Golden Thread 5 Generals Were Promoted to Lt Gen of the CSA On Oct 10th, 1862 Longstreet was #1 and Jackson #4

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,548
Location
Lexington, SC
#1
A list of Generals to be promoted to the newly created rank of Lieutenant General was created. James Longstreet appointment was number one in the eastern theater. Kirby Smith's appointment was also number one in the Western theater. Both men being appointed on Oct 10th 1862 confirmed on Oct 11th 1862 but their seniority date was made Oct 9th 1862. This means they were to be considered the senior officer whenever they graced a battlefield with their presence, or anywhere else for that matter. This was done very deliberately and very well thought out. Curiously Thomas Stonewall Jackson was 4th on this list (according to Shelby Foote) When promotions were given in those days as I'm sure today, the order they are given in is a major consideration. Order must be maintained, therefore one must always know who is really in charge at any given time. Why would Jackson be 4th? It's obvious what Lee and Davis thought of Longstreet clearly making him #1. I'm curious what you think?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,548
Location
Lexington, SC
#6
Jackson was promoted Brigadier before Longstreet, IIRC. Maybe someone will be along who can explain all of this. I don't have grasp of the details...
Let's hope. Interesting stuff. I did find a web site that confirms the retroactive promotion dates of Lingstreet and Smith to Oct 9th. I'll post the link when I'm at my PC.
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,091
Location
Manor, TX
#8
I just found it odd Jackson was 4th. I my mind, I would have thought him 2nd and 1st would'nt have surprised me at all.
I think Lee and Davis were being very careful to ensure that, in the event anything happened to Lee, Longstreet rather than Jackson would take command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Jackson had tremendous strengths as a military commander, probably more than Longstreet, but his personality was such that he would have been a complete disaster as the commander of a large army.
 

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,548
Location
Lexington, SC
#9
I think Lee and Davis were being very careful to ensure that, in the event anything happened to Lee, Longstreet rather than Jackson would take command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Jackson had tremendous strengths as a military commander, probably more than Longstreet, but his personality was such that he would have been a complete disaster as the commander of a large army.
I completely agree with this assessment. Thank you.
 

ErnieMac

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
8,255
Location
Pennsylvania
#10
John Eicher's Civil War High Commands (page 808) contains the rankings. Stonewall was actually sixth in seniority with Longstreet, Edmund Kirby Smith, Leonidas Polk, Theophilus Holmes and William Hardee ahead of him. For the most part the rankings conformed to their seniority as Major Generals, the exceptions being Longstreet, who was jumped ahead of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, and Kirby Smith who was jumped ahead of all of them except Longstreet. In view of Davis' experience with Joseph Johnston when the rank of General was created I suspect Longstreet and Kirby Smith were given a date of rank one day earlier than the others to avoid similar disputes.

Jefferson Davis had written Lee on September 28 informing him of the creation of the rank of Lieutenant General and asking his recommendations for that position in the ANV. Lee unreservedly mentioned Longstreet and Jackson (A. P. Hill was noted as the best of the remaining officers). Lee did qualify his recommendation of Jackson by saying "My opinion of the merits of General Jackson has been greatly enhanced during this expedition." referring to the Maryland Campaign. IMO there was a question in Lee's mind prior to that time because of Jackson's performance in the Seven Days. In addition the Maryland Campaign was the first time the two had worked closely. In the Seven Days and Northern Virginia Campaigns Jackson had operated under Lee's command, but removed from close proximity. Longstreet, in addition to his seniority to Jackson, had been directly under Lee's observation and had performed very well in the Seven Days, Northern Virginia and Maryland. I think the rankings of the two made sense at the time. Regarding the ranking of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, maybe not so much.
 

