McClellan on Hooker at Antietam

We circle back to that. "Relief for cause" is a post-WW2 innovation, as we've previously discussed. Nothing like that (excepting boards of examination) existed in the 1861-5 timeframe. To be clear, these are the only mechanisms for removing a corps commander:

1. The President simply orders the officer relieved. If the President has reason to believe the officer might have done something wrong they can order a court-of-inquiry, as happened with McDowell, Porter, Franklin (never carried out), McCook and Crittenden.

2. An officer above the corps commander can place them under arrest. This suspends their military functions and thus they can no longer function as the corps commander. The prosecuting officer has (post July '62) upto a whole year to prefer charges and begin the process of a general court-martial. As prosecutor, the department commander cannot form the court, and this goes up to the President.

3. The corps commander can resign, and the President can accept their resignation.

That is the proverbial it. There are no other mechanisms to remove a corps commander.




Nope. The President does not "acknowledge" his subordinates assuming the power and responsibilities of the President. Lincoln gave an order which relieved McClernand and placed Ord in command of 13th Army Corps, backdated to 18th June 1863. He may have done this on the advice of subordinates, but ultimately it is the President who issues the order. Indeed, no-one else can.
(Post no. 421) You simply do not understand the difference between relief for cause and the post-WW2 reforms that established a detailed, fortmal performance evaluation system.
 
(Post no. 421) You simply do not understand the difference between relief for cause and the post-WW2 reforms that established a detailed, fortmal performance evaluation system.
Yes, I do.

Relief for cause did not exist before WW2. The whole reason a 1941 Act of Congress had to be passed to allow inefficient officers to be removed from the Army (which is what relief for cause is) is because no good system existed.
 
Nope. The President does not "acknowledge" his subordinates assuming the power and responsibilities of the President. Lincoln gave an order which relieved McClernand and placed Ord in command of 13th Army Corps, backdated to 18th June 1863. He may have done this on the advice of subordinates, but ultimately it is the President who issues the order. Indeed, no-one else can.

Balderdash. If Lincoln issued such an order, please show us the order. You always flee the opportunity to actually show evidence of what you claim to be fact. Why do you constantly do that?
 
Yes, I do.

Relief for cause did not exist before WW2. The whole reason a 1941 Act of Congress had to be passed to allow inefficient officers to be removed from the Army (which is what relief for cause is) is because no good system existed.

In the United States, the first example of a "relief for cause" is generally cited as George Washington's relief of Charles Lee on the battlefield at Monmouth in 1778. That seems to predate your 1941 reference by about 163 years.
 
In the United States, the first example of a "relief for cause" is generally cited as George Washington's relief of Charles Lee on the battlefield at Monmouth in 1778. That seems to predate your 1941 reference by about 163 years.
We continue to see either a basic inability to understand statutes, etc or a deliberate attempt to distort. The 1941 enactment was intended to remove officers from the active list. That's different from relief for cause as it existed (and it did) before WW2. McClernand was not removed from any equivalent of an "active list"; i.e., from the army. He was relieved from a specific command and ordered to report to Washington for orders. In fact, 9 days after he was relieved, Yates wrote to Washington proposing another command. That inconvenient fact is why we continue to be told that something happened that in fact did not happen - the oxymoronic conflating of (1) McClernand was "arrested" for "violation of [some] Article" but at the same time (2) Grant needed to get Lincoln's "approval". 2+2 = -11. And Hays similarly was not removed from any "active list" by Humphreys and in fact went right to the Artillery Reserve.
 
Balderdash. If Lincoln issued such an order, please show us the order.
I have done, and you have even posted it ISTR. The problem is that you can't read it correctly.

1634653287588.png


This order replaces McClernand with Ord. I know that you and Belfoured wrongly argue there should be a second order, but there doesn't. There are two subclauses in this order. The first appoints Ord and the second relieves McClernand.

Consider if this was a simple appointment of Ord, without also relieving McClernand. It would read:

"By Direction of the President of the United States, Major General E. O. C. Ord is appointed to command of the Thirteenth Army Corps."

It doesn't need to mention McClernand at all. However, there is a second subclause which does mention McClernand:

", in place of Major General John A. McClernand, relieved, to date from June 18, 1863."

This second subclause alters the first. It makes McClernand's removal part of Ord's appointment. By Order of the President, on the 18th June Ord was appointed to command 13th Army Corps and McClernand was relieved. It makes the whole thing a single action. Legally, it is the President who was relieved McClernand.

