What if McClellan had died?

[Hoplite]

McClellan contracted typhoid winter of 1861-62 and at one point it was reported he was much worse than thought.
What if he had died, who would have replaced him as commander of Army of Potomac? I believe his illness was before corps were instituted and generals promoted to major general, so the army just had brigadiers.

Would the Peninsula Campaign have still gone forward?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Probably no Peninsular Campaign in 1862.

In the absence of anyone else standing out before they did IRL, Edwin Sumner probably commands the AOTP.

 

[trice]

McClellan contracted typhoid winter of 1861-62 and at one point it was reported he was much worse than thought.
What if he had died, who would have replaced him as commander of Army of Potomac? I believe his illness was before corps were instituted and generals promoted to major general, so the army just had brigadiers.

Would the Peninsula Campaign have still gone forward?

Thanks! I never thought about that before.

Not counting Winfield Scott, it would go like this:

By rank, it would be John C. Fremont ( Major General USA, same date of rank as McClellan, powerful political connections, but in a bit of disgrace because of the mess in Missouri).

The only other Major General USA is Henry Halleck. Halleck would be Winfield Scott's choice, and Lincoln sometimes consulted Scott about military matters and appointments, particularly early in the war. Halleck would, as we know, be called in and placed over McClellan in July 1862. Halleck was also connected with an impressive advance in the West in February-April 1862. Halleck is probably the front-runner.

After that it gets pretty murky.

 

[Belfoured]

Thanks! I never thought about that before.

Not counting Winfield Scott, it would go like this:

By rank, it would be John C. Fremont ( Major General USA, same date of rank as McClellan, powerful political connections, but in a bit of disgrace because of the mess in Missouri).

The only other Major General USA is Henry Halleck. Halleck would be Winfield Scott's choice, and Lincoln sometimes consulted Scott about military matters and appointments, particularly early in the war. Halleck would, as we know, be called in and placed over McClellan in July 1862. Halleck was also connected with an impressive advance in the West in February-April 1862. Halleck is probably the front-runner.

After that it gets pretty murky.

I concur - an interesting question and one I also have never thought about. I would note that I believe the rank issue could be solved by a backdated commissioning at rank. That said, I'd have to think about whether there were any other "obvious" candidates. One that occurs to me off the cuff and without further analysis is based on how McClellan got the job himself - producing victories in western Virginia. The name Rosecrans comes to mind. Scott actually urged McClellan to appoint him as McClellan's replacement. Whether that still applies in December 1861 is only one of many issues. Yet more murk

 

[trice]

Would the Peninsula Campaign have still gone forward?

If Halleck were appointed, I would say no. Halleck would have favored some operation that would also protect Washington and the Potomac crossings. He might have been convinced to use naval power along the Rappahannock like the McClellan Urbanna Plan, but Halleck favored mass concentration. I would think Halleck would have been more in favor of Lincoln's plan for operations against Johnston's main army near Centerville.

 

[jackt62]

The name Rosecrans comes to mind. Scott actually urged McClellan to appoint him as McClellan's replacement.

Rosecrans, as one of the few northern officers with a real winning record at that period in western Virginia, would seem a good choice. One question remains: would Stanton, who was appointed as War Secretary in January 1862, have resisted such an appointment? Stanton exhibited some sort of animus towards Rosecrans if replacing McClellan actually became a reality in early 1862.

 

[Belfoured]

Rosecrans, as one of the few northern officers with a real winning record at that period in western Virginia, would seem a good choice. One question remains: would Stanton, who was appointed as War Secretary in January 1862, have resisted such an appointment? Stanton exhibited some sort of animus towards Rosecrans if replacing McClellan actually became a reality in early 1862.

That's a good point. Of course, if the option was seen as Halleck .... The other question is whether what happened on March 11, 1862 with McClellan might have happened on his demise before then. That could be a factor in assessing the possibilities here.

 

[GwilymT]

If McClellan would have died he'd be placed on a pedestal just like other mediocre generals such as Jackson.

 

[trice]

Rosecrans, as one of the few northern officers with a real winning record at that period in western Virginia, would seem a good choice. One question remains: would Stanton, who was appointed as War Secretary in January 1862, have resisted such an appointment? Stanton exhibited some sort of animus towards Rosecrans if replacing McClellan actually became a reality in early 1862.

