Committee Approval Form

Home , Augusta Military Academy, Henry Ossian Flipper, Lytle Brown, The Bill (series 19)

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

______, 20 _____

I,______, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of:

______in: ______It is entitled: ______

Approved by: ______

THE ORIGINS, EARLY DEVELOPMENTS AND PRESENT-DAY IMPACT OF THE JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPS ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (Ed.D.)

in the Department of Educational Foundations of the College of Education

2003

Nathan Andrew Long

B.M., University of Kentucky, 1996 M.Ed., University of Cincinnati, 2000

Committee Chair: Marvin J. Berlowitz, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

The Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (Junior ROTC) has been a part of the

American educational system for nearly ninety years. Formed under the 1916 National Defense

Act, its primary function was and is to train high school youth military techniques and history,

citizenship and discipline. The organization has recently seen its stature elevated and its reach

widened once Congress lifted caps on its expansion in 2001. The Junior ROTC’s proliferation

has led to criticism from peace activists who denounce military training and tactics in schools

and political leaders who claim the benefits are suspect. Conversely, the program has earned the

praises of varied school and government officials. What becomes clear is that little consensus on

the program has been reached.

It is my contention that Junior ROTC’s current popularity within the American educational system is multifaceted and cannot be simplistically embraced or summarily discounted by disparate analyses. One must understand the organization’s historical roots to comprehend its current manifestation. Thus, three related questions have guided my research.

First, what, if any, prerequisites existed relevant to Junior ROTC? Second, how does recruitment correspond to the purpose of Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent growth? Third, has the program focused on the recruitment of working class and racial minorities over its ninety-year history?

First, two dialectically related historical constructs – preparedness ideology and economic imperialism-expansionism – serve as prerequisites to Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent growth. The antecedent relationships of military philosophy, education, training and drilling are explored in relation to these constructs. Second, the historical record points to a program designed primarily to recruit high school aged youth. Primary data in various forms aptly illustrate the point. Third, the combination of historical and recent demographic data

confirm Junior ROTC’s recruitment focus on working class and disadvantaged youth, primarily

in urban centers, which provides the military a ready reserve of labor. Junior ROTC while an

attractive program to ‘reach’ at-risk high school students is a quick-fix approach to the numerous

structural and social barriers placed in front of our youth. Thus, attention is devoted in the last chapter to potential alternatives.

This first piece of scholarship would not have been possible had it not been for the numerous supportive people I have had in my life. Family members, friends, colleagues, and committee members all played a pivotal role in its completion. My heartfelt thanks and love extend to all of these people.

My family has been and continues to be an inspiration to me. My mother, a feminist who marched fervently for the Equal Rights Amendment inspired me to pursue a career in this field.

My father, Buzz, deserves a great deal of credit, as well. He was the first to obtain a college education in our family and paved the way for me. Like my mother, he has committed himself to a lifetime of public service helping people in this world – and doing so with class and dignity.

My in-laws have also been a constant source of love and support. I cannot thank Ted and Judy enough for sticking by us. My daughter, Simone, blessed us with her presence at the start of my doctoral career and continues to bless us. Her vivid imagination and zest for life have provided me ample reason to complete the degree so that I might make a better life for her and enjoy her growing up years. Finally, without the love and constant support of my wife this dissertation would never have materialized. Her undying ardor, her editorial prowess, her embraces, and her amazing gift to keep things in perspective made this dissertation process – and all of the academic hoops – much more palatable. We have faced numerous struggles throughout my tenure in graduate school and it is to her that this dissertation and degree are dedicated. She is the light of my life, my beacon of hope, and my ray of sunshine.

Colleagues and friends were no doubt a critical component to my expeditious completion.

I must thank Dawn and Cathy who encouraged me to study with Marvin and who offered endless encouragement throughout the process. My thanks also go to Roy who ranks among the most intelligent and kindest men I have been acquainted with. Ruth Pedersen, the Educational Foundations Administrative Assistant, is perhaps the most patient and accommodating human being. Her willingness to always help in a pinch and her service to this department – while often unrecognized – deserve acknowledgement. Dr. Berlowitz’s wife Rinda also earns my gratitude for her patience and scholarly contributions. She has an amazing mind and is bar none, the best chef this side of the Alleghenies. The research presented here would not have been possible had it not been for Patricia Luna’s assistance who graciously offered me a place to stay, food to eat, and transportation while in D.C. Finally, I want to say to all my friends and colleagues not mentioned by name – thank you!

This dissertation would not have been possible at all had it not been for the brilliance, expertise, love and encouragement exhibited by my committee members. Dr. Eric Jackson has been and always will be the consummate scholar and friend. His periodic phone calls and reminders to ‘get the damn thing done’ kept me on track. Dr. Miriam Pemberton is to be thanked for her willingness to come on board and really apply her own paradigm and expertise. I also must express gratitude to her colleagues at the Institute for Policy Studies for the resources provided to me to complete my research via the Melman Fellowship. Dr. Leo Krzywkowski was detail-oriented and read what seemed every drop of ink. During what felt like an unending period of revisions, I reminded myself as to why I chose him. He has no doubt been a vital contributor in making this document solid. Dr. K also pushed me to apply for the doctoral program and was supportive in the choices I made. I would be remiss if I failed to thank Dr. K and his wife who displayed acts of love and kindness to my family as I journeyed through graduate study. Finally, words cannot express my indebtedness and gratitude to Dr. Marvin Berlowitz. I met this man six years ago and in a short period of time he altered the way I thought about life and society. My blinders were ripped open and the reality struck me that there was a rhyme and a reason to society’s failings and why many of the children in our schools, in our communities, and in this nation struggle to get a loaf of bread let alone an education. His amazing gift for words, his constant support of his students (both in terms of publication collaboration and conference presentations), his passion for social justice, and his burning desire to teach ‘just one more student,’ is why I am in this field and why I so deeply desire to enter academia.

I must also express my deep gratitude to the staff at the United States National Archives and Records Administration, the Hamilton County Public Library (Beth), the Langsam Library staff, the College of Education, and the Office of Research and Advanced Studies. The direction

I received from these staff members was truly priceless.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 4

Chapter

1. ANTECEDENTS: EARLY MILITIA PHILOSOPHY, STRUCTURE, AND TRAINING, 1609 TO 1815 ...... 19

Early Military Philosophy: 1609 to 1765 . . . . 21

Military Education and Training . . . . . 28

Revolutionary Military Philosophy: 1765 to 1792 . . . 36

Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Military Training and Education ...... 44

Jefferson’s Election and the Birth of Formalized Military Education ...... 47

The War of 1812 and Its Aftermath . . . . . 55

2. THE ANTEBELLUM AND POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD . . 63

The Antebellum Period: Growing Military Professionalism and Purpose . . . . . 65

Military Education and the Evolution of Professionalization ...... 72

“Educational Democratization”: The First Morrill Land Grant ...... 75

Proliferation of the State Academies . . . . . 78

Southern Military Academies and African Americans ...... 81

Reconstruction 1865-1876 ...... 83

The Integrated Academy System and the Morrill Acts of 1883 and 1890 ...... 86

1 3. PREPAREDNESS AND PACIFISM: 1898 TO 1916 . . . 93

American Imperialism, Military Reorganization, and Arguments for Preparedness . . . . . 96

The National Guard: First Federalization Attempts . . . 101

Roosevelt and Wood’s Preparedness and Expansionist Philosophies Defined ...... 105

Preparedness and Neutrality Politics . . . . . 111

Public Debate toward a National Defense Act . . . 116

Educational Institutions ...... 122

4. THE BIRTH AND EVOLUTION OF JUNIOR ROTC . . . 125

National Defense Act: Its Passage and Junior ROTC’s Creation . 128

Junior ROTC: The First Two Years: 1916 to 1918, World War I and Formative Challenges . . . . 135

1918 to 1925 ...... 140

ROTC, Pacifism, and the War Department’s Response . . 155

A Brief Portrait of Junior ROTC through 1964 . . . 161

5. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . 169

Prerequisites relevant to Junior ROTC . . . . 172

Junior ROTC for Recruitment: Preparedness for National Service ...... 176

Disadvantaged Youth and JROTC as Recruitment Mechanism in the Present-Day . . . . . 180

Final Analysis, Implications for Further Research and Conclusion ...... 191

WORKS CITED ...... 198

2 Appendix

A. Curriculum Outlines for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, 1923 and 2002 ...... 217

B. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Enrollment Patterns, 1923, 1953, and 2003 ...... 220

3 INTRODUCTION

“…and my question to either the secretary or to General Shinseki, in regard to getting at this in another way, I'll never forget the movie, Born on the 4th of July, starring Tom Hanks. That young man was in high school, a Marine recruiter came, talked to that class, that school, about serving in the armed forces and what a great thing that would be for a young person to do. Why don't we look very closely, Secretary, at trying to encourage, maybe if not mandatory, but to -- for our government to support Junior ROTC programs, and have them in more of our school systems across this country so that our young people, not at the time they get to Yale or Princeton or Harvard or even Georgia Tech -- where I went -- let's get them at the high school junior and senior level and teach them.”

Representative Gingrey, House Armed Services Committee, Defense Budget Hearing FY 2004, February 12th, 2003.

The Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (Junior ROTC) has been a part of the

American educational system for nearly ninety years. Formed under the 1916 National Defense

Act, its primary function was and is to train high school youth military techniques and history,

citizenship and discipline. The organization has recently seen its stature elevated and its reach

widened once Congress lifted caps on its expansion in 2001. The Junior ROTC’s proliferation

has led to criticism from peace activists who denounce military training and tactics in schools

and political leaders who claim the benefits are suspect. Conversely, the program has earned the

praises of varied school and government officials. What becomes clear is that little consensus on

the program has been reached.

Its recent success has hinged on a strategy implemented by its commanding agency,

Army Cadet Command (ACC), and General Colin Powell through a program entitled Operation

Capital, intended to implement Junior ROTC units in as many inner-city and rural school

districts as possible to benefit ‘at-risk’ school children. Interestingly, this program came about

when the military began to experience drastic reductions in its size and financial structure. With

a lack of enlistees, depleted recruiting budgets, and an already high turnover rate many in the peace community did and still view the Junior ROTC expansion program as a vehicle for

4 military recruitment. Peace activists touted Junior ROTC’s targeting of inner-city youth as

another attempt by the military industrial complex to press disenfranchised youth into enlisting.

Further allegations have come about citing Junior ROTC’s ‘racist, cutting edge’, recruiting

minority youth into the program for reasons already mentioned. Others, such as Catherine Lutz

and Leslie Barrett, analyzed the curriculum noting its overemphasized instruction in weapons,

military drill, and tactics.1

Such criticisms have been answered by the military and sectors of academia. In several

studies, Junior ROTC cadets’ grade point averages were compared to the general high school

population. Not coincidentally, however, Junior ROTC imposes grade point average restrictions

for students even to participate. Another study researched ‘community engagement’,

investigating Junior ROTC units’ service contributions within their community, citing their

contributions as justification for unit presence in local high schools. More dubious studies

include a series of articles on Junior ROTC and ‘democratization’. These studies compare cadets

with entering college freshmen, non-JROTC students, and other high school populations, such as

band members, athletics, and other similar extra-curricular groups, concluding Junior ROTC

students exhibit higher levels of democratic ideals. Other qualitative studies have been

conducted, investigating academic achievement outcomes, dogmatism and personality type, and

disadvantaged youths’ propensity to enlist.2

1Marvin Berlowitz, “Racism and Conscription in the JROTC,” Peace Review, 12 (September, 2000), pp. 393-399; Catherine Lutz and Leslie Barrett, Making Soldiers in the Public Schools: An Analysis of the JROTC Curriculum, (Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 1995), pp. 1-37; Conscientious Objector.Org, http://objector.org/jrotc/jrotcrecruits.htm, (Oakland, CA: Internet Publication, 2000), ad passim. 2Rosemarie Kolstad, John P. Slovar, and Dennis L. Ritter, “Comparing the Democratic Maturity of 50 College Science Majors with 154 High School JROTC Cadets,” College Student Journal, 33 (March, 1999), pp.120-123; Cletus R. Bulach, “Comparison of Character Traits for JROTC Students versus Non-JROTC Students,” Education, 122 (Spring, 2002), pp. 559-563; Major Raymond Schmidt, “JROTC Cadets in Leadership Training Display Significantly Higher

5 Finally, the existing historical narratives deal primarily with the senior component

(collegiate-level program). These scholarly works while helpful in establishing a baseline

understanding, fail to capture important nuances between two programs which historically have

different intents. There are two existing pieces relating specifically to Junior ROTC. Army Cadet

Command: The Ten Year History devotes one chapter to the program’s establishment, evolution

and current status. The second piece, a study completed by the Center for Strategic and

International Studies by author William Taylor is titled JROTC: Contributions to America’s

Communities. Final Report of the CSIS Political Military Studies Project on the JROTC. It

briefly traces Junior ROTC’s development among all service branches, providing a helpful

perspective on its overall growth. Markedly disconcerting is the pro-military bias and lack of

depth in both studies. The lack of historical and sociological scholarship, coupled with

ubiquitous misconceptions about the program, necessitates a more thorough and comprehensive

study. 3 It is my contention that Junior ROTC’s current popularity within the American

Personal Development than Typical Students,” Education, 122 (Winter, 2001), pp. 302-306; David J. Hoff, “JROTC to Roll Out Standards-Based Curriculum,” Education Week, 21 (April, 2002), p. 12; Johnny Johnson, The Effects of High School Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Programs, (University of California Santa Barbara, Dissertation Abstract, 1999), ad passim; Daniel MacHir. A Comparative Study Between Navy Junior ROTC Cadets and General Population Students. (Wayne State University, Dissertation Abstracts, 1991), ad passim; Beth Asch, Military Support for Youth Development: An Exploratory Analysis, (San Francisco: RAND, 1994), pp. 1-40. I would like to remind readers that qualitative studies, while valuable in many ways, are not useful in generalizing an N of 1. This is not a surprise considering the Army Cadet Command (ACC) insists Junior ROTC is not a recruiting program, but rather one that “motivates and develops young people”. Various military advertisements, as well as a televised broadcast (1996), even a change in wording of the Junior ROTC motto (“To Motivate and Develop Young People”) produced by Army Cadet Command have been disseminated to counter the criticisms.

3Arthur Coumbe, and Lee Harford, U.S. Army Cadet Command: The 10 Year History, (Fort Monroe, Virginia: USACC. 1996), pp. 257-287; William Taylor, Jr., JROTC: Contributions to America’s Communities: Final Report of the CSIS Political Military Studies Project on the JROTC, (Washington DC: CSIS, 1996), pp. 1-64. For more on the collegiate level program see, Gene M. Lyons and John W. Masland, “The Origins of the ROTC,” Military Affairs, 23 (Spring, 1959), 1-12; Gene M. Lyons and John W. Masland, Education and Military Leadership: A Study of the R.O.T.C., (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1959), ad passim; and, Michael S.

6 educational system is multifaceted and cannot be simplistically embraced or summarily

discounted by disparate analyses. One must understand the organization’s historical roots to

comprehend its current status. Thus, three related questions have guided my research. First, what,

if any, prerequisites existed relevant to Junior ROTC? Second, how does recruitment correspond

to the purpose of Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent growth? And, third, has the program

been focused on the recruitment of working class and racial minorities over its ninety-year

history?

The first question’s answer is embedded in several hundred years of military evolvement

in the United States. “Preparedness” ideology in particular, is an omnipresent thread throughout

American martial history, easily noted by the mounting concerns vis-à-vis troop readiness and

effectiveness. The preparedness concept is simply defined as a nation or state maintaining a

program or desiring a program of military readiness to effectively defend its national or

international sovereignty. Preparedness efforts and debate existed early on, as is evidenced by

George Washington’s request for a regular army to conduct the Revolutionary War, the

development of West Point Military Academy, arguments over troop effectiveness during the

War of 1812, Civil War conscription policies and Theodore Roosevelt’s armed services overhaul

in the early twentieth century. Connected with preparedness ideology as an historical thread, is

imperialism. Imperialism is best-defined as: “the policy of extending the rule or influence of a

country over other countries or colonies.” Its relationship to preparedness is underscored by the

United States Government’s efforts following the Revolution to expand its territory first intra-

nationally, then intra-continentally, and finally internationally. Obvious examples abound,

Neiberg, Making Citizen Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), ad passim.

7 including Alexander Hamilton’s desire to use the military for political ends, the Mexican War (a

part of the expansionist agenda existing prior to and during President Polk’s time in office), and the Spanish-American War. The link to preparedness becomes pronounced, when one realizes

that a strong and effective military force is necessary in carrying out an imperialist or

expansionist agenda.4

Next preparedness and imperialist ideology can be viewed within the context of military

education and training culminating in professionalization – the creation of career military

officers and enlistees. Historically, citizen militias, sometimes referred to as the citizen-soldiery, were responsible for the welfare and defense of property and sovereignty. This citizen-soldiery was unique in that after fighting or executing its various missions, they would recede back into the population, pursuing their original duties within the settlement, colony, or state. Their lack of preparedness elicited frequent criticism, but was often stifled, since in fact their overall success record was high (they did after all, help win the Revolutionary War). Following the Revolution, growing and competing political ideologies ushered in the moderate Whig-Republican (states’ rights’) and Federalist mantras, placing the citizen militias (now state militias) squarely at the nation’s political-philosophical epicenter.5

State militias, while supposedly democracy’s protectorate, were viewed by Federalists as incapable splintered entities that could potentially fracture the new nation’s cohesion. Instead, federalists argued, a federalized-centralized military would ensure a quick, malleable, and

efficient defensive force should the need present itself. States rightists’ contrarily stated a fully

federalized militia would subvert the initial freedoms sought in the Revolution. To sum up,

4“Imperialism”, Encarta® 2002 Encyclopedia, (Microsoft Corporation, 2002).

5It is important to keep in mind states’ rightists’ arguments were as much about maintaining slavery as it was about democratic process.

8 states’ rightists desired a traditional citizen’s army in the form of state militias that could be

readily activated by the federal government, leaving control and training under state purview.

Federalists, on the other hand, desired a strong standing or professional army that could be easily

activated and placed into action as necessitated. Though state militias could play a role in

Federalist plans, their’s would be a minor one.

Tension continued through the nineteenth century when federalist mentality gained

traction as America continued its expansion, requiring an effective and sizable fighting force.

Concomitantly, federalization attempts required expanding military educational opportunities in

order to train competent officers. The professionalization of the United States military, then,

begins with the founding of West Point and the subsequent proliferation of private and state military academies throughout the country and continued as the Spanish-American drove

Theodore Roosevelt’s desire in revamping military hierarchy and chains-of-command. It is during Roosevelt’s tenure the terms ‘preparedness’ and ‘imperialism’ become recognized and oft-used expressions emanating from the former Rough Rider’s observations about his military comrades. He alleged the military had miserable battle preparation and communication, rampant troop inefficiency, and generally poor performance. Assuming the presidency after McKinley’s assassination, military purpose would need to modify with his new foreign policy approach. As a consequence, the Roosevelt Corollary, his selection of Elihu Root, and his alliance with General

Leonard Wood married preparedness and imperialism. In order for America to dominate world

markets, preserve American interests in the Western Hemisphere, and administer its newly acquired territories, a lethal and effective military machine was key.

Preparedness and imperialist ideology’s reliance on military expansion begs the next research question: how does recruitment, via preparedness ideology and imperialism, rationalize

9 Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent growth and the program’s connection to early

federalization efforts? In order to grow a professional officer corps and attain sizable enlistments

in the name the name of military readiness, recruiting young men into the enlisted ranks was necessary. The nation’s public high schools and preparatory academies would become feeder programs, encompassing military training and education, leading to service in the federalized, regular army. Preparedness ideology as the driving force behind Junior ROTC’s creation, then, cannot be ignored when discussing its purpose in 2003 or in 1916. Yet, recruiting a large force can only be successful when it targets large pockets of the population. The third research question surfaces: is Junior ROTC a mechanism for recruiting underprivileged, working class children or an opportunity afforded to young people with little hope for a bright future, or is it a combination of both? These three questions will be addressed in greater detail from an historical and sociological perspective. The following chapter outline explains the direction and purpose of the dissertation, assisting the reader in establishing a framework in which to comprehend and critically analyze Junior ROTC’s role in the American educational landscape.

Chapter one identifies three major antecedents or prerequisites to Junior ROTC, paying particular attention to citizen militia development, Federalist and Whig political philosophy, and the beginnings of preparedness ideology. Section one explores issues pertaining to early militia endeavors, setting in place how the organizations were implemented and utilized. A common theme stated in this section will weave itself throughout this dissertation: the concept of citizen- armies. Section two summarizes militia training activities, typically termed musters. Musters were as much socially-oriented, bringing together townsfolk for long stays of military training, socializing, and community-building. This section also brings to bear the challenges colonials faced as they dealt with attack from Native American tribes and other ‘menaces’. One main

10 conclusion readers may come to is the training days’ haphazard nature and the issues faced by

Washington and other Revolutionaries during the War. But, the second conclusion is reiterative

from section one. The citizen-soldier concept holds firm in American culture, and while the

concept contributes to problems during the Revolution, America indeed arose victorious. Section

three further develops military philosophy permeating citizens’ hearts and minds. America’s

Continental Congress demonstrates the growing rift between those who desired a strong military presence (a Regular Army) and a less-threatening presence, with citizen-soldiers, by establishing a Regular Army overseen by members of Congress. Section four continues the conversation regarding military training and education, but here I begin to emphasize the growing education movement towards a military educational system, identifying Washington’s interest in a National

University and officers’ training school. Again, the debate between those advocating a state militia system (Whig-Republicans) or a federalized regular army (Federalists) is brought to bear.

Early imperialist remnants appear with Alexander Hamilton’s desire to use the military for political purposes, emboldened by the Whiskey Rebellion’s success. Section five begins with the

Federalists eventually losing control to Republican Thomas Jefferson, who was mainly opposed to an extravagant and over-sized armed service. Ironically, Jefferson’s views apparently become tempered by reality: He engaged the military more than his predecessors combined and signed legislation founding West Point. Section five also digresses momentarily, weaving in West

Point’s predecessors - indispensable in appreciating the United States Military Academy’s curriculum. Section six briefly delves into the War of 1812. Once more, the citizen-soldier versus federalization debate reveals itself in a complex dialectical relationship when naval victory saved America from defeat, but America’s imperialist aims were in part related to the

11 war’s unpopularity. The War of 1812’s end marks military professionalism’s beginning, in part marked by Sylvanus Thayer’s appointment at West Point.

Chapter two further explores the historical strains of preparedness and imperialist ideology via the government’s strategic military expansion and military professionalization.

Section one offers a brief overview of military philosophy during the Antebellum Period. This section considers the growing professionalism within the military and American expansionist efforts prior to, during, and after the Mexican War. The term professionalization speaks to the increasing number of career officers and enlisted men. Professionalization’s impact on future armed service expansion is too great to comment on here. Suffice it to say, the growing officer fraternity and the Mexican War’s achieved objectives (namely westward expansion and occupation) laid groundwork for extensive military expansion. Section two elucidates military education’s maturation process. Academy-style instruction would contribute to officer professionalism, in addition to setting education precedents. These precedents include greater emphasis on a liberal arts curriculum establishing the military academy system’s higher education prominence, officer development and training, as well as intensive lessons on the art of war. Section three discusses higher education’s democratization and military federalization efforts via the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. This landmark legislation plants the seeds of mass higher education, setting aside lands for agricultural and mechanical colleges and universities within each state. The 1862 act would be revised in 1883 and 1890, reflecting the growing needs of the country, as elaborated on in section seven. Private and state academies are elaborated on in section four. Their propagation throughout the south, exemplifies two major philosophical departures. First, profound concern existed on the part of many southerners regarding West Point’s elitism and ‘secretive’ ways’. Secondly, southerners had their own view

12 of militarism – emphasizing duty, honor, and discipline. This militarism was drastically different

from the Northern version, and will be explicated on in this section. Section five continues in the vein of southern military academies, discussing their incorporation of African Americans at

Reconstruction’s commencement. Section six persists with the theme of professionalization from

Reconstruction up to the Spanish American War. Finally, section seven probes in greater detail

the integrated academy system and the Morrill Acts of 1883 and 1890. The acts’ major

requirement, that all institutions incorporate military training and drill, is ROTC’s first real

connection with the nineteenth century.

The third chapter explains preparedness activities following the Spanish-American War

and the convergence of preparedness and imperialist ideology. Section one briefly investigates

the new challenges relative to American Imperialism and its administration of the new Spanish-

island acquisitions (Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines). Military reorganization and

subsequent arguments for preparedness naturally surfaced due to complexities involved with

managing foreign territories. President William McKinley defied tradition appointing Secretary

of War Elihu Root - a lawyer. Elihu Root’s appointment is historically significant in that he was

the master designer behind America’s modern military system. He developed a general staff

structure, consistent military education and training and first steps towards the armed services’

federalization. Section two examines the National Guard, better known as the state militia

system, since it was a primary target of Root’s federalization efforts. Elihu Root endorsed the

legislation known as the Dick Act, which would delineate two militia forces – a Reserve and a

National Guard force, both to be called up to duty in the event of a national emergency. This new

reserve structure became the platform for federalizing military operations. Section three explores

President Roosevelt and General Leonard Wood’s preparedness campaigns. Root’s reforms took

13 place during the Roosevelt’s early years in office. Here, however, Roosevelt’s philosophies are

meted out to comprehend his position and his impact on domestic as well as foreign policy issues

toward the middle of his presidency. Leonard Wood enters as a vital supporter, political

appointee, and eventual standard-bearer of preparedness rhetoric. He and Roosevelt established

the massive movement and rationale that would essentially carry through to World War I. In

section four, preparedness and isolationist politics become amplified between Leonard Wood,

Roosevelt, and President Wilson. The three politicians became locked in heated disagreement over the manner in which America would successfully sustain its world dominance.

Preparedness offered military solutions in order to maintain open, free trade. Wilson’s economic-

pacifistic-neutrality platform envisioned America’s dominance and security via capitalist

expansion, allowing Americans to prosper from neutral trading ties, improved diplomatic

interventions, and reduced threat of war. In section five, I examine how at first debate remained

at the periphery during Wilson’s first two years. Leonard Wood had developed military training

camps for college men, but these were seen as mere thorns in Wilson’s side. However,

imminence of World War I ushered in public debate regarding a National Defense Act preparing

America in the event of war. Wood seemed to have won the ‘battle’. Wilson would capitulate to

preparedness legislation, but the final signed bill would bear his imprint, leaving Roosevelt and

Wood at the perimeter. Finally, section six outlines the American High School’s increasing

presence: establishing a home for Junior ROTC. These public schools would serve as they do

today, centers of experimental educational efforts, with military training pinpointed as critical to

the growth and development of young men. Additionally, military academies – their curriculum

and design – would allow military officials to envision an organization modeling academy-style

learning at the public school level.

14 Unlike the first three chapters, which relied heavily on secondary sources, chapter four introduces primary documents from the Adjutant General and Chief of Staff records never before used when discussing Junior ROTC. In light of this fact, chapter four adds a great deal to the scholarly record. The historical strain of preparedness ideology resulted in direct federal control of all military activities manifested in the passage and implementation of the National Defense

Act. Section one, then, continues with the 1916 National Defense Act, the coup de grace of military federalization and Junior ROTC’s founding. This discourse is inserted here to emphasize growing nationalist and militarist tendencies in a nation divided over the military’s function.

Specific to the National Defense Act is the various forms it took prior to passage, the political posturing and the final bill itself. Senator John Hay was primarily responsible for the bill’s passage into law, a personality discussed in some detail. Alluded to in chapter three, the National

Defense Act also bears the mark of President Wilson, who insisted that while preparedness efforts were required as a result of international tumult, citizen control remained somewhat intact during peacetime. The political dynamics will be discussed as they help fit the National Defense

Act into the larger picture. Section two introduces the first of many primary sources relative to

Junior ROTC’s beginning two years. This section investigates the early process, procedures and issues. Connectedly, initial program implementation favored military preparatory academies as they had a Professor of Military Science and Tactics in place. Junior ROTC’s presence in public high schools would not become significant until 1918. Section three covers the period 1918 to

1926. Three major “events” appeared to have facilitated Junior ROTC’s expansion into the public high schools. In 1918, a series of amendments to the 1916 Defense Act, suspended the

ROTC program in lieu of military training in the schools. Illustrative of this point was

Leavenworth High School’s (Leavenworth, Kansas) establishment in early 1917 and its

15 dissolution in October. Second, a 1918 memorandum by the Chief of Staff’s office recommended a more defined program for military instruction within the schools, called the

United States Junior Reserve. Though it is unclear whether or not this program was intended as a replacement or extension of Junior ROTC during World War I, the obvious implications of the recommendation, as explained, set in place standards for the program’s implementation post-

World War I. Curriculum is discussed in this section, outlining suggestions made by Corps

Commanders, detailing extended course information and books recommended for us. This section also reveals valuable descriptive statistics on Junior ROTC’s unit placements around the country, including general enrollment trends particular to specific high schools and localities gathered from Corps Area Commanders memoranda. This data permits the reader to better understand its early proliferation and growth, particularly in urban-centered high schools.

Economic issues pertinent to Junior ROTC are brought to bear, as the military as a whole experiences Congressional budget limitations, placing Junior ROTC in a tenuous position.

Nonetheless, the program remained intact, as the evidence suggests. The growing pacifism influence on military training in the schools may have had some effect as will be discussed in section four. Section four explores the anti-ROTC movement and the War Department’s response between the years 1926 and 1932. The pacifist arguments offer unique insight and historical perspective when one compares the 1990 anti-ROTC movement. Numerous pacifist groups began speaking at colleges and universities, causing some colleges and high schools to drop their programs altogether. The War Department was obviously concerned and drafted a response to help their instructors deal with the ‘menace’. Section five briefly looks at the program from the 1930s through 1964. Descriptive statistics are employed from the mid-1950s to show the strength of the program around the country, its placement and general trends. The

16 newly formed defense department created a more organized approach than their predecessors.

The period through 1964 is marked by declining enrollments and large-scale disinterest of Senior

ROTC, but culminated in passage of the 1964 ROTC Vitalization Act, providing more federal

control. This will be discussed in some form here.

Chapter five concludes the dissertation. I will analyze the preparedness and imperialist-

expansionist ideological threads as Junior ROTC’s primary pre-requisites. The question

regarding recruitment, elucidated in chapter four using with enrollment data from 1923 and 1953

as well as the present day available information will be addressed and placed in contemporary

contexts. Finally, I will attempt to resolve the issue of Junior ROTC as a recruitment mechanism

that targets working class, disadvantaged youth. The historical record, combined with the present day statistics and structural issues related to class and race will be focused upon.

Delimitations

A few items are necessary in assisting the reader. The present study is an interdisciplinary approach emphasizing a historical and sociological analysis. The attempt to show, for example,

Junior ROTC’s historical relationships to preparedness and imperialism, provides support for the argument that federalization-centralization of the military occurred. However, it is not, nor is it intended to be an exhaustive approach. Most of the primary sources in chapter four, including memoranda, letters, charts, graphs, et cetera, used in chapter four were obtained in March 2003 from National Archives Record Group 407, the Adjutant General of the Army Records, 1897 to

1917 and 1917 to 1939; and National Archives Record Group 319, the Chief of the Army

Reserve Records, 1945 to 1965. As such, this dissertation’s evidence and scope is limited to those developments in the Army, and particularly those correspondences emanating and arriving

17 to the Adjutant General’s Office. The Adjutant General’s Office (AGO) was responsible for the

operation of ROTC throughout its beginning, up through the 1960s when there was significant

redesign to program – a result of the 1964 Vitalization Act. The AGO was also the most

significant available data on the program. Upon choosing this topic, my immediate goal was to

work directly with Army Cadet Command and their records. Army Cadet Command currently

operates the entire ROTC program. Due to a series of significant challenges obtaining access, I

was able to retrieve minimal data sets from the organization. It is important for the reader to

understand this limitation on evidence, if for no other reason than setting groundwork for future

research. It is apparent much more research on the program would prove useful. In response to

the technological advances, I have incorporated where appropriate, web links to certain

documents or websites that may spark further interest or effectively illustrate a point.

Lastly, the dissertation’s first three chapters will inevitably contain some gaps in the

literature. The intent of presenting the first three chapters is to help the reader comprehend the historical developments, or prerequisites, leading up to Junior ROTC. Thus, to reiterate, the

current study incorporates an interdisciplinary method emphasizing a historical and sociological

analysis

18 CHAPTER 1

ANTECEDENTS: EARLY MILITIA PHILOSOPHY, STRUCTURE, AND TRAINING, 1609 TO 1815

“The militia, or what we call the Militia, is not a select Part of the People as it is in England, set apart for that purpose, and under officers ready to be made use of on Occasion, and when there is need for them, employed and payed at the Public Charge; but the whole Body of the People from 16 years of age to 50. It is fit that all these people should be trained and taught the use of Arms, and it is chiefly for this that the Militia Act is intended. Part of these people that are nigh to the Place where an Enemy makes and attempt, may be got together and make some Defence… It is the Duty of every man to resist and invasion… Militia is always to be employed as there is Occasion, and such as are employed to be paid in the manner directed.”

Governor Morris, 1744, quoted James Whisker, The Rise and Decline of the Militia System, 202

Introduction

For many years, American military historians were primarily concerned with past efforts at organizing and managing combat armies and navies. Few concerned themselves with the social origins of military personnel, the process of socialization and value inculcation in the military systems, military attitudes toward the public, the relation of military to economic and political elites, the development of inter-service rivalries, or the effect of military service on the individual. The historical recognition of the military’s social and political design is and has been moving beyond mundane accounts of battlefield tactics and lionized generals.

Chapter one depicts the early progression of military philosophy, process, and education.

Written off as primitive, the colonial militias actually served as a foundation for current military manifestations. Conditions for the raising and training of militias were harsh, but their presence flew in the face of British military tradition. As America rose to prominence, the militia design

19 would be called upon as the only true mechanism for evading tyrannous government and

maintaining the locus of control in the people.

Chapter one identifies three major antecedents or prerequisites to Junior ROTC, paying

particular attention to citizen militia development, Federalist and Whig political philosophy, and

the beginnings of preparedness ideology and imperialist-expansionist thought. Section one explores issues pertaining to early militia endeavors, setting in place how the organizations were implemented and utilized. This section introduces the citizen-soldier and the citizen-army which becomes a prominent theme of the dissertation. Section two summarizes militia training activities, typically termed musters. Musters were as much socially-oriented, bringing together townsfolk for long stays of military training, socializing, and community-building. This section also brings to bear the challenges colonials faced as they dealt with attack from Native American tribes and other ‘menaces’. As evidenced in the following pages, the training days’ haphazard nature and issues faced by Washington and other Revolutionaries during the War were cause for concern about the viability of a citizen-soldier. But, the second conclusion is reiterative from section one. The citizen-soldier concept holds firm in American culture, and while the concept contributes to problems during the Revolution, America indeed arose victorious. Section three further develops military philosophy permeating citizens’ hearts and minds. America’s

University and officers’ training school. Again, the debate between those advocating a state

20 militia system (Whig-Republicans) or a federalized regular army (Federalists) is brought to bear.

Early imperialist-expansionist remnants appear with Alexander Hamilton’s desire to use the

military for political purposes, emboldened by the Whiskey Rebellion’s success. Certainly, the

Whiskey Rebellion is not an imperialist-expansionist issue, but the implementation of the militia to put down the rebellion points to the military as a useful tool for political purposes – including imperialist-expansionist aims. Section five begins with the Federalists eventually losing control to Republican Thomas Jefferson, who was mainly opposed to an extravagant and over-sized armed service. Ironically, Jefferson’s views apparently become tempered by reality: He engaged the military more than his predecessors combined and signed legislation founding West Point.

Section five also digresses momentarily, weaving in West Point’s predecessors - indispensable in appreciating the United States Military Academy’s curriculum. Section six briefly delves into the

War of 1812. Once more, the citizen-soldier versus federalization debate reveals itself in a complex dialectical relationship when naval victory saved America from defeat, but America’s imperialist aims were in part related to the war’s unpopularity. The end of the War of 1812 marks military professionalism’s true beginning with expanded efforts to train officers, in part with Sylvanus Thayer’s appointment at West Point Military Academy, which is discussed in chapter two.

I. Early Military Philosophy: 1609 to 1765

“The colonial militia, in particular, represents the happy uniqueness of America, where Englishmen in the Seventeenth Century revived this military relic of the middle ages just as in Europe it was sinking beneath the superiority of the politically dangerous mercenary army on the battlefield.”6

6John W. Shy, A New Look at Colonial Militia, ed. Peter Karsten, The Military in America: From the Colonial Era to the Present, (New York: The Free Press, 1986), p. 27; and, John Shy, “New Look,” William and Mary Quarterly, 20 (April, 1963), pp. 175-185.

21 The arrival of early colonists marked a brand new beginning. The militia system that developed over the ensuing one hundred years hearkened back to a bygone era in England.

Many new settlers were political refugees, religious dissidents, and people with ‘unsavory’

pasts. The concept of a militia run by the people, though practical in its implementation also

held to the basic principles of citizen-controlled leadership. While the colonials varied in their

loyalty to the Crown, there was no mistake that the militia system placed the commoner at the

fore.7

The settlement came at a cost for everyone involved – colonist, African, and Native

American. Beginning with Jamestown’s settlement, early Americans battled disease, starvation,

and domestic as well as foreign attack. The challenges faced by colonists naturally cast doubt on

their ability to permanently settle America. However, after a great deal of maneuvering by the

British government including the redistribution of charters and leadership, the settlement grew

with increasing verve. It also was the colonial militias that became the dominant method for

survival and growth and stability. Small cadres of men served the locality, fending off Indian

attacks (and in as many cases initiating attacks). As time wore on, the new representative bodies

of colonies sanctioned the raising of military service, as in the case of Virginia in 1639

compelling all able-bodied males to serve in a military capacity as required.8

Militias were utilized as expeditionary forces, scouting the areas for arable land, timber, and other natural resources. Having a small core group of easily assembled men to protect the

7One should not parlay the fact, however, that throughout American history (and the colonial era is no exception), men and women from working classes were the primary battle casualties. Thus, the citizen militia concept is contradicted by the fact many in the aristocracy simply did not carry war’s burden. The initial three chapters do not deal as deeply with this issue as the author would like, but it is an important relationship. An in-depth analysis of the first American militia see William L. Shea, “The First American Militia,” Military Affairs, 46 (February, 1982), pp. 15-18.

8Russell F. Weigley, History of the United States Army, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), p. 5.

22 settlements, the locality’s disposal was crucial. Financial constraints of colonists made a full-time military, known as a Regular Army or Standing Army, impossible. The new settlements required a great deal of labor, requiring the skills of every man, woman and child for the settlement’s economic and social stability.9

Aside from financial limitations there also was a unique philosophical bent in the colonists desire to avoid the professional ‘Regular’ force that Britain relied on. The use of

‘citizen-soldiers’ was what many historians view as the hallmark of America’s eventual success in the Revolution. These men were citizen-soldiers - resistant to military professionalism – serving only when duty called.

Distrust of a standing army reaches as far back as 1620 with the arrival of the Pilgrims and the eventual immigration of Puritans en masse to the New World. King Charles’ forced military musters on Sundays and his penchant for impressments caused great consternation among the ultra-religious Puritans. Ultimately, King Charles’ military policy of ‘train bands’ had a deleterious effect on the Puritan mindset, resulting in their migration to the New World:

“He (Charles I) angered the Puritans by requiring that, following church services on Sundays, the train bands were to engage in such sports as ‘archery, running, wrestling, leaping, football playing, casting, the sledge hammer and playing at codgels’… in the bitter debate in the parliamentary session of 1628 they railed hard against the imposition of tyrannical standards on an essentially civilian body.”10

9 Ibid., p. 4. The Standing or Regular Army concept developed in Europe. Soldiers were paid to be permanent members of a military unit and served at the discretion of monarchs, parliaments, or both. For more information on the early British Standing Army tradition, see George J. Neimanis, “Militia vs. the Standing Army in the History of Economic Thought from Adam Smith to Friedrich Engels,” Military Affairs, 44 (February, 1980), pp. 28-32; Dallas Irvine, “The First British Regulars in North America,” Military Affairs, 9 (Winter, 1945), pp. 337-354; Ian Steele, “Governors or Generals?: A Note on Martial Law and the Revolution of 1689 in English America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 46 (April, 1989), pp. 304-314. 10 James Whisker, The Rise and Decline of the Militia System, (London, England: Susquehanna University Press, 1999), p. 93. William L. Shea, Op. Cit., pp. 15-18.

23 Religious persecution ultimately caused the Puritan’s flight. Issues such as military readiness that

infringed upon their religious activities increased their resolve.

The militia system was first and foremost a practical entity. As just mentioned, its

general mission was in the business of protection, not war. When defending what was important to them: their homes and property, their effectiveness was unyielding. Their efficacy decreased considerably, however, when they embarked on ‘expeditions’, resulting in large numbers being massacred, falling ill, or suffering mental and physical fatigue.11

“Unlike professional soldiers, citizen-soldiers want to avoid wars, and they bring such wars as do occur to a rapid conclusion. They then fully reintegrate back into the mainstream society. They fight for nationalism and principle, not booty, rewards or honors… They go to war to defend their own homes and families and national interests, not for money in a land alien to them.”12

A plethora of towns, hamlets, and villages throughout colonial America proved

necessary to militia success. Militias relied on these localities to serve as ‘strategic villages’ or

outposts where if protracted war developed, there was safe haven, food and supplies, and

military facilities: New England towns often fed and boarded soldiers in townsfolks’ homes. The

central meeting house also doubled as a garrison, housing weapons, ammunitions, and other

Much ado has been made about Puritan’s influence on American mores, political, economic and social entities – and for good reason. See also, Sanford Kessler, “Tocqueville's Puritans: Christianity and the American Founding,” The Journal of Politics, 54. (August, 1992), pp. 776- 792. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Henry Reeve, (ed.), (Online publication, http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bibperm?q1=AKR4001); and, Joseph A. Conforti, Imagining New England: Explorations of Regional Identity from the Pilgrims to the Mid-Twentieth Century, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), pp. 1-34.

11 Weigley makes this clear, stating that militia training and experience “did not prepare them for extended campaigns, nor did militia organization befit the maintenance of long expeditions,” Weigley, Op. Cit., p. 12.

12 James Whisker, Op. Cit., p. 381.

24 warfare needs. This loosely-organized set-up in the end was extremely useful and imitated

throughout the New England colonies.

“…The colony (Massachusetts) developed a net of what have been called, in another time and place, ‘strategic villages’… each protected by its own militia, and augmented by provincial troops who used horses in the summer, snowshoes in the winter, to connect the towns by patrols and conduct raids into Indian country.”13

As the colonies increased in social and political viability, so to did the overall organization of the militia. Resource consolidation became fundamental for survival. The New England

Confederation, an alliance of many colonies was conceived, pooling valued resources together in putting down Native American threats and other incursions. Later on this consolidation would be one of Britain’s greatest oversights since the Confederation appears to have been the foundation for a Revolutionary movement in the eighteenth century. The New England Confederation was the colonists’ first attempt at military centralization in the New World “…adopting a mutual aid, self-defense program based on the colonial militias of these member regions. The Confederation would make, or at least approve, all appointments of officers, and designate an overall commander-in-chief. It would contract for maintenance and repair of the Confederation’s arms… sought authority to decline war.”14

Ranks of militia men also developed during the Confederation period. Historian James

Whisker discusses the Confederation’s categorization of certain men as selectmen or minuteman,

a distinction while seemingly minuscule, is extremely important:

13 John W. Shy, Op. Cit., pp. 30-31; T. H. Breen, “An Empire of Goods: The Anglicization of Colonial America, 1690-1776,”The Journal of British Studies, 25 (October, 1986), pp. 467-499. Ronald L. Boucher, “The Colonial Militia As a Social Institution: Salem, Massachusetts 1764- 1775,” Military Affairs, 37 (December, 1973), pp. 125-130.

14 James Whisker, Op. Cit., p. 100; and, Jack S. Radabaugh, “The Militia of Colonial Massachusetts,” Military Affairs, 18, (Spring, 1954), pp. 1-18.

25 “The select militia, in the colonies called ranges or ranging units and minutemen, received special training and the best arms provided at the expense of the province. Rangers were primarily frontiersmen who lived too far away from the towns to be able to attend regular Militia musters. Minutemen were city dwellers who pledged to muster at the proverbial moment’s notice.”15

This notion of a “Confederation” should not imply all colonial militias were imitating.

Indeed, this was far from the case - and leads to a major interweaving concept throughout

American History. Each militia was a part of the town and each town had its own provincial

character. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of self-autonomy brought about by those

colonial structures. The colonies provincial character ripened the self-autonomy ideal,

contributing to the resistance towards federalization. Throughout the remaining chapters, this

concept will continually reoccur.

Provincial character greatly defined colonial obsession against tyranny, best exemplified in the Northeast, giving way to a unique concept mystifying many incoming immigrants and southern colonial brethren: they elected officers, basically democratizing their militia units. At the onset of the Pequot War in 1636 in which the “…the legislature (Massachusetts) passed legislation allowing each regiment and company to nominate its own officers, subject of ratification by the council… the militia units responded immediately by holding elections and sending in the names for approval.”

Election of officers was a primary mechanism to gain control and was virtually unheard of in the rest of the world. In their search for an increasingly egalitarian militia colonists opposed any trend set by British Regular army tradition!16

The middle and Southern colonies differed, in some ways radically, from the New England colonies, if for no other reason than slavery. Southern militias leaned towards loyalty to the Crown

15 James Whisker, Op. Cit., p. 96 and John C. Ranney, “The Bases of American Federalism,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3 (Jan., 1946), pp. 2-3.

16 James Whisker, Op. Cit., p.100.

26 (after all, profits from a slave-driven economy proved lucrative to the Crown and colonial inhabitants). The flavor of militia service first on was consistent, and throughout the early period, laws governing basic enlistment criteria were similar if not exact.17

Slave Revolts, though less frequent in the 1600s, increased as the “Peculiar Institution”

gained momentum throughout the South. There is no real doubt that threat of Indian attack

persisted, but only in decreasing amounts as time wore on. Late eighteenth century and

nineteenth century slave insurrections like the Stono Rebellion, Prosser’s Rebellion, the Haitian

Revolt, Denmark Vesey’s nearly successful rebellion are all examples of incidents which

illustrate southern fears resulting in slaves being barred from bearing arms and battle.

Consequently middle and southern colonies, made extensive use of militias as slave patrols:

“Resolved by the Common Council that for the future the inhabitants of this Borough shall, to prevent any invasion or insurrection, be armed at the church upon Sundays, or other Days of worship of Divine service, upon the penalty of five shillings… Josiah Smith, Mayor.”18

17For further elaboration on this topic see Carter G. Woodson and Charles Wesley, The Negro in Our History, (11th ed.), (Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1966), pp. 409-424; Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 15-195; and, John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, (5th ed.), (New York: Knopf Publishing, 1980), pp. 54-156.

18Edward W. Iams, ed., The Lower County, Virginia Antiquary, Vol. 1, (New York: Peter Smith, 1951), p. 101; quoted in James Whisker, The Rise and Decline of the Militia System, (London, England: Susquehanna University Press, 1999), p. 225; and, John C. Ranney, “The Bases of American Federalism,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3 (Jan., 1946), pp. 2-3. Various sources on slave revolts and planned but failed rebellions helped center the South’s rationale with regard to arming slaves. John M. Lofton, Jr., “Denmark Vesey's Call to Arms”, The Journal of Negro History, 33 (Oct., 1948), pp. 395-417; Kenneth S. Greenberg (ed.), The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, (Boston, MA: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1996), ad passim; Vincent Bakpetu Thompson, “Leadership in the African Diaspora in the Americas Prior to 1860,” Journal of Black Studies, 24 (September, 1993), pp. 42-76; Marion D. deB. Kilson, “Towards Freedom: An Analysis of Slave Revolts in the United States,” Phylon, 25 (2nd Qtr., 1964), pp. 175-187; and, Joyce Tang, “Enslaved African Rebellions in Virginia”, Journal of Black Studies, 27 (May, 1997), pp. 598-614. Whisker claims Natives sided w/ Colonists or were simply too weak. However, logic points to British concentration of troops for economic reasons- protection of manufactured goods and white colonists. Whereas, in the North there existed greater resistance on the part of British presence.

27 Another unique feature of middle and Southern Colony militias, particularly Maryland, was their implementation of King Charles’ “Stuart militia system” – a system where ‘regulars’ were a prominent feature charged with protecting colonial and British interests – putting down riots, public disturbances, and generally keeping the peace. Charles’ Stuart Militias southern implantation, allude to the south’s Loyalist tendencies toward the British. The militias were class-based and hierarchical meaning the aristocracy held officers positions while general troops consisted of middle and lower class males. Northern colonies generally repudiated the Stuart

Militia in favor of more democratic control. Stuart Militias in the South contained fairly well- trained men presumably better than in the North. In reality, these militias trained more regularly, and were often better equipped. Unlike the North’s system of electing officers, the South’s system centered on a definitive hierarchy-facilitating quick and lethal deployment troop deployment in the event of revolt.19

In summary, colonial militia varied depending on region, British loyalty, and purpose.

Northern militia, less concerned about slave revolt, focused energies on protection from attack, expeditions, and so forth. The middle and southern colonies, on the other hand, were terrified for good reason, about slave revolts – a ‘menace’ created by their reliance on slave labor.