If the order was supposed to acknowledge McClernand's removal separately from Ord's appointment, then two separate clauses should be made. They don't. The whole order relieves McClernand on the 18th June, and replaces him with Ord.
 
We continue to see either a basic inability to understand statutes, etc or a deliberate attempt to distort. The 1941 enactment was intended to remove officers from the active list. That's different from relief for cause as it existed (and it did) before WW2.

This is the beginning of the trend towards the creation of "relief for cause," which did not exist at the time. There was hardly any mechanism to remove an officer for inefficiency.

In the United States, the first example of a "relief for cause" is generally cited as George Washington's relief of Charles Lee on the battlefield at Monmouth in 1778. That seems to predate your 1941 reference by about 163 years.

Lee was not relieved of duty. Shortly after the battle he was arrested, charged, and brought before a general court-martial. The timeline is:

28th June 1778: Battle of Monmouth. No story of Lee being relieved surfaced until more than 50 years later, and are regarded as apocryphal. Lee is certainly not relieved, continued to be 2i/c of the army and issued orders on the 29th etc.
30th June: Lee writes a letter to Washington which the latter regards as "highly improper," and promises that a court-of-inquiry would be formed to investigate. After a short back and forth, Lee requests to be court-martialled and Washington places Lee under arrest.
4th July: Three charges are preferred and the court-martial begins.
14th August: Lee is found guilty of all three charges and sentenced to be debarred from military service for a year.
 
This is the beginning of the trend towards the creation of "relief for cause," which did not exist at the time. There was hardly any mechanism to remove an officer for inefficiency.



Lee was not relieved of duty. Shortly after the battle he was arrested, charged, and brought before a general court-martial. The timeline is:

28th June 1778: Battle of Monmouth. No story of Lee being relieved surfaced until more than 50 years later, and are regarded as apocryphal. Lee is certainly not relieved, continued to be 2i/c of the army and issued orders on the 29th etc.
30th June: Lee writes a letter to Washington which the latter regards as "highly improper," and promises that a court-of-inquiry would be formed to investigate. After a short back and forth, Lee requests to be court-martialled and Washington places Lee under arrest.
4th July: Three charges are preferred and the court-martial begins.
14th August: Lee is found guilty of all three charges and sentenced to be debarred from military service for a year.
(Post no. 429 - only 71 to go for those who want to compete for the trophy)

"There was hardly any mechanism to remove an officer for inefficiency."

There was indeed a mechanism to relieve an officer from an assignment for inefficiency, etc etc . That's how Grant relieved McClernand - consistent with Stanton's May confirmation of his authority regarding "ignorance/inaction/any cause" that "interfered with operations". That's how Humphreys relieved Hays. You may not like it. It may not fit your artificial construct. Deal with it.

As for Lee at Monmouth, it is established that later during the battle Washington put von Steuben in command of Lee's force - a fact that even the article you cite acknowledges but that you fail to mention. In other words, he was relieved by Washington at Monmouth - just not immediately. Washington exercised his command responsibilities by keeping Lee in command until the changing circumstances of the battle allowed him to make the change.
 
I have done, and you have even posted it ISTR. The problem is that you can't read it correctly.

View attachment 418842

This order replaces McClernand with Ord. I know that you and Belfoured wrongly argue there should be a second order, but there doesn't. There are two subclauses in this order. The first appoints Ord and the second relieves McClernand.

Consider if this was a simple appointment of Ord, without also relieving McClernand. It would read:

"By Direction of the President of the United States, Major General E. O. C. Ord is appointed to command of the Thirteenth Army Corps."

It doesn't need to mention McClernand at all. However, there is a second subclause which does mention McClernand:

", in place of Major General John A. McClernand, relieved, to date from June 18, 1863."

This second subclause alters the first. It makes McClernand's removal part of Ord's appointment. By Order of the President, on the 18th June Ord was appointed to command 13th Army Corps and McClernand was relieved. It makes the whole thing a single action. Legally, it is the President who was relieved McClernand.

If the order was supposed to acknowledge McClernand's removal separately from Ord's appointment, then two separate clauses should be made. They don't. The whole order relieves McClernand on the 18th June, and replaces him with Ord.

You must be kidding.

When Lincoln appoints Ord to command the XIII Corps, he necessarily has to appoint him as of a particular date. That date is June 18, 1864. That date is the date that Grant placed Ord in command of the XIII Corps, subject to the president's approval. That date is the date Grant relieved McClernand. The President is approving Grant's actions.
 
You must be kidding.

