McClellan on Hooker at Antietam

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
I have asked you many times to show where the law says this.

Yes, it does. You just can't read it right. Section 9 says:

1633686507543.png


There you go. The President may establish etc., not a department commander.

Hence Halleck told Burnside that the commanders of Army Corps may only be changed by the President

1633686829185.png


Indeed, Grant acknowledged in the papers of the McClernand case that only the President had the power to change a corps commander:

1633687485962.png


Indeed, Sherman noted in his summing up of the Warren inquiry that corps commanders were all Presidential appointees:

1633687940892.png


Corps commanders were always, and could only be, appointed or removed by the President. That was the law as it stood. Until you can acknowledge this basic principle of the law, no progress can be made.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Yes, it does. You just can't read it right. Section 9 says:

View attachment 416898

There you go. The President may establish etc., not a department commander.

Hence Halleck told Burnside that the commanders of Army Corps may only be changed by the President

View attachment 416899

Indeed, Grant acknowledged in the papers of the McClernand case that only the President had the power to change a corps commander:

View attachment 416900

Indeed, Sherman noted in his summing up of the Warren inquiry that corps commanders were all Presidential appointees:

View attachment 416901

Corps commanders were always, and could only be, appointed or removed by the President. That was the law as it stood. Until you can acknowledge this basic principle of the law, no progress can be made.
Until you accept the application of plain English and common sense, no progress can be made. The proper historical method is to look at the evidence - all of it, not cherry-picked excerpts - and apply it to a conclusion. You look at a conclusion and apply it to the evidence - even if it means adding words that don't exist to the documents or simply ignoring them. This is why on this topic - and many others - you assert knowledge that is superior to skilled, careful historians who disagree with your conclusions. As for McClernand you persistently refuse to recognize - or simply do not understand - the difference between relieving an incompetent subordinate and appointing a replacement. Grant did, which is why his carefully phrased order only referred to presidential approval in the separate part of the order appointing Ord. Halleck was a skilled, trained attorney. So was Stanton. Both knew what Grant did and why by June 27. Neither raised an objection to how Grant did this, or the wording of the order.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Until you accept the application of plain English and common sense, no progress can be made. The proper historical method is to look at the evidence - all of it, not cherry-picked excerpts - and apply it to a conclusion.

Exactly. Until you stop working backwards from your notion that McClellan must have had the ability to remove Burnside, we can make no progress.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Exactly. Until you stop working backwards from your notion that McClellan must have had the ability to remove Burnside, we can make no progress.
And here we have it. Your analysis of Grant and McClernand, for example, is driven solely by the need to justify everything and anything McClellan did or did not do. So you work backwards, editing some documents, ignoring others, etc., and concoct a theory having no basis in the written record because you fear losing some debate points regarding McClellan. Here's the point about McClellan and Burnside. I have actually credited McClellan if in fact the account about his dispatching Key with an order to "relieve" is true. By the time Key got there, of course, Burnside had actually and finally started the attack on the Union left. If true, it shows that McClellan understood his authority on the battlefield - as opposed to the idiotic assumption that he could do nothing with an incompetent subordinate in the midst of battle who was not committing an arrestable offense without first making a cell phone call to the White House and getting permission. That's why you have invented the absurd Article 57 "charge" regarding McClernand, which would have been ridiculous on its face and was never mentioned by anybody involved at any point, for that very reason.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Hardly. Let's walk through this.

It was undisputed in the 19th century that only the President had the right to appoint or remove a corps commander. All the principals in this situation, Halleck, Grant, Sherman, McClernand etc. agreed on this point.

It was also undisputed that if an officer committed a military offense, they could be arrested and their military functions suspended. This was a route by which a superior general could remove a corps commander from duty.

It thus follows that the only route by which a corps commander could be removed, unless ordered by the President, was by arrest.

Now, in the McClernand case you think you've found an exception. The problem is that we must assume, where there is any ambiguity, that the ambiguity is resolved in favour of the law as it stood.

The ambiguity you are basing your argument on is the fact that the word "arrest" was not used in the order, despite it having all the other usual features of an arrest of an officer. Indeed, under the legal theory of the time, the removal of McClernand's functions as a general, which Wilson's recollection included, could only by as the result of an arrest. In the papers of the case, which were sent to the adjutant-general, Sherman makes a specific reference to General Order 151 of 1862, which is based on the 57th article-of-war.

Generally, there is enough of an indication that this was an arrest that we can't overturn the whole of the law relating to the matter.

You might call it idiotic, but that was the law as it stood. There have been plenty of laws on the books that we now think were idiotic. That we now think they were idiotic does not mean that they were not once the law.

