/,f,

INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY

JOURNAL

INDIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Volume 8 Number 1

January, 1983

F521_146_ VOLS_NOl IndianaMilitary HistoryJournal is published by the Military History Section of the Indiana Historical Society, 315 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis 46202. Editorial offices for the Journal are at the Department of History, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. Gunther E. Rothenberg is editor; Raymond·J. Frontain assistant editor. All contributions should be sent to this address. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with The University of Chicago A Manual of Style (13th edition). The Indiana Historical Society, the Military History Section, and the editor disclaim responsibility for statements of fact or opinions made by contributors.

The Indiana Military HistoryJournal serves as the organ of the Military History Section and carries news of the Section as well as articles, documents, pictures, and book reviews relating to Indiana's military past, the military history of the Old Northwest, and the activities of Hoosiers in the armed forces of the United States in war and peace. In addition, the Journalwill carry ar· ticles on military history topics in general which impacted on the state or region. It is hoped that the Journalwill increase the reader's appreciation of the military heritage of the state and the nation.

Military History Section Board of Directors

Mr. Wayne Sanford, Chairman Mr. Thomas B. Williams III 8718 Old Town Lane Drive 3203 Dogwood Lane Indianapolis 46260 Carmel 46032

Col. Jerry L. Sargent (Ret.), Vice-Chairman Col. William Scott (Ret.) 334 Grovewood Place 6433 Hoover Rd., Apt. A Beech Grove, IN 46107 Indianapolis 46260 '

Dr. Gunther E. Rothenburg, editor Lt. Col. James R. H. Spears Department of History 4327 Kenmore Road Purdue University Indianapolis 46226 West Lafayette, IN 4 7906 Cpt. William J. Watt Dr. George W. Geib 2240 Rome Drive Apt. B 4737 Cornelius Avenue Indianapolis 46208 Indianapolis 46208

Mr. Ralph Dimmett 1306 Cruft St. Indianapolis 46203

The Journalis sent to members of the Indiana Historical Societywho participatein the Military History Section. All the material in this J oumal is copyrighted. Copyright, 1983, Indiana His· torical Society.

The cover picture of the Indiana Soldiers and Sailors Memorial was taken ca. 1893 after construction of the monument but before the statues were sculptered. (See article on p. 11). NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN

Two board positions expired this fall and two new members of the Section were elected to fill those slots. Thomas B. Williams was one of those selected. Tom is currently an official with the Indiana Bankers Association and past president of the Indianapolis Civil War Round Table. He has been actively involved in writing and speaking about Civil War and Revolutionary War history for many years. He is a valuable addition to the board. The second person elected was Ralph Dimmett, a member who has served the Section for man_L_Years as secretary. !li�knowledge of military history is well known and he has been a loyal supporter of all Society func­ tions for many years. Ralph is associated with the Veterans Administration Hospital here in Indianapolis. The election of these individuals means that two others have retired after several years of service. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to John Rowell, of Columbus, and Tom Joyce, of Plainfield, for their assistance over the years. What they have contributed has done much to build strong support for the military history interest within the Society. The annual meeting held at the Indianapolis Airport Hilton was very well attended. Guests literally came from all over the country to hear fine presentations given by Kent Brown, Dr. Gunther Rothenberg and William Frassanito. At one time, more than eighty members and guests filled the seminar. A new year is upon us and I again make an appeal to you for continued sup­ port to the Section as well as to the Indiana Historical Society in general. Today we are stronger than ever, but we need more help and a larger number of new members so we can continue to improve in 1983. If each person could get one new member in the coming year, our position in the history community would be that much stronger. Allow me to thank each of you for your continued help, support and many letters of suggestion. I appreciate everything that you have done and continue to ask that you show your interest and assistance in the year ahead. Happy New Year! Wayne L. Sanford Chairman

3 THE REMINISCENCES OF PRIVATE COX IN FRANCE, 1918

Introduction

These notes, observations on his tour of duty in France, were compiled by Private Cox within weeks after the fighting stopped. The originals are in the posses· sion of Mr. Phillip L. Cox, his son, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and were submitted to the Journal by Mr. Harry D. Barger. They are printed here as originally written, with grammatical and spelling errors left intact. A few explanatory remarks are in order. Although 30 years old, Private Cox enlisted on 30 July 1917 at Marion, Indiana, and after basic training was assigned to the 82nd Infantry Division. In World War I divisions fell into three categories based on their origins: Regular Army (1st through 8th Divisions), National Guard (26th through 42nd), and National Army (76th through 93rd). An infantry divisionconsisted of two brigades of infantry, one brigade of field artillery- comprising two regiments of 75mm guns and one of 155mm guns- a regiment of engineers, a machine gun bat· talion, a signal battalion, as well as divisional supply and medical units. Private Cox served with the 307th Ammunition Train, part of the 157th Field Artillery Brigade, which supported the 137th and 139th Field Artillery Regiments.1 He participated in a number of major actions: St. Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne, and the defense of the Marbache Sector. At the end of hostilities, American troops were demobilized as rapidly as possi· ble, and Private Cox was discharged from service on 28 May 1919 at Camp Sherman, Ohio. He returned to Marion after his discharge, where he married Blanche Bayne on 23 December 1919. They had two children, a son and a daughter. Mr. Cox died in the Marion V.A. Hospital in 1958, survived by his widow. Gunther E. Rothenberg

I Orderof Battle U.S. Land Forces in the World War 1917·1919 (3 vols. in 4parts., Washington, D.C., GPO, 1931-1949), I, p. 347.

• • • •

Ancy le Franc, Yomme, France. Dec. 10, 1918.

Am living pretty easy now in my old billet here in the old water mill, and although I am sleeping on the floor with no mattress under me, it seems like a palace after being in action in the Argonne Forest without relief continuously from Oct. 1st, to Nov. lOth, 1918. During this time we were in a region where some of the hardest fighting of the war has taken place, the fields every where were criss crossed with trenches and barbed wire entanglements and pock marked with shell craters. There was not an un­ damaged building for miles around and the towns were all completly shot to pieces with only a few fragments of walls left standing. Gas maskes had to be carried at alltimes, ready for instant use, and we were constantly in easy range of the German artillery. The screams and explosion of Bosche shells was a familiar sound and your imagination cannot grasp the terrific noise of a barrage in full blast. As I once heard a negro soldier say: "When them white soldiers started to throw over dat garage I thought de end of the world had come." No lights could be

4 PRIVATE COX IN FRANCE 5

shown at night for fear of attracting the attention of the Hun airraider, who would not fail to drop a souvenir or two. Have cowed in cellars, dugouts and caves in the ground, listening to the sound of the Hun motors overhead.amidst the cracking of shrapnel and the deafening concussion of falling bombs from the sky. Our trucks went out every night to haul ammunition up to the artillery, along roads congested with traffic and swept with gas shells, shrapnel and high ex­ plosive, and out men often had to jump off their trucks and fall headlong into diches and shell craters, but sad to relate they were not quick enough sometimes in adjusting their gas masks or seeking cover, and we had many casualties from gas and shrapnel. Have seen trucks come in completely riddled with shrapnel and shell fragments. I knowof no more awesome sound than to be awaked suddenly from sleep in the middle of the darkness of the midnight hour and hear the mournful sound of the gas alarm siren, which means get on your gas mask quick for the deadly poison vapor of the barbarian is somewhere in the vicinity. Have seen numerous air battles in the day time when the sky was full of Allied and enemy air planes and the smoke puffs of breaking shrapnel. It is an im­ pressive sight to see thirty or forty machines in one flock flying over in battle forma­ tion. Have witnessed numerous observation balloons brought down, the observers takeing there dizzy leap in parachutes barely before the silk bag was penetrated by the inflammable bullets from the airman's machine gun. It surely takes nervy fellows to man these balloons for they were continously harrassed by enemy air craft and they very often came down in flames. It is an impressive sight to see the mighty searchlights sweeping the sky with their powerfull rays, the flashes of the guns, which look like distant lightning, and the flares which resemble an enormous arc light suspended in mid air. From Sept. 2nd to Sept. 21st, the 307th Ammunition Train, to which we belong, was stationed at Dieulouard, only a short distance from Pont a Mousson, in the St. Mihiel salient, and it was while here that our Division took part in the wiping out of that salient, which you are, of course familiar with. While here we had plenty of excitement of the nature described above. When relieved here on Sept. 21st, we began our journey overland in motor trucks on our way to the Argonne front. On Sept. 26th, went into billets at Charmentois le Roy, a God Forsaken lit­ tle old country village that looked like that it might have been built about 4000 B.C., and where the natives did not know the right time. There was a large population of cows, goats, pigs, geese, ducks, etc., and also a few humans, and they all lived togather in the same buildings, according to the custom of the rural communities over here. An unfortunate episode occured here in connection with the mysterious dis­ appearance of certain ducks and geese, suspicion pointing to some individuals in the Motor Battalion Headquarters Detachment, who had been loudly expressing their dis­ satisfaction at so much "Corned Wille" on the menu. There was a terrific uproar among the civil populance and the French town Majior tore handfulls of hair from his moustaches and threw several epileptic fits. Some one spilled the beans, as well as the feet, feathers etc., of the defunct fowl; being discovered consequently the poor wretches who had allowed their stomachs to lead them from the paths of righteous­ ness were sentenced to "suffer such punishment as the Court Martial may direct". After this raid a census was held each evening of all the feathered inhabitants of the community, each one being called by name and if one showed up missing, woe be unto us, for verily there was weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Our billet here was the loft of an ancient bam, densely populated with gaint 6 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

