed that the date of rank of Major-General Reno was 26 April 1862 when they published the August army list:

View attachment 451502

This means that the date of rank was changed (and Reno's seniority with it), at some point between 31 July and the earliest reference of Reno's DoR being 18 July. The question is when this happened, not that it happened, because we have official documents giving one date of rank and we have official documents giving the other.

If you want to think that settles the matter, you need to reconcile two items:

• When was that list published?
• What was the date of rank in the Appointment letter sent to Jesse L. Reno on August 20, 1862.

The date that is actually in the official order appointing Reno to that rank is the one that counts. If you find that the date in the August 20 appointment is July 18, 1862 (which is what the War department seems to believe in their general order of November 1, 1862, and in the Nomination to the Senate, which is what was confirmed by the Senate), then your list is wrong. If you find the Appointment letter of August 20, 1862 agrees with your list, then your list is correct.

Without finding out what that Appointment letter says, you must assume that the list above simply has it wrong.

It is also true that if Reno never received an Appointment with an actual date of April 26th, he never had that date-of-rank. He may have expected that date-of-rank, he may have been told it would be his, he may have been acting as if it had actually been given to him -- but if he was never appointed with that date-of-rank, he never had that date-of-rank.

All sources that I find published after August 20, 1862 seem to say that Reno was given an date-of-rank of July 18, 1862. I find none after the date of the Appointment letter that use the April 26, 1862 date.

In terms of this thread, all the involved officers in the Maryland Campaign would have been very aware of who had just been promoted and who ranked who (assuming they cared). There would have been in close communication with Washington, so no reason to expect unusual delays. All of the McClellan people had received their appointments in July (most are July 25th, a couple are earlier). Reno and these others from Burnside had their appointments delayed until August 20, 1862.

As I have told @67th Tigers more than once: to resolve this you need to find the actual appointment document and produce it for us. Have you seen it? Can you show us the text, or name a source that has it, or post a link to where we can see it? That is proof that will establish your case. This list is not.

​

​

 

[trice]

Again, the promotion is often (and in this case, was) made before any reference to the Senate. The officer in question was sent a letter informing them of their promotion, and date of rank, along with a copy of the oath and attestment papers. To accept, the officer took the oath (which was witnessed), signed the attestment papers, and sent them back to the War Officer to be filed. They may now put up their extra star, and have seniority as per that order. It has not yet been sealed, and is liable to change until the moment POTUS signs the final Commission.

With Foster, the promotion apparently happened between the 29th July and 7th August 1862. Since Reno was simultaneous, it is in the same time period.

However, Foster, Reno and Parke had a new appointment issued at some point before 1st November 1862, changing their seniority from 26th April to 18th July. It would not surprise me, given the time for things to travel, if 18th July wasn't the date of the original issue (i.e. simultaneous with Burnside's division being made a Corps, and hence his brigadiers raised to division commanders). The question remains, when did Foster, Reno and Parke get a new promotion issued. When did they sign the new attestment papers and send them to the War Office? That's is the only unresolved question.

Another attempt to create a red herring. Please stop this useless practice of trying to avoid the real situation. We have discussed all these procedural matters her eon the forum long ago.

What you need to do is produce the actual document, not describe the process. If you say they received a document appointing them with a different date-of-rank prior to the August 20th one, show it to us.

In any case, if you know that their appointment date-of-rank was changed by August 20, 1862 and that their actual date-of-rank from that date on was really July 18, 1862, then you know absolutely for sure that Reno was not ranked where you claim he was for 2nd Bull Run or the Maryland Campaign. Is that what you agree to now?

BTW, you are completely misunderstanding Burnside's order. He had no power to make Foster, Reno and Parke Major-Generals in an capacity. He gave them jobs which normally would be filled by Major-Generals by the regulations. However, Burnside was still only a division commander, and his subordinates were brigade commanders. Hence they are still BG's and still sign themselves as BG's. Real divisions were only formed in July when 9th Corps was created by the disposable parts of Burnside's command and the Port Royal command. Burnside did something similar with the AoP cavalry when he once referred to the cavalry brigades as "divisions." They had not been raised to divisions, and wouldn't until the Cavalry Corps was formed, but Pleasonton took it upon himself to start styling his brigade as a "division," whereas the others correctly took it as a typo.

No again. I understand Burnside's order for what it was. This is simply you trying to create a strawman to argue against. Please stop this practice.

 

[Saphroneth]

• When was that list published?

