Confederate Corps authorization?

[trice]

Does anyone know if the Confederate Congress passed a law authorizing President Davis (or anyone else) to organize Army Corps?

 

[GELongstreet]

CHAP. III.--An Act to amend an Act entitled "An Act to provide for the public defence."

Sept. 18, 1862.

1861, March 6. Act providing for the public defence amended.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the sixth section of the Act to provide for the public defence, approved on the sixth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, be amended by adding after the words "brigades into divisions," the words "and divisions into army corps," and each army corps shall be commanded by a Lieutenant-General, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall receive the pay of a Brigadier-General.

APPROVED Sept. 18, 1862.

 

[trice]

CHAP. III.--An Act to amend an Act entitled "An Act to provide for the public defence."

Sept. 18, 1862.

1861, March 6. Act providing for the public defence amended.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the sixth section of the Act to provide for the public defence, approved on the sixth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, be amended by adding after the words "brigades into divisions," the words "and divisions into army corps," and each army corps shall be commanded by a Lieutenant-General, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall receive the pay of a Brigadier-General.

APPROVED Sept. 18, 1862.

Thanks!

Passed two months after the US Militia Act of July 17, 1862, which says that the US President can organize Corps. This one is more specific about appointing the Corps commander and limits the President's choice by requiring the "advice and consent of the Senate", which is effectively a potential veto on the President's choice.

 

[67th Tigers]

The Confederate Act specifies a new rank for corps commanders, that of lieutenant-general. For all such promotions in both the Union and Confederacy, Congress was required to approve the promotion. It is the promotion being approved, not the assignment to corps. A minor distinction, but one that could have some effect.

Like in the Union, the rank took effect immediately upon nomination by the President. The Senate had a certain amount of time to confirm it, and if they didn't then the rank became void. This happened to DH Hill, who was nominated a LG, and served as such commanding a corps, but after Chattanooga the Senate decided not to confirm the rank, and he reverted to MG.

The Union did not create a new rank for corps commanders, and hence did not have to have appointments confirmed by the Senate. If they had done, as there was consideration of, then the Senate would have to approve it. As it was, being direct Presidential appointees, they were immune to some of the powers of their commanders.

Since the Confederate law stated that the rank of a corps commanders was to be lieutenant-general, only lieutenant-generals could be appointed to command corps. However, once promoted LG, the President could assign them to any corps they wished.

Since the law stipulated a corps was to be commanded by a lieutenant-general, it was required to promote officers to fill these slots.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think the whole Lt. General thing was a mistake, at least as implemented.

The upshot of Colonels commanding Brigades is you get a chance to see whether the guy is up to the task, or if he should remain a regimental commander and someone else should take the brigade.

This problem projected upward. Too often generals were promoted from Brigadier to Major General, and Major General to Lt. General, without first giving them the chance to demonstrate they deserved their new commands. If they didn't then you were stuck with a guy at a higher rank.

If Ewell and Hill remained Major Generals upon being given corps command would they have still been promoted to Lt. General after Gettysburg? As it were, Lee was stuck with them.

 

[67th Tigers]

Arguably you weren't stuck with them. Just because someone held x rank, doesn't mean the government has to employ them. In the British Army the majority of senior generals were not employed.

However, the Acts of 17th February 1864 and 31st May 1864 made it possible to make temporary generals of all grades (the initial act only LG and GEN). That is, an officer was given a temporary promotion to the appropriate rank whilst they held a post, and reverted to their permanent rank if they left it. It equates in many ways with "local rank" in the British Army. It allowed, say, MG's to be bumped to temporary LG's whilst in command of a corps, without making them a "permanent" LG. I use the term permanent advisedly, because all these ranks were in the volunteer force (PACS) rather than regular army (ACSA).

I personally think that the US Government should have created the ranks of (Captain-)General and Lieutenant-General in the US volunteers, but with a proviso along the lines of the holders of these ranks had to be regular MG's and BG's respectively. The major armies could be commanded by GENs, and army corps be given to LG's.

 

[James N.]