Rosecrans tended to argue strenuously with superiors. Stanton tended to argue vehemently with subordinates (or anyone else). There were a few moments in early 1862 when they first met that might have seen promising, but that went to Hell in a handbasket quickly.

Rosecrans was sent to find out what had happened to Blenker's division. Blenker's 10,000 men were somewhere in the mountains, out of touch, while Rosecrans, between assignments, was sitting in the anteroom of Stanton's office. This was in April, 1862. By nightfall, Stanton had given Rosecrans vague orders to

Rosecrans charged off, found Blenker, started getting that situation straightened out, and before long was trying to sort out the Valley. Stanton quickly developed an angry dislike for Rosecrans just as Jackson started into the Valley Campaign.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

If McClellan would have died he'd be placed on a pedestal just like other mediocre generals such as Jackson.

If Mac dies in the winter of 1861-1862 he goes down as a great "what might have been" but more like Reno or Kearny.

Jackson's ability is debatable but it was the fame from his Shenandoah campaign and Chancellorsville that got him on a pedestal.

 

[67th Tigers]

The law changed in April 1862, giving the President a choice within a grade.

There is always seniority, even within officers appointed on the same date. McClellan ranked Fremont by these rules, because he had held a regular rank, whereas Fremont had only held California state rank. The rules were that for officers appointed to the same date of rank:

1. For regular officers, by seniority before the appointment. Serving regulars ranked all ex-regulars and volunteers.
2. For ex-regulars, by their relative seniority.
3. For pure volunteers, by order of complete legal appointment if members of the same corps.
4. For pure volunteers etc. of different corps, by lottery.

The President was free to set any date on the rank, and was free to issue a new Commission with a different date of rank. He did this with Hooker's volunteer Major-General commission, despite it being unnecessary since he was allowed to place junior officers over senior ones from April '62 onwards. However, the seniors weren't required to served as could simply resign their position, as Fremont did rather than serve under Pope.

Halleck would have been the choice to be the next General-in-Chief. To do this Lincoln would have to simply backdate Halleck's rank to the 14th May 1861. Halleck would rank Fremont by the Regulations (and would have ranked McClellan, his Captaincy being 1st May '47 vs 13th Sept '47 for McClellan).

However, it's more likely that Lincoln simply wouldn't have appointed a new GinC and Stanton's committee would be formed earlier.

In the Army of the Potomac, it was a longstanding objective of many in the party to restore McDowell to command. Banks was a volunteer major-general, and so McDowell would have to be raised to a regular major-general (since within a grade, regulars rank all volunteers). It seems likely that McDowell would thus ascend to command.

McDowell wanted to make a frontal assault against Centreville, and repeat Bull Run.

Sumner is out. He had a serious accident in December '61 and was expected to never return to service. It surprised everyone when he turned out to command his division in March, and he was still hobbled.

On 31st December '61, the command line is:

1. MG McClellan (appointed 14th May and confirmed in rank 3rd August 1861)
2. MG Fremont (appointed 1st July and confirmed 3rd August with rank backdated to 14th May)
3. Acting* MG Halleck (appointed 19th August but not nominated to the Senate until 6th December. Rank not confirmed until 10th February 1862)
4. Brevet MG Wool (not substantive until May, when the flash to bang of Lincoln's appointment to Senate confirmation is 2 days)?**
5. MG(V) Dix (appointed 14th June and confirmed 3rd August, ranked Banks by dint of a former regular Commission)***
6. MG(V) Banks (appointed 3rd June and confirmed in rank 3rd August 1861)
7. MG(V) Butler (appointed 16th May but confirmed on 5th August, making him below Banks and Dix)****
8. Acting MG(V) Hunter (appointed 13th August '61. There is no evidence of the rank ever being sent to the Senate I can find, although I assume it was)
9. Acting MG(V) ED Morgan (governor of NY, appointed 28th September, nominated on 21st December and confirmed 15th April 1862)
10. BG Harney (pre-war)
11. BG Sumner (everything done in one day on 16th March '61, Sumner had accepted before appointment)
12. BG Mansfield (appointed 18th May to rank from the 14th, confirmed 3rd August)
13. BG McDowell (appointed 14th May, confirmed 3rd August)
14. BG Anderson (appointed 17th June to rank from 15th May, confirmed 3rd August)
15. BG Rosecrans (appointed 14th June to rank from 16th May, confirmed 3rd August)
16. Acting BG Cooke (appointed 21st November to rank from the 12th, nominated 21st December and confirmed 7th March 1862)

* POTUS could appoint generals as he pleased, but there was a deadline for the Senate to confirm it. I think Halleck was about to run out the clock, and had Fort Henry not fallen, the Senate would have let his rank lapse. Something to consider for alt-hist. Need to check how long they had to confirm.