At a point after the end of July, given that the last dates on the list are at the end of July. The list is presented as the Official Army Register for August 1862, which (to my understanding) implies that the list is the list as of the start of August 1862, as otherwise it might be expected to contain someone who had been promoted with a date of rank in August; alternatively, it could have been published at the end of August 1862 but excluding those who had dates of rank actually in August. (It does not contain any details about, e.g. the death of Thomas Williams, who died at Baton Rouge on August 5).

Either way, it is the official army register for August 1862.

The date that is actually in the official order appointing Reno to that rank is the one that counts. If you find that the date in the August 20 appointment is July 18, 1862 (which is what the War department seems to believe in their general order of November 1, 1862, and in the Nomination to the Senate, which is what was confirmed by the Senate), then your list is wrong. If you find the Appointment letter of August 20, 1862 agrees with your list, then your list is correct.

Without finding out what that Appointment letter says, you must assume that the list above simply has it wrong.

But that's not how it works, surely? As of the start of August 1862, Morell has a date of rank of July 4, 1862; it never gets approved by the Senate, but he still serves as a MG and that rank has a date of rank attached to it. Kearny's rank also never goes to the senate because he dies before it can, but it's still listed and he still serves as an MG and that rank has a date of rank attached to it.

We are told in so many words by Foster that he was appointed MG to date from 26 April 1862, and that this was then withdrawn and a new one substituted, though he does not tell us exactly when this happened. (We know his description of the withdrawal and resubstitution takes place out of sequence as the new DoR is 18 July and the next paragraph describes events of 1 July).

The August 1862 list was published by the army at a given date, and was correct as of that date; Foster substantiates the idea that he was told a date that aligns with the August 1862 list. This means that Reno's initial nomination (under which he served as a major-general) was to a date of rank of 26th April 1862.

There was a period of time when Reno's date of rank, according to the army register (which is the document of record as it includes ranks not confirmed by the Senate, such as Morell's, which still applied legally), was 26 April 1862. The question before us is when this date of rank was changed (for Reno, and similarly Foster and Parke), and that is something which to my understanding we do not currently know for sure. Thus we need to find a piece of evidence which is specifically the point at which the date of rank of (any one of) those three was changed.
It is certainly possible that a letter of August 20 could have done it; however, we do not actually know at this point and it would be remiss to assume the contents of the letter say one thing and not another. What we actually have is a valid official army register from around this time which gives Reno's date of rank as April 26, 1862; it would have to be superseded by positive information in the month and a half at question, and the contents of an August 20 letter would do nicely.

If the letter giving Reno a MG rank only came in August 20 though then it would be a bit strange for him to be listed as a MG in August with an April date.

The Senate was not in session after 17 July 1862 until 1 December 1862, so whatever nomination gave Reno that (April) date of rank would have to be withdrawn and re-submitted either after the adjournment of the second session or during the third session in order to change his date of rank. If Reno's date of rank changed before South Mountain then it would have to be while the Senate was adjourned (and, again, an August 20 letter would qualify).


Again: the Official Army Register is an official document, which is why it says "official", and should be presumed to be correct as of the time it is printed. It can absolutely be superseded by information that is newer in time, and for Reno it was at some point, but what we want to do is to identify exactly when that point was.

 

[trice]

At a point after the end of July, given that the last dates on the list are at the end of July. The list is presented as the Official Army Register for August 1862, which (to my understanding) implies that the list is the list as of the start of August 1862, as otherwise it might be expected to contain someone who had been promoted with a date of rank in August; alternatively, it could have been published at the end of August 1862 but excluding those who had dates of rank actually in August. (It does not contain any details about, e.g. the death of Thomas Williams, who died at Baton Rouge on August 5).

Either way, it is the official army register for August 1862.

That appears to be an annual publication. My guess is that the cutoff date for submission to the printer would have been sometime in late July. From internal references, it must have been finalized after July 17, 1862 (it references an act of Congress on that date).

 

[Saphroneth]

That appears to be an annual publication. My guess is that the cutoff date for submission to the printer would have been sometime in late July. From internal references, it must have been finalized after July 17, 1862 (it references an act of Congress on that date).

The link 67th provided includes:

"For 1861" (published Jan 1 1861)
"For September 1861" (September 1 1861)
"For 1862" (Jan 1 1862)
and
"For August 1862" (no publication date given, but I'd assume August 1 1862).

So it's clearly not strictly annual. The August 1862 one includes William P. Grier's surgeon rank with a date of July 30 1862 and not the death of Thomas Williams, which gives us a single week for which it is current (July 30 to August 5 inclusive).

 

[trice]

But that's not how it works, surely? As of the start of August 1862, Morell has a date of rank of July 4, 1862; it never gets approved by the Senate, but he still serves as a MG and that rank has a date of rank attached to it. Kearny's rank also never goes to the senate because he dies before it can, but it's still listed and he still serves as an MG and that rank has a date of rank attached to it.

