McClellan on Hooker at Antietam

That is close to my interpretation. Grant' arrest of McClernand is technically correct, and he has a valid charge. However, he has used the option of suspending the preferment of charges. Lincoln's backdated order makes the relief a regular one by the President, which means the charges are no longer needed. Thus the formal charges are dropped.

Had it gone to a court-martial or a court-of-inquiry then McClernand would likely have been found guilty. However, it might have been mutual destruction as it would drag Grant into the court as well and expose Grant's own conduct. This would certainly have killed Grant's Presidential ambitions, and may have resulted in him being expelled the service as well.

You should stop here. Grant DID NOT arrest McClernand. If you think he did, please post the arrest order. If you cannot, please stop posting this empty claim.
 
That is close to my interpretation. Grant' arrest of McClernand is technically correct, and he has a valid charge. However, he has used the option of suspending the preferment of charges. Lincoln's backdated order makes the relief a regular one by the President, which means the charges are no longer needed. Thus the formal charges are dropped.

Had it gone to a court-martial or a court-of-inquiry then McClernand would likely have been found guilty. However, it might have been mutual destruction as it would drag Grant into the court as well and expose Grant's own conduct. This would certainly have killed Grant's Presidential ambitions, and may have resulted in him being expelled the service as well.
"Had it gone to a court-martial or a court-of-inquiry then McClernand would likely have been found guilty"

Wrong on two counts. First, a court of inquiry does not adjudicate "findings of guilty" - that's called a "court martial"

Second, given that Grant did not "charge" McClernand with a violation of Article 57, this discussion is purely hypothetical. Had he done so, the likely outcome would have been "not guilty" at a court martial. McClernand's order categorically did not involve communications with the enemy or providing intelligence to them - and the two complainants, Sherman and McPherson,. did not object on those grounds. In addition, McClernand proffered what would have been a defense to the lesser proposition that he had published without first running the order by Grant - that his aide had done so. If Grant had even thought of Article 57 - and you've shown us nothing that says he had - he possessed far more in the way of brains than would have led to that doomed charge.

Really - try reading Grant's explanation to Halleck and Dana's explanation to Stanton. Plain English
 
You should stop here. Grant DID NOT arrest McClernand. If you think he did, please post the arrest order. If you cannot, please stop posting this empty claim.
He can't - there are NO records showing that. McClernand never said he was "arrested". Wilson, who delivered the relief order, never said in his account that he placed McClernand under "arrest". He also cannot show a statement by any of the qualified historians who have covered this - Bearss, Kiper, Tim Smith, Williams, etc etc - concluding that McClernand was "arrested". The claim is as ridiculous and unfounded as the claim that McClernand was "confined" to the 57,000 square miles of Illinois (and apparently committed another court martial offense by going to Janesville Wisconsin). It's a game.
 
He can't - there are NO records showing that. McClernand never said he was "arrested". Wilson, who delivered the relief order, never said in his account that he placed McClernand under "arrest". He also cannot show a statement by any of the qualified historians who have covered this - Bearss, Kiper, Tim Smith, Williams, etc etc - concluding that McClernand was "arrested".

Well, yes. He is effectively saying he was arrested because he could have been arrested.
The claim is as ridiculous and unfounded as the claim that McClernand was "confined" to the 57,000 square miles of Illinois (and apparently committed another court martial offense by going to Janesville Wisconsin). It's a game.
Hmm, weird as this sounds, there is probably some small backing for it. McClernand was ordered to Illinois by Grant. McClernand would need permission or authorization to leave an assigned post (or a reasonable area around it). Janesville is 15-20 miles north of the Illinois border. It is unlikely that anyone would make an issue of it with a general officer involved, particularly if we are talking about a day trip; maybe if McClernand absented himself for a week or two. Even then it would probably be handled with a short message ("Get back to Illinois!") unless someone was really looking to find ways to smack McClernand around.

In late 1862, McClernand had been assigned to recruit in Indiana-Illinois-Iowa. He was forwarding his troops down to Grant's Department (where they officially became part of Grant's forces as soon as they entered Grant's area). He at least believed he needed to get permission to leave those states, because he inquired about it. It turned out Halleck had already sent him permission to leave -- but in a very inconspicuous way. McClernand had not noticed (McClernand was also busy with preparations for his December 1862 wedding). It was one of the reasons McClernand did not figure out where his troops were going until after the wedding, when he set out for Memphis with his new bride in tow.

