Are you (Union) officer material?

gary

Captain
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
It's well documented that the Union Army as well as the Confederates both had review boards to determine the competency of an officer. Officers failing to pass the examination were mustered out of service. In reading the history of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (Colored) Regiment, some questions were recorded therein. I share them with you now:

1) How many ranks to form a company?
2) What is the distance between the ranks?
3) How are the file closers posted?
4) What are the principles of the step?
5) What are the principles of the facings?
6) What about the dress?
7) How do you break a column of platoons to the right or to the left?
8) How do you form into a line on the right or left?
9) Discuss the school of the battalion.
10) How do you regulate the mustering of troops for pay?
11) How are the muster rolls prepared?
12) How are the pay-rolls prepared?
13) The keeping of company books.
14) What are the duties of the sentinels.
15) How do you make the soldier's descriptive list?
16) How do you select a camp-ground?
17) Discuss making of a camp.
18) Discuss the location and the making of the sinks.
19) How do you keep tents and clothing dry?
20) Discuss the policing of camps.

I've read hundreds of books but I haven't studied Hardee or Casey and would flunk.
 
Ole - I couldn't pass an officer's exam yet alone get past the awkward squad. Maybe I can be an undercook (death from within). Now, as those early fifth grade exams, don't be surprised if I'm stuck with, "See Spot Run. Run Spot Run." Can anyone here explain why Tom got to live in the big white house? I thought the President lived in the White House. How did Tom get in?
 
I guess I understand the necessity for a test like this. But how do 1-thru-20 come into play when the lead starts flying? Was it possible that good to excellent field officers (under combat) might be eliminated by tests like this? Wouldn't a test like this discourage spontaneity of action in the field?
 
I guess I understand the necessity for a test like this. But how do 1-thru-20 come into play when the lead starts flying? Was it possible that good to excellent field officers (under combat) might be eliminated by tests like this? Wouldn't a test like this discourage spontaneity of action in the field?

As my English teacher used to say: you have to know the rules before you can break them. Field drill was very important in being able to command troops under fire, especially for infantry troops fighting in line, in order to bring the troop to bear at the right time. I recall reading of one officer who ended up having to countermarch twice in order to get his troops into the proper firing position because he did not know how to make a certain maneuver.

Now, of course, I would bet that Nathan Bedford Forrest would have trouble passing this exam and he did not have any trouble getting his men where they needed to go: "Split in half and charge both ways."
 
I guess I understand the necessity for a test like this. But how do 1-thru-20 come into play when the lead starts flying? Was it possible that good to excellent field officers (under combat) might be eliminated by tests like this? Wouldn't a test like this discourage spontaneity of action in the field?

.....Officers of the 22nd Pennsylvania had to appear before one of the boards as late as march,1865,to be examined "as to their knowledge of military tactics...military laws and usages,etc.Some of the officers who had three years of splendid fighting records in the field, were unable to get on paper to the satisfaction of the ...board and were consequently discharged.This was done but a few weeks before the final muster-out of the volunteer troops, and was certainly a most unjust proceeding.
Farrar,The Twenty-Second Pennsylvania,page 458
:noway:
 
Dear Oxkern;

The "soldier's descriptive list" sir; was the general description of a man; such as height, weight, eye color, hair color, unique features; as to be able to identify him if he wasn't able to, to include his name, home town, sir. Ref #15

#2 is a wee bit difficult to find but--it is 13 inches from the back of the knapsack of the soldier in the first rank; to the chest of the soldier in the back rank.

#3 File closers are two paces behind the last rank.
And...no--I am not going to give all the answers out! (LOL)--if you want to know I gave you the links to the manuals :wink:

Now, if you want to learn the answers--the link I provided has all the rules and regulations :wink:

http://www.usregulars.com/library.htm

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
Dear PvtClewell;

Rules and 'disciplines' of training for a soldier is just as important to the officer also. It becomes second nature and the 'lingo' or 'language' of the soldier; to which you would know exactly and without question the 'training/discipline' has the steps you follow. Just like loading in '9 times.' You do it so often you don't need to think about it in the heat of firing volleys. But, you need familiar commands to guide your behavior as a team, a rank and or file of soldiers. The speed and direction of an army needs to be guided with few words/a bugle sound/a drum beat, etc.

And, junior and senior officers need to be obedient to orders from a superior; no different than a soldier is to be obedient to their non-commissioned officers and or superiors. Even in the ranks of Generals; there will always be a senior to be obedient to. [Grins]

The unpopular administrative work; to which we benefit as history students; are due in large part from the rules/regulations of the administrative duties of keeping ledgers/logs/company/regimental/battalion/corps books. Although clerks did this job; the officers had to review and sign off on it. That is why we have the "Official Records of the Rebellion" and--though moth eaten or in the Confederate Records; 'Swiss-Cheese'--the records record what happened when all are gone to their eternal slumber. And, rather remarkable feat in my opinion--in a pre-computer world. :smile: Each document entering a field command, was recorded, every exiting document was recorded; filed and so much more. Even the filing system of paperwork was amazing. It is modernized these days but; still working as it did in the Civil War.