When Lincoln appoints Ord to command the XIII Corps, he necessarily has to appoint him as of a particular date. That date is June 18, 1864. That date is the date that Grant placed Ord in command of the XIII Corps, subject to the president's approval. That date is the date Grant relieved McClernand. The President is approving Grant's actions.
Yes - and a straightforward application of the plain English that Grant used. It's elemental sentence structure. One sentence only relieves McClernand and says nothing about being subject to Lincoln's approval. The second, separate sentence only appoints Ord and does state that it is subject to Lincoln's approval. Two separate sentences. Last I looked, this sort of reading comprehension and use of words/sentences to convey meaning is routinely taught and understood in elementary school. And it is indeed odd that in all their post-July 10 correspondence neither McClernand or Lincoln appear to have had any understanding that they were wasting their time because Lincoln had already "approved" Grant's order on July 10. Odd, to say the least.

In addition to the facially absurd rule that an army must risk defeat on a battlefield because a guy running around with a striped shirt and a rule book has blown his whistle, we now have a second rule that a CO's clear orders should not be relied on without that same guy re-interpreting them based on a slew of missing words. Fortunately, Lincoln, Stanton, Grant et al didn't follow either of these silly policies - they had a war to fight and win.
 
I have done, and you have even posted it ISTR. The problem is that you can't read it correctly.

View attachment 418842

This order replaces McClernand with Ord. I know that you and Belfoured wrongly argue there should be a second order, but there doesn't. There are two subclauses in this order. The first appoints Ord and the second relieves McClernand.

Consider if this was a simple appointment of Ord, without also relieving McClernand. It would read:

"By Direction of the President of the United States, Major General E. O. C. Ord is appointed to command of the Thirteenth Army Corps."

It doesn't need to mention McClernand at all. However, there is a second subclause which does mention McClernand:

", in place of Major General John A. McClernand, relieved, to date from June 18, 1863."

This second subclause alters the first. It makes McClernand's removal part of Ord's appointment. By Order of the President, on the 18th June Ord was appointed to command 13th Army Corps and McClernand was relieved. It makes the whole thing a single action. Legally, it is the President who was relieved McClernand.

If the order was supposed to acknowledge McClernand's removal separately from Ord's appointment, then two separate clauses should be made. They don't. The whole order relieves McClernand on the 18th June, and replaces him with Ord.
"Relieved" is an adjective. It refers to McClernand's status as of June 18, It doesn't say "who is relieved" or "whose relief is approved". "To date from June 18, 1863" refers back to the appointment of Ord. Words and sentence structure matter. What I just told you is exactly how a court would construe the document - especially as read together with Grant's, as it must be.
 
Lee was not relieved of duty. Shortly after the battle he was arrested, charged, and brought before a general court-martial. The timeline is:

28th June 1778: Battle of Monmouth. No story of Lee being relieved surfaced until more than 50 years later, and are regarded as apocryphal. Lee is certainly not relieved, continued to be 2i/c of the army and issued orders on the 29th etc.
30th June: Lee writes a letter to Washington which the latter regards as "highly improper," and promises that a court-of-inquiry would be formed to investigate. After a short back and forth, Lee requests to be court-martialled and Washington places Lee under arrest.
4th July: Three charges are preferred and the court-martial begins.
14th August: Lee is found guilty of all three charges and sentenced to be debarred from military service for a year.
In short, Washington relieved Lee on the field of battle. After that, Lee demanded a court-martial to investigate this -- which you claim was "apocryphal" (if so, what was Charles Lee complaining about?). After Lee made a stink and demanded/requested a court-martial, Washington had him arrested.

The charges at the court-martial Lee demanded/requested: "disobedience of orders, in not attacking the enemy on the 28th of June, agreeable to repeated instructions"; "misbehaviour before the enemy on the same day, by making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat"; and "disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief, in two letters dated the 1st of July and the 28th of June". Charles Lee was convicted on all of them.

Obviously, you already know that you are presenting a false impression of the real events. Please tell us why you are doing so.
 
In short, Washington relieved Lee on the field of battle. After that, Lee demanded a court-martial to investigate this -- which you claim was "apocryphal" (if so, what was Charles Lee complaining about?). After Lee made a stink and demanded/requested a court-martial, Washington had him arrested.

The charges at the court-martial Lee demanded/requested: "disobedience of orders, in not attacking the enemy on the 28th of June, agreeable to repeated instructions"; "misbehaviour before the enemy on the same day, by making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat"; and "disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief, in two letters dated the 1st of July and the 28th of June". Charles Lee was convicted on all of them.