My own Dad had a similar situation in WWII. His division was out near Sacramento in California, waiting to ship out to the Pacific. Dad had a pass that was restricted to a 25 mile radius from the base. He and some buddies stretched that a bit -- they went to San Francisco, which is probably 90-100 miles from the base. If stopped by the MPs or the Shore Patrol ...

While they were there, Dad and a buddy went to a USO dance -- where Dad met my Mom. Soon after that, Dad's division was about to embark from Port Chicago for Hawaii when that blew up. A day or so after the explosion, they marched the troops through the destruction to board transport. In 1946, Dad met Mom for the second time, on his way back from the Pacific. The day after that, the Army shipped Dad out to the East Coast to be discharged.
 
McClernand's order categorically did not involve communications with the enemy or providing intelligence to them - and the two complainants, Sherman and McPherson,. did not object on those grounds.
I think this brings up a relevant point about McClernands relief. It wasn't solely because any one instance of McClernand violating some regulation. McClernand had a long history of angering fellow division/corps commanders by trying to claim more credit than he deserved. This last instance was just the straw that broke the camels back.
 
I think this brings up a relevant point about McClernands relief. It wasn't solely because any one instance of McClernand violating some regulation. McClernand had a long history of angering fellow division/corps commanders by trying to claim more credit than he deserved. This last instance was just the straw that broke the camels back.
All true.

In addition, none of the higher commanders involved (Halleck, Grant, Sherman, McPherson) had any belief that McClernand was competent to command a large force of men in combat The people who wanted a high command for McClernand all seem to be politicians.

For an exact opposite example, we have Don Carlos Buell. The western politicians were against restoring him to command. Grant wanted to bring him back in 1864, as did Halleck. Thomas, Sherman and Canby would all have gladly accepted him into their command.
 
Well, yes. He is effectively saying he was arrested because he could have been arrested.

Hmm, weird as this sounds, there is probably some small backing for it. McClernand was ordered to Illinois by Grant. McClernand would need permission or authorization to leave an assigned post (or a reasonable area around it). Janesville is 15-20 miles north of the Illinois border. It is unlikely that anyone would make an issue of it with a general officer involved, particularly if we are talking about a day trip; maybe if McClernand absented himself for a week or two. Even then it would probably be handled with a short message ("Get back to Illinois!") unless someone was really looking to find ways to smack McClernand around.

In late 1862, McClernand had been assigned to recruit in Indiana-Illinois-Iowa. He was forwarding his troops down to Grant's Department (where they officially became part of Grant's forces as soon as they entered Grant's area). He at least believed he needed to get permission to leave those states, because he inquired about it. It turned out Halleck had already sent him permission to leave -- but in a very inconspicuous way. McClernand had not noticed (McClernand was also busy with preparations for his December 1862 wedding). It was one of the reasons McClernand did not figure out where his troops were going until after the wedding, when he set out for Memphis with his new bride in tow.

My own Dad had a similar situation in WWII. His division was out near Sacramento in California, waiting to ship out to the Pacific. Dad had a pass that was restricted to a 25 mile radius from the base. He and some buddies stretched that a bit -- they went to San Francisco, which is probably 90-100 miles from the base. If stopped by the MPs or the Shore Patrol ...

While they were there, Dad and a buddy went to a USO dance -- where Dad met my Mom. Soon after that, Dad's division was about to embark from Port Chicago for Hawaii when that blew up. A day or so after the explosion, they marched the troops through the destruction to board transport. In 1946, Dad met Mom for the second time, on his way back from the Pacific. The day after that, the Army shipped Dad out to the East Coast to be discharged.
I suggest a large difference. McClernand was ordered to "report" to Illinois. He had to be ordered to report somewhere once he was relieved from XIII Corps command because he was still on duty and in active service. Requesting permission to go to Iowa to perform recruiting duties is perfectly consistent with that. on the other hand, if you read the regulations, etc, at the time regarding "confinement" after an "arrest", it is far, far tighter than 57,000 square miles - it's essentially to a quarters, subject to expansion upon application. "Illinois" is absurd. As an example, when Fitz John Porter was arrested and confined pending court martial, it was initially to the hotel he was staying at. He was granted a reasonable expansion upon application. When Yates wrote to Lincoln/Stanton on June 27 proposing a command in Pennsylvania, there was no reference to lifting "confinement" - for good reason.
 
