Chain of Command

[latigerrebjim]

Question, how did the chain of command work during the CW. I have a very limited library, and can not find a good summary from what I have available.

Did it work in a manner like modern day - Gen to Col to Capt to 1Sgt to Sgt to Cpl to Pvt? This both upwards and downwards.

OR, could a staff officer walk up to a Pvt give him a command, like go do guard mount, without knowledge or input from Company Commander?

I am pretty confident that during the CW a Pvt could not walk up directly to the commanding office (like a Gen) to give him a beef, he had to use the chain of command. And I am just as confident that a Staff Officer could not walk up and tell a Pvt what to do, directly. The Staff Office had to get the Company Commander and give the order, which then went down to the Pvts. Just can not find a source of the property methods to be followed.

Thanks for any input you might provide.

JIM Tee

[Charles Heath]

Re: Chain of Command

Jim,

Check this out. Hit the search engine button on the main forum page and enter (with quotes) the phrase "chain of command." You may like the results.

Unlike a number of forum software packages, the one used here digs fairly deep across the forum, and this should provide a few convenient threads. With any luck, those posts will spur some more questions which will launch more research, and develop a deeper understanding.

[latigerrebjim]

Re: Chain of Command

Charles,

Thanks for the heads up. Did the search and found one thread that was close, but it was more related to chain of command and getting orders/directions from someone outside of the unit's chain, perhaps in a different arm (artillery/cavalry) or perhaps different service.

The info I am looking for deals more of a unit being in a static camp or garrison and the chain of command of the unit. What I am looking for is more within a soldiers chain of command, can a Staff officer or NCO go into a unit and remove soldiers directly, or should he go throught the Company Officer/1Sgt.

Thanks for assistance

Jim Tee

Jim, I notice you sign your name "Jim Tebbetts" on other fora. Being new here, you may or may not realize this forum requires a full name in the signature. While that seems a bit draconian, the rule has a purpose. Now, the good news is the software allows for a nice auto-sig block. Don't make me break out the wet noodle.

Charles Heath, Mod.

[DougCooper]

Re: Chain of Command

Question, how did the chain of command work during the CW. I have a very limited library, and can not find a good summary from what I have available.

Did it work in a manner like modern day - Gen to Col to Capt to 1Sgt to Sgt to Cpl to Pvt? This both upwards and downwards.

OR, could a staff officer walk up to a Pvt give him a command, like go do guard mount, without knowledge or input from Company Commander?

I am pretty confident that during the CW a Pvt could not walk up directly to the commanding office (like a Gen) to give him a beef, he had to use the chain of command. And I am just as confident that a Staff Officer could not walk up and tell a Pvt what to do, directly. The Staff Office had to get the Company Commander and give the order, which then went down to the Pvts. Just can not find a source of the property methods to be followed.

Thanks for any input you might provide.

JIM Tee

This forum is perhaps not the place to start on a question so basic to military good order and discipline.

If you are serious about the hobby, increase your limited library to the following (all are in reprint and cheap and good for both sides):

1. Customs of Service for Officers of the Army by August V. Kautz
2. Customs of Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers by August V. Kautz
3. Army Regulations of 1861

After you have read these manuals, consult the officers and NCO's in your unit if you belong to one. Hopefully their answers will correspond to what you read in the manuals - if not, ask why. Good luck.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Chain of Command

Jim,

To follow up with what Doug mentioned, even if K4O isn't online yet, you may still find some of these links to be of use:

Kautz for NCOs:

http://www.usregulars.com/COShome.html

1861 US Regs

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bibperm?q1=aGY4285

Jimbo's NCO Article

http://www.geocities.com/saltriverri..._GREAT_NCO.htm

Jimbo's Related Article

WARNING: BE SURE TO TURN YOUR COMPUTER AUDIO TO MUTE AND UNPLUG YOUR SPEAKERS BEFORE OPENING THE FOLLOWING LINK.

Drill Network

http://home.att.net/~Cap1MD/Drill.htm

Happy hunting!

[Smokey Toes]

Re: Chain of Command

You'll find all the answers you need and then some in the resources already cited.

But for a down and dirty answer, military authority is broken down into two catagories, general military authority and command military authority.

General Military Authority is what gives NCO's and Officers the ability to walk up to lower ranking individuals and make corrections on appearance and or behavior....IE: wipe your nose.... tie your boots....I saw you do that.... come here dirtbag."

You would not use general military authority to override a lawful order issued by another Soldier's proper chain of command.