PS. Your timing of Key's arrival is wrong. Key visited Burnside and Sackett twice on the 17th, and it was the second time that it is alleged he carried said order. This was after the bridge had been carried, but before Burnside moved up onto the ridge. It was around 1500. On prompting, Burnside did give the order to ascend the ridge. Indeed, every time Burnside was nudged, he moved.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Hardly. Let's walk through this.

It was undisputed in the 19th century that only the President had the right to appoint or remove a corps commander. All the principals in this situation, Halleck, Grant, Sherman, McClernand etc. agreed on this point.

It was also undisputed that if an officer committed a military offense, they could be arrested and their military functions suspended. This was a route by which a superior general could remove a corps commander from duty.

It thus follows that the only route by which a corps commander could be removed, unless ordered by the President, was by arrest.

Now, in the McClernand case you think you've found an exception. The problem is that we must assume, where there is any ambiguity, that the ambiguity is resolved in favour of the law as it stood.

The ambiguity you are basing your argument on is the fact that the word "arrest" was not used in the order, despite it having all the other usual features of an arrest of an officer. Indeed, under the legal theory of the time, the removal of McClernand's functions as a general, which Wilson's recollection included, could only by as the result of an arrest. In the papers of the case, which were sent to the adjutant-general, Sherman makes a specific reference to General Order 151 of 1862, which is based on the 57th article-of-war.

Generally, there is enough of an indication that this was an arrest that we can't overturn the whole of the law relating to the matter.

You might call it idiotic, but that was the law as it stood. There have been plenty of laws on the books that we now think were idiotic. That we now think they were idiotic does not mean that they were not once the law.

PS. Your timing of Key's arrival is wrong. Key visited Burnside and Sackett twice on the 17th, and it was the second time that it is alleged he carried said order. This was after the bridge had been carried, but before Burnside moved up onto the ridge. It was around 1500. On prompting, Burnside did give the order to ascend the ridge. Indeed, every time Burnside was nudged, he moved.
Keep using up bandwidth. The wholesale absence of words like "arrest", "confined", and "violation of Article 57" is not an "ambiguity". That argument would last about 15 seconds in a courtroom. The absence of any words even suggesting those concepts means that the order involved something else. No charge was ever brought or contemplated by Grant under Article 57, which would have been patently absurd and a slam dunk for the defense at a court martial. Moreover, even G.O. 151 makes no reference to Article 57 and is not based on it - for good reason. As the order states, it was based on an AAG sending a communication to a member of Congress, requesting that it be passed on to the Secretary of War. That in no way invoked what was proscribed by Article 57, and Grant was smart enough to know that - as was everybody else. Your attempt to fabricate a connection speaks for itself. And I see nothing about the equally absurd attempt to weave Article 46 into Humphreys' relief of Hays. In both cases the relieving CO based his decision on general unfitness. Predictably, of course, when it comes to McClellan and Burnside, you suddenly become literal about Article 9 - even though the facts there are more susceptible of a "flexible" interpretation than your re-writing of 57 and 46.

There must be some kind of undisclosed prize for stretching this repetitive material to post no. 500. Maybe we can get back to the Double Secret G-in-C position between March 12 and July 23.
 
Last edited:

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
It almost sounds to me as though both remedies mentioned above cured the same congestion of the ways, with no real difference but of the use of wording; and it shows the familiarity Grant and MacClellan and McClernand had with the military rules, and it shows the more adept handling of those rules by Grant. It is really one and the same outcome and design, but done in different ways, one more subtle than the other. I see no point where either of you can be called wrong.
Lubliner.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
It almost sounds to me as though both remedies mentioned above cured the same congestion of the ways, with no real difference but of the use of wording; and it shows the familiarity Grant and MacClellan and McClernand had with the military rules, and it shows the more adept handling of those rules by Grant. It is really one and the same outcome and design, but done in different ways, one more subtle than the other. I see no point where either of you can be called wrong.
Lubliner.
The problem is that words do matter. There have been assertions that officers were placed under "arrest" and "confined" based on an alleged violation of an "Article of War" where none of that occurred. For example, Article 57 was never mentioned by anybody in connection with McClernand's relief, for good reason - it clearly did not apply. It's essentially a prohibition of military treason. Everybody here is capable of actually reading it and reaching their own conclusions as to why we haven't been shown one single record/account referring to it. The same is true of Humphreys relieving Hays. Article 46 was never mentioned for good reason - Hays, a division commander, wasn't posted as a "sentinel". In McClernand's case, you have a CO - Grant - who earned a reputation for writing clear orders. You also had two skilled lawyers - Halleck and Stanton - involved, as well as a guy whose prewar profession required the use of deliberately-chosen written words to convey information - Dana. Yet the argument is that they all sloppily failed to refer to Article 57, even once. As for Humphreys. he was a career military professional with a deep engineering background and experience as chief of staff to an army commander - yet the argument is that he sloppily failed to mention Article 46 in his order relieving Hays - not to mention "arrest".