We are told in so many words by Foster that he was appointed MG to date from 26 April 1862, and that this was then withdrawn and a new one substituted, though he does not tell us exactly when this happened. (We know his description of the withdrawal and resubstitution takes place out of sequence as the new DoR is 18 July and the next paragraph describes events of 1 July).

The August 1862 list was published by the army at a given date, and was correct as of that date; Foster substantiates the idea that he was told a date that aligns with the August 1862 list. This means that Reno's initial nomination (under which he served as a major-general) was to a date of rank of 26th April 1862.

There was a period of time when Reno's date of rank, according to the army register (which is the document of record as it includes ranks not confirmed by the Senate, such as Morell's, which still applied legally), was 26 April 1862. The question before us is when this date of rank was changed (for Reno, and similarly Foster and Parke), and that is something which to my understanding we do not currently know for sure. Thus we need to find a piece of evidence which is specifically the point at which the date of rank of (any one of) those three was changed.
It is certainly possible that a letter of August 20 could have done it; however, we do not actually know at this point and it would be remiss to assume the contents of the letter say one thing and not another. What we actually have is a valid official army register from around this time which gives Reno's date of rank as April 26, 1862; it would have to be superseded by positive information in the month and a half at question, and the contents of an August 20 letter would do nicely.

If the letter giving Reno a MG rank only came in August 20 though then it would be a bit strange for him to be listed as a MG in August with an April date.

The Senate was not in session after 17 July 1862 until 1 December 1862, so whatever nomination gave Reno that (April) date of rank would have to be withdrawn and re-submitted either after the adjournment of the second session or during the third session in order to change his date of rank. If Reno's date of rank changed before South Mountain then it would have to be while the Senate was adjourned (and, again, an August 20 letter would qualify).


Again: the Official Army Register is an official document, which is why it says "official", and should be presumed to be correct as of the time it is printed. It can absolutely be superseded by information that is newer in time, and for Reno it was at some point, but what we want to do is to identify exactly when that point was.

Whenever an officer is appointed, he will be given a date of rank. That is his official date of rank. If a publication differs from that, the publication is wrong.

It appears very possible that Reno, Foster and Parke may have received an appointment letter with the April 26th date, but that they later received another appointment letter correcting/changing the date. If so, the later one supercedes the first one once it has been sent and received.

If so, and if the date in the publication is from the first appointment document, it was right when sent to the printer and wrong as soon as the replacement appointment document was sent.

IRL, Reno was appointed on August 20, 1862. If that is a second appointment letter over-riding the first, so be it. From that date on, Reno's date of rank will be July 18, 1862. This is the date given in War Department General Order No. 181 on November 1, 1862 (which is exactly as it should be).

To get back to what all this silly rank discussion is about, @67th Tigers posted a list of "the order of seniority in the AoP in the field" when McClellan was reorganizing it for the Maryland Campaign. His list, corrected for the August 20 appointment letter, looks like this:

DATE OF RANK	RANK	OFFICER	CONFIRMATION?
May 14, 1861	MG	McClellan	August 3, 1861
March 18, 1862	MG (V)	Burnside	March 8, 1862
April 26, 1862	MG (V)	Reno	Never
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Sumner	July 14, 1862
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	FJ Porter	July 14, 1862
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Franklin	July 14, 1862
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Hooker	March 10, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Couch	March 10, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Richardson	March 9, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Slocum	March 9, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Morell	Lapsed March 4, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Smith	Lapsed March 4, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Sedgwick	March 10, 1863
July 4, 1862	MG (V)	Kearny	March 9, 1863
July 18, 1862	MG (V)	Reno	March 9, 1863

McClellan would have known this (or certainly should be expected to know it). He or his staff would have kept track of such things to avoid problems, and there is plenty of evidence that McClellan did keep track of them. Example: he wanted Reno to remain in IX Corps precisely because that would make Reno senior officer in the Corps when he made Burnside a Wing commander -- Reno was being ordered to take command of McDowell's III Corps by Halleck.

 

[trice]

The link 67th provided includes:

"For 1861" (published Jan 1 1861)
"For September 1861" (September 1 1861)
"For 1862" (Jan 1 1862)
and
"For August 1862" (no publication date given, but I'd assume August 1 1862).

So it's clearly not strictly annual. The August 1862 one includes William P. Grier's surgeon rank with a date of July 30 1862 and not the death of Thomas Williams, which gives us a single week for which it is current (July 30 to August 5 inclusive).

I think you need to take a step back and rethink this. Do you see an Army Registry for any other month besides August?