** As a brevet MG he ranked below all substantive MG's, regardless of seniority, but above all BG's. As a regular rank, MG would be above all MG(V)'s. I need to check whether brevet regular rank trumps volunteer rank.

*** Although the dates made Banks senior, Dix argued that due to a former Commission he should be senior, and this was accepted. The Army Register shows Banks then Dix, but be aware this was disputed.

**** Butler claimed seniority on the basis of first appointment, but seniority is sealed when POTUS signs the Commission after Senate approval, and the Senate decides dates. Up until that point you are only really acting in rank. The regulations came into effect as the dates were the same, and since Banks was confirmed two days before Butler, he was senior.

 

[Belfoured]

Rosecrans tended to argue strenuously with superiors. Stanton tended to argue vehemently with subordinates (or anyone else). There were a few moments in early 1862 when they first met that might have seen promising, but that went to Hell in a handbasket quickly.

Rosecrans was sent to find out what had happened to Blenker's division. Blenker's 10,000 men were somewhere in the mountains, out of touch, while Rosecrans, between assignments, was sitting in the anteroom of Stanton's office. This was in April, 1862. By nightfall, Stanton had given Rosecrans vague orders to

Rosecrans charged off, found Blenker, started getting that situation straightened out, and before long was trying to sort out the Valley. Stanton quickly developed an angry dislike for Rosecrans just as Jackson started into the Valley Campaign.

The "Stanton" factor is a wild card that might kill the chances of quite a few candidates. He and Halleck were not exactly frat brothers and their personal dislike for each other appears to date to 1858, according to, of all sources, one GB McClellan in Own Story at p. 137 (The lawsuit referred to involved a title issue regarding the notorious New Almaden Quicksilver Mine in the Bay area):

Speaking of Halleck, a day or two before he arrived in Washington Stanton came to caution me against trusting Halleck, who was, he said, probably the greatest scoundrel and most barefaced villain in America ; he said that he was totally destitute of principle, and that in the Almaden Quicksilver case he had convicted Halleck of perjury in open court. When Halleck arrived he came to caution me against Stanton, repeating almost precisely the same words that Stanton had employed.

 

[Hoplite]

The law changed in April 1862, giving the President a choice within a grade.

There is always seniority, even within officers appointed on the same date. McClellan ranked Fremont by these rules, because he had held a regular rank, whereas Fremont had only held California state rank. The rules were that for officers appointed to the same date of rank:

1. For regular officers, by seniority before the appointment. Serving regulars ranked all ex-regulars and volunteers.
2. For ex-regulars, by their relative seniority.
3. For pure volunteers, by order of complete legal appointment if members of the same corps.
4. For pure volunteers etc. of different corps, by lottery.

The President was free to set any date on the rank, and was free to issue a new Commission with a different date of rank. He did this with Hooker's volunteer Major-General commission, despite it being unnecessary since he was allowed to place junior officers over senior ones from April '62 onwards. However, the seniors weren't required to served as could simply resign their position, as Fremont did rather than serve under Pope.

Halleck would have been the choice to be the next General-in-Chief. To do this Lincoln would have to simply backdate Halleck's rank to the 14th May 1861. Halleck would rank Fremont by the Regulations (and would have ranked McClellan, his Captaincy being 1st May '47 vs 13th Sept '47 for McClellan).

However, it's more likely that Lincoln simply wouldn't have appointed a new GinC and Stanton's committee would be formed earlier.

In the Army of the Potomac, it was a longstanding objective of many in the party to restore McDowell to command. Banks was a volunteer major-general, and so McDowell would have to be raised to a regular major-general (since within a grade, regulars rank all volunteers). It seems likely that McDowell would thus ascend to command.

McDowell wanted to make a frontal assault against Centreville, and repeat Bull Run.

Sumner is out. He had a serious accident in December '61 and was expected to never return to service. It surprised everyone when he turned out to command his division in March, and he was still hobbled.