Ultimately, as I indicated, folks reading these posts are also perfectly capable of reading all of the records and reaching their own conclusions. We should probably leave it there.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
The problem is that words do matter.

Yes and no. Legally, if you do x, but call it y, you've done x. You can't subvert the law by changing terminology. It is the act that counts.

There have been assertions that officers were placed under "arrest" and "confined" based on an alleged violation of an "Article of War" where none of that occurred. For example, Article 57 was never mentioned by anybody in connection with McClernand's relief, for good reason - it clearly did not apply.

It clearly does, and Sherman, who made the case, pointed to a General Order which has it's roots in article 57.

The actual military offense does not have to be stated at the time of arrest. It is assumed by the law that an arrest only occurs when there is occasion (which is what grounds were called at the time), and the arrested officer (or soldier) had no rights to know what occasioned the arrest, and cannot refuse to be arrested. The actual charges and specifications are preferred later; upto a year later in McClernand's case because of the Act of 17th July 1862.

It's essentially a prohibition of military treason. Everybody here is capable of actually reading it and reaching their own conclusions as to why we haven't been shown one single record/account referring to it.

Except it being mentioned by Sherman, Dana and Grant inquiring whether McClernand had committed the offense before Rawlins wrote the order. Indeed, Grant had been trying to find an occasion to arrest McClernand for some time. As Dana wrote, the order was merely the occasion (i.e. an actionable military offense), and Grant had wanted McClernand gone for some time. Grant had not gotten rid of McClernand because he lacked the authority to do it.

It is absolutely clear to everyone that McClernand's published order was the occasion of the arrest. This arrest must be due to some offense, which has it's root in the 57th article-of-war, with both General Order 67 of 1861 and General Order 151 of 1862 being relevent. Sherman recommended using GO151 of 1862, which would allow Grant to recommend to Lincoln that McClernand by dismissed from the service, but does not allow Grant to remove McClernand from his post. It is fairly clear that it was the other route Grant took, using GO67 of 1861.

As we can see, Lincoln made everything "normal" by backdating the order for Ord to command 13th Corps vice McClernand to 18th June. This made the whole matter a Presidential action, which needed no charges etc. Being a lawyer, Lincoln likely knew what he was doing in creating the legal fiction that McClernand was relieved by simple reassignment.

In McClernand's case, you have a CO - Grant - who earned a reputation for writing clear orders. You also had two skilled lawyers - Halleck and Stanton - involved, as well as a guy whose prewar profession required the use of deliberately-chosen written words to convey information - Dana. Yet the argument is that they all sloppily failed to refer to Article 57, even once.

Don't have to until preferment of charges.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Yes and no. Legally, if you do x, but call it y, you've done x. You can't subvert the law by changing terminology. It is the act that counts.



It clearly does, and Sherman, who made the case, pointed to a General Order which has it's roots in article 57.

The actual military offense does not have to be stated at the time of arrest. It is assumed by the law that an arrest only occurs when there is occasion (which is what grounds were called at the time), and the arrested officer (or soldier) had no rights to know what occasioned the arrest, and cannot refuse to be arrested. The actual charges and specifications are preferred later; upto a year later in McClernand's case because of the Act of 17th July 1862.



Except it being mentioned by Sherman, Dana and Grant inquiring whether McClernand had committed the offense before Rawlins wrote the order. Indeed, Grant had been trying to find an occasion to arrest McClernand for some time. As Dana wrote, the order was merely the occasion (i.e. an actionable military offense), and Grant had wanted McClernand gone for some time. Grant had not gotten rid of McClernand because he lacked the authority to do it.

It is absolutely clear to everyone that McClernand's published order was the occasion of the arrest. This arrest must be due to some offense, which has it's root in the 57th article-of-war, with both General Order 67 of 1861 and General Order 151 of 1862 being relevent. Sherman recommended using GO151 of 1862, which would allow Grant to recommend to Lincoln that McClernand by dismissed from the service, but does not allow Grant to remove McClernand from his post. It is fairly clear that it was the other route Grant took, using GO67 of 1861.

As we can see, Lincoln made everything "normal" by backdating the order for Ord to command 13th Corps vice McClernand to 18th June. This made the whole matter a Presidential action, which needed no charges etc. Being a lawyer, Lincoln likely knew what he was doing in creating the legal fiction that McClernand was relieved by simple reassignment.