The soldier's descriptive list, was the forerunner of soldier's ID. It was dependent on the First Sergeant to be able to describe his men in his squad and or company; as to identify them when they were not able to.

Camps had to be selected, as to be as sanitary and tactical safe as possible and; in a way, in the line of battle in configuration; keeping sinks far away from debris and human waste. The criteria is spelled out in the manuals. However; similar set ups allowed quick find of the right officer's tent. Cavalry assigned their spot; allowed less trampling through the infantry's camp set up or 'streets.'

Yes, tests are hard. Pain in the caboose --but, what I've gotten out of it; has been that much more appreciation of 'what was.' :smile: And, it seems that the officers and the military still had enough 'connection' to the soldier. Lots of soldiers true but, no so large a number that a soldier was just a number. He was a 'somebody' and appreciated for being a soldier.
This is why the 'soldier's description list' is a testiment to that feeling. If they didn't care--there would be no need for such a list. Camps wouldn't be so carefully picked, etc.

For me, tests never hampered my 'spontaneous' command/leadership style sir. I look at tests as a challenge and a reason to learn. Can never learn or know enough sir. And, if it means the life and or death of my lads--I shall choose to do my dead level best to pass any test and use what I know to keep my men safe under my command, as well as to use my command wisely.

PvtClewell --sir--you are important in my eyes sir. All those who are assigned to me are equally important and my duty is to you and those who are assigned to me sir. [Salute]

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
i wonder if the roman legions had such a test for their officers? many of these would have applied. and for that matter some would apply for today's officer. anybody out there who is a present day army officer?
 
Thanks, Mr. Wolf. That was pretty interesting stuff there. I never considered the clerical work that was/is involved with military matters and the officer cadre.

As I suggested earlier, I think I understand the need for testing, and especially for drilling, which are indispensable when maneuvering. My objection to testing is that sometimes it could clean out some good field grade combat officer materiel, which I think can only truly be discovered in the test of live fire.

I suppose, in the end, your good officers will rise to the top through a combination of field experience and testing.

Personally, I don't perform well in the stress of testing. It's also why, if I had been in the military, I'd have been a perpetual private. :smile:
 
Dear PvtClewell,

Depends who is administering the tests, sir.

Stress is part of the test as well, as most times the critical moment is under huge stress, such as a crisis or under fire. You can't have an officer or leader suddenly drop his sword and walk off..or bust into tears and boo-hoo when lads are dying by the second. No sir--stress is part of the test; as to see who will remain cool under it.

But, that said -- there is a difference between administrative tests and practical tests.

And, I disagree with being forever a 'private.' Lance Corporal works...as well as Brevet Sergeant--or now days ..."Acting Sergeant."... :wink:

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
I spent three years as an Air Force officer and went through OTS. I think we spent no more than a day on drilling, falling out, marching this way and that way, and I was never told how to select a camp site!
We did however spend a week on survival. And during that time was once captured by a company of Army Rangers and held for 24 hours. It wasn't a fun experience! They are some tough patriots.
:sabre:
 
Thanks, Mr. Wolf. That was pretty interesting stuff there. I never considered the clerical work that was/is involved with military matters and the officer cadre.

:smile:
As stated, a reading of the OR (Official Records of the Rebellion) of Union activities during the Civil War makes it abundantly clear how much clerical work was involved with military matters and the officer cadre. The amount of paperwork generated during the ACW is astounding. One can only imagine how much was produced in subsequent wars.
 
Red Harvest,

You wrote:
Dunno about that test, don't think it would have any impact on determining the suitability of an artillery captain. :cannon:

Artillery Captain would still have to be the 'head' officer for the Artillery, to account for ordnance, repair of carriages, axles, harnesses, horseshoes and horseshoe nails, the fuses, the accountability of practice, how much canister, shot and such. He would need to oversee more than just the basics of firing off the various batteries.

The men, their uniforms, boots, their equipment such as belts, staffs, buckets, knives, etc., their camp equipment, mess equipment, food allowances, their camps and where to place the sinks (not the hand washing sort for those new to the term), storage of food, e.g. flour, etc.

The men themselves, their pay, their descriptive list, their sick time, duties and details, promotions and demotions if any, their pay forwarded to family. The death of a soldier, the missing soldier, deserter, the POW, etc.

The Artillery would have more than just the pieces, the forage wagon, their tools, their harnesses, horses, all the way down to the horseshoe nails; the food rations of teamsters, drivers, men, the officers and men. Quarter-Master, Commissary, the clerks and, this also wouldn't include the horses and their food rations, hay--forage, water supplies, their medical care, saddles, harnesses, bits, buckets for feed and water, ointments, repair parts for their immediate equipment like halters, lead shanks, saddle blankets, etc.

What about the losses of horses? Loss of harnesses, saddles, bits, blankets and such.

More than just shooting off the artillery pieces by command.:thumbsup:

Just some personal observations.

M. E. Wolf
 
Back
Top