rats, that ran around at night sounding as if they wore wooden shoes, and several of my comrades were reached just in the nick of time as the rodents were dragging them to their holes. Our convoys began hauling ammunition up to the Argonne front while we were here and there was some casualties. On Oct. 1st., our fly by night circus proceeded to Brizeaux, not far away, and an exact duplicate of Charmentois le Roy. My billet in Brizeaux was in a dilapidated building used as a combination dwelling, barn, chicken coop and blacksmith shop. Had to chase the chickens off my virtuous couch several times the first day and that after noon when the cow came home and passed through my apartment she trampled on my bed of roses, on conse­ quence of which I moved my quarters into the blacksmith shop. Our friends the rats, were still amply in evidence here, but no casualties were reported from our conflicts with them, other than one Alexander Huston, of New Haven, Conn., falling off the work bench on which he was sleeping and almost braking his neck when one of the rats attempted to make a bed fellow of him. This was our last view for some time of the least semblance of civilization or civilian life, for when we left here we went out into a devastated wilderness. On Oct. 5th, we proceeded to a pile of ruins called Neuvilly where we pitched our pup tents in an open field with absolutely no camouflage or cover of any kind. Here we remained until Oct. 25th. Part of this period was nasty rainny weather, during which we floundered around in the mud and mire as miserable as a wet hen. How ever the rain had its advantages, for when ever we had clear weather enemy air craft were over night and day. Several observation balloons were in plain sight here and we witnessed the bringing down of several of them. However it was at night that they made it hot for us and whenever we saw the sun set we knew that there would be plenty of excitement that night. It was then that the boys made there headlong dives into ditches carrying gas masks and steel helm�ts, to the accompanyment of the thunderous crash of aerial torpedoes, the zing zing of flying shrapnel fragments and the pop pop pop of the machine guns. The front was only a short distance from this point, being located around Varennes, but continually moveing farther away as the Huns were pushed back. When we first reached here our artillery was not far ahead and the sound of the guns was very loud, but sound became more indistinct as the advanced continued, braking down the stubborn resistince of the enemy. There was a big long range gun located just behind our camp and its shelles passed over our heads as they went on there message of death. The first night when this gun fired its first shot, it almost tore my pup tent down, I thinking that a big shell had droped in my immediate vicinity. However we soon become accustomed to this gun. On Oct. 25th proceeded to Varennes, another pile of stones lately vacated by the Teutons. Most of the outfit went into pup tents but three others and myself took refuge in a German Pillbox of solid concrete, surroundedby entanglements of barbed wire and shell craters but shell proof, as evidenced by the marks of shells that had glanced off its sides. On Oct. 28th, proceededto Montblainville, 'Where there was only a few shat· tered walls, but numerous cellars remaining intact under the ruins which numbers of our men usedas their burrows, some, however being so unfortunate as to have to pitch their pup tents. My quarters were in what had once been a wine cellar, the scream and explosion of German shells falling in the vicinity could be heard while we were in here, but no casualties from them. However, a German mine exploded and killedseven men PRIVATE COX IN FRANCE 7

in a feild on the out skirts of the town where some engineers were gradeing for a rail road. There was plenty of aerial activity during our stay here, both day and night. One night we had an exceptionally bad raid and the sky seemed filled with humming Hun motors, numerous pills were dropped all over that section. One bomb fell so near it shook the earth, dirt fell from the roof of my cellar into my face, but fortunally no one was hurt. On Oct. 31st, about midnight what has proved to be the last big drive of the war on this frontbegan when our artillery opened up a barrage with a deafening roar. On Nov. 5th, we proceeded to Sivry, not far below Sedan, which our troops captured just before hostilities ceased. This town was not badly damaged, as it had been far behind the German lines for a long time, and we had very good billets here. Upon our arrival there was ample evidence that our friend the enemy had evacuated not long before, for quantities of equipment of all kinds were scattered around every where. Furthermore, there were numerous dead Boshes lying around in grotesque attitudes. There was a battery of enemy artillery still in position in the outskirts of the town which had been abandoned in their flight. Saw one defunct gunner lying behind his gun with his head almost blown off. The gun carriage was spattered with blood and it seems a direct hit had been made for a shell had passed right through the steel shield of the gun. The muzzle of one of the pieces was blown completely off. While we were here the German emissaries crossed the lines on their way to Marshall Foch's headquarters and we began to hear rumors of peace. On Nov. lOth, we were relieved and started on our way back towards civilization, for it seems we were to see no more of the war fare, although we did not know it at the time. So far have only spoken of the horror of the war, however we had some very pleasant times when not at the front in some of the cities and towns of France. When we landed in Le Havre, we proceeded by rail in luxurious side door pullmans, capacity "cheveaux 8, Hommes 35 to 40", through Rouen, Versailles, Orleans and many other cities and towns to La Courtine, Department of Creuse, in Central France, where we were quartered in substantial old stone barracks, as this has always been a French army post. This is a very nice little tOwn, practically every other house being a wine shop, but infested badly with Military Police, universally recog­ nized as kill joys. It was here the 157th Field Artillery, of which our Train is a part, received its final training on the artillery range. We proceeded from this point on August 3rd, traveling overland in motor trucks, as we always did from this time on. In this manner we have a much better op­ portunity of seeing the country than if traveling by rail. We passed through Felletin, Aubusson, Montlucon, Nevers, Montargis, Memours, Fontainebleu and gay "Paree", but did not stop in the big city, though of course we saw many interesting sights in passing through the streets, including the Cathedral of Notre Dame and the Hotel de Ville. The Eiffel tower was visible when about 20 miles from Paris, but could not be seen when we came nearer the city. The Giant German gun "Big Bertha", was shelling the city this date and the explosion of the shells could be heard at intervals of about twenty minutes, but so far as I could see, no one seemed to pay any attention to them. · After leaveing Paris we proceeded through St. Denis and Meux, going into camp at Coulommier on August 7th. The great Chateau Thierry drive was in progress at this time and we were held in reserve here until August 13th, but did not go into ac­ tion on this front, although we could hear the roar of the big guns and see their flashes at night. On August 13th, we proceeded on our way towards Dieulouard where we went into action in the St. Mihiel offensive, passing La Forte, Sezanne, Sommesous, St. Dizier, Ligny, Vaucouleurs and Toul, going ihto billets at Gonderville from August 8 IND IANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

15th, to August 22nd, when we proceeded to Compey, a fine little town and a suburb of Nancy, which is truely a great city and which most of us have had an opportunity of visiting. On Sept. 3nd, we proceededto Dieulouard to go into action which has already been described. We have had some glorious times in many of the cities and towns in which we have stopped at various times, and though France may be a great country and all that, but we have seen enough of it and they dont need us over here any longer and we long to experience once more that strangeand unfamiliar sensation of putting under a real table and sleeping in a real bed, neither of which we have had the pleasure of doing for a long while.

Itinerary of my European Tour De Luxe 1918.

May 11th Lv. Camp Gordon, Ga...... 5.00p May 13th Ar. Camp Mills, Long Island, N.Y...... 4.00PM May 18th Lv. Camp Mills, Long Island, N.Y...... 5.00AM May 18th Ar. On Board U.S.S. Louisville,...... 12.00M May 19th Sailed from New York Harbor...... l.OOPM (14 Transports in the Convoy, escorted by one battle cruiser.) May 28th Convoy met by flotilla of British destroyers May 30th Sighted north Coast of Scotland...... 3.00AM May 30th Sighted coast of Ireland ...... 6.00AM May 30th Entered Submarine nets at mouth of Mersey River...... 1l.OOPM May 31st Landed at Princes Stage, Liverpool, England...... 10.00AM May 31st Lv. Liverpool (By rail first class coaches) ...... l.OOPM passing Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Oxford) May 31st Ar. Winchester, (rest camp)...... 1l.OOPM June 2nd Lv. Winchester, (by rail) ...... 7.00AM June 2nd Ar. Southampton...... 8.00AM June 2nd Lv. Southampton, (channal steamer) ...... 6.00PM June 3rd Ar. Le Havre, (rest camp)...... 5.00AM June 5th Lv. Le Havre, (side door pullmans)...... June 7th Ar. La Courtine, Department of Creuse ...... 1l.OOPM (Quartered in old stone barracks, alleged to have been built by Napoleon for his army. It was here the 167th artillery Brigade received its final training on the artillery range.) Aug. 3rd Lv. La Courtine, (traveling overland) ...... 9.00AM Aug. 7th Ar. Montlucon, (camped for night by road side) ...... 5.30PM Aug. 4th Lv. Montlucon ...... 7.30Am Aug. 4th Ar. Nevers ...... 5.30PM (camped for night in French barracks) Aug. 5th Lv. Nevers ...... 8.00AM Aug. 5th Ar. Montargis, (camped for night in Barracks)...... 5.00PM Aug. 6th Lv. Montargis ...... 6.45AM (passing through Paris at the time it was being shelled by German long range gun.) Aug. 6th Ar. St. Denis, (campedfor nightin monastery) ...... 6. 00PM PRIVATE COX IN FRANCE 9

Aug. 7th Lv. St. Denis, (passing Meux) ...... 8.30AM

Aug. 7th Ar. Coulommiers 0 ••• 0 0 0 0. 0 0.0 0 0 •••• 0 •••••••••••• 0 0 0 0 l.OOPM (pitched pup tents, held in reserve here during Chateau Thierry drive.

Aug. 13th Lv. Coulommiers, (passing La Ferte, Sezanne) .... . 0 0 0 0 •••• 12.30PM

Aug. 13th Ar. Sommesous, (camped in pup tents by road) .... 0 ••••••0 6.00PM

Aug. 14th Lv. Sommesous, (passing St. Dizier, Ligny) . 0 0 •••••0 0 0 0 • 0 • 7 .30AM Aug. 14th Ar. (unable to ascertain name of town, camped

in pup tents by road for the night) . 0 0 0 •••0 0 •••••0 • 0 • • • • • • 6.00PM

Aug. 15th Lv. o •••••••••0. 0 0 ••••••0 0 0 ••••o •• 0 0 •• 0 •••••0. 0 0 ••• 8.00AM

Aug. 15th Ar. Gondreville . 0 0 0 •••0 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 •••• 0 0 ••••••0 0 ••• 0 0 0 •• 12.00M

Aug. 22nd Lv. Gondreville 0 0 0 •• 0 0. 0.0 •• 0 ••• 0 0 •••••••0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 •••• 7.00AM

Aug. 22nd Ar. Pompey 0.0 0 ••••o o ••••••0 0 ••• 0 ••0 0 0 0 •••0 o ••• 0 ••0 ll.OOAM

Sept. 2nd Lv. Pompey, (passing Marbach, Belleville) 0 ••••0 0 0 • 0 •••0 0 0 8.00PM

Sept. 2nd Ar. Dieulouard, (pup tents, in woods near Dieu ... 0 0 0 ••• 0 •• lO.OOPM It was here we went into action on the St. Mihiel front.) Sept. 12th l.OOAM The great St. Mihiel offensive began.

Sept. 21st Ar. Frouard, (side trips to Nancy while here) 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 •• 12.00

Sept. 24th Lv. Frouard o o • 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 •••• 0 o o ••••o o •• 0 • 0 0 ••0 • 7 .OOPM

Sept. 25th Ar. Charmontois le Roy, (billet in barn) ..... 0. 0 0 0 •••••0 0. 4.30PM

Oct. 1st Lv. Charmontois le Roy ... 0 0 0 0 ••••• 0 0 •• 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • 8.00AM

Oct. 1st Ar. Brizeaux, (billet in black smith shop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 • 0 0 ••• lO.OOAM

Oct. 5th Lv. Brizeaux o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 • • 9.00AM

Oct. 5th Ar. Neuvilly 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 12.00M (In action in Meuse Argonne offensive from this time until leaveing Sivery, in pup tents.)

Oct. 25th Lv. Neuvilly 0 • 0 0 0 0 •• 0 o o o o •••• o o o o •• 0 o o 0 0 •••0 0 •••••• 0 lO.OOAM

Oct. 25th Ar. Varennes, (camped in German pill box) ... 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll.OOAM

Oct. 28th Lv. Varennes 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 0 0 0. 0 ••0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 9.00AM

Oct. 28th Ar. Montblainville 0.0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 o o o •••• 0 0 0 0 ••0 •••0 lO.OOAM (Billeted in old wine celler in ruins of Montblainville) Oct. 31th Midnight the last big drive of the war on the Meuse-Argonne front began.

Nov. 5th Lv. Montblainville .. 0 0 •••• 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0.0 0 0 0. 0.0 0 0 ••••• 0 0. 11.30AM passing Apremont)

Nov. 5th Ar. Chatel Chehery 0 • 0 0 0 ••0 0 0 ••••0 ••••• 0 0 0 •••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 3.00PM

Nov. 6th Lv. Chatel Chehery ... 0 0 o • 0 0 • 0 0 o 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 •••••0 0 • • • • • • 7 .OOPM

Nov. 6th Ar Sivery o 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 0 • 0 ••••0 •••• o • o •• 0 • 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll.OOPM

Nov. lOth Lv. Sivery, (relieved) . 0 0 ••••0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 •••0 0 • • • • • • • • 7.00AM (passing Busancy, Fleville, Chatel Chehery, Montblainville, Apremont.)

Nov. lOth Ar. Varennes, (pup tents) ..... 0 0 •••• 0.0 0 •• 0 •• 0 •••••••• ll.OOAM

Nov. 11th Lv. Varennes, (FINIS LAGUERRE) 0 ••• o o 0 •••• o ••••••• 8.00AM

Nov. 11th Ar. Les Islettes, (pup tents in openfield) . 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 •••••••• ll.OOAM

Nov. 20th Lv. Les Islettes .....0 •••••0 ••0 0 0 0 0 •••• 0 0 0 •••• 0 0 0.... 7.00AM (passing through Clermont, Auzeville, Rarecourt, Froidos, Autrecourt, Fleury, Nubecourt, Beauzie, Erize la Petit, Rosnes, Rumont, Bar le Due, Brillon, St. Dizier, Moeslaines, Eclaron, Braucour1;, Montier en Der.)

Nov. 20th Ar. Ceffonds, (sleeptin old barn for night) .. 0 0 •• 0 0 0...... 8.00PM 10 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

Nov. 21st Lv. Ceffonds ...... 7 .OOAM (passing Louze, Juzanvigny, Brienne, Brienne le Ville, Dieuville, Amance, Vendeuvre, Thieffrain, Magnant, Bar sur Seine, Polisy) Nov. 21st Ar. Les Riceys, (pup tents just outside town) ...... 4.00PM Nov. 22nd Lv. Les Riceys ...... 7 .OOAM (passing Molesme, Villedieu, Griselles, Laignes, Gigny, Senneboy, Jully, avieres, Nuits, Sulvy.) Nov. 22nd Ar. Ancy le France...... l.OOPM (Billeted in old water mill at Cusy, a suburb of Ancy le Franc.) Dec. 17th Lv. Ancy le Franc ...... 8.30PM (passing Stigny, Jully, Gigny, Laignes, Chatillon sur Seine, Maisey, Vanvey, Voulaines.) Dec. 17th Ar. Recey sur Seine, (sleept in oldtrain shed) ...... 4.30PM Dec. 18th Lv. Recey sur Seine...... 8.00AM (passing Collier le Haut, Auberive, Perre Fountaines Flagey, Versailles le Bas, Longeau, Percy le Faute, Chassigny, euchey, Frettes, Cenevieres.) Dec. 18th Ar. Savigny ...... 10.30PM THE ROLE OF INDIANA VETERANS IN THE ERECTION OF THE INDIANA SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' MONUMENT

By Anthony Grimaldi*

There is a reciprocal relationship between the Indiana Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument in Indianapolis and Hoosier veterans of the late 1800's. On one hand, this battle monument celebrated the Hoosier warrior and the wars that he had participated in; on the other, Hoosier military associations, such as the Grand Army of the Republic (G AR), playeda leading role in the initiation, evolution, and eventual comple­ tion of this monument.

Location of the Mo nument Begun in 1889, the Indiana Soldiers' and Sailors' Mo nument was formally consecrated on 15 May 1902. Probably the first suggestion for a monument in Indianapolis to honor the soldiers who fell during the Civil War appeared in a 1 April 1862 letter to the Indianapolis Daily JournaL·

I propose that the State of Indiana erecta monument in the Central parkto the memory of all the dead of Indiana who have fallen and may yet fall, in the defense of the Union. Each county can donate a stone with the names of those who have fallen inscribed thereon, who were residents of that county. The cities and towns can do the same.

Oliver P. Morton, Indiana's Civil War governor, was also enthusiastic about having a monument built. In 1867 he tried to persuade the Indiana legislature to allo­ cate funds to erect a monument in nearby Crown Hill Cemetery, not in the center of the city where it is currently:

In this cemetery is a high hill, quite overlooking the city, and I recommend that upon this hill the state erect a monument to her brave soldiers who perished in the rebellion. We can· not pay too much honor to the memory of the men who died for the country. This monu· ment, overlooking the country around, would be the first object to greet the eye of the traveler as he approaches the capital, and in the language of the great Webster, when he laid the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill monument at Boston: "Let it rise! Let it rise! Till it meets the sun in its coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play upon its summit."1

Although some attention was given to Crown Hill Cemetery as a site for a monument, this was neither lasting nor undivided. On Memorial Day 1872, Major General Dan McCauley, former mayor of Indianapolis, convened a meeting of Civil War veterans in this cemetery to commemorate the holiday and to consider a resolu· tion penned by William H. English and introduced by Major General Nathan Kimball to erect a monument on the Circle. The crowd approving this resolution, a committee of distinguished Hoosiers was formed to implement the resolve. 2 When this group and its supporters communicated their desire to Governor Conrad Baker and the General Assembly, the legislature rejected the proposal in a special session held on 13 November 1872. Next, Indianapolis journalistWilliam H. Smith urged that the monu· ment be erected at the intersectionof Washington and Illinois Streets in downtown In· dianapolis; another prominent Hoosier, MajorGeneral Lewis Wallace, later suggested

University Square.3 • Leadership for promoting the monument now came from other quarters and people. Sometimeduring the winter of 1875, George J. Langsdale, editor of the Green· castle Banner,4 and a group of his cronies known locally as the "Banner AlleySexte t,"

11 12 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

urged the building of the monument. In August 1875, Langsdale presented his ideas to a group of veterans; Senator Benjamin Harrison, future president of the United States, also alluded to the idea in his speech that day. Funds gathered were deposited in a bank account designated for the monument's building, but the subsequent failure of that bank diminished the funds. Nothing more was done for the remainder of the decade. The reactivation of the GAR in Indiana in 1880 was an auspicious sign for the boosters of the Indiana State So ldiers' and Sa ilors' Mo nument. During the February 1882 GAR Encampment in Indianapolis, General John Coburn suggested a resolution that veterans financially and politically support the erection of a monu­ ment, a resolution which they eagerly supported. Subsequently, when General James Carnahan was elected Department Commander of the GAR, he issued Order Number Six of the Indiana Grand Army of the Republic (17 March 1882), calling for the is­ suance of certificates to be sold at one dollar each, the proceeds of which would go to a memorial fund. This campaign, however, was unsuccessful.6 Undaunted, he convoked another meeting of the GAR Council of Administration, which established a Board of Managers to supervise the funding and planning of the Indiana m�nume!lt. Meanwhile, on 15 January 1884, the statue of GovernorMorton by Franklin Simmons was unveiled in the center of the Circle. Soon after this, General Carnahan was re-elected Department Commander of the GAR, from which position he continued to canvass virtually every corner of the state, collecting donations and lobbying for the building of the monument. At the GAR annnual encampment held in Indianapolis in February 1884, Carnahan initiated incorporation proceedings, identifying its pur­ pose as a fund-raising institution determined to erect a monument to Hoosier Civil War soldiers. He was also required by law to appoint a board of directors; officially known as the Monument Commitee, it consisted of Langsdale (Chairman), Carnahan (Secretary), DeWitt McCollum, George W. Johnston, and Thomas Bennett. By the time the Legislature convened in 1886, each member had been inter­ viewed by a member of the GAR and impressed with the importance of passing a state law funding the monument. An address was read in each house, a copy of which was given to each legislator detailing the origins of the Monument Committee, its objec­ tives, accomplishments, and financial needs. Even though a political battle had been waged behind the scenes, Governor Isaac P. Gray signed the Monument Bill (or "Andrew's Bill") on 3 March 1887. A few days later he also appointed a Monument Commission composed of Langsdale, Samuel Voyles, DeWitt McCollum, Daniel M. Ransdall, and George W. Johnston. During the Commission's first meeting on 28 June, Langsdale was unanimously elected Presi­ dent; James F. Gookins, a noted Indianapolis artist, was elected Secretary the next day (he later resigned 1 June 1889).

Design of the Monument Langsdale had much to do. The Mo nument Act was clear as to the location of the memorial (Circle Park), but not about its exact character. As worded by its spon­ sors, English and Kimball, the act empowered the Commissioners to erect "a State Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument or Memorial Hall or a Monument and Memorial Hall combined according to the discretion of the trustees."6 No one - Langsdale included - had been certain whether he wanted a monument, a memorial hall, or some hybrid. This uncertainty nettled the Commission until 4 March 1893, when Marion County Senator Romus F. Stuart proposed a bill repealing the troublesome "and/or" wording. A panel of experts was chosen to assist in judging the plans to be sub­ mitted: Professor William Ware, Columbia College; Professor John Campbell, Wabash College; and General Thomas Morris of Indianapolis. The plan of the Commission was SOLIDERS AND SAILORS MONUMENT 13

to invite ten of America's leading architects and firms to contribute designs: Richard M. Hunt, New York; George B. Post, New York; Van Brunt & Howe, Boston; Cabot & Chandler, Boston; T. P. Chandler, Philadelphia; Burnham & Root, Chicago; Frederick Baumann, Chicago; James W. McLaughlin, Cincinnati; Adolph Scherrer, In· dianapolis; and Peabody & Stems, St. Louis. 7 A complete set of instructions was sent to each, including a description of the site, map of the area, submission and estimate formats, explanation of selection process (entries to be identified numerically to preclude bias), and a brief history of Indianapolis by Langsdale.8 Although the original deadline was set for 12 December 1887, it was extended to 12 January 1888. According to its Instructions to Designers, the Commission agreed to work in concert with this panel of experts. To inform their judgment, the Board and experts studied hundreds of photographs of the most celebrated monuments in the world, war scenes, bas-reliefs, and other reference works. Seventy designs were received by the Commission, two of which were discarded immediately because the authors' names were visible on the bids (Nos. 6 and 7), and another because of the enormous expense it entailed (No. 69). The examination process began on 12 January 1888, the Commission narrowing down the sixty-seven remaining designs to eight or ten semi-finalists, about which they consulted with Ware, Campbell, and Morris. Having now decided that they would prefer a shaft or column, they narrowed the field to essentially two choices: No. 4, The Symbol of Indiana, and No. 68, Acta Non Verba. As specified in the Instruc­ tions in case of a tie, the seals on both designs were broken to determine the name and assess the competence of the architect, and also to enable them to contact him should further information be necessary. They discovered that No. 68, whose merits they had declared "incontestable," was by British architest Percy Stone; No.4, which they had declared to be the "most striking and brilliant of all those presented," was by German architect Bruno Schmitz. Thus, on 27 January 1888, Schmitz was unanimously chosen as the architest for the monument, and Frederick Baumann of Chicago appointed deputy architect as well as authorized to act as Schmitz's representative.9 Schmitz arrived in Indianapolis on 24 February 1888 to sign his contract and begin work. He modified his original plan somewhat, incorporating various technical improvements and recommendations made by the Commissioners and their consultants. His new design was copyrighted, a watercolor copy made of it and ex­ hibited to raise further funds for the project.10 On 3 May a contract was awarded to Enos Hege of Indianapolis to excavate the foundations, which work he completed by 9 October.11 In the meantime, deputy architect Baumann toured the East to study the structures and engineering of the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty. In January 1889, Schmitz returned from Germany, bringing with him a large plaster cast of the modified design. The Board of Commissioners specifically and repeatedly required that the best quality limestone and materials be used throughout the monument, particularly oolitic limestone fromthe Romono quarries in Owen Coun­ ty. While the stone for the foundation came from the Romono Stone Company, the limestone for the facade was contracted from the Terre Haute Stone Company, Stinesville. The cornerstone contained the following inscription:

August 22, 1889 ERECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA Act of the General Assembly March 3, 1887

A copper box, two feet long, one foot wide, and one foot high, was placed in the base of the cornerstone containing: Adjutant General Terrell's eight volume report in which 14 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

the name of every Indiana soldier in the late war was enrolled; rosters of the GAR, the Woman's Relief Corps, and the Sons of Veterans; miscellaneous documents; and an American flag.12 And so, with Simmon's statue of Governor Morton shunted to the perimeter of the circle, the Indiana Soldiers' cmd Sailors' Monument was ready to be built. The monument would be erected on a circular plot of land 342 feet 7 inches in diameter, and about 2.2 acres in area. It would have the distinction of being the first monument dedicated to the common soldier in the United States, and also the third highest monument at the time. Schmitz's plan called for the following:

The platform of the capital is 220 feet above the earth, to be reached by a spiral stairway and elevator. The lantern rising from this bears a bronze statue of Victory, 28 feet high, bearing a wreath, which will be lighted at night. Just below the capital is a bronze astragal, bearing the dates 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, on the several sides of the monument, which will be lighted at night. Midway of the structure is a second bronze astragal, emblematic of the navy, and further down a third astragal of bronze representing the army. On the east and west sides are sculptured groups, emblematic of War and Peace, while upon subordinate pedestals at the entrances to the terrace are bronze groups of statuary representing the infantry, artillery, cavalry and navy. On the east and west sides are side steps of stone, 70 feet in length, leading to the plat­ form of the terrace and from which the interior is reached by bronze doors, above which are large tablets to bear inscriptions commemorative of the part home by counties of the State in the war for the Union. Above these tablets is the inscription of dedication: TO INDIANA'S SILENT VICTORS13

One of the criticisms of Schmitz's design was that the huge wing expanse of the bronze female statue of Victory exposed too great a surface to the wind, threaten­ ing to topple the statue. So, a sculptural competition was declared on 25 November 1889 for the creation of a new design.14 It is interesting to note that the Commis­ sioners initially interpreted and referred to Schmitz's Victory as an image and symbol of Liberty, and only somewhat later called it "Victory" or "Indiana." In any case, the pamphlet Sculptural Competition Number 1 enjoined artists to stick to the general form, style, and size of Schmitz's original model, and established the guidelines by which the contest would be adjudicated: "It is an American monument, and it is the desire of the Commissioners that everything connected with it shall be representative of American ideas, customs, products and history; that it shall symbolize our times and our civilization."16 The deadline was set for 1 May 1890. A new panel consisting of Indiana artists Theodore C. Steele, John H. Mahoney, and William Forsyth, after reviewing twenty-two designs and nineteen proposals, awarded the contract for the bronze statue to George T. Brewster of Cleveland on 20 May.

Work on the monument proceeded slowly and haltingly through 1890 because of quarrying difficulties, transportation delays, and an inadequate work force. Work was to begin on the stairway, turret, approaches, and eleva�r of the monument during this year as well.16 On 23 September 1890, the Board issued pamphlet SculpturalCompetition No. 2, announcing the contest for the three bronze astragals17 and specifying other technical details regarding the dimensions, casting, and imagery of the sculptures. The deadline was set for 18 November. While this was going on, Samuel Voyles resigned from the Board because of illness, and was replaced by General Mahlon D. Manson. Manson was the first to attempt to enlarge the idea of the monument to include the honoring of Mexican American War Veterans as well as those of the Civil War. 18 Construction of SOLDIERS' MONUMENT, Indianapolis, Ind. View taken preparatory to laying of Corner Stone. 16 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

Much work was done on the base of the monument in 1891. The legend "To Indiana's Silent Victors" - furnished by Frank Fertig - was inscribed by John LePage on both entrances of the base, copies of the Civil War army and navy corps' badges incised below. Models were submitted for the keystones on the pediments above the base tablets by George T. Brewster, who beat Germany's Nicolaus Geiger in the competition for this commission. Models were also submitted for the panthers' heads on the pedestal comers by the French sculptor, Paul W. Bartlett. The shaft of the monument was designed in 1891 as well. On 4 May, the Commissioners and panel of experts awarded the contract for Astragal Number One and Astragal Number Two to Brewster. His victory, however, was not total; not pleased by any of the designs for As tragal Number Three, the Commissioners declared a new competition for it. 19 18 October, the Commission inaugurated the competition for the designing, implementing, and positioning of the groups "War" and "Peace" by issuing Instruc­ tions and Code fo r Sculptural Co mpetition Number Three. 20 On 22 October, the special panel of experts appointed for this occasion - sculptors Augustus St. Gaudens and Daniel C. French, and architect Charles Atwood - fi nally convened to judge the en­ tries, awarding first prize to the German Emil Hundrieser for his Wa r group Old Father Abe, and to Frenchman Gaudez for his Peace group Indiana. But this panel, the Board, and a consortium of local art cognoscente (Theodore C. Steele, Louis H. Gibson, and Hermann Lieber) concurred that although very good, these models lacked 21 an American character or spirit. A new competition would have to be declared. The year 1891 closed with the call in Instructions and Code fo r Sculptural Co mpetition Number 4 for the Army astragal. Again the vocabularyof the monument was spelled out, while directions for submission, a description of the judging process, and the injunction about American iconography were repeated. As in the previous competition, this Code allocated special premiums to encourgage Brewster, Geiger, and Bartlett to participate. Finally on 14 December 1891, the Commission began to formulate plans for improving the grounds around the monument. This included pav­ ing streets and sidewalks� setting curbs, and landscaping the elliptical parks which hugged the terraces.

Iconology of the Mo nument Addressing the Indiana Sons of the American Revolution in Indianapolis on 25 February 1892, William H. English - who had run as vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1880 - urged that the monument honor Indiana's role in all American wars. 22 To this purpose, he suggested erecting portrait statues of the following men as representatives of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, and the Civil War: General GeorgeRogers Clark for the cap­ ture of Vincennes; William Henry Harrison for Tippecanoe and other Indiana events of theindian wars; Oliver Perry Morton, whose statue was already made, as Indiana's Civil War governor; and someone as a representative of Indiana in the Mexican War, to be named by the legislature, or the Monument Commissioners. 23 The Sons of the American Revolution were so enthusiastic about this plan that they communicated it to the GAR annual meeting at Fort Wayne (6-7 April 1892). The GAR likewise pressed this recommendation on the legislature and the Board of Commissioners as well. 24 While the GAR and other patriotic societies supported English's idea, they vehemently objected to the Mexican or any other war actually being commemorated on the shaft itself. Dissension came to a head in May, 1892, when Astragal Number 1 was placed on the monument. The upper bronze band upon the shaft containing the legends "1846-1848" and "1861-1865" was executed by the American Bronze Com­ pany of Chicago; its installation touched off massive protests by the GAR, who in- SOLIDERS AND SAILORS MONUMENT 17

sisted that the shaft be consecrated solely to the events of the Civil War. Insistence was transformed into active resistance when the GAR brought its full political weight to bear on Commissioners and legislators both. Resolutions were adopted, rallies organized, newspapers inundated with letters of protest, petitions signed, and an in­ tense lobbying campaign against this inscription launched. Though the Commis­ sioners made a valiant attempt to defend their position, they were finally forced to relent. The controversial dates were stripped off the monument in September 1893.25 In the meantime, Geiger won the competition for the last astragal, and he commenced work at once on his model. Brewster was similarly working on both the Navy Astragal and the Victory statue, the casting of both of which caused unexpected difficulties and last-minute modifications. On 14 May 1893, the Board again contacted Hundrieser and Gaudez about visiting Indianapolis to redo their designs and make them appear more American. Both replied that present commitments prevented them from doing so, although Gaudez hinted that he might be persuaded to come if he were to be guaranteed the assignment of both the Wa r and Peace groups. The Board refused. The statue of Victory (soon rechristened "Miss Indiana") arrived in Indianapolis in May 1893. Thirty feet tall and 19,300 pounds in weight, she was one of the largest bronze figures ever cast and the largest bronze figure ever elevated to that height in any country. Enormous obstacles had had to be overcome in Victory's crea· tion: its foundry had to be reorganized, men and machinery brought from France, and special ovens devised. 26 In the casting, Victory's sword had to be slightly repositioned to allow for a more efficient flow of molten bronze. Before the monument was hoisted to the top, a good deal of arguingwent on below. Initially, Schmitz had indicated that Victory should face east or west; English wished it to face west, but Langsdale and the other Commissioners preferred a southernexposure. 27 This last group won out. It took three days in mid-August for the statue to be gingerly hoisted above the monument turret. It was unveiled 5 September 1893, one week before the GAR national encampment.26 Victory's torch was supposed to be lit by natural gas supplied by a conduit in the statue's forearm and wrist, but the foundry had inadvertently cast this canal solidly. Thus, the torch was never func· tional. On 18 October 1893, the Board contracted with John LePage, the inscriber of the legends over the base, to execute the inscriptions of the North and South Tablets. At the time they read as follows:

South Tablet North Tablet

WAR FOR THE UNION 1861-1865 WAR WITH MEXICO Indiana Volunteers 1846 1847 1848 126 Regiments Infantry ...... 175772 Indiana Regiments No.'s 1.2.3.4.5. 13 Regiments Cavalry...... 21605 4585 Men 1 Regiment Artillery ...... 3839 26 Companies Artillery ...... 7151 Navy...... 2130 INDIAN AND BRITISH WAR Total 210497 1811-1812 Battle of Killed and Died, Land TipJM!Cilnoe Forces - Indians Defeated November 7, 1811 24416 WAR OF THE REVOLUTION Capture of Vincennes From the British February 15, 1778 18 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

Langsdale was also authorized at thistime to have the legend "U.S." carved above the doorways of the pedestal in the form of the belt-plate worn by Union soldiers. This in­ scription, in turn, was sandwiched between various stone reliefs representing the Hoosier army corps' badge symbols. On 19 December 1893, the Board signed a contract with Geiger for Astragal Number 3 ("Army"), but when Geiger sent his preliminary models to them, referees Steele, Forsyth, and Mahoney found them to be inadequate, and Langsdale was charged with communicating their criticisms to the artist. Essentially, the panel felt that Geiger's sculptures of the animals (horses, eagles, and buffaloes) were stiff, un­ convincing, and decidedly "on-American" in look. Subsequently, Geiger indicated his willingness to implement these suggestions, in addition to others demanding further refinements in the depiction of the cannons, guns, and harnesses. On 28 March 1894, John Mahoney was awarded the contract for the statue of General Clark commemorating the American Revolution; in future years he worked on the statues of William Harrison (War of 1812) and James Whitcomb (Mexican War) as well.29 Mahoney's work earned him substantial praise from the Commission, the attending experts, and the ordinary Hoosier. On 18 May 1894, Frederick MacMonnies was awarded the contract for the War and Peace groups and a commission of $100,000.00. Each group was to have ten bronze figures, each figure not less than six­ teen feet high. But MacMonnies was never to execute these groups. The Commis­ sioners insisted that he put up a large bond, compromising himself and hisfamily, to guarantee the completion of the project; this was both personally insulting and economically risky to MacMonnies. Furthermore, the Commissioners, yielding to English's objections, rej ected MacMonnies'plan to supplant the War and Peace group with the Army and Navy groups. The Board formally charged Geiger to begin work on the Army As tragal on 30 July 1894. Then, on 28 September 1894, the contract for the large cascades lacing the monument was awarded to contractor (Conrad Bender) and builder (Louis Gibson). Continued friction between the Board of Commissioners and the State caused the legislature to 'abolish the Board on 6 March 1895. It was replaced by a Board of Regents initially consisting of Commander Gustavus V. Menzies, chairman; General Frederick Knefler, president; and General Lew Wallace. At their first meeting, 17 May, Wallace resigned and was replaced by General Jaspar Packard.30 A good deal of the monument, its approaches, and its surrounding features were com­ pleted at the time of the installation of the regents. In fact, what chiefly remained to be done were the candelabras, Geiger's Army Astragal (it arrived that autumn), the subsidiary statuary on the terraces and balustrade (including Harrison and Whit­ comb), and the War and Peace groups. The Wa r and Peace groups were a continued source of vexation. MacMon­ nies refused for the the last time to undertake their sculpting, but not before the Board made another attempt to draw him away from his work in Brooklyn. This was fol­ lowed, in turn, by Schmitz's objections:

Mr. Schmitz has protestedin strongest terms, to the Board of Regentsaga inst the placing of bronze groups upon the Monument, such action being contrary to the law creating the structure, which prescribed that the material used in its construction shall be Indiana stone, for the reason that bronze groups in place on the Monument would make a glaring artistic incongruity out of character with the original design; and the further and weighty reason, that the execution of the side groups in stone, could be effected for almost half the price of bronze groups, as estimated by the late Board of Commissioners. Impelled by these reasons, the Board of Regents has discontinued its negotiations with Mr. MacMon­ nies, and is now awaiting the further advices of Mr. Schmitz.31 SOLIDERS AND SAILORS MONUMENT 19

The Monument Scaffold and Foundation.

S.:,•nc .,r :to� Corner-Sione Laying. State Soldiers' and Sailors' Monume••t. C•rcle Park, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 22d, 1889. 20 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

And so another competition was declared for the modelling of these groups in 1895. Though Schmitz had proposed some general ideas about the iconography of the groups, the specific designs of Hermann Matzen, a Danish sculptor living in New York, were finally adopted. Meanwhile, work was progressing apace on the other details. The old cascades were ripped out and replaced by larger and more splendid ones, and the old generators in the bowels of the monument were exchanged for more modem and powerful machines. Slowly but surely the landscaping and paving around the monument were nearing completion. In 1897, Schmitz was brought over from Germany and introduced to the Regents sculptor Rudolf Schwarz, who had carved figures for some of Schmitz's monuments in Germany. Impressed by Schwarz's credentials, the Regents contracted him to carve Matzen's designs for the Wa r and Peace groups. Schwarz and his assis-· tant Heinrich Zoderer began work on 11 January 1898. Legend tells us that when the figures were done, General Knefler criticized Schwarz's creations, charging that the long flowing beards on the men made them look too German. Whereupon the sensitive and obliging Schwarz "took up his chisel again and chiseled off the beards."32 In this way Germans were transformed into Americans around the time the groups were finished on 16 May 1899.

Completion of the Monument

The monument was completed over the next three years. On 17 May 1899, Schmitz and Schwarz won the contest for the remaining sculptures. Schmitz was awarded the contracts for the eight bronze candelabras, the buffalo fountainheads, and the flag holders; Schwarz for the fourteen foot high stone figures symbolizing the four branches of the service. Schwarz then went on to win the October competition to design and execute the small groups above the cascades, The Dy ing Soldier and The Return Home. At this time, Mahoney also fulfilled his contract to complete the com­ missions of Harrison and Whitcomb. By May 1901, the monument was nearly done.33 Schwarz positioned the last group of figures above the'cascades, and the bronze doors made in Berlin now guarded the memorial base. Since the monument was fi nished save for a few minor details, a legislative act provided that the Board of Regents be superseded by a Board of Con­ trol as of 1 November. The Board of Control would concern itself largely with main­ taining the monument. The monument was dedicated on 15 May 1902. The celebration commenced at 8:00 a.m., and the day was consumed in parades, speeches, prayers, and music. After a final patriotic rally, the day concluded with a spectacular display of fireworks. 34 The monument has since undergone a few minor changes. For instance, in 1918, Colonel Oran Perry, Superintendent of the Monument, created a museum in its basement replete with Civil War memorabilia. Then, in 1928, the lighting elements within the candelabras, which had projected a soft glow upon the monument, were replaced by floodlights. In 1929, a new chain and posts resembling cannons displaced the old chain and real naval cannons skirting the monument. Seven years later, the open air steel balcony atop the monument was glazed, thus shielding the turret from the elements. The grounds were enhanced in 1956 by the planting of numerous new flower gardens. SOLIDERS AND SAILORS MONUMENT 21

Notes

•Anthony Grimaldi teaches history at Villa Maria College, Erie, Pennsylvania.

1Quoted from "The Monument," Indianapolis Star, 27 September 1953, p. 12. See also "Stubborn Woman, Crusading Editor Aided in Creating Circle Monument," Indianapolis Star, 9 November 1958, p. 2; William H. Smith, "Gives True Story of Why and How Monument Was Built," Indianapolis Star, 31 May 1925, p. 4; Margaret Crim Korbly, "Who First Proposed Memorial Monument on the Circle?" Indianapolis Star, 30 May 1937, p. 31. 2William E. English, "A History of Monument Circle, Showing Its Many Changes During the Past Half Century," Indianapolis Sunday Star, 8 July 1923, p. 1. 3Korbly, "Who First Proposed the Monument?" 31. •A letter from a notable contemporary source, Benjamin F. Havens, a commander of the GAR, attests to Langsdale's importance in this enterprise. See Benjamin F. Havens, "Letter to the Editor, " Indianapolis Sentinel, 2 June 1901, p. 16. 5It is interesting to note here that these certificates were embossed with adesign drawn by Mr. A. A. McCain, showing a "Washington Monument type" image, which was an anticipation of the format of the Indiana ...Mo nument. 6FirstBiennial Report of tlu Board ofCo mmissioners of tlu State Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Monument:

June 28, 1887 - December 31, 1888 (Indianapolis: Board of Commissioners of the State Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, 18891, 3. 7Instructions to Designers and Code of the Completion fo r the Indiana State Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Monument (Indianapolis: Board of Commissioners, 18871, 2. This list was also published in The Building Budget, 2(August 18871, 98. 8Instructions to Designers and Code of the Co mpletion. The Board's rulingon p. 10 of this report pro­ vided for the return of the designs to the respective competitors. Unfortunately for the researcher, these designs have not been kept on file and thus are difficult to trace. 9See the following brief biographies and critical commentaries on Schmitz and his work: Hermann Schmitz, "Hauptstromungen der Deutschen Architektur Wanrend der Letzten Sechzig Jahre," Deutsche Bauzeitung, 60(6 January 19261, 3·16; Hans Schliepmann, Bruno Schmitz, in Sonderheft der Berliner A,.. chitekturwelt, 13(Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 19131; A. Bruning, "Bruno Schmitz und der Rosengarten in Mannheim," BerlinerArc hitek turwelt, 6(19041, 145-48; Thieme-Beeker,Lexikon, 30, p. 175; Dimitri Tselos, "Richardson's Influence on European Architecture," Society of ArchitecturalHistorians Journal, 29 (May 19701, 156·62; and Monumente und Standbilder Europas (Berlin: Ernst von Wasmuth, 19141. For a com· mentary on Schmitz's selection by the Board of Commissioners, see The American Architectand Building News, 23(February 4, 18881, 50. IOErnestine Bradford Rose, The Circle: The Center of Our Universe (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 19571, 401. 11Firs t Biennial Report, 6, 27; Indianapolis News, 9 October 1888, p. 4. 12Second Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of the State Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Monu· ment: For the Year 1889 (Indianapolis: Board of Commissioners for the State Soldiers' and Sailors' Monu· ment, 18901, 5, gives a full account of the day 's happenings, including all speeches, poems, and even local newspaper accounts. See also the entire issues of Indianapolis Sentine' 22 and 23 August 1889; American Tribune, 23 and 30 August 1889; and Indianapolis Journal, 22, 23, and 24 August 1889. 13First Annual Report, 22. 14See Second AnnualReport, 38. I5Second Annual Report, 38·39. I6Qn 7 May 1890, the Commissioners visited Cleveland and Cincinnati to inspect the monuments beingbuilt there, in particular the Soldiers ' Monument of Cuyahogs County and the GarfieldMo nument in Cleveland, and the Ty ler Davidson Fountain in Cincinnati. Third Annual Report of the Board of Commis· sioners of the Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Monument fo r the Year 1890(I ndianapolis: Board of Commissioners of the State Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, 18901. 3·4. I7Third Annual Report, 14. Technically speaking, an astragal is a convex molding cut into the architectural form. Even though the Board and the artists identify and callthese works astragsls, they are actually bronzecast sculptures. IS" General Manson was one of the commissioners appointedto superintendits erection, and he caused the first perversion from the original intention of the Legislature. He had served in the war with Mexico and he induced the commission to recognize that war by placing a tablet. While this was a perversion, it might not have been considered otherwise than an extension of the design by making it to Indiana soldiers in all wars, but it was a perversion, all the same." Smith, "Gives True Story," 4. 19Report of Indiana State Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Mo nument Commission.· 189().1891 (Indianapolis: Board of Commissioners of the State Soliders' and Sailors' Monument, 18921, 6. 22 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

20Instructions and Code, State Soldiers ' and Sailors ' Monument of the State of Indiana, U. S.A., SculpturalCom petition Number 3 (Indianapolis: Board of Commissioners, 1891), 1. The Code stated that it was paying a special premium to Brewster, Geiger, Adrien Gaudez, and Paul Bartlett, to induce them to enter the competition. 21Report of 1891-1892, 7, 32-33. 22"William H. English became a member of the Commission, and he induced the Commission to extendit still further back so as to include the revolutionary war, a war in which no citizen or soldier of Indiana tookany part. It is true thatVincennes was capturedfrom theBritish during that war, and thus the whole territory northwest of the Ohio river became a part of the United States, but that conquest was by soldiers from Kentucky and Kaskaski, not an Indianaian among them. Thus the monument is made to honor Kentucky soldiers as well as those from Indiana." Smith, "GivesTrue Story," 4. 23Recorded minutes copied from the proceedings of the Indiana Society Sons of the American Revolution, 25 February 1892, and the resolutions of the Grand Army of the Republic, 6 and 7 April 1892, contained in the WiUiam H. English Papers, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. 24" As a soldier of the late war, I am heartily in favor of your proposition in relation to ...commemo­ rating the victory of General George Rogers Clark, and that of Tippicanoe and Fort Harrison in our State... From the expressions I have heard from soldiers here in relation to the matter, I think the pro­ position willmeet with hearty approval." Benjamin F. Havens, GAR Department Commander, "Letters to William H. English, April 1, 1892," in WiUiam H. English Papers. 26Report of 1891-1892, 6-1 1, 40-41. 26Report, 1893-1894, p. 9, and Uoyd Walton, "City's Monument Was Circle of Controversy," In­ dian4polis Star Magazine, 11 July 1976, p. 8. 27Wayne Guthrie, "Southward It Was for Circle Statue," Indianapolis News, 30 September 1974, p. 29. 28The originalintent of the Commissioners was to unveil Victory during the GAR encampment of the following week. But the soldiers were still incensed about the Mexican War inscription and even changed the routing of their parade to bypass the Circle altogether. See Walton, "City's Monument," 9. 29James Whitcomb was the Governor of Indiana during the Mexican War. With the selection of Whitcomb, English's quandary over a suitable choice to symbolize this war was resolved. 30See Fred Knefler, "Letter to Govenor Claude Matthews, September 12, 1895," Claude Matthews Papers, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. 31FredKnefler, "Letter, December 16, 1895." 32This story has been repeated numerous times in the literature. SeeJack T. Parker, "Little Known Facts about the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument," Indianapolis StarMagaz ine, 23 September 1966, p. 28; and Rose, The Circk, 408, among others. 33See "Monument Nearly ])one," Indianapolis News, 24 May 1901, p. 14. 34For days the local newspapers ran detailed accounts of the dedication and its ensuing festivities. See, in particular, the entire issues of Indianapolis Sentine� 14, 15, and 16 May 1902; Indianapolis News, 14, 15, and 16 May 1902; and Indianapolis Journal, 14, 16, and 16 May 1902. THE CALL THAT NEVER CAME: BLACK WOMEN NURSES AND WORLD WAR I, AN HISTORICAL NOTE

By Darlene Clark Hine*

A little noted aspect of America's involvement in World War I concerns the struggle of black women nurses to serve in the United States Army Nurse Corps. Although this particular quest for unfettered access and professional opportunities proved futile, it is nevertheless a revealing case study in both the military history of America and in the history of black women. A brief examination of the nature and ex· tent of the United States government's staunch resistance to the inclusion of black women nurses in "the fight to make the world safe for democracy" illuminates some of the contours and implicatio�s of Armed Forces interracial relations and policies. More than 367,000 black men were called into service during World War I, and, following an effective black protest campaign and lobbying effort, the U.S. Con· gress authorized the establishment of a separate reserve officer's training camp for blacks. At this time blacks were barred altogether from the Marines and the pilot sec· tion of the aviation corps, but they were permitted to serve in almost every branch of the Army and in the most menial capacities in the Navy. 1 Yet black women who fervently desired to use their professional talents and expertise to aid their country during this period were consistently denied the right to serve in the nurse corps. Of course, black Americans had been understandably cautious when in 1914 Woodrow Wilson, a southerner, became President of the United States. In spite of their already low expectations of his administration insofar as black rights were con· cerned, even the more cynical blacks were shocked by the depth of Wilson's apparent commitment to racial segregation and discrimination. Wilson had not been in office long, for instance, before he issued an executive order establishing separate eating and restroom facilities in government buildings; other laws segregated and eliminated large numbers of blacks from civil service jobs.2 With Wilson's re-election to the presidency came America's plunge into World War I. Black Americans immediately offered their services in the armed forces, apparently forgetting or disregarding the blatant racial proscriptions that characterized the lives of many of them. Indeed, even radicals such as W.E.B. DuBois and several leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) urged black men to volunteer for the Army. Ironically, in the face of the warm response of blacks to the draft, the United States Congress continued to debate legislation for the drafting and training of blacks in separate military units. 3 Of all black professionals, black women nurses needed no special persuasion tovolunteer their services to aid and care for their wounded countrymen. Actually, the advent of World War I helped to raise their expectations and excite their professional dreams. Black women nurses had long despaired over their status as professional out­ casts. They could not attend the better equipped and managed nurse training schools, were denied individual membership in the American Nurse's Association (ANA), and were not appointed to supervisory or administrative positions in hospitals, nurse training schools, or public and visiting health agencies and bureaus. At every level of employment they earned lower salaries than white nurses. 4 Furthermore, the general low regard and esteem they possessed in the public mind exacerbated their pain. In the pre-war years, black women nurses had engaged in a number of large­ ly unsuccessful activities designed to improve their position within the ranks of organized nursing. In 1908 they had founded their own professional body, the Na· tional Association of Colored Graduate Nurses (NACGN) to better structure and in·

23 24 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

tensify their struggle to win membership and integration into the ANA.6 Yet profes­ sional equality eluded them. Thus black women nurses desired to seize the opportunity created by the war emergency to accomplish these obj ectives. When the first wave of black women nurses attempted to enlist in the Armed Forces Nurse Corps, they expected racism to surface. Few of them were prepared, however, for the total rej ection of their services that occurred during what they believed was America's greatest crisis. Disillusioned and hurt, black women nurses focused their anger initially on the American Red Cross, reorganized and incor­ porated by an act of Congress on 5 January 1905. The Red Cross, an auxiliary of the Army Nurse Corps,6 recruited and enrolled nurses, then classified them as First Reserve nurses or Second Reserve nurses. The First Reserve was comprised of nurses' with the educational, moral, and professional qualifications required by the military nurse corps. The Second Reserve consisted of nurses available for critical civilian nurs­ ing who, because of some technicality such as age over forty years, were not eligible for the First Reserve. In effect, the American Red Cross enjoyed quasi-governmental status, particularly within the Army nursing group. Indeed, the second superinten­ dent of the Army Nurse Corps, Jane Delano, served simultaneously as head of the Red Cross Nursing Service. 7 Black nurses demanded to know why so few of them were called or enrolled into either the First or Second Reserve. Jane Delano's response to their inquiries was both evasive and defensive: "We are enrolling colored nurses at the present time," she explained, "and shall continue to do so in order that they may be available if at any time there is an opportunity to assign them to duty in military hospitals." The time and opportunity seemed never to come, for most black nurses waited in vain for the call. Later, criticized for their failure to enroll black nurses, Red Cross leaders shifted blame to the office of the Surgeon General, who, they insisted, had simply not called for black nurses. Red Cross officials further asserted that many black nurses had not met the Red Cross prerequisite of graduation from a fifty-bed hospital nurse training school. The Red Cross also steadfastly insisted that it had given black women nurses who lacked the necessary credentials a provisional enrollment until they registered or acquired additional training. 8 In spite of these unconvincing protests, rationalizations, and evasions, black nurses in particular and black Americans in general felt the slight deeply. Black criticism of the Red Cross increased as the war continued. The Army was markedly reluctant to tap the nursing services of black women, and the Navy refused even to consider the matter. As black pressure and anger mounted, the Red Cross belatedly prepared a list of black nurses to serve in a proposed segregated hospital to be established in Des Moines, Iowa. The signing of the armistice on 11 November 1918 and the end of the war, however, aborted the proposed installation. A month before the war's end, though, two dozen black nurses were called for service at Camp Sherman, Ohio; Camp Grant, Illinois; and Camp Sevier, South Carolina. This number represented but a fraction of the 21,000 white women who had been given the oppor­ tunity to serve their country as nurses.10 Commensurately, as the status of the white nursing profession skyrocketed in the aftermath of the war emergency, that of black women plummeted. Because black women nurses had not served their country, they apparently bore no claim to a share of nursing's newly earned public esteem. Black educators and leaders such as Robert R. Moton, successor to Booker T. Washington as president of Tuskegee Institute, and Emmett J. Scott, specialassis­ tant for Negro Affairs in the War Department, had joined the chorus of protests against the exclusion of black women nurses from service in the Army Nurse Corps. Washington and Scott informed the Secretary of War and the Surgeon General of the BLACK NURSES 25