Don't have to until preferment of charges.
On and on and on and on and on we go. He wasn't "arrested", except on your planet. Read Wilson's account. He wasn't ever "confined", except on your planet. General Orders 151 does not have its "root" in Article 57, which is why it makes no mention of Article 57. The order had nothing to do with giving intelligence to the enemy, but was expressly based solely on an AAG, Captain George H. Johnston, sending a letter to a member of Congress that was critical of his superior officers. Lincoln never "approved" the order relieving McClernand, which did not ask him to. That's why in their correspondence neither Lincoln or McClernand referred to that. That's why in his August 12 letter to McClernand - more than a month after the July 10 order approving Ord's appointment - Lincoln said he had "not seen or sought to see" Grant's "reasons for relieving you".

Give it up. The readers here are smart enough to look at the actual records - which you persistently conceal - and reach their own conclusions without your "gloss" and filling in literal paragraphs of "explanation". By the way, to the list of authors who have studied this and have reached conclusions at odds with yours, Grant critic Joseph Rose agrees that the order on June 18 relieved Grant without Lincoln's involvement.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Yes, it does. You just can't read it right. Section 9 says:

View attachment 416898

There you go. The President may establish etc., not a department commander.

Again, this is the United States of America, which you seem to be unfamiliar with. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy according to the US Constitution. The Congress, quite literally, could not give anyone below the President the power to organize Corps without also giving it to the President.

Even then, please note that Section 9 of the Act does not specifically authorize anyone, including the President, to appoint a commander to a Corps. It is a reasonable assumption that it includes the authorization to appoint a commander for the Corps.

Please note that also Section 9 of the Act does not specifically authorize anyone, including the President, to relieve a commander of a Corps. Please show us where the law ever says that anyone can relieve a Corps commander before insisting that the law says the only person who can relieve a Corps commander is the President. Please do not keep insisting that what you want is somehow real and true because you want it to be that way. Please show actual documentary evidence to support what you say.

The rest of your post does not show anything. It is all simply an attempt to go off on tangents instead of providing real evidence.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Corps commanders were always, and could only be, appointed or removed by the President. That was the law as it stood. Until you can acknowledge this basic principle of the law, no progress can be made.

Please read this order:

SPECIAL ORDERS No. 158.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE OHIO,
Louisville, September 29, 1862.
I. The following organization of corps is announced and will be observed until further orders, viz:
First Corps.--Maj. Gen. A. McD. McCook commanding; Second Division (McCook's), Third Division (Rousseau's), Tenth Division (Jackson's).
Second Corps.--Maj. Gen. T. L. Crittenden commanding; Fifth Division (Crittenden's), Sixth Division(Wood's), Fourth Division (Smith's).
Third Corps.--Maj. Gen. C. C. Gilbert commanding; First Division (Schoepf's), Ninth Division (Mitchell's), Eleventh Division (Boyle's).
Division commanders will report in person to their corps commanders, and commanders of corps will report to the general commanding at the Galt House at 9 o'clock this evening.
* * * * * * * * * *
By order of Major-General Buell:
[J. M. WRIGHT,
Assistant Adjutant-General. ]

Now please explain how Major-General Buell is authorized to appoint Corps commanders.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Again, this is the United States of America, which you seem to be unfamiliar with.

The rest of your post does not show anything. It is all simply an attempt to go off on tangents instead of providing real evidence.

So, the law as it stood, and all the principals stating the law as it stood, that only the President had the power to appoint and remove corps commanders "does not show anything"? Okay, if you believe that you know better than Lincoln, Halleck, Grant, Sherman etc...

Please read this order:

Please read this one:

1634205127311.png


What is happening here? What is "fourteenth army corps?"

So, only the President is allowed to form corps, and by an order of 26th October 1862, he did this with the western armies. He designated the entire "Army of the Tennessee" as the 13th Army Corps, with Grant as commander, and the entire "Army of the Ohio" (now Cumberland) as the 14th Army Corps, with Rosecrans as commander, vice Buell.

Buell had never been technically allowed to form army corps, but was of course allowed to group his divisions into wings. The "1st, 2nd and 3rd Corps, Army of the Ohio" never legally existed. The whole force was designated as an army corps, and not legally divided into separate army corps (14th, 20th and 21st) until January 1863.

The legal creation of army corps is as followed:

March 1862: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th (as 5th) Corps created by Presidential Order, Mountain Department (future 11th Corps) created as a separate department.

May 1862: By permission of the President 5th and 6th provisional corps created. They are not officially recognised organisations.

July 1862: Act passes. 5th and 6th Corps legally created. Garrison of Fort Monroe designated 7th Corps. Garrison of Baltimore and approaches designated 8th Corps (as a sop to Wool). The field force culled from North and South Carolina under Burnside is designated 9th Corps.

