Lee versus Thomas

[E_just_E]

I believe that Charles Mason, who graduated #1 in Lee's class, also had no demerits.

Indeed. I forgot about him because he resigned the Army two years after he graduated and chose not to fight in the Civil War, but to continue his practice as an IA attorney. He finished with an overall score of 1995.5/2000 points and Lee with 1966.5/2000. He was older (58 years old in 1861)

 

[James N.]

The demerits were both for academic reasons and for "behavior", neatness etc. reasons. And they were given aplenty. Grant wrote a tad about them in his Memoirs. Lee is the only known cadet to never get any. Demerits determined the rank of someone in their class...

Seems I read that Lee did get some but that they were erased by subsequent behavior, so he graduated without any.

Demerits were (and are, I think) easy to get. If your brass was not perfect in the eyes of a senior, you got a demerit. If the senior didn't like you, you got demerits for very minor infractions.

I believe that Charles Mason, who graduated #1 in Lee's class, also had no demerits.

In the period Lee attended, cadets were permitted to "work off" demerits with extra duty assignments, making it unlikely we will never accurately know whether Lee, Mason, or anyone else in their era actually never received any.

 

[Drew]

In the period Lee attended, cadets were permitted to "work off" demerits with extra duty assignments, making it unlikely we will never accurately know whether Lee, Mason, or anyone else in their era actually never received any.

Yes, and many graduated with demerits and less than high academic rank relative to their peers. Thomas J. Jackson is an example of this. I heard he did better than many of his fellows on the battlefield?

Don't meant to be snarky, it's just that sometimes we give way too much import to this sort of thing. We often find out who did his homework and learned to think for himself long after the badges are handed out in the school house.

 

[E_just_E]

Yes, and many graduated with demerits and less than high academic rank relative to their peers. Thomas J. Jackson is an example of this. I heard he did better than many of his fellows on the battlefield?

Don't meant to be snarky, it's just that sometimes we give way too much import to this sort of thing. We often find out who did his homework and learned to think for himself long after the badges are handed out in the school house.

Allegedly, Thomas Jonathan Jackson (who, btw, would be considered a West Virginian by any calculation) was a really smart and motivated young man back with zero "common" sense. But. He was pretty darn exemplary in the Mexican War. Some controversy about what "Stonewall" was all about in First Manassas/Bull Run (and that's old news.) And his lack of common sense got him at the end. It is pretty true that some of the most creative and amazing people's pitfall is common sense. Ask JEB Stuart. I'd bet he'd agree too

 

[Drew]

U.S. Grant graduated in the middle of his class at West Point, too. Don't know how many demerits he earned (quite a few, I think), but he was a mediocre student, by definition.

Whoops.

 

[E_just_E]

U.S. Grant graduated in the middle of his class at West Point, too. Don't know how many demerits he earned (quite a few, I think), but he was a mediocre student, by definition.

Whoops.

Yeah. Totally. Order of picking back then (for graduating assignments) was: Engineers, Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry. By every single description and source, Hiram U. Grant was a great horseman and that's where his heart was. His grades (and demerits, allegedly he was what we'd call a "slob" few years ago and a "hipster" these days) did not make it and he was assigned to infantry.

 

[JKG3117]

I always thought Thomas's decision to stay in the union came down to the old saying; Happy wife, happy life!

I kinda think of Thomas as the Unions Longstreet. Solid, reliable, good on the offensive (slow or not) and masters on the defensive.

Jim

 

[leftyhunter]

Here's one way of comparing them by listing what they had in common vs what they did not. Feel free to add to the list.
What they had in common.
1,They are both native born Virginians
2. Their fathers owned slaves and has adults both Lee and Thomas owned slaves.
3. They at first where well off has children but when their fathers died not so well off.
4. They both knew each other very well
5. They both have records of bravery
6. They both took West Point seriously has cadets
7. They where both loved by their men and attended to their welfare has best they could under the circumstances
What they did not have in common
1. Lee was a better cadet and was assigned to the engineers vs Thomas was pretty good and assigned to artillery
2. Thomas most likely knew Braxton Bragg better since Bragg was his superior officer in the Mexican American War
3.Lee was wealthier since he married wealthier
4. Lee owned a whole lot more then two slaves or at least he did via his wife.
5. Lee has commander of the AnV had to take risks vs Thomas has head of the AoC had better logistics more men then his opponents and thus could make less risky battle plans.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Yeah. Totally. Order of picking back then (for graduating assignments) was: Engineers, Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry. By every single description and source, Hiram U. Grant was a great horseman and that's where his heart was. His grades (and demerits, allegedly he was what we'd call a "slob" few years ago and a "hipster" these days) did not make it and he was assigned to infantry.