I suggest a large difference. McClernand was ordered to "report" to Illinois. He had to be ordered to report somewhere once he was relieved from XIII Corps command because he was still on duty and in active service. Requesting permission to go to Iowa to perform recruiting duties is perfectly consistent with that. on the other hand, if you read the regulations, etc, at the time regarding "confinement" after an "arrest", it is far, far tighter than 57,000 square miles - it's essentially to a quarters, subject to expansion upon application. "Illinois" is absurd. As an example, when Fitz John Porter was arrested and confined pending court martial, it was initially to the hotel he was staying at. He was granted a reasonable expansion upon application. When Yates wrote to Lincoln/Stanton on June 27 proposing a command in Pennsylvania, there was no reference to lifting "confinement" - for good reason.
I don't think McClernand was arrested or confined. I think he was merely told where to go and wait.
 
I don't think McClernand was arrested or confined. I think he was merely told where to go and wait.
Agree - and Grant's order relieving McClernand stated that he was to "report by letter to HQ of the Army for orders". The arrest and confinement theory is comical.
 
I think this brings up a relevant point about McClernands relief. It wasn't solely because any one instance of McClernand violating some regulation. McClernand had a long history of angering fellow division/corps commanders by trying to claim more credit than he deserved. This last instance was just the straw that broke the camels back.
And that is precisely what Grant told Halleck and Dana told Washington about why Grant relieved McClernand.
 

Attachments

  • DOC092621-09262021114607.pdf
    3.6 MB · Views: 32
Whatever reasons Grant had, he had to have a reason with a solid legal basis to act. Grant had wanted to get rid of McClernand for months, but had been unable to, because Grant did not have the power to countermand an order of the President.

Hence, Grant needed to have an actual charge to bring McClernand up on. This was provided by the publication of McClernand congratulatory order in the press. This was a military offense under the 57th article-of-war. That gave Grant the right to place McClernand under arrest and charge him.

Hence, the Inspector-General of the Army of the Tennessee (in his formal uniform), with the Provost-Marshal and a squad of 5 soldiers turned up at McClernand's tent at around 0200 hours. The I-G administers the arrest. Under the Militia Act of 1862, whilst the army is on campaign the prosecuting officer does not have to formally prefer the charges for a year, providing the accused is released from arrest prettymuch immediately. In such a case the accused would typically be sent away and told to wait for the charges. This is essentially what happened. Officers were considered to be honourable gentlemen, and it was quite normal to expect them to behave. Indeed, the regulations are clear that arrested officers should not be kept in confinement except in special circumstances.

The question then becomes, what of the charges?

On the 26th June, Grant wrote to Lorenzo Thomas, enclosing the documentation of the case, and asked for Lincoln to approve his actions. Now, if Lincoln approved the actions it would become a regular relief and charges would be unnecessary, but if Lincoln did not then formal charges could be preferred and McClernand brought to a court-martial. During this period somebody was leaking to the press Grant's intention to bring McClernand to a court-martial (i.e. Grant or his staff). Lincoln did approve and on 10th July issued a backdated order which made the relief a regular one by order of the President. This obviated the need for a formal charge, and when queried in August, Halleck told Lincoln that Grant had indeed decided not to prefer charges, and Lincoln advised McClernand to leave it as such.
 
Whatever reasons Grant had, he had to have a reason with a solid legal basis to act. Grant had wanted to get rid of McClernand for months, but had been unable to, because Grant did not have the power to countermand an order of the President.

Hence, Grant needed to have an actual charge to bring McClernand up on. This was provided by the publication of McClernand congratulatory order in the press. This was a military offense under the 57th article-of-war. That gave Grant the right to place McClernand under arrest and charge him.

Hence, the Inspector-General of the Army of the Tennessee (in his formal uniform), with the Provost-Marshal and a squad of 5 soldiers turned up at McClernand's tent at around 0200 hours. The I-G administers the arrest. Under the Militia Act of 1862, whilst the army is on campaign the prosecuting officer does not have to formally prefer the charges for a year, providing the accused is released from arrest prettymuch immediately. In such a case the accused would typically be sent away and told to wait for the charges. This is essentially what happened. Officers were considered to be honourable gentlemen, and it was quite normal to expect them to behave. Indeed, the regulations are clear that arrested officers should not be kept in confinement except in special circumstances.