August 1862: The Army of Virginia is created by general orders, and three corps (1st-3rd) created by redesignation of the old 1st and 5th Corps, and the Mountain Dept.

September 1862: Department of South Carolina and Georgia is designated 10th Corps. Army of Virginia Corps renumbered to 1st, 11th (ex-Mountain Dept) and 12th (Banks' old 5th).

October 1862: Entire Department of the Tennessee designated 13th Corps. Entire Department of the Cumberland designated 14th Corps.

December 1862: 13th Corps divided into 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Corps. Department of North Carolina designated 18th Corps. Department of the Gulf is designated 19th Corps.

January 1863: 14th Corps is divided into 14th, 20th and 21st Corps.

February 1863: Department of Washington is designated the 22nd Corps.

April 1863: 23rd Corps created from all troops in Department of Kentucky not belonging to the 9th Corps.

August 1863: 4th and 7th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to 18th Corps.

October 1863: 20th and 21st Corps are consolidated into a new 4th Corps. Their commanders are relieved and ordered to report to a court-of-inquiry.

January 1864: The Department of Arkansas is designated the new 7th Corps.

March 1864: 1st and 3rd Corps are discontinued, troops to 2nd, 5th and 6th Corps.

April 1864: 11th and 12th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to a new 20th Corps.

June 1864: 13th Corps is "temporarily discontinued".

November 1864: 16th Corps is discontinued and 19th Corps' association with the Department of the Gulf ceases. The old Depts of the Tennessee and Gulf are united in one command with no corps. The two divisions continued to exist as a "detachment". The 1st Corps is recreated to consist of the Invalids.

December 1864- 10th and 18th Corps discontinued and the troops reassigned to two new corps, 24th and 25th, on the basis of race.

February 1865: A new 13th and 16th Corps are organised in the west.

March 1865: 19th Corps is discontinued. A new 10th Corps is created from all troops in NC that aren't part of 2nd, 9th or 23rd Corps.

July 1865: 13th and 16th Corps are discontinued. 28th July GO131 discontinues 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 23rd and 24th Corps

January 1866: 25th (Colored) Corps is discontinued.

There were no formal orders discontinuing the 1st (Veteran) or the 22nd Corps, both part of the Washington garrison. They are considered to have been disbanded by GO 118 of 27th June 1865, which reorganised the army into peacetime garrisons. There are no order creating any Cavalry Corps in any army, although there are orders assigning Stoneman to command the AoP cavalry in 1863, and Sheridan in 1864. One may make the argument that the April 1863 order mentioning Stoneman created a corps in the legal sense, but there is no order from the President creating a corps.
 
Last edited:

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
So, the law as it stood, and all the principals stating the law as it stood, that only the President had the power to appoint and remove corps commanders "does not show anything"? Okay, if you believe that you know better than Lincoln, Halleck, Grant, Sherman etc...



Please read this one:

View attachment 418306

What is happening here? What is "fourteenth army corps?"

So, only the President is allowed to form corps, and by an order of 26th October 1862, he did this with the western armies. He designated the entire "Army of the Tennessee" as the 13th Army Corps, with Grant as commander, and the entire "Army of the Ohio" (now Cumberland) as the 14th Army Corps, with Rosecrans as commander, vice Buell.

Buell had never been technically allowed to form army corps, but was of course allowed to group his divisions into wings. The "1st, 2nd and 3rd Corps, Army of the Ohio" never legally existed. The whole force was designated as an army corps, and not legally divided into separate army corps (14th, 20th and 21st) until January 1863.

The legal creation of army corps is as followed:

March 1862: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th (as 5th) Corps created by Presidential Order, Mountain Department (future 11th Corps) created as a separate department.

May 1862: By permission of the President 5th and 6th provisional corps created. They are not officially recognised organisations.

July 1862: Act passes. 5th and 6th Corps legally created. Garrison of Fort Monroe designated 7th Corps. Garrison of Baltimore and approaches designated 8th Corps (as a sop to Wool). The field force culled from North and South Carolina under Burnside is designated 9th Corps.

August 1862: The Army of Virginia is created by general orders, and three corps (1st-3rd) created by redesignation of the old 1st and 5th Corps, and the Mountain Dept.

September 1862: Department of South Carolina and Georgia is designated 10th Corps. Army of Virginia Corps renumbered to 1st, 11th (ex-Mountain Dept) and 12th (Banks' old 5th).

October 1862: Entire Department of the Tennessee designated 13th Corps. Entire Department of the Cumberland designated 14th Corps.

December 1862: 13th Corps divided into 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Corps. Department of North Carolina designated 18th Corps. Department of the Gulf is designated 19th Corps.

January 1863: 14th Corps is divided into 14th, 20th and 21st Corps.

February 1863: Department of Washington is designated the 22nd Corps.

