Becoming a Officer

[82ndIll]

Re: I'll be contrary

I will wade in here and say I disagree with this advice.

First of all, it is not particularly historical, but derives from what the individuals on this thread think works in their groups, or conforms to their personal prejudices. Officers were frequently simply elected, or else were political or financial bigwigs in their communities who bought or politicked their way into officer roles.

Interesting discussion. Being one who tends to play devil’s advocate, I was gratified to see Mr. Cross weigh in with a viewpoint differing slightly from the majority of those previously expressed.

In terms of the holy grail of “historical accuracy”, just how knowledgeable were the majority of regiment and company level officers in the Civil War? How justifiably “earned” were their commissions?

We know that the Regular Army was miniscule in size at the outbreak of hostilities. There were simply not enough experienced officers to meet the needs of the sudden influx of volunteers. Colonelcy’s were frequently given to those who raised regiments. Captain’s bars often went to those who assisted in recruiting troops to fill said regiments. Although some of these men had local militia training, many of them did not. Even when elected, there was no guarantee that a Jr. Officer knew what they were doing (let alone possess a thorough knowledge of the duties of the corporals and sergeants who served under them!). Thus, in the sense of “historical accuracy”, a knowledgeable officer who has “earned” his position is as over-represented in our hobby as TBGs and spectacles.

Alas, compromise is the name of the game in our hobby because there are some things which, for reasons of practicality or safety, we cannot, or should not do, regardless of how period correct they might be. Although it might be historically accurate to have a company of men marching confusedly in different directions due to the inexperience/incompetence of their Captain, it would probably make for a poor, and potentially dangerous, reenactment experience.

So, although the advice and wisdom on officer qualifications imparted by Messr’s O’Beirne, Cooper, Kindred, et al, could be justifiably defined as modern day “reenactorisms” (as opposed to historically accurate), it nevertheless remains sage advice within the boundaries of safety and practicality that necessarily exist in this hobby. That which we can be accurate about (hand sewn buttonholes, who made your sack coat or forage cap, no late war shelter halves at early war events, etc.) receives inordinate attention because so much of what really mattered to “them” (perseverance under fire, hunger, and fatigue, and the contemporary reality of the fate of a nation, or homeland, being at stake) cannot be accurately reenacted.

In short, the advice already given, tempered by the knowledge that it does not necessarily reflect the reality of the period, would be the preferred middle ground in my opinion.

Until such time as some group of fanatics can arrange a secluded “Lord of the Flies”-like tactical in which live ammunition (and accompanying period medical treatment) is used, true historical authenticity, in the area which probably counts the most, will never be achieved. (Hmm…a private island, ungoverned by Unites States law; opposing Federal and Confederate brigades of equal size, period equipped; live ammunition; willing and appropriately waivered volunteers – the ultimate Reality TV with reenactors as the participants – anyone want to pitch this to Fox? ;) )

Yours etc.,

Steve Gubin

[CJSchumacher]

Re: I'll be contrary

Alas, compromise is the name of the game in our hobby because there are some things which, for reasons of practicality or safety, we cannot, or should not do, regardless of how period correct they might be. Although it might be historically accurate to have a company of men marching confusedly in different directions due to the inexperience/incompetence of their Captain, it would probably make for a poor, and potentially dangerous, reenactment experience.

I wholeheartedly agree with this excellent point.

I, too, feel that even though there were clearly many instances where inexperience was called upon...it does not validate putting anyone in a compromizing situation.

Case in point, in the cav world there is a common argument made by the equine challenged about inexperience being prevalent in the wartime ranks. Especially the boys in blue...you know..."city folk"...who supposedly never had any interaction with one of the most heavily relied upon modes of transportation...the horse. I'm sorry, but nobody should be on a horse or more importantly put anyone under their watch in danger due to inexperience. We're talking about 1000+lb animals that can kill you.

Clearly, here is a standing example of when experience should be valued despite sporadic documentation to the contrary.

[GeraldTodd]

Re: I'll be contrary

In reenacting, the problem is that our inexperience is compensated for in modern ways.

