Diary of Sergeant David L. Day: February 1, 1864

SPECULATIONS.

Since being here we have had but little else to do than make up our diaries, write letters and talk over the situation. The last link is broken that bound us to our old regiment. Capt. Parkhurst, Lieuts. Johnson and Saul and Doctor Hoyt left us yesterday, and we are now thinking of applying for admission to the orphans' home. The boys are all at sea, without chart or compass, and can form no idea of what kind of a landing they will make. The non-coms, of whom there are quite a number, are a good deal exercised over their fate, and are consulting together much of the time. I tell them there is no use trying to lift the veil, but to take things as they come and trust to luck. We can look forward to the end, which is only a few months hence, and during that time we shall probably not be very much worse off than we have been, and certainly can be no worse off than the crowd we are in.

In a talk with Corporal Whipple and a few others, I said I had no fears of our losing our rank, that is if Gen. Sherman is good military authority, which I think he is. Sometime last summer there was some talk at the war department at Washington in regard to consolidating the old regiments. In a letter from Gen. Sherman to the adjutant-general, he said it would be the worst thing for the army that could be done, for in consolidating the old regiments, they would lose a large number of well-trained and efficient soldiers whose places could not easily be filled. For instance, two regiments are consolidated in one, all the officers from colonel to corporal in one of them are lost. They would have to be mustered out and sent home, thereby losing upwards of 150 well-trained men; and he advised instead of consolidating or forming new organizations, to recruit the old ones to their full strength. Now if what he said is law, then when two organizations are consolidated, or one of them is permanently assigned to the other, then one of them loses its officers. Therefore, if we are permanently assigned to some other regiment, and are not wanted as non-commissioned officers, then they can muster us out and send us home.

We have dress parades every night and keep hearing something about the coming march. Whatever it is or wherever we are going, it is getting pretty well advertised. Every night at dress parade, orderlies are seen flying about from camp to camp, carrying their orders, and citizens are standing around with their mouths and ears open catching every word, and if they have any communications with the outside world (which they probably have), then this expedition, whatever it is, will not amount to much. If this thing is being managed by Gen. Butler, which from the pomp and circumstance attending it certainly looks a good deal like him, then in my opinion, it will be another Big Bethel affair.

SOURCE: David L. Day, My Diary of Rambles with the 25th Mass. Volunteer Infantry, p. 114-5

Dates of Rank for Brevet Brigadier-General Francis Amasa Walker

• August to September, 1861—Sergeant-major, 15th Mass. Vols.
• September 14,1861, to August 10,1862, Captain and Asst. Adjutant General, U. S. V.
• August 11 to December 31, 1862—Major and Asst. Adjutant General, U. S. V.
• January 1, 1863, to January 12, 1865—Lieut. Colonel, Asst. Adjutant General, U. S. V. Headquarters Second Army Corps.
• August, 1864—Brevet Colonel, U. S. V.
• March 13, 1865—Brevet Brigadier General, U. S. V.

SOURCE: James Phinney Munroe, A Life of Francis Amasa Walker, p. 38

Diary Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: Tuesday [sic], January 14, 1863

A warm, pleasant day. Sent three companies late last night to Tompkins Farm under Captain Sperry; a dark, muddy march — just out of good quarters too. Colonel Hatfield of [the] Eighty-ninth Regiment makes a singular point as to my rank compared with his. He was appointed colonel about December 1, and has a commission of that date; that is, at the bottom are the words “issued this day of December” and also sealed, etc., this day of December. My commission in like manner was of November 1. Colonel Hatfield was major before and acted as second in command until he received his commission. But his commission in the body of it has a clause to take rank from October 2, 1862, which is twelve days earlier than mine. He claims this is the date of his commission. Not so, the date is at the bottom as above. A note dated December 1 with interest from October 2 is still a note of December 1. But what is the effect of the clause or order in the body of the commission? I say nothing. The governor of a State has no power to give rank in the army of the United States prior to either appointment or actual service in such rank. If he could confer rank two months prior to appointment or service, he could two years. He could now appoint civilians to outrank all officers of same grade now in service from Ohio or from any other State. But this is absurd. A commission being merely evidence of appointment, the governor may perhaps date it back to the time of actual appointment or service. The President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of [the] United States army, can, perhaps, give rank independent of service or actual appointment. But if a state governor is authorized to do so, the Act of Congress or lawful order for it can be shown. Let us see it.

The President's power to appoint and to discharge officers embraces all power. It is supreme. But the governor has no power of removal. He can only appoint according to the terms of his authority from Congress or the War Department. What is that authority?

The appointments are often made long before the issuing of commissions. The commission may then well specify the date from which rank shall begin. But I conclude there can be no rank given by a governor prior to either commission, appointment, or actual service. Else a citizen could now be appointed colonel to outrank every other colonel in the United States, and be entitled to pay for an indefinite period in the past, which is absurd.

The governor has no authority to put a junior over a senior of the same grade. He may promote or rather appoint the junior out of order, because the power to appoint is given him. But to assign rank among officers of [the] same grade is no part of his duties. Why is such a clause put in commissions? (1) Because appointments are often made (always so at the beginning of the war) long before the commissions issue. (2) In recruiting also, the appointment is conditional on the enlistment of the requisite number of men. Of course the rank dates from the appointment and actual service.

But the great difficulty lies here. Is not this clause the highest evidence — conclusive evidence — of the date of the appointment? Can we go behind it? I say no, for so to hold is to give the governor the power to determine rank between officers of [the] same grade after appointment.

The order of appointment is highest (see Regulations). The governor's order may be written, as Governor Dennison's were, or verbal as Governor Tod's are — to be proved in one case by the order, in the other verbally.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 388-90