Obviously, you already know that you are presenting a false impression of the real events. Please tell us why you are doing so.
As you suggest, Washington had no intention of going that route until Lee insisted on it after the battle, throwing in an insubordinate letter for good measure. Up to that point Washington was good with things as they stood. Lee was his own worst enemy. Meanwhile, as things finally came to a halt on that 100-degree day in central Jersey, von Steuben - not Lee - was in command of Lee's troops. Sounds like "relieved" from his command to me.
 
If McClernand was placed under arrest, it would show up in his military records kept by the War Department in Washington. On the same note, if he was not placed under arrest, but relieved of his command, that explicit language would also seep onto the paper from the pen. One of you, either of you, for #500 sake, should look up the military record kept on McClernand to settle this argument. It has become a tedious point that serves no real valid emphasis on the true nature of what happened. All three of you have made good points, especially Trice with the notion of Grant using that authority, and the consequence of his act if disagreement arose. But 67th Tiger and Belfoured also have proven valid statements as well. This is becoming a three stooges party and no one wants to be Larry and Curley.
Lubliner.
A point well taken and I'm good with it. I'm not going to spend time and energy to access McClernand's records to find what is missing from literally every record that we do have access to - the orders, all the correspondence and reports, etc. Every one. When arrests were made, not surprisingly you will find the term used in those types of records. It's not some 21st century invention that requires a decoder key for the 19th century. There's a glaringly obvious reason that it was never used here. What do we think the odds are that a search of McClernand's will show that in fact he was "arrested"? That's probably why I've seen for the first time here the idea that somebody could be "notionally" arrested.

Nor was it used in the post-war account of the very officer who allegedly made the "arrest" - although he does use the term in reference to other incidents and although he by his own admission had it in for McClernand. I can't imagine for one second that Wilson wouldn't have relished the idea of "arresting" the General, "confining" him to his tent, and crowing about it afterwards. That's not what he did because those were not his orders - unless McClernand disobeyed the relief order itself, which he did not. And none - I mean none - of the historians who have covered the incident have said McClernand was "arrested" (let alone "arrested" for violating Article 57 by "giving intelligence to the enemy"). That means Williams, Catton, Bearss, Kiper, Smith, and more. So I'll pack it in. It is beyond any question that by the time this issue hits post no. 500 - which predictably is now in reach - we will be no further along than we were 200 posts ago. My failure to reply to additional posts with anything other than "see above" should not, of course, be construed as agreement.
 
Last edited:
(Post no. 429 - only 71 to go for those who want to compete for the trophy)

"There was hardly any mechanism to remove an officer for inefficiency."

There was indeed a mechanism to relieve an officer from an assignment for inefficiency, etc etc . That's how Grant relieved McClernand - consistent with Stanton's May confirmation of his authority regarding "ignorance/inaction/any cause" that "interfered with operations". That's how Humphreys relieved Hays. You may not like it. It may not fit your artificial construct. Deal with it.
This "artificial construct" was the law as it existed at the time.

Stanton simply told Dana that Grant that he should use his powers, which were considerable. There is no need for Presidential authority to be deputed to Grant by Stanton, and indeed, it could not be. The Secretary-of-War has no ability to confer Presidential powers on a department commander.

"Relieved" is an adjective. It refers to McClernand's status as of June 18, It doesn't say "who is relieved" or "whose relief is approved". "To date from June 18, 1863" refers back to the appointment of Ord. Words and sentence structure matter. What I just told you is exactly how a court would construe the document - especially as read together with Grant's, as it must be.

Relieved is an adjective? Gosh. Well, if the sentence said "the relieved McClernand" then it would be an adjective. In fact "relieved" is describing an action that has happened which makes it a verb.

The construction "in place of McClernand, relieved" consists of "in place of" (preposition), "McClernand" (noun), "," (contraction of either "who is" or "who has been", both pronoun and linking verbs) and "relieved" (verb).

The problem is that the tense of the contraction must be inferred. However, it continues with ", to date from June 18, 1863." What is to date from 18th June? Due to the location, it refers either to the entire sentence, or to the dependent clause. If it were to refer only to primary clause, then this subclause should be continuous with it - "x is to be y to date from z, vice q."

The location of the temporal subclause make the whole thing simultaneous, happening by this order and happening on the 18th June.

