Respecting the Rank

[SinkDigger]

Greetings one and all!!

After a recent conversation I had with another person I raised a question I am unclear as to what the answer would be. This is a grey area for me.

Does an infantry private listen to a cavalry or artillery officer? Is this a situational thing?

While I realize that yes they are in the same army, they are all different disciplines if you will.

I would think that if while in camp or something an infantry private would follow order of another branch officer. I would also think that this would be communicated typically through the respective company officer or NCO. In the situation though where it is something minor and an artillery captain ordered an infantry private to do something, could that private refuse or no. My feeling is the private would do it, but I am not real familiar with the intricacies of that sort of thing.

Then the question is raised with different service all together; say for example Army and Navy. It is my understanding that an Army soldier is not necessarily bound by rule to salute an officer from say the Navy or another branch though typically it would still be done out of respect for the rank.

Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns?????


Phil Coleman

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: Respecting the Rank

It's a good point you raise and it isn't limited to solely to enlisted men either. While I don't recall the officer's name, there was quite a confrontation during Pickett's Charge between Hancock and a battery commander. The battery commander was following Hunt's orders to cease fire when Hancock countermanded them. The battery went back into action only to have Hunt reaffirm his original order. This supposedly went all the way up to Meade for resolution. I'll provide the reference if anyone wants it.
I bring this up to point out the fact that it did indeed happen and can even state that it still happens in today's military.
Dave Myrick

[norvalwelch]

Re: Respecting the Rank

The artillery officer was Lieutenant-Colonel Freeman McGilvery, commander of the Volunteer Brigade (four batteries) of the Artillery Reserve. On 3 July, McGilvery assumed ad hoc command of around 76 guns along the reaches of south Cemetery Ridge, from the area of the modern Pennsylvania Memorial to the intersection of United States and Hancock avenues. The controversy arose from a command relayed by Henry Hunt to McGilvery, who ordered the colonel to cease his counterbattery fire in anticipation of the Confederate assault. Hancock, who was not informed of this, questioned McGilvery, who declared that he could not open fire until ordered to do so by the artillery commander. Not surprisingly, Hancock had much to say on the issue. In the end, McGilvery's decision to stand by Hunt's orders was a wise one; his guns did good work against Kemper's withering right flank and thereafter, stopped Lang and Wilcox's supporting brigades cold at the Emmitsburg Road.
Cases like that raise an interesting debate - who has command in an instance like that? Is the artillery always subordinate to its chain of command, or do extenuating circumstances allow for the overall commander of a certain portion of the field to assume unspoken command of all the branches operating under his jurisdiction?

[sigsaye]

Re: Respecting the Rank

The saluting issue was beaten up for some time over on the Navy and Marine forum. A member who has original copies of Navy Regs from 1861 and 1865 found the paragraph which states that Navy and Marine personnel do indeed salute Army Officers of senior rank. I am sure that somewhere in Army regs pretty much the same statement exsists. It is simple military courtisy. Remember that as the war went on, there was much cross-polination with both branches trading communications and logistics personnel. Out here in the west at least there were numerous joint efforts along the rivers.

The big differance here was that at the time, Navy folks saluted differantly that the Army folks. Navy people saluted by "pinching" the brim of their hat or cap. This came from the 18th century and earlier tradition of "Doffing" the hat or actually raising it off the head. The regulations still said to "Doff" the cap, but first person accounds and the Steadman sketch book clearly show that the simple pinch was the common pratice.

Steve Hesson

[Union Navy]

Re: Respecting the Rank

Hell, we can't even get our own sailors to obey us without a Marine prodding them with a bayonet! Serously, as Steve said above, officers extended the professional courtesy of a salute to officers of other branches - after all, they are all gentlemen, right? Confused them some, though, due to the different style. Anyone who was uncovered was not expected to salute.

In practice, it was rare for Naval officers to command other branches. The Mississippi Squadron, due to a chronic shortage of Marines, often requisitioined companies of infantry for "sharpshooter" detail. These came with their own officers and NCOs. Most were not impressed with service afloat - they thought the sailor's life too regimented and the work difficult.