I'll add that prior to the Act, following the Seven Days Lee was stuck with the situation of wanting to group his divisions into larger and more manageable formations but was not yet authorized to create army corps. He more or less solved the problem by creating what were dubbed Longstreet's Command and Jackson's Command without the formality of promoting either general. Later following the Maryland Campaign and promulgation of the new law Jackson issued a proclamation announcing the existence of the Second Corps with himself as its commander with the newly-authorized rank of lieutenant general.

 

[trice]

I think the whole Lt. General thing was a mistake, at least as implemented.

The upshot of Colonels commanding Brigades is you get a chance to see whether the guy is up to the task, or if he should remain a regimental commander and someone else should take the brigade.

This problem projected upward. Too often generals were promoted from Brigadier to Major General, and Major General to Lt. General, without first giving them the chance to demonstrate they deserved their new commands. If they didn't then you were stuck with a guy at a higher rank.

If Ewell and Hill remained Major Generals upon being given corps command would they have still been promoted to Lt. General after Gettysburg? As it were, Lee was stuck with them.

The Confederacy recognized the problem you are talking about, so in May, 1864 they passed legislation authorizing temporary Lieutenant Generals. John Pemberton (7th in seniority) resigned as a Lt. General that month. Ewell and A. P. Hill were 8th and 9th in seniority.

D. H. Hill would have been 10th (assumed date-of-rank July 11, 1863), but his appointment was withdrawn in the Bragg/AoT mess after Chickamauga. Hood was next, appointed February 1864.

Pemberton's resignation is May 14, 1864 -- the same date Richard Taylor is nominated with an 4/8/1864 date-of-rank.

The new temporary Lt. Gen rank is used for Early and Richard Anderson on May 31, 1864 (Longstreet being wounded and Ewell being assigned to the Richmond defenses).

That leaves four more:

• Stephen D. Lee (date-of-rank 6/23/1864, nominated 2/1/1865, confirmed 2/4/1865)
• Simon Buckner (date-of-rank 9/20/1864, nominated 9/20/1864, confirmed 1/17/1865)
• Wade Hampton (date-of-rank 2/14/1865, nominated 2/14/1865, confirmed 2/15/1865)
• Nathan Forrest (date-of-rank 2/28/1865, nominated 3/2/1865, confirmed 3/2/1865)

Stephen Lee was running Polk's old Department (MS/AL) and then Polk's Corps for months before he was nominated. Buckner was certainly commanding troops called a Corps at Chickamauga before he was nominated or confirmed. Stuart never was a Lieutenant General and never commanded a Corps officially (except for a brief period at Chancellorsville). The same for people like Van Dorn and Wheeler and Forrest (before 1865), I suppose, because the Confederacy did not recognize that cavalry as Corps.

Most probably, Stephen Lee and maybe Buckner were being treated as temporary lieutenant generals in 1864.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Simon Buckner (date-of-rank 9/20/1864, nominated 9/20/1864, confirmed 1/17/1865)

I'm surprised that nomination was confirmed.

 

[GELongstreet]

Should be noted that the problem of officers being stuck in higher ranks without employment could be, and occasionally was, solved by resigning and being recommissioned at a different rank - prominent and fitting example would be Pemberton who´d, despite being the doubted Northerner, eventually resign as Lieutenant General and accept a commission as Lieutenant Colonel.

 

[trice]

I'm surprised that nomination was confirmed.

Buckner had been sent West in the Summer of 1864. E. Kirby Smith put him in charge of the District of West Louisiana on August 4 (Richard Taylor's old command?). Smith then began pushing for the promotion to Lt. Gen for him. In January of 1865, everything was going to hell for the Confederacy. I guess that Davis and the Confederate Senate just rubber-stamped it.

 

[trice]

Other Confederate Corps commanders never nominated for Lt. General would include:

• Alexander Stewart, who commanded Polk's Corps after Polk was killed, named a temporary Lt. Gen. on June 23, 1864 and continuing to command a Corps through the rest of the war (the Atlanta Campaign, the Franklin & Nashville Campaign), eventually commanding the Army of Tennessee (all 5,000 or so men) in the Carolinas under Joe Johnston.
• Benjamin Cheatham, who took over command of Hood's Corps when Hood replaced Joe Johnston on July 18, 1864 until S. D. Lee arrived. Cheatham then commanded the Hardee's Corps after Hardee left September 28 through the Franklin & Nashville Campaign until February 23, 1865.