You can rearrange it thus:

"With effect from 18th June, General McClernand is relieved from command of 13th Army Corps and General Ord appointed in his place."
Yes - and a straightforward application of the plain English that Grant used. It's elemental sentence structure. One sentence only relieves McClernand and says nothing about being subject to Lincoln's approval. The second, separate sentence only appoints Ord and does state that it is subject to Lincoln's approval. Two separate sentences.

Exactly.

If Grant had structured the sentences in the way he structured the relief of Baldy Smith (whose relief incidently proves that even as General-in-Chief, Grant did not have the authority to relieve a corps commander), then he would have been asking for the President to approve relieving a corps commander. Grant did not, despite obviously understanding that he did not have authority to change corps commanders.

If Grant understands he does not have the authority to make a relief, and yet McClernand is removed from command, there is only one other possibility; that this constitutes an arrest.

In addition to the facially absurd rule that an army must risk defeat on a battlefield because a guy running around with a striped shirt and a rule book has blown his whistle, we now have a second rule that a CO's clear orders should not be relied on without that same guy re-interpreting them based on a slew of missing words. Fortunately, Lincoln, Stanton, Grant et al didn't follow either of these silly policies - they had a war to fight and win.

You might think it was absurd, but it was the rule. Lincoln, Stanton, Grant etc. all learned to work within the rules.

As you suggest, Washington had no intention of going that route until Lee insisted on it after the battle, throwing in an insubordinate letter for good measure. Up to that point Washington was good with things as they stood. Lee was his own worst enemy. Meanwhile, as things finally came to a halt on that 100-degree day in central Jersey, von Steuben - not Lee - was in command of Lee's troops. Sounds like "relieved" from his command to me.
It probably does sound like that to you, but he wasn't.

von Steuben was a staff officer (the Inspector-General), and gives a very good account of his actions to the court-martial, which did not include taking command of Lee's forces.

Lee was not relieved of command. It was a myth that developed over 50 years later.
 
Last edited:
This "artificial construct" was the law as it existed at the time.

Stanton simply told Dana that Grant that he should use his powers, which were considerable. There is no need for Presidential authority to be deputed to Grant by Stanton, and indeed, it could not be. The Secretary-of-War has no ability to confer Presidential powers on a department commander.



Relieved is an adjective? Gosh. Well, if the sentence said "the relieved McClernand" then it would be an adjective. In fact "relieved" is describing an action that has happened which makes is a verb.

The construction "in place of McClernand, relieved" consists of "in place of" (preposition), "McClernand" (noun), "," (contraction of either "who is" or "who has been", both pronoun and linking verbs in either the present) and "relieved" (verb).

The problem is that the tense of the contraction must be inferred. However, it continues with ", to date from June 18, 1863." What is to date from 18th June? Due to the location, it refers either to the entire sentence, or to the dependent clause. If it were to refer only to primary clause, then this subclause should be continuous with it - "x is to be y to date from z, vice q."

The location of the temporal subclause make the whole thing simultaneous, happening by this order and happening on the 18th June.

You can rearrange it thus:

"With effect from 18th June, General McClernand is relieved from command of 13th Army Corps and General Ord appointed in his place."


Exactly.

If Grant had structured the sentences in the way he structured the relief of Baldy Smith (whose relief incidently proves that even as General-in-Chief, Grant did not have the authority to relieve a corps commander), then he would have been asking for the President to approve relieving a corps commander. Grant did not, despite obviously understanding that he did not have authority to change corps commanders.

If Grant understands he does not have the authority to make a relief, and yet McClernand is removed from command, there is only one other possibility; that this constitutes an arrest.



You might think it was absurd, but it was the rule. Lincoln, Stanton, Grant etc. all learned to work within the rules.


It probably does sound like that to you, but he wasn't.

von Steuben was a staff officer (the Inspector-General), and gives a very good account of his actions to the court-martial, which did not include taking command of Lee's forces.

Lee was not relieved of command. It was a myth that developed over 50 years later.
Post No. 437: "See above"
 
I have delved into the records that were published during and after the Buell Commission, and do note that someone in the War Department conveniently misplaced the actual endnote that would have removed Buell's standing as a General. (Volume 16). There are times when mechanisms to smooth over certain issues creep up and remain anonymously hidden. This may be one of them. But to return to the comparison of McClellan's action in 1862, and this later action by Grant is not a relatable incident, IMO. One sheds no real light on the other by will of demeanor, and the ability to negotiate. In a card game of sorts, one would be thrust out of the circle, and the other would continue to play. Political motivations and how they helped determine war policy came into play, and the 'ruse to relieve' was a very subtle move to sway and allay Congress.
Lubliner.
 
Back
Top