widespread dissatisfaction of blacks with the war effort, emphasizing that blacks were particularly disillusioned with the American Red Cross. Moton wrote, "The Red Cross's exclusion of colored nurses . . . results in a certain sort of indifference on the part of colored people which ought not to be when the country needs every ounce of effort along every available line. "11 In face of the war emergency, some blacks had ac­ commodated themselves to the exclusion and segregation practiced by the United States War Department, convinced that it was temporarily important to do so given the worldwide threat to democracy. The discrimination practiced by the Red Cross was a different matter, however, for that institution symbolized humanitarianism in its most pure form. Black nurses especially believed that the Red Cross had not vigorously pushed for their entry into the Army Nurse Corps and had failed to uphold its democratic principles. 12 . The intransigence of the Army Nurse Corps and the inertia of the RedCross had motivated some black nurse leaders and their liberal white citizen allies to take matters into their own hands. In a fashion reminiscent of Washington's emphasis on racial solidarity and self-help, an interracial group of some of New York City's most prominent, wealthy, and influential citizens met on 2 November 1917 to launch the black, or more precisely, interracial counterpart of the American Red Cross. 13 The new organization, incorporated as the Circle for Negro War Relief, was structured similarly to the Red Cross. Officers of the Circle were Emilie Bigelow Hapgood, President; George Foster Peabody, Treasurer; Grace Neil (Mrs. James Weldon) Johnson, Secretary. The vice presidents were ex-Governor Charles S. Whitman, W.E.B. DuBois, Robert R. Moton, Colonel Charles Young, and Ray Stannard Baker. Other members of the Board of Directors included Gertrude Pinchot, Captain Arthur B. Spingarn, Edward Sheldon, R. J. Coady, and Russell Janney.14 The primary objectives of the Circle included the promotion of the interests and improvement in the conditions of black soldiers and sailors at home and abroad. Beyond this, Circle members pledged to aid those people related to or dependent upon black servicemen. Within two years, the Circle consisted of fifty-threelocal chapters in seventeen states and boasted a black membership of more than three thousand. Circle War committees on the local levels initiated many activities designed to serve black servicemen and their families. Committee members sewed, knitted, baked, and col­ lected supplies to send to servicemen via channels established by the American Red Cross. This sharing of Red Cross information and a transfer network was the extent of the cooperation between the Circle and the Red Cross throughout the war years. The Circle also raised money for black soldiers who returned from France penniless and for those discharged from hospitals without money. In such cases, government funds were, more often than not, both late and inadequate. The successful execution of all Circle work depended largely on the Blue Circle nurses. Working with arrangements similar to those of Red Cross nurses, the Blue Circle nurses provided relief to needy black families. Furthermore, Circle nurses instructed many poor rural blacks on the importance of sanitation, proper diet, and adequate clothing. The nurses also main­ tained necessary contact with local, county, and state health officials, often alerting 6 them to serious community health problems. 1 After the war ended, the Board voted to continue a revised program of the Circle's work. On 19 May 1919, the Board changed the name of the organization to the Circle for Negro Relief, Inc., dropping the "War" from its title. 16 Circle leaders then turned their attention to seeking funds and developing a new peacetime program. In an effort to raise money, Circle leaders submitted grant proposals to the heads of the major white philanthropic foundations - with. discouraging results. Edwin Embree of the Rockefeller Foundation assured the Circle of the Foundation's sympathy and com­ mitment to improving the health of black people, but denied their request for funds. In 26 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

a private inter-office memorandum, Embree observed that as far as he could deter­ mine, most of the Circle's meager resources were used to cover overhead expenses. More importantly, however, he maintainedthat it was against the Rockefeller Founda­ tion's policy to contribute to private voluntary health agencies}' Circle leaders thus drafted a new program with more success than they had had in raising funds. They attempted to construct a national plan for public welfare work that included raising scholarship funds to train and pay part of the salaries of black visiting Circle nurses in southern communities . Their new peace-time program called for the creation of day nurseries and kindergartens and for providing financial assistance to small community hospitals. Under the new Circle program, each local Circle committee was instructed to organize a County Health Club and to appeal to its respective County Board of Health for fin ancial support to pay half of the salary of the Blue Circle's black public health nurse.18 Will W. Alexander of the Commission of Inter-Racial Cooperation in Atlanta attested to the feasibility of the county health plan in a wire to Circle headquarters on 15 January 1921. He enthusiastically claimed that the Board of Health of South Carolina was "greatly interested" in public health nursing for Negroes and would look upon the Circle 's plan with favor.19 Circle leaders justified their plan by noting that the white nursing services such as the Red Cross devoted little attention and meager resources to address the health needs of blacks, especially in the South. They argued that the new Circle plan would improve general black health care needs, help the families of poor black servicemen, and provide more employment for the black women nurses. The Negro Circle worked throughout the 1920's until the Great Depression sounded its death knell. Black women nurses and the NACGN had looked to the war crisis and the peacetime need for trained nurses to allow them a chance to serve their country, demonstrate their usefulness and value, and enhance their image in the American mind. But black women nurses soon discovered that not even a war crisis could lend them the stature and usefulness they deserved. Indeed, American racism emerged from the World War I bloodbath unscathed and more entrenched than ever. Integra­ tion of black women into the Army and Navy Nurse Corps would have to await another crisis: the coming of the Second World War.

Notes

•Darlene Clark Hine is Vice-Chancellor and Associate Professor of History at Purdue University lJohn Hope Franklin, From Slavery toFreedom, 4th ed. (New York: Knopf, 19741, pp. 333·40. 2Franklin, FromSlavery, pp. 333-40. 3The Autobiography of W. E.B. DuBois (New York: International. 19681, pp. 267-69. •Adah B. Thoms, Pa thfinders: A His tory of the Progren of Colored Graduate Nurses (New York: McKay, 19291. pp. 201.06; Joyce Ann Elmore, "Black Nurses: Their Service and Their Struggle," The AmericanJournal of Nursing, 76 (March, 1936), pp. 436-37. 5Mabel Keaton Staupers, No Time forPre judice: A Story of theIntegration of Negroes in Nursing in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 19611. pp.19·20; Staupers, "Story of the National Association of Colored Graduate Nurses," The American JouT114l of Nursing, 51 (April, 19611, pp. 221·22. 8Conference between Clara Noyes, Elizabeth For, Jane Vande Vrede of the Public Health Service of the American Red Cross and Etrah Boutte'and Adah Thoms of the Circle for Negro Relief, New York City, 18 February 1920. Verbatim transcript of the conference which discussed the reactions of black women nurses found in the Records of the American Red Cross, Record Group 200, National Archives, Washington, D. C. Hereafter referred to as "the Conference." ?Colonel Julia 0. Flikke, Nurses in Action: The Storyof the Army Nurse Co rps (Philadelphia: Lippin­ cott, 19431 pp. 76-77; Bonnie Bullough and Vern L. Bullough, The Emergence of Modem Nursing (New York: Macmillan, 19641, pp. 168-71. BThoms, Pa thfinders, p. 166; Jane Deland to Isaac H. Wutter, 3 July 1918, R.G. 200. 9Flikke, Nu rses in Action, pp. 78-79; see alao Roy Wilkins, "Nurses Go to War,"Crisis, 50 (February, 19431, pp. 42-44. BLACK NURSES 27

IOWiJkins, "Nurses," pp. 42·44. l lRobert R. Moton to Emmett J. Scott, Special Assistant for Negro Affairs, War Department, 20 May 1918, R.G. 200. 12"The Conference." lSCopy of "Certificate of Incorporation of the Circle for NegroWar Relief, Inc.," 27 October 1918. In Arthur B. Spingarn Papers, Box 74, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D.C. 14"Certificate of Incorporation." 16Lt. Uriah J. Robinson to Circle for Negro War Relief, 13 January 1918; "Memorandum of Understanding Between the American Red Cross and the Circle for Negro War Relief," 29 December 1918, R.G. 200. lSCopy of Resolution changing the name of the Circle signed by Harrison Rhodes, President, and Etrah Bouttl Secretary, 19 May 1919, Box 74, Spingarn Papers. 17Belle Davis to Arthur Spingam, 20 August 1919, Box 74, Spingam Papers; Rockefeller Foundation Progress Report, "Negro Nurse Training, 1920·1922," Box 38, Rockefeller Foundation Papers, Rockefeller Archive and Research Center, Pocantico Hills, New York. lBBoutte'to Springarn, 23 November 1918 and February 1920; Bouttl "Plan for Health Program of the Circle for Negro Relief, n.d., Box 74, Spingarn Papers. 19Will W. Alexander to Haynes, 15 January 1921, Box 94, Spingarn Papers. BOOK REVIEWS

In the Land of the Living: Wartime Letters by Co nfederates from the Chattahoochee Valley of Alabama and Georgia, Ed. by Roy Mathis, with the assistance of Douglas Clare Purcell. (Troy, Ala.: Troy State University Press, 1982. Pp. ix, 125. Appendices, Maps, Index. $21.50.)