Command Military Authority gives commissioned officers (in a soldiers direct chain of command) the the ability to issue LAWFUL orders to subordinates. This power is derived from the President of the United States. NCO's under that same chain of command can give DIRECT orders to their subordinates in order to exectue the LAWFUL orders already issued by his superiors.

[sauguszouave]

Re: Chain of Command

"Command Military Authority gives commissioned officers (in a soldiers direct chain of command) the the ability to issue LAWFUL orders to subordinates. This power is derived from the President of the United States. NCO's under that same chain of command can give DIRECT orders to their subordinates in order to exectue the LAWFUL orders already issued by his superiors."

Actually the authority derived from Congress.

There is a difference between rank and authority. An officer is entitled to certain courtesies by virtue of their rank or grade. The classic example of this appears in the regulations for guard mount where the officer of the guard does or does not salute the officer of the day depending on their relative ranks.

On the other hand, officers are invested with authority by virtue of their office, not their rank. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to regulate the land forces of the United States. Every single office must be explicitly established by act of Congress. For most Union re-enactors the relevant enabling legislation is the Employment of Volunteers Act of July 21, 1861 as amended July 25, 1861. This is the act which established the composition of the volunteer regiments of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. Re-enactors recreating naval units, regular army units, general staff departments, or staff corps have to refer to the appropriate acts establishing those organizations to see what the offices were and the grades authorized for the tenants. For example, the commanding officer of the Topographical Engineers was entitled to the grade of colonel of topographical engineers. When Congress abolished the Topographical Engineers and merged them into the Corps of Engineers in the spring of 1863, they established the grade of brigadier-general of engineers and authorized it for the Chief of Engineers. Neither the War Department nor the President had the authority to establish the grade of brigadier-general of engineers, and when they promoted Alfred Delafield to that position, they had to obtain the consent of the Senate for his commission.

Furthermore, the Articles of War which defined what was a "lawful" order before the establishment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, were enacted by Congress, not the War Department. Even the clear definition of what it meant to be Commander in Chief was not established until the Root reforms of 1905. At the time of the Civil War, it was still ambiguous how the President, the Secretary of War, and the Commanding General of the Army related to each other in the chain of command. The best explanations of this are in the articles and books written by General James B. Fry after the war. (General Fry had an interesting career. He was McDowell's chief of staff at 1st Bull Run and Provost Marshal of NYC during the draft riots in 1863. After the war he became Adjutant General and wrote extensively on the details of the organization of the Army. For example, he published an entire book just on brevets.)

Basically, the rules are: no staff officer has any authority outside his department or corps. No company officer has any authority outside his company. No field officer has any authority outside his regiment. No general officer has any authority outside the command he is assigned by the President. In detachments composed of mixed corps, the senior line officer commands unless otherwise directed by competent authority. Line officers are officers commissioned in the infantry, artillery, or cavalry.

What can be confusing to us today is that it is not always obvious by what authority a particular historical figure exercised command. For example, G. K. Warren was Chief Engineer of the Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg. However, his rank had nothing to do with his position as chief engineer. His rank was Major General of Volunteers. There was no such grade as Major General of Engineers. Neither his rank of major general nor his office of chief engineer gave him the authority to command units of the Fifth Corps to move to the left flank of the army. All he could do was recommend the deployment and hope that the general commanding would support him. At a more mundane level, a regimental adjutant holds the rank of 1st or 2nd lieutenant. The only men he actually commands are the regimental clerks. However he also acts as the spokesman for the regimental commander and in that capacity speaks with the authority of the colonel commanding. As August Kautz points out, it is very important that the adjutant not assume to himself authority that is not properly his.

It is an unfortunate aspect of re-enacting that it attracts a few people who simply want an opportunity to exercise power. These folks believe that they can simply sew on shoulder straps and start telling people what to do. In the case of sentinels, if anyone not in the chain of command of the guard tries to tell them what to do, they should immediately call the corporal of the guard. It is up to the officer of the guard to sort out problems like that. Anyone, regardless of rank, attempting to cross the line of sentinels after retreat and before reveille without the countersign or parole should be held at the point of the bayonet until the corporal of the guard arrives. (Interesting comments on this point in the article by H W Higginson that Michael referred to. Reminds me of the scene of General Savage arriving at his new command in the movie "12 O'Clock High" where he reams the sentry for waving a general officer's staff car through without checking his AGO card. I guess some things never change.)