April 1863: 23rd Corps created from all troops in Department of Kentucky not belonging to the 9th Corps.

August 1863: 4th and 7th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to 18th Corps.

October 1863: 20th and 21st Corps are consolidated into a new 4th Corps. Their commanders are relieved and ordered to report to a court-of-inquiry.

January 1864: The Department of Arkansas is designated the new 7th Corps.

March 1864: 1st and 3rd Corps are discontinued, troops to 2nd, 5th and 6th Corps.

April 1864: 11th and 12th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to a new 20th Corps.

June 1864: 13th Corps is "temporarily discontinued".

November 1864: 16th Corps is discontinued and 19th Corps' association with the Department of the Gulf ceases. The old Depts of the Tennessee and Gulf are united in one command with no corps. The two divisions continued to exist as a "detachment". The 1st Corps is recreated to consist of the Invalids.

December 1864- 10th and 18th Corps discontinued and the troops reassigned to two new corps, 24th and 25th, on the basis of race.

February 1865: A new 13th and 16th Corps are organised in the west.

March 1865: 19th Corps is discontinued. A new 10th Corps is created from all troops in NC that aren't part of 2nd, 9th or 23rd Corps.

July 1865: 13th and 16th Corps are discontinued. 28th July GO131 discontinues 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 23rd and 24th Corps

January 1866: 25th (Colored) Corps is discontinued.

There were no formal orders discontinuing the 1st (Veteran) or the 22nd Corps, both part of the Washington garrison. They are considered to have been disbanded by GO 118 of 27th June 1865, which reorganised the army into peacetime garrisons. There are no order creating any Cavalry Corps in any army, although there are orders assigning Stoneman to command the AoP cavalry in 1863, and Sheridan in 1864. One may make the argument that the April 1863 order mentioning Stoneman created a corps in the legal sense, but there is no order from the President creating a corps.
Regarding McClernand, you're saying so 35 times doesn't make it so. I'll leave it to the readers here to figure it out by reading the documents themselves. They're smart enough to reach their own conclusions without anybody else presuming to be wiser and connecting the dots for them.

The beauty is that everything they need is accessible online; the OR Vol. 24 (XXIV) Part 1 (Grant, Stanton, Dana, Halleck, Lincoln); the Articles of War; G.O. 151 issued in 1862; Wilson's Under the Old Flag, Vol. I; Dana's Recollections of the Civil War.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Regarding McClernand, you're saying so 35 times doesn't make it so. I'll leave it to the readers here to figure it out by reading the documents themselves. They're smart enough to reach their own conclusions without anybody else presuming to be wiser and connecting the dots for them.

The beauty is that everything they need is accessible online; the OR Vol. 24 (XXIV) Part 1 (Grant, Stanton, Dana, Halleck, Lincoln); the Articles of War; G.O. 151 issued in 1862; Wilson's Under the Old Flag, Vol. I; Dana's Recollections of the Civil War.

... and you and Trice saying the opposite 70+ times doesn't make it so either. What happened was:

1. It is clear that Grant had wanted to remove McClernand for some time, and was looking for an occasion. McClernand had told Grant on 4th June that, despite rumours, he had not yet been arrested, relieved of command and sent away.

2. The removal was started by Sherman sending a message to Grant noting that McClernand had sent his congratulatory order to the press without permission, and bringing Grant's attention to GO151.

3. Grant asks McClernand to confirm the order is genuine, noting he was required by regulations (which?) and orders (which?) to send copies to HQ first.

4. Rawlins writes the order replacing McClernand with Ord, the latter subject to approval of the President.


5. James Wilson administers the order, which includes having the provost-marshal and a squad of guards outside the tent. He tells McClernand his functions as a general were suspended. This is the formal form of taking an officers sword, and hence it is an arrest in form. McClernand agrees to obey the order, despite making a formal protest that Grant lacks the authority to do it.

6. After McClernand leaves, Dana immediately writes Washington that Grant had been looking for an occasion to remove McClernand for a while.

7. Grant transmits the papers of the case to the adjutant-general, including the enclosure from Sherman pointing out that this is an offense. He asks Lincoln to approve his actions.

8. Lincoln does, and backdates the order replacing McClernand with Ord to 18th June.

It is crystal clear, as reported by Wilson and Dana, that Grant had wanted to get rid of McClernand for some time, but lacked the power to remove him (as Grant noted on 26th June). The congratulatory order gave him an occasion that he could prosecute to remove McClernand. The description of the delivery of the order is actually that of a "mere formal arrest," as some authorities would term it.