At the Battle of Memphis, Colonel Charles Ellet (in command of the Army steam ram fleet) was ordered by Commodore Charles Davis to hang back until the Union ironclads engaged the Confederate River Defense Fleet. Ellet ignored these orders and charged in, doing most of the damage. Between the rams and gunboats, all but one of the Confederate ships was either sunk or captured. Ellet was almost the only casualty, taking a bullet to the leg which eventually killed him. So much for interservice cooperation, though it woked out well this time.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Respecting the Rank

Respecting the rank and rendering proper courtesies and honors is not the same as following the orders of an officer who is not authorized to give you orders.

As noted above, all military personnel (and this should go for impressionists too) are required, and were required in the 1860s, to render proper salutes, honors, etc. regardless of their rank, branch of service, or service itself. If you're a lower rank and you see a commissioned officer of superior rank you are to salute; if you are a higher rank and an inferior rank salutes you, you are to return the salute. I believe that's always been the custom in the US armed forces and those of many other nations.

That said, there's the ideal and the reality of how, when, and even whether soldiers or servicemen of whatever rank returned salutes and rendered honors in the Civil War. Both sides were comprised largely of citizen soldiers who had a distain for "chicken-stuff" and, accordingly, informalities were common in many units. Basically, it's impossible to make generalizations because it varied so much from unit to unit and over time during the Civil War, depending on who was in charge and the extent to which the man-in-charge could enforce his will on those under his command.

Finally, officers should not attempt to issue orders to men not of their command, and if they do so a soldier who receives such orders is not, as I understand it, obliged to follow them. Rather, he is obliged to follow the orders of his own superiors. This is, for example, why sentinels on guard duty take orders only from a very limited number of people--their non-comms of the guard, officer of the guard, officer of the day, and their battalion commander. Others, such as their company commander (who is not part of the Guard detail or serving as the officer of the day) and even generals from other commands are not allowed to give them orders, and if they try the sentinel is not to follow those commands.

I reckon there's a difference between following "any old command" from "some officer you don't know" and commands that seem to make common sense, like, "Hey private, can you help me put this thing back on the cart?" and "Get down! A barrage is coming!" versus stuff like, "Private, I order you to leave your post and serve as my cocktail waiter for the rest of the day."

Of course, the tricky thing would be HOW the soldier tells the "stranger" officer who's trying to give him orders without authorization, that he's not going to follow those orders...

[sigsaye]

Re: Respecting the Rank

I agree with Kevin in most respects. Particularly the bit about following orders. The thing to remember is that the Navy was a Regular Federal Service, not a volunteer/malitia organization as with many Army formations. (Many Naval reenactors seem to forget this).

As such, they were held to regulations more strictly than the average Soldier. Even though there were many War Time Service/Volunteer/Acting officers commanding ships, they were "Sea Faring" types. Ship board disicipline must be strict to avoid endangering the vessel or crew. One of the biggest complaints Foote and others had about the Mississippi Squadron was the lack of Fleet Petty Officers to train the crews to be "Navy". While his crews of "Rivermen" were skilled at handeling the vessels, they felt it was their choice as to what they would do when not actually enguaged in steaming the ship. They did not feel it their job to maintain the vessel (done by yard hands in port) nor handle cargo ( done by Stevedores in port) and other mundane duties of shipboard life. This was a fight for the commanders. Punishment for slight offenses appears to have been swifter and more routine than in the Army.

As far as saluting officers from other branche, Sailors knew they were required to do so. Three things happened every Sunday aboard ship. First church services. The Captain read from his favorite religious book and the crew listened. Some Captains also took this time to sermonize to the crew about thier conduct. Then the Captain would read sections of Naval Regulations (that way there was no excuse about not knowing the rules) and finially a personel inspection. Any one not passing the inspection would be punished on Monday.

In the book "Rocks and Shoals" about disicipline in the Navy from 1797 to 1886, you see a pattern. There is always a disicipline issue when a new captain assumes command. Generally after a month, the crew has gotten in line and the punishments slack off.

