The short version of the answer is that appointments of all general officers were subject to confirmation by the Senate which could occur in one of two ways. If the Senate was in session, the president nominated someone to be a general officer (whether brevet, regular or volunteer). If the Senate confirmed the appointment, that person would then be so appointed, usually via letter from the Adjutant General acting on behalf and by direction of the president. If his appointment was in the regular army, he would eventually receive another piece of paper (this one signed by the president or bearing a facsimile of his signature), to wit, his actual commission. This appointment/commission would not expire until such time as he was discharged or dismissed from active duty. They were not required to be renewed annually, or otherwise.
The session of Congress that recessed in March 1863 left a lot of appointments on the table. 14 general commissions (1 major general and 13 brigadier generals) were not confirmed. And that doesn't count the 3 brigadier general appointments that lapsed in January 1863.
Thought a CW general's commission was not completed without Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and signing off by both the Secretary of War and the President. (Thus, the commission could not have expired prior to Senate confirmation, because it was not yet complete).
Was Ferrero's revoked commission made retrospective, in consequence of the later occurring Crater drinking incident?
I'm still trying to figure out what happened with Ferrero. While he came under heavy criticism for his actions at the Crater per Hancock and the court of inquiry, he retained command and, as pointed out, was brevetted to major general in December 1864. I'll have to do some digging to confirm that his appointment as brigadier general was ever officially revoked.
As a point of clarification, I don't believe Ferrero's appointment as brigadier general of volunteers was revoked. If I recollect correctly, his appointment expired for a second time in July, 1864 as the Senate had gone into recess without confirming him. Grant sent Stanton a personal message asking for Ferrero to be reinstated, and Ferrero resumed command of his division for the remainder of the war. Presumably President Lincoln must have given him another recess appointment as a brigadier general or he would not have been able to retain his division. He was given yet another recess appointment as a brevet major general of volunteers in December, 1864. I have no idea if the Senate confirmed him prior to his mustering out in the following year.
See my earlier post for more detail. Ferrero's appointment/commission was apparently not revoked. They had expired for a second time, but Ferrero was reinstated. Hence, his appointment as a brevet M-G appears to be in order. Civilians were not legally eligible to receive brevets.
Thanks - that would make more sense. (The Eicher & Eicher reference @ p. 233 stating his reappointment to B-G on 6 May, '63, was confirmed but his commission was later revoked on on 21 Jul. '64, confused me).
I am not 100% certain that I have correctly interpreted the chain of events, but that is my current theory at any rate. I plan to do a bit more research on the subject.
- "(I) was re-appointed Brig Gen'l of Vols. to rank form the 6th of May 1863, and ... was assigned to my old command (at) Stanford Ky. about the 7th of June 1863 en route for Vicksburg, Miss.
Yes. Following the 'Official Inquiry on the Crater', it appears Ferrero retained divisional command during the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign. He is definitely listed with the retained rank of B-G at the Battle of Boydton Plank Road, VA, (Oct. 27-28, '64), before he received the brevet rank of M-G on Dec. 2, '64.
He was criticized but it's pretty clear that Ledlie took the brunt of the blame.
Thought that Ledlie had the prior reputation of being a relatively poor field commander and Ferrero was known to have been a habitual drinker.
Bringing the