The question then becomes, what of the charges?

On the 26th June, Grant wrote to Lorenzo Thomas, enclosing the documentation of the case, and asked for Lincoln to approve his actions. Now, if Lincoln approved the actions it would become a regular relief and charges would be unnecessary, but if Lincoln did not then formal charges could be preferred and McClernand brought to a court-martial. During this period somebody was leaking to the press Grant's intention to bring McClernand to a court-martial (i.e. Grant or his staff). Lincoln did approve and on 10th July issued a backdated order which made the relief a regular one by order of the President. This obviated the need for a formal charge, and when queried in August, Halleck told Lincoln that Grant had indeed decided not to prefer charges, and Lincoln advised McClernand to leave it as such.
You should submit your work to a publisher that turns out historical fiction.

This is Article 57:
"Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court martial."

Show us the document in which that charge is made. That wasn't the basis for the complaints made by McPherson and Sherman to Grant on June 17 regarding McClernand's publication of his order. Grant never came close to stating that in his report to Halleck, nor did Dana in his report to Stanton. Best of all, that was not the "accused's" understanding of the basis for his relief when he wrote to Stanton on June 27 (attached). You're simply making it up.
 

Attachments

  • DOC093021-09302021092410.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 32
I found this note in the Official Records and was struck by the effort by McClellan to ensure Hooker received his due from the Battle of Antietam.
Regards
David

"Headquarters Army of the Potomac,
September 19, 1862-8.15 p. m. (Received 8.30 p. m.)
Maj. Gen. H. W. Halleck:, General-in-Chief:
As an act of justice to the merits of that most excellent officer, Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker, who was eminently conspicuous for his gallantry and ability as a leader in several hard-fought battles in Virginia, and who, in the battle of Antietam Creek, on the 17th instant, was wounded at the head of his corps while leading it forward in action, I most urgently recommend him for the appointment of brigadier-general in the U. S. Army, to fill the vacancy created by the death of the late Brigadier-General Mansfield. This would be but a fit reward for the service General Hooker rendered his country. I feel sure his appointment would gratify the entire army.
Geo. B. McClellan,
Major-General."


Official Records of the Rebellion
Series 1, Volume XIX, Part 1
Page 183
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079609610&view=1up&seq=198&skin=2021&q1=191
 
Whatever reasons Grant had, he had to have a reason with a solid legal basis to act. Grant had wanted to get rid of McClernand for months, but had been unable to, because Grant did not have the power to countermand an order of the President.

Hence, Grant needed to have an actual charge to bring McClernand up on. This was provided by the publication of McClernand congratulatory order in the press. This was a military offense under the 57th article-of-war. That gave Grant the right to place McClernand under arrest and charge him.

Hence, the Inspector-General of the Army of the Tennessee (in his formal uniform), with the Provost-Marshal and a squad of 5 soldiers turned up at McClernand's tent at around 0200 hours. The I-G administers the arrest. Under the Militia Act of 1862, whilst the army is on campaign the prosecuting officer does not have to formally prefer the charges for a year, providing the accused is released from arrest prettymuch immediately. In such a case the accused would typically be sent away and told to wait for the charges. This is essentially what happened. Officers were considered to be honourable gentlemen, and it was quite normal to expect them to behave. Indeed, the regulations are clear that arrested officers should not be kept in confinement except in special circumstances.

The question then becomes, what of the charges?

On the 26th June, Grant wrote to Lorenzo Thomas, enclosing the documentation of the case, and asked for Lincoln to approve his actions. Now, if Lincoln approved the actions it would become a regular relief and charges would be unnecessary, but if Lincoln did not then formal charges could be preferred and McClernand brought to a court-martial. During this period somebody was leaking to the press Grant's intention to bring McClernand to a court-martial (i.e. Grant or his staff). Lincoln did approve and on 10th July issued a backdated order which made the relief a regular one by order of the President. This obviated the need for a formal charge, and when queried in August, Halleck told Lincoln that Grant had indeed decided not to prefer charges, and Lincoln advised McClernand to leave it as such.
In short, Grant never did arrest or charge McClernand. He simply relieved him of his command and sent him away. He had cause to bring charges if he wanted to do so -- but he did not do it. McClernand was not "told to wait for the charges", he was merely told to report to HQ in Washington.