Steve Hesson

[Rob Murray]

Re: Respecting the Rank

I agree with what Kevin has said. What is really weird is when the modern military salutes re-enactor rank. I have had this happen to me 3 times. I have been saluted wearing Capts. rank by Army Lts. and Naval enlisted. I salute all rank modern or enactor.

Rob Murray

[Crag Rat]

Re: Respecting the Rank

It has always been my belief that the salute says more about the person giving it than the person receiving it.

Regarding officers giving commands. An officer should not direct a private to do anything. The army has sergeants and coproprals for that. The sergeants should run the day to day business of the camp. Say a sergeant has a soldier detailed. Along comes john Q officer and orders that soldier to do X. Now, that soldier is away from duty and the job the sergeant tasked him to do is not getting done. Worse, the sergeant has no idea where the hapless fellow has gone.

Proper procedure: "Sergeant, I need a detail of 14 soldiers assembled to serve on construction detail." You have communicated the task and made the sergeant accountable for assembling the detail based on his knowledge of the abilities of his men.

William Carraway
45th ALA

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Respecting the Rank

From the 1861 US Army Regulations (Revised 1863)

253. It is equally the duty of non-commissioned officers and soldiers, at all times and in all situations, to pay the proper compliments to officers of the navy and marines, and to officers of other regiments, when in uniform, as to officers of their own particular regiments and corps.

254. Courtesy among military men is indispensable to discipline. Respect to superiors will not be confined to obedience on duty, but will be extended to all occasions. It is always the duty of the inferior to accost or to offer first the customary salutation, and of the superior to return such complimentary notice.

Ron Myzie

[marine05]

Re: Respecting the Rank

The other question that was asked concerned, not only military protocol, but one of command authority, re: Major General Hancock and Lietenant Colonel McGilvery. Now the Artillery and Cavalry are not really subodinate to the infantry, but they are under the overall command of the Commander. I know that sounds like a no-brainer, but if, as was the case, Major General Hancock was the on-the-scene commander, deemed to be the direct representative of the Commanding General and following the "Commander's intent" then he was entirely within his authority to order the artillery to commence firing. If there was a tactical need for the battery (example here) to shift fires to a higher priority target/greater threat, then the officer in tactical command is to be obeyed. What is not conveyed is the orders to Major General Hunt, was he in overall tactical command of the artillery? If so his orders are to be followed, unless the overall tactical commander of that sectors, wing, etc. sees a greater need based on the situation.

Now-a-days we use the terms direct and general support, LtCol McGilvery's battalion appeared to be in general support vice direct support of a brigade or division, however refer back to the immediate needs of the on-the-scene tactical commander. Major General Hancock may have percieved that the counter-battery fire was doing more to protect his infantry and the line in general. In the end I'm sure he was glad the supporting and counter infantry fires provided the punch they did.

Clear as mud, right?

s/f

DJM

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Respecting the Rank

I believe the problem at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 was that lines of command for artillery brigades assigned to corps were not clearly drawn. While these brigades were assigned to and therefore under the command of the corps commander (i.e., Hancock, for the Second Corps) they also took orders from Henry Hunt, artillery commander for the army. During the artillery. The lines of command authority were not clear (remember: Hooker had dissolved the artillery reserve, which is why the Army of the Potomac's artillery was overwhelmed at Chancellorsville, and when Meade succeeded to command of the army three days prior to Gettysburg, Hunt got his artillery resreve back, but had to re-organize it on the march, leaving little time to settle matters of command authority), and Hunt wanted those guns quiet and to conserve ammo for the coming Rebel infantry attack, while Hancock wanted the artillery firing to hearten the infantrymen. Unclear authority, and commanders who's wills were at diametric opposites that day. McGillivrey probably knew that Hunt buttered his bread more than did Hancock. :)

[Willard Motsinger]

Re: Respecting the Rank

There is a good discussion of this subject including the Hancock, McGilvery incident in Philip M.Cole's new book ; " Command & Communication Frictions in the Gettysburg Campaign". He is a licensed battlefield guide at Gettysburg & he also wrote "Civil War Artillery At Gettysburg". Willard H. Motsinger