II. Military Education and Training

Training and drilling were compulsory, but strangely haphazard early colonial features in that the content, focus, and rigor of the training varied among and within localities. In general, age requirements remained consistent (with the exceptions of Virginia and Pennsylvania).

19James Whisker, Op. Cit., pp. 224 – 227; and, William L. Shea, Op. Cit., p. 18.

28 Military service in most colonies began at the age of 16, capping off between ages 50 and 60.

Men were required to minimally maintain and operate their weapons, report for service, or face fines should they refuse. The Rhode Island militia provides a generalizable example in terms of service eligibility requirements enacting laws fining militiamen up to five shillings if absent for musters. All able-bodied males between the ages of sixteen and sixty were “required to have a

‘musquet cartouche box, 12 bullitts (sic), a half pound of [gun] powder and 6 flints…” and were ordered to maintain their equipment. Generally, however, the wealthier settlers evaded service by paying men to serve in their place or simply paid the requisite fines. 20

Training and drilling were much less consistent in practice than on paper. Some militias, as in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, trained regularly, whereas New Hampshire required less training than in wartime. Often training began earnestly, declining over time warranted by necessity.

Training was not necessarily an event in which the military arts were paramount. More typically it was a combined social event:

“…with whole families in attendance. The women folk prepared the meals, which were taken in common. The children enjoyed the opportunity rare, at least in rural areas, to socialize and to play with large numbers of other children. Many young, single men met their future wives at these gatherings. Occasionally, a church or public building had to be repaired, and this was done as part of, or adjunct to, 21 training days.”

20James Whisker, Op. Cit., p. 125; William L. Shea, Op. Cit., p. 18; Douglas Edward Leach, “The Military System of Plymouth Colony,” The New England Quarterly, 24 (September, 1951), pp. 342-364; and, H. Telfer Mook, “Training Day in New England” The New England Quarterly, 11 (December, 1938), pp. 675-697.

21John Russell Bartless, (ed.), Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation in New England, vol.3, (Providence, R.I., 1856-1865), p. 93 and pp. 295-97; quoted in James Whisker, Op. Cit., p.100; H. Telfer Mook, Op. Cit., pp. 675-697.

29 Training and drilling served then at the very least a mechanism for socializing, an

infrequent occurrence in the quite hectic and tumultuous times. The socializing aspect should not

imply that training exercises were absent. There were various accounts of well-trained

troops. Socialization, more than anything seems to have contributed to the camaraderie of

militiamen and townspeople.

Numerous and conflicting accounts exist as to the militia’s efficacy. Positive general

accounts existed where piety of the town militia was extremely respected praising the militia’s

training methods, focusing on the religiosity and orderliness. The militiamen’s abilities were

exalted by ministers and townsfolk alike. Their training regimen was geared towards the godliness and order of troop camps – more commonplace than fighting agility, as in one case an

official points out “public prayers, Psalm singing and martial exercises engrossed their whole

time at Albany.” 22 On the other hand, emphases on godliness, religiosity and orderliness, drew

criticism (particularly from British officers). Instead, militia readiness was scrutinized when it

came to warring practice. Describing the disorganized crew of poorly trained and poorly

equipped rabble-rousers, famed British General Jeffrey Amherst was appalled at training

conditions and “…was amazed to discover that many militiamen had only the most rudimentary knowledge of how their firearms worked. He expected to find the fabled “nation of riflemen” but instead discovered to his dismay that many of the urban New England militiamen possessed only the faintest knowledge of how their arms operated and how to care for them.23

Amherst’s dismay in part contributed to the increased British presence and incorporation

of a universalized military training doctrine. This doctrine was expressed via books such as

22James Whisker, Op. Cit., p.100.

23Ibid., p. 111.

30 Humphrey Bland’s treatise on military discipline, The Manual Exercise as Ordered by His

Majesty in 1764, Military Guide for Young Officers, An Easy Plan of Discipline for a Militian

by Thomas Pickering, William Windham’s A Plan of Exercise for the Militia of the Province of

Massachusetts and a smattering of others. These treatises advocated European warfare discipline

and tactics. What the colonials discovered was just how hampered they were by Amherst and

24 others’ desire to educate them in the ways of “correct” European methods.

What inefficiency existed was borne out of traditional British fighting tactics proffered by

the aforementioned treatises. Certainly, these would come in handy during Washington’s

Revolutionary battles when battling the English incursions. However, fending off Native

Americans engaging in ‘guerrilla’ warfare posed the largest challenge to training and drill of everyday militiamen who were educated in traditional British methods, known loosely as a

‘gentlemen’s style’ warfare. Musters, or training days, convened frequently to prepare the men in battlefield tactics, weapons handling, and maneuvering against this threat.

Frequency and content of musters reflected the diverse approaches among the colonies particularly when dealing with threatening Native American attacks and raids.

“If a man was in the militia, he participated in periodic musters, or training days, with the other members of his unit. Attendance of musters was compulsory; militia laws levied fines for non-attendance. During the initial years of settlement, when dangers seemed particularly acute, musters were frequent. However, as the Indian threat receded, the trend was toward fewer muster days, and by the early 1700s, most colonies had decided that four peacetime musters per year were sufficient.”25 The very notion of Indian threats plagued colonists for years. The effectiveness of musters only increased as militia members shed their old European ideas about battle-armor, swords and

24Ibid., pp. 171-172. These primary sources are located in Whisker’s narrative. Based on his assessment, they seem to provide an invaluable guide as to early militia philosophy.

25Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of America, (New York: The Free Press, 1994), p. 3.

31 the like in favor of more appropriate fighting techniques, eventually overwhelming the Native

Americans. Nevertheless, early training experiences consisted of detailed weapons instruction,

European tactics and socialization. Many colonists quickly discovered the horrific effects of the

Europeans professed tactics and weapons instruction when combating enemy forces:

“Yet most colonists made little effort to adjust to Indian-style warfare. On muster days militiamen practiced the complicated motions and maneuvers prescribed by European drill manuals. One commonly-used drill book described fifty-six steps for leading and firing a musket. In battle, many militiamen never lived to crucial Step Forty-three: ‘Give fire breast high”… the settlers’ reluctance to adjust to New World conditions was partly psychological. They considered Indian warfare barbaric…”26

As time passed and tactical adjustments were made, threat of Indian raids declined

significantly. The invention of better equipment, most notably the Pennsylvania Rifle, led to

better protection of the localities (a quicker ‘bullet’ did the trick much better than hatchets, bows

and arrows, and the like). The settlers found life to be less threatening and as a result the

economic and social tentacles of the colonials took root. As a result, militias disbanded or

significantly reduced muster requirement, permitting greater economic, social and political

growth. The need for militias did not evaporate entirely, but there was less need for most men in

a settlement to come together in military units.

American colonials observed a great deal of change by the mid- eighteenth century. The

British were now becoming a menace. Following the French and Indian Wars, British Parliament

and the Crown commenced levying exorbitant taxes against colonists. The King’s exploitation

26Ibid., pp.11-12. See also Adam J. Hirsch, “The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth- Century New England,” The Journal of American History, 74 (March, 1988), pp. 1187-1212; John K. Mahon, “Anglo-American Methods of Indian Warfare, 1676-1794, ” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 45, (September, 1958), pp. 254-275; and, Craig S. Keener, “An Ethnohistorical Analysis of Iroquois Assault Tactics Used against Fortified Settlements of the Northeast in the Seventeenth Century,” Ethnohistory, 46, (Autumn, 1999), pp. 777-807.

32 enraged Americans who were engaged in frequent mob action, pamphleteering, and frequently petitioning Parliament and King George. The British government, nonplussed over colonial misbehavior became increasingly agitated over what was seen as undisciplined and treasonous behavior. King George and British Parliament ordered military incursions to putdown radicals.

All the historical background here is set forth to highlight the important fact early Americans were not at first prepared for such actions, politically or militarily. It would take several years and egregious actions impressments, taxation without representation, and atrocities before

American colonials could or would act militarily.27

By the time the initial volleys were fired, several military related conundrums became apparent. Local militias were unprepared for war against British professional troops. Second, the

Revolutionary cause, though embraced by many, was difficult to sustain. Third, Washington’s

Federalist desire for a large Regular army contributed to a great deal of political conflict as the very thing Americans fought against and feared most they thought had been left behind: a monarchy that potentially could use standing or regular militia as a vehicle toward subversive ends. Conversely, most early Americans knew that organized military was essential to prevail.

27These ‘egregious actions’ included the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts. Varied and interesting accounts on these topics can easily be found. The following sources provide unique perspectives: Allen S. Johnson, “The Passage of the Sugar Act,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 16 (October, 1959), pp. 507-514; T. H. Breen, “Baubles of Britain: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, 119 (May, 1988), pp. 73-104; Edmund S. Morgan, “Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power 1764-1766,”The William and Mary Quarterly, 5 (July, 1948), pp. 311-341.There are also numerous books on the causes of the Revolution. Two outstanding books on the topic were selected as part of my bibliography, notably Edmund S. Morgan and Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) and Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History, (New York: Modern Library, 2002), ad passim.

33 Still, initial debate surrounding war with Britain swirled about, which prompted constant

questioning of the military and the dangers it posed to a society desiring liberty. 28

The citizen-army concept recapitulated during this Revolutionary period and all

throughout America’s early organization. This theme, however, was not new to colonial

America. The concept, traced deep into England’s torrid political history, rose in during

American political maturation in the form of moderate and radical Whig ideology. Whigs, as

historically portrayed, had a loose interpretation of the role of government and its impact on the

daily lives of citizens. People were primarily in control of their own destinies, but more

importantly, they could only be free to determine their destinies in the absence of political and

military tyranny. The development of moderate and radical Whig ideology stems from political

philosophers such James Harrington author of Oceana who represented what Lawrence Delbert

Cress calls the classical Republican view of militia involvement and early progenitor of Radical

Whiggery. Harrington viewed professional militias with less suspicion than some more radical

than he, capping his argument illuminatinf its true value in providing “constitutional balance,”

and an “..association of propertied independence, political personality, and military obligation

with political stability provided the common ground for classical republicanism and latter-day

Radical Whig thught.” 29 Ultimately for Harrington, the professional militia carried a broad swath

of individuals and fought at the discretion of the nationality.

28See Edmund S. Morgan and Helen M. Morgan, Op. Cit., ad passim; and, Gordon S. Wood, Op. Cit., ad passim.

29Lawrence Delbert Cress, “Radical Whiggery on the Role of the Military: Ideological Roots of the American Revolutionary Militia,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 40 (March, 1979), pp. 45- 46. See also John Toland, (ed.), The Oceana and other works of James Harrington (3rd edition), (London: Private printing, 1747, 1656), ad passim; and, Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican heritage in England and America, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), ad passim.

34 Conversely, Algernon Sidney, author of Discourses Concerning Government (among

numerous other works), represented the idealized Radical Whig mentality. Cress pins Sidney’s

argument on the Whigs’ historical interpretation of militia development and its historical

precedents in perpetuating political tyranny. He pointed to Sidney’s belief that:

“A government was as effective as it was able to prepare itself for war. Since the ability to make war depended on the quality of the commanders and the courage of the rank and file, Sidney believed that the citizen armies of mixed government had the greatest military potential.” To bring the point home, Sidney expounds that citizens ‘fighting for their own interests share in the promise of victory. ‘The advantages of good success are communicated to all, and everyone bears part of the losses.’”30

Among other political philosophers, Cress points to Blackstone, Frances Hutcheson, John

Locke and major pamphleteers in England opposed to the potential threat imposed by standing

militia. Cress makes the added point such philosophies, while not fully embraced in England, did

have a vital impact on people such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, among others. No doubt,

the growing debate in the early Confederation Congress through the War of 1812 seem firmly

founded in these 17th and 18th century British philosophers.

Whig ideology overwhelmingly appeared in the training of all men (free property

holders) regarding military matters. This would no doubt ensure the safety and credibilty of the

government. Whig-Republican advocacy of liberal arts education for military officers-in-training

would have the added effect of softening military training, “avoiding an otherwise inevitable

division of society into cowards and barbarians.”31

30Lawrence Delbert Cress, Op. Cit., p. 47.

31Ibid., p.51. For more information on this topic see James E. Bradley, “Whigs and Nonconformists: "Slumbering Radicalism" in English Politics, 1739-89,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 9 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 1-27; James Conniff, “Reason and History in Early Whig Thought: The Case of Algernon Sidney,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 43, (July, 1982), pp. 397-416; and for an in-depth explication on Lockean principles (underpinning the United States Constitution) see Richard Ashcraft and M. M. Goldsmith, “Locke, Revolution Principles, and the Formation of Whig Ideology,” The Historical Journal, 26 (December, 1983), pp. 773-800.

35 III. Revolutionary Military Philosophy: 1765 to 1792

Historians debate whether Revolutionary War activities began in 1765 or 1775.

Historians Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski argue that the Revolution truly had its start in 1765

citing numerous instances of organization on the part of colonial leaders, the rise of a national

political culture, and various attacks against British symbols, property, and philosophy.32

Regardless of the particular starting date, as war became imminent, a ‘dual army’

developed. First, there were the citizen militia colonial regiments that supplying a steady reserve

of soldiers. Second, was the Continental Army’s establishment (America’s version of a standing

army) that served at Congress’ will and was commanded by General George Washington. This

was Congress’ recognition that “English moderate Whigs who had argued that a regular force

under firm legislative control was not only consistent with constitutional freedoms but also

essential to preserve those liberties.”33 The Continental Army was intended to serve as an

assistive measure to ensure consistency and size. Washington inherited poorly prepared citizen

soldiers and poorly treated regulars. Similarly, he was at the mercy of colonial legislators and governors who habitually failed to meet their commitment, negligent in their duties to enlist needed militiamen.

The war effort persevered despite such challenges. Those colonies fulfilling their enlistment obligations increased muster frequency, heightened fines, created and stockpiled arms and equipment, and developed ranking systems allowing some men to serve longer periods of time than others. This piecemeal cooperation served Washington at least for the time being.

32 Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski, Op. Cit., p. 53.

33Ibid., p. 57.

36 No situation was ideal, and his reliance on protracted warfare seemed the only answer. The

numerous legends about Washington’s troops and haphazard training during the colonial times

are indeed true, and serve as testament to the fortitude, but also the enormous social class issues

of early Americans. Paralleling colonial militia social-class composition, the Revolutionaries

were primarily comprised of lower socioeconomic classes. Rank-and-file consisted of “recent

immigrants, enemy deserters and prisoners of war, Loyalists and criminals (both of whom

sometimes had the option of joining or hanging). For many men, the lure of bounties (money for service) increased their desire to stay. Other men simply had no other viable option! It became

clear that working class and poor people populated military rolls. 34

Nineteen thousand total men were involved in the Revolutionary War effort. Nine

thousand had training, giving credence to the fact “Washington’s was a generalship shaped by

poverty”. This was a prominent hallmark of the entire Revolutionary War, and in large-part

precipitated by “the loose Revolutionary Confederation and the limited resources of a scattered

agricultural economy.” The consequence was Washington’s reliance on protracted warfare and

strategic attacks against small British detachments. To reiterate and elaborate, there are three

main issues that affected Washington’s Revolutionary cause.35

First, inexperience and inconsistent performance of the Continental Army forced

Washington to indirectly engage British troops. These two elements are examples of the

haphazard militia training discussed previously. Second, maintaining the ‘fire for war’ in

America’s colonial citizens, would pose challenges due to Washington’s strategy of protracted

34Ibid., p. 57. Don Higginbotham, “The Early American Way of War: Reconnaissance and Appraisal,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 44 (April,1987), pp. 237-238. See also William B. Skelton, “The Confederation's Regulars: A Social Profile of Enlisted Service in America's First Standing Army,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 46 (October, 1989), pp. 770-785.

35Russell F. Weigley, The American Way of War; A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy, (New York: MacMillan Press, 1973), pp. 3-4 and William B. Skelton, Op. Cit., pp. 770-785.

37 warfare. Though attention span and commitment might wane, he believed small victories would

enhance confidence in America’s fledgling military. Finally, America’s fiscal health in waging

Revolution against Britain was a prime consideration. Financial resources were indeed, limited,

offering bare-bone minimums. Washington’s protracted military strategy had to be attempted,

“because American resources permitted no other way to lay the military foundation of political

dependence.”36

It could be construed with all the seemingly insurmountable challenges that Washington

scorned citizen-soldiers and the militia system. Washington did find the poorly prepared soldiers

confining and strategically exasperating, but politically he also understood the balance required

in having a state militia as protectors of the future states. His small army and resources could

only do so much to protect regions, but never could they probe the British Navy or Army’s every

deployment, as Washington noted “the militia, Independent of other troops, being more than

competent to all the purposes of defensive war.” would eventually save the day.37

July of 1775 would mark the birth of the Continental Army and the first army to be

sanctioned by an act of Congress. The act raised ten companies with expert men trained in arms,

emanating from three colonies in particular – Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. The army’s creation was significant, but perhaps more significant is the various checks and balances put in place by the Continental Congress to avoid the rise of a military dictatorship.

36Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., 5. See also Paul David Nelson, “Citizen Soldiers or Regulars: The Views of American General Officers on the Military Establishment, 1775-1781,” Military Affairs, 43 (Oct., 1979), pp.126-132; and, Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History, (New York: Modern Library, 2002).

37John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, 23 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944), p. 27. For varied discussion on Revolutionary officers’ views, see Paul David Nelson, Op. Cit., pp. 126-132.

38 “From its first measures establishing a Continental Army, Congress was acutely mindful that the similar Parliamentary army of England little more than a hundred years before had turned upon its own legislative creator and erected the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell…the dangers of a standing army as a threat to liberty were close to everyone’s thoughts since the attempts to station British regiments permanently in America, despite the elimination of New France…therefore Congress looked to the assurance of its ascendancy over the Army.” 38

Similarly, Congress’ borderline-obsession with control over the Army resulted in super- attentive Congressional oversight.39 Scores of Congressional committees throughout the course of the Revolution were formed to stay abreast on the effort as well as to ensure that the military was adhering to the wills of Congress. This effort to maintain a civilian controlled military was eventually manifested in their creation of a “Board of War.” The Department of Defense is the obvious great-grandchild of this early incarnation and is evidenced in the creation in 1781 of the

War Department. Though it signified institutionalization of civilian control over the military, the historical trend of this department actually resulted in proliferation of military professionals controlling process, expansion, and reduction of civil control.

America was victorious, but questions abounded as to type of government and defense.

The philosophy toward a standing American Army after the Revolution was conflicted. There were still concerns about maintaining a stable force that could protect the fledgling Country’s interests. Nevertheless, Federalist arguments resulted in Congress creating the very first ’Officer

Corps’ during peacetime in 1784. William B. Skelton takes a look at what he deems the

‘official’ beginning of the United States Army. He identifies the pivotal moment when in 1784 the Confederation Congress authorized several hundred volunteers, “maintain order on (the)

38Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., p. 5.

39Ibid., pp. 45-48.

39 remote Ohio River frontier.” Skelton investigates the social-political-military role of the enlisted

men who held rank, what he calls a contribution to “the new military history.” This “first

American regiment”, the first standing military as it was, is critical to the debate between

Federalists and Whigs-Republicans.

He attempts to also tease out designation of social class among the newly formed army’s officers, challenging the myth the men purely emanated from the social and political elite. He demonstrated that 48.7% came from middling class backgrounds, but his study was still short on nineteen officers’ backgrounds (of out of a total of 58). The remaining 51.3% still came from the

colonial upper-classes. He draws the generalization that these statistics reflect the

democratization of America – both in military and political affairs. This proves nothing other

elite – were rewarded positions of authority in the first days of the U.S. Army, much as it is

today. He also states that while post-Revolutionary militia pay and benefits were abysmal, the

upward social mobility gained from being an officer proved lucrative. He identified a number of

occupations these first officers engaged in upon their discharge: physicians, farmers, appointed

and elected office (often the former given as a reward in lieu of the poor military pay), and other

“respectable” occupations. Of one thing it seems certain, that “the officer corps of the

Confederation Army was an institution in transition.” 40 To declare otherwise would be misguided. Their performance along the Ohio River frontier proved lackluster, spurring

Congress’ authorization of General Anthony Wayne’s militia to wage war against the Native

American threat in the Northwest Territory. Additionally, a great deal of men were discharged from the service, either for length of time served, lack of fitness, and drunkeness. The officer

40William B. Skelton, “Social Roots of the American Military Profession: The Officer Corps of America's First Peacetime Army, 1784-1789,” The Journal of Military History, 54, (October, 1990), pp. 435-452.

40 corps’ played a part early on and its formal organization in 1784 sparked the beginnings of the

United States military bureacracy.

The federalized militia debate, pro and con, during Constitutional Ratification grew fiercer, as early Americans plotted a course of governance. The more illuminating arguments proffered by the Federalists originate from John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist

Papers. As has been demonstrated in other texts, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton present their case to the public as to the benefits of a Standing Regular Army among numerous other concerns. 41

Jay explicated that sole reliance on states to come together quickly in the event of attack was foolhardy at best, mentioning countries in Europe would hardly be functional militarily if confederacies relied on friendly cooperation:

“What would the militia of Britain be if the English Militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales! Suppose an invasion; would these three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?”42 Jay, like many who witnessed the ineffectual forces of the Revolutionary militia, felt the pooling of such resources would no doubt benefit the country:

“Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of

41Russell F. Weigley, History of the United States Army, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), p. 75. See also Daniel W. Howe, “The Political Psychology of The Federalist,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 44 (July, 1987), pp. 485-509.

42John Jay, The Federalist Papers, Number 4, quoted in Clinton Rassiter, ed., The Federalist Papers: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), pp. 45-50.

41 defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.”43

Hamilton was equally persistent in his view of a national military. In Federalist Paper twenty-four, he addressed concerns over the vagueness in the Constitution on a standing military

- in addition to which branch of government - Executive or legislature, or both, would control the militia.44 Hamilton’s argument reiterated that while flexibility was vital, the very life of the

United States was dependent on the appropriate uses and abilities the government might employ:

“The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets, and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.”45 Hamilton was known for his deep desire for federalization of the military. The success of the

1794 Whiskey Rebellion (albeit with actual militia), strengthened his position. Hamilton believed that the troops could be used towards political ends, carrying out what he considered protection of the constitutional mandate. He also entertained using a standing army to wrest

Spanish territory, over-expansion of the army during Adams’ diplomatic struggles with France, and general military use to further government purview, as in the Whiskey Rebellion.

Hamilton’s aims, however one defines them (imperialistic or expansionist), never manifested themselves. But, his ideas as to military power for political ends would no doubt stay, if at the very least, in the background of American military and political philosophy. The experiment of a peacetime army and ensuing debate between Federalist and Republican political forces

43Ibid., pp. 45-50.

44Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 24, quoted in Clinton Rassiter, ed., The Federalist Papers: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), pp. 157-162.

45Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 23. quoted in Clinton Rassiter, ed., The Federalist Papers: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), pp.152-157.

42 resulted in an eventual compromise that would place the Army, in large part, back to the states

in the form of citizen militias.46

This decision would have an impact on the early days of the War of 1812 and resulted in large-scale changes during and after that war. The drafts and final version of the Constitution exemplify the Congress’ true concern over the standing army issue. “Under the Articles,

Congress could declare war, but it had to requisition the states for both militia and money.”

Further, checks-and-balances placed control of the forces in the executive branch, but limited the

Executive Branch’s ability, avoiding military despotism through Congressional appropriations.

There is one final point to the checks-and-balances Congress created and that was the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. This critical component, found in the Bill of Rights, recognizes the importance of citizens to protect themselves from affronts: both invasions on their property and the potential of a government that might use force toward totalitarian ends.47

By 1792, the United States had won the Revolution and set in place its foundation for

governance. That year would also mark the first and most influential piece of legislation for the

military. The Militia Act of 1792 created a functional reserve army, to be called into service should there be warranted cause. The Act was a compromise to maintain states’ rights that militia be would maintained and would serve when the federal government deemed necessary. One caveat remained in place: ultimately necessity rested under state government purview at all other

times, but guidelines were set forth by the federal government, standardizing ranks. A small

46Willard Sterne Randall, Alexander Hamilton: A Life, (New York: HarperCollins, 2003),ad passim; and, Richard Brookhiser, Alexander Hamilton, American, (New York, NY: Free Press, 1999), ad passim; and, Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 99-106.

47U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 9 and art. 2, sec. 2; and, Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 76-77.

43 federal regular army was in force, but reinforcement capability was obviously needed,

rationalized under this militia act.48

IV. Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Military Training and Education

Pre- and post-Revolutionary training was similar to the earliest settlement period. The

function of the militia as ‘guardians’ had the benefit of its male soldiers possessing fairly

competent knowledge on equipment usage, for “as long as colonial community remained a

frontier community, the part-time soldiers of its militia company were likely to be fairly

competent Indian fighters no matter what occurred on training days.” Nevertheless some

training in the form of drills and exercises occurred, some localities with more regularity than

others, intermittently over a year and sometimes frequently within a month. In general, the

amount of drills fluctuated with the threat of attack or invasion, sometimes as few as twice a year, and as often as twice a week.49

The lack of organized training and competent officers led some American leaders to

fume and fret. What, the query might have gone, would be the future of a country with such

limited military resources? Few personnel existed, hence training activities, warfare, and

maintaining consistency appeared a lost cause. No institutionalized form of military training for

officers or enlistees was present. Only in Europe were there formal educational facilities

designed for the instruction of war. These included the Prussian and French military training

academies most notably Ecolé Polytechnique.

48U.S. Second Congress, Session I, Providing for the Authority of the President to Call out the Militia, Chapter XXVIII, May 2, 1792, see http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm for online version of this Act.

49Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., p. 9.

44 European newcomers viewed military educational institutions as breeding grounds for abuse, reminiscing on incredible personal and professional risks professional officers assumed serving at the whim of a monarch, protracted and bloody wars, and persecution. Further, no centralized government within the colonies appeared ready to support a training facility (let alone a standing army). Victorious General Washington was forced to study the European war drills and tactics on his own, never formally educated in the art of war.50

Thus, military education and training occurred more accidentally than by any real organized process, becoming exceedingly evident during myriad failed Revolutionary War battles and skirmishes. Attuned to these educational deficiencies, Washington made overtures toward an educational system advocating for a military academy and a national university upon assuming the presidency.51

The national university model presents two imperative points. First, it would answer concerns many founders had in terms of perpetuating the newborn Republic. Second, and connectedly, the role of an educated citizenry would deter the rise of a military autocracy.

While one should not ascribe too much to Washington’s vision, his national university concept was the first attempt at a national program for educating youth. Washington expounds on this in his Last Will and Testament:

“That visit has always been a source of serious regret with me to the youth of these United States sent to foreign Countries for the purpose of Education, often before their minds were formed, or they had imbibed any adequate of the happiness of their

50Stephen Ambrose, Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), pp. 4-7. Washington’s attention to this area was also the reason behind his victory. Washington in fact knew his American Revolutionary force could not withstand the British in regular battle. His was a ‘respectable retreat’ mentality. Additionally, Washington’s lack of education bolstered those arguing against training facilities.

51Stephen Ambrose, Op. Cit., pp. 4-23. Those who strictly define Junior ROTC as a high school matter might question the relevance of Washington’s national university concept as an antecedent.

45 own; contracting, too frequently, not only habits of dissipation and extravagance, but principles unfriendly to Republican Government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind. For these reasons, it has been my ardent wish to see a plan devised on a liberal scale which would have a tendency to spread systematic ideas through all parts of this rising Empire, thereby to do away local attachments and state prejudices, as fare as the nature of things would, or indeed ought to admit, from our National Councils… my mind has not been able to contemplate any plan more likely to effect the measure that the establishment of a University in a central part of the United States, to which the youth of fortune and talents from all parts thereof might be sent for the completion of their Education in all the branches of polite literature; in arts and sciences in acquiring knowledge in the principles of Politics and good Government; and (as a matter of infinite Importance in my judgement)…I give and bequeath in perpetuity the fifty shares which I hold in the Potomac Company towards the endowment of University to be established within the limits of the District of Columbia.”52

In dealing with the matter of a National University, Washington also voiced this concern to members of his cabinet, including his Vice President and a letter to Catherine

MacCauley. Hence, the topic was at the very minimum broached upon more than one occasion

during his presidency.53

Washington’s interest in education was not reserved solely to a national university. His

cabinet and other prominent Federalists, like Hamilton and John Jay, were strong advocates of

a military academy. Such an institution seemed an appropriate answer to the question

distressing Washington: how would an army truly be able to protect and defend the nation in

52John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Vol. 37, (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), pp. 275-303.

53Ibid., pp. 22-23; and, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Vol. 30, (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), pp. 275-303. Over the next one hundred years, sentiments about a National University remained strong in some political sectors. See also John Wesley Hoyt, Memorial in Regard to a National University, (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1892), ad passim; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee to Establish the University of the United States, University of the United States, (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1902), ad passim; and, Albert Castel, “The Founding Fathers and the Vision of a National University,” History of Education Quarterly, 4 (December, 1964), pp. 280-302.

46 the event of attack? While Washington and his cadre saw its value, the anti-military

establishment instilled deep fear with claims of military elitism and military dictatorship.

Washington’s colleagues tried providing compelling arguments for an academy. Benjamin

Rush exhorted “In a state where every citizen is liable to be a soldier and a legislator, it will be necessary to have some regular instruction given upon the art of war and upon practical legislation.” Though neither the national university or academy concepts came to fruition, the practice of formal military education would surface, ironically, under the Republican President

Thomas Jefferson. 54

V. Jefferson’s Election and the Birth of Formalized Military Education

Following passage of the Militia Act of 1792, dispute between two social-political camps

continued, often aggressively. The Federalists had as their ambition the build-up of a standing

Army. Alexander Hamilton was among those Federalists at the debate’s epicenter. Hamilton

enunciated his views at the Constitutional Convention, that “a coercion of laws or coercion of

arms (is among) the great and essential principles for the support of government.” Hamilton, as

did other Federalists, envisioned political ends for the military. One such case was the Whiskey

Insurrection, but also there were visions of conquering Spanish America. “Hamilton was the

most influential figure in the new Army, and it was no secret that the notion of political uses for

the Army had long intrigued him. The Army had – or rather, more ironically, the militia – had already served such purpose on a limited scale in suppressing the Whiskey Insurrection in 1794.”

These ‘assaults’ on states’ rights, eventually thrust Thomas Jefferson into the Presidency in 1801. A throw-back to moderate Whig-Republican ideology, Jefferson saw militia used in

54Andrew, Rod. Long Gray Lines: The Southern Military School Tradition, 1839-1915, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001), p. 10.

47 furthering political or social ends “as the kind of tyranny they (Republicans) had feared from the

Federalists.” However, necessity being the mother of invention, forced Jefferson to utilize the

military. Early in his administration, he drastically reduced the size of the standing army, but did

not eliminate it as many radical Republicans had been seeking. Moreover, Jefferson’s alleged

duplicity stoked his own Republican Party’s ire when he deployed militia during the Embargo

Rebellion in 1808. Scholars have pointed to Jefferson’s penchant for employing the military

when it served economic interests.55

Political issues aside, Jefferson was a major proponent of educational accessibility. He continually proposed bills, voiced ideas, and gave money when the subject presented itself. The founder would find success in the establishment of the University of Virginia, and though less his own doing, the United States Military Academy. The former is not quite as surprising as the latter, since West Point would become the military’s dominant resource for training military officers and at first glance appears to contradict Jefferson’s military philosophy.56

55Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 100-102. Alternatively, see Dumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time. Vol. 4, (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1970), pp. 24-27; and, Merrill Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), pp. 222-226; Willard Sterne Randall, Op. Cit., ad passim; and, Richard Brookhiser, Op. Cit., ad passim. An interesting case study, though somewhat ancillary, can be found in Charles O. Lerche’s, “Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 5 (October, 1948), pp. 467-491. Eric Foner and John Garraty, (eds.), The Reader’s Companion to American History, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991), pp. 352-353;See also G. W. Daniels, “American Cotton Trade with Liverpool under the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts,” The American Historical Review, 21 (January, 1916), pp. 276-287; and G. E. Watson, “The United States and the Peninsular War: 1808-1812,” The Historical Journal, 19 (December, 1976), pp. 859-876.

56On University of Virginia’s creation, see Tony W. Johnson and Ronald F. Reed, (eds.), Historical Documents in American Education, (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2002), pp. 21-26; Merrill Peterson, Op. Cit., pp.240-244. On West Point, see Edward C. Boynton, History of West Point, (New York: Van Nostrand Publishers, 1863), ad passim.

48 1802 would mark the founding year of what Army and all military services would come

to know and respect as West Point. The new service academy was identified by John Lovell as a

seminary academy for its near-monastic approach to training and education. West Point’s

ancestors all would be based in some part on its structure. Jefferson, who viewed the military

establishment with skepticism, eventually found value in the concept of a military academy. In

fact, the irony of his proposal to implement the academy can be swept away when one

understands his philosophy. Prior to his Presidency, Jefferson, Washington and others

contemplated on the possibility of a national university or academy that would train young men

of the new Republic in the subjects related to democratic processes. An educated citizenry in the

classical tradition, Jefferson believed, was the best safeguard against tyranny. The proposal never

went far under Washington, since he penned only a few supportive letters to Congress.

Similarly, the concept of an educational academy system would be costly and not, in many members of Congress, the best use of scarce resources. When a proposal for a military academy came before Jefferson he leapt at the idea, fostering its development.

His endorsement needs to be understood as a reversal of philosophy in part to incorporate his Republican prerogatives and educational purview. Not unlike today, Republican thought focused on smaller, less-intrusive federal governance and a reduced national debt. However, unlike today, Republicans of 19th century America viewed the military with suspicion. Hence,

smaller government equaled a smaller military. Thus, it should be construed that Republicans

and Jefferson for that matter did not completely disdain the military. For Jefferson, military

presence was a matter of efficiency and economy, both of which could be done with a relatively

small force. With regard to the academy, his Republican views were tempered by his desire for a

national university and the need to place his imprint, philosophically, on the military creating “a

49 Republican avenue into the officer corps.” Jefferson also had control in selecting faculty and

encouraging direction for a course of study. He packed the academy with Republicans

“furthering the process of Republicanizing the Army.” West Point was formally founded in

1802, but had operated sporadically prior to its official founding. To Jefferson, this was a fair

compromise. As an advocate of states’ rights, a military academy equipped with good instructors

and curriculum would instill a sense of democracy amongst American citizens, as well as forge

the citizenry with the military. The structure of the academy admissions supplemented

Jefferson’s desires that the military would control the academy’s day-to-day operations students

would be selected by civilians. “Through the device of a civilian-controlled academy, Americans

would enjoy defense, while avoiding dangers of a standing army.” 57 Checks-and-balances were

the hallmark of Jeffersonian thought, and the Academy structure was no different.

West Point’s roots reached back to the French. It was the French who were the innovators

in the area of military tactics and engineering contributing to Napoleon’s successes. Cadet

schools were formed in France as early as 1723. The curriculum of Ecolé Militaire and the Ecolé de Mars (a lesser academy) placed engineering as the highest priority. Consequently, the Ecolé

Militaire (later the Ecole Polytechnique) was the first engineering school in the world. The U.S.

Military Academy, or West Point, would soon become the second. “On March 16th, 1802,

authorization by Congress to organize a Corps of Engineers at West Point” was enacted.

57Stephen Ambrose, Op. Cit., p. 7; and, Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski, Op. Cit., p.104. An interesting organization called the United States Military Philosophical Society was formed simultaneously with West Point in order to scientifically investigate matters of war and peace, while also dealing with the tenuous balance between a nation needing defense while holding true to Republican virtues of government. More on this can be found in Sidney Forman’s, “The United States Military Philosophical Society, 1802-1813: Scientia in Bello Pax,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 2 (July, 1945), pp. 273-275.

50 Jonathan Williams, great nephew to Benjamin Franklin, though often forgotten laid the essential

“groundwork for a forward-looking scientific-engineering program”. It would not be until the

appointment of Sylvanus Thayer in 1815 that Williams’ groundwork would be expanded. 58

Practical need and lessons from the Revolution also hastened West Point’s creation.

Historian Sydney Forman illustrates this in his article Why the United States Military Academy

was Established in 1802. He identifies prerequisites relevant to the practicality of officer training

and attributes these to the United States Military Academy’s birth. Forman’s historical analysis

back to early colonial America, in which he designates between informal and formal military

training and education up through the moment of Congressional legislation forming the United

States Military Academy.

While various training maneuvers and tactics were imparted from British Generals, the

notion of “military science” began to develop as the Revolutionary War drew near. “Just before

the Revolution, the study of military science became popular with the patriotic faction which

expected that the issues between England and the American colonies would be settled by war.”59

Forman continues by providing examples of that growing interest. George Washington, Henry

Knox, Anthony Wayne and many others began an informal study of war and military

engineering. No amount of formal or informal study would be enough, however, to counter

reliance on foreign expertise in training of officers in military science. Washington, as Forman

58Stephen Ambrose, Op. Cit., p. 22; and, John Lovell, Neither Athens nor Sparta, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1979), p. 20. While French thought was a critical component to West Point, it would be the appointment of Thayer in 1815 which would draw French tactics and thought into the Academy. Norman B. Wilkinson, “The Forgotten "Founder of West Point,” Military Affairs, 24 (Winter, 1960-1961), pp. 177-188. See also William B. Skelton, “Samuel P. Huntington and the Roots of the American Military Tradition,” The Journal of Military History, 60 (April, 1996), pp. 325-338.

59Sidney Forman, “Why the United States Military Academy was Established in 1802,” Military Affairs, 29, (Spring, 1965), pp. 16-28; and, William B. Skelton, Op. Cit., p. 338.

51 points out, bemoaned this fact in a letter to New Jersey Governor Mourris, Henry Knox also saw a great lack of training in the officership, citing the dearth of training books and manuals.

One fascinating piece of information, is Forman’s unearthing of 1777 legislation creating a “Corps of Invalids”. Forman describes the Corps, modeled after French King Louis XIV’s concept, in which “provide[d] lodging, food, and clothing for wounded or disabled soldiers.” In

America, the design was similar, but varied in that these veterans would instruct future officers in the Revolution in addition to other “light duties”. Subject areas included “math, geometry, vulgar and decimal fractions, and the extraction of roots”. Future officers were also required to relinquish a certain amount of pay to support a growing library. The school was placed at the current site of West Point. Forman also describes Knox’s efforts at military education in New

Jersey (and similar attempts throughout the country) via lectures on military tactics. However,

Forman contends that such training did little to serve the needs of an educated officership. The acute need for engineers in the military was voiced by General Washington, Knox and others.

The lack of experienced, knowledgeable men at moments proved deleterious against Britain. As time progressed, the entrenched attitude tilting towards states’ rights impeded progress towards a military academy. Forman noted that there was a tremendous amount of pacifistic and provinicialist feelings that opposed a military educational establishment. Upon ratification of the

Constitution and George Washington’s election, the question of an academy resurfaced in cabinet meetings. Save for Jefferson, the idea would have passed quite easily, but Forman points out that this objection caused Washington to lay the proposal before Congress. Forman describes Congress new twist on the Corps of Invalids and established in May of 1794 “a Corps of Artillerists and Engineers, and for the first time established in the U.S. Army the rank of cadet

‘with the pay, clothing, and rations of a sergeant’ attached with the new Corps”. While the initial

52 idea incorporated a reasonable set curriculum, inclusive of amenities paid for by the War

Department, success was elusive:

“It was later reported that some officers became indignant at descending to the grade of pupil, and in 1796, by design or accident, the Provost (an old two story stone building), books, and instruments were destroyed by fire.”60

Forman documents various proposals put in front of Congress by Washington, Benjamin

Rush, Benjamin Latrobe (architect of the D.C.), Alexander Hamilton, and others. Success, then,

was not to be found until the Jefferson administration, though it should be noted Hamilton’s

proposal came closest to the final legislated product. One lacking component in Forman’s

discussion is Jefferson’s rationale. A Republican doubtful of an entrenched military

establishment, Jefferson’s attitudes and motivations should have been investigated a bit more

thoroughly to provide a more thorough understanding of the legislative process. Nonetheless,

the bill was passed in the following form:

“Sec. 26. That the President of the United States is hereby…to organize and establish a corps of engineers to consist of one engineer with the pay, rank, and emoluents of a major; two assistant engineers with the pay, rank, and emoluents of captains; two other assistant engineers with the pay, rank, and emoluents of second lieutenants; and ten cadets with the pay of sixteen dollars per month and two rations per day…Sec. 27. That the said corps when so organized, shall be stationed at West Point, in the state of New York, and shall constitute a military academy…Sec. 28. That the principal engineer, and in his absence the next in rank, shall have the superintendence of the said military academy.”61

Its passage in 1802 merits discussion of a few points. First, many politicians and

militarymen saw a very practical opportunity to fill a void: a military academy. The point where

sheer military instruction breaks off, is partially influenced by Hamilton’s earlier proposals, the

history of the French Polytechnique and Military School, and ultimately Jefferson’s fingerprint,

60Sidney Forman Op. Cit.,17-20.

61The Debates and the Proceedings of the Congress of the United States, 7th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1312; quoted in Sidney Forman, Op. Cit., p. 18.

53 as only could have been managed by his ascendancy to President. This view will be taken into account at some length, but it bears discussion here. Jefferson’s passion for education, and the concern of democratizing the function of the military via liberal arts instruction played a key role in the multifaceted curriculum developed over a short time, with courses in math, history, science, languages, and so forth. The departure of the academy with some of Europe’s seemingly impractical educational subjects, marks the military academy as a dsitinctly American convention. Moreover, (Forman makes a broad generalization here that is riddled with potential problems but nevertheless interesting), West Point’s impact on higher education (and education in general) would be immeasurable. The argument might be made that Jefferson’s signing of the

1802 legislation paved the way for Justin Morrill’s 1862 legislation. Certainly, as with anything else, this may have been precedent. The military academy served as a model of curriculum but it was not the sole impetus behind the Morrill Act. It was the first true engineering school in the

United States and developed a set of core values in academics and physical rigor that colleges and universities developing under the Morrill Acts took into account. Yet it was distinctly military in its aims. In other words: it produced officers for military purposes. Its first hundred or so years point to that: limited scholarship in the civilian realm but extensive intellectualization of military practice on the battlefield. Finally, West Point’s contribution came more in the form of its role in the professionalization of the military. Certainly this accounted for a great deal of change between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, discussed in chapter two.

West Point’s initial enrollment was small. Its isolated location (only reachable by boat) kept many potential cadets away. It would not be until Thayer’s ‘reign’ and the arrival of the

Mexican War that West Point would make an indelible mark on the military. The first military academy was no different than the military or public for that matter. African Americans would

54 not be permitted into its ranks until 1870, and its record of graduating African Americans would

remain weak, at times non-existent, until Vietnam. Alongside West Point, there were other

colleges and universities in operation. Their curriculum, however, usually dealt in seminary

training. West Point is therefore notable as the first secular organization of its time.62

VI. The War of 1812 and Its Aftermath

Internal conflicts preceding the War of 1812 bear mentioning here. Strained debate over

military involvement exacerbated tensions between Republicans and Federalists. The Jefferson

and Madison administrations fostered the growing chasm, ironically causing Federalists to cry

tyranny! Britain had barred free trade into Europe and had been impressing Americans into

service once American ships had been seized. In response, the 1807 Embargo Act was

Jefferson’s attempt to persuade the British, diplomatically and financially, to cease their

activities. American businesses, primarily in the south, were drastically affected by the Embargo,

causing war sentiments to rise. Responding to the sentiment, Federalists believed war would

inevitably be too costly and America would be unable to match the British navy. War would

soon be on America’s doorstep. By the time of the War of 1812, four major problems plagued

the war effort: poor preparation, poor leadership, factionalism, and national and strategic

concerns.63

Poor military preparation came in the form of too few troops who were poorly trained and

equipped. The ‘dual army’ concept still existed with Congressionally-approved strengths of

62Other notable events in education occur at the Constitutional convention, when the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows for public education, but leaves its implementation to the states.

63Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski, Op. Cit., pp. 106-109. Note should be made here I recognize a large number of military and political events occur between 1802 and 1812.

55 35,000 (regulars), 50,000 volunteers (filtered into the regular army), and 100,000 militia. The

reliance on militia proved vexing at best as some states, particularly in the Northeast refused to

comply with the sending troops or at the very least engaged in foot dragging. President

Madison’s alleged poor leadership led to a dire situation in the military leadership and possibly contributed to wartime fence-sitters. Madison was reportedly “a poor judge of men” and administratively not entirely savvy. His notorious hiring of incompetent, “over-aged” generals and staffers led to a faulty wartime machine. Similarly, lacking organizational infrastructure contributed to factionalism:

“Generals rarely cooperated with one another and navy and army officers paid little attention to each other’s concerns.” They continue later, citing that “…political and personal rivalries rent Madison’s cabinet, reflecting the deep divisions even among Republicans as to the War’s wisdom and the most effective measures for waging it; meanwhile the Federalists opposed the war almost unanimously.”64

As Jefferson’s administration faded and the Madison administration began, the general crux of Republican military policies resulted in meandering strategy, at times interested and at other times, extremely cavalier. This inconsistency devastated portions of the military, and the lack of Presidential or Congressional support caused the Army to fall into some disrepair. The

vast political differences resulted in what historians have seen as two extremes with little

attention paid to moderation. “The Federalists had conducted military matters more purposefully,

but their interest in the Army was tainted…as a bludgeon against domestic political rivals…the

Republicans had squelched that menace, (but) they substituted no policy of their own.”65

64Ibid., p. 107. See also, J. C. A. Stagg, “James Madison and the "Malcontents": The Political Origins of the War of 1812,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 33 (October, 1976), pp. 557-585; Rudolph M. Bell, “Mr. Madison's War and Long-Term Congressional Voting Behavior,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 36 (July, 1979), pp. 373-395; and, Donald R. Hickey, “Federalist Defense Policy in the Age of Jefferson, 1801-1812,” Military Affairs, 45 (April, 1981), pp.63- 70.

65Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski, Op. Cit., p. 115. See also, David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), ad passim; Donald R.

56 The national and strategic concerns also hampered the initial war effort. Growing concern

permeated Madison’s administration over what to do with Canada and numerous Indian tribes who were receiving British support against the American effort.

While it is a wonder America even prevailed in the War of 1812, the myriad challenges typified America’s love-hate relationship with the military and the constant flux in political and social philosophy as to its role in America’s fledgling democracy. The War of 1812 also is important in that it sets the foundation for military reform over the ensuing century.

Through the War of 1812, the philosophy toward the military had to change due to the

British threat. Madison, a “Democratic-Republican”, was, like Jefferson, to be noted for his duplicity, embodied in conscription mandates, which consequentially became an important tool due to the War’s unpopularity. Also, the Regular Army was put into full force with

Congressional approval for the largest increase ever. Lastly, the concept of the expansible Army,

a brainchild of Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, would become a permanent fixture in military

structure. Though modified, it is seen in today’s current construction.

The War of 1812 was basically a battle over free trade and seamen’s’ rights. The British

had been losing a great deal of their men to American ships. Hence, they were stopping the

vessels and searching for men as well as goods. This “infringement” on American free trade and free travel created such animus that Congress declared war in 1812. Initial war plans called for attacking Canada, retaining it should America win. The American public, however, had a great deal of concern over the fighting of this war, as it seemed to be fought more for aristocratic survival – protection of industry and industry profits – than the common person. This feeling led

Hickey, The War of 1812 : A Forgotten Conflict, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989), ad passim; J. C. A. Stagg, Op. Cit., pp. 557-585; and, Donald R. Hickey, Op. Cit., pp. 63-70.

57 “historian Samuel Elliot Morrison to state that the War of 1812 ‘was the most unpopular war this

country has ever waged.” 66

The War’s unpopularity made it even more difficult to recruit men. As such, conscription

had to be implemented. African Americans answered the call more loyally (though not without

motive) than their white counterparts. One last important point to bring out is the birth of the

defense industry. War efforts in subsequent conflicts would be beneficiaries of 1812, “when the

War Department contracted the Cotton Gin’s inventor, Eli Whitney, to manufacture assembly- line muskets at his Whitneyville, Connecticut factory.”67 This seemingly insignificant tidbit of

military history is important for the precedence it set in years to come, leading to the growth and development of the military-industrial complex, fully realized in the National Defense Act of

1920. Ironically, the debate and fear over states’ rights connected to governmental tyranny must

be juxtaposed against the entire country’s malice toward the slave and free population. It is

obvious that ‘rights’ were only afforded to stakeholders!68

66The vote for war, however, was significantly divided among Federalists and Republicans. This reinforces the earlier discussion of an America divided. Gail Buckley, American Patriots, (New York, NY: Random House, 2001), pp. 44-45; Clifford L. Egan, “The Origins of the War of 1812: Three Decades of Historical Writing,” Military Affairs, 38 (April, 1974), pp. 72-75; Warren H. Goodman, “The Origins of the War of 1812: A Survey of Changing Interpretations,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 28 (September, 1941), pp. 171-186; David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, Op. Cit., ad passim; Donald R. Hickey, Op. Cit., ad passim; and, Eric Foner and John Garraty, (eds.), Op. Cit., pp. 1130-1131.