My basic argument, that corps commanders could only be removed by the President barring a military offense, stands. Neither of you have provided any substantial arguments to the contrary.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
"but lacked the power to remove him (as Grant noted on 26th June)"

False. Stanton to Dana May 5, 1863; Grant to Halleck June 19 1863; and Dana to Stanton, June 19, 1863.

As for your concocted "arrest", Wilson's account makes it clear that the others were present in the event that McClernand indicated his intent to disobey the order relieving him - in which case he would indeed have been put under "arrest" and charged with a clear violation of Article 9. As noted, you become remarkably flexible with the Articles and Regulations when the text doesn't fit your theory. There's a reason Wilson - who had a thorough distaste for McClernand - nonetheless never said he was "arrested", "confined", "charged", etc etc - even though, as @trice pointed out, Wilson was amply familiar with the term when it applied. As was McClernand.

By the way, there's no trophy for "last" post on a subject.
 

Attachments

  • DOC101421-10142021180743.pdf
    4.9 MB · Views: 1

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
... and you and Trice saying the opposite 70+ times doesn't make it so either. What happened was:

1. It is clear that Grant had wanted to remove McClernand for some time, and was looking for an occasion. McClernand had told Grant on 4th June that, despite rumours, he had not yet been arrested, relieved of command and sent away.

2. The removal was started by Sherman sending a message to Grant noting that McClernand had sent his congratulatory order to the press without permission, and bringing Grant's attention to GO151.

3. Grant asks McClernand to confirm the order is genuine, noting he was required by regulations (which?) and orders (which?) to send copies to HQ first.

4. Rawlins writes the order replacing McClernand with Ord, the latter subject to approval of the President.
Please stop all this constant snipping of real events to hide what you do not want to see.

McClernand had been behaving outrageously for months. He had whipped up an "Army of the Mississippi" and placed himself at its' head. He had formed it by taking the "right wing" of Grant's Army of the Tennessee -- splitting it into two Corps, which he named the I Corps and the II Corps of this "Army of the Mississippi". He did this in early January of 1863 -- five months before your starting point. Please show us the authorization for McClernand to do all these things.

OTOH, Grant had -- as I have shown you earlier in this thread -- checked up the line to Stanton five weeks before McClernand was relieved. He had been told he had the authority -- and would be held accountable if he did not use his authorization to solve any threat to his plans. Please acknowledge that this is a fact.
5. James Wilson administers the order, which includes having the provost-marshal and a squad of guards outside the tent. He tells McClernand his functions as a general were suspended. This is the formal form of taking an officers sword, and hence it is an arrest in form. McClernand agrees to obey the order, despite making a formal protest that Grant lacks the authority to do it.
No, this is not "an arrest in form". You insist things happened when they never did. There was no arrest.

Wilson might very well have been simply bluffing -- making a show to prevent McClernand from refusing to obey. Wilson might also have simply been a sharp officer prepared for trouble -- having the provost available in case he needed him. Please stop making all these self-serving diversions to avoid looking at the facts. Please start providing actual facts instead of suppositions.
6. After McClernand leaves, Dana immediately writes Washington that Grant had been looking for an occasion to remove McClernand for a while.

7. Grant transmits the papers of the case to the adjutant-general, including the enclosure from Sherman pointing out that this is an offense. He asks Lincoln to approve his actions.
So? Does either of these points surprise you? Do you find some strange offense in them?

8. Lincoln does, and backdates the order replacing McClernand with Ord to 18th June.

I have seen where Lincoln acknowledged that McClernand had been relieved on the 18th of June. I have not seen where Lincoln backdated any order. What specific order are you talking about? Please show actual documentation.

It is crystal clear, as reported by Wilson and Dana, that Grant had wanted to get rid of McClernand for some time, but lacked the power to remove him (as Grant noted on 26th June). The congratulatory order gave him an occasion that he could prosecute to remove McClernand. The description of the delivery of the order is actually that of a "mere formal arrest," as some authorities would term it.
Or we can just take it as McClernand did: he had been relieved of his command.

You are simply describing a "relief for cause". It does not matter if that actual phrase was used in the process. It is the essential essence of what happened: Grant found he could not work with McClernand, and so he relieved him.