Inexperience may be authentic, but we are not authentically inexperienced.

[Yellowhammer]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I agree.

Also, how long would an inexperienced officer stay inexperienced. As the regiment was drilled and school in the schools of the soldier, company, battalion and evolutions of the line, the officers were generally drilled and educated as well.

Were there incompentant, inefficient and inept officers? Certainly. However, I would argue that even the very best reenacting officers are "inexperienced" by period standards. Without having a consistent body of men to drill with day in and out with and to learn with at the same measured pace, we can never be as efficient and effective as the typical Civil War officer.

How many reenacting Lts. do you know who can effectively manage the intricacies of platoon drill? Damn few.

Anyway, if the argument is that inexperienced officers should be represented today, I would say we have that represented in spades.

Personally, this whole argument for experiences smacks to me of another example of an attempt to excuse a sub-par facet of our hobby.

[dave81276]

Re: Becoming a Officer

To echo the prior posts and collate the wisdom, it would take 10 to 15 years reenacting to gain the experience of one year campaigning during the wah. Therefore, to allow oneself to be elected while still a novice would require a dozen years as elected officer to gain the requisite experience of 1862 (a good year to observe officers improving). Combine this with the safety hazards of "drill ignorance" and one could seriously endanger one's unit. Give it time. Be an excellent corporal, and let the laurels come to you.

-Dave Eggleston

[hardtack1864]

Re: I'll be contrary

Although it might be historically accurate to have a company of men marching confusedly in different directions due to the inexperience/incompetence of their Captain, it would probably make for a poor, and potentially dangerous, reenactment experience.

Don't worry many mainstream units are way ahead of you :wink_smil . Anyway I argree with Kevin here you should be in the hobby for at least 10 years before you think about becoming an officer. Though many officer at events that I have talked to have been reenacting for at least 10 years and have done well as officers too.

[Bill Cross]

Re: Becoming a Officer

Personally, this whole argument for experiences smacks to me of another example of an attempt to excuse a sub-par facet of our hobby.

My point was misunderstood. I did not say that this young man, being inexperienced, was a good candidate for an officer. I DID say that officers back then were not necessarily well-trained. On-the-job experience likely made them BETTER officers than when they started, but it's also true that the Union army periodically cashiered the incompetents (I suspect the battlefield did the same thing for the South).

I also said there are a variety of ways to learn the officer's craft besides coming up through the reenactor ranks. Frankly, I don't see a lot a poor officer impressions in the CPH wing of the hobby, and not all of those who limn the roles are wizened veterans with XX years in reenacting. I still remain uncomfortable when hobby experience is used as a measure of authenticity, even if it is a good middle ground from a safety standpoint.

Additionally, I believe there is more to being an authentic portrayal of an officer than simply experience in the ranks, including a knowledge of what constituted a gentleman of the period, a thorough grounding in the culture (material and otherwise), etc. Additionally, there are many fine resources for learning about the officer portrayal, including the fine books that have been suggested.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I'm a Cpl. right now but want to be a company officer for my group at events. I need more experience. Any ideas about doing this, like books to read, or things to do to get more experience.

Thanks

Cpl. Andy Miller

A number of excellent points have been made so far. I simply want to add an observation.

Look around you. The hobby (avocation, folk religion -- whatever we are) is filled with officers, good, bad, and indifferent. What it needs more than anything are good privates -- men who know their drill and who know how to take care of themselves, their clothes, their equipage, and their accoutrements in the field.

There's nothing lowly, unexciting, or unchallenging about that. Being a soldier -- just a soldier -- is the highest calling there is.

You take care of that and anything else you want will take care of itself.

YOS
"Private for Life" Schnapps

[DukeRPSC]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I agree with Schnapps. I've always said the toughest job to do and get right is being a good private.