Possibly, if McClernand had put up resistance to Grant's order, he would have been charged and arrested. He did not and never was charged, never was arrested. If he had been arrested, there would be paperwork involved and you could post the documents to support your claim.
 
In short, Grant never did arrest or charge McClernand. He simply relieved him of his command and sent him away. He had cause to bring charges if he wanted to do so -- but he did not do it. McClernand was not "told to wait for the charges", he was merely told to report to HQ in Washington.

Possibly, if McClernand had put up resistance to Grant's order, he would have been charged and arrested. He did not and never was charged, never was arrested. If he had been arrested, there would be paperwork involved and you could post the documents to support your claim.

James Wilson was the Inspector-General, and he administered the arrest. He went to McClernand's tent in the middle of the night with a squad of soldiers and the Provost-General to place him under guard if necessary. McClernand agreed to the "bail terms", and, as per the law, McClernand was released from arrest within a few hours to travel to Illinois.

The problem is that you and Belfoured keep asking for documents that didn't exist for any arrest, and think the non-existence of documents that would not exist in the case of an arrest is proof that no arrest happened.

Simply, Grant understood that he did not have the right to simply remove McClernand because McClernand was a corps commander, and they were directly appointed by Lincoln. The only way he could remove McClernand was by finding a reason to arrest him. He did, and he did. He then appealed to Lincoln to approve it (as a regular relief by the President) and Lincoln did so by backdating Ord's appointment.

I understand that Belfoured has limited experience reading such orders, because he's insisting that there has to be two separate orders. There doesn't. X to be corps commander vice Y covers both the appointment of X and the relief of Y. In fact, Y doesn't even need to be mentioned if only one person can hold a position.

Belfoured's insistence to the contrary is because he wants to dismantle the law surrounding corps commanders, because it gives him an avenue of attack against McClellan. McClernand is the example he has picked to argue that this clearly stated law doesn't exist, because it would appear to contradict it. However, it does fit within the law if it was an arrest. Grant waited until he had grounds for an arrest and charge, and then Inspector-General took a squad of "policemen" to put McClernand under confinement. It clearly fits the parameters of an arrest as they existed at the time, and thus can't be used as grounds to argue that Grant used Presidential powers.
 
James Wilson was the Inspector-General, and he administered the arrest. He went to McClernand's tent in the middle of the night with a squad of soldiers and the Provost-General to place him under guard if necessary. McClernand agreed to the "bail terms", and, as per the law, McClernand was released from arrest within a few hours to travel to Illinois.

The problem is that you and Belfoured keep asking for documents that didn't exist for any arrest, and think the non-existence of documents that would not exist in the case of an arrest is proof that no arrest happened.

Simply, Grant understood that he did not have the right to simply remove McClernand because McClernand was a corps commander, and they were directly appointed by Lincoln. The only way he could remove McClernand was by finding a reason to arrest him. He did, and he did. He then appealed to Lincoln to approve it (as a regular relief by the President) and Lincoln did so by backdating Ord's appointment.

I understand that Belfoured has limited experience reading such orders, because he's insisting that there has to be two separate orders. There doesn't. X to be corps commander vice Y covers both the appointment of X and the relief of Y. In fact, Y doesn't even need to be mentioned if only one person can hold a position.

Belfoured's insistence to the contrary is because he wants to dismantle the law surrounding corps commanders, because it gives him an avenue of attack against McClellan. McClernand is the example he has picked to argue that this clearly stated law doesn't exist, because it would appear to contradict it. However, it does fit within the law if it was an arrest. Grant waited until he had grounds for an arrest and charge, and then Inspector-General took a squad of "policemen" to put McClernand under confinement. It clearly fits the parameters of an arrest as they existed at the time, and thus can't be used as grounds to argue that Grant used Presidential powers.
Here is the problem with this stuff you are putting out: it is all based on your own need to believe that somehow Grant arrested McClernand when he never did arrest McClernand. You insist this happened because that is the way you want it to be -- but you cannot produce any evidence at all to show that McClernand actually was arrested. You keep going around in this circular logic loop where you must be right because you said so.