In any other circumstances, if an officer not in your chain of command tries to give you an order, you should seek out the next highest officer in your command as quickly as practical. Privates should notify their squad leaders, sergeants the orderly sergeant, company officers the company commander, company commanders the regimental commander, and so on up the line.

Military courtesy is a whole n’other subject I could go on and on about. There is actually a fair amount of period material on the subject. Elmer Ellsworth’s manual, for example, describes the proper way to deliver a letter while carrying a rifle musket.

Most of the incidents of volunteer over-familiarity were at the squad and company level. The physical layout of the camps reinforced the divide between the rank and file and the officers. You simply never got the chance to slap the brigade commander on the back, even if you had been so inclined by your republican ideals. You can’t do guard mounts, retreat parades, reviews, and Sunday inspections day after day, week after week without developing habits of basic military courtesy.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Smokey Toes]

Re: Chain of Command

Paul,

I believe you are mistaken that Congress is a part of the military’s chain of command, or that they are where an officer's ablity to issue a lawful order is derived. The chain of command goes directly to the President of the United States. Their office (military officers) was created by congress, but their commission is singed by the President of the United States, or in the case of the National Guard (militia) the governor of that state. When they are called into federal service, their commander in chief is the President himself. When a commissioned officer gives a lawful order, it is backed by the executive branch of government, IE: the President of the United States.

"The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to regulate the land forces of the United States. Every single office must be explicitly established by act of Congress. "

True, but once done Congress is not a part of the chain of command. The executive branch of government is. Congress simply regulates the size composition and funding of the armed forces of the United States.

[sauguszouave]

Re: Chain of Command

"I believe you are mistaken that Congress is a part of the military’s chain of command, or that they are where an officer's ablity to issue a lawful order is derived. "

I didn't say that Congress was part of the chain of command. What I said was that an officer's authority is derived from act of Congress. No officer can give anyone an order if he is not installed in an office. Only Congress can create an office, as in the example I gave for the Chief Engineer. The creation of the office by Congress determines where that office is in the chain of command. It determines who the officer is in command of. It determines what orders are lawful and what orders are unlawful. It does not, however, determine what orders the officer actually gives. That is the perogative of the Executive Branch. The President appoints officers to their offices, but all appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. There were numerous cases of appointments not being confirmed during the Civil War. Those officers never got their commands, regardless of what Lincoln said. Without their commands they had no authority over anyone.

In the case of the volunteer forces called into federal service, the appointment of officers by the governor of the state was because Congress explicitly gave that authority to the governors in the Employment of Volunteers Act of July 21, 1861. The Constitution only grants the governors the power to appoint militia officers, not volunteer officers. Furthermore, that only applied to regimental officers. All volunteer general officers were appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. Even in the case of regimental officers, the colonel of the regiment could not appoint a company commander. He could give him orders, but he could not install him in his office or remove him from his office. The authority to remove an officer from office required that the officer be convicted by a court martial of a violation of the Articles of War. The Articles of War were an act of Congress. State governors or state adjutants general could not remove state appointed officers either.

The execution of an office is the responsibility of the tenant of that office. The authority to execute an office derives from the authority that establishes the office. A subordinate officer has to obey a superior officer because Congress says he has to, not because the President says he has to. At the time of the Civil War it was a matter of dispute whether the President, the Secretary of War, or the Commanding General of the Army issued operational orders to the Army. Winfield Scott deliberately made his headquarters at West Point instead of Washington to emphasize his belief that all orders from the War Department had to pass through him. He had a long history of disputing his authority with Secretaries of War. That part of the chain of command was not formalized until long after the Civil War. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief, but does not define what that means.

In short there is a difference between having the authority to issue a command and the command that is issued. A captain doesn't get the authority to issue a command to his lieutenant from the colonel of the regiment. He gets it from his office as company commander. He would still have that authority even if he never received a command from the colonel. He is expected to dutifully execute his office as company commander regardless of any direction from above. Junior officers are not restricted in their activities to only what they have been explicitly ordered to do by their superiors.

The best source for material on these kind of distinctions is in Henry Lee Scott's "Military Dictionary" and James B. Fry's books and articles. Scott had been an Inspector General and Fry the Adjutant General and they had detailed and legalistic turns of mind. The 1862 edition of Mahan's "Outpost" has some of this material in the back too. Also read the acts of Congress in the back of the 1863 edition of the 1861 Regulations.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Smokey Toes]

Re: Chain of Command

Paul,

"The creation of the office by Congress determines where that office is in the chain of command. It determines who the officer is in command of. It determines what orders are lawful and what orders are unlawful. It does not, however, determine what orders the officer actually gives. That is the perogative of the Executive Branch. The President appoints officers to their offices, but all appointments must be confirmed by the Senate."