[Andrew Jarvi]

Re: Becoming a Officer

Andy,
Having been an officer in the ranks for a while now, as some have already said it's not as much fun as being an enlisted man. There are tons of responsibilities at events and off the field for officers. Though if you have a really good first sergeant as I do then it makes life so much easier. But I must say on average at events I attend 3 officers meeting sometimes more depending on what the higher rank wants. Being an officer of a African American unit I still keep my ties with my pards in units I used to be a full member so that when we are not attending an event I can drop right back down as a private and enjoy life. Just remember though that the best officers remain close to their men and don't get wrapped up with the politics of sitting at the command tent, only spend what time is absolutely needed at these "gatherings", your men will appreciate you more. One last hint, once getting those bars on your shoulder, don't be too good to roll up your sleeves around camp and help the boys. ;)

Andrew Jarvi
Capt. 5th USCT

[J the Black Sheep]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I agree.

Also, how long would an inexperienced officer stay inexperienced. As the regiment was drilled and school in the schools of the soldier, company, battalion and evolutions of the line, the officers were generally drilled and educated as well.

Were there incompentant, inefficient and inept officers? Certainly. However, I would argue that even the very best reenacting officers are "inexperienced" by period standards. Without having a consistent body of men to drill with day in and out with and to learn with at the same measured pace, we can never be as efficient and effective as the typical Civil War officer.

How many reenacting Lts. do you know who can effectively manage the intricacies of platoon drill? Damn few.

Anyway, if the argument is that inexperienced officers should be represented today, I would say we have that represented in spades.

Personally, this whole argument for experiences smacks to me of another example of an attempt to excuse a sub-par facet of our hobby.

Hmm.... I guess that makes me a farb for my supporting of Bill's argument? :wink_smil

Perhaps it's more a matter of interpretation of his comments. I understand them to say, in effect, that a guy could be an effective officer by understanding the manual and not rising up through the ranks.

Here's an example of some officers who went through the war without being less than an officer: http://www.rbhayes.org/ovi.htm

The issue of a man's competency is much broader than having been in the ranks. You can take someone like yourself with experience as well as intimate knowledge of the manuals and drop you into a company of men who don't know their backsides from holes in the ground, and they (and you) are going to look bad no matter how good of a commander you are.

Here's an example (and I may be corrected if I've got this wrong) of an efficient unit.

In the late '80's to very early '90's, there was a Confederate unit in Ohio that was one of the best. To keep that edge, the men held monthly drill meetings. This isn't going to a reenactment and participating... drill was done at the events, however, there were seperate drill meetings that focused on drill. The officers also held seperate monthly meetings to go over the manual themselves.

You're dead on that an officer needs to constantly work with a body of men in order to become proficient. You also need a body of men who understand the drill and competent NCOs to help oversee it.

[sauguszouave]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I came to this old thread through referal from the recent thread on chain of command. I'm intrigued by the lack of reference to period techniques for training officers. A number of contributors pointed out that many period officers were commissioned without any prior experience, but didn't describe how that problem was addressed at the time. Military leaders at the time were not idiots, they were aware of the problem and took steps to address it. Modern re-enactors seem to accept as a given that it is the officer's responsibility to train himself. While that may be the unfortunate reality of our present circumstance, it was not the prevelant belief during the war. The fact that Kautz's "Customs of Service" came out after and not during the war is actually indicative not of a prevaling attitude that it was all right for officers to be ignorant of their duties, but rather the belief by many senior commanders that officers should be trained by their superiors and not by a "self-help" book. My personal belief is that one of the primary functions of our re-enactor umbrella organizations should be using the techniques that were used during the war to train officers. We shouldn't be counting on officers showing up at events knowing their stuff; we should be proactively making sure that they do. Here are some period training techniques:

1. Drill all battalion officers together as a company in the manual of arms and company evolutions under the command of one of the field officers. Since period officers didn't come up through the ranks, they had to learn the school of the soldier and the school of the company by personal practice. Contrary to the old cliche about teachers, if you can't do it, you shouldn't be teaching it. For the modern re-enactor, this would insure consistent implementation throughout all member companies. The Sergeant Major should drill all NCOs together as a company as well.