Other than you, who says McClernand was arrested? Can you produce a copy of the arrest order, or show that it was ever issued? Please stop this idle and circular posting of your own speculation, post actual evidence of your claim an arrest was made. Do not criticize @Belfoured for pointing out your lack of support for your claim: post evidence to prove your point instead.
 
James Wilson was the Inspector-General, and he administered the arrest. He went to McClernand's tent in the middle of the night with a squad of soldiers and the Provost-General to place him under guard if necessary. McClernand agreed to the "bail terms", and, as per the law, McClernand was released from arrest within a few hours to travel to Illinois.

The problem is that you and Belfoured keep asking for documents that didn't exist for any arrest, and think the non-existence of documents that would not exist in the case of an arrest is proof that no arrest happened.

Simply, Grant understood that he did not have the right to simply remove McClernand because McClernand was a corps commander, and they were directly appointed by Lincoln. The only way he could remove McClernand was by finding a reason to arrest him. He did, and he did. He then appealed to Lincoln to approve it (as a regular relief by the President) and Lincoln did so by backdating Ord's appointment.

I understand that Belfoured has limited experience reading such orders, because he's insisting that there has to be two separate orders. There doesn't. X to be corps commander vice Y covers both the appointment of X and the relief of Y. In fact, Y doesn't even need to be mentioned if only one person can hold a position.

Belfoured's insistence to the contrary is because he wants to dismantle the law surrounding corps commanders, because it gives him an avenue of attack against McClellan. McClernand is the example he has picked to argue that this clearly stated law doesn't exist, because it would appear to contradict it. However, it does fit within the law if it was an arrest. Grant waited until he had grounds for an arrest and charge, and then Inspector-General took a squad of "policemen" to put McClernand under confinement. It clearly fits the parameters of an arrest as they existed at the time, and thus can't be used as grounds to argue that Grant used Presidential powers.
We keep asking for documents because all of the documents that exist - all of them - show that your theory of "arrest" and "confinement" on a "charge" of violation of "Article 57" is a complete fiction. You need that fiction to support your erroneus position. The documents "would appear to contradict it" because in fact they do. As for "an avenue of attack against McClellan", are you serious? Even Nellie wasn't prone to that level of conspiracy theory.

"I understand that Belfoured has limited experience reading such orders"

I have a great deal of experience reading plain English. And I know that a fundamental principle of issuing orders is that they be clear and not subject to the injection of missing words that alter the meaning.
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem with this stuff you are putting out: it is all based on your own need to believe that somehow Grant arrested McClernand when he never did arrest McClernand. You insist this happened because that is the way you want it to be -- but you cannot produce any evidence at all to show that McClernand actually was arrested. You keep going around in this circular logic loop where you must be right because you said so.

Other than you, who says McClernand was arrested? Can you produce a copy of the arrest order, or show that it was ever issued? Please stop this idle and circular posting of your own speculation, post actual evidence of your claim an arrest was made. Do not criticize @Belfoured for pointing out your lack of support for your claim: post evidence to prove your point instead.
The answer to your question, of course, is "nobody". Not Grant, not McClernand, not Wilson, not Dana, not Stanton, not Lincoln, not Rawlins, not Sherman, not McPherson, not Bearss, not Williams, not Kiper, not Smith, not Ballard, not Winschel, ......

And I hope nobody is holding their breath waiting for an attached document that contradicts the several I've linked. That's the m.o. - either paraphrase a document that does exist, which can then be accessed and the actual words contradicting the paraphrase can be read - or just hypothesize documents that don't exist.
 
We keep asking for documents because all of the documents that exist - all of them - show that your theory of "arrest" and "confinement" on a "charge" of violation of "Article 57" is a complete fiction.

Nope. The documents you are asking for would not exist whether this was an arrest or a reassignment.

Since in neither case would such documents exist, you cannot distinguish between the two based on the non-existence of such.

To be clear, all the documentation that should exist due to McClernand's arrest, exists. There is no missing documentation to speak of.
 
Nope. The documents you are asking for would not exist whether this was an arrest or a reassignment.

Since in neither case would such documents exist, you cannot distinguish between the two based on the non-existence of such.

To be clear, all the documentation that should exist due to McClernand's arrest, exists. There is no missing documentation to speak of.
That's why none of the "documentation" mentions this in any way and that's why none of the participants understood it that way. As I said, feel free to shop this with a publisher of fiction.
 
Back
Top