Good info, point conceeded.

Perhaps I should have said that a commissioned officer's lawful orders are backed by (as opposed to derived from) the President of the United States in my orignal post in order to make my point. Had I done so though, we wouldn't have been able to read your well written post....

[sauguszouave]

Re: Chain of Command

Paul,

"The creation of the office by Congress determines where that office is in the chain of command. It determines who the officer is in command of. It determines what orders are lawful and what orders are unlawful. It does not, however, determine what orders the officer actually gives. That is the perogative of the Executive Branch. The President appoints officers to their offices, but all appointments must be confirmed by the Senate."

Good info, point conceeded.

Perhaps I should have said that a commissioned officer's lawful orders are backed by (as opposed to derived from) the President of the United States in my orignal post in order to make my point. Had I done so though, we wouldn't have been able to read your well written post....

Eric,

We got into some very technical legal definitions here where fine distinctions in meaning count. A lot of this revolves around what I meant by "derives." The JAG of the Air Force puts it like this:

"Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides the original source of command authority to the President as Commander-in-Chief."

"Concept of command carries dual function
- Legal authority over people, including power to discipline
- Legal responsibility for the mission and resources"

"Command is exercised by virtue of the office and the special assignment of officers holding military grades who are eligible by law to command."

"Command Authority Over Active Duty Forces
- The commander exercises authority by virtue of his or her status as a superior commissioned officer"

Note that the JAG never uses the term "derives." They use the terms "source" and "by virtue." In some cases that means what I was trying to mean by "derives," and in some cases that means something different from what I was saying. I was trying to draw the distinction between WHO you have to obey, WHAT you have to obey, and WHY you have to obey it, but even those categories can be broken down into subcategories. For example, in the case of WHO, the office of colonel of infantry of volunteers was created by act of Congress with authority to command a regiment of volunteer infantry enlisted for 3 years of service. However, the Governor of Massachusetts created the 19th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and appointed Edward Hinks to that office. So the full definition of WHO becomes the colonel of the 19th MVI, Edward Hinks.

I find the subject of the military system of the United States interesting because it is a physical implementation of the republican ideals that created our country. In Europe, the sovereign personally embodied all authority. The members of the army were his personal servants, and only held whatever authority he delegated to them. This changed in England because of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In 1689 Parliament passed the first Mutiny Act which took away the King's power to raise an army or to regulate it. From then on only Parliament could raise an army or issue Articles of War. What is significant to the American experience is that Parliament excluded the colonies from some provisions of the Mutiny Act, giving the King the power to keep a standing army in the colonies and to issue Articles of War there. The US Constitution reinstated the principle of the supremacy of the legislative branch over the army that had existed in the English Constitution before the American Revolution even down to the part about military appropriations automatically expiring. The Mutiny Act expired automatically every year and Parliament had to explicitly reauthorize a standing army every year.

Congress also copied the British in regulating the military through the passage of Articles of War. The Articles of War weren't replaced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice until 1950. Some of the terminology in the JAG summary above comes from the UCMJ and wasn't in use at the time of the ACW. For example, "superior commissioned officer" is a technical term defined in the definitions in section 1 of the UCMJ. During the ACW, you were just supposed to know what that was based on the customs and usages of war.

You see evidence of the old, European concept of sovereignty in the armies of France in the 19th century. The tactics manuals we used were not actually translated from French drill manuals, because the French didn't exactly issue drill manuals. What they issued were "ordonnance du roi," or regulations from the king. Every aspect of the military organization of France came out in the form of ordinances from the king. When the Scott board translated the drill manual that became "Scott's Tactics" in the US, what they were actually translating were "L'ordonnance du roi, du 4 mars, 1831, sur l'exercise et les maneuvres de l'infanterie." When you read through ordonnance du roi you find everything having to do with the French government all mixed together. There will be a regulation about marriage licenses, and then some light infantry drill regulations, and then some excise tax regulations, etc., one after the other. That was because the king was the ultimate authority for all those different organizations.

The clearest explanation I've seen on the American system during the Civil War is in Fry, Bvt. Major-General James B, U.S.A., "Notes on Fundamental Points in Our Military System." in Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, vol III, Governor's Island, NYH: 1882. pp. 461-473.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy