I inherited some letters written by my great-grandfather who was a Lt. in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. They are very moving as well as informative - but - I am curious as to why he was never promoted. As far as I know, he was made a Lt. during the first year of the war and left as Lt. (possibly a Capt.) Some military friends and I have discussed this and come up with some possibilities -- but I still am not convinced and would love to hear some ideas from actual historians.
Details: He was from Alabama, serving mostly in the 32nd Alabama Regiment which later combined with the 58th. He survived many battles, including the Battle of Murfreesboro where his company charged uphill into cannon fire and from a company of 200 was left with about 50. He escorted a prisoner through enemy lines. He was some kind of Adjutant at Resaca towards the end of the war. So... all in all, an apparently good guy as well as a survivor and the lack of promotion has always puzzled me.
Thanks for anyone who can shed light on this.
I might be able to shed a little light on this, yet will need a bit more help from a fellow 19th century Americanist to complete the picture. I know that early in the Civil War (we are talking 1861 and early 1862) there was a debate between two schools of thought in the Confederacy when it came to how promotions should work. One school held that companies and regiments should be allowed to elect their own officers, since in most cases these units were staffed by men from a particular region. These men were already touchy when it came to the subject of unseen intervention in their personal affairs, and it was thought that they would fight harder (and with more discipline) if they chose their own leaders. Jefferson Davis saw the point in this, and lobbied for this system for a time. Lee was of a different, more "traditional" opinion (traditional in terms of our modern concept of this debate). Lee thought that officers should be appointed by other able officers, and that promotion should be merit-based, and predicated on mental and tactical abilities, not popularity contests. Now, as far as commanding generals, so far as I know the Confederate government and leadership always appointed these men: they were not elected. But as it concerns leadership on the regimental level, there was some debate (at least for a time) about how this would play out. Admittedly, I don't recall if this issue was ever resolved in an official capacity as the war went on, but Shelby Foote wrote about the "officer debate" early in the Civil War in his book 'The Civil War: A Narrative, vol. 1' if you'd like to read up on the issue further. I hope this helps to get the ball rolling on a more definitive answer! If you PM me, I can get you more specific info in terms of sources (page numbers, etc) on the officer appointment debate early in the war.