On 31st December '61, the command line is:

1. MG McClellan (appointed 14th May and confirmed in rank 3rd August 1861)
2. MG Fremont (appointed 1st July and confirmed 3rd August with rank backdated to 14th May)
3. Acting* MG Halleck (appointed 19th August but not nominated to the Senate until 6th December. Rank not confirmed until 10th February 1862)
4. Brevet MG Wool (not substantive until May, when the flash to bang of Lincoln's appointment to Senate confirmation is 2 days)?**
5. MG(V) Dix (appointed 14th June and confirmed 3rd August, ranked Banks by dint of a former regular Commission)***
6. MG(V) Banks (appointed 3rd June and confirmed in rank 3rd August 1861)
7. MG(V) Butler (appointed 16th May but confirmed on 5th August, making him below Banks and Dix)****
8. Acting MG(V) Hunter (appointed 13th August '61. There is no evidence of the rank ever being sent to the Senate I can find, although I assume it was)
9. Acting MG(V) ED Morgan (governor of NY, appointed 28th September, nominated on 21st December and confirmed 15th April 1862)
10. BG Harney (pre-war)
11. BG Sumner (everything done in one day on 16th March '61, Sumner had accepted before appointment)
12. BG Mansfield (appointed 18th May to rank from the 14th, confirmed 3rd August)
13. BG McDowell (appointed 14th May, confirmed 3rd August)
14. BG Anderson (appointed 17th June to rank from 15th May, confirmed 3rd August)
15. BG Rosecrans (appointed 14th June to rank from 16th May, confirmed 3rd August)
16. Acting BG Cooke (appointed 21st November to rank from the 12th, nominated 21st December and confirmed 7th March 1862)

* POTUS could appoint generals as he pleased, but there was a deadline for the Senate to confirm it. I think Halleck was about to run out the clock, and had Fort Henry not fallen, the Senate would have let his rank lapse. Something to consider for alt-hist. Need to check how long they had to confirm.

** As a brevet MG he ranked below all substantive MG's, regardless of seniority, but above all BG's. As a regular rank, MG would be above all MG(V)'s. I need to check whether brevet regular rank trumps volunteer rank.

*** Although the dates made Banks senior, Dix argued that due to a former Commission he should be senior, and this was accepted. The Army Register shows Banks then Dix, but be aware this was disputed.

**** Butler claimed seniority on the basis of first appointment, but seniority is sealed when POTUS signs the Commission after Senate approval, and the Senate decides dates. Up until that point you are only really acting in rank. The regulations came into effect as the dates were the same, and since Banks was confirmed two days before Butler, he was senior.

I think I remember reading somewhere that Scott wanted Mansfield to command the AOP

 

[trice]

* POTUS could appoint generals as he pleased, but there was a deadline for the Senate to confirm it. I think Halleck was about to run out the clock, and had Fort Henry not fallen, the Senate would have let his rank lapse. Something to consider for alt-hist. Need to check how long they had to confirm.

It was nowhere near this clear in 1861.

Example: the Senate needs to be in session to confirm the nomination by the President. The date period for confirmation is related to the date of nomination, not to the date of appointment, although you will probably find some language to keep a President from making appointments without submitting a nomination in the next session of the Senate. Lincoln nominated Halleck December 6, 1861, right after the next Senate session (December 2, 1861 – July 17, 1862) began.

Example: it was not clearly established that Regular ranks (USA) were superior to Volunteer ranks (USV) until the Revised 1861 Army Regulations were published in 1863 (see Appendix B) . McClellan himself made a mistake on that in February 1862 and was corrected by Halleck in response. There were many arguments over this issue in those days.

** As a brevet MG he ranked below all substantive MG's, regardless of seniority, but above all BG's. As a regular rank, MG would be above all MG(V)'s. I need to check whether brevet regular rank trumps volunteer rank.

Again, it was nowhere near this clear in 1861-62.

IRL, when McClellan was relieved as general-in-chief in March 1862, John Wool became McClellan's superior because he had been appointed to command of the Department of Virginia under his Brevet rank. McClellan was thus held a Major General USA (date-of-rank May 14, 1861) and Wool was a Brevet Major General USA (date-of-rank February 23, 1847) -- but Wool's Brevet put him above McClellan. Wool notified the administration, whereupon Lincoln and Stanton realized the issue was a big difficulty when McClellan was operating inside Wool's Department.

That, in turn, leads to Wool getting a promotion to Major General USA in May and then transferred to Baltimore so that he can be replaced with Dix (who was below McClellan in rank and grade). Wool then retires August 1, 1863. Nomination to confirmation was exceptionally fast -- which argues this is all probably a political matter arranged with the Senate in advance to fix the tangled command issue.

 

[1SGDan]

What if McClellan had died?

Possibly something useful might have been done?

 

[67th Tigers]

Example: it was not clearly established that Regular ranks (USA) were superior to Volunteer ranks (USV) until the Revised 1861 Army Regulations were published in 1863 (see Appendix B) . McClellan himself made a mistake on that in February 1862 and was corrected by Halleck in response. There were many arguments over this issue in those days.

"9. Officers serving by commission from any state of the Union take rank next after officers of the like grade by commission from the United States." It's in the 1857 regulations. It was sorted before in the Mexican War, that general officers in the volunteer force were ranked by regulars.

All this proceeds from the 1806 Articles-of-War, which supersede all other regulations as these were issued by Congress. Specifically:

"Article 98. All officers, serving by commission from the authority of any particular state, shall, on all detachments, courts martial, or other duty, wherein they may be employed in conjunction with the regular forces of the United States, take rank, next after all officers of the like grade in said regular forces, notwithstanding the commissions of such militia or state officers may be elder than the commissions of the officers of the regular forces of the United States."

This is clear that the divide is between the regular army, and the militia or state forces. The volunteer forces are state forces taken into Federal service.

In ISTR 1862, Ben Butler made a claim that his volunteer rank was signed by the President, and so wasn't state rank. He got slapped down, and a general order clarified that if the President appoints someone to the volunteer force, it still counts as if it came from the states. This is in accord with the general understanding since at least 1806.

Hence a Commission in a grade in the regular forces always is senior to a Commission in the same grade in the volunteer forces, regardless of the date of seniority.

Again, it was nowhere near this clear in 1861-62.

IRL, when McClellan was relieved as general-in-chief in March 1862, John Wool became McClellan's superior because he had been appointed to command of the Department of Virginia under his Brevet rank. McClellan was thus held a Major General USA (date-of-rank May 14, 1861) and Wool was a Brevet Major General USA (date-of-rank February 23, 1847) -- but Wool's Brevet put him above McClellan. Wool notified the administration, whereupon Lincoln and Stanton realized the issue was a big difficulty when McClellan was operating inside Wool's Department.

No. The law and regulations were that an officer be assigned to command specifically in their brevet rank by the President. The President did and, and Wool was not; hence he commanded the Department of Virginia as a Brigadier-General in the regular army.

He loudly protested this, but was ignored by everyone.

 

[trice]

No. The law and regulations were that an officer be assigned to command specifically in their brevet rank by the President. The President did and, and Wool was not; hence he commanded the Department of Virginia as a Brigadier-General in the regular army.

He loudly protested this, but was ignored by everyone.

I think you may be arguing with your own preconceptions. I already said that Wool "had been appointed to command of the Department of Virginia under his Brevet rank", which would be in complete accord with the law and regulations you are talking about. It is also what Wool says in his letter to Stanton about this on March 13, 1862:

FORT MONROE, VA.,​

March 13, 1862--2 a.m.​

Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:​

I received last evening a dispatch from the President that Major-General McClellan was no longer General-in-Chief of the Army, and that he was assigned to the Army of the Potomac. The Army of the Potomac is not included in my department--the Department of Southeastern Virginia. Since the above telegram I have received the following telegram from Major-General McClellan, viz:​

​

Can I rely on the Monitor to keep the Merrimac in check so that I can make Fort Monroe a base of operations? Please answer at once.​

​

I have answered that he could rely on the Monitor; but if he makes Fort Monroe the base of operations---which should have been done months ago--I will rank him, and must command, for I am now in command by the President according to my brevet rank. Please to answer.​

​

JOHN E. WOOL, ​

Major-general.​

Your claim that this "was ignored by everyone" is simply wrong. Instead Stanton replied with this:

WAR DEPARTMENT,​

March 18, 1862----10.20 am.​

​

Maj. Gen. JOHN E. WOOL, ​

Commanding Fort Monroe:​

​

SIR: The prospective operations of the portion of the army under the immediate direction of General McClellan may possibly extend over some part of the district within your command under existing orders.​

​

If such should be the case, it is the President's desire that the efficiency of his action should not be put to hazard by a technical adherence to the strict letter defining your geographical command, and you are therefore requested, should the case occur, to waive the exercise of your authority temporarily in his favor.​

​

The President does not doubt your recognition of the necessity for these instructions, and confidently trusts in your patriotism to give effect to them.​

