Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1889-10-25
GEN, MAHOHE AND GEN. LEE,
RICHMOND, VA. Oct. l6, 1889.

ior Lacy's card in the State IA TO
whether General Lee had such a
high opinion ot General Mahone'S
militar, skill as TO have seriously
thought Of recommending him Tor
such high mmand aS Is stated by
the latter officer and his admirers.
Without questioning ~ the
slightest the good intentions OF
Major Lacy am of the opinion
that he is honestly mistaken. |
Will not refer to the card OF Gener-
al Hampton, the publications o;
General Early made some years
ago when the question was hrst
raised, or the various pieces that
have appeared from time to time,
but Will show bv cold figures that
if General Lee had such a good
Opinion of General MohOue as IN.
dicated he must have mad lt since
and not dung The war.
ANY man conversaut with mill
tary procedure knows thar there
are certain established rules tor
promotions from the rank OF lieu.
tenant up TO colonel which are IN
The main observed; bat appoint
ments to the grade of general are
exclusively by selection; and when
an army Is in the field the recon-
mendation OF the commanding gen
eral is nearly ALWAYS equivalent to
an appointment. NOw let us ex-
anime the record:
The armies that fought on Nir.
| gina soil, whether known as the
( tCopfederate) Army of the POto-
mac. the Army OF Northern Virgin
ia, the troops in the Peninsula, IN
the Valley district, or that came
from the South under Beauregard
and fought at Petersburg (compos
ing the forces thai latterIy reported
to or were Immediately under Gen
eral Robert L. Leo had thlrty-seven
major generals OF Infantry who
had been brigadierS) with dates OF
rank as below
1T. IL. Holmes, October {, 1861.
.. Benz. Huger, October Z, 1861. |
3. James LODgstreet, October Z,
1861.
4. Thomas j. Jackson, October I, 7
1851,
.. e. KIRBY Smith, October IL,
1861.
6.R. S. Ewell, January "a, 1862.
7.D.H. Hill, March 2G, 1862.
s. /. McLaws, May %, 1862.
9. A. p. HUI, May 26, 1862.
10. r. II. Anderson, July ii, 1852.
IL. Geo. f. Pickett, October 10,
1862.
u. John B. Hood, October 10,
1862.
10. d. Il. Jones, October II, 1862.
IA. John G.. Walker, NoyemberS 8,
1862.
10. Arnold Elzey, December 4.
1862.
1G. Isaac R. Trlmble, January II,
1868.
II. J. a. Early, January Il, 1868.
IS. w. II. c. Whiting, February
IS, 1868.
10. Edward Johnson, February
%, 1868.
20. r. Z. Rodes, May ., 1868.
2l. Henry Heth, Nav, n, 1863.
%. Robt. Ransom, Jr., May 20,
1868.
%. W. d. Fender, May %, 1868.
"A. G. NJ. Wilcox, August ;, 1868.
90. WIN. Smith, August 80, 1868.
26. G. ". Field, February II, 1864.
q. r. F. Hoke, April 90, 1864.
%. John b. Gordon, May II, 1864.
30. }. b. Kershaw, May Is, 1864.
80. b. Il. johnson, May 81, 1864.
81, S. ID. Ramseur, June l, 1864.
80. William Malone. July 80,
1864.
80. J. l.. Kemper, September 10,
1864.
81. q. W. Gusts lee, OctOOcr ",
1864.
80. John Pegram, latter part 1864.
3G. Bryan Grimes, February 10,
1860.
81. Z. NJ. Law, April 9, 1860.
The above list takes no cognl-
zance of officers whose first APP
pointment was as MAJOR general,
az Gustavus w. Smith of those
whose appointments and promo
tons we're exclusively in The csval'
nv arm, as Stuart, Hampton, Fltz
Lee. &c., nor is there any attempt
to even mention any OF the gallant
officers IN any branch Of service
who never rose higher than brlga-
der general, but is intended ex-
clusively for the Infantry command
ers. Il is proper, also, to say that
Law was promoted from an infant
nv brigade to cavalry division, 80
he can he omitted il necessary.
Now to the point. The relative
rank of these officers a. br'gad'er-
generals were;
1. Holmes, June ), 1861.
o U,o,ar limo II 1851.