I have to agree with KeyserSoze on the obvious bias/prejudice against non-West Point officers. I can understand why in the early part of the war as far as the Confederacy goes -- they had a hunk of ingredients to make dough that all had independent ideas on how to fight as an army. Militia units had their own way, etc. Building an army by scratch in a way was easier, using the Union Army/Federal/National Army Regulars as a template. It was familiar.
This familiarity is demonstrated by the finalized publication of the 1863 Rules and Regulations for the Army of the Confederate States of America. It is set up identical to the Revised 1861 Rules and Regulations for the Army of the United States near word for word. Only a few paragraphs were deleted and US swapped with CS. Forms also--near identical to the US Army's.
In the very beginning there were "Political" generals and those like Colonel Baker, Lincoln's friend in the Senate who was killed at Balls Bluff--he really didn't have business being on the field, as he didn't follow standard "Regular Army" procedures. Colonel Stone as a consequence was arrested and his name and reputation tarnished for a blunder 'his' appointed commander had done. There were others who because of their money 'bought' a Regiment per se--that didn't mean they were qualified leaders. Yet, there had been examples repeatedly that citizen soldiers could be competent and lead wonderfully well and--sometimes better than a West Point graduate.
McClellan did do a fantastic job of reorganizing the U.S. Army as to accommodate the huge influx of troops and 'uniform them' not only by their attire and equipment but, also by having them drill and march as one--using one system. I am of the belief that is one reason the blunders in First Manassas/First Bull Run showed their respective side's leadership in their respective Capitols--that changes must and had to be made. This is where the citizen soldier might have had the advantage--not having to unlearn one style and learn a new style of military operations in all respects.
As far as succession in rank, the rank structure is usually the First Corps, First Division, First Brigade, First Regiment, First Battalion...each are in line to promotion within the organizational profile. If you look at "Order of Battle" often times you will see senior commander of the First Brigade taking command of the vacant position of the commanding officer of the First Division. Yet, the commanding officer always had a say in his preferences. Frequently these shifts in command happen on the battalion and regimental level. This is where many of the brevet rank promotions took place around March 13, 1865--as a 'thanks' per se but, in turn 'broke' the brevet system.
The CSA military did not use the brevet rank but, will see frequently "Acting" was used. This is used in the current modern military.
I can't recall where I saw the statement ...however it in summary said; "The Union paid for the Confederate Army's arms, uniforms and equipage in various degrees the entire war." Captured items from Union military and Union facilities indeed greased the wheels of war, in my opinion.
The Official Registry of Officers does list by seniority all the officers in the US Army during the Civil War. I only possess an original for January 1864. Even surgeons are listed by seniority. Unfortunately, too fragile to copy.
Just some thoughts.
M. E. Wolf
Bringing the