2. Don't learn your drill by practicing on the poor, long-suffering privates. Practice first with drill blocks. Make up little blocks of wood to represent the troops and move them around as you study the manual. Make one set for company evolutions and another set for battalion evolutions. The field officers should quiz the company officers and vice versa. Sets of drill blocks were commercially available during the war, but most of the period references I've seen are to home-made ones. Nelson Miles of the 22nd MA (more famous after the war as the Col of the 5th Infantry in 1876-77) wrote home to his father to make him a set. Drill blocks were used for as long as linear tactics were used. George Washington had a beautiful presentation set that is in the Smithsonian now. The New York State Military Museum in Sarratoga Springs has two commercially produced sets for Upton's Tactics that have a really neat mechanism to do his wheel by fours. These were not used just by ground-pounders. Cannon-cockers and donkey-wallopers used them too. This is a great way to train in the evening by candle light saving the daylight hours for practical instruction on the field.

3. Progress from drill blocks to rope drill for battalion evolutions. Each company is represented by five men: a captain, a covering sergeant, a closing sergeant, and two corporals who hold a rope as long as the company front between them. This is a great way to train your right and left general guides, your markers, and your color guard without boring the rank and file. You can practice battalion drill full-sized on the field at the same time that the junior NCOs are off somewhere else doing squad drills with the privates; another great time saver.

4. Train officers to be able to function at least one grade above their current rank. Have the senior captains take turns commanding during battalion drills. Have the lieutenants and sometimes the first sergeants drill the companies under the instruction of their captains. There was a constant shortage of officers during the war and people frequently served above their grades. This was expected and officers were trained to be able to jump up a level at a moment's notice.

5. Appoint an inspector general and make him actually do his job. Battalions were subjected to a full inspection once a week while in camp. Everything was double checked all the time to make sure that all the men on the rolls were really there, all the equipment on the books was really there and in functioning condition, and that the battalion could function to a minimum standard in the field. Re-enactor organizations need to take responsibility for the quality of their officer corps and take active steps to insure it. One of those steps is to check up on the quality of member unit drill.

6. Don't train on the battlefield. Most events center around battle re-enactments. It isn't realistic to expect formations to drill for half a morning and then jump into a battle scenario and maneuver well. We have got to put time in our schedules for training just like the real armies did. If you aren't willing to drill, you aren't willing to be a Civil War officer. It's that simple. You have got to go to the camps of instruction and garrison/camp type events and practice. I take it as a positive sign that these kind of events seem to be on the increase.

While I agree with everything that everyone says about the value of working your way up through the ranks, I don't think it is realistic to expect our officers to be autodidacts on top of everything else. The field-grade sword draggers in our organizations should consider officer training to be one of their top priorities.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[nrandolph]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I'll third what Schnapps and Duke have to say! Being a private in the army and doing the best you possibly can at that position takes a lot of work and determination! I've been a private for seven years and still work at learning the job correctly in all it's facets. It's also very satisfying to be competent at your position and you should make every effort to be the best corporal on the field, then sergeant, then etc., etc.. Understand the company from the ground up, then when and if you are to be an officer your men will respect you. You will not only "command" but be able to lead!

Neil Randolph
1st WV

[KeystoneGuard]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I will have to agree with Mr.(s) Kenworthy, Jarvi, Cross, and Gubin on this subject. They all have wonderful insight to this long debated topic. The techniques and suggestions they have made are "just what the doctor ordered".

The duties of an officer never ends. It is an ongoing process on and off the field, 365 days a year.
Anyone willing to accept an officership must be willing to learn and then lead. I guess that some of us just like the stress factor, ha ha!

[KeystoneGuard]

Re: Becoming a Officer

I found a quote pertaining to the topic at hand, from a letter written by Francis C. Barlow to his brother Edward.

Charlestown, Virginia
July 18th, 1861

"I confess I understand but little of the practical duties of an officer in battle + no one else here does. We ought to be instructed in it. In battle I should obey orders when they were given + use my discretion when they were not."




I believe this does justice to our topic!:D