My basic argument, that corps commanders could only be removed by the President barring a military offense, stands. Neither of you have provided any substantial arguments to the contrary.
Unfortunately, Lincoln did not agree with you and does not seem to have acted as you insist he did. Please stop all this folderol. Please post actual facts and documentation. Do not leave out the parts inconvenient to your argument.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
So I said:
Please read this order:

SPECIAL ORDERS No. 158.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE OHIO,
Louisville, September 29, 1862.
I. The following organization of corps is announced and will be observed until further orders, viz:
First Corps.--Maj. Gen. A. McD. McCook commanding; Second Division (McCook's), Third Division (Rousseau's), Tenth Division (Jackson's).
Second Corps.--Maj. Gen. T. L. Crittenden commanding; Fifth Division (Crittenden's), Sixth Division(Wood's), Fourth Division (Smith's).
Third Corps.--Maj. Gen. C. C. Gilbert commanding; First Division (Schoepf's), Ninth Division (Mitchell's), Eleventh Division (Boyle's).
Division commanders will report in person to their corps commanders, and commanders of corps will report to the general commanding at the Galt House at 9 o'clock this evening.
* * * * * * * * * *
By order of Major-General Buell:
[J. M. WRIGHT,
Assistant Adjutant-General. ]


Now please explain how Major-General Buell is authorized to appoint Corps commanders.
Please read this one:

View attachment 418306

What is happening here? What is "fourteenth army corps?"

So, only the President is allowed to form corps, and by an order of 26th October 1862, he did this with the western armies. He designated the entire "Army of the Tennessee" as the 13th Army Corps, with Grant as commander, and the entire "Army of the Ohio" (now Cumberland) as the 14th Army Corps, with Rosecrans as commander, vice Buell.

Buell had never been technically allowed to form army corps, but was of course allowed to group his divisions into wings. The "1st, 2nd and 3rd Corps, Army of the Ohio" never legally existed. The whole force was designated as an army corps, and not legally divided into separate army corps (14th, 20th and 21st) until January 1863.

The legal creation of army corps is as followed:

March 1862: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th (as 5th) Corps created by Presidential Order, Mountain Department (future 11th Corps) created as a separate department.

May 1862: By permission of the President 5th and 6th provisional corps created. They are not officially recognised organisations.

July 1862: Act passes. 5th and 6th Corps legally created. Garrison of Fort Monroe designated 7th Corps. Garrison of Baltimore and approaches designated 8th Corps (as a sop to Wool). The field force culled from North and South Carolina under Burnside is designated 9th Corps.

August 1862: The Army of Virginia is created by general orders, and three corps (1st-3rd) created by redesignation of the old 1st and 5th Corps, and the Mountain Dept.

September 1862: Department of South Carolina and Georgia is designated 10th Corps. Army of Virginia Corps renumbered to 1st, 11th (ex-Mountain Dept) and 12th (Banks' old 5th).

October 1862: Entire Department of the Tennessee designated 13th Corps. Entire Department of the Cumberland designated 14th Corps.

December 1862: 13th Corps divided into 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Corps. Department of North Carolina designated 18th Corps. Department of the Gulf is designated 19th Corps.

January 1863: 14th Corps is divided into 14th, 20th and 21st Corps.

February 1863: Department of Washington is designated the 22nd Corps.

April 1863: 23rd Corps created from all troops in Department of Kentucky not belonging to the 9th Corps.

August 1863: 4th and 7th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to 18th Corps.

October 1863: 20th and 21st Corps are consolidated into a new 4th Corps. Their commanders are relieved and ordered to report to a court-of-inquiry.

January 1864: The Department of Arkansas is designated the new 7th Corps.

March 1864: 1st and 3rd Corps are discontinued, troops to 2nd, 5th and 6th Corps.

April 1864: 11th and 12th Corps are discontinued and the troops assigned to a new 20th Corps.

June 1864: 13th Corps is "temporarily discontinued".

November 1864: 16th Corps is discontinued and 19th Corps' association with the Department of the Gulf ceases. The old Depts of the Tennessee and Gulf are united in one command with no corps. The two divisions continued to exist as a "detachment". The 1st Corps is recreated to consist of the Invalids.

December 1864- 10th and 18th Corps discontinued and the troops reassigned to two new corps, 24th and 25th, on the basis of race.

February 1865: A new 13th and 16th Corps are organised in the west.

March 1865: 19th Corps is discontinued. A new 10th Corps is created from all troops in NC that aren't part of 2nd, 9th or 23rd Corps.

July 1865: 13th and 16th Corps are discontinued. 28th July GO131 discontinues 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 23rd and 24th Corps

January 1866: 25th (Colored) Corps is discontinued.

There were no formal orders discontinuing the 1st (Veteran) or the 22nd Corps, both part of the Washington garrison. They are considered to have been disbanded by GO 118 of 27th June 1865, which reorganised the army into peacetime garrisons. There are no order creating any Cavalry Corps in any army, although there are orders assigning Stoneman to command the AoP cavalry in 1863, and Sheridan in 1864. One may make the argument that the April 1863 order mentioning Stoneman created a corps in the legal sense, but there is no order from the President creating a corps.
Your post goes off on a wild loop-de-loop and never even tries to answer the point I was asking about, so I will request again:

Now please explain how Major-General Buell is authorized to appoint Corps commanders.
 
Top