67 Gail Buckley, Op. Cit., p. 46.

68 J. C. A. Stagg, “Soldiers in Peace and War: Comparative Perspectives on the Recruitment of the United States Army, 1802-1815,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 57 (January, 2000), pp. 79-120. The Haitian Revolution of 1791 most likely contributed to the tightening of restrictions African Americans faced. No doubt, the logical considerations mentioned earlier are critical, but the defeat of Napoleon by a black man named Toussaint L’Overture, exemplified to many, slave and free, the power of tenacity, bravery, and taking the moral high ground. White Americans were fearful of the ideas manifesting inside the slave population. The white population, particularly the plantation owners, were likely correct in their assumptions as slave revolts not only continued, but proliferated with a vengeance. Of note, were Gabriel Prosser’s rebellion in 1800, Arthur’s planned rebellion, (Arthur’s rebellion was an amazing plot. Had it been carried out, the casualties would have been high and many slaves would have found their freedom. This

was similar to the planned rebellion of Denmark Vesey later on), and Charles Deslondes’ rebellion are among the most noted of the period. The end of the African slave trade was implemented on January 1, 1808. Though the trade was slowed, illegal and amoral means perpetuated plantation owners’ ends of maintaining and expanding the “peculiar institution”. While Jefferson no doubt was hopeful slavery would end (or was he?), the ceasing of the trade did not go far enough, and abolitionist voices were aware of the political shenanigan. The Militia Act of 1792, along with its amended version in 1795, barred service by exclusion of African Americans. Ironically, free blacks in the South were recruited to serve typically as laborers, cooks, and musicians. Slaves were allowed, but only when “hired out” and their duties were severely restricted. In conjunction with the Militia Act, the United States Marine Corps, the elite force formed in July of 1778, barred blacks outright from service. The Navy, which was coming into its own, had bigger problems. Sailing vessels were riddled with horrible conditions. One will recall that merchant ships had to rely on blacks to assist for few whites would have any part of the work. Similarly, the Navy struggled to maintain a skeletal force, and so it at first casually, and then at the onset of the War of 1812 sanctioned the enlistment of black officers. It is important to note that during these first two decades, the military educational structure was going to leave out African Americans, and would not permit them into their ‘hallowed halls’ until the 1870s. While this does not negate the presence of education and training for blacks in the military, the lack of opportunity within the military was a direct reflection of society. In American civilian life, the struggle to educate blacks – free or slave – was uphill. Again, there were exceptions to the rule. One can point to certain men and women who survived in spite of mounting racism, but one cannot overwhelmingly state that education was the rule. Not until Emancipation did the efforts to educate African Americans take on significance. Despite the lack of training and education, African Americans exhibited loyalty and heroism in the War of 1812 akin to their performance in the Revolutionary War. As was the case in the Revolutionary War, need overcame desire when enlistments were low. Freemen and slaves (the latter had restrictions) were welcomed by the federal Army and Navy after the first year of war proved disastrous. Desertions were high and enlistments remained problematic as state militias often dragged their feet when recruiting. Washington, D.C. had been burned and other cities were facing more British incursion. The dangerously low number of troops in the state militias was an obvious problem in protecting American interests. In 1814, the state governments lifted the bans. Various regiments sprung throughout, including Louisiana, which organized, regiments called “the free men of color.” Aside from need, the British were repeating the tactics of Lord Dunmore, of Revolutionary fame. Like Dunmore, the British military capitalized on America’s entrenched system of slavery, offering freedom to former black militiamen who would defect to the British cause. The tactic was working and the American government had to strategize. Hence, opening its ranks was a way to slow defections! Andrew Jackson was aware both of the enlistment and defection issues. His appeal to blacks served the American cause well. Even though Jackson maintained his promise of land and money to the black, the promise of acceptance and freedom for the remaining blacks in bondage waned as quickly as the winds of war. Examples of prowess and bravery are numerous even though African Americans were only allowed to enter the war near its conclusion. At Put-in-Bay, Ohio in September 1813, Oliver Perry, considered no friend to blacks, praised his black seamen as being “absolutely insensible to danger”. Captain Nathaniel Shafer was so impressed by his black seamen, he wrote of one soldier: “The name of one of my poor fellows who was killed ought to be registered in the book of fame and remembered with reverence as long as bravery is considered a virtue…John Johnson, who after being shot and losing the lower part of his body (shouted) fire away my boys, do not haul a color down”. And, Andrew Jackson was more than complimentary, stating, “Soldiers! The President of the United States shall be informed of your conduct on the present occasion; and the voice of the representatives of the American nation shall applaud your valor, as your General now praises your ardor.” (Michael Lee Lanning, The African-American Soldier: from Crispus Attucks to Colin Powell, [Seacaucus, NJ: Carol Publishers, 1997], pp. 20-25)

59 VII. Conclusion

America’s first two hundred years demonstrated that the military establishment took time

to maturate. The War of 1812’s end only empowered critics who strenuously voiced concern

regarding military readiness and federalization. Even with West Point’s formation, many still

wondered if any reputable defensive force was possible. Such concerns would gradually result in

the military’s professionalization.

These early antecedents must be judged in the context of concerns raised by citizens and

politicians who perceived an obvious relationship between a standing, federalized army and a

tyrannous government. The first colonial militias and their endurance remained a testament to the

chasm in American political philosophy between the ideas of citizen control and centralized

oversight of military operations. Pre-eighteenth century Radical and Moderate Whig

philosophies dominated much of the discourse throughout the colonial era, as did the actions of

the British Parliament and the King. Moreover, the criticisms of General Jeffrey Amherst against

colonial militia effectiveness may have been true to a small degree, but the settlers’ ability to

wrest control of the new land, even in light of their socially-oriented musters, intense Native

American attacks, and difficult geographical conditions provides credibility to their effectiveness. By the time of the Revolutionary War, their battle worthiness was indeed

After the surrender was completed in 1814, valor and ardor were stricken from the record, and replaced with reinstatements of bans previous to the War. Exclusion in the services, War Department orders, and state militia policy removed many blacks from the equation. A large contingent of African Americans determined to find freedom escaped to Florida and fought with the Seminoles as the American military attempted to wrest control (of course, they eventually did) of the land. The very same military that expelled blacks for a host of reasons, failed to repulse the combined fighting force of the blacks and Seminoles for a number of year. Andrew Jackson, commander, could not help but recognize the same valor and ardor he witnessed in 1812, and knew that such ferocity came from a spirit of liberty.

60 noteworthy. True, Washington struggled with many untrained and unprepared soldiers. Yet his

tactical adaptations and the growing Revolutionary fervor would win the war. However, the poor

training and equipping of soldiers did need addressing and led to an increasing consensus that

something had to be done to strengthen defensive forces, especially once America became

independent. The frequent heated debates over military readiness during the Constitutional

Convention and Confederation Congress, in tandem with the 1792 Militia Act which bolstered

federal control (minimal though it was) allude to early preparedness efforts and the struggle

among the those aligned with Moderate Whig-Republican ideology and the Federalists. The former evolved into the states’ rights contingent and the latter represented the philosophies of a

strong centralized federal government. The military and its uses fall squarely in the middle of the

debate, and the complexities are many. The developing states’ rights position not only was

concerned with an out-of-control military aristocracy, but with their autonomy economically (i.e.

the slave trade) and socially. Similarly, though less pronounced, was Hamilton’s interest in using

militia for political ends. His curiosity for expansionism (both westward and into Spanish

territory) gives credence to an early imperialist-expansionist historical thread, and his strong

endorsement of armed force during the Whiskey Rebellion offers evidence, at the very

minimum, to using the military for political ends. Granted, American expansion was a slow,

often arduous process and the military did not intervene in every occasion where there was

rebellion in the Union. Nonetheless, its roots seem to stem from Federalist thought. The War of

1812, again, while not carried out, initially had American Democrat-Republican war hawks

seeking annexation of Canada. Finally, Jefferson’s hand in creating West Point while a

concession on his part, appealed to his initial desire for a national university. Concomitantly,

once Thomas Jefferson was in office, he realized the need for a military, at the very minimum for

61 border protection and enforcement. Thus for Jefferson, West Point’s allure was its potential

inculcation of democratic-republican training for military officers, which, in turn, would answer

many of the questions from citizens who resisted federalization-centralization. His hand in West

Point’s founding in 1802 signaled the birth of military professionalization. This professionalization process would lead to an established core of military professionals that provided continuity and longevity to certain military objectives, as is evidenced in the following

chapter.

62 CHAPTER 2: THE ANTEBELLUM AND POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD

“The Americans have, on either side, almost nothing but volunteers. The little nucleus of the former United States' regular army has either dissolved, or it is too weak to leaven the enormous mass of raw recruits which have accumulated at the seat of war. To shape all these men into soldiers, there are not even drill-sergeants enough. Teaching, consequently, must go on very slow, and there is really no telling how long it may take until the fine material of men collected on both shores of the Potomac will be fit to be moved about in large masses, and to give or accept battle with its combined forces. But even if the men could be taught their drill in some reasonable time, there are not enough officers to lead them. Not to speak of the company officers -- who necessarily cannot be taken from among civilians -- there are not enough officers to make commanders of battalions even if every lieutenant and ensign of the regulars were appointed to such a post. A considerable number of civilian colonels are therefore unavoidable; and nobody who knows our own volunteers will think either McClellan or Beauregard over timid if they decline entering upon aggressive action or complicated strategical manoeuvres (sic) with civilian colonels of six months' standing to execute their orders.”

Frederick Engels, Lessons of the American War, November, 1861

Introduction

Chapter two further explores the historical strains of preparedness and imperialist ideology via the government’s strategic military expansion and military professionalization.

63 emphasis on a liberal arts curriculum establishing the military academy system’s higher

education prominence, officer development and training, as well as intensive lessons on the art of

war. Section three discusses higher education’s democratization and military federalization

efforts via the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. This landmark legislation plants the seeds of

mass higher education, setting aside lands for agricultural and mechanical colleges and

universities within each state. The 1862 act would be revised in 1883 and 1890, reflecting the

growing needs of the country, as elaborated on in section seven. Private and state academies are

elaborated on in section four. Their propagation throughout the south, exemplifies two major

philosophical departures. First, profound concern existed on the part of many southerners

regarding West Point’s elitism and ‘secretive’ ways’. Secondly, southerners had their own view

of militarism – emphasizing duty, honor, and discipline. This militarism was drastically different

from the Northern version, and will be explicated on in this section. Section five continues in the vein of southern military academies, discussing their incorporation of African Americans at

Reconstruction’s commencement. Section six persists with the theme of professionalization from

Reconstruction up to the Spanish American War. Finally, section seven probes in greater detail

the integrated academy system and the Morrill Acts of 1883 and 1890. The acts’ major

requirement, that all institutions incorporate military training and drill, is ROTC’s first real

connection with the nineteenth century. Ossian Flipper, Reconstruction’s challenges affecting

military education and general education will also be developed.69

69I feel it is important to point out the South’s hypocrisy here. Rod Andrew, Op. Cit., ad passim, identifies this seeming obsession on southerners’ part regarding egalitarianism. W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), ad passim; Carter G. Woodson and Charles H. Wesley, The Negro in Our History, (Washington, DC: The Associated Publishers, 1972), ad passim; and, John Hope Franklin, The Militant South, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1956), ad passim, point out this obsession had as much to do with fear – fear of a growing Northern military machine that could one day roust away their way of life – a life very much built around slavery, extremely ‘un-egalitarian’.

64 I. The Antebellum Period: Growing Military Professionalism and Purpose

Upon the War of 1812’s completion, professionalization of the Army was the immediate

task of John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War. With Congressional approval to build and maintain a

standing Army and the new expandable Army concept, focus naturally turned towards West

Point and general training procedures for enlisted men. Instituted officially in 1802, Calhoun

believed an overhaul was necessary in order to maximize its potential. His overhaul entailed

adding hard science faculty, increasing faculty pay to attract the best and brightest men, raising

the minimum age to sixteen and, finally, divorce the Academy’s relationship with the Army

Corps of Engineers. Connected to this effort was Calhoun’s creation of the Army’s first “post-

graduate school. The concept of military education, a tactic to provide a ready cache of military

officers in peacetime and in war was indeed attractive. Their abilities to lead on the field, and

train effectively off the field would make the art of war that much coherent in the military

psyche. 70

The concept of states’ rights would also surface throughout Andrew Jackson’s election

campaign challenging the Hamiltonian Federalist perspective. His election ushered in an age of

70 Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 145-153. The post-graduate school was an artillery field school. Paraphrasing with regard to citizens’ comfort levels also comes from Weigley. The following sources provide an interesting perspective into the life and mind of John C. Calhoun – a prominent Southern politician espousing states’ rightist views. See also John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,1988), ad passim; John L. Thomas, John C. Calhoun: A Profile, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1968), ad passim; Frederick D. Drake and Lynn R. Nelson, States' Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), pp. 104-106; R. Don Higginbotham, “The Martial Spirit in the Antebellum South: Some Further Speculations in a National Context,” The Journal of Southern History, 58 (February, 1992), pp.3-26; Norman K. Risjord, “1812: Conservatives, War Hawks and the Nation's Honor,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 18 (April, 1961), pp. 196-210. On Andrew Jackson, see Thomas P. Govan, “John M. Berrien and the Administration of Andrew Jackson,” The Journal of Southern History, 5 (November, 1939), pp. 447-467.

65 egalitarianism and renewed distrust of an overly centralized military establishment. Similarly, southern states’ philosophy against professional soldiers and the maintenance of a standing army was viewed as constitutionally unsound and fiscally imprudent. In the eastern United States

Americans were also growing accustomed to a more peaceful existence since Native American attacks subsided and Napoleon’s downfall assured no invasion from the French. To the credit of

Jackson’s egalitarian age (also referred to as Jacksonian Democracy), many critics of the standing army and professionalism cited the lack of opportunities afforded to, and over- conscription of, a large contingent of lower-socioeconomic classes. The general resistance while not shattering the growing military establishment did retard its growth. The terms “civilian” and

“military”, delineating everyday citizens from military men became prominent during this time.

These designations, still used presently, were in part a result of scorned military men self- isolated, in many cases, devoting themselves to monastic study of war and war administration. A wedge between militia officer and citizen had been driven, particularly in the south.

Constant feuding among Northern Whigs and Southern Democrats regarding slavery and annexation plagued national politics leading up to the Civil War. Between Jackson and Polk’s administration, tension mounted as to the viability and justification for annexation of Texas and

California, and whether or not these territories would be admitted as slave or free states. The

Mexican War, occurring during Polk’s administration, tentatively solved the issue, but only in terms of land acquisition. The Mexican War also factors into the discussion of economic imperialism-expansion and professionalization of the military. Inevitably, success depended on troop readiness and competent officers. Legislation enlarged enlistment ratios and bestowed additional monies on military activities. The Army was well equipped with the very officers who had ‘ostracized’ themselves in pursuit of military study. President Polk oversaw the

66 Mexican War and set a precedent for generations to come in what was to be presidential

oversight of the war. In addition to increased military expenditures and enlistments, a new

precedent would be set. Known as the first ‘Dark Horse’ President, Polk took his Commander-in-

Chief Constitutional mandate seriously. Polk controlled all facets of the war, staying in close contact with the War Department, working with military planner and war plans, and maintaining awareness on day-to-day minutiae.71

The hotly debated Mexican War was ratcheted up by many in the North (the growing

Northern Democratic contingent known as ‘Barn Burners’). Annexation surely meant more land for the South, and more land meant more slaves! Polk’s incessant politicking had the residual effect of military officers getting involved in the fray, claiming aspirations for political office, debating with elected officials or writing articles. Such precedents, Zachary Taylor being among the group, would leave a legacy of what is called the political military elite, including Theodore

Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Colin Powell. 72

Finally, Mexico’s eventual defeat and the United States’ securing of Texas and California

resulted in another precedent-setting event: the transitional American military government

(occupation) of a foreign country. This not only set a foundation for the south’s post-Civil War

71John Hope Franklin,Op. Cit., pp. 96-128; and, Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 156-176. The Mexican War beginning in 1846 started what would be America’s first efforts in global missions. At heart, here, was the annexation of Texas and California. An angry Mexico fought back and lost, only to have its capital, Mexico City, fall under United States military rule.

72Polk held the belief of Manifest Destiny which was a primary rallying point to the war with Mexico and a point of contention amongst many opposed to him. For more on this topic see Eugene C. Barker, “The United States and Mexico, 1835-1837,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 1 (June, 1914), pp. 3-30; Norman A. Graebner, “James K. Polk: A Study in Federal Patronage,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 38 (March, 1952), pp. 613-632; Francis Paul Prucha, “Distribution of Regular Army Troops Before the Civil War,” Military Affairs, 16, (Winter, 1952), pp. 169-173.

67 Reconstruction, but also for the colonial expansionism-imperialism of America in the late-

nineteenth century.

The oncoming Civil War was brewing as soon as Texas had been annexed. There are

multiple explanations put forward about the philosophical origins. Three reasons, however,

appear to dominate: 1) The South was fighting for its way of life; 2) the war was one of

economic as well as cultural concerns – slavery being chief among those concerns, and the

concept of states’ rights; and 3) once secession occurred, the preservation of the Union. The

Civil War had the consequence of creating the largest military expansion ever. This was

permissible due to the Militia Act, which gave federal authority to call state militias into federal

service. The use of conscription was critical, particularly since the war dragged on dashing the

Union’s hopes the South would quickly re-think its secessionist position. In July of 1861 the

first one million troops were called into service, a significantly larger force than at any previous

time in American history. Along with increased troop strength, the rise of wartime industries

came into being. Much of the weaponry from the early part of the century remained, so

provisional supplies and mass production due to the massive numbers of troops required large-

scale production. The war on all fronts, then, seemed ready to be fought. The Civil War, unlike

any other war before it would prove to be the most epic struggle, and in that struggle hundreds of

thousands of would perish.73

One of the long-lasting legacies of the Civil War was conscription, and this is essential to

any discussion of the military’s presence in a free society. The philosophy against conscription

was overridden by necessity. State militias, while not falling to the wayside, would see their

73W.E.B. Du Bois, Op. Cit., pp. 55-83; Larry M. Logue, To Appomattox and Beyond: The Civil War Soldier in War and Peace, Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1996), pp. 3-31; and, Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 201-208. See also the 1792 Militia Act, in U.S. Second Congress, Session I, Providing for the Authority of the President to Call out the Militia, Chapter XXVIII, May 2, 1792, http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm for the online version of this act.

68 days numbered as a result of the War’s conscription policies. A sequence of events led to

Lincoln and Congress expanding the powers of the President to raise an effective army. The amendment to the 1792 Militia act and the Enrollment Act’s passage, instituted a federal draft of

300,000 militiamen for nine months. Lincoln announced that “…any state which had not met its

quota of three year volunteers by August 15th (1863) would be subject to the ‘draft.’” This

essentially trampled states’ rightists, undercutting militia mobilization, and set further groundwork for President and Congress to implement a centralized, federal army, sanctioned now by law. Enlistments were still low and wartime angst was exacerbated by wealthier citizens’ ability to ‘opt-out’ of service. The egalitarians during Jackson’s administration had been right, such unfairness resulted in poor men fighting shouldering most of the burden. The infamous draft riots of 1863 occurred throughout New England, and required the intervention of military and political forces.74

74The draft riots also were initiated by whites incensed at the idea of fighting with black troops, in addition to labor market competition. Two interesting articles highlight the draft riots: Albon P. Man, Jr., “Labor Competition and the New York Draft Riots of 1863,” The Journal of Negro History, 36 (October, 1951), pp. 375-405. See also, Peter Levine, “Draft Evasion in the North during the Civil War, 1863-1865,” The Journal of American History, 67 (March, 1981), pp. 816- 834. John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859 was perhaps the first unofficial battle of the Civil War, but as shown previously, tensions had been increasing for quite some time. Abolitionism was on the rise. Free blacks and progressive whites were agitating the system, highlighting the hypocrisy of an America founded in liberty, but still involving itself in the chains of slavery. At the advent of the Civil War, some 4 million African Americans were held in bondage. The abolitionists are an important preface to comprehending African American involvement in the War as well as understanding the general shift in Northern attitudes toward slavery. David Walker, a free black Bostonian and publisher “called on Americans to remember their Declaration of Independence”. Walker’s appeal in the late 1820s was a precursor (though not the only one, it was perhaps the most fervent at the time) to the abolitionism to come. “Do you understand your own language? Hear your language, proclaimed to the world…’We hold these truths to be self-evident – that all men are created EQUAL! That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’…Now Americans! I ask you candidly, was your suffering under Great Britain one hundredth part as cruel and tyrannical as you have rendered ours under you?!” (Gail Buckley, Op. Cit., p. 60) Walker’s militancy and passion was rewarded with his death in 1830. Walker’s Appeal, however, placed a great burden on Northerners who began to see the moral morass of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison was a white “militant pacifist” and consistently “prophetic voice before the 1840s. Taking up Walker’s mantle, he held strong moral beliefs that slavery’s evils should never be condoned in the country. His publications and public actions called on

abolitionists to act. Frederick Douglass was also rising to the fore as an ardent abolitionist – and what better abolitionist to have than a former slave! Douglass contributed intelligence and passion to the movement. Where a great number of abolitionists were white, Douglass was “the voice of Black America” and that voice, “was black at last”. Douglass’ gift for speaking and rousing the crowds was unequalled. He similarly was a political power broker to President Lincoln and was in large part responsible for the large enlistment of blacks to the war effort. Among the abolitionists, mention must also go to Harriet Tubman who was a General in the Underground Railroad. The Railroad was used to transport runaway slaves to their freedom, with a good portion of them moving to Canada. Her service aided hundreds. Her service extended to the Civil War where she served as a nurse and spy. Her work was so valued she was buried with full military honors upon her death in 1913. Harriet Beecher Stowe also contributed to the abolitionist cause with her international best seller, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The novel helped “abolitionism win the propaganda war hands down” and inflamed Southerners so drastically, the Lincoln is said to have recognized her as “the little woman who started such a big war.” Three major occurrences happened in the 1850s that brought Civil War closer to happening. The Free Soilers and Pro-Slavery forces battled over the recently acquired Kansas territory. While the “Soilers” claimed Kansas and planned on barring slavery in its state organizing elections, Pro- Slavery “gangs” arrived to “steal the ballot”. The ballot went to Pro-Slavers, but the battle was only half over. After a great deal of horrific bloodshed, the Free Soil contingency won back the territory and regained control of governance and rewrote the existing laws and constitution. In terms of legislative and judicial decision, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the 1857 Dred Scott decision continued to fan the flames of abolition. Among the injustices of the 1850 law, it mandated the return of any runaway slave, banned slaves testifying on their own behalf, and forbade trials by jury. The Dred Scott decision was borne primarily out of the Free Soil debate. It denied blacks citizenship and had the consequence of driving many fence-sitting Northerners to the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements. The final straw for much of the South was the official formation of the Republican Party. The North was now predominantly abolitionist in thought (though not anti-slavery). The various groups bonded together, including Free Soilers, Conscience Whigs, and Barn Burner Democrats. The Republican platform was clearly activists because they espoused the concept states’ rights actually was a larger threat to freedom than a strong federalized-centralized government. The result was Lincoln’s election in 1860. Not more than two months later, South Carolina had seceded and several Southern states were to follow, forming the Confederate States of America. At the start of the war, the issue of need over desire was plaguing the North. As mentioned previously, the issue of conscription would be dealt with in such a way, that its imprint would be felt through the twentieth century. The South saw to it that slaves were the first to be impressed into service, though as was standard, their typical duties were labor related. The North, however, “saw no need for black soldiers”. Whether it was arrogance, or a combination of both is up for debate. What is important is the end result: blacks were sought after the war had dragged on as the need for enlistees, and ultimately victory required their presence. However, once African Americans were permitted into the depths of fighting, their valor was consistent with history. The Civil War produced a significant number of events where the presence and bravery by both races proved significant. The first documented occurrence of blacks in battle occurred under the auspice of Brigadier General James Lane and his cavalry in 1862. One black man, not noted by name, was reported by a Kansas newspaper to have been “well-armed and very black”. Another important designation the paper placed upon the gentleman was the following label, made famous by General Benjamin F. Butler, ‘Contraband of War”. James Lane, in that same year also formed the First Kansas Colored Volunteers. Robert Small became a Union hero when he stole a ship from the dock while its white officers and crew were ashore. The “Corps d’Afrique’ was formed out of group of wealthy and middle class black regiment soldiers and was noted for having the highest contingent of officers in the Army. Perhaps the single-most important event for blacks, aside from Emancipation, was the formation of the United States Colored Troops. Their role in advancing

70 the Union’s cause in the last two years of the war was invaluable. Their bravery was noted in various circles of Union and Confederate leadership. The formation of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment (a group of abolitionist soldiers) was also critical not only to the success of the Union. Always battle ready and fierce, they contributed to numerous victories. More importantly, they placed their values above everything else. Upon discovering that white soldiers in the same regiment were going to be paid two-times more than they, they petitioned and lost. As a result, they refused pay for their remainder of their time and continued fighting the Union cause. Fort Pillow was one of the more unfortunate events, but it served as the rally cry for the Union troops. This massacre, perpetrated by future Ku Klux Klan founder General Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, occurred after the Union had surrendered the fort. The horror that ensued was not only tragic, but criminal. Black troops swore vengeance and were reported have taken “an oath on their knees” to avenge Fort Pillow. In Poison Spring, Arkansas, they did just that. The fall of Richmond in 1865 signaled the end of the War. As with past conflicts, the general treatment of Americans was incredibly inconsistent. Hence, life in the military had not changed all that drastically. The theme of ‘need over desire’ recapitulates constantly in the American epic. As demonstrated by General Lane, when the Union needed troops, blacks were called into service. Several examples abound. Take for instance General David Hunter, who “issued a…three-state emancipation proclamation, in order to enlist and arm blacks”. President Lincoln was hesitant to jump on board with the idea of blacks serving, but soon, need overcame desire. He first ordered were known as Confiscation Acts, which granted freedom to any slave “who supported or aided the rebellion”. And, of course, the much heralded humanitarian act, known as the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was more about expanding the Union Army as it was to free the slaves. Lincoln was a moderate Republican, who cared less about anti-slavery than he did abolitionism, and more about preservation of the Union than the propagation of what was ethically right. Lincoln’s military strategy nonetheless worked, for it created what Lord Dunmore had only dreamed: a mass exodus of blacks, free and slave, into the Union cause. The forming of the United States Colored Troops in May of 1863 was testament to the ‘need over desire’ philosophy. Further, its creation resulted in the first black Regular Army troops, paving the way for involvement in the standing Army for years to come. Nonetheless, the Civil War and all the outright contradictions in policy resulted in a new society. The years to follow, at least through the Compromise of 1876, would usher a new era of egalitarianism known as Reconstruction. The benefits for black Americans in the military, socially and educationally would set the ablaze the flame of liberty in the souls of black folk, and set the stage for a cultural revolution known as the Civil Rights movement a hundred years later. Alas, a note here is important on the education of African Americans, slave and free, during the Civil War. There is no great shock in the insight that the Union Army centrally organized educational efforts for its newly formed United States Colored Troops. However, examples abound as to the informal and even formal educational efforts made by the troops themselves and by their forward-thinking white officers. Perhaps out of a sense of pride, a sense of enlightenment, a sense of urgency, or all three, it was clear that African Americans desired to read and write. They were learning through drill the rudiments of battle. But, previous scholarship demonstrates actual learning by around the campfire. Soldiers and their wives, the chaplain, or hired teachers would slowly but methodically learn the alphabet, read to one another, and practice writing. And in some documented cases, African American soldiers took only six months to become fully proficient in reading and writing. Northern abolitionists took it upon themselves to create educational funds via donations and pay teachers and chaplains to go into the Union camps to work with the men, as well as to create educational opportunities for the general population. Edward L. Pierce is the first such person who made an attempt at creating a formal bureau of education for the general population. “In 1862, (Pierce) imported a whole company of teachers, young men and women from the North, to begin the work among thousands of Negro men, women and children in the Department of the South.” (Dudley Taylor Cornish, “The Union Army as a School for Negroes,” The Journal of Negro History, 37 [October, 1952], pp. 368-382). The American Christian Association formed in Louisiana, at the same time

71 II. Military Education and the Evolution of Professionalization

Sylvanus Thayer’s appointment to West Point’s superintendency in 1817 was what many historians deem as the ‘true founding’ of West Point, since by many accounts it had fallen into disrepair academically. Its initial floundering occurred for two reasons: General Republican disdain for the military academy and incompetent leadership (argued by some to be a result of

Republican policies). Thayer brought to the academy a structure developed in the French system. The French system emphasized discipline and character building, pedagogy and a prescribed curriculum. Hierarchy and order were Thayer’s motto, and were strictly enforced during his tenure. Cadets were often discharged for poor behavior. Religious and ethical responsibility also was emphasized as components to a cadet’s character and strength.

Most supporters believed academy pedagogy should emphasize practical education.

Thayer however, balanced this perspective by infusing the requirement of a four-year college of the Louisiana Regiment, also devoted funds to the general population and military units for educational purposes. Various regiments would, as stated previously, take their downtime for educational purposes, as depicted by Thomas Wentworth Higginson: “Their love of the spelling book is perfectly inexhaustible, - they, stumbling on by themselves, or the blind leading the blind, with the same pathetic patience which they carry into everything. The chaplain is getting up a schoolhouse, where he will soon teach them as regularly as he can. But the alphabet must always be a very incidental business in a camp”. Newspaper reports abounded of African Americans and their love for learning, and the evidence was found among the soldiers themselves – even among the dead: “It is not surprising to find reports that The New England Speller should have been in great demand among these troops and that the knapsacks of the dead colored soldiers often contained ‘a spelling book and a Testament,’”(Dudley Taylor Cornish, Op. Cit., 371). Aside from specific examples, it also important to point out that numerous philosophies abounded as to the work-ability of actual educational programs. Representative John Hickman of Pennsylvania wrote for the provision in a bill to Congress, but it was never passed. Lieutenant Colonel Francis Adams acted on the notion of what the Army could do for it African American soldiers, frequently writing to various general on his work with his troops. While he felt the necessity to assist his soldiers in reading and writing, he also emphasized vocational work, such as blacksmithing or bricklaying. These skills would immediately benefit the Army during the war and in peacetime. The education during the war was a first attempt, scattered though it was. Yet, it fostered the growing concern that African Americans, who had been chained to ignorance by no choice of their own, deserved the fruits of what an education could bring them. This fervor on the part of the abolitionists would serve beneficial, if only for a short time, during Reconstruction. It is also critical to emphasize that prior to this, as exampled in the previous sections African Americans were victims of haphazard educational efforts. The Union Army, during the period of the Civil War in addition to the work of Northerners was the first real effort at mass education.

72 education. The cadet was for all intents and purposes a college students, engaged in typical subjects such as science, math, French, engineering and natural philosophy. Daily recitations were commonplace, with weight placed on math and science.

Instructors also became increasingly sought after, as Thayer attempted to develop the academic core reflective of university-style education. Instructors ranged in expertise, coming from Harvard and France, as well as within the military’s own ranks. Thayer would institute the tenure system, highlighting the importance of well-trained, academically fit instructors.

Additionally, he would often take graduates of the Academy into his rank, fostering the academy’s continued growth. Thayer’s resignation in 1833 came about when Andrew Jackson and the ‘egalitarians’ thwarted many of his initiatives. But, Thayer’s influence was not lost. Over a period of eighteen years, he had embedded the traditions necessary to perpetuate an institution of higher learning.75

Various other military academies imitative of West Point (e.g. Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel) cropping up throughout the country began an era of military professionalization. The idea of professional versus civilian armies also became problematic.

Still rooted in states’ rights, the idea of a civilian army that provided a volunteer fighting power and officers, came into conflict with those in the academy establishment with increasing contempt for the ‘masses’. Jackson’s ‘egalitarian’ age ushered in the distrust of the academy establishment, believing that this era of professionalism would lead to inequality and entrenched officers. Officer training up to the Civil War did occur, shepherding some of the greatest Civil

War personalities, and training upwards of three-fourths of the military officers. It would not be until the Mexican War that the academy establishment and its officers would prove themselves

75Stephen Ambrose, Op. Cit., pp. 87-105; and, Norman B. Wilkinson, Op. Cit., pp. 177-188.

73 useful in the field of battle; even then, complaints from citizen soldiers and officers swirled

about.76

A year before the Mexican War, the Naval Academy’s creation at Annapolis, Maryland

continued professionalization efforts. The War of 1812 had demonstrated to Americans that a

stronger naval component was necessary. Several proposals had been placed in front of

Congress, to no avail. As Lovell explains, “congressional support was lacking, however,

especially among representatives of the inland states. Naval appropriations from the first to the

second Monroe administration were cut, as was the number of naval officers and enlisted men

that were authorized.”77

Then, in 1845, George Bancroft, (also the noted American historian) was appointed

Secretary of the Navy. His pro-Navy sentiments along with Polk’s general support of the military

became critical for advocates of a naval academy. Interestingly, what should have been congressionally approved was ordered by Bancroft himself. Normally, a move such as Bancroft’s

would yield terrible political consequences. At the time, however, two major issues in naval life

caught the public’s attention consequently lending support to Bancroft’s ‘coup’. First, American

midshipman had been so poorly trained, that scandal finally broke involving then Secretary of

War Spencer’s son. Secondly, the invention of steam powered ships and better navigational tools created a new problem: who would master the technical operation and maintenance of

equipment? The Naval Academy was born in October of 1845. Almost to the letter, the Naval

Academy developed its faculty, curriculum, traditions, and discipline on the basis of West Point.

76James L. Morrison, Jr., “Educating the Civil War Generals: West Point, 1833-1861,” Military Affairs, 38 (October, 1974), pp. 108-111.

77John Lovell, Op. Cit., pp. 20-28. Naval Academy development is nicely outlined in the following works: Graydon Decamp, The Annapolis Story: The Blue and Gold, (New York: Arco Publishing Co., 1974), ad passim; and, Jack Sweetman, The U.S. Naval Academy: An Illustrated History, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995), ad passim.

74 These developments would not be put into full use until a few years after the Mexican War, in

1850.

The academies, particularly West Point, would prove their value on the arrival of the

Civil War. Generals such as Grant, Sherman, McClellan, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee

graduated from the two main academies and even served stints in the administration. Their

training, along with the various officers, would prove vitally important since one million troops

conscripted for service necessitated massive training. The Civil War would further cement in the

minds of many that the academy system was serving its purpose of training able-bodied,

intellectuals, who, in turn, trained the soldiers. So while the academy establishment suffered

prior to the War from issues of funding to general support, after the War, their usefulness was

not as questioned as had previously been the case.

III. “Educational Democratization”: The First Morrill Land Grant

Any discussion of high school and collegiate military instruction would sorely lack credibility were some elaboration on Justin Morrill forgotten. The Vermont Republican politician’s imprint is firmly embedded in state universities and colleges across America. Though initial legislative attempts on Morrill’s part failed during the late 1850s, and with the election of

Abraham Lincoln and Civil War still looming, his bill became law in 1862.

Morrill’s desire for agricultural and mechanical colleges stemmed from two main ideas.

First, he firmly believed in the democratic power education possessed. His upbringing excluded a formal education and, while he lacked such background, he was largely self-taught. Morrill’s prerogative was that American citizens had an unalienable right to such an education. Second and more practical to Morrill was the state of America’s agricultural (and mechanical) industry.

75 Declines in production were so acute, many wondered if America’s agricultural might could

continue. His legislative power was put to the test, when states’ rightists challenged the bill, frequently voting it down. His logical retorts were very astute, considering the argumentative tactics of legislators, as found in this brief excerpt: “We have schools to teach the art of manslaying, and make masters of ‘deep-throated’ engines of war; and shall we not have schools to teach men the way to feed, clothe, and enlighten the great brotherhood of man?”78

He continued to expound on such inconsistencies, denoting the U.S. Government’s funding of railroads, setting aside of lands for veterans, and so forth. It only seemed logical land set aside for the purpose of constructing colleges was appropriate. But, similar to debate on military expansion, states’ rights advocates and southerners were opposed to the federal government’s over-extended hand. Its eventual passage in 1862 (possible largely due to secessionist efforts) under the title “An Act donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts” marked a new era in education and an historical moment for working class American citizens:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (sic) there be granted to the several States, for purpose hereinafter mentioned, an amount of public land, to be apportioned to State, a quantity equal to thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in Congress to which the States are respectively entitled by the apportionment under the census of eighteen hundred and sixty…”79

The new law also mandated several conditions, among those that any state making use of set-asides, were required to begin a college or university within five years of acceptance, and that

78Speech by Justin Morrill, “Bill Granting Lands for Agricultural Colleges,” (April 20, 1858), quoted in Coy Cross, Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the Land-Grant Colleges, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1999), p. 81. Many politicians (primarily in the South) disagreed citing a direct infringement on states’ rights. See also, John H. Florer, “Major Issues in the Congressional Debate of the Morrill Act of 1862,” History of Education Quarterly, 8 (Winter, 1968), pp. 459-478.

79United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 12, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1863), 503.

76 new colleges and universities were to submit annual reports to congress. Interestingly though not surprisingly, Congress was not about to apportion such lands to rebel states in the South. The sixth condition made very clear “no state while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act”. The stipulation

held, and proved a viable tool during Reconstruction.80

Additionally, training at institutes of higher education became exceedingly necessary

with the advent of the common school system. Horace Mann’s impact on public education

would bring about a nationwide push for the development of schools for the training of children

from virtually all walks of life. Hence, the military academies, in addition to other colleges and

universities, began opening their doors to more and more working class folk. The construct of

upward mobility, championed by Jacksonians would play a heavy hand in this development.

Similar to the common school, more people were receiving a better education. As a result, those

coming from two-year colleges might enroll at the military academies better trained in the

academics that typically they had lacked no thanks to a fairly non-existent system of education.

Most of these changes occurred following the Civil War, but the Morrill Act was essential in

placing at the fore education for the masses. Two more Morrill Acts (passed in 1883 and 1890),

paved the way for military federalization (see section VII).81

80Ibid., p. 503; J. P. Powell, “Some Nineteenth-Century Views on the University Curriculum,” History of Education Quarterly, 5 (June, 1965), pp. 97-109; and, Eldon L. Johnson, “Misconceptions about the Early Land-Grant Colleges,” The Journal of Higher Education, 52 (July, 1981), pp. 333-351.

81The common school movement is also a vital precursor to the American educational establishment. Horace Mann’s work in from the 1830s onward would cement their place. See Robert L. Osgood, “Undermining the Common School Ideal: Intermediate Schools and Ungraded Classes in Boston, 1838-1900,” History of Education Quarterly, 37 (Winter, 1997), pp. 375-398; Robert H. Wiebe, “The Social Functions of Public Education,” American Quarterly, 21 (Summer, 1969), pp.147-164; and, Lawrence Cremin, The American Common School: An Historic Conception, (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951), ad passim.

77 Of no great surprise is it to realize that African Americans, on the whole, were vastly

under-educated (if at all). The Northern cities, assisted by Abolitionists and other charitable

groups had begun schools to assist blacks in their training. Some common schools (though rare)

might educate blacks. But the overwhelming population of African Americans, either enslaved

or free with no options could not read or write (estimates place it as high as 90.9% others a tad

lower). In terms of trends, it is important to emphasize while blacks were experiencing greater

support from the North, by-and-large, their educational opportunities were severely hampered.82

IV. Proliferation of the State Academies

Along with the development of the major service academies, came the birth of numerous

private and state-supported military academies throughout the South. The minimal scholarship

on these institutions does not tell the whole story as to their rise and importance on America’s

educational scene. It has been long assumed that the South held a solely restrictionist policy in

regard to military matters – holding Republican views that a strong military equaled tyranny.

The crux of their system was rooted in how the defined militarism – a concept for them defined

differently than in the North. Rod Andrew brings out in his book Long Gray Lines: The

Southern Military School Tradition, 1839-1915 the different southern view of militarism,

“emphasizing that southerners subscribed to a brand of militarism that expressed less interest in policies of ‘aggressive military preparedness’ than in the exaltation of military ideals and virtues.” Furthermore, the work of these academies was in many ways a response against what

82Broad and varied discussion exist in the following books and articles, see Carter G. Woodson and Charles H. Wesley, Op. Cit., pp. 382-423; W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), pp. 62-74; Horace Mann Bond, The Education of the Negro in the American Social Order, (New York, Octagon Books, 1966), pp. 58-63; James M. McPherson, “White Liberals and Black Power in Negro Education, 1865-1915,” The American Historical Review, 75 (June, 1970), pp. 1357-1386; John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, (5th ed.), (New York: Knopf Publishing, 1980), pp. 255-266.

78 many considered the elitist culture in the premier service academies. The southern academies

developed what legislators and citizens believed to be an egalitarian approach to educating

young men for military life. Their growth and development was spurred by the work of Alden

Partridge, former West Point Superintendent and numerous Southern military leaders. Simple

training and guarding of the arsenals characterized the new academy system. However, southern

boys and their ‘bad boy’ lifestyles, as well as mounting concerns over slave populations and

economic livelihood led to a broader plan of education. Advocates of southern military

academies offered two main points supporting their program, both to doubters and supporters.

First, the institutions would strengthen the Republic by instillation of civic virtue and by

positively shaping young men prone to deviance. Second, a state and private academy system as

proposed by Alden Partridge and John L. Preston “would inculcate habits of order, diligence, and

punctuality,” deterring youth from “idleness and mischief” and “benefited the morals of students

as well.” 83

Partridge was not stranger to the academy life. As one of the former superintendents of

West Point, Partridge had a particular desire to see the expansion of an academy system,

hearkening back to Greco-Roman days where all citizens were trained in the ways of war. In a

1951 historical tract released by the Newcomen Society, Partridge is described as a man who

held the “radical belief that all students should be trained to perform all the duties of a citizen

83Rod Andrew, Op. Cit., pp. 2-13; and, John Hope Franklin, The Militant South: 1800-1861, (Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956), pp. 146-170. The first private and state academies include Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia (VMI – 1839) and the Citadel, located in Charleston, South Carolina and its counterpart, The Arsenal (1842). Alden Partridge is an interesting figure and further study of him in understanding military academy growth is essential to any complete knowledge of the subject. In particular, he was superintendent at West Point and later appointed as president at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont beginning in 1819. Partridge was actually one of West Point’s greatest critics citing that their poor graduation rates impeded effectively filling officer ranks in the Army. Perhaps more importantly was his philosophy of a citizen-controlled military. Many see his views and efforts as precursors to the ROTC program.

79 soldier, equally prepared for war or peace” and it was such views, that seem to have gotten

Partridge released from West Point! His founding of Norwich University intended and achieved military training for young men. It embraced the liberal arts curriculum, while instilling a healthy dose of military training in producing numerous officers. Indeed, it was Norwich

University and Partridge’s efforts with the establishment of southern military academies that provided the U.S. Army with its expanded officer corps. 84

The southern academies’ proliferation were also precipitated by what many viewed as

West Point’s increasing aristocratic nature, as it trained only the nation’s “rich and influential”.

Henceforward, academies in the South espoused what they viewed as an egalitarian tradition.

Cadets hailing from impoverished backgrounds were provided “free tuition, room and board, and books” numbering up to one-third of all cadets in 1860. As Andrew notes, the southern brand of

‘egalitarianism’ carried over to general military tradition integrating poor and rich cadets – recognizing that military rank superceded social class standing. A major benefit of these academies (particularly state-supported academies) to public education was their designation as

Normal or teacher training schools. The young men who were designated as ‘state cadets’ (those receiving free room and board, tuition and books) were required “to teach for at least two years in the public schools or colleges of the state.” Various states, including Virginia, North Carolina,

Alabama, and Georgia implemented various versions of this requirement as a condition for receiving state aid.85

84Ernest N. Harmon, Norwich University: Its Founder and His Ideals, (New York: The Newcomen Society in North America, 1951), ad passim; and, R. Don Higginbotham, “The Martial Spirit in the Antebellum South: Some Further Speculations in a National Context,” The Journal of Southern History, 58, (February, 1992), pp. 3-26.

85Rod Andrew, Op. Cit., pp. 15-17.

80 Nonetheless, there were critics of the southern academies rising presence. Arguments

abounded that such schools, in the hands of rowdy young men, actually diluted any positives that

defending various arsenals and training might bring. One southern writer was even more

suspicious of the academic integrity any military academy, including West Point possessed,

stating “that of the ten young men appointed to West Point, not one managed to graduate.”

Northern politicians expressed their own suspicions that the build-up of private- and state-

supported academies was evidence of the growing division and sectionalism of the South. Their

suspicions were partially correct, though in 1839 secessionist ploys were a small minority.

Critics aside, Andrew determined that “between 1845 and 1860 every slave state except Texas

had at least one fully state-supported military school, and there were dozens of other private

southern military academies that received assistance in the form of arms, funding, or tuition for

state cadets.” 86

V. Southern Military Academies and African Americans

In 1868 Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute was founded in Hampton, Virginia as

one of the first black military academies. While most blacks were deemed unfit for military

service throughout the upper academy system, the South attempted to provide the beginnings of

a home for black officers and training. Yet, one should be cautious to draw too much out of this.

86Ibid., pp. 18-19. For further elaboration on the state academy system, Andrew suggests Bruce Allardice’s dissertation from the University of North Carolina. Andrew cites Allardice’s numbers, indicating “slave states saw the opening of ninety-six academies and universities that operated solely on the military system while the Free states had only fifteen”. This is perhaps another, very tangible reason for Northern suspicions as to the trustworthiness of Southern states ‘military build-up’ and a significant fact I believe Andrew should have explored in greater depth. A unique perspective on southern education and its frustration with northern educational practice can be found in L. Minerva Turnbull, “The Southern Educational Revolt,” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 14 (January, 1934), pp. 60-76.

81 First, Reconstruction was already underway and while making some headway, the south was

making small strides in their approach to equality. Secondly, there was a great deal of mistrust of

African Americans, resulting in their not having access to weapons in the new military

academies. The basic function of training came in the form of drill and formations, for in the

words of one general such drill was advantageous only to “correct perceived flaws of the

Negro…sloth, licentiousness, lack of self-discipline, and improper bearing of blacks and

Indians.” It should also be noted that the infectious and heinous paternalism cited above may have psychologically bled into the black cadet themselves, engraining a self-hatred of what they were in favor of the southern military standard. A tangible historical example is found in Booker

T. Washington’s successor at Tuskegee Institute, Robert Russa Moton, who is said to have scorned anything “black” in favor of the more “white” way of doing things. The concept of these

schools, then, was not necessarily to train militarily, but militarily train black men into

submission while the guiding concept of white and black was the “same”, the process and

psychology was drastically, daresay, dangerously different. Andrew expounds on the relationship

of racism and citizenship, explaining “the most fundamental factor and the one that underlay all

the others was the recognition that soldiership implied full citizenship, and whites were

unprepared to concede the latter to blacks.” 87

87Rod Andrew, Op. Cit., pp. 91-102; Susan D. Hansen, “The Racial History of the U.S. Military Academies,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 26. (Winter, 1999), pp.111-116; Evonne Parker Jones, “The Impact of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Recent Overt Black/White Racial Conflict in Higher Education in the United States,” The Journal of Negro Education, 60 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 524-537; and, John Hope Franklin, Op. Cit., ad passim. See also William Hardin Hughes and Frederick D. Patterson, Robert Russa Moton of Hampton and Tuskegee, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1956), ad passim.

82 VI. Reconstruction 1865-1876

From this point forward, a great deal of crossover begins to occur. The military, now in

the position of enforcing martial law during Reconstruction, finds itself dealing internally with

similar, if not identical problems in the civilian sphere. Moreover, the military begins some have called its era of imperialism, as it was instrumental in carrying out and maintaining the policies pertinent to Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippines.88

The Army’s role in Reconstruction was as profound as its role in the Civil War. Southern

humiliation over their defeat resulted in a great number of beatings, killings, and implementation

of Black codes. The obvious stared the U.S. Government, in particular Charles Sumner and

Thaddeus Stevens, in the face. Reconstruction would not be possible without Federal legislation

and military interdiction. The Civil Rights Bill of 1865, the 13th and 14th amendments and most

relevant, the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau, provided assurances that order could be

restored.

The Freedmen’s Bureau, under the War Department’s aegis, was responsible for the

repossession of lands, their distribution (to blacks), the organization of schools and asylums, and

the administration of justice- particularly pertaining to Civil Rights violations. Under the

guidelines of Congress, the Army was to oversee five districts, with oversight by an officer of no

lower rank than Brigadier General. The military’s supervision and the Reconstruction congress

would serve as the South’s rationale for distrusting a centralized government bent on control. But

88Norman Etherington, “Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism,” History and Theory, 21 (February, 1982), pp. 1-36; Robert Zevin, “An Interpretation of American Imperialism,” The Journal of Economic History, 32 (March, 1972), pp. 316-360; Jeannette P. Nichols, “The United States Congress and Imperialism, 1861-1897,” The Journal of Economic History, 21 (December, 1961), pp. 526-538; and, for a disputation, see James A. Field, Jr.. “American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book,” The American Historical Review, 83 (June, 1978), pp. 644-668.

83 few options were to be had due to the South’s relentless attitude. Hence, what seemed logical

policy turned into conflict between President Andrew Johnson and Congress:

“These men [Sumner and Stevens] were of the opinion that inasmuch as the Southern states had rebelled and had failed to maintain their cause, they were then subject to the same treatments as any other people in a conquered territory. This meant antagonism to the administration and led to long differences of opinion between that Boyd and Johnson, which finally culminated in the impeachment of the President.”89

The Army, then, suffering little cooperation in the South and in no way aided by the

President, “turned to Congress”, and soon “the Army stood more openly with Congress against the President, if only for the self-protection of the officers and men assigned to the South.”

Connected to this whole Reconstruction morass was the issue of the military’s judicial hearing.