​

Truly, yours,​

EDWIN M. STANTON, ​

Secretary of War.​

Very clearly, the President and the Secretary of War saw the issue differently than you do. That is why they "requested" Wool "waive the exercise of your authority temporarily". Wool replied:

HEADQUARTERS FORT MONROE,​

March 18, 1862.​

​

Hon. E. M. STANTON, ​

Secretary of War:​

​

I had the honor but a moment since to receive your dispatch of this date.​

​

In reply, I assure both you and the President that no technicalities nor geographical lines will prevent me from assisting Major-General McClellan or any other general officer to the extent of my power and ability to execute to the fullest extent any plan or military operations authorized by either you or the President. To show that my character had not been misjudged, before receiving your dispatch I had given orders to my staff to render every assistance to facilitate the movements and operations of General McClellan.​

​

JOHN E. WOOL, ​

Major-General.​

 

[67th Tigers]

I think you may be arguing with your own preconceptions. I already said that Wool "had been appointed to command of the Department of Virginia under his Brevet rank", which would be in complete accord with the law and regulations you are talking about. It is also what Wool says in his letter to Stanton about this on March 13, 1862:

Ah, SO 214, so he was.

 

[trice]

Example: it was not clearly established that Regular ranks (USA) were superior to Volunteer ranks (USV) until the Revised 1861 Army Regulations were published in 1863 (see Appendix B) . McClellan himself made a mistake on that in February 1862 and was corrected by Halleck in response. There were many arguments over this issue in those days.

... This is clear that the divide is between the regular army, and the militia or state forces. The volunteer forces are state forces taken into Federal service.

In ISTR 1862, Ben Butler made a claim that his volunteer rank was signed by the President, and so wasn't state rank. He got slapped down, and a general order clarified that if the President appoints someone to the volunteer force, it still counts as if it came from the states. This is in accord with the general understanding since at least 1806.

Hence a Commission in a grade in the regular forces always is senior to a Commission in the same grade in the volunteer forces, regardless of the date of seniority.

You are again arguing with your preconceptions here. It was unclear to many of these individuals living in 1861-62. They were the ones arguing about it. Some of them were wrong in their arguments, but the reality was that the things you are saying were not clearly known and established. If they had been, these arguments and misunderstandings would not have been occurring.

Example: February 14th, 1862 when Halleck proposes a reorganization which will have David Hunter under him as commander of the new Department of Missouri:

Halleck: Major General USA, Date of Rank August 19, 1861
Hunter: Major General USV, Date of Rank August 13, 1861

Halleck clearly ranks Hunter because his commission is USA, not USV. McClellan gets it wrong:

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,​

Washington, February 14, 1862.​

​

Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, ​

Commanding Department of Missouri:​

​

GENERAL: I have just received your gratifying dispatch that our forces occupy Springfield, and am in hourly expectation of having similar news in regard to Fort Donelson. Your proposition in regard to the formation of a Western Division has one fatal obstacle, viz, that the proposed commander of the new Department of Missouri ranks you. I would be glad to hear from you in detail as to the troops from your department now in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Do you learn anything as to Beauregard's whereabouts and what troops [if any] he took with him?​

​

...​

​

Very truly, yours,​

GEO. B. McCLELLAN, ​

Major-General, Commanding U. S. Army.​

Halleck then corrects him:

SAINT Louis, Mo., February 19, 1862---4 p.m.​

General MCCLELLAN: ​

​

Yours of the 14th just received. Hitchcock will take command here as soon as he gets his orders. I think Hunter will consent to go under me and command the central column. If not, leave him where he is. It was decided in the Mexican war that regulars ranked volunteers, without regard to dates. This decision, if sustained, makes everything right for the Western Division. Give it to me, and I will split secession in twain in one month.​

​

H. W. HALLECK. ​

So if Henry Halleck and George McClellan have completely different understandings on whether or not Regulars outrank Volunteers at the same grade, it is pretty obvious that the matter is not clear in February of 1862.

 

[67th Tigers]

So if Henry Halleck and George McClellan have completely different understandings on whether or not Regulars outrank Volunteers at the same grade, it is pretty obvious that the matter is not clear in February of 1862.

Indeed, McClellan accepted Halleck's correction without comment. The matter was obviously clear cut. Sometime people just make mistakes.

I don't think Eicher and Eicher really support the idea that matters weren't clear cut. This was essentially decided in 1806, and was in place before that.