What other historians have written are secondary sources.
Also I accept plenty of secondary sources... when it is a historical period or simply a topic I dont know much about.
Me too. So it's quite ok, after all.
Series 1 - Volume 45 (Part I) page 984"WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE WASHINGTON DC, Nov. 22, 1864. Officers serving in the field are permitted...By order of the Secretary of War; E. D. TOWNSEND Assistant Adjutant General"
This is a primary account of a written order, thanks. This is not a primary account of how (or even if) such an order was carried out in the field, if read or cared much about. From a serious historian's point of view such orders, or drill manuals, should not be considered as evidence that should override all other context. Many officers in the CW certainly had figured out the thing about rank insignia on their own by the time of the order.I appreciate how an off-shore researcher might miss or downplay the factor of the American character, personna or setting in context.
Particularly true for the American Civil War, most soldiers and their commanders at that time had a thoroughly independent pioneer spirit, having themselves -- or within a mere generation or two -- left the old country for a reason, and having been risk-takers in doing it. Read de Tocqueville.
From a serious historian's viewpoint, drill manuals and written orders are just not the slam-dunk they're made out to be. Amateur historians (some reenactors, some published authors) are often more anxious to prove a point than in letting the evidence lead the search. It's context, context, context, and in the case of this forum an understanding of the American psyche.
During the U.S. Civil War most soldiers of the line did not
ever consider themselves government issue. Far from it. They were protecting their buddies and were trying to end up back home (check this with more recent combat vets -- talk about your primary sources). Orders came directly from officers so they had no choice but to carry them out, but drill manuals were merely noise (that which might have to be obeyed at times) except maybe to career soldiers, a small minority in the CW.
So the best primary resource is a during-war unofficial account written out by an officer or other soldier, or civilian participant, in the field. Second best is a during-war official account (suspect because no officer wrote to put themselves in a bad light for their superiors). Third best are post-war official unit histories (suspect for the writers wanting to establish a legacy), and fourth best are unofficial post-war individual remembrances (suspect for the writers wanting to establish a legacy, but then even more suspect as a fading memory, at times written to help establish a pension for themselves late in life).