Exparte Milligan, the preliminary decision of the Supreme Court nullified what should have been civil hearings in the militarily occupied south. Finally, while the need for military incursion was high, recruitment was low. For the efficient carry-through of military policy in the five districts,

numbers were needed. Congress approved greater strength but few joined, with the peak force

reaching only 19,000.90

While Reconstruction legacy was nonetheless shortlived. The Army struggled in this

period to ‘maintain’ but to do more was a task for Sisyphus. The Compromise of 1876,

essentially ended Reconstruction returning the southern aristocracy to power and prompting Jim

Crowism. The armed services’ sights turned westward as they strengthened their various

89Carter G. Woodson and Charles H. Wesley, Op. Cit., p. 393; W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), ad passim; Larry M. Logue, To Appomattox and Beyond: The Civil War Soldier in War and Peace, (Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1996), pp. 3-31.

90Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 258-262. For more on Ex Parte Milligan, see Kenneth M. Stampp, “The Milligan Case and the Election of 1864 in Indiana,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 31, (June, 1944), pp. 41-58; and, Stanley I. Kutle, “Reconstruction and the Supreme Court: The Numbers Game Reconsidered,” The Journal of Southern History, 32 (February, 1966), pp. 42-58.

84 detachments for the task at hand: the Great Migration. This required an effective regular army

that could ward off Indian threats and a military that would “tame” the frontier.

The Army had to make critical adjustments to its tactics- from a traditional military style

confrontation to that of guerrilla warfare. Regular militiamen now included a renowned regiment

of African Americans referred to as Buffalo soldiers. Also, the Army began to expand its

education aims building and staffing various state academies and post-graduate training facilities.

These educational venues would no doubt have a lasting impact with regard to officer

acquisition. What’s critical to point out here, is the continuing federalization and professionalization historical strains: the Federalization strain comes from a regular army, which

could carry out governmental aims and the professionalization strain because of the new

educational opportunities being afforded to the men.

The third major service academy, the Coast Guard Academy would be formed in 1876.

Originally known as the Revenue-Merchant Service, it initially was a branch of the Treasury

until 1915 when it would receive its name change by Congress. Initially, the Revenue-Merchant

service was under control of the Treasury Department, charged with ensuring proper trade,

collecting duties, and the like. As time wore on, its mission would include rescuing and

protection of the borders. Its first initial requests to have an academy in the late-1840s met

resistance by the Navy. The Navy felt the Revenue-Merchant service would most adequately fall

under its governance. After a few more years of wrangling, it was granted its academy charter in

1876. The content of its training would differ in one major respect: the other branches of service

(Army and Navy) were committed to fighting battles. The Coast Guard, on the other hand, was a

rescue unit and guardian of the nation’s shores. This distinction bore itself out in the curriculum,

85 though a great deal of the attributes shared by West Point and Annapolis – such as discipline,

training, and pedagogy – would remain constant.91

The period also saw the rise of pacifist tendencies in those who saw less and less need for a military establishment. Ironically, this contingent came from the business and industrial communities based in the East - few saw the need for the Army’s presence out West. “More profound doubts about the need for an Army came from an increasing number of influential

Americans who affirmed the obsolescence of war itself. To industrialists and financiers… war might well seem an archaic, irrationality that would interrupt industrial progress and profits.”

The pacifist sentiment would die down by the Spanish American War, but the ‘mood’ was already evident in the decreasing Congressional appropriations and the general “climate of unconcern.”92

VII. The Integrated Academy System and the Morrill Acts of 1883 and 1890

The emancipation of all slaves in 1863 and the policies of Reconstruction would affect

the academy establishment as it did all other facets of American life. Cadet cohorts began

matriculating through the academy system since the academies’ reputation was viewed as a

91For interesting explication on the Coast guard, see Robert Erwin Johnson, Guardians of the Sea: History of the United States Coast Guard, 1915 to the Present, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1987), ad passim; Irving H. King, The Coast Guard expands, 1865-1915: New Roles, New Frontiers, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996), ad passim; and Captain W.D. Puleston, Mahan: the Life and Work of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1939), ad passim. On African Americans in the Coast Guard, see John W. Davis, “The Negro in the United States Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard,” The Journal of Negro Education, 12 (Summer, 1943), pp. 345-349.

92Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., p. 271. On the pacifist movement and era, see also Peter Brock and Thomas P. Socknat, Challenge to Mars: Essays on Pacifism from 1918 to 1945, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), ad passim; Charles De Benedetti, “Peace History, in the American Manner,” The History Teacher, 18 (November, 1984), pp. 75-110.

86 bulwark of American intellect. Illustrative of this point, Alfred Thayer Mahan had become

published, and then became world-renown, for his work in naval ships and tactics. Albert

Michelson, an instructor in the science department was the first to win the Pulitzer Prize in

physics. Most of the winning generals were either West Point trained or influenced. The Thayer

system had benefited the service academies well. For the most part, the officers’ large presence

and high capabilities earned the respect of the citizen-soldiers during the Civil War. The

curriculum and discipline seemed to carry the day for Union officers.93

Reconstruction also brought ‘integration’ of the military academy, though it was

extremely minimal first on in that African Americans did not fill the ranks in any large-scale. In

fact, even though blacks were permitted to join the military racism would disable many from

fully participating in academy life for nearly one hundred more years.

It is noteworthy, however, to cite the ‘opening (and closing)’ of doors at the academies to

blacks in 1870. James Webster Smith was the first African American to be admitted to West

Point in 1870, and John Conyers was the first African American at Annapolis, in 1872. Their

time did not last long, which is not surprising due to the heavy presence of Southern military

leaders. The next eighteen years would be a dismal time for African Americans. “From 1870 to

1898, twenty-three blacks were appointed to West Point; twelve actually attended, six stayed

longer than one semester, and only three graduated.” Annapolis, however, after admitting three

African Americans in the 1870s, would not admit another black midshipman until 1949. 94

Why the bother to attempt integration? Grant, the victorious Union general and a majority in the Reconstruction Congress felt black officers should be cultivated to lead black

93Captain W.D. Puleston, Op. Cit., ad passim; Robert Erwin Johnson, Op. Cit., ad passim; and, Irving H. King, Op. Cit., ad passim.

94Gail Buckley, Op. Cit., p. 120.

87 troops (there was a stigma attached to the white officers who did lead the troops). The

exceptional work of the Buffalo Soldiers in this period was partly an impetus to the decision as was the general fervor brought about by Reconstruction. The academies, rooted in tradition and

Southern values, did not agree and took great steps to wash them out of the program. White cadets and administrators would heckle and even torture the cadets, with the obvious result of blacks leaving or in other cases being dishonorably discharged.95

Henry Ossian Flipper is an exception. His arrival to West Point in 1873 began the

journey of the first African American to graduate from there, and only the seventh to have been

admitted. Flipper had been educated well by missionary instructors and had previous instruction

at Atlanta University. His resolve was high, but so was his willingness to accommodate a great

deal of the behavior exhibited by cadets and instructors. Flipper, however, also brought an

intelligence and demeanor that earned the respect of the cadets, in part due to his initial refusal of

a “$5,000 offer from a white man to have his son take Flipper’s place”, and as a result, Flipper

became a “semi-celebrity…his West Point career tracked by the press.” His marks were

consistently amongst the highest in the class, and his willingness to endure the rampant racism

placed him, ironically, in high esteem. Flipper would go on to serve with distinction as a scout

and a guide in the 10th Regiment. Like his fellow cadets at West Point, racism would follow

Flipper and result in his dishonorable discharge from service. Having found money missing from his baggage, most likely stolen by a white officer who had altercations with Flipper at West

95Charles L. Kenner, Buffalo Soldiers and Officers of the Ninth Cavalry, 1867-1898, (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995, 1969), ad passim; John H. Nankivell, Buffalo Soldier Regiment: History of the Twenty-fifth United States Infantry, 1869-1926, (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), ad passim; and, Frank N. Schubert, “Black Soldiers on the White Frontier: Some Factors Influencing Race Relation” Phylon, 32, (4th Quarter, 1971), pp. 410-415. In Frank N. Schubert, On the Trail of the Buffalo Soldier: Biographies of African Americans in the U.S. Army, 1866-1917, (Wilington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1995), ad passim, (there exists several hundred biographies of Buffalo Soldiers, a truly interesting resource in terms of compiled sources on these amazing Americans).

88 Point, Flipper feared telling his superiors. He repaid the money over two months, but was found out. A trial was had, and he was found innocent, but guilty of “conduct unbecoming an officer”.

His discharge was not entirely traumatic for him. Flipper had a distinguished career as a surveyor, mining engineer, and as first black editor of a “white American newspaper, the

Nogales Sunday Herald.” Flipper would be one of a handful, then, to graduate from the academy for nearly one hundred years. 96

At this time, the American public education establishment was coming into its own with

the creation of high schools and vocational training facilities. Though not integrated (Plessy

versus Ferguson was no help with its Separate but Equal pronouncement), educational

opportunities for whites and blacks were increasing significantly throughout the country. The

Industrial Revolution and the plethora of immigrants coming to the United States spurred the

need for education and. Education for democracy was often the mantra, a variation of Horace

Mann’s “education…the great equalizer of all men”. The creation of an extensive secondary

school system was also important to the growing number of colleges. One begot the other.

Colleges needed students, and a greater number of high school students desired more education

following high school. The Morrill Acts of 1883 and 1890 were also critical to the furthering of

secondary and higher education, but more importantly to the military centralization-

federalization. The 1883 act was influenced by military academies’ developments, evidenced by

the courses of instruction initially offered – primarily, practical training in areas such as

engineering, farming, mathematics, and the sciences. The act made notice of these curricular

96 Gail Buckley, Op. Cit., pp. 123-124; Henry Ossian Flipper, The Colored Cadet at West Point: Autobiography of Lieutenant Henry Ossian Flipper, Academic Affairs Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999, 1878), electronic resource file, http://docsouth.unc.edu/flipper/menu.html, ad passim.

89 advances, but one might also ascribe certain proscribed curricula, a necessity with the

burgeoning growth of high schools from 1875 onward:

“…and the interest of which (referencing money) shall be inviolably appropriated by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.”97 This Congressionally ‘imposed’ course of military instruction would lay the foundation for the

Reserve Officer Training Corps and Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1916.

The Act of 1890 was critical in the continued establishment of Black colleges and

universities, as well as the admission of blacks to the A and M universities “provided, that no

money shall be paid out under this act to any State or Territory for the support and maintenance

of a college where a distinction of race or color is made in the admission of student.” The forward thinking of the act was ‘balanced’ by a separate-but-equal clause located directly after, stating “…but the establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students shall be held to be a compliance with the provisions of this act if the funds received in such State or Territory be equitably divided as in hereinafter set forth…”98

The Morrill Act of 1890 also stipulated a broader liberal arts instruction, mandating that

funds must be used for “instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and

97United States Statutes at Large, 22 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1883), 484- 485; See also Walter Crosby Eells and Ernest V. Hollis, “Origin and Development of the Public College in the United States,” The Journal of Negro Education, 31 (Summer, 1962), pp. 221-229; David L. Angus and Jeffrey E. Mirel, The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890- 1995, (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), ad passim.

98United States Statutes at Large, 26 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1892), p. 417.

90 the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural and economic science, with special reference to their applications in the industries of life.” This expanded curriculum again highlights concern that with educating the masses in public high schools, colleges must be ready to further develop and educate the throngs of young people coming through their doors.99

VIII. Conclusion

Chapter two has continued with two dominant themes – preparedness and imperialism-

expansionism. Preparedness, though in constant conflict with the citizen-army, becomes a greater

issue, particularly with the Civil War’s declaration. More convincingly, the preparedness strain is

best captured in looking at the proliferation of military academies, both in the major service

branches and private and state academies, particularly throughout the south. It would be unfair to

say generalize the entire south’s subscription to a military readiness ‘doctrine’. One however,

can question their intent, logically concluding a military build-up and extensive, accessible

officer training would surely be beneficial in dealing with northern advances. Similarly, West

Point, the Naval Academy and the Coast Guard Academy (note the official founding of the Coast

Guard Academy was not until 1915, but its predecessor was in existence) all represent the

growing professionalization of military life, inevitably connected to military readiness. In

addition to ‘democratizing’ education, the Morrill Acts, particularly the amended versions in

1883 and 1890, aid military centralization and federalization via military training on college and

university campuses. The expanded curriculum, the growing relationship between high schools

and colleges, serve as prerequisites for Junior ROTC’s inception.

99Ibid., p. 417

91 Imperialist and expansionist threads also become increasingly prominent during the professionalization era. The War of 1812, the Mexican War and the United States’ military’s occupation of Mexico City, and westward expansion are all examples. American expansionism, especially after the Civil War, relied heavily on a malleable, trained centralized military.

Similarly, well-trained officers were needed to lead these troops. Thus, the strains of preparedness and imperialist-expansionist efforts become more pronounced in this period.

However, they are not quite ‘married’ in the sense that federalization-centralization is required for military success. The state militias, or National Guard, are still in existence, states’ rightists re-emerge following Reconstruction and much of the federalization attempts are hampered. The martial ‘instability’ is addressed at the tail-end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth, when the Maine exploded prompting the Spanish-American War. America’s acquirement of

Spanish territories, Roosevelt’s military expansionism, and the growing preparedness movement signal that federalization-centralization would occur in short order.

92 CHAPTER 3: PREPAREDNESS AND PACIFISM 1898 TO 1916

“When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few. Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure without return and risk without reward.”

William Jennings Bryan, Excerpt from speech delivered in response to the Committee appointed to notify him of his nomination to the presidency, at Indianapolis, August 8, 1900. Jim Zwick, (ed.), Imperialism Under Other Flags: Travels, Lectures, Speeches,

Introduction

The period of 1898 to 1916 is critical for several reasons. Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency upon President McKinley’s assassination. Roosevelt’s military views, embodied in preparedness ideology, permeated American domestic and foreign policy even through

President Woodrow Wilson’s administration. The preparedness concept is simply defined as a nation or state maintaining a program or desiring a program of military readiness to effectively defend its national or international sovereignty. Essential to America’s survival as a growing power, preparedness would slowly build into a powerful ideology making the case that the nation was poorly equipped to handle any threat, particularly the growing specter of war in Europe.

Likewise, imperialist-expansionist aims grew in intensity. Connected with preparedness ideology as a historical thread, imperialism is best-defined as: “the policy of extending the rule or

93 influence of a country over other countries or colonies.” Realizing preparedness and imperialist-

expansionist goals necessitated revamping militia organization, improving military education and

training efforts, and most importantly, federalizing the armed services.100

Section one briefly investigates the new challenges and changes relative to American

imperialism and the United States administration of the new Spanish-island acquisitions. Military

reorganization and subsequent arguments for preparedness naturally arose due to the complexities involved with managing foreign territory. President William McKinley defied tradition appointing a Secretary of War who was a lawyer by trade. Elihu Root’s appointment is historically important in that he is by many accounts the creator of our modern military system.

He developed a general staff structure, a consistent military education and training program, and the first key steps towards armed service federalization-centralization. Section two examines the

National Guard, better known as the state militia system, since it was a primary target of Root’s federalization efforts. The consequent legislation known as the Dick Act delineated two militia forces – a Reserve and a National Guard, both which could be called up to duty in the event of a national emergency. This new reserve structure became one of the platforms for Junior and

Senior ROTC.

Section three explores President Roosevelt and General Leonard Wood’s preparedness philosophies. Roosevelt’s viewpoints are meted out to comprehend his position and their impact on domestic as well as foreign policy issues toward the middle and end of his presidency.

Leonard Wood enters as a vital supporter, political appointee, and eventual standard-bearer of

100“Imperialism”, Encarta® 2002 Encyclopedia. (Microsoft Corporation, 2002). President Taft, while important, in terms of this dissertation is viewed as a secondary figure carrying out Roosevelt’s preparedness policies.

94 preparedness rhetoric. He and Roosevelt established the massive movement and rationale which would essentially carry through to World War I.

In section four, preparedness and isolationist politics emerge among Leonard Wood,

Roosevelt, and President Wilson. The disagreement hinged on the manner in which America would successfully sustain its world dominance. Preparedness offered military solutions in order to maintain open, free trade. Wilson’s economic-pacifistic-neutrality platform, on the other hand, envisioned America’s dominance and security via capitalist expansion, allowing industry to prosper from neutral trading ties, improved diplomatic interventions, and reduced threat of war.

Section five examines Wood’s military training camps for college men and the public debate prefacing the 1916 National Defense Act. The training camps and General Wood’s persistence generated friction. The imminence of World War I notched up public debate regarding a national defense act preparing America for potential war. Wood seemed to have won the ‘battle’. However, Wilson’s capitulation permitted the legislation’s passage, gaining critical concessions from the staunchest preparedness advocates leaving Roosevelt and Wood at the perimeter. This aspect will be covered in chapter four in more detail. Finally, section six outlines the American High School’s growing presence, establishing a home for Junior ROTC. Public schools would serve as centers of experimental educational efforts, with military training as substantial to the growth and development of young men. The academy structure will be briefly touched upon. Military academies – their curriculum and design – would allow military officials to envision an organization modeling academy-style learning at the public school level.

95 I. American Imperialism, Military Reorganization, and Arguments for Preparedness

Following the Spanish American War, the federal government became entrenched in

governing Spain’s former territories – Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. America’s agenda

required efficient administration and military operations, causing growing concern among many in the Democratic Party’s states’ rights wing and pacifists like William Jennings Bryan. Due consideration should be given to one main point: America’s colonial presence was a mechanism

to expand the nation’s free trade capabilities, otherwise, it seems counterintuitive that a lawyer

and businessman would be selected to spearhead the administration. The man chosen to

administer the territories and head military operations, Elihu Root, became Secretary of War

under William McKinley, continuing under Theodore Roosevelt ultimately becoming the most

influential Secretary in the post since the department was formed, with the possible exception of

John C. Calhoun.101

Root’s appointment was surprising, but not ill-advised. The government had little option other than managing these new acquisitions in part to avoid Spanish attempts at forceful reclamation. McKinley made it clear he wanted a deft administrator, someone familiar with

international, legislative, and legal process. Observing these qualities in Elihu Root, McKinley

sent Root a telegram offering him the appointment. In his communiqué, McKinley emphasized

Root’s law experience and administrative abilities as fundamental to effectively managing the

Spanish acquisitions. Root set a new tone for the military in concert with the loudest advocates

of military preparedness. And, it was this very topic of preparedness that would propel supposed

101Norman Etherington, Op. Cit., pp. 1-36; Robert Zevin, Op. Cit., pp. 316-360; Jeannette P. Nichols, Op. Cit., pp. 526-538; James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (eds.), The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World, (New York: Basic Books, 1997), ad passim; Jeanette P. Nichols, “The United States Congress and Imperialism, 1861- 1897,” The Journal of Economic History, 21 (December, 1961); and, for a disputation, see James A. Field, Jr.. “American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book,” The American Historical Review, 83 (June, 1978), pp. 644-668.

96 need for drastic changes to military structure and efficacy. Early on, preparedness advocates saw

the importance of the military, not only for war ends, but also for expansion of capital interests

overseas. In contrast, a great deal of Congress and the public, at least for the first years of the

twentieth century, embraced an amalgamated concept of isolationism and pseudo-pacifism

(neutrality). America was coming into its own as an industrial powerhouse. Those in the

isolationist camp, business owners and financiers were arguing that isolationism and neutrality

would benefit the economy. Neutrality had more to do with ‘playing both sides’ than a true

commitment to peace. As well, Southerners had returned to the seats of power, rejecting the

notion of a large standing, professional Army. Their disdain for a large concentrated military

establishment surely emanated from what they perceived as misuse during the Civil War and

subsequent Reconstruction.102

In addition to creating a smoother operation, Root’s law and business background helped him successfully administer America’s foreign occupations. Root’s political prowess and administrative direction led Congress to authorize a peacetime expansion of the Army adding

3,820 officers. The new enlistees and officers would help in the operations of government as well as protect the newly acquired territories from attack or seizure.

Completion of the Spanish-American War resulted in McKinley’s signing the Foraker

Act of April 12th, 1900. The Foraker Act enabled Puerto Rico management. Root devised a

highly centralized system with virtually no popular participation, with the rationalizing that

“…wise exercise of the ballot could not be expected from a population of which 90% were

102Philip Jessup, Elihu Root, Vol. 1, (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1938), p. 215. Robert Bacon and James Brown Scott, (eds.), Men and Policies: Addresses by Elihu Root, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), pp. 36-37; and Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr, “The Idea of a Citizen Army,” Military Affairs, 17 (Spring, 1953), pp 30-36.Carter G. Woodson and Charles H. Wesley, Op. Cit., p. 393; W.E.B. Du Bois,Op. cit., pp. 670-710.

97 illiterate”. During occupation, a governor and legislative council were to be appointed by the president, and no elective assembly was envisioned. 103

The Platt Act in 1901 gave Root effective control over Cuba. As opposed to Puerto Rico,

Cuba was politically vastly different since a numerous Cubans had fought for independence from

Spain. Root mandated corporations have free access in establishing a solid economic base. Re- establishing normalcy was vital and the sooner trade relations could be stabilized, the better both parties would be. In helping materialize Cuba’s post-war constitutional convention, Root was also quick to negotiate and establish a set of naval bases, built and operated by the United States

Navy, creating trade zones handled by and for the American government. Such effective administration had the added effect of thwarting would-be colonizers. Finally, Root appointed as

General Leonard Wood colonial governor, a man who would quickly jump into the forefront of

America’s Preparedness movement. Wood’s regime and adeptness at colonial administration

“became a model for all future proconsuls.” Root’s insistence on democratic reforms, opening capitalist markets, and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in May of 1902 was considered a great success of his administration.104

The Philippines proved more difficult in terms of administering America’s new possession. Root knew the limitations of administering a colony halfway around the globe. But during this time, he earned the loyalty of servicemen. His unflinching support of them despite allegations that surfaced regarding American atrocities while fighting in the region, earned him

103Richard William Leopold, Elihu Root and the Conservative Tradition (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, Inc., 1954), p. 28; and, Pedro Caban, Constructing a Colonial People: Puerto Rico and the United States, 1898-1932, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), ad passim; and, Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr, Op. Cit., pp. 30-36.

104 Louis Perez, Cuba under the Platt Amendment: 1902-1934, (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986), ad passim.

98 their loyalty. The importance is not necessarily the administration of the said colonies, but to

demonstrate what new capacities the Secretary of War was filling, and more importantly the

direction of the military establishment which would be forever changed by Root’s and

Roosevelt’s administration with the ensuing years of preparedness legislation and military expansionism. 105

Not every American was convinced of Root’s wonders. Author Richard Leopold, less

than praising in his assessment of pacifist and anti-imperialist resistance, described the highly

oppositional pacifist movement to the Secretary of War’s job performance:

“To pacifists, the foes of expansion, and the friends of the Filipinos, Root represented everything that was abhorrent in the colonial adventure…so bitter were the Anti-Imperialistic mugwumps on the Board of overseers of Harvard University that they blocked for several years the awarding to him of an honorary degree.”106

Pacifists and Anti-Imperialists would show up in more decisive force and speak out against

American expansionism and preparedness by the end of the decade, contributing to Woodrow

Wilson’s successful election in 1912.

In 1903, Congress authorized the first of Root’s structural proposals – the general staff

structure. This feature would leave an indelible mark on the United States military. The new

105 Richard William Leopold, Op. Cit., pp. 28-40. Thirty years later, Root bemoaned the manner in which Cuba was left possibly frustrated by American business interests that belly-flopped soon after, which “bruised the pride of many Cubans.” (p. 32). See also Leonard Wood, Civil Report of the Military Governor, 1902, (Havana Cuba, 1902), ad passim; Leonard Wood, The Military Government of Cuba, (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1903), ad passim; Theodore Roosevelt, “The Burdens of Policeman in the Caribbean”, in Problems in Modern Latin American History: A Reader by John Charles Chasteen and Joseph S. Tulchin (eds.), (Wilmington, Del. : SR Books, 1994), pp. 307-310; Campbell Dauncey, The Philippines: An Account of Their People, Progress, and Condition, (Boston, MA: J. B. Millet, 1910), ad passim; Theodore Roosevelt, “The Rough Riders”, in Mine Eyes Have Seen: A First- person History of the Events that Shaped America by Richard Goldstein (ed.), (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), pp. 189-191.

106Richard William Leopold, Op. Cit., pp. 45-46. There is a wealth of early twentieth century writing on this topic. African American peace leaders offered additional, compelling arguments against America’s management. See Marvin Berlowitz, Eric Jackson, and Nathan Long, Reflections of African American Peace Leaders in the Twentieth Century, 1897-1967, (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), ad passim.

99 bureaucracy and federalization-centralization efforts paved Junior ROTC’s way into the military-

educational venue. Under Roosevelt, Root’s general staff structure encompassed change to the

oversight structure shifting to a chief of staff and general staff structure and organized the Army

War College. Root discovered early on the War Department was in disarray. One of Root’s

primary concerns was the lack of accurate and consistent communication between the generals, the Secretary, field officers, and the President. This issue and the alleged discombobulated

efforts of the U.S. Army during the Spanish-American War caused Root to reconsider and

implement a more logical, centralized apparatus.107

He began by creating a Chief of Staff position, which helped centralize military affairs by

disseminating instructions and delegating duties to lower-level generals. The chief of staff also

served as an “information filter” for the President and Secretary of War. The general staff would

serve under the Chief, carrying out myriad duties as assigned such as administration and

planning operations. The Army War College created a flow of officers into the general staff. Its

chief function was designed as to be post-graduate facility for the academies, establishing “a

higher school for the study of war…(which) could direct the intellectual exercise of the Army,

acquire information, and also devise war plans and advise the Commander-in-Chief.” 108 Added

to the War College, was Root’s plan for every military base to create, operate and maintain a school. These schools offered instruction in writing, reading, military drill and tactics, as well as other preparatory instruction potentially aiding soldiers in their future endeavors. This important

step would not be fully utilized until later in the century under the Universal Military Training

Act.

108Russell F. Weigley, Op Cit., pp. 316-317. See also Judith Stiehm, The U.S. Army War College: Military Education in a Democracy, (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2002), ad passim; and, Robert D. Miewald, “The Army Post Schools: A Report from the Bureaucratic Wars,” Military Affairs, 39 (February, 1975), pp. 8-11.

100 II. The National Guard: First Federalization Attempts

The National Guard, better known as the state militia system, would become the center of

controversy during Root’s administration, as efforts were underway to federalize the

organization. This was accomplished via passage of the Dick Act. Supported enthusiastically by

Elihu Root, the Act would effectively change America’s oldest and treasured military enclave –

the state militia system. The legislation served as the foundation over upcoming battles over preparedness and federalizing state militia operations. The Dick Act is considered the first in a

series of key Congressional legislative bills leading to the passage of the 1916 National Defense

Act.

1865 through 1906 marked the National Guard’s ascent. Each state required what was

called Universal Military Obligation (UMO) on all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and

45 years of age. Clinging to the 1792 Militia Act, states knew they had a safety mechanism

against an out of control federal government and more importantly, could organize and deploy

troops as needed to quell any insurrections. Its effectiveness at the national level was debated,

but their presence was nonetheless essential to state and national security. Throughout the

nineteenth century, state militias supplied troops, armaments, and officers during wartime.

Similarly, they enforced state laws and protected business interests. Professional military officers

agonized over state militias’ inconsistency and battle-readiness. However, the military

organizations were provincial points of pride, embodying the idea that states were largely in

control of their own destiny.109

109John Mahon, History of the National Guard, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1983), p.109. Elbridge Colby, “Elihu Root and the National Guard,” Military Affairs, 23, (Spring, 1959), pp. 28-34; Louis Cantor “Elihu Root and the National Guard: Friend or Foe?,” Military Affairs, 33 (December, 1969), pp. 361-373; Arthur Roth, “Development of the Army Reserve Forces,” Military Affairs, 17 (Spring, 1953), pp. 3-7.

101 The Civil War period changed the face of state militias, notably in the South. During

Reconstruction, the South was barred from raising its own troops. From 1865 to about 1876,

control fell into the hands of the Reconstruction government. By bringing the South under

control, many military leaders posited that black soldiers should populate militia regiments

providing protection to various business interests, overseeing proper elections, and general

peacekeeping. Likewise, rapid reforms spread throughout Southern cities aimed at creating a new

social order. What seemed radical and forward-thinking, however, became deadly for black

Guardsmen and black Southern citizens:

“To the white people of the South and to the Dunning school of historians of Reconstruction, the Negro militia was made up of only swaggering bullies. The whites opted, therefore, to use unbridled violence if necessary to eliminate it…White riflemen ambushed and killed black officers and white supporters of the Negro militia. When the Democrats returned to power in state after state of the ex- Confederacy, they terminated the black militia, disarmed blacks, and excluded them from any role in the militia.”110

Through the period of Reconstruction and up to 1906, state militias came to be known

officially as the National Guard. Each National Guard detachment protected state interests –

quashing race riots, putting down strikes, and defending against various insurrections.

Furthermore per the 1792 Militia Act, they were activated in the event of national emergency.

During the post-Civil War period, lynching and race riots were prevalent throughout the country

and depending on the region and the men, guard responses drastically varied. On one hand, their

presence, a critical buffer in many instances, may have helped deter larger post-Civil War

casualties. On the other hand, their enforcement of Jim Crow policies throughout the south

110 John Mahon, Op. Cit., p.109. Also, Jim Dan Hill, The Minute Man in Peace and War: A History of the National Guard, (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Co. 1964), ad passim; and, Alwyn Barr, “The Black Militia of the New South: Texas as a Case Study,” The Journal of Negro History, 63 (July, 1978), pp. 209-219. Regarding Reconstruction era governance and occupation see, W.E.B. Du Bois, Op. Cit., ad passim; Larry M. Logue, Op. Cit., pp. 3-31; and, Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 201-208.

102 following the 1876 Compromise (also known as the Betrayal of Reconstruction), contributed to

increased fragmentation and segregation.

Labor and management strife also increased in intensity during this period. Industrial

bosses aligned with the state militias, (interestingly, spurring the National Guard’s official

naming via the 1877 railroad strike. As management across America struggled with the growing intensity of strikers, National Guardsmen were activated to assist in protecting property and

maintaining order. Businesses supplemented financial aid into these militia units to carry on their duties and ‘ensure’ corporate interests remained intact. Occasionally guardsmen sided with strikers even setting aside their weapons or walking off duty. It was these types of action and the provinciality of their organization, which caused consternation amongst ‘professional’ military officers, later on precipitating the Dick Act’s passage.

Military professionals saw little value in the National Guard. These provincial citizen armies elected officers, socialized more than trained, and seemed to serve to the detriment of national interests. Similarly, when necessity called, state governors served as Commander-in-

Chief, calling the Guard to duty. The executive privilege was a stark reminder to federalization proponents that state governments were largely in control of their own military operations. Elihu

Root’s efforts, fueled by professional soldiers’ animus, changed all that.111

Professional officers snubbed the National Guard as a relic of 1792. Indeed, its

provincial character and the troops’ inconsistency may have merited some concern. However,

Roosevelt’s Administration was strongly grounded in his preparedness rhetoric. The Spanish-

111Gerald Friedman, “Strike Success and Union Ideology: The United States and France, 1880- 1914,” The Journal of Economic History, 48 (March, 1988), pp. 1-25. See also Jim Dan Hill, Op. Cit., ad passim. This section would be incomplete without mentioning in some form the betrayal of Reconstruction. Obviously, the post-1876 National Guard would most likely have been impotent in promoting Jim Crow and mob action against African Americans. The North’s compromise and eventual pull-out sounded the death knell for any potential social gains that could have been made.

103 American War had been (at least in his mind) a key indicator that change was needed in training

and deployment of troops. The National Guard was targeted by the Administration and

professional officers who deplored citizen-soldiery as antiquated and problematic towards

establishing a functional military machine. The Dick Act, properly titled “An Act to promote the

efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes”, was the first of several legislative efforts

strengthening military operations over the next twenty years. The act identified two branches or

classes of service – the National Guard and the Reserve Militia. Either branch could be called

into service by the president. Service obligations could be no greater than nine months and, upon

federal activation, guardsmen and reservists would be paid by the Federal government similar to

Regular army officers and enlistees. Another important feature was the reorganization of the

Adjutant-General Corps. Initially, Adjutant-Generals served as figureheads. Now, the onus of responsibility fell to these men, reporting directly to the Secretary of War. The Act’s impact on the National Guard was astounding. Congress essentially commenced dismantling state control over military matters. Gone were the days of complete gubernatorial prerogative to support or not support the federal government during wartime, haphazard training and drilling, and provincially entrenched military detachments. The very frustrations endured by Washington and his successors, seemed a fleeting memory. The Federal Government tightened its control.112

After shepherding through his landmark legislative reforms, Root departed his Secretary

of War post to pursue political office. Roosevelt then named William Howard Taft his successor.

112 United States Statutes at Large, 22 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903), pp. 775- 776. For more on this topic see Horace Mann Bond, “Education in the South,” Journal of Educational Sociology, 12 (January, 1939), pp. 264-274; W.E.B. DuBois, Op. Cit., pp. 670-710; George M. Blackburn, “Radical Republican Motivation: A Case History,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 54, No. 2. (Apr., 1969), pp. 109-126; and, Patrick W. Riddleberger, “The Radicals' Abandonment of the Negro During Reconstruction,” The Journal of Negro History, 45 (April, 1960), pp. 88-102. John Mahon, Op. Cit., p. 109. Mahon notes that from 1865 to 1906, nearly 1/3 of all National Guard actions were directed towards labor strikes, and a large portion – particularly during Reconstruction assisted in putting race riots. The Guard’s ineffectiveness is still a point of discussion today in debate about value of professional versus citizen-soldiers.

104 Taft was his protégé, eventually handpicked by Roosevelt to be the Republican nominee in 1908.

Taft was also a lawyer, continuing the legacy Root had left. Taft’s strengths, however, were

overshadowed by his weaknesses, noted by his frequent political faux pas while president.

Various political sectors found his policies wanting or simply erroneous and used these against

him both during his tenure as Secretary of War and as President, causing Roosevelt to leave the

party and contributing to Wilson’s election in 1912. Taft’s one choice for the somewhat new

Chief of Staff position was General Leonard Wood. Wood lent credence to the previous

President Roosevelt’s preparedness platform, gradually galvanizing support throughout the

country. Always the political dramatist, Wood evangelized his military perspectives, frequently

and without regret. Both Taft and Wood reinforced the Rooseveltian view that the United States

military must be ready in any crisis that would challenge its economic or national sovereignty.

III. Roosevelt and Wood’s Preparedness and Expansionist Philosophies Defined

Roosevelt’s views were shaped by his experience in the Spanish-American War. His

Rough Riders allegedly witnessed a United States army in chaos, causing Roosevelt to insist

America’s military and political future was in doubt. One argument or another could be make

the case Roosevelt’s ire was overblown – and in fact – Roosevelt’s experiences have been deduced by some as racially and class motivated. In spite of his motivations these arguments are of little consequence, given that his views shaped preparedness doctrine during and after his presidency. Leonard Wood’s appointment at Roosevelt’s urging was a clear articulation of his philosophies. Wood’s presence throughout the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson administrations also set the stage for ideological clashes surrounding America’s involvement in World War I.113

113For more information on this, see Theodore Roosevelt, Pocket Diary, 1898: Theodore Roosevelt's Private Account of the War with Spain, (Cambridge, MA: Theodore Roosevelt

105 Patriotic fervor in the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century waned in

intensity. The rise of American industrial might, coupled with an economic boon, gave

Americans room to think about improving domestic life. Industrial and economic prosperity for some did not ensure for all of America’s citizens. An even greater concentration of inner-city poverty, crime and health crises plagued the nation. Labor and management were constantly in turmoil as evidenced by the numerous strikes and disputes. The tension between industry and labor and the after effects were obvious thread of the American fabric that weaved through the

Collection, Harvard College Library-The Houghton Library, Harvard University, 1998), ad passim; Theodore Roosevelt, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920), 506-531; and Robert Bacon and James Brown Scott, Op. Cit., pp. 17-48. Additionally, William Howard Taft while judged as politically inept did conform to preparedness doctrine. It should also be noted, however, that his stint as governor in the Philippines, was viewed by many as a model governorship. He was primarily responsible for the development of roads, industrialization, and communications. Again, though, this must be balanced against the imperialist-expansionist ideology – what was good for the Filipinos was essentially good for the U.S. The 113-day Spanish War, precipitated by the explosion of the Maine in Havana in 1895 began on April 21st, 1898. The first troops called to this “exercise in jingoism, empire building and war nostalgia” were Buffalo Soldiers of the 25th infantry. This ‘Splendid Little War’ would be the most integrated the military had been since the Revolution and until after World War II. Though a list of heroism seems redundant, the examples of bravery in battle show that despite the rise of Jim Crow and the sanctioned lynching, black troops fought fearlessly and loyally- equal or unmatched in many cases, by white troops. History paints the Rough Riders 1st Volunteer Regiment as the unflinching heroes of war. The true history shows that had it not been for the bravery of the Buffalo Soldier, “who came to their rescue in three important battles: the 10th Cavalry, at Las Guasimas, the 25th Infantry, at El Caney (“Hell Caney”), and the 9th and 10th Cavalries, at San Juan Hill. Ironically, Roosevelt- always the politician and never the one to miss the spotlight- retold the events, even going so far as to say that the battles resulted in the black troops fleeing from battle and Rough Riders have to save the day. This was never the case, but it did irreparable harm to the black infantry and their stellar reputation. It bears further comment that Roosevelt’s inaccurate portrayals- not only of the black infantry, but also the bulk of the army- to boost his and the Rough Riders’ performance, resulted in a perception that the Army was ill-prepared. Of course, the Imperialist nature of the war, and the need for American military to support the oncoming capitalist expansion seemed to demand a stronger, better Army. Preparedness would eventually win the day. The loyalty of the soldiers, though questioned, was sincere, outshining their white comrades. One poignant example was at El Caney. “In the midst of ‘Hell Caney’, when white troops from New York refused to fight, the 24th, in the rear of and supporting the white 13th Infantry, asked to take the lead. Their bravery there and at El Caney would be noted throughout the land, but at the onset of World War I would soon be forgotten. The Brownsville Raid was a turning point and exemplified the thanks black troops received for their bravery U.S. Government’s. Due to what is said to have been a massive frame up: one hundred and sixty-seven troops of the one hundred seventy were accused, tried and convicted of murder. The exposure of racism’s ugly head in the military and the court of public opinion by Roosevelt’s demand for justice did insurmountable damage.

106 entire country’s institutions, including the military. While Americans focused on repairing their economic house, defense spending also became victim to drastic fluctuations in armaments and numbers.114

Roosevelt recognized the dangers of these fluctuations, and the critical importance

international affairs played in America’s economic future. Historian Nathan Miller observed,

“unlike most Americans of his day, Theodore Roosevelt was fascinated by international affairs and realized that the war with Spain had transformed the United States from a provincial nation on the fringes of power…’whether we desire it or not,’ he warned Congress in his first annual message, ‘we must henceforth recognize that we have international duties no less than international rights.’”115

Miller’s remark typified Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and his beliefs in a strong U.S.

military and solid foreign policy, consisting of three major tenets. First, he believed in stabilized

Caribbean and Latin American governments. Reducing their debt and increasing democratic

elections would, at least in his mind, thwart internal or external military conflict. Second, a

strong Latin American base was vital to Roosevelt’s ‘canal plan’ in either Nicaragua or Panama, spurring establishment of trade routes and greater flexibility in transportation. Third, and finally,

114Congressional legislation from year-to-year caused great fluctuations in terms of budget expenditures and size of the regular army, eliciting immense concern among military elites and the likes of Theodore Roosevelt. At the start of the Spanish-American War in 1898, 209,714 military personnel were engaged. By 1901, 85,557 were active duty and only six years later active rosters counted only 64,170. By 1916 the number of troops had risen above 105,000 and would stay at these levels following the passage of the National Defense Act. (Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp.596-600). For more on the progressive era, see Gerald Friedman, Op. Cit., pp. 1-25; Lewis L. Gould, America in the progressive era, 1890-1914, (New York: Longman Press, 2001); Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1969, 1961), pp. 127-273.

115Nathan Miller, Theodore Roosevelt: A Life (New York: William and Morrow, Inc. 1992), p. 382. See also Robert H. Holden and Eric Zolov, Latin America and the United States: A Documentary History, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 34-37; Theodore Roosevelt, Op. Cit., pp. 506-531.

107 he desired a strong and secure Pacific Basin. This guaranteed safekeeping of America’s colonial acquisitions. Military organization played a critical role in Roosevelt’s view, because a strengthened military equaled dependable enforcement of his agenda. Historians argue against labeling Roosevelt’s aims as anti-imperialistic, citing his policies were protectionist-driven, merely ‘intended as a step on the difficult road to self-rule’. 116 Regardless of how he is

portrayed, understanding that military domination and control, via military readiness, opened

pathways for the expansion of capitalist markets.

Furthermore, the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine basically justified

America’s new police presence throughout the Western Hemisphere. His ‘corollary’ alienated

Isolationists, fence-sitters, and even some military personnel who grew concerned America was

treading dangerous waters. The corollary’s important precedent here is in fact the unprecedented

expansion of America’s economic and military presence advanced by Roosevelt’s view America

should be an intermediary in all matters concerning United States foreign and domestic policy.117

Roosevelt’s military philosophies were in fact not immediately popular with Big

Business. Though his preparedness plan would reap ‘positive’ financial outcomes over the long-

116Nathan Miller, Op. Cit., p. 384. Evidence of this point is available by studying Roosevelt’s approach to the Venezuelan debt crisis in which Germany claimed rights to briefly invade Venezuela to collect on their debt. This particular moment in history, highlights Roosevelt’s philosophy towards stable, competent and responsible governance throughout Latin America. Miller does an excellent job describing the events in pages 392 to 393.

117Nathan Miller, Op. Cit., pp. 394-399; and, Robert H. Holden and Eric Zolov, Op. Cit., p. 37. For further and varied discussion see Jeffry A. Frieden, “The Economics of Intervention: American Overseas Investments and Relations with Underdeveloped Areas, 1890-1950 in The United States in the International Economy,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31 (January, 1989), pp. 55-80; Jamie W. Moore, “National Security in the American Army's Definition of Mission, 1865-1914,” Military Affairs, 46 (October, 1982), pp. 127-131; Robert Zevin, “An Interpretation of American Imperialism: The Tasks of Economic History,” The Journal of Economic History, 32 (March, 1972), pp. 316-360; Larry Hufford, “The U. S. in Central America: The Obfuscation of History,” Journal of Peace Research, 22 (June, 1985), pp. 93-100; and, John M. Mathews, “Roosevelt's Latin-American Policy,” The American Political Science Review, 29, (October, 1935), pp. 805-820.

108 term, business executives were initially skeptical. No fan of Big Business, Roosevelt’s early political activity ruptured government-corporate camaraderie, dealt severe blows to monopolies and business corruption and exacerbated management disputes with labor! If Americans were to

“buy” into preparedness, the business sector would have to accept the ideology. Roosevelt’s complete plan would have to wait, since Woodrow Wilson’s eventual election confounded military preparedness activists’ attempts. Wilson touted the positive monetary and political rewards pacifism could bring the country. The rise of Wilsonian ideology, then, can be strongly linked to a sort of economic-isolationist-pacifism, a rebuff of Roosevelt’s views. Even at the commencement of World War I, business leaders were still wary, experiencing the large profits gained by American neutrality. However, over time business, education, and political beliefs shifted as Leonard Wood’s evangelization took a spirited turn.118

It was not accidental that Leonard Wood and Roosevelt shared similar views. Wood had trained and served with Roosevelt’s Rough Riders and was appointed to leadership posts under

McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. His stints as governor in Santiago, Santiago City, military governor of Cuba, the Mora province and as Chief of Staff brought numerous accolades from civilian and military leaders.

Wood’s philosophy on preparedness paralleled Roosevelt’s. It was shaped by his Spanish-

American War experiences in the concluding years of the nineteenth century. Wood, like

Roosevelt, observed what he alleged to be poor, lackadaisical performance of American troops on and off the battlefield, a nepotistic and entrenched military leadership, and a complacent public. He shared in Roosevelt’s view of expanding America’s reach, but Wood first-and-

118 Nathan Miller, Op. Cit., pp. 394-399; Robert H. Holden and Eric Zolov, Op. Cit., 34-37; Theodore Roosevelt, Op. Cit., ad passim. Wood’s Plattsburg camps, discussed in the following section, spurred ‘businessmen camps’. As with Plattsburg, these took some time to catch on, but eventually were attended in large numbers.

109 foremost championed the military life as a primary component of citizenship and practical sustainer of American foreign policy and democracy.

“The foundation of peace [he wrote] lies in the proper education of the youth. If you have decent men, you have decent governments and decent governments try to do the square thing. The suppression of war or struggles is about as difficult as to effectually neutralize the influence of gravitation or to revise the general law governs all things, namely, the survival of the fittest.”119 As with Roosevelt, his opinions were not shared by many, including anti-war and anti- imperialists. This contingent frequently challenged Wood’s assertions, questioning his wisdom as to the necessity of a fighting force in the absence of conflict. Wood frequently responded to his critics, defining preparedness as nothing more or less than keeping the ‘ship ready’ in the event of war. Pointing to a ship headed out to sea, he retorted to one critic, saying: ‘I will answer you, madam,’ he said, ‘if you can tell me for what particular storm the captain of that ship is prepared. You may notice that he has all his life-boats hung and ready.’”120

His response was highly indicative of his beliefs that military troops, armaments, and leadership must be adequately primed to face any challenge arising before the United States. He was consumed by these thoughts talking “preparedness day and night with whomever would listen, made speeches and pleaded with the Secretary of War (Garrison) to let the facts be known to the President of the nation’s unprepared state.”121

119Hermann Hagedorn, Leonard Wood: A Biography, Vol. 2, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931), p. 173.

120Ibid., p. 173. For continued discussion on the topic of pacifism, nationally and internationally as well as from the early- to mid-twentieth century, see Peter Brock, Varieties of Pacifism: A Survey From Antiquity to the Outset of the Twentieth Century (Toronto: Syracuse, N.Y. Syracuse University Press, 1998), ad passim; and, Peter Brock and Thomas P. Socknat, Op. Cit., pp. 218-330.

121Hermann Hagedorn, Op. Cit., p. 143.

110 IV. Preparedness and Neutrality Politics

Following Wilson’s election, Wood continued in the Chief of Staff position. It was in the early part of Wilson’s administration he became interested in the concept of military training camps – a vehicle illustrating how simple military readiness could be. By 1913, his idea that college-aged men attend a training camp in the summer began came to fruition, a set-up that would play a crucial role in outlining the ROTC program in 1916. His concept, known as the

Plattsburg Idea, was in part a reaction to growing problems overseas and though not immediately successful became a behemoth in two short years. The Plattsburg idea was a source of growing friction between himself and Wilson’s administration.

Wood was extremely adamant about the practicality and necessity of his camps, preaching his preparedness mantra along the way. Those who charged the camps were propaganda tools for militarism or military expansionism were quickly rebuffed by Wood:

“The ultimate object sought is not in any way one of military aggrandizement, but to provide in some degree a means of meeting a vital need confronting us as a peaceful and unmilitary people, in order to preserve the desired peace and prosperity through the only safe precaution, viz., more thorough preparation and equipment to resist any effort to break the peace.”122

Camp organizers targeted recruits at land-grant colleges and universities because of their direct ties to the military instruction as mandated by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Camps occurred during students’ summer vacations, incorporating courses in tactics, drill, and evening

122Joseph Sears, The Career of Leonard Wood (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1919), pp. 214-215. ROTC’s beginnings could essentially be attributed to Wood’s address to a meeting of land grant colleges in which he suggested “a program whereby five hundred graduates of the land-grant colleges would be selected each year for commissions as ‘provisional’ second lieutenants and assigned to regular units for one year’s training, after which they would pass in a special officer reserve.” See also John Clifford The Citizen Soldiers: The Plattsburg Training Camp movement, 1913 – 1920, (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1972), p. 24. While printed in 1917, the Plattsburgh Manual is a wealth of information pertinent to camp operation. A copy is on file at the Hamilton County Public Library, O.O. Ellis and E.B. Garey, The Plattsburgh Manual: A Handbook of Federal Training Camps, (New York, The Century Company, 1917), ad passim.

111 lectures on military history and policy. During evening lectures campers heard Leonard Wood

vehemently reiterate the camps were in no way ‘preaching militarism…but [to establish] some

true conception of what our military history has been and what we need in the way of a sound

military policy for the future.” 1913, its first year of operation netted a total of 222 students, but

after combining with businessmen the total eventually climbed to 3,500,000 men trained, and

well over 200,000 fully trained reserve officers.123

Wood’s constant stumping became a thorn in President Wilson’s side. Wilson’s

somewhat contrary beliefs to military intervention would constitute what Wood thought was a

grave threat to American superiority. Certainly, he received the support he needed under

Roosevelt and Taft, but Wilson proved less inclined towards Wood’s views. President Wilson,

the former Princeton academic countered that matters relative to foreign policy and military

build-up were analogous to President James Madison’s diplomatic and economic incitements

that led up to the War of 1812. Wilson believed that America’s worst nightmare was to be drawn into a military fiasco when time, money and resources could be better spent expanding capitalist markets, alleviating domestic strife, and assisting the international community in resolving disputes peacefully. Wilsonian biographer August Hecksher described Wilson’s philosophies toward pacifism. A new strategy that would make a long-term impact regarding American foreign policy, seemed in order.

“Wilson was convinced that his administration had as much opportunity to transform the Country’s foreign as well as its domestic policy – to make it genuinely

123Joseph Sears, Op. Cit., 200-216, and, John Clifford, Op. Cit., pp. 54-117. The American Defense League and American Defense Society hedged a powerful pro-military camp movement, combining Wood’s Plattsburg Camps and the businessmen camps, forming the Military Training Camps Association (MTCA). After a great deal of debate during proceedings for the National Defense Act, section 54 of the act provided monetary resources for MTCA.

112 democratic, pacific, anti-imperialistic, free of the manipulations of financial interests.”124

The last point, however, should not be misconstrued as complete renunciation of financial

or military interests. He was in line with his party platform having championed resistance of an expanded military establishment, attacked corrupt business practices and addressed social ills (as

Governor of New Jersey), and advocated for states’ rights. Nevertheless in his mind, maintaining open free trade required military intervention and it is said he employed the military in matters affecting business more so than any other previous presidential administration. Logically, then,

Wilson’s adoption of anti-Imperialism and pacifism should not be read as complete repudiation of American economic expansion. Wilson’s insistence America freely trade with the belligerents throughout the first two years of World War I is a prime example.125

Pacifist and anti-imperialist views helped him win the 1912 election. When he chose his

cabinet and administration, he retained General Leonard Wood as Chief of Staff (left over from

Taft’s administration in part because of Wood’s astute capabilities in managing military affairs),

124August Heckscher, Woodrow Wilson, (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1991), p. 293.

125Ibid., pp. 296 – 299. One other prime occasion exemplifying his politicking on subjects such as states’ rights and foreign policy was the ‘Japanese imbroglio’. California had shamelessly passed legislation barring Japanese immigrants from owning land. The incident was a huge battle between states’ rights advocates and federal government views supporting strong, friendly ties with Japan. Wilson helped avoid war with Japan, it is also noted in historical circles that Wilson perpetuated the Democratic Party platform supporting States’ Rights and Separation of Powers. This is an important foundation in terms of understanding Wilson’s imprint on the National Defense Act. I would also direct the reader’s attention to the last point of Wilson’s use of military and the parallels to Jefferson’s administration. I would be remiss for not mentioning one outstanding work consulted in the process of compiling research for this chapter. Arthur Link’s biographical survey of Wilson, the most comprehensive to date is a phenomenal achievement. The five-volume set goes into extensive detail on his life, presidency, and philosophies. The following titles were also consulted: Arthur Link, Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914- 1915, Vol. 3 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960), ad passim; Arthur Link, Wilson: Confusions and Crises, 1915-16, Vol. 4, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), ad passim; Arthur Link, Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, Vol. 5 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965), ad passim; Arthur Link, Wilson: The New Freedom, Vol. 2 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956), ad passim. See also Leon H. Canfield, The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson: Prelude to a World in Crisis, (Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1966), pp.39-74.

113 Wilson frustrated the establishment when he formalized his pacifistic views. By selecting

William Jennings Bryan, Democratic Party stalwart and anti-military activist, as Secretary of

State Wilson gave a nod to the Democratic Party’s anti-Imperialist, states’ rights, and pacifist

wings. Bryan, a religious pacifist, was an ideal choice for the staunchly Presbyterian President

and someone Wilson respected immeasurably, but the choice was as much political as it was

ideological. Early in Bryan’s political career, he served as the persistent voice against military

expansionism. Though losing the 1900 presidential election, many Americans respected his

fervency, religiosity, and intelligent positions. Yet, Bryan for all of his intellect was observed by

many in Washington circles as a man of ‘incurable innocence’. He unwittingly proved their

point. Guilty of diplomatic faux pas, Bryan intertwined religious perspectives with foreign

diplomacy fueling preparedness activists’ arguments that Wilson and his cabinet were inept.

Bryan was asked to resign after two years in office, but Wilson held his views as critical to

supplementing his own ideas pertinent to military proliferation. William Jennings Bryan served

Wilson well, however, in developing a comprehensive foreign policy strategy, shaping the

president’s diplomatic approach. 126

Wilson, along with Bryan, developed what historians label ‘The New Freedom’. The

‘New Freedom’ would encourage international order resulting in greater economic competition

and free market capitalism among nations. Henceforward, the new Wilsonian doctrine worked

tirelessly to avoid wars by establishing persistent and detailed analysis of what constituted

126August Heckscher, Op. Cit., pp. 294-295. One famous ‘faux pas’ occurred when Bryan served grape juice instead of wine to foreign heads of state. This incident, while innocent enough, resulted in a fury when Bryan attempted to publicly explain himself through the national media, turning a benign political gaffe, into a political nightmare. For more on Bryan, see Fred H. Harrington, “The Anti-Imperialist Movement in the United States, 1898-1900,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 22 (September, 1935), pp. 211-230; Willard H. Smith, “William Jennings Bryan and the Social Gospel,” The Journal of American History, 53 (June, 1966), pp. 41-60; Malcolm M. Willey and Stuart A. Rice, “William Jennings Bryan as a Social Force,” Journal of Social Forces, 2 (March, 1924), pp. 338-344; and, Willard H. Smith, “William Jennings Bryan and Racism,” The Journal of Negro History, 54, (April, 1969), pp. 127-149.

114 ‘revolutions for change’ or uprisings that became deleterious movements serving as impediments

or threats toward democracy. Wilson’s political savvy handling regional and international

conflicts gave him much needed credibility and many Americans – including businessmen and

everyday Americans – saw great value in his accomplishments.

Equally important was the public’s lack of interest in militarism. Wilson’s ideology

spoke to a vast majority of Americans – many of whom saw a great need to repair domestic

strife. By the 1916 election, Republicans saw the writing on the wall. Looking for someone with

broad appeal, they carefully chose John Hughes as their presidential candidate – passing over

‘preparedness’ powerhouses Theodore Roosevelt and Leonard Wood. Thus the “Republicans

were mindful of the pacifist attitude extending through much of the country particularly in the

Midwest…” Wilson’s platform heralded the “Second New Freedom”, in which, “he supported

rural credits, workmen’s compensation, a child labor bill, with the single-mindedness formerly for promoting economic equality; and to these the eight hour day was soon to be added in dramatic circumstances.”127 The platform reflected the voting populace’s disenchantment in

regarding military matters, placing political focus on issues directly concerning American

citizens. The platform was in many ways precursory to the Progressive strand catching on in

America. Though the ‘strand’ would take a short hiatus during World War I it would return with

vigor by the mid-twenties.

During his first term, Wilson stalled the ‘war’ against war and preparedness rhetoric with

his unique foreign policy approach. Leonard Wood remained a fringe figure, some describing

him as a ‘has-been’. Conversely, the road to his second term, lined with Americans craving

domestic relief, became riddled with navigational challenges, forcing Wilson to capitulate to military readiness issues and proffer his own preparedness strategy.

127August Heckscher, Op. Cit., pp. 395-398.

115 V. Public Debate toward a National Defense Act

Calling for a new system of military readiness at the start of the election year, Wood’s

allies gained momentum in the arena of public opinion. Try as he would, Wilson’s peace agenda

was quickly in conflict against a preparedness platform that had gained significant traction

among business elites and a growing (though still small sector) number of Americans outraged

over German atrocities against American merchant vessels and the British boycott. The federal

government’s economic trade neutrality policy also created significant rifts with Britain. Britain

implemented a boycott against American merchant ships and they felt their cause for boycott was

just: America’s fence-sitting and supplying of materials to both sides simply galled them.

Furthermore, Germany had crossed the line by breaking its promises not to destroy American

merchant vessels. Added to the outrage, several months previously, the Lusitania had been sunk.

One cannot discount these mounting dynamics triggering the president to develop his own

preparedness plan. There seemed no other choice. The question before him, though, was to what

extent should the preparedness legislation go? Complete federalization seemed far from the answer and was in direct conflict with many Democratic Party members.

Wilson’s disdain for federalizing military operations and Roosevelt and Wood’s staunch pro-federalization mentality showcased the increasing dialectical relationships occurring in a country desperate for peace, yet ferocious when matters affecting national sovereignty arose.

Ongoing diplomacy with the Central Powers and the Allies had failed, and in some cases quite miserably. Concomitantly, the Germans knew well America’s – and Wilson’s – revulsion of war.

German conventional wisdom assumed America was not a threat politically or militarily

furnishing added fuel for Leonard Wood’s preparedness argument:

“As far as the financial and economic situation is concerned,” the Naval Minister, von Cappelle replied, “I have always laid great stress on the importance of

116 America’s entrance in to the war. But from a military point of view, her entrance means nothing. I repeat: from a military point of view America is nothing. I am convinced that almost no American will volunteer for war service. That is shown by the lack of volunteers for the conflict with Mexico. And even if many enlist, they must first be trained. This will take time, for America has neither commissioned or non-commissioned officers enough to train large bodies of troops…America’s entrance is as nothing…”128

The collective groan emanating from Roosevelt and Wood over comments like these led

to others joining their chorus. Von Cappelle’s reaction was the exact perception preparedness

advocates feared. In late-1915 and throughout the 1916, the MTCA was gaining steam, as were

organizations like the Junior American Guard, the National Security League, the American

Defense League, and the American Defense Society. Still, America’s electorate was not

completely convinced war or preparedness was the answer. Wood and his cadre argued,

however, that a strong military establishment assured America’s readiness in time of need.129

Editorials and reports peppered newspapers. The articles lamented military effectiveness,

offering alternative military training techniques or denouncing military expansion. Over the

course of several weeks, over fifty articles appeared in the New York Times alone dealing with

the topic of preparedness. The national debate had earnestly begun. No sooner had debate

commenced, when political casualties accumulated.

128Arthur Link, Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, Vol. 5 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 289.

129Robert D. Ward, “The Origin and Activities of the National Security League, 1914-1919,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 47 (June, 1960), pp. 51-65; Howard C. Hill, “The Americanization Movement,” American Journal of Sociology, 24, (May, 1919), pp. 609-642; and, George Creel, “Propaganda and Morale,” American Journal of Sociology, 47 (November, 1941), pp. 340-351. The preparedness chorus pled their case to the American public, having cited their cause as a noble effort - a strong military establishment spreading democracy and human rights. Wilson was in a political chess match. Had they “won”, they could have wrested away the presidency.

117 Secretary of War Lindlay Garrison’s and General Wood appeared at a speech for over one thousand New York bankers at the Hotel Astor. Wood’s well-defined verbiage stridently preached pro-federalization. He denounced America’s over-reliance on an all-volunteer force with little or no emphasis on training for professional commissioned and non-commissioned officers. This over-reliance would lead to the nation’s inevitable demise. Wood implored the bankers, affirming ‘national control (was) essential, decrying America’s ‘forty-eight separate armies’ as ineffective.

Wood and Garrison targeted New York bankers purposefully. Their appeal that “…for war, a nation must be able to fall back instantly upon perfected economic and industrial organizations in the moment of national emergency” drew concurrence. 130 Wood’s speech, couple with German attacks against American merchant vessels and the impact on Wall Street caused the powerful New York financial establishment to reconsider the government’s trade neutrality policies. Garrison spoke as well, expounding on Wood’s ideas, adding an aura of official sanctioning by the Wilson administration. Wilson, of course, had not sanctioned this course of rhetoric. Shortly after the speech an insurmountable rift occurred between Garrison and

Wilson, and the Secretary was forced to leave office. Outraged, Wilson was devastated with

Garrison’s insubordination. The Secretary of War’s refused to back-down on his concept that a federal militia or Continental Army was the only sure way to protect American interests. As the

National Defense Act was drafted and hearings took place, Garrison led the charge in hopes

Wilson would support his effort. Giving the president an ‘ultimatum’, Garrison quickly discovered Wilson would not accept being pigeon-holed. Wood did not go unscathed. Once

130New York Times,“Garrison Points to Nation’s Peril,” (New York City), 18 January 1916, p. 1.

118 World War I started, he was assigned unsavory assignments, sent to the backfield, basically

exiled. 131

Anti-militarists and military personnel who leaned towards states’ rights put forth

military readiness differing proposals. There was a streak of social practicality in the debate,

merging Wilson’s ‘Second New Freedom’ and growing preparedness position. On January 17th,

a New York Times article described the League for Constructive Defense’s unique plan.

Socially-oriented, the League proposed placing regular army enlistees under the Army Corps of

Engineers. The end result would be two-fold: first, such a plan prepared men for service, but,

secondly and more importantly, it entailed a social component providing needed jobs and service

during economic downturns, explaining Americans should “retain for the unemployed their self- respect and give the American people value received for all the money spent on the Army.” 132

The proposal received scant support from certain political and military circles, and never gained the desired traction. Later that week, Frederic C. Howe further explored the concept of a standing military responsible for training troops and rectifying social ills – opposing its use as a sole instrument of war. Howe, United States Commissioner of Immigration in New York City and self-described anti-militarist saw inherent value in dual training. Referring to words by Colonel

Whistler, Howe quoted: “Those soldiers who avail themselves of the shop work opportunities, return to civil life much better trained and equipped for work useful to the community and profitable to themselves than at the time of their enlistment.” Howe also used Colonel Whistler’s words to elicit a warning: “preparation for war should be the most democratic thing that we can undertake…it (the military) should be shorn of everything that menaces our democracy or

131John Clifford, Op. Cit., pp. 122-128.

132New York Times,“Suggests Defense by Industrial Army,” (New York City), 17 January 1916, p. 1.

119 impairs our contribution to civilization.” 133 Indeed, the fear of a standing army and growing

militarism, as Howe saw it, was a danger to America’s institutions.

Preparedness advocates were swift in their rhetorical retaliation. General John J.

Pershing took exception to Frederic Howe’s negative historical assessment of standing armies.

Pershing’s argument recalled historical examples, but focused instead on the turmoil experienced by Washington, Jackson, Grant, and others when relying solely on volunteer troops. Pershing contended this dependence on an outmoded National Guard system, as well as under-prepared and under-trained soldiers unnecessarily drew out the length of wars, severely hampered military activities and nearly cost America victory during the War of 1812, and created tactical and strategic headaches during the Civil War. Pershing, pontificating his own view of history claimed, “in the light of historical facts, and if we are really in earnest, it would the part of wisdom to adopt at once the principle of universal military training as the first step towards preparedness.”134

Roosevelt’s speech at the Americanization Conference held in Philadelphia illustrates the

preparedness point-of-view quite well. Roosevelt, speaking to labor leaders, teachers,

sociologists and a myriad of local, state, and national leaders deplored America’s “hyphenated”

Americans – immigrants – who were essentially dividing America. He compared America’s immigration ‘crisis’ to slavery – exhorting “once it was true, as Lincoln said, that this country

could not endure half free and half slave. Today it is true that it cannot endure half American

and half foreign. The hyphen is incompatible with patriotism.” It was Roosevelt’s vision that

education could play a monumental role in ridding America’s new ‘challenge’, particularly

133New York Times Magazine “Would Teach Every American Soldier a Trade,” (New York City), 23 January 1916, p. 1.

134New York Times Magazine “General Pershing Wants Every Man a Soldier” (New York City), 30 January 1916, p. 1.

120 through high schools which would serve as vehicles for Americanization and military education, instilling moral and civic virtues in America’s ‘newcomers’. Reminiscent of Horace Mann,

Roosevelt firmly believed “there should be military training as part of a high school education,

which should include all-round training for citizenship. This training,” he continued, “should

begin in the schools in serious fashion at about the age of 16.”135

This “war of words” continued for quite some time while Congress mulled varying

versions of preparedness legislation. Legislative proposals spanned the gamut from complete

abolishment of the National Guard, to complete federal control of all military matters, to shared

control between state and federal entities. The Wilson Administration was resistant to further

engage the debate, but international matters heated up, stoking fires of war in certain sectors.

Anti-Preparedness critics attempted serious campaigns to discredit arguments made by the likes

of Pershing and Roosevelt, arguing that military build-up would propel America into unwanted

war. Democrats legislators embraced (especially during Congressional hearings and nominating

convention) the continued politics of neutrality-isolationism siding with pacifist groups’

assessment of the effects of military expansion. More central to their argument was the issue of

states’ rights. There was in their mind no doubt that federalization of the National Guard was a

direct affront to the Constitutional balance of powers.

Finally, the constant legislative battling and military officers increased attendance at the

hearings augmented the growing political chasm between Wood and Wilson. Wood had left as

Chief of Staff in 1914. But, he was still minimally connected with Washington’s political

heavyweights. His attempts to sideline Wilson - indeed, exclude him - through public debate

135New York Times “Roosevelt Urges Full Readiness” (New York City), 21 January 1916, p. 1. Horace Mann, discussed in the previous chapter founded the common school as a mechanism to Americanize immigrants and provided skills. to the millions of unfortunate Americans. ‘Mannian’ fashion simply refers to Horace Mann’s philosophies about schooling.

121 was probably what led to Wood’s ultimate exile. Eventually, tumultuous the road it was, the

National Defense Act would pass, but Wilson drafted and approved its final form.

VI. Educational Institutions

1902 to 1916 marked a period of struggle. Most of the academies, including those other

than the ‘big three’, were deeply rooted in the Thayer system. His system had worked quite well for one hundred years, but times had changed. Higher education and secondary education circles

were poised to revamp curriculum, making college more attainable. In response to the

Progressive era reforms, schools were also beginning to offer more democratic choices in the

curriculum, known as electives. West Point offered few of these opportunities and was less in

tune with the new public school system than the colleges. Innovation was slow coming, and the

work was difficult. Many instructors at the academies saw their requirements as beneficial.

Others outside the academy system saw them as rigid and elitist. Eventual changes were

modified in the curriculum, but tradition had its place in the academy structure for years to come.

This period also brought about the Life Adjustment period in U.S. education. Not surprisingly,

the NEA endorsed military training as part of the Life Adjustment period. The principles were

designed to strengthen the bonds between colleges and high schools, creating a more seamless

path, as well as offering opportunities to make education more practical in the everyday lives of

students. 1918 saw the National Education Association Cardinal Principles of Secondary

Education published. These argued that high school should curriculum centering on civic,

vocational, and social responsibilities.136

136Alan Sadovnik, Exploring Education, (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), Ch. 4; Stephen Ambrose, Op. Cit., ad passim; Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1961), pp. 240-250. Jurgen Herbst, “High School and Youth in America,” Journal of Contemporary History, Education and Social Structure, 2 (July, 1967), pp. 165-182;

122 A departure from the academy system here is now relevant, as the subject of the dissertation shifts to the formation of the Junior ROTC. The advent of the American high school

in 1875, its exponential expansion and the growth of colleges as a result of the Morrill Acts

fostered a new faith in the citizen in addition to recognizing the economic advantages education

could provide. Similarly, the ever-increasing size of the military would, at least eventually,

demand increases in its officer ranks. By the start of World War I, preparedness advocates were

deeply concerned over the ability of the military to handle large-scale wars with the dearth of

officers to execute battles and lead troops. Colleges and universities had implemented military

training at their campuses, but it was clear their efforts did not dramatically add officers.

VII. Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the various personalities and philosophies pertaining to the

preparedness and imperialist-expansionist historical threads. The preparedness campaign began

in earnest when Theodore Roosevelt alleged military incompetence and lack of ready troops.

Similarly, America’s victory required military occupation in Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto

Rico. President McKinley’s appointment of Elihu Root as Secretary of War was a critical choice

with regard to military readiness and territorial management, striking a win for preparedness

advocates. His administrative and legislative prowess contributed to military readiness

legislation and efficient territorial administration. The culminating Dick Act and restructuring of

military hierarchy set in motion the process of federalization and centralization. Conversely,

Wilson’s election somewhat neutralized these initial Republican victories. Instead, he embraced

a policy of neutrality and semi-isolationism, primarily benefiting industrial America. The

preparedness movement, however, continued identifying weaknesses in the nation’s military

Joel Spring, “Education and Progressivism,” History of Education Quarterly, 10 (Spring, 1970), pp. 53-71.

123 capabilities. Their arguments gained traction as German attacks and the British boycott lead to

consternation over Wilson’s policies. Wilson was then painted into a corner. He did not

completely disregard the military, the election in 1916 hinged on a decisive strategy that would

at the very minimum silence his critics. Whether ideological, political, or both preparedness

became a policy of the federal government.

The imperialist-expansionist thread has two different angles (economics and territorial)

that merge when related to military preparedness and federalization-centralization. America’s occupation in the acquired Spanish Territories demanded a well-equipped, well-led, and better

prepared military. Preparedness activists well-understood that American expansionism could not

continue, nor could it maintain control of their current territory. The Roosevelt Corollary

cemented this fact, since he believed America’s economic and political dominance hinged on a

strong martial entity. Again, Root’s reforms were based on this construct, and would set the

stage for federalization and centralization. Wilson’s agenda, while complicating matters, only

served as a temporary distraction. The economic turmoil caused by German transgressions,

convinced many in the financial world military readiness was indeed the posture that would best

protect American capitalist interests. Finally, the merger between imperialism-expansionism and

preparedness became official with the passage of the 1916 National Defense Act. The 1916 Act

thus becomes the culminating prerequisite for Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent growth.

124 CHAPTER 4: THE BIRTH AND EVOLUTION OF JUNIOR ROTC

Now, we feel that we are not so poorly protected against invasion as some people would have us believe. We feel that the war trust, or those who make munitions for profit, are the most interested in this preparedness program, although they are not the entire cause for this agitation. There are other factors. Those who are responsible, or partly responsible at least for the continuance of the European conflict are also eager that we prepare for what may come after that conflict in Europe may cease.

James H. Maurer, President of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor, Hearings before the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, January 18 through February 16th, 1916.

Introduction

Up to this point, the dissertation has outlined antecedents or prerequisites to Junior

ROTC’s inception. This chapter details the program’s beginnings and subsequent evolution over

twenty years, borne out of the preparedness movement’s resultant federalization-centralization of

the military. Unlike the first three chapters, which relied heavily on secondary sources, this

chapter introduces primary documents from the Adjutant General and Chief of Staff records

never before used when discussing Junior ROTC. In light of this fact, chapter four adds a great

deal to the scholarly record.137

The historical strain of preparedness ideology resulted in direct federal control of all military activities manifested in the passage and implementation of the National Defense Act.

Section one, then, continues with the 1916 National Defense Act, the coup de grace of military federalization and Junior ROTC’s founding. This discourse is inserted here to emphasize growing nationalist and militarist tendencies in a nation divided over the military’s function.

Specific to the National Defense Act is the various forms it took prior to passage, the political

137I am indebted to the National Archives staff whose assistance occurring in March, 2003 was invaluable. All primary source records were obtained from Record Groups 407 and 319. Copies have been made and are on file with the author. Full recording of these National Archives records can be found in the bibliography.

125 posturing and the final bill itself. Senator John Hay was primarily responsible for the bill’s

passage into law, a personality discussed in some detail. Alluded to in chapter three, the

National Defense Act also bears the mark of President Wilson, who insisted that while

preparedness efforts were required as a result of international tumult, citizen control remained

somewhat intact during peacetime. The political dynamics will be discussed as they help fit the

National Defense Act into the larger picture.

Section two introduces the first of many primary sources relative to Junior ROTC’s

beginning two years. This section investigates the early process, procedures and issues.

Connectedly, initial program implementation favored military preparatory academies as they had a Professor of Military Science and Tactics in place. Junior ROTC’s presence in public high schools would not become significant until 1918.

Section three covers the period 1918 to 1926. Three major “events” appeared to have facilitated Junior ROTC’s expansion into the public high schools. In 1918, a series of amendments to the 1916 Defense Act, suspended the ROTC program in lieu of military training in the schools. Illustrative of this point was Leavenworth High School’s (Leavenworth, Kansas) establishment in early 1917 and its dissolution in October. Second, a 1918 memorandum by the

Chief of Staff’s office recommended a more defined program for military instruction within the schools, called the United States Junior Reserve. Though it is unclear whether or not this program was intended as a replacement or extension of Junior ROTC during World War I, the obvious implications of the recommendation, as explained, set in place standards for the program’s implementation post-World War I. Curriculum is discussed in this section, outlining suggestions made by Corps Commanders, detailing extended course information and books recommended for us. This section also reveals valuable descriptive statistics on Junior ROTC’s

126 unit placements around the country, including general enrollment trends particular to specific

high schools and localities gathered from Corps Area Commanders memoranda. This data

permits the reader to better understand its early proliferation and growth, particularly in urban-

centered high schools. Economic issues pertinent to Junior ROTC are brought to bear, as the

military as a whole experiences Congressional budget limitations, placing Junior ROTC in a

tenuous position. Nonetheless, the program remained intact, as the evidence suggests. The

growing pacifism influence on military training in the schools may have had some effect as will

be discussed in section four.

Section four explores the anti-ROTC movement and the War Department’s response

between the years 1926 and 1932. The pacifist arguments offer unique insight and historical

perspective when one compares the 1990 anti-ROTC movement. Numerous pacifist groups

began speaking at colleges and universities, causing some colleges and high schools to drop their

programs altogether. The War Department was obviously concerned and drafted a response to

help their instructors deal with the ‘menace’.

Section five briefly looks at the program from the 1930s through 1964. Descriptive

statistics are employed from the mid-1950s to show the strength of the program around the

country, its placement and general trends. The newly formed defense department created a more

organized approach than their predecessors. The census may have been taken to answer

Congressional critics and public concern following World War II. The period through 1964 is marked by declining enrollments and large-scale disinterest of Senior ROTC, but culminated in

passage of the 1964 ROTC Vitalization Act, providing more federal control. This will be

discussed in some form here.

127 I. National Defense Act: Its Passage and Junior ROTC’s Creation

The 1916 National Defense Act was ultimately a product of Wilson’s political savvy.

His concerns in early 1915 were correct. Failure to adopt preparedness as a platform was

potential political suicide. He obviously knew that he risked alienating a great deal of his party

should he come out in favor of any preparedness legislation. Thus, he was required to tread

carefully. In November of 1915, Wilson would embrace the preparedness doctrine to save his

political life and the Democratic Party new dominance. The back-pedaling, however, would

cause enormous angst among the Party’s peace activists, anti-militarists, and anti-imperialists.

Wilson did little to coax their fears, nor did he effectively work with the military planners in

drafting legislation until returning from his honeymoon in January.138

Entering the fray was Representative John Hay of Virginia, a Democratic Southern

conservative who vehemently opposed federalization. He believed the standing army concept

and the War Department’s constant legislative efforts would no doubt contribute to a dangerous

military establishment. Hay needed reigned in by Wilson for any preparedness legislation to

move forward Hay’s support was critical in that he was one of the most powerful members in

Congress chairing the House Military Affairs Committee. Additionally, gaining Hay’s

endorsement would strengthen Wilson’s position that preparedness was the right course for the

country. Hay would capitulate, but only after he received endorsement of his National Guard

plan and constant conferring with President Wilson.

Complicating matters was Secretary of War Lindlay Garrison, who by all accounts

believed in a large scale “Continental Army” volunteer plan and a significantly increased

138There are four sources that commit scholarly effort to the National Defense Act. The following works were very helpful: Arthur Link, Op. Cit., Vol. 4, pp. 18-52 and pp. 330-334; John Garry Clifford, Op. Cit., pp. 129-145; and, George C. Herring, Jr.,“James Hay and the Preparedness Controversy, 1915-1916,” The Journal of Southern History, 30 (November, 1964), pp. 383-404.

128 Regular Army. He refused to endorse Hay’s federalized National Guard plan, believing this would simply water down any effectiveness military leaders would have. Hay and Garrison were constantly at odds, in part because of Garrison’s antagonistic remarks and behavior towards Hay and other anti-military-expansionist Congressional members. During Congressional hearings on the National Defense Act, the Secretary of War, in chorus with many other military officers, deplored the National Guard as ineffectual. Furthermore, under Hay’s proposal the military establishment rationalized that the National Guard could not be counted on as a solid second line of defense should the need arise. Garrison’s frequent persistence in goading Wilson to side with him on this particular issue generated conflict. Wilson surmised that a large-scale standing army, especially during peacetime, flew in the face of common sense, and more importantly, would prove politically devastating. Embracing preparedness, for Wilson, required a balanced and thoroughly well-constructed approach, which incorporated increased citizen-soldier involvement, and the National Guard scheme seemed the best path. Garrison would not budge, as was evidenced by his alignment with General Leonard Wood and his multiple appearances to civic and business group. Wilson’s willingness to compromise with Hay and other politicians on the

National Defense Act prompted Garrison’s resignation in February of 1916.139

The National Defense bill went through several manifestations before passage, but the important work had been done: Hay recognized Wilson’s position as one of political motives that would keep the Democrats from losing in November. Hay, in fact, sponsored the bill working with Wilson to craft the bill’s final form. It passed the House by a significant margin. The bill then went to Senate Conference Committee. A number of senators clamored that Hay’s

139George C. Herring, Jr., Op. Cit., pp. 383-404; and, Chase C. Mooney and Martha E. Layman, “Some Phases of the Compulsory Military Training Movement, 1914-1920,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 38 (March, 1952), pp. 633-656.

129 legislation did not do enough for a strong regular army establishment. Their initial revision mandated that a continental army be established, incoporating several hundred thousand volunteer forces. Hay was not prone to the idea, but Wilson massaged the details, calling for no continental army structure, but instead allowing for a dramatic increase in regular army regiments. Wilson’s revisions mollified many senators, who tended to side with preparedness advocates, but were not strictly Rooseveltian in their prerogative. The proposed legislation kept the National Guard intact, and several ‘citizen-soldeir’ elements were added, including an

Officer Reserve Corps, A Reserve Officer Training Corps, and a section for the military training camps initiated by General Leonard Wood back in 1913. The act passed and was placed into effect on June 3rd, 1916.140

Preparedness stalwarts were outraged. They announced the National Defense Act went far from preparing the armed services. The reinforcement of the National Guard culture and what many considered to be a weak system of centralization was the Act’s “Achilles’ heel”. Hay quickly rebutted their arguments, stating the National Defense Act would not completely prepare the nation for war: “It is not intended to raise an army for the purpose of possible war with

Mexico or any other power. It is intended as a peace proposition, and no man who understands the bill or the situation can couple it with what it must be necessary to do in the event of a war breaking out in the next few months.”141

Federalization and centralization of the military was essentially born at this moment in

American history. Granted, the Act underwent further clarifications and revisions in 1918 and

1920, a result of World War I, but it resolved many of the Constitutional questions relative to

140George C. Herring, Jr., Op. Cit., pp. 383-404; and, John Garry Clifford, Op. Cit., pp.129-145; and, Chase C. Mooney and Martha E. Layman, Op. Cit., pp. 633-656.

141U.S. Congressional Record, 64th Congress, First Session, 8396; and, United States Statutes at Large, 39, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917), pp. 167-217.

130 military implementation. Illustrative of the Act’s federalization mandates were its Regular Army

enlistment quotas and increased militia regiments, centralization of the National Guard, the

increase in financial support for equipment, uniforms, and training, and the creation of the

Officer Reserve Corps and the Reserve Officer Training Corps – including a senior and junior

division.

The issue of military strength was the first item addressed in section two of the Act. The

Regular Army could be called into service as deemed necessary, but peacetime strength was

never to exceed 175,000. The standing army enlistees were required to meet certain physical and

mental health requirements. Next, the National Guard’s function fell under federal requirements,

governance and restrictions. Previously, guardsmen could only be activated for national and state

emergencies. With this new legislation, the President was able to call the Guard up for service if

an international crisis arose, dispatching troops to foreign territory if needed. The provisions in

the act also placed federal control – both financially and in terms of training and drilling – under

the War Department’s jurisdiction. States still maintained some control in the event of

emergency, but they no longer held the same control they once had. Training and drilling of the

Guard, once held at the discretion of the states, was now under the aegis of the War Department

and the regular army, extending required training and drilling activity to 48 days per year.

Perhaps most importantly, the federal government bore the major financial burden, paying for equipment, uniforms, officer and enlisted pay, as well as general maintenance costs. This seemed

to be a political act, placating the states’ rights contingencies, who might view federal financing

as a relief. Also created was the Officer Reserve Corps (ORC), essentially a pool of National

Guard and reserve officers who be called into service as duty required. Section twenty-four

stipulated six officer designations and succession requirements to the position of second

131 lieutenant. Third only to West Point commissions, this Officer Reserve Corps was called upon

when “vacancies in the grade of second lieutenant, created or caused by the increases due to this

Act, in any fiscal year, shall be filled by appointment.”142 Practically speaking, its creation significantly addressed officer-enlistee ratios, especially during wartime and became a tangible benefit during the World War II.

The 1916 National Defense Act also created the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), containing a senior and junior division. Its organization was designed to fill officer ranks in the event of war, and provide for a constant flow of educated and well-trained military personnel that pooled into the Officer Reserve Corps during peacetime. ROTC did not appear out of the blue as some bizarre conception on Wilson’s part. It was originally conceived by Ohio State President

William O. Thompson. Thompson felt strongly that a more organized and effective military training program within the nation’s land-grant colleges and universities needed to be in place, strengthening the Morrill Act of 1862. He presented his idea in 1913 at the annual land-grant schools conference. The basic outline of his program included: “Two years of military drill, three periods per week of military instruction; strict discipline during drill periods; a week of field training each year; and instruction in small unit tactical operation.”143 Hence, not

accidentally, the first section of the National Defense Act states, nearly verbatim, Thompson’s

plan:

“Sec. 40: The President is hereby authorized to establish and maintain in civil educational institutions a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, which shall consist of a senior division organized at universities and colleges requiring four years of collegiate study for a degree, including State universities and those state institutions that are required to provide military tactics under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, donating lands for the

142United States Statutes at Large, Op. Cit., p.182.

143Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., p. 14.

132 establishment of colleges where the leading object shall be practical instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts, including military tactics, and a junior division organized at all other public or private educational institutions, except that the units of the senior division may be organized at those essentially military schools which do not confer an academic degree but which, as a result of the annual inspections of such institutions by the War Department, are specially designated the Secretary of War as qualified for units of the senior division, and each division shall consist of units of the several arms or corps in such number and of such strength as the President may prescribe.”144

As defined in the act, sections forty through fifty-one deal specifically with the organization, curriculum, oversight and function of ROTC. Section forty-one provided the

President with authority to establish multiple units at institutions and ensure the presence of a

Professor of Military Science and Tactics (PMS and T), who was responsible for instruction, organization, and maintenance of government issued goods. Section forty-two officially authorized the President and War Department to establish Junior ROTC units. Both the college and high school programs were required to ensure a PMS and T would teach or was being commissioned to their location prior to officially starting the unit. High schools were required to maintain a roster of no fewer than “one hundred physically fit male students”. Moreover, both senior and junior units were to follow a mandated curriculum prescribed by the Secretary of War.

Schools, however, were permitted to forgo the curriculum in lieu of requiring three hours of military training and drilling per week. Failure to do one or the other would result in revocation of the unit charter. Section forty-four required all ROTC cadets to be United States citizens, to be no less than fourteen years of age and to be physically fit. PMS and T selection was covered under sections forty-five and forty-six. Professors could either be retired or active military personnel, but were not to possess rank higher than colonel. Additionally, the consent of active officers was required during peacetime, but if at war, the President held commissioning rights that mandated their re-activation, should he so choose. Retired officers had the opportunity to

144United States Statutes at Large, Op. Cit., p. 191.

133 accept or decline a ROTC commission whether at peace or war. Section forty-six permitted the

use of animals, arms, munitions, books and uniforms furnished at government expense, though each school was obligated to submit a bond for the issuance of equipment. Section forty-eight, in line with General Wood’s summer camp program, required ROTC cadets to attend a six week training camp during their summer vacations. Military drilling and training, additional study, and other activities as defined by the War Department were to take place. Lastly, sections forty-

nine through fifty-one specified the commissioning process. Junior division cadets were given a commission, but only once they reached twenty-one years of age. The commission, upon their graduation, would be ten years.145

The 1916 National Defense Act, even more than the 1903 Dick Act, solidified the role of

the federal government in military matters. While not necessarily meeting the needs of many

preparedness advocates, America’s success in World War I hinged on its presence. As Hay

indicated, the Act was not intended for war, but peacetime military activities. Nonetheless, it laid important foundational tools for military readiness.

The military would not reap the benefits of ROTC – in either division – until after World

War I. One last point needs to be made clear. The brilliance and constitutionality in forming

ROTC was emanated from one existing piece of legislation – the 1862 Morrill Act, which required military training and instruction at all state colleges and universities. ROTC, then, was

145Ibid., pp.191-194. It appears that this four year waiting period for junior division cadets, was a method which fed the senior programs at colleges and universities maintaining a program. There are no valid evidentiary sources to lead to this conclusion, but the assumption seems appropriate. A specific reference should be made here regarding General Leonard Wood’s Plattsburg Movement. While Wood was not well-liked by Hay and other members of the House, his Plattsburg Training Camp effort, embodied under the Military Training Camps Association, was provided for in the National Defense Act under Section 54. The MTCA won a major battle in securing this section. Financial assistance, equipment, and other items were provided by the United States Government.

134 the government’s method of centralizing training and drilling on college campuses and high

schools.146

II. Junior ROTC: The First Two Years: 1916 to 1918, World War I and Formative Challenges

By 1916, Junior ROTC, or the junior division as it was more frequently addressed, had

yet to be formally organized. Dr. Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford’s initial assertion is partially correct that program implementation was problematic. The program floundered in its first two years, but this was understandable considering World War I was imminent, not to mention the

War Department was obligated to draw up articles of incorporation. The United States’ entry basically depleted noncommissioned and commissioned officer resources, leaving few if any officers to assume the position of PMS and T.

According to Dr. Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, prior to World War I only one public high school, Leavenworth High School, Leavenworth, Kansas was documented to have been in operation. There has been much ado about the Leavenworth High School in Kansas being the first and only public high school that operated a Junior ROTC unit. However, the Kamehameha

Schools in Honolulu, Hawaii applied for and received permission to begin a Junior Reserve program in early 1917 as well. Perhaps they were not officially counted, because of Hawaii’s status. Regardless, the point is made that only a couple public schools were operating units

between 1916 and 1917. The remaining schools with operating units were what the War

Department labeled ‘Essentially Military Schools’. These schools consisted of state and private

military preparatory academies mentioned in chapter two. These were typically non-degree

granting institutions, though a handful of preparatory military academies offered a high school

diploma upon graduation. Academy cadets continued training at a United States military

146Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., p. 14.

135 academy installation, or enlisted for service. In contrast, most public schools at first had their applications declined. War Department officials cited two main reasons as is evidenced by this letter from Adjutant General W.T. Johnson:

“On account of the uncertain conditions existing on the border, it is not practicable to any at present just how soon officers be detailed to public high schools and to private schools, but it (sic) will not be practicable to extend the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps into such schools during the school year 1916-17, except ones where the authorities of the school succeed in securing a retired officer of the Regular Army who is willing to accept a detail to the school on active duty status.”147

The War Department was willing, however to provide arms and equipment, since under War

Department regulations, schools could apply for these to continue with military training.

The previous October, Chief of Staff H.L. Scott informed Adjutant General W.T.

Johnson that there simply were not enough officers to meet demands of the various schools, and deal with the rising international conflicts. Pancho Villa’s rampage and the imminence of World

War I simply took precedence. Obviously, there was concern that by denying schools the

‘privilege’ of having a Junior ROTC interest would quickly die off. Throwing a bone to the public high schools in the form of armaments, uniforms, and other supplies as provided in the

National Defense Act, was a way in which to keep them connected to the program.148

147Letter from Adjutant General W.T. Johnson, Washington, D.C., to Principal J.E. Lemon, Blue Island, Illinois, November 3rd, 1916. See also, Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., pp. 257-259; and, Michael S. Neiberg, Op. Cit., pp. 22-29. For more on the Leavenworth High School Junior ROTC, see http://leavenworthjrotc.tripod.com/homepage/id1.html. In a conversation with a staff member of Army Cadet Command in April 2001, there was a great deal of insistence from Leavenworth High School cadets theirs was indeed the first and only in operation. The web link takes readers directly to their history.

148Memorandum to Adjutant General H.P. McCaid, the Chief of Staff, October, 1916. Between July 1916 and through 1917, numerous schools had made application for establishment. The Detroit Public Schools was used to establish a precedent in declining Junior ROTC programs in public high schools. Mainly, these programs were either too small to warrant an officer, as in the case of Alameda Public High Schools, and too large to accommodate the student-cadets as in the case of the Gainesville Public schools. Letter from Principal George C. Thompson, Alameda, CA, to Adjutant General Henry P. McCaid, Washington, D.C. March 23rd, 1917; and, Letter from Superintendent O.R. Anderson, Gainesville, TX, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., October 9th, 1916. Both men were responded to with the same letter of denial.

136 The military academies, then, were the initial experimental ground for Junior ROTC.

These ‘Essentially Military Schools’ naturally had the means to nurture a Junior ROTC program.

They usually had in their employ a Professor of Military Science and Tactics. Classroom space, outdoor drilling areas, and storage facilities for munitions were also common features. Moreover, graduates moved on to some form of academy training after their preparatory experience, and in the opinion of the War Department, offered a ready reserve of men in case of war. Preparatory academies such as the Harvard School, Los Angeles California and Culver Military Academy were among the first schools with a Junior ROTC. In addition, schools like Culver applied for junior and senior divisions, as it provided instruction at the secondary and post-secondary

level.149

In view of the fact that the majority of Junior ROTC units were placed in military

academies, the basic curriculum emphasized drilling, tactical training, and physical fitness.

Additional attention was paid to training young cadets in the handling of weapons, battle

formations (trench warfare training was not uncommon) and uniform care. The already

formulated academy curriculum also provided quick relief for War Department officials who

would be burdened with creation of a new curriculum in ROTC units. Discussed in the next

For more information regarding United States military involvement and Pancho Villa, see Friedrich Katz, “Pancho Villa and the Attack on Columbus, New Mexico,” The American Historical Review, 83 (February, 1978), pp. 101-130; and, Jeff Jore, “Pershing's Mission in Mexico: Logistics and Preparation for the War in Europe,” Military Affairs, 52 (July, 1988), pp.117-121.

149Letter from the Headmaster (The Harvard School Military Academy), Los Angeles, CA, to The Commanding General Western Department, March 1, 1917; and, Letter from Superintendent Colonel L.R. Gignilliat (Culver Military Academy), Culver, IN, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., October 10, 1916. In a Letter from Superintendent C.S. Roller (Augusta Military Academy), Fort Defiance, Virginia, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., July 12, 1916 requesting a Junior ROTC, he was informed that a unit could not be immediately placed because War Department regulations had not been finalized. The academy eventually did obtain a unit.

137 section, a set curriculum specific to the ROTC came about as the program gained the War

Department’s attention following World War I. An apparent answer to preparedness and pacifist

critics, 1916 and 1917 also saw the publication of tracts and books promoting and justifying

youth military training. L.R. Gignilliat, Superintendent of Culver Military Academy in Culver,

Indiana authored a book titled Arms and the Boy. Published in 1916, Gignilliat outlined the

various types of schools and training that occurred within them. He made mention of both

“Essentially Military Training Schools” and high school training. He further rationalized two

benefits afforded to high school students participating in military training programs: citizenship

and moral training, would aid young boys in their maturation. Chapter thirteen explicated

Gignilliat’s views on citizenship. The superintendent stated that, “educators are agreed that a lack of respect for authority is our greatest national defect. We see evidence of it

everywhere…anything that tends to overcome this defect, certainly lays the groundwork for

more useful and effective citizenship.” 150 He continued, indicating moral training was another

useful benefit, instilling honesty, right living and thinking, and development of will power. Later on in the chapter, he challenged former Harvard President Dr. Eliot’s objections regarding high school military training. Eliot argued military training instilled in student’s the concept of ‘blind

obedience.’ Gignilliat responded that while other countries may adhere to that, America’s

democratic processes countered such effects. Another piece, written by W.S. Jesein, appeared in the Bureau of Education’s 1917 annual report. He investigated on the junior reserve components in various countries, including Germany, France, Russia and Great Britain. The report clearly

150L.R. Gignilliat, Arms and the Boy, (Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1916), pp. 18-40 and 112-126.

138 sided with the benefits of youth military training, and added a uniquely international comparative

perspective to the rhetoric.151

The effort to offer military training for as many young men as possible continued with a

brochure titled The Junior Plattsburg Camp: Long Point, on Lake Champlain. Its apparent

replication of ROTC training caused a furor within the War Department, but more important was

the brochure’s assertion that military training for young men should occur during the summer vacations. Advertising for the summer of 1917, brochure contents stated that training lasted sixty

days, held high above the waterline and was in close proximity to Plattsburg. The brochure also

assured potential campers “the routine will be temperate and will not attempt the impossible. To

train without strain will be watch-word.”152 Publications such as these highlighted the need to

convince the general public regarding youth military training’s vital importance for national security and defense.

Though not true of every tract released during the period, these particular publications also point to the growing need for young men in the military, an obvious result of America’s entrance in World War I. Following the armistice, Junior ROTC would gain a foothold in the public schools.153

151W.S. Jesien, Military Training of Youths of School Age in Foreign Countries, Bulletin 17, 25. (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1917), pp. 1-35.

152The Junior Plattsburg, Inc. The Junior Plattsburg: Long Point, On Lake Champlain. (Brochure publication, n.p., n.d.).

153World War I had essentially tapped the ROTC and ORC. No amount of enticement would fill the numbers. Though occurring a year later, the need for interested young men to fill enlisted and officer positions is exemplified by Congress’ establishment of the Students’ Army Training Corp in 1918. It served as a conduit for both volunteers and draftees. “The object of establishing units of the Students’ Army Training Corps is to utilize effectively the plant, equipment, and organization of the colleges for selecting and training officer candidates and technical experts for service in the existing emergency. For more on this, see War Department Special Regulations, No. 103, Student Army Training Corps Regulations, (Washington Government Printing Office, 1918).

139 III. 1918 to 1925

Junior ROTC had struggled in large part because the country had larger military

priorities. At the end of fiscal year 1918, approximately 119 civil education institutions were

operating ROTC units, and of that number approximately twenty were junior division units

housed predominantly in military academies. Furthermore, in 1918, most ROTC units were

disestablished or placed in a hold status via amendments to the 1916 National Defense Act. The

amended versions suspended sections forty-six and forty seven, recalling many PMS and Ts. The

President, however, was permitted to utilize them in training large cohorts of young men.

Military training was strongly encouraged for public schools, and mandated for all institutions

required to conduct military training. The War Department was provided additional money so

that equipment and officer resources could be allocated accordingly in conducting massive war

training efforts. By 1919, the number reportedly climbed only slightly to thirty, but by-and-large

the first units were located at the “Essentially Military Schools.”154

One of the ways in which the evidence pointed to the presence of junior divisions in predominantly military schools was the distinguished and honor school recognition. The honors program was implemented by the War Department staff in an effort to acknowledge schools who had achieved the highest levels of efficiency and training. In 1917, after a full year of operation, ten schools with junior division programs were awarded the ‘Honor Schools’ designation, all of which were military academies. 1918 and 1919 continued the trend. The War Department’s

154War Department, Annual Reports, 1918, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 184-189; United States Statutes at Large, 40, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 531-532; and, Army General Orders 49, September 20, 1916. The numbers here are somewhat misleading. An accurate census of all programs later on, provides more consistent numbers and demographic data.

140 orders also allowed honor school cadets to be nominated for induction into the United States

Military Academy, in addition to wearing a gold or silver star while at their unit detachment.155

General preparedness efforts resulted in large numbers of trained officers during World

War I, and these first junior division units most likely contributed to the corps. Without the

amended version of the National Defense Act, it may have been impossible to train and deploy

the number of troops needed. Junior ROTC as predominantly high school program was not far

from the minds of War Department officials, however. High schools, perhaps responding to the

massive patriotism, had sent numerous applications to establish units. Recognition of this fact

surfaced in a six-page memorandum-proposal dated October 8th, 1918 from Brigadier General

Lytle E. Brown. The proposal suggested incorporating a United States Junior Reserve. While it is

unclear whether this plan was enacted, Brown’s proposed United States Junior Reserve plan

appeared to have become the model for Junior ROTC’s inclusion in public high schools.

The Committee of Education and Special Training was “empowered” by General Orders

15, 1918. Brown’s memorandum outlined “a plan developed by the Committee of Education and

Special Training for the preparation and training of a serviceable body of young men over 16 in

secondary schools, by organizing them for military instruction under the supervision of the War

Department.”156 Brown cited the ineffective War Department efforts toward establishing a

greater Junior ROTC presence, when he noted “the War Department has thus far not put in effect

any well considered and constructive scheme for making effective the energies of youths of this

155War Department, Annual Reports, 1918, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 184-189; War Department, Annual Reports, 1920, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1921), pp. 260-263; Memorandum from Acting Chief of Staff Tasher Bliss, to The Adjutant General of the Army, August 7, 1917; and, Memorandum from Assistant Chief of Staff Lytle Brown, to The Adjutant General of the Army, June 12, 1919.

156Memorandum from Brigadier General Lytle Brown, to Chief of Staff, October 8, 1918, pp.1-6. The content of this memorandum deserves extended attention. I have included a large number of quotes to support my point that Junior ROTC was officially designed from this communiqué.

141 age.”157 The Student Army Training Corps, a special organization designed to increase training and recruitment efforts now on college campuses had filled the enlistment need for men over eighteen years old. However, Brown exhorted, “what shall be done concerning the boys over sixteen not in collegiate institutions?”158 He rationalized that young men between the ages of sixteen and eighteen were plagued by ‘uncertainty and unrest’ contributing to inefficiency in schools, and would be best served preparing themselves while in school to matters important to national duty. By making clear his role and purpose, the student would understand his obligation both to his country, his school, and his community.