This book is based on the letters of Confederate soldiers, ranging in rank from colonel to private, from the Chattahoochee Valley of Alabama and Georgia. The letters are owned by a number of private persons, as well as the Eufala, Alabama, Heritage Association, and the archives of Auburn University. They have been prepared forpublication by Dr. Ray Mathis (until his death last year a faculty member at Troy State University), with the assistance of Douglas C. Purcell of the Historic Chattahoochee Commission. Omitting letters already published, the author has woven selected letters and excerpts into a narrative which, dividedinto chapters, outlines the main course of the Civil War, following the men of the Chattahoochee Valley from the early heady days of Secession and victory in Florida and Virginia (1861), through the increasingly bitter fighting in Tennessee and Kentucky (1862), and back to Virginia in 1862-1863. The story continues with the struggle for Tennessee in 1863-1864, the campaign in Georgia in 1864, and finally the bitter months of 1864-1865 in Virginia when it became clear even to the most hard-bitten Confederate that the southern cause was lost. Because the material is selected judiciously and is connected by a highly readable nar­ rative that serves as both commentary and footnotes, these letters provide an extraor­ dinary insight into the feelings and experiences of individuals, as well as reflect a cross section of the Confederate army: officers and enlisted men from all three fighting branches (infantry, cavalry, and artillery) - thus giving us an excellent picture of the state of the southern forces as the war progressed. Of course, the testimony presented in these letters varies. As usual, a con­ siderable portion is spent on the everyday realities of military life - camp, quarters, and rations - as well as on requests for news, food parcels, and clothing from home. Happily, the editor has cut a great amount of this potentially repetitious material. Much of what remains is far more instructive. As Dr. Mathis points out, the better educated commissioned officers on the whole produced a clearer narrative, although "some of the most compassionate and poignant letters were written by the private soldiers who had the least education." Personally, I found the letters of Lieutenant (later Captain) Dent, Company B, 1st Alabama, and thus commander of Dent's Bat­ tery, the most interesting. His letters to "Darling Nannie," his wife, are full of tactical and military information, the details of which in later wars the censors would have stricken. Absence of censors also allowed the writers to report on losses suffered, the declining state of morale, and such disagreeable matters as the mass execution of "Yankee bushwackers" or the shooting of Confederate deserters. Not all men were brave as the war wore on; the extraordinarily high casualty rates, especially those suf­ fered by the Confederate infantry, lowered spirits, and this too is clearly reflected in the letters. Still, many persevered until the very end of the war. As Captain Dent wrote from Kenansville, North Carolina, on 15 March 1865: "Some people are badly frightened & ready to give up - but I am not." Having at this point lost most of his command, he continues that he willtry to reform his unit, obtain arms, and go on with the fight.

28 BOOK REVIEWS 29

Academic historians and general readers alike all too often tend to overlook the material provided by local and state historical societies and commissions. As the the present volume shows, this is a great mistake. Here cooperation.between a profes­ sional historian and archivists, members of a historical commission, and private per­ sons, has produced excellent results. This well-balanced, judicious selection of material, connected by a highly readable narrative and supported by excellent maps, has been attractively produced as well. While focusing on a group of soldiers from a small region in Alabama and Georgia, In the Land of the Living illuminates through personal perspectives many of the larger issues and problems of this most American of all America's wars. The volume is most heartily recommended to specialists, buffs, and general readers alike.

GER

Kentucky Fighting Men 1861-1945, by Richard G. Stone, Jr. (Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky. 1982. Pp. xi, 126. Prologue, sources, and index. $6.95.)

The martial heritage of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is filled with tradi­ tion and heroes. Kentucky militia fought with Harrison at the Thames, and stood behind cotton bale breastworks with Jackson at New Orleans. A handful of Ken­ tuckians were at the Alamo, and Kentucky units served in the Mexican War. Ken­ tucky Fighting Men 1861-1945, by Richard G. Stone, Jr., ably chronicles the exploits of Kentucky soldiers, sailors, and airmen, through the three maj or wars of U.S. history. The role of Kentucky in the Civil War is quite well known, because this state truly was representative of the struggle of "brother against brother". Kentucky's sons have prominent places in a who's who of the Civil War; Robert Anderson, the defender of Sumter, Albert Sidney Johnston, Confederate commander at Shiloh, John Buford, Union general at Gettysburg, and John B. Hood, leader of tough Texans and forlorn hopes. These men are in Stone's work, but the ordinary rifleman is not forgot­ ten. The author could have easily devoted an entire volume to just the Civil War. In the next section of his history, Stone tells how Kentuckians were present as the nation expanded overseas. Serving with the Navy on station in China, against the Spanish in Cuba, and in the Philippine Insurrection. The most interesting portion of this chapter deals with Kentuckians in World War I, most particularly the story of air-ace Victor Strahm. The last half of Kentucky Fighting Men is concerned with Kentuckians in World War II. It is here that the author makes great use of first hand accounts; from the start, with ill-fated Admiral Husband Kimmel at Pearl Harbor, to the finish, with General Simon B. Buckner, Jr., on Okinawa. In between Stone has the stories of many men, from all the fronts of the war. The author has done an excellent job of covering a large piece of history in a small amount of space. One minor regretis that no mention is made of service by Ken­ tuckians on the post-Civil War frontier. This work is amazingly low priced, and should be of interest for all devotees of American military history. It is a must for students of the history of the Bluegrass State.

Jay Ruston (Jay Ruston teaches social studies at South. Newton Junior, Senior High School in Kentland, IN.) 30 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story ofthe Zero Fighter, by Jiro Horikoshi. Translated by Shojiro Shindo and Harold N. Wantiez. (University of Washington Press, 1981. Pp. 176. Index, illustrations. $18.95.)

One of the unwelcome technological surprises confronting American fliers during the opening phase of World War II in the Pacific was the combat performance of the Japanese Zero fighters. Although the plane actually entered combat over China in August 1940, reports about its extraordinary capabilities duly sent to Washington by Colonel Claire L. Chennault had been discounted by U. S. intelligence. But when, following competitive tests, the Imperial Japanese Navy decided in the spring of 1941 to adopt a modified Zero as its main carrier-based fighter plane, the Zero was tem­ porarily withdrawn from service in China. Its appearance over Pearl Harbor became one more of a series of tragic intelligence and command failures for the U.S. Army and Navy. From Pearl Harbor until after the Battle of Midway in June 1942, the Zero - with its wing-mounted 20-mm cannons and 7.7-mm machine guns, its long range and high maneuverability - outclassed such American fighters as the P-40 and P-36, and the F4F, not to mention the British Hurricanes. But from late 1942 on, new U.S. planes were introduced. The P-38 Lightning, the F4U Corsair, and the F6F Hellcat were heavier, better armored, and had more powerful engines. Combined with new aerial tactics, they gradually turned the tide in the Pacific. While improved model Zeros still remained a threat to allied aircraft, attrition of trained pilots and the loss of carriers and island bases eroded Japanese combat capabilities. · This clearly written book is the story of this remarkable aircraft, as told by its chief designer, Jiro Horikoshi. It describes the decision to modernize the Japanese fighter force and bring it up to par with that of the Western powers, as well as the trials, tribulations, and disasters of designing, producing, and testing a new plane. It briefly relates its earliest missions, as well as subsequent design changes, and con­ cludes with an account of its performance in the war against the U. S. and its allies. Altogether, this modest book contains much of interest to veterans of the air war in the Pacific, to aircraft buffs, and to all interested in the history of aviation technology. Well produced and - given costs today - modestly priced, it is highly recommended.

GER

The Secretary of Defense, by Douglas Kinnard. (Lexington: University Press of Ken­ tucky, 1980. Pp. 252. Introduction, notes, appendix, bibliography, and index.)

Between the establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 194 7 and the year 1979 - the period covered by this book - fourteen men served as secretary of defense. The author of this study selected the five most significant secretaries and has analyzed the office in discussing these five. The five chosen are: James V. Forrestal, Charles E. Wilson, Robert S. McNamara, Melvin R. Laird, and James R. Schlesinger. According to the author, they were chosen because of their im­ pact on the institution of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. One wishes that the substantial accomplishments of George C. Marshall and Thomas Gates had been in­ cluded, even though their tenure of office was very short. On reflection many willdisagree with the author's selections. For example, as the author admits, Eisenhower was essentially his own secretary of defense, dealing directly with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relegating his secretary, Charles E. Wilson, BOOK REVIEWS 31

to the job of managing the Pentagon. Wilson, who certainly lacked a sophisticated understanding of strategic policy, did make a significant contribution, according to Kinnard, in keeping the lid on defense spending and in carrying out Eisenhower's policies. Certainly few would challenge the inclusion of James V. Forrestal on any list. As the first secretary of defense, he guided the new Department of Defense through two very difficult years, and did so without the commensurate authority that his suc­ cessors had. It was not until 1949, after Forrestal's death, that the service secretaries were reduced to subcabinet level, a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was estab­ lished, and the secretary of defense was given adequate power over the entire defense budget. Of all the secretaries of defense to date, Robert S. McNamara has had the greatest impact on the American military establishment. He was the first secretary to establish firm civilian control (perhaps overcontrol) over the Pentagon and the uniformed services. The hallmark of the McNamara years was systems analysis, and its primary vehicle was the planning/programming/budgeting system. The primary focus of the McNamara years, of course, was Vietnam. This was also McNamara's ma­ jor failure, for while the technical management may have been excellent, the strategic direction that the war took eventually became self-defeating. A strong and loyal cabinet officer, McNamara was never able to establish a relationship of trust with the uniformed services. The next secretary studied by the author is Melvin Laird, who confronted circumstances very different than those faced by any of his predecessors. His mission as President Nixon's secretary of defense was to implement the Vietnamization pro­ gram, wind down the war and extricate American forces from Vietnam, and implement the all-volunteer program in lieu of a draft. In addition, he had a constant skirmish with a National Security Advisor who had become de fa cto secretary of state, and who would have liked to be de fa cto secretary of defense as well. With sixteen years in the House of Representatives, Laird had become a very skillful bureaucratic maneuverer, and in his skirmishes with Henry Kissinger Laird usually managed well. Likewise, his relations with the Joint Chiefs was generally excellent and those with Congress unique. Laird brought to the office a strong view as to what the secretary's role should be. He relinquished none of McNamara's control, but exercised it in a manner that of­ fended very few. Kinnard concludes that Laird's greatest contribution was his avoiding a civil-military crisis over the "lost" war and over who "lost" it. Most will, after reading this chapter, agree with the author that history will judge Melvin Laird well as secretary of defense. Like McNamara, James R. Schlesinger - the last secretary in Kinnard's study - served two presidents. He came to the Pentagon technically well prepared by thirteen years at RAND, two years as assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget, two years as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and a brief stint as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Yet, for all this background, he had not developed the feel for Washington politics that his predecessor, Melvin Laird, had. The years 1973-75 were difficult times tobe secretary of defense, with Watergate, the resignations of the President and Vice-President, economic recession, and the Yom Kippur War, dominating the scene. Yet, overall, Schlesinger did very well. His major contributions were the long overdue restructuring of American strategic doctrine and redirecting of nuclear strategy. Many papers have appeared in professional management and military jour­ nals about the office and the tasks of the secretary of defense. This is, however, the first full-length book to examine the secretaryship. The author, Douglas Kinnard, is a retired Army brigadier general who holds a Ph.D. in political science and has served on the senior Army staff at the Pentagon. Given his background and attainments, it is re- 32 INDIANA MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL

grettable that he did not write a longer book with deeper insights into defense policy making, interservice trade-offs, and the complex process of defense budgetmaking. While it is unsporting of a reviewer to wish that an author had written a different book, I regret that Kinnard did not write a better or a longer one. This book, as far as it goes, is certainly more than adequate; it is not, however, the definitive history of the secretary of defense.

James R. J. Spears Lt. Col. USAR