Top graduates were engineers. Second rate were Artillery. Average were infantry. Schlubs were Cavalry. That was not written in stone, but it was the way it worked out. Grant did not qualify as an engineer. Lee did. Now let's consider who kicked whose butt. The devil is in the details.

 

[E_just_E]

Top graduates were engineers. Second rate were Artillery. Average were infantry. Schlubs were Cavalry. That was not written in stone, but it was the way it worked out. Grant did not qualify as an engineer. Lee did. Now let's consider who kicked whose butt. The devil is in the details.

That ranking is true after the Mexican War. But most of the ACW generals (Custer notwithstanding) were pre-Mexican War graduates, thus Longfellow, Pickett (& Grant) ending up with infantry. Cavalry as a concept was a later concept and much influenced by the western expansion and the huge plains. The first Cavalry units were Dragoons, part of Infantry.

 

[cash]

Lee is the only known cadet to never get any.

Actually, that's not the case. In Lee's own class there were five cadets who received no demerits in addition to Lee.

Demerits determined the rank of someone in their class. Thomas graduated 12th out of 42. So he did have demerits, but demerits were not "a big deal". It was something that it was expected.

Grades, then demerits determined one's class rank. Thomas could have had no demerits and still rank 12th due to grades.

 

[cash]

I believe that Charles Mason, who graduated #1 in Lee's class, also had no demerits.

As did Barnes, Kennedy, Burbank, and Harford, all in the same class.

 

[Ray Ball]

A fair bit of the "rankings"- Engineers, Artillery, Infantry and Cavalry is true but there was more than a mild bit of latitude there as well. Promotions in the Engineers were exceptionally difficult to gain so often highly competent officers might have opted to go elsewhere. As I understand it, the same is true proportionally for the artillery etc. on down the line.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I believe that Charles Mason, who graduated #1 in Lee's class, also had no demerits.

I have read that there were 6 (Mason, Lee, and four others) who graduated that year with no demerits.

Edit: Cash beat me to it, and he knows the others names.

 

[James N.]

Yeah. Totally. Order of picking back then (for graduating assignments) was: Engineers, Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry. By every single description and source, Hiram U. Grant was a great horseman and that's where his heart was. His grades (and demerits, allegedly he was what we'd call a "slob" few years ago and a "hipster" these days) did not make it and he was assigned to infantry.

Wrong - cavalry ( or dragoons ) was at the bottom of the pile, hence George Custer's posting there! ( I don't know how it was that other "last-man-in-his-class" George - Pickett - wound up in the infantry. ) Other than that, your list is in the correct order. In many European armies ( and also the Mexican ), artillery was considered a technical service, hence few of the nobility were members of that arm - a good thing, too, since most of the "second sons" who went into the military ( the clergy or government service were the favored vocations for firstborns ) were too stupid or dissipated for the mental discipline necessary to be successful artillerymen. Napoleon was an exception, but he was a member of the Corsican minor nobility, barely a step removed from an average French peasant! He too was a second son; the eldest son Giuseppi Buonoparte ( Joseph Bonaparte ) originally went into the priesthood.

Edit: Sorry, I see I've come late to the party and that these issues had already been discussed - I've let the post stay though, because of my comments about the artillery.

 

[James N.]

A fair bit of the "rankings"- Engineers, Artillery, Infantry and Cavalry is true but there was more than a mild bit of latitude there as well. Promotions in the Engineers were exceptionally difficult to gain so often highly competent officers might have opted to go elsewhere. As I understand it, the same is true proportionally for the artillery etc. on down the line.

My understanding is that was Lee's reasoning for transferring to the relatively "new" cavalry arm where he became first a lieutenant colonel then colonel, ranks which would not have been available in the much smaller engineer branch.

 

[ole]

We might realize that these "rules" were not carved in stone. While it is true that the brightest graduates were destined to be engineers, they might rather be cavalry or artillery or infantry.

Custer was never going to be an Engineer, but he was quite happy with his Cavalry assignment. Lee could have been an engineer and was, for a while, but in the Cavalry he could advance faster.

I don't know if Grant ever sought to be in the Cavalry. Being an excellent equestrian doesn't automatically make one a Cavalryman. At the time, Cavalry meant service in the West. Not desirable.

 

[Valette Bedford]

Can't speak to Thomas' specific circumstances, but yes, Lee's father blew it, financially. His mother's social connections made up for it in terms of the opportunity her children would be presented with.

Yes, Ann Hill Carter Lee was able to pull some strings to get Robert into West Point. It was really the only form of professional education available to him, as Ann had largely exhausted the family's financial resources to educate his older brothers.

 

[BillO]

Lee went with his State while Thomas went with whichever made the best offer.

 

[Northern Light]

Lee went with his State while Thomas went with whichever made the best offer.

Are you saying that Lee had honour because of his choice but Thomas didn't because he choose to fight for his country? I am not trying to be confrontational, I just wasn't sure what you meant by this statement.