“In this period of general unrest on the part of young men, it is of the utmost importance to prevent an unnecessary interruption of their school studies by making clear to every young American his National duty, viz: (sic) to prepare himself in mind and body for service to the country. He must be educated to the point of view that the weight of the world problems bears upon us and our allies during and after the war; that all must serve and help to solve these problems; that he has a definite part and duty to perform, namely, to improve his physical and general fitness while waiting for the call to the colors, and to perform such definite service for the Government during this period as he may be qualified for. The plan must be based on the principle that preparation and service go hand in hand (sic) and are equally his duty…better education, physical development, and for an addition to the industrial power of the country (emphasis mine).”159

The committee proposed that mandatory Junior Reserve units and military units be organized in all secondary schools. Participation was voluntary, requiring potential cadets and parents to sign a permission slip, but it was understood that school personnel should encourage participation.

Physical and elementary military training, academic and technical schooling, and national service in industry and agriculture, comprised the program’s three ‘phases’.

157Brigadier General Lytle Brown, Op. Cit., p.1 The National Defense Act as amended on April 17, 1918 ‘provided a limited amount of federal assistance’ to secondary schools.

158Ibid.

159Ibid.

142 The Junior Reserve was to be subdivided into three groups, paralleling the three phases.

The first group consisted of a “cadet section” at military academies where junior and senior

ROTC divisions were in operation. Group two was designated as the ‘Technical Section’. These

were vocational or ‘Manual Training’ high schools. As Brown indicated, there was a severe

shortage of skilled labor thus requiring “a cooperative plan (that) will undoubtedly meet with the approval of the industrial establishments”.160 The third group was labeled the ‘academic section’.

It encompassed all other secondary schools, private and public.

No school would be considered which could not contribute a minimum of seventy-five

young men above the age of sixteen. Ten hours per week of training and drilling was required, or

six hours minimally devoted to physical training, and four hours to ‘theoretical instruction’.

Student-cadets, regardless of their track (military academy, technical high school, or academic),

would attend an annual six-week summer camp, expanding on the skills they had learned

throughout the year, cross-training in other specialty areas. Instructors included former officers of the National Guard, “discharged for physical and other reasons not due to inefficiency”,

Canadian officers, Plattsburg graduates, and trained men from the Students’ Army Training

Corps. Finally, the only equipment required was a rifle (at government expense) and uniforms (at student expense).161

The program’s goal was the enlistment of two hundred and fifty thousand young men

upon their graduation from high school or preparatory academy. Though it does not appear to

have been implemented in its entirety, the United States Junior Reserve proposal, as evidenced

later, may have provided the building blocks for a more comprehensive program and detailed

160 Ibid., pp. 2-3

161 Ibid., pp. 3-5

143 prospectus that expedited Junior ROTC’s presence and purpose in the nation’s secondary schools

following World War I.

The end of World War I marked a new era in American history. The horrendous carnage

and toll on American lives had in many ways prompted preparedness advocates to speak out

about the sheer lack in training. For all of its stipulations, the 1916 National Defense Act was still a peacetime proposition. The aftermath of the war, departmental reorganizations, and passage of the 1920 National Defense Act generated a marked shift in War Department policies towards Junior ROTC. The 1920 Act gave the War Department increased flexibility and authority for public school incorporation. Section forty authorized the Secretary of War to

“prescribe standard courses of theoretical and practical military training” in all schools.162

162United States Statutes at Large, 41, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921), pp. 776- 778. Following the First World War, American military prowess had been proved. It was an effective pinch-hitter, and the military establishment seemed assured of its continued expansion. The American public had different notions. Wilson pronounced that this “would be the war to end all wars” was being followed through by his work in creating the League of Nations. Men were flocking home in hopes to regain a sense of normalcy. As a result, Congress authorized their typical postwar reductions. Further debate raged pertaining to military expansion. And Congress, always in the midst of the fray, wobbled constantly in an attempt to appease all involved parties. The Interwar Period is marked by two significant issues. First, significant debate resurfaced about the competence of an all-volunteer Army. Though their fighting was often stellar, two camps emerged which placed the volunteer in the middle. Uptonians versus Palmerians were two camps of officers within the Army divided over the issue of whether professional, mercenary type order (Uptonian) trumped the value of the citizen soldier (Palmerian). Palmerians won the day, as they saw the citizen soldier, fighting as warranted but only when called to service, as the vanguard of democracy. There were two concerns Congress had with the Uptonian view. First, a largely expanded professional Army in a time of peace would do severe damage to the notion of fiscal responsibility and mood of peace. Second, states’ rights and the importance of democratic controls seemed to supercede the idea of a professional Army that could, if used incorrectly, become a force of tyranny. Congress recognized, however, that officers had played as vital role as citizens. A compromise was in order, but one favoring the Palmerian view. The military should have the capability to mobilize quickly and fall under federal controls should situations arise. But, the system of a National Guard controlled by the state was essential. The teeth of needed for mobilization and implementation came in the form of the National Defense Act of 1920. The act provided for citizen control – officers and enlistees at the state level, but added the professional reserve component to aid in the perpetuation of a professional component. Again, a system of checks and balances was put into place! The act also allowed not only for the mobilization of troops, but also for wartime industries by establishing the conversion of steel, auto and textile plants for purposes of war. The military-industrial complex is born.

144 Similar to the 1916 Act, schools were required to devote at least three hours per week for

military instruction or adopt the Secretary of War’s prescribed curriculum. Moreover, schools

desiring ROTC designation had to make ROTC a prerequisite for high school or college

graduation. School’s failing to abide by these standards would lose their designation or would

not be considered at the time of application. Section forty of the Act also clarified ROTC school

classifications. Land-grant institutions and “Essentially Military Schools” were classified as

senior units. Junior units, then, were “organized at all other public and private educational

institutions and shall consist of units of the several arms, corps, or services…and, no unit shall be

below one hundred physically fit male students, except in the case of cavalry or artillery”163

Recognizing the hardship requiring all high schools desiring ROTC programs to oblige

themselves to military instruction as a prerequisite for graduation, section fifty-five, part c, was

added. This alleviated the strictures of section forty, and instead provided equipment, training

manuals, and officer-instructors for all schools able to maintain the interest of at least one

hundred, physically fit male students. Public schools, junior colleges, normal schools, trade schools, and private schools began operating junior division units in force and the War

Department initiated efforts to determine what ‘civil educational institutions’ best met conditions for Junior ROTC units that could function under the new provision. In a memorandum by

Brigadier General William Lassiter, he confirmed the process:

“…means should be taken to extend the number of schools operating under the provisions of Section 55c, National Defense Act. Recommendations will be made for the advancement of the training in the latter schools and to increase the number that will conduct such training. Military training in accordance with Special Regulations 45 is believed to be best adapted to public schools as it places the obligation for its

163 Ibid., p. 777. In the case of artillery or cavalry regiments, a minimum of fifty students was required. There is still some confusion that exists based on the evidence. Junior division units and senior units sometimes seemed confused with Senior ROTC and Junior ROTC. This may be indicative of the time and the language used.

145 control and maintenance primarily on upon the community, rather than the Government. The school officials exercise a maximum degree of supervision of its administration and the parents provide the uniforms, both of which are wholesome conditions and conducive to the permanency of such training.”164

By 1923, Junior ROTC units in the form of 55c units and officially designated Junior Divisions under section forty were established throughout the country. Regulations, curriculum and myriad policies were in development in response to the swelling demand. Even with demobilization and drastic Congressional budget cuts which reduced the number of available officers and briefly halted Junior ROTC expansion at the end of fiscal year 1921, it was apparent that junior units had begun operating with greater intensity and schools were requesting units with continued vigor.165

In November 1921, the first real evidence in the Adjutant General records of junior division incorporation in the public schools materialize as honor high school designations during the summer 1922 for the previous 1921 school year (it also is believed the first year honor high schools were introduced). The initial list included Arsenal Technical High School and

Indianapolis Public Schools (Indianapolis, IN), Council Bluffs High School, (Council Bluffs,

IA), Dallas High School (Dallas, TX), Englewood High School (Chicago, IL), Gloucester High

164Memorandum from Brigadier William Lassiter, to Adjutant General of the Army, September 30, 1921. The memo specifically addresses the budgetary cuts and demobilization effort, requesting that military schools’ stay in contact with the War Department regarding training and instruction. Williams also stated: “Due to the limited amount of funds appropriated by Congress for this fiscal year, and to the scarcity of personnel due to the recent reduction of the Regular Army, no additional junior units of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps can be established during the remainder of the fiscal year. For specific mention of demobilization efforts, see War Department, Annual Reports, 1920, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1921), pp. 263-265; and, Roswell P. Barnes, Militarizing Our Youth: The Significance of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in our Schools and Colleges, (New York: Committee on Militarism in Education, 1927), p. 41.

165Memorandum from Acting Chief of Staff R.H. Williams, to All Military Schools, November 23, 1921; Memorandum from Assistant Adjutant General L.S. Carson, to Fourth Corps Area, Fort McPherson, Georgia, November 2nd, 1921.

146 School (Gloucester, MA), Knoxville High Schools, (Knoxville, TN), Lake View High School

(Chicago, IL), Northern High School (Detroit, MI), Pasadena High School, (Pasadena, CA),

Rockford High School (Rockford, IL), and the Gary High Schools (Gary, IN).166 Honor high

schools were to appear in War Department memorandum, though it is not immediately known if

attending cadets received any specific benefit.

Increased high school units also meant that a curriculum needed construction. In

September of 1921, recommendations were made to incorporate a systematized program of

instruction in both high school and college units. The effort appears to have made the ROTC

curriculum the same for both divisions, with topics and subjects outlined by essential content

area (see Appendix A, Table 1).

The curricular recommendations reflected the wishes of Corps Commanders and PMS

and Ts that theoretical instruction be limited to the third and fourth years, whereas infantry

tactics, drilling, discipline and physical fitness be present all four years. The recommended

primary text for classroom instruction, which paralleled the subject outline, was Paul Stanley

Bond and E.B. Garey’s The ROTC Training Manual: A Textbook for the Reserve Officer

Training Corps. Those students who successfully completed the first two years, were given

“detailed certificates as to the subjects covered, signed by a school official and the professor of

military science and tactics.” Under the 1920 National Defense Act guidelines, cadets desiring to

166Memorandum from Adjutant General H.H. Tabutts, to Publication Division of the War Department, July 24, 1922; Memorandum from Adjutant General R.S. Kimball, to Publication Division of the War Department, November 23, 1923. I found no evidence existed in the Adjutant General file or War Department Reports specifying particular enrollment numbers prior to 1923. Hence, I relied on these honor high school designations. In addition, policies relevant to honor high schools permitted only 7% of schools to be named honor schools, indicating there were approximately 70 units in operation at the time, but this needs further investigation. In 1923, a series of memoranda were disseminated reiterating from past years the outlined requirements needed to obtain the honor high school designation, in addition how the process functioned. Memorandum from Major General C.G. Morton, to the Office of the Corps Area Commander, May 21, 1923.

147 serve could do so at the age of twenty-one. After completing a loyalty oath, they could be commissioned for five years. Student-cadets, depending on their competency and test scores, were also permitted to forgo some senior division training. Logically, the program seemed structured to allow junior division cadets matriculation into senior division units. 167

The curriculum and subject outline underwent another set of recommended revisions in

August of 1923. A board of officers was convened to review a new set of army special

regulations, related to the ROTC and military training. The board suggested three main

modifications. First, the board thought the War Department should integrate the United States

Constitution “bringing out especially defense sections be made a part of the course of study in all

units.” Furthermore, curriculum decisions, including the subject breakdown, needed left to the

individual institutions. Second, the board concurred that Paul Stanley Bond and E.B. Garey’s

text be continued, though it would need annual modifications. Third, and finally, the topic

dealing with issuance of uniforms and equipment was addressed. Government issued uniforms,

rations of canned meats, canteens, condiments, haversacks, and the like would be provided in limited quantities of fifty to each junior unit.

The curriculum modifications and implementation of honor high school criteria were essential elements which pointed to the program’s expansion. This expansion led to a census of the Nine Corps areas (military management districts) conducted in 1923 in an effort to determine the total number of units. Due to the geographic layout, there was curiosity as to whether units

167 The Adjutant General’s Office, Schools: General Instructions and Suggestions, September 6, 1921; and, Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., pp. 257-258. At the end of the document, various texts are cited. See, Paul Stanley Bond and E.B. Garey, Op. Cit., ad passim; Bernard Lentz, The Cadence System of Teaching Close Order Drill and Exhibition Drills, (Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1919, 1918), ad passim; William Henry Waldron, Platoon Training, 2 volumes, (Washington: United States Infantry Association, 1921), ad passim; and, David Carey Shanks, Management of the American Soldier, (Fort Armstrong, TH: U.S. Army Printing Plant, 1918), ad passim

148 should or could be combined. Included in correspondences by PMS and Ts and Corps

Commanders were travel distances between schools, and in most cases the city, the number and

names of high schools, and the total number of students enrolled in the program. The results as

compiled, show a pattern of implementation (see Appendix B, Table 1).

There are a few noteworthy items to mention from the above table. First, ROTC units

were located principally within large public school districts. Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta,

Dallas, and Los Angeles had the largest student concentration in any given area, with Chicago

having the highest at 5,371. Ironically, New York City public schools, of which eighteen boys’

high schools existed and the most populous area in 1923 is the only exception. According to a

letter from New York Public School Board of Education statistician Eugene Nifenecker, military

training in all schools was dismantled after the war since the national requirement no longer

existed. Secondly, technical schools experienced some of the highest proportions in relation to

the other public high schools in the area. The data with regard to technical schools are murky,

since some school PMS and T’s or Corps Commanders offered extended information on their

particular schools, while others simply provided the minimum information required. In general,

an approximate one-to-two ratio of public school cadets to technical trade school cadets existed.

Technical, trade, or vocational schools provided a large number of students with industrial skills

that proved helpful in military operations – mechanics, phone operations, metallurgy, and a

variety of other beneficial technical trades, thus logical deduction would dictate the trend.168

168Aaron Benavot, “The Rise and Decline of Vocational Education,” Sociology of Education, 56 (April, , 1983), pp. 63-76; David L. Angus and Jeffrey E. Mirel, The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890-1995, (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), Ch. 2; and David H. Parker, “The Talent at Its Command: The First World War and the Vocational Aspect of Education, 1914-39,” History of Education Quarterly, 35 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 237-259. Vocational education was federally supported by the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. Public Schools adopted vocational school training in part for the federal dollars, industry money and in response to Progressive Era activists who argued schools had become to lofty in their goals of ‘classically’ educating students.

149 Jim Crow and Junior ROTC was also prevalent as observed in the above data. It was

evidenced in brief notations by Corps Commanders and PMS and Ts. The segregated units,

mainly located in southern school districts (but also in Nebraska and Missouri), made specific

mention as to which schools were “white” and those that were “colored”. One letter made

particular reference to the race issue. A Nashville, Tennessee communiqué to Adjutant General

Robert Whitfield stated as such in a special addendum to the census form:

“There are three schools at Nashville, Hume-Fogg, Colored H.S., and at the edge of the city limits the County H.S. Public opinion is unfavorable toward military training in the colored high school. The ROTC could be extended to include the County H.S. on the assignment of additional personnel.”169

Throughout the south, including Texas, Alabama, and Tennessee, segregation of the high schools often meant no establishment or no mention of Junior ROTC. Washington, D.C., in the third corps area, was the exception, as it permitted units and training, but most of the African

American cadets were in band or special units. There is no way to be clear what the situation was like in the northern and far western regions, since no remarks as to the color or segregation of units were made. 170 These numbers and their location reinforce that Junior ROTC was

169Internal Memorandum to Adjutant General Robert Whitfield, November 22, 1923.

170Jim Crow, empowered by the 1896 Plessy versus Ferguson Supreme Court decision, barred or limited African Americans service in the military. Separate-but-Equal, the damning decision in 1896 by the Supreme Court seemed to sanction everything from colored bathrooms to lynching. There was no such thing as equal, and for African American veteran and citizen alike, the time had come to stand up as a group and unflinchingly demand a new society. The rise of the NAACP in 1909 (initially the Niagra Movement) began the process and would become over the next fifty years the critical organ of change for the black community. Justice still elusive, many blacks continued to look for employment throughout the country and the military, for many had, at least for a short time, lost its appeal. After Roosevelt’s behavior, African American citizens left the Republican Party in droves. Many joined the Democrats in the North, though their allegiance would not fully evolve until Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration. Eventually, the country, including black veterans and civilians saw the winds of war blowing in their direction. Soon, the call would be upon all Americans to fight for democracy. Always loyal and looking for an opportunity to prove their abilities, African Americans heeded that call. When war was declared on April 2nd, 1917, African Americans enlisted in large numbers. Unfortunately, due to the pathetic educational and social conditions, many were illiterate and poorly trained. This would serve as a hindrance to their active participation in the war, forcing a

150

great deal of them to be subjugated to low-ranking positions relegated to mess duty or labor. Most would never see combat, or for that matter officer positions. One prominent African American West Point graduate, Charles C. Young (also a Buffalo Soldier) determined to start a school “entirely on his own to prepare black enlisted men for officer training” reasoning that the war and need for black officers to lead troops would be enormous. Woodrow Wilson and the War Department felt otherwise and demanded he shut down the school. Further, they denied Young any units of his own and denied officer positions to blacks. However, at even though the First World War’s black battalions would be led by white officers, there were a great number eventually commissioned (see below). More discrimination came on April 24th, 1917 when the War Department announced blacks would not be accepted for enlistments.The NAACP and various elements of the black press were outraged. The obvious hypocrisy, fighting a war for the sake of democracy, was slung back at the Wilson administration. Few of their plights were to be heard, and soon, as need replaced desire, the War Department reversed the order as thousands of troops were dying in battle. Similar to past efforts, African Americans proved their worth in more ways than one. More blacks were certified than whites upon enlistment for “out of every 100 colored citizens called, 36 were certified (for service) and 64 were rejected, exempted, or discharged; whereas, out of every 100 white citizens called, 25 were certified and 75 were rejected, exempted, or discharged.” It is important to add, however, that the number of blacks eventually was so high that it was disproportionate to the 13% general population. This can be read one of two ways (and Vietnam would see this debate resurface): the military often typically recruited an amount proportionate or less than the general population. If blacks were being enlisted in larger numbers, the questioned came up: is it truly an effort on the part of the military to exercise equality or was it a disregard for the lives of African Americans. The question would not be resolved until 1967. Charles Young’s initial dream of training black officers came to fruition, but its effectiveness was debatable. In Fort Des Moines, Iowa, Major Charles C. Ballou began the camp to train and commission black officers, incorporating a staff of 12 officers from West Point were present as were a crew of regular Army non-commissioned black officers, and few officers were activated during the war effort. Outcry throughout the South caused a great deal of racist acts, as well. Additionally, while these positions were given, there was no rank above captain. None of these officers would lead troops into battle. World War I was as much an exposure of American racism as anything else. Blacks did serve valiantly. But, unfortunately, the most notable part of the period was the rampant racism. Training for black enlistees was humiliating. The military officials forced them to sleep in tents without any bedding or flooring, while the white troops had barracks; whites also were recipients of intensive military training, but all blacks, whatever their education, were given labor duties. At Camp Logan, in Texas one of the most tragic events occurred. The 24th infantry (a black-designated unit) had endured a great deal of overtly racist acts. When one the soldiers went to the aid of a beaten black woman in town, he too, was beaten severely. The black soldiers retaliated by marching on the Houston Police department. A brawl ensued and a number of whites were killed. Thirteen of the black infantry, as a result of tainted evidence, were sentenced to death, while forty one others were sentenced to life in prison. The 92nd and 93rd Divisions were activated near the tail end of the war. Their heroics saved a number of white troops in the heat of battle. Yet, false reports of cowardice (when whites were actually the ones fleeing battle) surfaced, placing a blemish on the troops. As heinous was the practice of placing black troops, on the way to serve, in the hull of the ship while white servicemen were permitted above the hull of the ship. This subjected the black men to be the first casualties of German U-Boat attacks. In 1920, the damning report “Use to be Made of Negroes in the U.S. Military Service” made the following observations: “As an individual the negro is docile, tractable, lighthearted, carefree, and good-natured. If unjustly treated he is likely to become careless, shiftless, irresponsible and secretive. He resents censure and is best handled with praise and by ridicule. He is immoral, untruthful, and his sense of right doing is relatively inferior. Crimes and convictions involving moral turpitude are nearly five to one as compared to convictions of whites on similar charges”. The Buffalo Regiment, the hailed

151 established in full force along the line of Brigadier General Lytle Brown and the Committee on

Education’s recommendations for a fully functional United States Junior Reserve. Moreover, the

1920 National Defense Act paralleled the proposal almost precisely: It distinguished senior and junior divisions and mandated a workable curriculum. Similarly, Junior ROTC implementation in technical, trade, or vocational schools was astoundingly similar. Summer camp instruction, a feature of the 1920 Act and the proposal, are implemented, but no evidence currently exists supporting the claim these occurred with any regularity.

The location of units in high populace areas and large public school systems such as

Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit may indicate two related issues. First, in order to recruit and train large numbers of young men, the public schools in these areas offered an extensive population in which to establish units. Second, unit presence in large urban areas with high immigrant and working class populations (with the exception of New York), may have aided Americanization efforts. The idea for military instruction in urban centers as a mechanism for Americanization and enunciated by Theodore Roosevelt at the Americanization Conference held in Philadelphia only a few years previously, certainly merits further investigation. The data, then, would appear to contradict (if somewhat partially) Dr. Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford’s historical assessment:

“Federal support for and assistance to the JROTC program remained limited between the world wars. Due to funding constraints and a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Army, the number of JROTC units increased only gradually during this era.”171

black service members from the early period served in World War I in the 92nd and 93rd infantries. They would see the dismantling of the units, and mainly for reasons the report cited above. Despite the bravery exhibited on the battlefields of Europe, the most obvious effects that the war had was entrenching racist values in society. World War II, with many of the same leaders, would perpetuate the policies.

171 Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., pp. 257-258. Coumbe cited one source for his statistics, L.R. Ginilliat, “Students and National Defense,” The World Tomorrow, (October, 1926), 148-150. Gignilliat was superintendent of Culver Military Academy. After the period

152 At least in the four year period from 1919 to 1923, Junior ROTC in fact expanded six times its

original size. Coumbe is correct that increased Congressional budget cuts and focus on other War

Department activities may have affected Junior ROTC, but this seems to be more the case from

1925 onward. The exponential growth of both Section 55c and Section forty programs may have

created an economic issue for the War Department, offering partial validation to Coumbe and

Harford’s assessment. In general, between 1923 and 1925, little change in enrollments had

occurred, aside from the periodic enrollment declines in certain school districts.

Thus, by 1925 communiqués between the General Staff, Adjutant General of the Army,

and Corps Commanders indicated a nervous attention to the growing size of Junior ROTC. Most

high school programs, due to their unit size, required more than one officer for instructional

purposes. Additionally, rations, weapons, and uniforms (provided it seems to Section forty

units), were taxing already strained budgets. The mid-1920s also saw a large movement in the

country toward national economy, causing problems not only for ROTC, but the whole military

establishment. Congressionally approved enlistment strengths declined from 175,000 to 150,000,

and by 1927, approved strengths were leveled at 118,750. The Budget and Accounting Act of

1921 and a new conservative series of administrations would have increasingly negative effects

on the army, in particular special funding and appropriations requests. Many Americans (aside

from the progressive era activists) were enamored with the idea that there was little need for an

extended military establishment or an economically unwieldy government. Reform in

government expenditures and fiscal responsibility were the main feature throughout the twenties.

1923, detailed enrollment records of Junior ROTC drops out of view. While supervision of the program remained in the Adjutant General’s officer through the 1950s, I believe general enrollment reports may have been kept at the Corps level or the compilation duties were shifted to another office. War Department Annual Reports offer a snapshot of the combined programs, which does not assist the reader in this study. Further research is thus recommended.

153 1924 and 1925 ushered in a time when ROTC experienced the Congressional cutbacks alluded to

by Dr. Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford.172

In the autumn of 1925, War Department officials were expecting cutbacks to the

program, particularly for fiscal year 1927. The General Staff requested the Adjutant General of

the Army poll the Corps Areas for feedback, and seek advisement related to increased cutbacks

and reductions in staff size, indicating “a number of economies could be effected (sic) by a

closer study of the individual problems of each institution.” The General Staff communiqué

continued, noting several recommended cutbacks in funding. Other memorandum from Corps

Area commanders cited a loss of one or more instructors, frustration with cadets being obligated

to pay for their uniforms (section forty units), reduction in pay for instructors (at the senior and junior level) and restrictions on enrollments.173 In his plea to the Corps Commander, Captain

Harry Mitchell implored his Commander to consider the popularity of the Junior ROTC. His

pitch implied that Junior ROTC’s popularity was strong not only among students, but with

parents as well:

“The great majority of people in this city will consider such limitation as decidedly unwise. Prominent men have expressed the opinion that the Junior ROTC is decidedly the most popular branch of the army – and the cause of a favorable attitude being taken by the public toward the army at large. They see in it real national

172Russell F. Weigley, Op. Cit., pp. 399-401; Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., pp. 257- 258; James Kirby Martin, (et. al.), America and its Peoples: A Mosaic in the Making, (New York: Longman Press, 2000), pp. 672-692; and, Hugh Rockoff, “The Origins of the Federal Budget,” The Journal of Economic History, 45 (June, 1985), pp. 377-382.

173Memorandum from Brigadier General H.A. Drum, to Adjutant General of the Army, November 24, 1925; Letter from L.D. Coffmann (President, Association of State Universities), n.p., to Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis, December 14, 1925; Memorandum from Colonel William Dashiell (PMS and T), to Commanding General Fourth Corps Area, November 10, 1925; and, Memorandum from Captain Harry Mitchell (PMS and T), to Commanding General Seventh Corps Area, November 3rd, 1925.

154 defense without militarism. Practically all the teachers many of whom three years ago were averse to military training readily champion the ROTC work here and in so doing are departing from an ultrapacifistic (sic) attitude. They are getting a proper conception of national defense. More and more are advocating it in their teaching.”174

Economic measures and concerns were perhaps a sign of good planning on the part of War

Department planners. Generally, however, there was no indication of large-scale reductions in

the program. War Department officials had their hands full with a different problem – the pacifist

movement. As mentioned in the last part of Mitchell’s letter, his impassioned closing words

were countered over the next few years by a budding anti-ROTC movement throughout the

nation, as illustrated in the following section.

IV. ROTC, Pacifism, and the War Department’s Response

The federalization-centralization of the military, including the rising prominence of

ROTC on the nation’s high school and college campuses must have been endorsed by parents

and students alike, or else Mitchell’s statement and the sheer numbers were an illusion. Yet,

there was also a growing movement during the 1920s marked by isolationism, progressivism,

and pacifism. America had become increasingly isolationist in its economic and political

leanings. The potentially unwieldy military machine was a primary focus of peace groups who

questioned the need for such a large defensive force. Added to their frustration was that college

ROTC programs operating under section forty of the 1920 National Defense Act were required

graduation components at state land-grant institutions. Though pacifism’s impact on ROTC was

primarily at the college-level and may not have dramatically affected enrollments at the junior

174 Memorandum from Captain Harry Mitchell, to Commanding General Seventh Corps Area, November 3rd, 1925.

155 level, angst among high school PMS and Ts, the War Department’s response and the parallel

activities that occurred on college campuses demonstrate an important facet to the program’s historical portrait.175

On October 22nd At the University of Kansas, PMS and T Major J.R. Cyson wrote to the

Adjutant General of the Army explaining his anxiety about pacifists who were speaking on

campus. The pacifists – Bruce Curry, Kirby Page, Conrad Hoffman, and Sherwood Eddy – were

scheduled to present their speech on the “Harmony Peace Plan”. His letter condemned the men for “spreading the most destructive propaganda,” causing Cyson to request some type of

“corrective publicity,” in addition to “data available on the national or international connections of the men named…and their relationship, if any, with agencies having destructive purposes could be used to advantage.”176

While not new to the War Department, the pacifist campaign was at the very minimum,

bothersome to the generalship. In 1923, the University of Wisconsin had abolished ROTC from

the campus by a student vote, and the Minnesota Public Schools dismantled their entire Junior

ROTC program. By 1925, “agitations” had occurred, causing some schools and universities to

vote on ROTC’s existence or for removal of the compulsory training requirement. With regard to

the latter, Pacifist organizations raised issue with the constitutionality of compulsory military

training and associated ROTC programs under the 1862 Morrill Act. They were emboldened

when the Department of the Interior determined that indeed the program could not be made

175 Michael S. Nieberg, Op. Cit., pp. 29-31. This section of the dissertation does not intend to cover all facets of the pacifist movement against ROTC. The items selected were part of the Adjutant General records.

176Memorandum from Major J.R. Cyson, Lawrence, Kansas, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 22, 1925; and, Hachtel, et al., Reserve Officers Training Corps and Citizens Military Training Camps, (Brochure), (n.p. July, 1925), pp. 7-8.

156 compulsory, except as the individual states legislated. The War Department, in 1924 conceded

that “it could not insist on compulsory military training in any of the schools” but that it “should inform the Professor of Military Science and Tactics as to its stand on this question, and G-2 should prepare and have available, as required, data with which to combat radical movements in their schools.”177 1925 also marked Walter C. Longstreth’s published tract titled Regarding

Military Training at Universities, published by the Peace and Service Committee of Philadelphia.

Longstreth overviewed the program and explicated at some length ROTC’s flawed mandate via

the Morrill Act and its coercive effects on young men. Another tract rich with data, was handed

out at the University of Missouri. Titled Reserve Officers (sic) Training Corps and Citizens (sic)

Military Training Camps its authors, Edward Hachtel (Fellowship of Youth for Peace), John

Nevin Sayre (Fellowship of Reconciliation), and Tucker P. Smith (Y.M.C.A.) exposed what they

believed were ROTC’s coercive effects. The coercion allegation was directed at schools, who

whether intentionally or unintentionally, enrolled students into their program under section forty

guidelines (this compelled students to enlist upon graduation). The authors continued, presenting

enrollment statistics for high school and college programs (40,000 and 75,000, respectively), the

type of curriculum employed at the senior and junior level, and how schools could rid themselves

of the ROTC. The last two pages of their work identified several colleges and universities that

were considering, by student or by faculty vote, abolishing the Junior ROTC program.178

177Memorandum from Assistant Chief of Staff H.A. Drum, to the Chief of Staff, November 12, 1925; and, Walter C. Longstreth, Regarding Military Training at Universities, (Philadelphia, PA: Peace and Service Committee of Philadelphia, 1925), pp. 1-8.

178 Hachtel, Op. Cit., pp. 1-9. The brochure’s authors cited sources not consulted for this dissertation, but are nonetheless valid. He cited various Congressional Hearing proceedings and Army Regulations. Furthermore, I would like to point out my enrollment numbers, indeed matched their approximated numbers.

157 The student votes and pacifist activities marked a contentious period between ‘pacifist

radicals’ and the military establishment, as the anti-ROTC movement (labeled as such by the war

department) expanded nationally to various college campuses. The issue was further

compounded when resolutions, such as one passed by the Massachusetts Federation of Churches,

was sent to military leadership. The resolution, passed unanimously that “…for the good of our country in this period of the world history, that compulsory military training in schools and colleges and the attendant instruction should be abolished.”179

The War Department, in conjunction with the Adjutant General’s Office, responded. Signed by

Major General Robert C. Davis, the letter the Federation’s members justified ROTC’s

implementation, and argued its placement was “based on the constitutional principle of

‘Common Defense,” later in the letter Davis stated “the principle of Common Defense and the

adopted system under which it is carried out is not new, as it has existed in America since the

earliest colonial days.”180

Faced with the increasing attack, Junior ROTC professors and instructors as well as

Corps Commanders appeared to have become quite antipathetic, sometimes organizing

‘counterstrikes’. Correspondence from PMS and Ts on college campuses such as Coe College in

179Letter from E. Tallmadge Root (Massachusetts Federation of Churches), Boston, Massachusetts, to Major General Robert C. Davis, March 3, 1926; and, Letter from E. Tallmadge Root (Massachusetts Federation of Churches), Boston, Massachusetts, to Department of War, January 21, 1926; Cornell Alumni Times, “Voluntary Drill Petition Put in Farrand’s Hands,”18 January 1926, p.1. In reviewing these letters, I made note of the board of officers. Under ‘honorary vice presidents’ four men’s names were underlined by someone in the War Department: Mr. Roger W. Babson, Dr. Charles W. Eliot, Alvan T. Fuller, Reverend William Lawrence.

180Letter from Major General Adjutant General Robert C. Davies, Washington, DC, to E. Tallmadge Root, Boston Massachusetts, January 20, 1926; Letter from Adjutant General Major General Robert C. Davies, Washington, DC, to E. Tallmadge Root, Boston Massachusetts, February 17, 1926.

158 Iowa and DePauw University expressed outrage at student movement ‘radicals’ and even administrators sympathetic to the cause. In a letter to Chief of Staff J.L. Hines, Professor Major

Bowers Davis at Coe College lamented the movement on his campus, writing he had begun collaborating with the American Legion, the board of trustees, and the business community.

Heartened by the community’s patriotism and willingness to help fight the anti-ROTC movement, he ended “the fine spirit shown here…makes one realize that the socialist, pacifist, and others may realize some day that this is a country for 100% Americans.”181

In 1928, DePauw University President Dr. G. Bromley Oxnam had taken a decisively anti- compulsion stance. In a memorandum composed by Major General D.E. Nolan of the fifth corps area, his high-level acridity, suspicion and extensive detail (six-page memo) was presented to the

Adjutant General’s office.

“Dr. Oxnam is a pacifist of the type which says ‘I am not a pacifist, but ----.’ Ever since he arrived here he has been ‘preaching against acceptance of the axiom that war is inevitable,’ as will be borne out by the clippings I have sent corps area headquarters from time to time. He is a man of powerful physique, tremendous energy, keen mind, and personal wealth. He is friendly with Sherwood Eddy, or at least, he quotes him extensively. He is alleged to have had connections at various times with numerous organizations which tend toward pink or even red. According to a statement made by him to Dr. Felix McWhirter, president of the Peoples State Bank, Indianapolis, he favors recognition of Soviet Russia. He has been, incidentally, on a trip into post-war Russia as a member of an investigating group.”182

181Memorandum from Major Bowers Davis, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to General J.L. Hines, Chief of Staff, Washington, DC, January 14, 1926. The community rallied together and actually won the ‘campaign’. The student vote was significantly lopsided, but not without good reason. In mid- February, 1927, the students voted 192 “in favor of retaining military training and 21 voted against it. (Complete vote was not obtainable on account of meeting being closed while votes were being collected).” Apparently, once the vote to retain the program took place, the doors were reopened. The ballot turnout was significantly higher as Davis noted “178 voted for voluntary training and 159 voted for compulsory which I believe shows that compulsory training is fairly popular.”

182Memorandum Captain B.B. McMahon, Green Castle, Indiana, to Commanding General Fifth Corps Area, General D.E. Nolan, December 16, 1928.

159 Alas, the ‘radicals’ though not necessarily unknown, did not carry the intellectual weight of one

man who threw his muscle behind the anti-ROTC movement, John Dewey. Dewey, famous

American educator and philosopher, came out squarely against ROTC in 1927. In the pamphlet

Militarizing our Youth: The Significance of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in our Schools

and Colleges, Dewey authored the introduction, with the remainder of the forty-seven page text

penned by Roswell P. Barnes. To date, the pamphlet was the most extensive attack against

ROTC that had been produced. Dewey proclaimed the work “not of reckless aspersions in which

the militaristic crowd freely indulges but in the form of facts, readily verifiable, most of them

cited from official sources.” Dewey further noted the military establishment’s disinterest in facts

and attacks on anti-ROTC activists, in which he observed:

“The attack on the fifty-four persons who endorsed the previous (Lane) report of the society which sponsored also the present report was certainly long on venom and fury, but short on facts and figures – except figures of speech. Nothing will be as fatal to the success of the militaristic attempt as knowledge of the facts. Their previous activity shows a that it considers on one of the most effective means of suppression to be zeal in discrediting those who make the facts known by any kind of disingenuous and misleading statement.”183

The brochure went on to explain point-by-point, the role of each ROTC unit, in addition to

countering military philosophy, tactics, and curriculum. The extensive treatment, including

massive statistical data was compelling enough for activists to use the pamphlet throughout the late-twenties and early-thirties.

183 Roswell P. Barnes, Militarizing Our Youth: The Significance of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in our Schools and Colleges, with an introduction by John Dewey, (New York: Committee on Militarism in Education, 1927), p. 3. The pamphlet was included with a series of flyers and other pamphlets that were being handed out in large quantities at Ohio State University during the early 1930s.

160 V. A Brief Portrait of Junior ROTC through 1964

Junior ROTC maintained its presence in American high schools and other institutions

even with the prevalent Anti-ROTC rhetoric. Enrollment figures fluctuated only slightly,

hovering around the forty-thousand mark through 1941. By 1941, operating units had increased

to approximately 139. As might be expected, the enrollments through World War II were

considerably higher, as the call for compulsory service grew. Hence, between the years 1942 and

1949, one hundred units were in operation, with over 72,000 cadets enrolled. 184 In July 1953, a

fill report of operating Junior ROTC units was made to the Adjutant General’s Office, Office

Recruitment Branch. The report by city and high school, detailed enrollment numbers, uniform

allotments, and instructor placement.

Several trends become apparent. Most noticeably, southern cities saw increases in the

number of units. In 1923, thirty-two public high school units were functional. By 1953, eighty-

two schools were in operation, and enrollment figures had increased several times as well.

Dallas, Texas and El Paso, Texas are particularly noteworthy as their enrollment figures

increased significantly – nearly two times their original enrollment figures. This excludes the

increase in military academies which also obtained units over the thirty year period. Urban areas

in the north and west including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Oakland had fairly sustained periods

184 All statistics through 1949 were taken from Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., Appendix C, 302. It should be noted, however, that there are some significant discrepancies between Appendix C and the assertions made within the text. For example, Coumbe provided enrollment figure from 1919 through 1994-1995. In the text, he states that the number of Junior ROTC units in operation “established in only thirty schools.” (Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., p. 258) However, in Appendix C, the year 1919 is listed as having fifty in operation. Similarly, Coumbe stated that “by 1939, 295 JROTC units were in operation…”(Arthur Coumbe and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., p. 258) Yet again, the number in Appendix C, is listed as having only one hundred units in operation. I have made the determination to use some of his numbers as a guide, but referred to primary sources as available or needed. My particular focus in this chapter is to look at distribution patterns.

161 of enrollment over the thirty-year period (see Appendix B, Table 2), but had increases in the

number of operating units. Indianapolis, Gary, and Detroit, Michigan doubled or tripled their

growth both in enrollments and units. Generally, there is also a trend for smaller cities peppered,

throughout the north and Midwest that began Junior ROTC units between 1923 and 1953. No

designations in the report were made as to “white” or “colored” nor were technical schools labeled with the frequency of the 1923 report. Thus in 1953, public high schools had approximately 58,275 cadets enrolled in nearly 301 Junior ROTC programs. The enrollment figure may not appear significant on first glance. However, the 66% enrollment increase (an average of one thousand cadets per year) and a 41% increase in units spread out over a larger

geographic region seem to indicate to the contrary that Junior ROTC stagnated in growth.

Considering the Interwar period, the Great Depression, and World War II (typically, the military

rescinds appropriations for special programs like Junior ROTC during wartime), the numbers

actually show a healthy organization, though perhaps it did not attain the growth it desired.

Korea also played a significant role. The Cold War, which prompted the science and technology

movement in American schools, probably had as large an impact on the number of interested

youth and presence of military personnel in the public schools. Historian Michael Nieberg,

author of Making Citizen Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service, quoted this

Army ROTC pamphlet from 1960, which encapsulated 1950 military and political philosophy:

“The educational system of the Iron Curtain countries train their men as soldiers of the state first, and then as scientists, technicians, even painters and poets, as part of their over-all plans for world domination. From the privileged sanctuary of our campus quadrangles, laboratories and study halls, dare we forget for whom the bell tolls? It tolls not for the murdered students of Prague, Riga, and Warsaw, but for those now bent to the task of the extinguishment of man’s hops. It tolls for those who “don’t have the time,” for those who cynically ask “what’s in it for me?” It tolls for all who fail to realize the nature of this supreme contest of our times.”185

185 Michael Nieberg, Op. Cit., p. 41. Education was forced to respond to the era of science and technology. Coming under increasing attacks for its ‘lackluster’ student performance, and focus

162

on soft subjects resulted in a renewal of testing, strengthening the math and science curriculum, and better teacher education. Now, with potential nuclear destruction a reality and the competition developing between the U.S.S.R and the United States education for science and technology seemed extremely appropriate. The social sciences and humanities gained significant attention, particularly psychology, sociology, and history. These subjects provided understanding about the new cultural phenomenon the military was facing. “The war had posed a number of challenging social, political, and economic problems for military professionals: working together with persons from other nations in allied operations, coping with problems of supply and industrial mobilization, administering occupied territories.” (John Lovell, Neither Athens or Sparta, 50) The Army and military’s current manifestation is a result of the Cold War era. At the close of World War II, America’s international military presence was justified as a safeguard against the spread of Communism. Of course the alliance between military and industry also proved a factor. The spread of capitalism was as much the rationale as was restricting the Communist threat. The creation of the atom bomb added complications to an already strained relationship with the U.S.S.R. America, thanks to John Dulles, developed the doctrine of ‘massive retaliation’ – or nuclear war. America seemed willing to carry out this doctrine at any cost. The Cold War began with the low-scale ‘brush fire’ conflicts and the stockpiling of nuclear weapons in both countries, leading to the concept of ‘mutually assured destruction’. The terms of surrender also exacerbated the situation, albeit in an effort to avert further war with the Soviet Union. The compromises made gave the U.S.S.R. a significant eastern European presence and considerable leverage in world affairs. The military, forced to respond to the threat, had to find a new way of operating within the old structure. First, a great deal of maneuvering and political wrangling involved the organization of the general staff. World War II proved to have many strengths but the central command in Washington, D.C. had numerous breakdowns in communication. The National Security Act of 1947 was passed creating the Department of Defense (scrapping the designation of War Department). Under the act, the heads of military units – Army, Navy, and Air – would be consolidated into the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A civilian, the Secretary of Defense, would oversee and coordinate Department of Defense activities. The Department of Defense (DOD) would now be a clear member of the executive branch of government (its role having previously been somewhat boggled). Finally, under the act, was the creation of the CIA and the National Security Council. The act finalized the marriage of defense and intelligence, with future amendments filling including industry as a viable partner. The DOD’s formidable role in the exercise of war and spread of capitalist intentions was essential to American global ‘success.’ The involvement in Korea further established the U.S. military’s global police presence. Once the U.S.S.R. invaded South Korea past the 38th parallel, America’s initial policy had been to train insurgents, provide weapons and supplies. The policy soon escalated to American troop mobilization. As soon as the mobilization occurred, America adopted its doctrine of ‘brushfire’ or ‘limited’ warfare in hopes that it could repel Communism without global war. This philosophy demonstrates the cyclical nature of history. Such tactics were implemented in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe during the various religious wars. Limited loss of life – civilian and military was the ideal. Hovering over the conscience of the military, the Koreans and the American public, however, was the devastating potential of the atom bomb. This threat was further evidence that World War II’s mobilization that had served military officials would soon be reinstated. The Congress of 1948 expanded the Selective Service system and the Universal Military Training Act (1951). Though the latter would prove less beneficial, the military was in prime shape to deal with the threat, or so it thought. As with Vietnam, Korea presented an issue the U.S. military had not dealt with since the nineteenth century – guerilla warfare. This required a reinvigoration of training camps and military educational institutions to implement the tactics accordingly into the curriculum. America’s eventual success (many accurately call it a stalemate) in Korea – the repulsion of the North Koreans back to behind the parallel – would demonstrate the need for and maintenance of a strong professional army. While a great many innovations were occurring in education

163 By the middle- to late 1950s and early 1960s, Junior ROTC remained fairly stable in comparison to its senior counterpart. The junior division hovered at approximately 60,000 students, while the senior division units ranged between 120,000 and 180,000 cadets. The value of Junior ROTC as compared to Senior ROTC came was questioned, however, by Kennedy Department of Defense

Secretary Robert McNamara. His primary concerns were the program’s lack of focus, inefficiency, and most importantly, its true benefit to the military enlisted and officer ranks. The

Senior ROTC had potentially been a victim of several forces including the reduction in Cold War fears, increasing job availability in the private sector, more difficult academic loads, and that

“the college student of the 1960s was more interested in making money and less interested in serving his country…”186 The anti-war movement had not quite set in by the early 1960s, but concerns over ROTC’s general future did. Over a three year period, Defense Department following the war, perhaps the most influential was the General Infantry Bill of 1945. Several million men (with all services combined about 16 million) were returning home and jobs were scarce. Congress also felt that a reward for service was the correct thing to do. More practically, it was designed to delay entry into the workforce for millions of returning veterans. The United States may very well have plunged back into a depression had the G.I. Bill not been enacted. Its provisions included access and, most important, money to public and private institutions. Many took advantage of the system. The program was the most advantageous educational provision by Congress in its history. Its benefits, however, would be debated. Some believed it to be a rectification from previous years in that it addressed the economic and social inequalities inherent in America. Harvard President James Conant, however, feared “the policy would threaten the traditional meritocratic selection process and result in the lowering of academic standards.” (Alan Sadovnik, Exploring Education, 81) Regardless, the G.I. Bill would afford the opportunity for millions to receive an education – among the beneficiaries were African Americans. The educational system, since its inception with the common school, rarely functioned in the best interests of African Americans. The 1896 Plessy decision sanctioned separate-but-equal schools resulting in disproportionate funding. The cascade-effect would no doubt severely prohibit African Americans ability to get a good education and adequately compete in the market economy. By the 1950s, as evidenced by the military, the issue of segregation was going to have to be addressed head on. As such, 1954 saw Thurgood Marshall brilliantly argued the illegalities of state-imposed segregation of schools. While the effort was laudable, it would not end discriminatory practices. It would take various civil rights groups (e.g. SNCC) working in concerted action throughout the 1960s to end the pressures of segregation. Postwar academy structure responded to the innovations following World War II and the oncoming nuclear proliferation by implementing extremely rigorous courses in engineering including aeronautical and nuclear as subjects.

186 Michael Nieberg, Op. Cit., pp. 88-89.

164 personnel conducted a full-scale study of the entire program. Under McNamara’s guidance,

ROTC in both forms would have to be completely redeveloped in its scope to conform with societal and academic perceptions, but also maintaining the vitality and purpose of the program: recruitment, development, and training of young officer and enlisted recruits. Out of this work came the 1964 ROTC Vitalization Act. While primarily geared toward the Senior component,

McNamara had apparently been forced by public demand that Junior ROTC be kept in its present form. His initial proposal was to fold junior units into the National Defense Cadet Corps, a less costly program, in what seemed to be an effort to focus on the senior division.187

Public Law 88-647, was signed on October 13, 1964. The law stipulated several items.

First, it placed definitive caps on enrollment and unit creation in all branches of the military,

mandating that no more than two hundred units could be established per year, and not more than

1,200 could operate at any one given time. It further limited unit establishment at only secondary

educational institutions. Second, it maintained the policy requiring at least one hundred

physically fit male students be enrolled for a unit to remain in operation. Third, it required all

schools to require three years of military training and “limit membership in the unit to students

who maintain acceptable standards of academic achievement and conduct, as prescribed by the

Secretary of the military department concerned.”188 Fourth, the Vitalization Act of 1964 required

the governing military agency to provide junior units with uniforms, equipment, and texts. Fifth,

and finally, it established the increased use of retired officers over active commissioned (CO) or

noncommissioned officers (NCO). Since Junior ROTC’s inception, the instructor piece was

haphazard. The new guideline, while not completely doing away with COs or NCOs, allowed

187 Arthur Coumbe, and Lee Harford, Op. Cit., pp. 258-259.

188 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 78, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 1063-1065.

165 flexibility in assigning placements. The ROTC Vitalization Act ensured the minimum health of the program for years to come. 189

VI. Conclusion

Junior ROTC’s history arose as part of preparedness legislation, embodied in the

1916 National Defense Act. Its impact on the public schools and nation’s colleges and universities highlighted the importance of military training and education in civil insitutions, even after World War I. While the 1916 Act proved ineffective on one level, its descendants – the 1918 amendments, the 1920 Defense Act, and the ROTC Vitalization Act point to the nation’s shift toward federalization-centralization of military functions. This shift was not completely popular, as is discovered in section five. Anti-ROTC sentiment throughout the twenties and thirties, often spurred by religious groups add an interesting perspective not only to what happened, but also to the growing concern over federalization’s impact. Likewise, the War

Department’s interdepartmental response indicated (though this is not conclusive) an emergent military machine, bent on protecting the integrity of its programs by engaging in red-baiting and politicking as opposed to mounting an effective marketing strategy. Dewey’s ire about baseless attacks against anti-ROTC activists illustrates the probability the War Department had engaged in such tactics.

The curriculum was no doubt preparedness-driven, as 75% of its core component was military drilling, courtesy, and training. Furthermore, compulsory service (the root cause of Anti-

ROTC activists) prevailed in many cases. Schools that applied for section forty units, obliged

189Ibid., pp. 1063-1065

166 their students into compulsory military service. While the enrollment numbers are still a bit unclear, further investigation might help mete out the differences and impact on Junior ROTC enlistment ratios following high school graduation.

Enrollments capture a crucial snapshot of the bigger preparedness picture. Schools operating units were not necessarily making money on the program. However, federal aid in the form of uniforms, food, text books, and other money assisted these schools. Thus, the implementation of units in large, urban centers around the country implies that the War

Department’s desire to reach a large segment of the population was critical in maintaining enlisted strengths. The large enrollment numbers at technical-trade high schools elicit three points. First, technical-trade schools and other civil institutions offering technical training received federal funding under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. Secondly, those schools receiving federal funding were mandated to require military training as part of the curriculum. Third, large numbers of students attended technical-trade schools and high schools offering extended courses in trade areas, in large part to prepare for the industrial workforce. These young men provided the military with usable skills during war and peace.

But the 1920s were also problematic for the military. Demobilization and mounting fiscal reforms placed limitations on the programs growth. Post-World War I feelings seemed to cling to promises that the last war would indeed be the last. Junior ROTC (along with a number of other military programs) experienced cutbacks in uniforms, equipment, staff and instructor pay subsidies. These were the norm in a new political age of smaller government and reduced threat of war.

Junior ROTC still remained strong. Certainly, it was not in every single high school or in every American city. The approximate 40,000 enrolled student-cadets, in over 120 high schools

167 by 1923, point to a program if not thriving, at least holding its own. Its continued enrollments through three decades illustrate the program’s stability, popularity, and placement in the

American educational scene. The ROTC program served a vital function during World War II – particularly the senior division. Much of the military operations would have failed, had there not been a steady reserve officer component. Again, the impact Junior ROTC had in this movement is unclear. Exposure, increased numbers, and some military training in the schools must have had some effect. What becomes evident is Junior ROTC’s lasting presence. The question that remains: what does all of this mean? The next chapter attempts to answer that very question.

168 CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

“U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): Sergeant Green, do you have a JROTC Program in your sector, and could you comment does it help measurably in terms of your recruiting? SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ELIZABETH GREEN, ARMY: I believe it does, sir, not because it's there as a benefit to me to go in there and recruit, but….they're motivated. You have prior service in there motivating them, teaching them the right way, discipline. Our schools nowadays, it's a lot tougher for the teachers to take control depending on where you're at. Los Angeles, it's pretty tough out there. But I believe that the discipline and maturity, a focus, where do you want to go. They see recruiters coming in and out; you talk to them throughout the year. They see what you're about. They get the education and the leadership skills in there, and whether they join the military or not it's helping society. But those are the students I like to focus on, because I know they're going to make good team players in the Army Reserve (emphasis mine).”

Testimony before the U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, February 24th, 2000.

“…how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.”

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, The Illusion of the Epoch

Introduction

More often than not, military historical narratives have been written about the great generals, the sordid battles, the politicians who ride the coattails of victory into the Oval Office, or the men who fell from grace. Certainly, these narratives do contain valuable details and provide scholarly contributions. Unfortunately, they are deeply mired in institutional politics, personality conflicts and overblown agendas; the most significant revelation is merely that human beings are sociologically similar. The military, with all of its intricate history, hierarchies, philosophies, social and cultural connections, and political high drama, is rocky terrain for any

169 scholar. It seems possible that the military’s raison d’etre could indeed be forever shrouded by unbounded minutiae.

The preceding chapters of this dissertation have attempted to paint a historical portrait of the origins, inception, and evolution of the Junior ROTC, while also providing an analytical framework to illuminate the consistent threads that exist. I stated in the introduction that scholars, activists, and military proponents cannot simplistically embrace or summarily dismiss

Junior ROTC. Simplistically embracing the program has been and is still a tactic of many military personnel, school districts that benefit monetarily from the program and cadets who

have gone through the program. This core group, in the interest of military training or

recruitment, often all-too-readily dismisses criticisms of the program, arguing that such a

program serves many in the population, including at-risk school children and those who may not

have, or do not desire, college as a post-graduation option. On the other hand, some who summarily dismiss the program as meaningless, as endorsing militarism or as being secretly motivated by military leaders, overlook many large-scale issues, fail to ground their analysis in

historical as well as sociological data, and reduce their arguments to trite anti-war and anti-

military establishment verbiage. By identifying the historical threads of preparedness ideology

and its dialectical relationship with imperialist-expansionist mentality, my analysis is rooted in the historical and sociological record and will add to the current discourse.

Three questions guided my research and speak to the goals and objectives of this study.

Section one addresses the first question: what, if any, prerequisites existed relevant to Junior

ROTC? This section reintroduces these historical trends in abbreviated form, concluding there is merit to my initial thesis that preparedness ideology and imperialist-expansionist mentality

170 played a consistent part in military federalization-centralization and in the program’s naissance

and subsequent growth.

Weaving in Junior ROTC’s historical prerequisites, section two answers the question:

how, then, does the issue of recruitment correspond to Junior ROTC’s inception and consequent

growth? Based on preparedness ideology, the matter of Junior ROTC as a mechanism for

recruitment is addressed early curriculum outlines, school placement and population statistics. Its consistent growth between 1923 and 1953 reinforces my thesis that preparedness ideology has in fact been the main reason behind its success.

Section three compares the evidence presented in section two with the present manifestation of Junior ROTC, addressing the last, and perhaps most significant question: has the program been focused on the recruitment of working class and racial minorities over its ninety-year history and, if so, why? To illustrate my position, I will provide a brief discussion of military draw-downs, curriculum analysis, the increase in unit establishment and purposeful unit placement, and recent legislation establishing that Junior ROTC is at the very least, a machination used to expose young people to the military.

Section four offers a final analysis of the data presented, implications for further research, and concluding thoughts. In this section, I address the following questions: Is the program worthy of school resources or is it just an oblique attempt at school reform, citizenship building and character education that should be eradicated? My observations will draw together these

ideas and Junior ROTC’s ultimate impact on the American public schools.

171 I. Prerequisites relevant to Junior ROTC

The main premises proposed in this dissertation assert that the concepts of preparedness and imperialism-expansionism were prerequisites or antecedents to Junior ROTC. Undeniably,

these themes reverberate throughout history, inasmuch as the ROTC program was the ultimate

manifestation of preparedness ideology and imperialist-expansionist motivations.

Preparedness ideology involves three major themes. First are the philosophical debates

between advocates for a citizen-army and those in favor of a standard professional army. Second

are the various pieces of enacted legislation that directly address the military’s design and

purpose. The third is the evolution of military education and training for officers and enlisted men. These themes help to explain the federalization and centralization of military affairs and, equally important, the creation of Junior ROTC.

Preparedness has been a term typically relegated to the early twentieth century,

associated with Theodore Roosevelt’s obsession with military readiness. Yet, preparedness as an

‘ideology’ actually began to develop much earlier in American history. By its very definition,

preparedness is “to be ready.” If this baseline definition is accepted, then the military in America, even from its earliest militias, has been in a constant state of preparedness (or at the very minimum, engaged in an ongoing argument over what that ‘state’ should be). Debate over the

merit of a regular standing army has long permeated American politics. From the earliest

deliberations in the Confederation Congress vis-à-vis the 1916 National Defense Act, Americans

have questioned the logic behind a full-time regular army. Certainly, many understood the need

to occasionally defend American sovereignty, but it seems apparent that those against a strong

military establishment favored citizen control. People like John Jay, Alexander Hamilton,

Theodore Roosevelt, and Leonard Wood represented the strain of preparedness ideology. They

172 believed that a strong, centrally-controlled military establishment was key in supplying highly

effective and well-trained enlisted officers and troops. On one level, their argument appears quite

solid: Who, in their proper frame of mind, declines protection if attacked?

An examination of legislation is also critical in understanding preparedness ideology.

The 1792 Militia Act began the military’s gradual federalization and centralization. The Militia

Act did not fully embrace federalization. As is evidenced, it formally established and

strengthened state militia units; however, state units could be called into service by the federal government in case of national emergencies primarily limited to domestic disturbances and defense. States generally exercised their control. The 1903 Dick Act restructured the National

Guard, formerly the state militias, in an effort to tighten federal control. The national government had increased purview as to the National Guard’s activation in all instances of national defense, but again guardsmen were limited to a nine-month activation period. Training and drilling were increasingly governed federally, but really only in terms of oversight. States still maintained a large extent of the control. While not dismantling the National Guard, Congress set in motion a series of legislative events that led to the military’s ultimate federalization and centralization in

1916.

West Point’s creation in 1802 signified the beginning of military professionalization.

Trained officers were the military’s most consistent resource. Their education at the highest levels ensured a consistent crop of men to train and drill troops, lead them into battle, and

establish continuity from one generation to the next. West Point’s influence, though felt in

differing ways, impacted the military by spurring wide-scale military educational development

within state and private military academies, and professionalizing the military, which, in turn

provided the military much needed credibility as demonstrated in the Mexican War and the Civil

173 War. Spurring the growth of the academies was the War of 1812. For those in military leadership and hawkish Congressmen, troop performance in that war was a demonstration of martial incompetence and the academy system – professionalization – would resolve these challenges. Thus, Sylvanus Thayer’s appointment as superintendent at West Point commenced a new era in which sweeping curricular and structural changes were put in place. West Point’s academic innovations became widely regarded and its officers won tremendous respect fighting in Mexico and the Civil War. These changes became a model upon which most of the fledgling academies based their study. It was the 1862 Morrill Act, however, that marked ROTC’s foundation and first tangible nineteenth-century connection. The 1862 act and its 1883 and 1890 amended versions established land-grant schools which were required to offer military instruction as part of the core curriculum.

As opposed to being a distinct or parallel ideology, economic imperialist-expansionist mentality is dialectically related to preparedness. Preparedness would eventually assure a strong martial institution, but economic imperialism-expansionism historically has defined America’s activities and intentions regarding its armed forces. To expand nationally or internationally, a strong fighting force was required. America would certainly be limited in its capitalist expansionist plans had it utilized its military solely for defense. Alexander Hamilton firmly believed in the military value of a defensive force, but also saw the economic and political significance. His expansionist agenda and his yearning to use the military to quell insurrections were among the first indicators that the military could be used for purposes other than security.

The War of 1812 and the Democratic-Republican War Hawks’ initial insistence to wrest Canada and extend America’s landholdings westward (which eventually occurred) perpetuated

Hamilton’s philosophy that the military could indeed be used to advance American interests.

174 And, while the army’s poor performance during the war doused any hopes of annexation, the

seeds of expansion were in place. War with Mexico further underscored the point that American

expansionism was best carried out with military force. Moving westward and southward, the revitalized United States’ Regular Army, led by West Point and other academy-trained officers, proved invaluable in securing California and Texas. Equally important was the United States’ temporary occupation and establishment of a military government in Mexico City, Mexico.

Though not an overwhelming precedent, it does illustrate America’s use of the military to ensure its sovereignty and protection while in pursuit of land and resources. This imperialist- expansionist mentality became even more evident during the Spanish-American War, the subsequent administration of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, and President Theodore

Roosevelt’s foreign policy change to the Monroe Doctrine, titled the “Roosevelt Corollary”.

Regardless of the Spanish-American War’s contentious objectives, what was clear was

America’s post-war strategy; occupying and administering the territories required an able fighting force, a military entity that could enforce policies, establish American-backed governments, and repel any possible attempts by the Spanish to reclaim the territory. The

Roosevelt Corollary, designed as a mechanism to establish the United States’ dominance, was also a critical component of this imperialist-expansionist approach. Using preparedness as his platform, Roosevelt held that in order to establish free trade routes, protect American interests in the Western Hemisphere, and repel attacks against American sovereignty and trade, an effective armed force was imperative.

It was preparedness ideology that dominated the discourse, tied together by legislative, philosophical, and educative efforts. Equally important, its dialectical relationship with imperialism-expansionism accounts for the strong push, especially at the start of the twentieth

175 century, for a large, well-constructed, and well-trained fighting force that could effectively

administer American policy. Accordingly, the 1916 National Defense Act was the culmination of

years of preparedness ideology emphasized by imperialist-expansionist aspiration. The 1916 Act

allowed the United States to carry out its national defense responsibilities via preparedness, fully

federalizing and centralizing the militias and permitting the use of military force to execute the policies of the government, which were often politically and economically motivated. Junior

ROTC was indeed born of and for preparedness, and the dialectical relationship of economic

imperialism-expansionism helped solidify the process of federalization-centralization. Its

historical roots are fixed to these constructs, and its design encouraged enlistment in service of

one’s country so that a cadre of minimally-trained potential officers and enlistees were available

as necessitated. The obligation and intent for America’s young men was clear.

II. Junior ROTC for Recruitment: Preparedness for National Service

The historical record has established Junior ROTC as a recruitment tool for military

service since its very beginning. The 1916 National Defense Act was the farthest-reaching

preparedness legislation ever passed by Congress. It was essentially authored by Woodrow

Wilson, who capitulated to preparedness ideology partly because of international developments,

but also for his own political survival. Preparedness, as a concept, required readiness, and readiness required training. Youth military training was viewed as critical in introducing young

men to their obligation and national duty. Early legislation sanctioning military training as

embodied in the Morrill Acts reinforced the point that military service or national obligation was

expected. When the National Defense Act incorporated a youth military training initiative via

Junior ROTC, the message was clear that the organization could be used to articulate to the

176 nation’s youth their obligations as citizens. The spread of the program was delayed by the imminence of World War I with Junior ROTC’s public school proliferation beginning around

1918. The program had expanded from approximately 6,500 in 1919 to 39,000 in 1923. By 1953, the program showed no sign of decline, with enrollment increasing 41% during that thirty-year

period – an average of nearly 1,000 new cadets annually. Three reasons appear to explain the

consistency and size of these numbers: curriculum and advancement opportunities, school type,

and school location.

First, the matter of curriculum as a recruitment and preparedness device requires

attention. Military leaders in 1918 asserted that the ROTC curriculum could in fact be used to

strengthen citizenship and also prepare young men to recognize their national service obligation.

At both the junior and senior level, there was a significant difference in allotted time between

citizenship training and military tactics and drill. In fact, citizenship as a core area was absent

from the list of intended subject areas. 50% of the first year was devoted to infantry drill and

military courtesy. By the second year, 55% of the students’ time was committed to the two

subject areas. The benefits of citizenship appeared to be indirect. Later proposed revisions

suggested integration of the Constitution with emphasis placed on passages that were specifically

defense-related, increasing ever so slightly the “citizenship” component. Most importantly,

schools operating under Section 40 of the 1920 National Defense Act obligated students to enroll

in military training and either enlist in the armed services or continue their training with the

senior component upon graduation. While the place of citizenship education was not entirely

clear, the notion of national service. In the same vein, the ‘targeting’ of public schools gave the

Junior ROTC increased visibility among the country’s working classes. Large immigrant

populations and economically disadvantaged youth were the primary consumers of the American

177 public school system. Through military training, high school students would benefit the armies

of labor as well as defense:

The type of school and its geographical location proved significant. Technical or trade-

vocational schools in 1923 trend toward high Junior ROTC enrollments. This is in part explained

by the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which provided federal allocations to schools that

incorporated vocational education as a chief component of their curriculum. As discussed briefly

in chapter four, in order for schools to receive these federal funds, military training was

compulsory. Technical and trade schools in Cleveland, Ohio, Chicago, Illinois, and Atlanta,

Georgia had considerably large numbers of students enrolled for this very reason. Additionally,

these technical and trade schools provided the military with young men who possessed usable

labor skills beneficial to the military. Urban areas were ideal locations as they were also centers

of industry, offering industrialists a ready reserve of labor. The populations of these schools were

comprised chiefly of working class young men, who had either little desire or little relevant

190 Memorandum from Brigadier General Lytle Brown, to the Chief of Staff, October 8, 1918; Aaron Benavot, “The Rise and Decline of Vocational Education,” Sociology of Education, 56 (April, , 1983), pp. 63-76; and David L. Angus and Jeffrey E. Mirel, The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890-1995, (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999) Vocational education was federally supported by the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917.

178 opportunity to go to a traditional school in which a liberal arts curriculum was the norm. For this reason, exposure to military process and procedures was naturally the result.

High population-concentration areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Indianapolis and other large urban areas had well over 15% of the male school population enrolled in Junior

ROTC. It seems that, on average, 35% of these urban school boys between the ages of fourteen and eighteen were at the very minimum engaged in military training and drilling. In terms of recruitment and enlistment, of course, no definitive answer can be provided since statistics that traced direct enlistments from Junior ROTC are either not available or were never actually compiled. However, its mere centrality within the population and the success Junior ROTC enjoyed seems indeed to be an indicator that it was minimally successful and used in many cases in large public schools as a mechanism in which to attract urban, working class students (see

Appendix B, Table 3).

By 1953, while the numbers in the urban areas remained fairly constant, there was a significant change that had occurred in rural and southern areas. 126 units were in operation in

1923. In 1953, the total quantity of units jumped remarkably to 301, averaging five new units per year. A great number of these sprang up in the south, which calls attention to two interesting sociological phenomena. First while the growth of Junior ROTC in rural areas in1923 showed a smaller number of units in rural areas; 1953 numbers showed a substantial increase, with over

50% of schools and the Junior ROTC population existing in rural areas and smaller cities under fifty-thousand. The second phenomenon, relative to Junior ROTC’s southern presence, was its proliferation in military academies. This could be due to several factors, but three stand out.

Number one, the federal aid provided to schools with Section 40 programs was much more significant than Section 55c schools, consequently federal aid was most likely beneficial to large

179 concentrations in the military academies. Number two, is Rod Andrew’s and John Hope

Franklin’s hypothesis that southern pride and discipline wrapped in militarism may have played a significant role in the military academies absorption of junior units during this period. This is a rich area for further study and research. Number three, mere practicality dictated that units in these schools would quickly benefit the military, in the hopes that officer-trainees and enlistees could be easily obtained in time of war.

School motivation to maintain Junior ROTC units, particularly as pertains to the period under discussion, has yet to be completely determined. Most likely, the acquirement and maintenance of units afforded federal aid in the form of textbooks, additional school instructors, and uniforms. Moreover, as will be discussed in the next section, throughout the twentieth century, urban areas have consistently contained significant immigrant populations, as well as large numbers of working class white, Hispanic, and African American families. The perceived need to assist ‘at-risk’ youth, particularly in terms of discipline and citizenship, contributed to the assessment of Junior ROTC as beneficial, especially as schools struggled with burgeoning public school populations. As discussed in chapter four, national focus on science and technology - a result of Cold War politics, may have also guided schools in their decision to retain or develop a Junior ROTC program. Preparedness ideology and the emphasis placed on military training as a viable part of the curriculum and attracting large numbers of young males adequately connect Junior ROTC’s increasing presence in the public school system.

III. Disadvantaged Youth and JROTC as Recruitment Mechanism in the Present-Day

Junior ROTC, historically-speaking, has always been a mechanism for recruitment. The program, in its current manifestation, has allegedly taken on the yoke of ameliorating the social

180 ills of America’s disadvantaged youth – better known in today’s school vernacular as ‘at-risk’

students. First, it is critical to reiterate that Junior ROTC initially established itself as a

mechanism to ‘assist’ young men who were, as General Lytle Brown articulated, in a ‘general

period of unrest.’191 Providing skills, focus, and discipline in an effort to attract these young men

to national service was as much a part of the Junior ROTC mantra ninety years ago as it is today.

The postulation that them program’s mission has changed significantly from these stated objectives is at best, ignorant of historical precedent, and at worst deliberately deceitful. The following introduces recent, supporting data that parallels JROTC’s early work in terms of curriculum, school placement and demographics assisting the program in satisfying recruitment, and program objectives. Corollary studies, which show that the need increased particularly through the 1990s, will first be presented in an effort to demonstrate Junior ROTC’s recent enjoyment of unhindered expansion and the eventual relationship that materialized between

Army Cadet Command and United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC). Next, explication of the contemporary anti-ROTC movement, an overview of the current curriculum, and the descriptive statistics depicting location and demographical characteristics of current unit placements and school systems will clarify the relationship of Junior ROTC to recruiting techniques that is often assumed or implied: Junior ROTC is a mechanism for recruiting underprivileged high school-aged youth for military enlistment.

Three selected RAND studies completed in the nineties indirectly point to Junior ROTC as a viable mechanism for recruiting ‘at-risk’ school children, consequently increasing the number of enlistments for a struggling military. The first study, conducted in 1994, Military

191 Memorandum from Brigadier General Lytle Brown, to The Chief of Staff, October 8, 1918.

181 Support for Youth Development: An Exploratory Analysis, investigated how the military model

might be applied to assist disadvantaged youth.

“Recent public debate suggests widespread interest in potential military roles in preparing youth, especially disadvantaged youth, to become productive members of the workforce and society. As the nation’s largest employer of youth, the Army appears to some as a model for future programs.”192

The results of the study suggested ‘caution’ with regard to implementation of the military model,

alternatively offering options such as combined civilian-military programs, or primarily civilian-

funded programmatic opportunities. While their suggestions do not explicitly incorporate Junior

ROTC, there is an obvious connection in later years as to how it was marketed to schools as a

cost-sharing initiative, in which secondary institutions were able to secure a Junior ROTC

teacher for half the cost of hiring a new teacher without the military connection and benefits.

More recently, Junior ROTC programs have engaged in a program titled “America’s Promise,” a

community service model for the students and instructors of the various units around the country.

The second study, Beth Asch and Bruce Orvis in Recent Recruiting Trends and Their

Implications: Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations explored the significant decline in

military recruiters both in numbers and in key geographical areas. The study reported potential

negative enlistment trends emanating from the declines, particularly during the draw-down

period. The third study, Enlistment Decisions in the 1990s: Evidence from Individual-level Data, studied recruitment-enlistment through the use of ‘recruiting targets’ higher than those in the draw-down period. This 1999 study encouraged military recruiters and planners to focus efforts

192 Beth J. Asch, Military Support for Youth Development: An Exploratory Analysis, (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1994), iii. These are not the only RAND studies that have been conducted on the topic of recruitment. However, these particular studies illustrate, quite effectively, the need for viable recruits.

182 on high school students going into typical wage-labor positions following graduation, integrating a particular set theory in gauging student outcomes.193

These studies demonstrate one key point particularly relevant to the 1990s: the military suffered serious staffing power shortages as a result of draw-downs or cutbacks in military expenditures. The evidence supports that Junior ROTC was an elixir to the dramatic recruitment- enlistment declines and recruiting center closures. Not accidentally, soon after the military draw- downs, Operation Capital, a Junior ROTC program supported and developed by then Joint

Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell (in collaboration with Army Cadet Command), appealed for an increased presence in the public schools, another prime indicator that the program could indeed serve, at the very minimum, as a tool for enlistment. Over the past few years Operation Capital’s success has been palpable. The increase in sheer student enrollments and units sufficiently illustrates the point (see Appendix B, Table 4).

The evidence that such schools were targeted, particularly lower-income neighborhoods, is even more pronounced. The policy handbook for establishing Junior ROTC in public schools released by the Department of Defense is quite clear in this matter:

“5.2.6. Reimburse the institution for JROTC instructor salaries at the rate of one-half the amount of the difference between instructor retired (sic) or retainer pay and the amount of active duty pay and allowances (excluding hazardous duty pay) the instructor would receive if he or she were ordered to active duty. Schools meeting specific criteria of need, if determined by the Secretary of the Military Department to be in the national interest, may receive additional instructor funds if, as follows: 5.2.6.1. The percentage of students eligible to participate in subsidized meal programs is more than 30 percent of the enrolled student body and/or less than 75 percent of the students graduate; 5.2.6.2. On-site visits by the JROTC headquarters

193 Rebecca Kilburn and Jacob Klerman, Enlistment Decisions in the 1990s: Evidence from Individual-level Data, (San Francisco, CA: RAND, 1999), pp. 1-14; and, Beth Asch and Bruce Orvis, Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications: Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations, (San Francisco, CA: RAND, 1994), pp. 1-33. The latter piece is consistent with data which identifies an enlistment decline as high as 61%. The RAND Corporation typically serves as a sub-contractor for the Department of Defense, conducting studies on military effectiveness and readiness. For more on their work, see www.rand.org.

183 element (sic) determines the neighborhood in which the school is located has a substandard quality of life, many families' income below the poverty level, and a high incidence of violent crime; or, 5.2.6.3. Other additional criteria, as determined by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, whereby the school is determined to be an educationally and economically deprived area (to meet a compelling need of the community or national interest).”194

What remains troublingly furtive is the ‘compelling need’ and ‘national interest’ referenced in

the context of the memo.

During this time period several peace-oriented and anti-militarist groups, including the

American Friends Service Committee, elucidated inconsistencies relative to the perceived

program; alleging that it was militarizing our high schools. In a condemnatory report titled

Making Soldiers in the Public Schools: An Analysis of the JROTC Curriculum by Catherine

Lutz and Leslie Barrett, they accentuated that the program was, in fact, militarizing the public

schools. Lutz and Barrett identified several components including recruitment, curriculum-

propaganda, and placement. The notion of recruitment, confirmed that available and qualified

enlistment candidates had significantly declined (from a mid-1980 high of 1.8 million to a 1994 low of 1.1 million), that the curriculum was slanted towards encouraging service in the military, and that minorities were targets of the enlistment process. This is strikingly similar to the 1927

tract Militarizing our Youth: The Significance of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in our

Schools and Colleges, which highlighted many of the same topics, Barrett and Lutz presented

their case in a comparable format, using a combination of hard data and circumstantial evidence.

Unfortunately, the reader is left with only a partial understanding or view of the program and of

the anti-ROTC movement.195

194 Department of Defense, Instruction Memorandum, (Number 1205.13, December 26, 1995).

195 Catherine Lutz and Leslie Barrett, Making Soldiers in the Public Schools: An Analysis of the JROTC Curriculum, (Philadelphia, PA: American Friends Service Committee, 1995), pp. 1-37; and, Roswell P. Barnes, Op. Cit., ad passim.

184 Conversely, the military rejected allegations of ‘targeting’ young people. They cited their benevolent attitude toward helping ‘at-risk’ children who had little to look forward to upon high school graduation. In 1995, America’s Defense Monitor conducted an interview between several peace activists and military leaders. The purpose of the interview was to dispel the allegations outlined in Barrett and Lutz’s report. The exchange began with the narrator lamenting America’s failed public educational system, noting that “the U.S. lags in science and math scores and is rated next to the bottom in educating students to compete in the global economy.”196 The

interview continued with dialogue between Consortium on Peace Research, Education and

Development (COPRED) director Barbara Wein, Harold Jordan from the American Friends

Service Committee and various military and government personnel. The military staff was

insistent that Junior ROTC was far from a recruiting mechanism. Instead it was inculcating

values of citizenship and responsibility. Tom Wilson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Personnel Management and Equal Opportunity, seconded the point, emphasizing that

the interest in military careers as ‘a way out’ of poverty was no longer present like it once was

when local recruiting offices were centered in blighted communities, a result of recent budgetary

cutbacks. Junior ROTC provided a source of information no longer available to high school

students:

“Let me tell you another reason why I think we’re there (in the schools). Many of the young people used to come into the Army, use the Army as a stepping up process to better themselves and to gain a skill and move on. Many of those people – young kids who are in the inner city don’t have that opportunity anymore because recruiting stations have been closed.”197

196 America’s Defense Monitor, “The Military in America’s High Schools,” (Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 1995), p. 3.

197 Ibid., p. 5.

185 Later in the interview, the issue of curriculum – weapons training in particular – was addressed by Admiral Eugene Carroll. He noted that the curriculum needed updating, and that weapons training would be re-visited. The weapons training while not eliminated, was made optional, though the use of M-16s was banned.198 Secretary Wilson also conceded that more rigorous studies would need to be conducted as related to geographic distribution and student diversity. Such plans would result in later efforts by Army Cadet Command to re-distribute its unit placement and diversify even further its student body. 199

Over the past eight years, it has further developed its curriculum in response to the criticisms. It also significantly revamped much of its image, engaging in significant advertising campaigns, news releases and an updated website, reassuring visitors and educational consumers that the program was implemented as a mechanism to instill in students citizenship and self-esteem ultimately with the objective to “motivate and develop young people.”

The revised curriculum centered on leadership training and education. Army Cadet

Command seemed cognizant of past criticism that the program potentially indoctrinated and drilled students with military ideology. Four manuals, one for each level or grade (nine through twelve) were designed with specific content focused on leadership development, military history and procedure, and citizenship. Junior ROTC’s class curriculum outline demonstrates several

198 Memorandum from Major General Stewart W. Wallace, Fort Monroe Virginia, to U.S. Army Commanding, to Commanders, U.S. Army First, Second, and Fourth Regions, April 3rd, 1998.

199 “JROTC units will reflect a cross section of the school’s population. Administrators and Counselors must work closely with JROTC instructors to ensure the students enrolled represent a cross section of the school enrollment in order to maintain the balance required for an effective program (e.g. under no circumstances will there be more special education or special needs students or students with disciplinary problems in the JROTC program than exists in the overall school population).” United States Army Cadet Command, Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, Operation, Training and Support JROTC Establishment Booklet, Draft CCR 145-2, (Fort Monroe, VA: Department of the Army Headquarters, United States Army, April 2003), p. 11.

186 points. First, the program exposes young people to a great deal of American military ideology.

The history and civics component seem more contrived than truly substantive, considering that in many school systems and states, civics, history and government are required to graduate (see

Appendix A, Table 2). In an age where economy reigns, one wonders why there is such extensive duplication. The question remains – what benefits are they receiving from this type of curriculum? Similar to the early curriculum development initiatives, the texts are heavily slanted towards military history, military drilling, and emphases on defense and tactics. Second, the emphasis on citizenship hearkens back to the 1920 curriculum, focusing a great deal on service, obligations, and reinforcement of the Constitution’s emphasis on ‘common defense.’ Third and most provocatively, in the first three years and most notably in the third year, the curriculum

places strong emphasis on ‘career opportunities.’ There is usually an either-or decision presented

to cadets in the form of ‘civilian or military’ employment. Perhaps the most striking unit on

careers is the junior year emphasis on signing-up for selective service, development of manners,

and portfolio development, followed directly by a description of each of the armed services in

chapter twelve. Certainly, if recruitment is not the aim, one must ponder the question – what is?

Does Army Cadet Command use Junior ROTC as a recruiting mechanism? The question

seems redundant when looking back historically, but the insistence by many in the Junior ROTC

leadership that the program does not aim to do so, is insincere at best especially in light of a

Memorandum of Understanding released three years ago. This document solidified the

relationship between United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) and Army Cadet

Command, permitting recruiters to play an active role in working with the area high schools in

making their pitch about the army. The substance of this memorandum is so surprising, that

187 extended parts are included verbatim to illustrate the point that indeed, Junior ROTC is - or at least is presently - a mechanism for recruitment.

“Cadet Command brigade Recruiting Officers coordinate the high school marketing and visitation plan with USAREC battalions. The Cadet Command high school marketing and visitation plan brigade point of contact will ensure that USAREC battalions are provided a copy of the brigade’s plan which lists all high schools and responsible Cadet Command element. Whenever possible, combined, coordinated efforts for marketing the Army will be exercised. The U.S. Army Recruiting Command battalions will ensure that each USAREC company, recruiting station, and recruiter knows the Cadet Command element responsible for each of their assigned high schools. USAREC brigades will invite representatives from appropriate Cadet Command regions/brigades to brigade-level USAR Recruiting Partnership Council (RPC) meetings. Cadet Command elements responsible for high schools will know the responsible USAREC company (sic), recruiting station, and recruiter visiting their high schools. Brigade Recruiting Officer/PMS will assist USAREC recruiters in gaining access to any high school that USAREC has a problem entering (my emphasis). Recruiting companies and Cadet Command battalions will: Refer leads and prospects to each other as appropriate. Cadet Command cadre will refer prospects (off-campus visits, drop outs, stop outs) through QUEST using Cadet Command Form 155-R or by calling 1-800-USA-ROTC, extension 727. Additionally, prospects will be referred to the on campus, college or local station recruiter via a phone call or personal contact. The U.S. Army Recruiting Command’s recruiters will provide information on the Army ROTC program to interested students and will transfer qualified leads to Cadet Command. Note: getting additional information for the prospect is not considered a referral, and a referral to ROTC does not automatically give a prospect a scholarship application. For students who request information on ROTC or request a scholarship application, USAREC recruiters should provide the 1-800-USA-ROTC telephone number to Cadet Command’s QUEST fulfillment center. They may call the number personally with the student if time permits. Recruiters must also provide the student with the telephone number and address of the ROTC battalion at the prospect’s college of choice or nearest ROTC battalion.”200

Colonel Carlos Glover, current head of the Junior ROTC, reiterated the point in a PowerPoint®

presentation to his staff, further negating arguments put forward that the Junior ROTC program

is not a recruiting device:

200 Memorandum, Memorandum of Understanding, Between U.S. Army Recruiting Command and U.S. Army Cadet Command Department of the Army headquarters, United States Army Cadet Command Fort Monroe, signed March 3rd and March 18th, 2000 by Major General Evan R. Gaddis, (USAREC) and Major General Stewart W. Wallace, (Army Cadet Command), respectively. I am in possession of this document.

188 “US Army Cadet Command will recruit quality prospects, develop confident leaders, retain them to commission, and sustain the force in support of the Army active and reserve officer accessions mission and in support of the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Mission.”201

Later in the presentation, he states the program is not to recruit young people for the armed services, but the previous quote and the memorandum of understanding demonstrate the obvious duplicity of his statement.

One final question remains unanswered in the quest to determine if Junior ROTC has maintained its historical mandate of recruitment. Does the program economically conscript disadvantaged youth – namely working class white children and racial and ethnic minorities? Dr.

Marvin Berlowitz, in an article titled Racism and Conscription in the JROTC, alleges that it does.

By pursuing “at-risk” high school youth, the military preys upon young men and women pushed by deleterious economic situations and pulled by the potential benefits of military service.

Several pieces of data illustrate his point quite effectively, including unit placement and general school district population characteristics via Army Cadet Command information releases and

Decennial Census Data; and, current military statistics on the composition of the armed forces.202

Between 1999 and 2002, cadet enrollment increased by 38,275. In the ten year period prior (including the military draw-downs), enrollments surged over 101,000. In the current school year, 2002-2003, over 1,500 units were in operation with 272,746 enrolled cadets. The

201 Colonel Carlos Glover, JROTC Current Overview and Recent Initiatives, (n.p. PowerPoint Presentation, circa January 2001). 202 Marvin Berlowitz, “Racism and Conscription in the JROTC,” Peace Review, 12 (September, 2000), pp. 393-399.

189 concentration of units in large, urban populations is underscored by similar phenomenon seen in

the two other data sets for 1923 and 1953. Raw numbers and comparisons with median income

and poverty levels within each school district, indicate that the focus of Junior ROTC in areas

where the ‘urban underclass’ exist may be significant. While there is a need for in-depth and

more accurate statistical analysis, a quick overview of the numbers exemplifies the point that this

sample of unit placements and populations is representative of the larger distribution. The data

suggest that indeed, Junior ROTC pursues students in lower socio-economic positions.

Furthermore, the trend toward technical schools or vocational-educational schools and smaller

rural areas acquiring units is increasing and suggests consistent growth in these sectors paralleling the 1923 and 1953 data sets (see Appendix B, Table 5).

In addition to social class, the numbers appear to support the hypothesis that Junior

ROTC targets racial and ethnic minorities. In 2001, the total minority enrollment reached nearly

62%. The present school year, while incomplete in its tabulations, finds a similar trend. In the

Second Region, 42% of enrolled cadets are African Americans, 5% Hispanic, and 27% white. In the Fourth Region, which includes many West Coast school districts, 5% of enrolled cadets are

African American. However, 29% are Hispanic, 22% Native Alaskan, and 18% white.203

The piece that ties these data together is enlistment decisions following high school.

Approximately 40% of all Junior ROTC cadets enlist in the military upon high school

graduation. Further research drawing these demographics with those of social class would most

likely confirm the notion of economic and racial-ethnic conscription.

203 Enrollment Data, First, Second, and Fourth Regions, (Fort Monroe, VA: Army Cadet Command, 2003), ad passim. First Region data was not computed, and hence not included in the data sets provided by Army Cadet Command. The author has copies of the data sets in his possession. These items are public information and can be obtained through Army Cadet Command, Junior ROTC division.

190 lifting of caps on Junior ROTC unit establishment and the most recent national education

legislation, No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, Section 9528. The program’s

unmitigated success evidenced by rising enrollments and demand, culminated most recently in

the lifting of unit establishment caps in 2001. The legislation is reflected in the revised U.S.

Code.204 Public Law 107-110, Section 9528, which requires school districts to accommodate

military recruiters, providing them with the names, phone numbers, and addresses of all students within a district. The impact of this ‘edict’, in tandem with Junior ROTC’s alignment with

United States Army Recruiting Command is significant, because Junior ROTC now potentially serves as a conduit for recruiters outside the school in cooperation with retired military personnel instructors.

IV. Final Analysis, Implications for Further Research and Conclusion

Section Three presents a sizeable amount of data relevant to Junior ROTC’s significant proliferation in the past decade. Obviously, the present-day implications are to be determined.

What is important to point out, is that regardless of the claims made by Army Cadet Command and Junior ROTC advocates, the program is and always has been about recruitment for the armed services. Though it may appear obvious, the insistence on the part of military personnel that the program is designed to ‘motivate and develop young people” is doubtful at best. The data portray a different picture.

Preparedness ideology is perpetuated by Junior ROTC’s increased presence and focus on training and drilling students in basic military functions, keeping them ever-mindful of their

204 United States Code, Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, (10, Sec. 2031).

191 obligation. Federalization and centralization of Junior ROTC operations and management has

been critical to its continued success. Couching the program in compassionate verbiage and

community service programs serves only to mask the fact the program is essential to providing a

literal ready reserve army of labor that can serve at the whim of defense department planners and

military operatives. The “push-pull phenomenon” assists the military achieve adequate enlistment targets by allowing easy access to young people who live in large pockets of poverty and typically have little hope for a future that includes the educational and economical benefits enjoyed by those in the upper-classes.

What has been lacking, however, in analyses presented by peace activists and organizations, is grounding in historical trends, and recognition that the race-class dialectic is more than a mentionable item located in a bar graph. Certainly, the assumptions based on current data can aid in making a salient argument. Unfortunately, merely acknowledging that Junior

ROTC was formed in 1916 misses a very relevant analysis rooted in preparedness ideology, and dialectically related to imperialist-expansion mentality. Junior ROTC was designed to effectively recruit working class young men into service, or at the very least, embed in them the idea that national service should be fundamental to their lives. Unit placement in large urban areas, working class neighborhoods, and serving ‘at-risk’ populations is nothing new. Furthermore, the vast numbers generated by targeting working class and racial and ethnic minorities throughout its history, has made Junior ROTC an invaluable program as demonstrated in its consistent numbers and most recent exponential growth.

Along these same lines, their analysis stops at criticizing a program that for all intents and purposes is popular because it seems to be effective in reaching large numbers of disaffected youth. Alternatives to the program and analysis of structural implications rarely are mentioned,

192 with the exception of Berlowitz’s construct of structural violence. Demilitarization of our

schools becomes a pat phrase that embodies a great deal of liberal rhetoric without much substance. In other words, summarily dismissing the program without offering tangible, practical options must be addressed. Concomitantly, a sincere examination of the structural barriers affecting school districts which may result in the implementation of Junior ROTC programs must occur. Otherwise, they become a band-aid approach, avoiding the vast inequity in school funding, the condition of school buildings, the outmoded textbooks, and a largely impoverished, disaffected student populace. Structural school (and societal) reforms, rooted in consistent analysis, must be enacted if there is to be a true movement to make schools places of learning and growth, and not dungeons of despair or a purgatory in which students are herded and left without much hope for release. No approach – whether it is Junior ROTC or increased extra-

curricular activities will make a viable impact without recognition of the structural implications

our youth deal with on a daily basis.

Likewise, the military establishment must rise to a higher-level of honesty. The evidence

presented throughout this dissertation, reiterates the program’s recruitment objectives. If the

Junior ROTC wants to function in good faith, it must be straightforward about its motivations,

rather than continuing its fallacious assertion the program does not aim to recruit students. In

honestly working with the public, the military allows school districts to make informed, accurate

decisions based on truth. The ultimate question remains – will the military engage in honest,

forthright discussion? Nearly ninety years ago, the program unapologetically placed itself in

schools with intentions that were seemingly obvious to students, school administrators, and

parents. Today, it purports to aid those students who are said to be lacking discipline, motivation,

and hope. The program may, in fact, be able to do both, but it should do so candidly.

193 Lastly, school districts are guilty of implementing a program they appear to know little about. Minimally, the idea of obtaining an instructor at half the cost of a traditionally-trained teacher is attractive. Likewise, the program appeals to those in the school district who desire a

“character-education” program that instills values such as citizenship, leadership, and service.

However, the benefit to the school remains suspect. If Junior ROTC claims to reach ‘at-risk’ youth, why are restrictions placed on students with grade point averages lower than a ‘C’, with physical disabilities, or with disciplinary challenges? The very intent of the program comes into question when one recognizes that recruiting needs for the military outweigh the ‘benevolent’ intentions. Data presented earlier points to the military’s need for students with reasonably moderate academic achievement and the ability to assimilate quickly into enlisted life which clearly precludes students with disabilities and disciplinary problems from enrolling in the program. The onus is also on school districts to thoroughly investigate Junior ROTC as a workable program within the contexts of their needs and concerns. The very notion that the program is financially beneficial, must be discussed in light of the reality most schools often end up allocating more than they initially budgeted. Again, school districts must recognize Junior

ROTC’s historical mandate and understand how that mandate could impact the students, teachers, and parents of the district.

This dissertation has emphasized the historical strains that preparedness ideology and the dialectical relationship that economic imperialism-expansionism mentality have played in Junior

ROTC’s inception and growth. It is important to recognize the program’s historical prerequisites or antecedents in relation to its mission as a mechanism for recruiting high school students. The implications of this research for future scholarship are plentiful. Extended historical investigation is still needed in the early period. For example, the impetus of the program seems to have been

194 derived from Brigadier General Lytle Brown’s detailed memorandum outlining the proposed

creation of a United States Junior Reserve, located in public secondary schools. Additional

corroborating evidence would no doubt greatly add to this research. Similarly, Junior ROTC’s

consistent enrollment throughout the interwar period, points to a strong connection with the

military and the Great Depression and the public’s view as to the program’s merit. The period

1945 to 1975 also needs more investigation particularly with regard to Cold War era politics,

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s supposed resistance to the program and its subsequent

survival in light of his desire to eradicate it. The relationship between technical-trade or

vocational-education schools and Junior ROTC’s proliferation within those schools needs to be

investigated. There is a significant opportunity in this specific area to analyze the intersections

between race, class, and gender. I also referred to the growing rural and southern enrollment

figures and unit placements. The connection between southern militarism, the state and private

academy systems would prove beneficial for both military and educational historians.

Detailed statistical analysis relative to race, ethnicity and social class is an area that needs explored and as of this writing no quantitative studies pertinent to enrollment and demographic characteristics have been conducted. Numerous and irrelevant studies have been performed comparing Junior ROTC populations with other social groups. These surveys only reinforce the lacking comprehension regarding the structural aspects of American education and Junior

ROTC’s connection to the public schools. I am aware of the descriptive statistical data’s shortcomings as presented here. As such, I would encourage quantitative specialists to embark on a research agenda incorporating Junior ROTC as it would be advantageous to both the

government and private sectors. Scores of raw school district data, Defense Department

statistics, and Army Cadet Command datasets would most assuredly prove lucrative. Mixed

195 methodology would no doubt strengthen any compiled statistical data. Generally speaking, more viable evaluation studies of Junior ROTC are needed to adequately assess the claims that the program is indeed beneficial or slanted toward positive outcomes.

In conclusion, should Junior ROTC be a part of our schools? The question is best answered by asking what we desire as a nation for our youth. Recent estimates point to the fact

94% of our enlisted young men and women have only a high school diploma. Acknowledging economic conscription’s presence exposes the structural barriers and structural violence embedded into our schools. Quick-fixes, be they Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, character-education or

Junior ROTC prove inadequate when dealing with children in abject poverty, schools in disrepair, underpaid and overworked teachers, and vast inequities in school funding. The harsh realities that plague our children and the inequities they face daily, suggest our agenda must be greater than simply prescribing military training as a mechanism to improve self-discipline. Our teacher training schools and in general our universities, must re-situate themselves back into the communities in which they are supposed to serve. No number of federal dollars designated for after-school programs or improving standardized testing scores will address the poor conditions of the schools or the educational attainment of our youth. Bridge programs, consistent and vigilant efforts at reaching children from kindergarten onward, viable social programs and addressing the structural violence in our society are vital to making an indelible mark on young minds as to the essential and liberating potential of education. Public school military training with all of its alleged financial, social, and behavioral incentives is no substitute for the monetary and psychosocial investment we must make for our youth. Furthermore, such training results in the institutionalization of conflict resolution through violent means. Character education that teaches conflict management and prevention, and school districts that focus concentration on

196 implementing comprehensive educational establishments that tap into a labor pool of working

class kids, are suggestions in addition to the aforementioned bridge programs, which recognize

the often untapped and disregarded potential of disadvantaged young people. To ‘invest’ accordingly, then, requires major structural changes and repudiation of the ‘band-aid’ or quick- fix approaches. By embracing the greatest goals of American citizenship and education, America

must first redefine what those goals will be for the next generation and commit to the structural

changes within our school. A renewed and sincere commitment to these ideals will do more to

ensure no child is left behind and that America fulfills what it considers to be its founding principles.

197 Works Cited

Primary Sources and Government Printed Documents

Cornell Alumni Times. “Voluntary Drill Petition Put in Farrand’s Hands.” Ithaca, NY, 18 January 1926.

Internal Memorandum to Adjutant General Robert Whitfield, November 22, 1923. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Adjutant General Major General Robert C. Davies, Washington, DC, to E. Tallmadge Root, Boston Massachusetts, February 17, 1926. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Adjutant General W.T. Johnson, Washington, D.C., to Principal J.E. Lemon, Blue Island, Illinois, November 3rd, 1916. File 2477557. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from E. Tallmadge Root (Massachusetts Federation of Churches), Boston, Massachusetts, to Major General Robert C. Davis, March 3, 1926. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from E. Tallmadge Root (Massachusetts Federation of Churches), Boston, Massachusetts, to Department of War, January 21, 1926. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Eugene Nifenecker, New York City Board of Education, to Major General J.T. Conrad, New York, NY, October 31, 1923. File 008.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from L.D. Coffmann (President, Association of State Universities), n.p., to Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis, December 14, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Major General Adjutant General Robert C. Davies, Washington, DC, to E. Tallmadge Root, Boston Massachusetts, January 20, 1926. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Principal George C. Thompson, Alameda, CA, to Adjutant General Henry P. McCaid, Washington, D.C. March 23rd, 1917. File 2480207. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Superintendent C.S. Roller (Augusta Military Academy), Fort Defiance, Virginia, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., July 12, 1916. File and 2431807. RG 407. National Archives.

198 Letter from Superintendent Colonel L.R. Gignilliat (Culver Military Academy), Culver, IN, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., October 10, 1916. File 2475851. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from Superintendent O.R. Anderson, Gainesville, TX, to The Adjutant General’s Office, Washington, D.C., October 9th, 1916. File 2480207. RG 407. National Archives.

Letter from the Headmaster (The Harvard School Military Academy), Los Angeles, CA, to The Commanding General Western Department, March 1, 1917. File 2553686. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum Captain B.B. McMahon, Green Castle, Indiana, to Commanding General Fifth Corps Area, General D.E. Nolan, December 16, 1928. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Acting Chief of Staff R.H. Williams, to All Military Schools, November 23, 1921. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Acting Chief of Staff Tasher Bliss, to The Adjutant General of the Army, August 7, 1917. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Adjutant General Archibald Campbell, Commander First Corps Area, to Adjutant General of the Army, Washington, D.C., November 2, 1923. File 008.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Adjutant General Charles C. Smith, Adjutant General Sixth Corps Area, Chicago, Illinois, to the Adjutant General of the Army, November 10, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Adjutant General H.H. Tabutts, to Publication Division of the War Department, July 24, 1922. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Adjutant General J.T. Conrad, Commanding General Second Corps Area, to Adjutant General of the Army, November 8, 1923. File 008.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Adjutant General R.S. Kimball, to Publication Division of the War Department, November 23, 1923. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Assistant Adjutant General L.S. Carson, to Fourth Corps Area, Fort McPherson, Georgia, November 2nd, 1921. File 008.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Assistant Chief of Staff H.A. Drum, to the Chief of Staff, November 12, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

199 Memorandum from Assistant Chief of Staff Lytle Brown, to The Adjutant General of the Army, June 12, 1919. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Brigadier General H.A. Drum, to Adjutant General of the Army, November 24, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Brigadier General Lytle Brown, to Chief of Staff, October 8, 1918. File 2474672. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Brigadier William Lassiter, to Adjutant General of the Army, September 30, 1921. File n.r. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from C.J. Ballinger, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 23, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Captain Harry Mitchell (PMS and T), to Commanding General Seventh Corps Area, November 3rd, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Captain Harry Mitchell, to Commanding General Seventh Corps Area, November 3rd, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Colonel William Dashiell (PMS and T), to Commanding General Fourth Corps Area, November 10, 1925. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Commanding General, Third Corps, to Adjutant General of the Army, October 31, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from H.E. Mitchell, Kansas City, Missouri, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 22, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from H.H. Galliett Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 24, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Headquarters, Eighth Corps Area, response from Dallas High Schools, Dallas High Schools, Dallas, Texas, October 22, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Headquarters, Eighth Corps Area, response from El Paso High Schools, El Paso, Texas, October 31, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Headquarters, Los Angeles, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area November 1, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

200 Memorandum from Headquarters, Oakland, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area October 31, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Headquarters, San Francisco, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area, November 5, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from J.T. Menzie, Joplin Missouri, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from J.T. Menzie, Joplin Missouri, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives. Memorandum from Major Bowers Davis, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to General J.L. Hines, Chief of Staff, Washington, DC, January 14, 1926. File 000.8. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Major General J.H. McRae, Commanding Headquarters Fifth Corps Area, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 30, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Major General Stewart W. Wallace, Fort Monroe Virginia, to U.S. Army Commanding, to Commanders, U.S. Army First, Second, and Fourth Regions, April 3rd, 1998. http://www-rotc.monroe.army.mil, accessed November 2001.