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,548
Location
Lexington, SC
#12
John Eicher's Civil War High Commands (page 808) contains the rankings. Stonewall was actually sixth in seniority with Longstreet, Edmund Kirby Smith, Leonidas Polk, Theophilus Holmes and William Hardee ahead of him. For the most part the rankings conformed to their seniority as Major Generals, the exceptions being Longstreet, who was jumped ahead of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, and Kirby Smith who was jumped ahead of all of them except Longstreet. In view of Davis' experience with Joseph Johnston when the rank of General was created I suspect Longstreet and Kirby Smith were given a date of rank one day earlier than the others to avoid similar disputes.

Jefferson Davis had written Lee on September 28 informing him of the creation of the rank of Lieutenant General and asking his recommendations for that position in the ANV. Lee unreservedly mentioned Longstreet and Jackson (A. P. Hill was noted as the best of the remaining officers). Lee did qualify his recommendation of Jackson by saying "My opinion of the merits of General Jackson has been greatly enhanced during this expedition." referring to the Maryland Campaign. IMO there was a question in Lee's mind prior to that time because of Jackson's performance in the Seven Days. In addition the Maryland Campaign was the first time the two had worked closely. In the Seven Days and Northern Virginia Campaigns Jackson had operated under Lee's command, but removed from close proximity. Longstreet, in addition to his seniority to Jackson, had been directly under Lee's observation and had performed very well in the Seven Days, Northern Virginia and Maryland. I think the rankings of the two made sense at the time. Regarding the ranking of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, maybe not so much.
Excellent information. Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you.
 

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,548
Location
Lexington, SC
#15
John Eicher's Civil War High Commands (page 808) contains the rankings. Stonewall was actually sixth in seniority with Longstreet, Edmund Kirby Smith, Leonidas Polk, Theophilus Holmes and William Hardee ahead of him. For the most part the rankings conformed to their seniority as Major Generals, the exceptions being Longstreet, who was jumped ahead of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, and Kirby Smith who was jumped ahead of all of them except Longstreet. In view of Davis' experience with Joseph Johnston when the rank of General was created I suspect Longstreet and Kirby Smith were given a date of rank one day earlier than the others to avoid similar disputes.

Jefferson Davis had written Lee on September 28 informing him of the creation of the rank of Lieutenant General and asking his recommendations for that position in the ANV. Lee unreservedly mentioned Longstreet and Jackson (A. P. Hill was noted as the best of the remaining officers). Lee did qualify his recommendation of Jackson by saying "My opinion of the merits of General Jackson has been greatly enhanced during this expedition." referring to the Maryland Campaign. IMO there was a question in Lee's mind prior to that time because of Jackson's performance in the Seven Days. In addition the Maryland Campaign was the first time the two had worked closely. In the Seven Days and Northern Virginia Campaigns Jackson had operated under Lee's command, but removed from close proximity. Longstreet, in addition to his seniority to Jackson, had been directly under Lee's observation and had performed very well in the Seven Days, Northern Virginia and Maryland. I think the rankings of the two made sense at the time. Regarding the ranking of Polk, Holmes and Hardee, maybe not so much.
Agreed, Jacksons performance could not have impressed Lee prior. Lee had to be scratching his head trying to understand this man.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,637
Location
California
#16
A list of Generals to be promoted to the newly created rank of Lieutenant General was created. James Longstreet appointment was number one in the eastern theater. Kirby Smith's appointment was also number one in the Western theater. Both men being appointed on Oct 10th 1862 confirmed on Oct 11th 1862 but their seniority date was made Oct 9th 1862. This means they were to be considered the senior officer whenever they graced a battlefield with their presence, or anywhere else for that matter. This was done very deliberately and very well thought out. Curiously Thomas Stonewall Jackson was 4th on this list (according to Shelby Foote) When promotions were given in those days as I'm sure today, the order they are given in is a major consideration. Order must be maintained, therefore one must always know who is really in charge at any given time. Why would Jackson be 4th? It's obvious what Lee and Davis thought of Longstreet clearly making him #1. I'm curious what you think?
Because Jackson wasnt considered as great as everyone in the present thinks
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top