Memorandum from Major J.R. Cyson, Lawrence, Kansas, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 22, 1925. RG 419, National Archives.

Memorandum from Major Jesse Gaston, Commanding General Fourth Corps Area, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 26, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Raymond F. Edwards, Leavenworth, Kansas, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum from Robert Barton, St, Joseph High School, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923. File 000.862. Boxes 1538-1545. RG 407. National Archives.

Memorandum of Understanding, Between U.S. Army Recruiting Command and U.S. Army Cadet Command Department of the Army headquarters, United States Army Cadet Command Fort Monroe, signed March 3rd and March 18th, 2000 by Major General Evan R. Gaddis, (USAREC) and Major General Stewart W. Wallace. www.usarec.army.mil/hq/ro/analysis/OCRMOU.doc, accessed March 2003.

201 Memorandum to Adjutant General H.P. McCaid, the Chief of Staff, October, 1916. File 2477557. RG 407. National Archives.

New York Times Magazine. “General Pershing Wants Every Man a Soldier.” New York City, 30 January 1916.

New York Times Magazine. “Would Teach Every American Soldier a Trade.” New York City, 23 January 1916.

New York Times. “Garrison Points to Nation’s Peril,” (New York City), 18 January 1916.

New York Times. “Suggests Defense by Industrial Army.” New York City, 17 January 1916.

The Adjutant General’s Office Officer Recruitment Branch, Enrollment Report, (Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, Junior Division Enrollment, July 24, 1953). File 000.8- 326.6. RG 319, National Archives.

The Adjutant General’s Office, Schools: General Instructions and Suggestions, September 6, 1921. RG 419, National Archives.

The Junior Plattsburg, Inc. The Junior Plattsburg: Long Point, On Lake Champlain. (Brochure publication, n.p., n.d.). File 2628250. RG 407. National Archives. U.S. Army. Army General Orders 49. September 20, 1916.

U.S. Bureau of Education. Military Training of Youths of School Age in Foreign Countries. Bulletin 17, Article 25. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1917.

U.S. Congress. Providing for the Authority of the President to Call out the Militia, 2nd Cong., 1st sess., May 2, 1792. Go to http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm for online version of this Act.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee to Establish the University of the United States. University of the United States. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1902.

U.S. Department of Defense. Instruction Memorandum. Number 1205.13, December 26, 1995. This may be accessed via the internet at www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r145_2.pdf, accessed November 2001

U.S. War Department. Annual Reports, 1918. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919.

U.S. War Department. Annual Reports, 1920. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1921.

U.S. War Department Special Regulations, No. 103. Student Army Training Corps Regulations. Washington Government Printing Office, 1918.

202 United States Army Cadet Command. Colonel Carlos Glover. JROTC Current Overview and Recent Initiatives. PowerPoint Presentation, circa January 2001. http://www.dix.army.mil/jrotc/transfers/SAICONF/2002%20presentations/COL%20Glover%20Jan%2008.ppt, accessed March, 2003.

United States Army Cadet Command. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, Operation, Training and Support JROTC Establishment Booklet, Draft CCR 145-2. Fort Monroe, VA: Department of the Army Headquarters, United States Army, April 2003.

United States Army Cadet Command. Excel Spreadsheet: Historical JROTC Enrollments, 1964-2002. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Cadet Command, 2003.

United States Army Cadet Command. ROTC Manual No. 145-4-3, Leadership, Education, and Training, 4 Vols. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army ROTC Cadet Command, 1997.

United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 78, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 1063-1065.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 12. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1863.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 22. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1883.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 26. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1892.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 39. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 40. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919.

United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 41. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921.

Secondary Sources: Books and Journal Articles

Ambrose, Stephen. Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.

America’s Defense Monitor. The Military in America’s High Schools. Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 1995.

Andrew, Rod. Long Gray Lines: The Southern Military School Tradition, 1839-1915. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Angus, David L., and Jeffrey E. Mirel. The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890- 1995. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999.

Asch, Beth, and Bruce Orvis. Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications: Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations. San Francisco, CA: RAND, 1994.

203 Asch, Beth. Military Support for Youth Development: An Exploratory Analysis. San Francisco: RAND, 1994.

Bacon, Robert, and James Brown Scott, eds. Men and Policies: Addresses by Elihu Root. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.

Barker, Eugene C. “The United States and Mexico, 1835-1837.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,1 (June, 1914): pp. 3-30.

Barnes, Roswell P. Militarizing Our Youth: The Significance of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps in our Schools and Colleges, with an introduction by John Dewey. New York: Committee on Militarism in Education, 1927.

Barr, Alwyn. “The Black Militia of the New South: Texas as a Case Study.” The Journal of Negro History 63 (July, 1978): pp. 209-219.

Bell, Rudolph M. “Mr. Madison's War and Long-Term Congressional Voting Behavior.” The William and Mary Quarterly 36 (July, 1979): pp. 373-395.

Benavot, Aaron. “The Rise and Decline of Vocational Education.” Sociology of Education 56 (April, 1983): pp. 63-76.

Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998.

Berlowitz, Marvin, Eric Jackson, and Nathan Long, eds. Reflections of African American Peace Leaders in the Twentieth Century, 1897-1967. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003.

Berlowitz, Marvin. “Racism and Conscription in the JROTC.” Peace Review 12 (September, 2000): pp. 393-399.

Blackburn, George M. “Radical Republican Motivation: A Case History.” The Journal of Negro History 54 April, 1969: pp. 109-126.

Bond, Horace Mann. “Education in the South.” Journal of Educational Sociology 12 (January, 1939): pp. 264-274.

Bond, Horace Mann. The Education of the Negro in the American Social Order. New York, Octagon Books, 1966.

Boucher, Ronald L. “The Colonial Militia As a Social Institution: Salem, Massachusetts 1764- 1775.” Military Affairs 37 (December, 1973): pp. 125-130

Boynton, Edward C. History of West Point. New York: Van Nostrand Publishers, 1863.

Breen, T. H. “An Empire of Goods: The Anglicization of Colonial America, 1690-1776.” The Journal of British Studies 25 (October, 1986): pp. 467-499

204 Breen, T. H. “Baubles of Britain: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century.” Past and Present 119 (May, 1988): pp. 73-104.

Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton: American. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999.

Buckley, Gail. American Patriots. New York, NY: Random House, 2001.

Bulach, Cletus R. “Comparison of Character Traits for JROTC Students versus Non-JROTC Students.” Education 122 (Spring, 2002): pp. 559-563.

Caban, Pedro. Constructing a Colonial People: Puerto Rico and the United States, 1898-1932. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989.

Canfield, Leon H. The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson: Prelude to a World in Crisis. Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1966.

Cantor, Louis. “Elihu Root and the National Guard: Friend or Foe?” Military Affairs 33 (December, 1969): pp. 361-373.

Castel, Albert. “The Founding Fathers and the Vision of a National University.” History of Education Quarterly 4 (December, 1964): pp. 280-302.

Clifford, John. The Citizen Soldiers: The Plattsburg Training Camp movement, 1913 – 1920. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1972.

Colby, Elbridge. “Elihu Root and the National Guard.” Military Affairs 23 (Spring, 1959): pp. 28-34.

Conforti, Joseph A. Imagining New England: Explorations of Regional Identity from the Pilgrims to the Mid-Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Conscientious Objector.Org. http://objector.org/jrotc/jrotcrecruits.htm. Oakland, CA: Internet Publication, 2000.

Cornish, Dudley Taylor. “The Union Army as a School for Negroes.” The Journal of Negro History 37 (October, 1952): pp. 368-382.

Coumbe, Arthur, and Lee Harford. U.S. Army Cadet Command: The 10 Year History. Fort Monroe, Virginia: USACC, 1996.

Creel, George. “Propaganda and Morale.” American Journal of Sociology 47 (November, 1941): pp. 340-351.

Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1961.

Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 1969, 1961.

205 Cremin, Lawrence. The American Common School: An Historic Conception. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951.

Cress, Lawrence Delbert. “Radical Whiggery on the Role of the Military: Ideological Roots of the American Revolutionary Militia.” Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (March, 1979): pp. 45- 46.

Cross, Coy. Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the Land-Grant Colleges. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1999.

Daniels, G. W. “American Cotton Trade with Liverpool under the Embargo and Non- Intercourse Acts.” The American Historical Review 21 (January, 1916): pp. 276-287.

Dauncey, Campbell. The Philippines: An Account of Their People, Progress, and Condition. Boston, MA: J. B. Millet, 1910.

Davis, John W. “The Negro in the United States Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.” The Journal of Negro Education 12 (Summer, 1943): pp. 345-349.

De Benedetti, Charles. “Peace History, in the American Manner.” The History Teacher 18 (November, 1984): pp. 75-110. de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. New York: The Century Company, 1898.

Decamp, Graydon. The Annapolis Story: The Blue and Gold. New York: Arco Publishing Company, 1974.

Drake, Frederick D. and Lynn R. Nelson. States' Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

DuBois, W.E.B. Black Reconstruction in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

DuBois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.

Edward Leach, Douglas.“The Military System of Plymouth Colony.” The New England Quarterly 24 (September, 1951): pp. 342-364.

Eells, Walter Crosby, and Ernest V. Hollis. “Origin and Development of the Public College in the United States.” The Journal of Negro Education 31 (Summer, 1962): pp. 221-229.

Egan, Clifford L. “The Origins of the War of 1812: Three Decades of Historical Writing.” Military Affairs 38 (April, 1974): pp. 72-75.

Ekirch, Arthur A., Jr. “The Idea of a Citizen Army.” Military Affairs 17 (Spring, 1953): pp 30- 36

Ellis, O.O., and E.B. Garey, The Plattsburgh Manual: A Handbook of Federal Training Camps. New York, The Century Company, 1917.

206 Encarta® 2002 Encyclopedia, (Microsoft Corporation, 2002).

Etherington, Norman. “Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism.” History and Theory 21 (February, 1982): pp. 1-36.

Field, James A., Jr. “American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book.” The American Historical Review 83 (June, 1978): pp. 644-668.

Fitzpatrick, John C., ed. The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 23. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944.

Flipper, Henry Ossian. The Colored Cadet at West Point: Autobiography of Lieutenant Henry Ossian Flipper. Academic Affairs Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999, 1878). Electronic resource file, http://docsouth.unc.edu/flipper/menu.html.

Florer, John H. “Major Issues in the Congressional Debate of the Morrill Act of 1862.” History of Education Quarterly 8 (Winter, 1968): pp. 459-478.

Foner, Eric and John Garraty, eds. The Reader’s Companion to American History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.

Forman, Sidney.“Why the United States Military Academy was Established in 1802.” Military Affairs 29 (Spring, 1965): pp. 16-28

Franklin, John Hope. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, 5th ed. New York: Knopf Publishing, 1980.

Franklin, John Hope. The Militant South. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1956.

Frieden, Jeffry A. “The Economics of Intervention: American Overseas Investments and Relations with Underdeveloped Areas, 1890-1950 in The United States in the International Economy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 31 (January, 1989): pp. 55-80.

Friedman, Gerald. “Strike Success and Union Ideology: The United States and France, 1880- 1914.” The Journal of Economic History 48 (March, 1988): pp. 1-25.

Gignilliat, L.R. Arms and the Boy. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1916.

Goodman, Warren H. “The Origins of the War of 1812: A Survey of Changing Interpretations.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 28 (September, 1941): pp. 171-186.

Gould, Lewis L. America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1914. New York: Longman Press, 2001.

Govan, Thomas P. “John M. Berrien and the Administration of Andrew Jackson.” The Journal of Southern History 5 (November, 1939): pp. 447-467.

207 Graebner, Norman A. “James K. Polk: A Study in Federal Patronage.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 38 (March, 1952): pp. 613-632.

Greenberg, Kenneth S. ed. The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Hachtel, John, et al. Reserve Officers Training Corps and Citizens Military Training Camps, Brochure. n.p. July, 1925.

Hagedorn, Hermann. Leonard Wood: A Biography, Vol. 2. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931.

Hansen, Susan D. “The Racial History of the U.S. Military Academies.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 26 (Winter, 1999): pp.111-116.

Harrington, Fred H. “The Anti-Imperialist Movement in the United States, 1898-1900.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 22 (September, 1935): pp. 211-230.

Heckscher, August. Woodrow Wilson. New York: Scribner and Sons, 1991.

Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. The War of 1812. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Herbst, Jurgen. “High School and Youth in America.” Journal of Contemporary History, 2 (July, 1967): pp. 165-18.

Herring, George C., Jr.“James Hay and the Preparedness Controversy, 1915-1916.” The Journal of Southern History 30 (November, 1964): pp. 383-404.

Hickey, Donald R. “Federalist Defense Policy in the Age of Jefferson, 1801-1812.” Military Affairs 45 (April, 1981): pp.63-70.

Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Higginbotham, Don. “The Early American Way of War: Reconnaissance and Appraisal,” The William and Mary Quarterly 44 (April,1987): pp. 237-238.

Higginbotham, R. Don. “The Martial Spirit in the Antebellum South: Some Further Speculations in a National Context.” The Journal of Southern History 58 (February, 1992): pp.3-26.

Hill, Howard C. “The Americanization Movement.” American Journal of Sociology 24 (May, 1919): pp. 609-642.

Hill, Jim Dan. The Minute Man in Peace and War: A History of the National Guard. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Company, 1964.

Hirsch, Adam J. “The Collision of Military Cultures in Seventeenth-Century New England.” The Journal of American History 74 (March, 1988): pp. 1187-1212.

208

Hoff, David J. “JROTC to Roll Out Standards-Based Curriculum.” Education Week 21 (April, 2002): p. 12.

Hoge, James F., and Fareed Zakaria, eds. The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Holden, Robert H. and Eric Zolov. Latin America and the United States: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Howe, Daniel W. “The Political Psychology of The Federalist.” The William and Mary Quarterly 44 (July, 1987): pp. 485-509

Hoyt, John Wesley. Memorial in Regard to a National University. (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1892.

Hufford, Larry. “The U. S. in Central America: The Obfuscation of History.” Journal of Peace Research 22 (June, 1985): pp. 93-100.

Hughes, William Hardin, and Frederick D. Patterson. Robert Russa Moton of Hampton and Tuskegee. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1956.

Irvine, Dallas. “The First British Regulars in North America.” Military Affairs 9 (Winter, 1945): pp. 337-354.

Jessup, Philip. Elihu Root, 2 Vols. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1938.

Johnson, Allen S. “The Passage of the Sugar Act.” The William and Mary Quarterly 16 (October, 1959): pp. 507-514.

Johnson, Eldon L. “Misconceptions about the Early Land-Grant Colleges.” The Journal of Higher Education 52 (July, 1981): pp. 333-351.

Johnson, Johnny. “The Effects of High School Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Programs.” Ph. D. diss., University of California Santa Barbara, 1999.

Johnson, Robert Erwin. Guardians of the Sea: History of the United States Coast Guard, 1915 to the Present. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1987.

Johnson, Tony W. and Ronald F. Reed, eds. Historical Documents in American Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2002.

Jones, Evonne Parker. “The Impact of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Recent Overt Black/White Racial Conflict in Higher Education in the United States.” The Journal of Negro Education 60 (Autumn, 1991): pp. 524-537.

Jore, Jeff. “Pershing's Mission in Mexico: Logistics and Preparation for the War in Europe.” Military Affairs 52 (July, 1988): pp.117-121.

209 Katz, Friedrich. “Pancho Villa and the Attack on Columbus, New Mexico.” The American Historical Review 83 (February, 1978): pp. 101-130.

Keener, Craig S. “An Ethnohistorical Analysis of Iroquois Assault Tactics Used against Fortified Settlements of the Northeast in the Seventeenth Century.” Ethnohistory 46 (Autumn, 1999): pp. 777-807.

Kenner, Charles L. Buffalo Soldiers and Officers of the Ninth Cavalry, 1867-1898. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995, 1969.

Kessler, Sanford. “Tocqueville's Puritans: Christianity and the American Founding.” The Journal of Politics 54 (August, 1992): pp. 776-792.

Kilburn, Rebecca, and Jacob Klerman, Enlistment Decisions in the 1990s: Evidence from Individual-level Data. San Francisco, CA: RAND, 1999.

Kilson, Marion D.deB. “Towards Freedom: An Analysis of Slave Revolts in the United States.” Phylon 25 (2nd Quarter, 1964): pp. 175-187.

King, Irving H. The Coast Guard expands, 1865-1915: New Roles, New Frontiers. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996.

Kolstad, Rosemarie, John P. Slovar, and Dennis L. Ritter. “Comparing the Democratic Maturity of 50 College Science Majors with 154 High School JROTC Cadets.” College Student Journal 33 (March, 1999): pp.120-123.

Kutle, Stanley I. “Reconstruction and the Supreme Court: The Numbers Game Reconsidered.” The Journal of Southern History 32 (February, 1966): pp. 42-58.

Lentz, Bernard. The Cadence System of Teaching Close Order Drill and Exhibition Drills. Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing Company, 1919.

Leopold, Richard William. Elihu Root and the Conservative Tradition. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, Inc., 1954.

Lerche, Charles O. “Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear.” The William and Mary Quarterly 5 (October, 1948): pp. 467-491.

Levine, Peter. “Draft Evasion in the North during the Civil War, 1863-1865.” The Journal of American History 67 (March, 1981): pp. 816-834.

Link, Arthur. Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, Vol. 5. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Link, Arthur. Wilson: Confusions and Crises, 1915-16, Vol. 4. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Link, Arthur. Wilson: The New Freedom, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956.

210

Link, Arthur. Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914-1915, Vol. 3. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960.

Lofton, John M., Jr. “Denmark Vesey's Call to Arms”, The Journal of Negro History 33 (October, 1948): pp. 395-417.

Logue, Larry M. To Appomattox and Beyond: The Civil War Soldier in War and Peace. Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1996.

Longstreth, Walter C. Regarding Military Training at Universities. Philadelphia, PA: Peace and Service Committee of Philadelphia, 1925.

Lovell, John. Neither Athens nor Sparta. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1979.

Lutz, Catherine and Leslie Barrett. Making Soldiers in the Public Schools: An Analysis of the JROTC Curriculum. Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 1995.

Lyons, Gene M. and John W. Masland. Education and Military Leadership: A Study of the R.O.T.C. (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1959).

MacHir, Daniel. “A Comparative Study Between Navy Junior ROTC Cadets and General Population Students.” Ph.D. diss., Wayne State University, 1991.

Mahon, John K. “Anglo-American Methods of Indian Warfare, 1676-1794.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 45 (September, 1958): pp. 254-275.

Mahon, John. History of the National Guard. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1983.

Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. Vol. 4. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1970.

Man, Albon P., Jr. “Labor Competition and the New York Draft Riots of 1863.” The Journal of Negro History 36 (October, 1951): pp. 375-405.

Martin, James Kirby, et. al. America and its Peoples: A Mosaic in the Making. New York: Longman Press, 2000.

Mathews, John M. “Roosevelt's Latin-American Policy.” The American Political Science Review 29 (October, 1935): pp. 805-820.

McPherson, James M. “White Liberals and Black Power in Negro Education, 1865-1915.” The American Historical Review 75 (June, 1970): pp. 1357-1386.

Miewald, Robert D. “The Army Post Schools: A Report from the Bureaucratic Wars.” Military Affairs 39 (February, 1975): pp. 8-11.

211 Miller, Nathan. Theodore Roosevelt: A Life. New York, NY: William and Morrow, Inc. 1992.

Millett, Allan and Peter Maslowski. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of America. New York: The Free Press, 1994.

Mook, H. Telfer. “Training Day in New England.” The New England Quarterly 11 (December, 1938): pp. 675-697.

Mooney Chase C., and Martha E. Layman. “Some Phases of the Compulsory Military Training Movement, 1914-1920.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 38 (March, 1952): pp. 633- 656.

Moore, Jamie W. “National Security in the American Army's Definition of Mission, 1865- 1914.” Military Affairs 46 (October, 1982).

Morgan, Edmund S. “Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power 1764-1766.” The William and Mary Quarterly 5 (July, 1948): pp. 311-341.

Morgan, Edmund S. and Helen M. Morgan. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Morrison, James L., Jr. “Educating the Civil War Generals: West Point, 1833-1861.” Military Affairs 38 (October, 1974): pp. 108-111.

Nankivell, John H. Buffalo Soldier Regiment: History of the Twenty-fifth United States Infantry, 1869-1926. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 2001.

Neiberg, Michael S. Making Citizen Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Neimanis, George J. “Militia vs. the Standing Army in the History of Economic Thought from Adam Smith to Friedrich Engels.” Military Affairs 44 (February, 1980): pp. 28-32.

Nelson, Paul David.“Citizen Soldiers or Regulars: The Views of American General Officers on the Military Establishment, 1775-1781.” Military Affairs 43 (Oct., 1979): pp.126-132.

Nichols, Jeanette P.“The United States Congress and Imperialism, 1861-1897.” The Journal of Economic History 21 (December, 1961).

Nichols, Jeannette P. “The United States Congress and Imperialism, 1861-1897.” The Journal of Economic History 21 (December, 1961): pp. 526-538.

Niven, John. John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988.

Osgood, Robert L. “Undermining the Common School Ideal: Intermediate Schools and Ungraded Classes in Boston, 1838-1900.” History of Education Quarterly 37 (Winter, 1997): pp. 375-398.

212 Parker, David H. “The Talent at Its Command: The First World War and the Vocational Aspect of Education, 1914-39.” History of Education Quarterly 35 (Autumn, 1995): pp. 237-259.

Perez, Louis. Cuba under the Platt Amendment: 1902-1934. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986.

Peterson, Merrill. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Powell, J. P. “Some Nineteenth-Century Views on the University Curriculum.” History of Education Quarterly 5 (June, 1965): pp. 97-109.

Prucha, Francis Paul. “Distribution of Regular Army Troops Before the Civil War.” Military Affairs, 16, (Winter, 1952), pp. 169-173

Puleston, Captain W.D. Mahan: the Life and Work of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1939.

Radabaugh, Jack S. “The Militia of Colonial Massachusetts.” Military Affairs, 18, (Spring, 1954): pp. 1-18

Randall, Willard Sterne. Alexander Hamilton: A Life. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.

Ranney, John C. “The Bases of American Federalism.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3 (January, 1946): pp. 1-35.

Rassiter, Clinton, ed. The Federalist Papers: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, (New York: Penguin Books, 1961).

Riddleberger, Patrick W. “The Radicals' Abandonment of the Negro During Reconstruction.” The Journal of Negro History 45 (April, 1960): pp. 88-102.

Risjord, Norman K. “1812: Conservatives, War Hawks and the Nation's Honor.” The William and Mary Quarterly 18 (April, 1961): pp. 196-210.

Rockoff, Hugh. “The Origins of the Federal Budget.” The Journal of Economic History 45 (June, 1985): pp. 377-382.

Roosevelt, Theodore. “The Burdens of Policeman in the Caribbean.” Edited by John Charles Chasteen and Joseph S. Tulchin. Problems in Modern Latin American History: A Reader. Wilmington, DE: SR Books, 1994.

Roosevelt, Theodore. “The Rough Riders.” Edited by Richard Goldstein. Mine Eyes Have Seen: A First-person History of the Events that Shaped America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Pocket Diary, 1898: Theodore Roosevelt's Private Account of the War with Spain. Cambridge, MA: Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Harvard College Library-The Houghton Library, Harvard University, 1998.

213 Roosevelt, Theodore. The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920.

Roth, Arthur. “Development of the Army Reserve Forces.” Military Affairs 17 (Spring, 1953): pp. 3-7.

Sadovnik, Alan. Exploring Education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Schmidt, Major Raymond. “JROTC Cadets in Leadership Training Display Significantly Higher Personal Development than Typical Students.” Education 122 (Winter, 2001): pp. 302- 306.

Schubert, Frank N. “Black Soldiers on the White Frontier: Some Factors Influencing Race Relation.” Phylon 32 (4th Quarter, 1971): pp. 410-415.

Schubert, Frank N. On the Trail of the Buffalo Soldier: Biographies of African Americans in the U.S. Army, 1866-1917. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1995. Sears, Joseph. The Career of Leonard Wood. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1919.

Shanks, David Carey. Management of the American Soldier. Fort Armstrong, TH: U.S. Army Printing Plant, 1918.

Shea, William L. “The First American Militia,” Military Affairs 46 (February, 1982): pp. 15-18.

Shy, John W. A New Look at Colonial Militia. Edited by Peter Karsten. The Military in America: From the Colonial Era to the Present. New York: The Free Press, 1986.

Shy, John. “New Look.” William and Mary Quarterly 20 (April, 1963): pp. 175-185.

Skelton, William B. “Samuel P. Huntington and the Roots of the American Military Tradition.” The Journal of Military History 60 (April, 1996): pp. 325-338.

Skelton, William B. “Social Roots of the American Military Profession: The Officer Corps of America's First Peacetime Army, 1784-1789.” The Journal of Military History 54 (October, 1990): pp. 435-452.

Skelton, William B. “The Confederation's Regulars: A Social Profile of Enlisted Service in America's First Standing Army.” The William and Mary Quarterly 46 (October, 1989): pp. 770- 785.

Smith, Willard H. “William Jennings Bryan and Racism.” The Journal of Negro History 54 (April, 1969): pp. 127-149.

Smith, Willard H. “William Jennings Bryan and the Social Gospel.” The Journal of American History 53 (June, 1966): pp. 41-60.

Socknat, Thomas P. Challenge to Mars: Essays on Pacifism from 1918 to 1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

214 Spring, Joel. “Education and Progressivism.” History of Education Quarterly 10 (Spring, 1970): pp. 53-71.

Stagg, J. C. A. “James Madison and the "Malcontents": The Political Origins of the War of 1812.” The William and Mary Quarterly 33 (October, 1976): pp. 557-585.

Stampp, Kenneth M. “The Milligan Case and the Election of 1864 in Indiana.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 31 (June, 1944): pp. 41-58.

Steele, Ian. “Governors or Generals?: A Note on Martial Law and the Revolution of 1689 in English America.” The William and Mary Quarterly 46 (April, 1989): pp. 304-314.

Stiehm, Judith. The U.S. Army War College: Military Education in a Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2002.

Sweetman, Jack. The U.S. Naval Academy : An Illustrated History. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

Tang, Joyce. “Enslaved African Rebellions in Virginia.” Journal of Black Studies 27 (May, 1997): pp. 598-614.

Taylor, William., Jr. JROTC: Contributions to America’s Communities: Final Report of the CSIS Political Military Studies Project on the JROTC, (Washington DC: CSIS, 1996).

Thomas, John L. John C. Calhoun: A Profile. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.

Thompson, Vincent Bakpetu. “Leadership in the African Diaspora in the Americas Prior to 1860.” Journal of Black Studies 24 (September, 1993): pp. 42-76

Turnbull, L. Minerva. “The Southern Educational Revolt.” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine 14 (January, 1934): pp. 60-76.

Waldron, William Henry. Platoon Training, 2 Vols. Washington, DC: United States Infantry Association, 1921.

Ward, Robert D. “The Origin and Activities of the National Security League, 1914-1919.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (June, 1960): pp. 51-65.

Watson, G. E. “The United States and the Peninsular War: 1808-1812.” The Historical Journal 19 (December, 1976): pp. 859-876.

Weigley, Russell F. History of the United States Army. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Weigley, Russell F. The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy. New York: MacMillan Press, 1973.

Whisker, James. The Rise and Decline of the Militia System. London, England: Susquehanna University Press, 1999.

215

Wiebe, Robert H. “The Social Functions of Public Education.” American Quarterly 21 (Summer, 1969): pp.147-164.

Wilkinson, Norman B. “The Forgotten "Founder of West Point.” Military Affairs 24 (Winter, 1960-1961): pp. 177-188.

Willey, Malcolm M., and Stuart A. Rice. “William Jennings Bryan as a Social Force.” Journal of Social Forces 2 (March, 1924): pp. 338-344.

Wood, Gordon S. The American Revolution: A History. New York: Modern Library, 2002.

Wood, Leonard. Civil Report of the Military Governor, 1902. Havana Cuba, 1902.

Wood, Leonard. The Military Government of Cuba. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1903.

Woodson, Carter G. and Charles H. Wesley. The Negro in Our History, 11th ed. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1966.

Zevin, Robert. “An Interpretation of American Imperialism.” The Journal of Economic History 32 (March, 1972): pp. 316-360.

Zevin, Robert. “An Interpretation of American Imperialism: The Tasks of Economic History.” The Journal of Economic History 32 (March, 1972): pp. 316-360.

216 APPENDIX A

Curriculum Outlines for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, 1923 and 2002

TABLE 1 1921 SUGGESTED ROTC JOINT CURRICULUM205

Subjects Explanations Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Year Year Year Year Percentage of available time to be devoted to subjects Infantry Drill Close and extended order to include the 40% 50% 50% 40% schools of the soldier, squad, platoon, and company. Use of bayonet, nomenclature and care of rifle. Ceremonies. Physical Training Calisthenics and mass games 25% 15% 10% 5% Military Courtesy and The relation of courtesy to discipline and 10% 5% 5% 5% Discipline efficiency. Military forms of courtesy. Woodcraft and Message carrying and personal hygiene 15% 10% 0% 0% Signalling (sic) Scouting Patrolling and first aid to the injured 5% 5% 10% 10% Rifle Marksmanship The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth 0% 5% 4% 2% steps in “Rifle Marksmanship”. Gallery Practice Shooting skills and overview 0% 5% 5% 5% Range Firing 0% 0% 0% 4% Map Reading, Minor Tactics to include the platoon by 0% 0% 10% 10% Sketching. sand table, tactical walks and field exercises. Interior Guard Duty 0% 0% 2% 4% Minor Field Knots, splices, trench construction, camp 0% 0% 0% 5% Engineering. sanitation. Auxiliary Infantry 0% 0% 4% 5% Weapons and Equipment Psychology of 0% 0% 0% 5% Leadership Tests, Competitive 5% 5% 0% 0% Drills, Exercises and Examinations

205List of courses and outline taken exactly from The Adjutant General’s Office, Schools: General Instructions and Suggestions, September 6, 1921.

217 TABLE 2 CURRICULUM OUTLINE FOR JROTC, 1997 THROUGH 2002206

LET 1 – First Year LET 2 – Second Year LET 3 – Third Year LET 4 – Fourth Year

Unit 1: Spirit of American Citizenship and Unit 1: Introduction to LET 2 Unit 1: Introduction to LET 3 Unit 1: Introduction to LET 4 Army JROTC 1. LET 2 At a Glance 1. LET 3 At a Glance 1. LET 4 At a Glance Chapter Outline – Army JROTC Building a Bridge Indicating a life accomplishment 1. A Look at Army JROTC and Getting for a Better Tomorrow resulting from your JROTC Involved. experience. 2. Foundation of American Citizenship 3. Construction of Citizenship in JROTC 4.Becoming a Model American Citizen (Introduction to civilian and military career opportunities is placed in this section). 5. Consumer Education and Budgeting Unit 2: Communication and Behavior Unit 2: Techniques of Unit 2: Techniques of Unit 2: Techniques of Chapter Outline – Communication Communication Communication 1. The Importance of Communication Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 2. Getting your Point Across: Oral 1. Getting Your Point Across 1. Interpersonal Communication 1. Getting your Point Across Presentations 2. Principles and Methods of 2. Ready to Read 3. Winning Colors: Excellence is Not an Instruction Accident 4. Brain Power: Recruiting Skills on Both Sides of the Brain 5. Learning Styles: Jump Starting the Learning Process 6. Working out Conflicts Unit 3: Leadership Unit 3: Leadership Unit 3: Leadership Unit 3: Leadership Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Leadership and You 1. What makes a Leader 1. The Way of Leaders 1. Leadership and Mentoring 2. You can be a Leader 2. Leadership Ethics 2. Leadership Development 3. Knowing Yourself 3. Management Skills Program 4. Leading Your Group 3. Human Relations

Unit 4: Cadet Challenge Unit 4: Cadet Challenge Unit 4: Cadet Challenge Unit 4: Cadet Challenge Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Getting Started on Total Fitness 1. Taking the Challenge 1. Taking the Challenge 1. Taking the Challenge 2. Taking the Challenge 2. Nutrition: The Key to Dynamic Living Unit 5: Leadership Lab Unit 5: Leadership Lab Unit 5: Leadership Lab Unit 5: Leadership Lab Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Step by Step 1. Learning How to Lead 1. Battalion Drill and 1. Being a Successful Leader 2. Leading and Following in Drill 2. Company Drill Inspections 2. Being a Successful Leader in 3. Learning How to Drill – Executing Drill 3. Executing Drill 2. The Saber and the Scabbard Drill without Weapons. Unit 6: First Aid Unit 6: First Aid and Hygeine Unit 6: First Aid and Hygeine Unit 6: Drug Abuse Prevention Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Program 1. Split-Second Emergencies 1. Being Prepared for 1. Treating Burns Chapter Outline – 2. The Second Life Saving Step Outdoor Hazards 2. Stress Control 1. Getting Involved 3. First Aid Extras 2. Field Hygiene and 3. Alcohol and other Drugs 4. Substance Abuse Sanitation 3. Alcohol and Tobacco Unit 7: Map Reading Unit 7: Map Reading Unit 7: Map Reading Unit 7: Map Reading Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Don’t Get Lost 1. How to Get There 1. How to Get There 1. Air Navigation 2. Where are You? 2. Orienteering 3. Contours and Landforms

218 LET 1 – First Year LET 2 – Second Year LET 3 – Third Year LET 4 – Fourth Year

Unit 8: Overview of Citizenship through Unit 8: American Military Unit 8: Geography Unit 8: American Government American History History Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Exploring the World 1. The Making of a Constitution 1. Our American Heritage 1. The Nuclear Age 2. Major Principles of the 2. Our Changing America 2. The Korean Conflict Constitution - The Founding 3. America’s Longest War 3. Other Governmental - Formative Years 4. Changing Times: Since Processes - War and Peace Vietnam - The Cold War - Times of Turmoil - America’s Challenge to Change Unit 9: Your American Unit 9: Your American Unit 9: Your American Unit 9: American Military Chapter Outline – Citizenship Citizenship History 1. The Constitution of the United States of Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – America 1. Basic Rights and Freedoms 1. Role of the Military in the 1. The American Revolution 2. Citizenship, Allegiance, and Respect for 2. Dynamics of Freedom U.S. Expansion 2. The Army Helps Build a Constituted Authority. 3. Constitutional Basis for 2. The U.S. Military in World Nation and Values of the U.S. Armed War I 3. The Civil War Services 3. The U.S. Military in World 4. Experiencing History War II Unit 10: Career Opportunities Unit 10: Career Opportunities Unit 10: Your American Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Citizenship 1. Exploring Career 1. The Federal Judicial System Chapter Outline – Opportunities: “Considering a 2. Enforcing the Law 1. Ethics: The Military and You Civilian or Military Career” 2. Serving your Community

Unit 11: Role of the U.S. Unit 11: Career Opportunities Unit 11: Career Opportunities Army Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. A Guide to Manners, 1. Personal and Career Planning: 1. The U.S. Army Today Portfolios, and Selective Service A Commonsense Connection Registration

Unit 12: Technology on the Unit 12: Role of the U.S. Armed Unit 12: Science and Job Forces Technology Awareness Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Technology around You 1. The Nation’s Defense Forces: 1. Environmental Awareness 2. Technology on the Job - The Department of Defense 3. Technology for Fun and - The U.S. Navy the for the Future - The U.S. Marine Corps - The U.S. Air Force - The U.S. Coast Guard Unit 13: Technology Awareness Unit 13: Technology Awareness Chapter Outline – Chapter Outline – 1. Technology and Ethics 1. Technology and Ethics 2. Protecting our Planet 2. Protecting our Planet 206 ROTC Manual No. 145-4-3, Leadership, Education, and Training, 4 vols. (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army ROTC Cadet Command, 1997). The information presented in the above table is taken in whole or in part from the table of contents in each of the four volumes.

219 APPENDIX B

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Enrollment Patterns, 1923, 1953, and 2003

TABLE 1 1923 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS207

Corps City and State Total Number High Total Technical Total Number Area of High School Number of School of Junior Schools Total Trade Total Cadets Enrolled Schools Enrolled 1st Bangor, Maine 3 749 N/A N/A 749 2nd New York City 1 Circa 100 N/A N/A Circa 100 3rd Birmingham, Alabama 4 582 N/A N/A 582 Chattanooga, Tennessee 3 “White” 559 N/A N/A 559 Chattanooga, Tennessee 1 “Colored” 0 N/A N/A 0 3rd Knoxville, Tennessee 3 “White” 550 N/A N/A 550 Knoxville, Tennessee 1“Colored” 0 N/A N/A 0 Macon, GA 1 465 N/A N/A 465 Memphis, Tennessee 3 880 N/A N/A 880 Montgomery, Alabama 1 115 N/A N/A 115 Washington, D.C. 5 “White” 1180 N/A N/A 1180 3rd Washington, D.C. 4 “Colored” 752 N/A N/A 752 Nashville, Tennessee 1 775 N/A N/A 775 4th Atlanta, Georgia 4 564 1 1175 1739 5th Gary, Indiana 2 191 0 N/A 191 Louisville, Kentucky 1 602 0 N/A 602 Indianapolis, Indiana 2 599 1 512 1111 Cleveland, Ohio 8 2164 2 1670 3834 Owensboro, Kentucky 1 112 0 N/A 112 6th Chicago, Illinois 23 3585 4 1786 5371 Detroit, Michigan 9 816 N/A N/A 816 Wisconsin 1 311 N/A N/A 311 Michigan (Minus Detroit) 1 120 N/A N/A 120 Illinois (Minus Chicago) 3 761 N/A N/A 716 7th Omaha, Nebraska 4 “White” 463 N/A N/A 463 Omaha, Nebraska 1 “Colored” 48 N/A N/A 48 Kansas City, Missouri 4 “White” 691 N/A N/A 691 Kansas City, Missouri 1 “Colored” 244 N/A N/A 244 Joplin, Missouri 1 270 N/A N/A 270 Leavenworth, Kansas 1 133 N/A N/A 133 Davenport, Iowa 1 300 N/A N/A 300 Council Bluffs, Iowa 2 435 N/A N/A 435

220 TABLE 1 1923 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS (CONTINUED)

Corps City and State Total Number High Total Technical Total Number Area of High School Number of School of Junior Schools Total Trade Total Cadets Enrolled Schools Enrolled 8th El Paso Texas 2 500 N/A N/A 500 Dallas, Texas 4 “White” 1757 N/A N/A 1757 9th Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Unknown 6927 N/A N/A 6927 Washington Los Angeles, California 8 1437 1 397 1834 Oakland, California 5 1302 1 424 1726 San Francisco, California 5 1160 1 353 1513 TOTAL Units 126 TOTAL 38,471

207 This list appears to be exhaustive of every school under the War Department’s jurisdiction. One key designation, creating a bit of an illusion here, is the awarding of government aid under Section 55(c) of the National Defense Act. Some schools did not have the military training as prerequisites. Nonetheless, I am still including their participation as Junior ROTC program, since the program’s current concept is nearly the same. Section 55(c) is explained previously on page 143. Memorandum from Adjutant General Archibald Campbell, Commander First Corps Area, to Adjutant General of the Army, Washington, D.C., November 2, 1923; Letter from Eugene Nifenecker, New York City Board of Education, to Major General J.T. Conrad, New York, NY, October 31, 1923; Memorandum from Adjutant General J.T. Conrad, Commanding General Second Corps Area, to Adjutant General of the Army, November 8, 1923; Memorandum from Commanding General, Third Corps, to Adjutant General of the Army, October 31, 1923; (Second attached memo for Third Corps Area cover page for schools in Tennessee, Macon, Georgia, and Alabama not present in file, dated November 22, 1923); Memorandum from Major Jesse Gaston, Commanding General Fourth Corps Area, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 26, 1923; Memorandum from Major General J.H. McRae, Commanding Headquarters Fifth Corps Area, to the Adjutant General of the Army, October 30, 1923; Memorandum from Adjutant General Charles C. Smith, Adjutant General Sixth Corps Area, Chicago, Illinois, to the Adjutant General of the Army, November 10, 1923; Memorandum from Robert Barton, St, Joseph High School, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923; Memorandum from H.E. Mitchell, Kansas City, Missouri, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 22, 1923; Memorandum from J.T. Menzie, Joplin Missouri, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923; Memorandum from Raymond F. Edwards, Leavenworth, Kansas, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 25, 1923; Memorandum from C.J. Ballinger, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 23, 1923; Memorandum from H.H. Galliett Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Commanding Officer, Seventh Corps Area, Omaha, Nebraska, October 24, 1923; Memorandum from Headquarters, Eighth Corps Area, response from Dallas High Schools, Dallas High Schools, Dallas, Texas, October 22, 1923; Memorandum from Headquarters, Eighth Corps Area, response from El Paso High Schools, El Paso, Texas, October 31, 1923; Memorandum from Headquarters, San Francisco, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area, November 5, 1923; Memorandum from Headquarters, Oakland, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area October 31, 1923; Memorandum from Headquarters, Los Angeles, California Junior ROTC, to the Commanding General, Ninth Corps Area November 1, 1923

221 TABLE 2 1953 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS208

Army Area City, State Total HS Total Number of Junior Cadets 1st Bangor, ME 1 200 Gloucester, MA 1 435 New Bedford, MA 1 150 New York, NY 1 587 Newport, RI 1 205 2nd Ashland, KY 1 275 Lyndon, KY 1 132 Louisville, KY 1 355 Owensboro, KY 1 250 3rd Birmingham, AL 3 444 Opelika, AL 1 131 Montgomery, AL 1 219 Tampa, FL 3 1914 Augusta, GA 1 576 Athens, GA 1 179 Atlanta, GA 13 2119 Decatur, GA 1 215 Hapeville, GA 3 618 Macon, GA 1 806 Columbus, GA 1 542 Savannah, GA 2 721 Jackson, MS 1 360 Wilmington, NC 1 363 Chattanooga, TN 2 796 Johnson City, TN 1 186 Memphis, TN 7 1689 4th Shreveport, LA 2 789 Guthrie, OK 1 170 Bryan, TX 1 98 Galveston, TX 1 179 San Antonio, TX 1 469 Dallas, TX 8 2494 4th (continued) El Paso, TX 4 992 Fort Worth, TX 6 981 Houston, TX 6 1231 San Antonio, TX 5 1248 5th Canon City, CO 1 117 Denver, CO 5 1137 Pueblo, CO 1 364 Chicago, IL 33 5521 Joliet, IL 1 144

222 TABLE 2 1953 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS (CONTINUED)

Army Area City, State Total HS Total Number of Junior Cadets 5th (continued) Wattoon, IL 1 196 Rockford, IL 2 391 Waukegon, IL 1 524 Gary, IN 4 470 Counsel Bluffs, IA 2 453 Davenport, IA 1 286 Dubuque, IA 1 367 Leavenworth, KS 1 194 Bessemer, MI 1 111 Calumet, MI 1 174 Detroit, MI 15 2267 Grand Rapids, MI 3 352 Ironwood, MI 1 198 St. Paul, MN 1 621 Faribault, MN 1 89 Carthage, MO 1 159 Joplin, MO 1 326 Kansas City, MO 8 1080 St. Joseph, MO 4 422 Independence, MO 1 241 Omaha, NE 4 1321 Beloit, WI 1 140 Prairie Duchien, WI 1 353 Cheyenne, WY 1 307 Casper, WY 1 275 Phoenix, AZ 5 1008 Alameda, CA 1 184 Glendale, CA 2 249 Long Beach, CA 2 367 Los Angeles, CA 13 2004 Oakland, CA 4 766 Pasadena, CA 1 115 Riverside, CA 1 199 St. Ignatius, CA 1 310 Sacramento, CA 2 258 San Diego, CA 5 781 San Francisco, CA 7 1099 Santa Barbara, CA 1 150 Boise, ID 1 459 Reno, NV 1 301 Logan, UT 1 212 Ogden, UT 1 489 Salt Lake City, UT 3 450 Tacoma, WA 1 153 Walla Walla, WA 1 277 Independence, MO 1 241

223 TABLE 2 1953 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS (CONTINUED)

Army Area City, State Total HS Total Number of Junior Cadets 5th (Continued) Omaha, NE 4 1321 Beloit, WI 1 140 Prairie Duchien, WI 1 353 Cheyenne, WY 1 307 Omaha, NE 4 1321 Casper, WY 1 275 6th Phoenix, AZ 5 1008 Alameda, CA 1 184 Glendale, CA 2 249 Long Beach, CA 2 367 Los Angeles, CA 13 2004 Oakland, CA 4 766 Pasadena, CA 1 115 Riverside, CA 1 199 St. Ignatius, CA 1 310 Sacramento, CA 2 258 San Diego, CA 5 781 San Francisco, CA 7 1099

Total Enrollment 301 56,275 208 The Adjutant General’s Office Officer Recruitment Branch, Enrollment Report, (Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, Junior Division Enrollment, July 24, 1953). When military academies are added to the whole number, the total equals 60,526. Chapter five will analyze the data in more detail.

TABLE 3 1923 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS AND TOTAL MALE ATTENDANCE

City Total Males Attending Total Males in JROTC Percent to School Population

Atlanta 4907 1739 35%

Birmingham 2152 582 27%

Chicago 16,726 5,371 32%

Cleveland 11,113 3834 34%

Dallas 2,300 1757 76%

Los Angeles 6463 1834 28%

San Francisco 8,154 1,513 18%

224 TABLE 4 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENT FIGURES, 1992-1999209

Year Units in Operation Total Enrollments

1992-93 856 125,700

1993-94 1142 155,534

1994-95 1242 178,271

1995-96 1357 204,821

1996-97 1362 230,498

1997-98 1368 228,163

1998-99 1370 231,060

209 Excel Spreadsheet, Historical JROTC Enrollments, 1964-2002, (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Cadet Command, 2003).

225 TABLE 5 2002-2003 JUNIOR ROTC ENROLLMENTS210

State-City Total Enrollment of JROTC Units JROTC Enrollment Median Poverty Levels Schools with JROTC Income of of Families School with Children District211 under the age of 18212 Alabama H.S. Voc-Ed H.S. Voc-Ed H.S. Voc-Ed Birmingham 10,023 Unknown 10 Unknown 3,087 Unknown $36,431 30% California Los Angeles 50,504 3,276 15 1 3,454 241 $37,655 28% Oakland 8,594 1,755 5 1 679 119 $48,445 29% San 10,811 Unknown 6 Unknown 1,218 Unknown $47,239 16% Francisco Washington, D.C. D.C. Public 7,974 625 10 1 2,044 97 $36,442 28% Schools Georgia Atlanta 8,620 1,571 7 2 1,947 293 $40,878 35% Illinois Chicago 35,953 17,754 27 10 6,523 2,371 $41,815 25% Indiana Gary 4,398 Unknown 5 Unknown 709 Unknown $40,030 28% Indianapolis 6,405 2,171 4 1 665 330 $40,114 22% Kentucky Louisville 1,622 0 1 0 206 0 $39,756 15% Michigan Detroit 28,671 5,510 20 3 3,908 328 $37,525 28% Missouri Kansas City 6,148 Unknown 7 Unknown 2,019 Unknown $39,895 28% New York NYC 14,052 Unknown 5 Unknown 1,200 Unknown $35,033 28%* Ohio Cleveland 2,586 Unknown 2 Unknown 326 Unknown $38,522 24%** Tennessee Memphis 22,639 Unknown 23 Unknown 3,888 Unknown $36,610 24% Nashville 2,265 1,956 2 Unknown 233 290 $41,166 17% Texas Dallas 33,611 Unknown 19 Unknown 4,322 Unknown $42,736 25% El Paso 11,640 Unknown 8 Unknown 1,035 Unknown $26,318 33% 210 Enrollment Data, First, Second, and Fourth Regions. (Fort Monroe, VA: Army Cadet Command, 2003).Though not included in the above table, the rural enlistments show a definite increase across the board in rural areas and vocational educational institutions. Also, areas where the term “unknown” appear, does not necessarily imply vocational-education institutions are 211 nonexistent within the district. This is an area that could use extended research. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, Estimated Median Household Income by County: Estimates model 1998 income reported in the March 1999 Current Population Survey. Table C98-06, California; Table C98-01, Alabama; Table C98-11, District of Columbia; Table C98-13, Georgia; Table C98-17, Illinois; Table C98-18, Indiana; Table C98-21, Kentucky; Table C98-39, Ohio; Table C98-47, Tennessee; Table C98- 212 48,Texas; Table C98-36, New York; C98-26, Michigan; Table C98-29, Missouri. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 1999 School District, FTP Files and Description, update February 27th, 2003. http://landview.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/school/sd99ftpdoc.html. Data for Cleveland area were averaged together among the four school districts containing Junior ROTC. Data for New York is for all New York City Public Schools, though there are only five spread throughout the main boroughs. Online Census Bureau data for the 2000 Decennial Census.

226