CAPTAIN CHADWICK'S LETTER RELATING TO THE TRAINING OF SEAMEN
See No. 98
Commander H. 0. RITTENHOUSE.—I ask the privilege of contributing a few words in opposition to the conclusions reached by those who favor the continued use of sailing ships.
As a basis for my argument I quote from the remarks of Captain Goodrich in his discussion (see No. 100), "the navy is to-day what it is because of what it has been." This statement is epigrammatic and
embodies in the terse language characteristic of the author the fundamental support of nearly every contention that has been advanced for the continuation of sail experience since the introduction of steam developed the issue. Moreover the statement is unassailable in point of fact. It is, however, not the whole truth, nor do I believe it to be the most important part of the whole truth. Herein lies the danger of our being misled in judgment. Manifest error is quickly detected; but a part only of the truth, usurping the place of the whole, may lead to wrong conclusions. "Has been" embraces a long while ago. How many centuries before the days of the Phoenicians we may never know. Yet it cannot be denied that the navy is to-day what it is because of the Phoenician navigators. There is many a strain of their skill found in our inheritance today. But would it be useful therefore to build galleys and train men to the galley oar because of such fact? It cannot be denied that the navy is to-day what it is because of Columbus, of Vasco De Gama, Magellan, Drake, and hosts of others with their caravels and galleons. It cannot be denied that the navy is to-day what it is, because of Nelson, his contemporaries, and their fleets. Still less can it be denied that our navy is to-day what it is because of American heroes from Paul Jones downward, the American-built ships that made our constructors famous, and the ordnance and equipment they carried.
While thus the navy contains elements from all these sources of the past, it unquestionably owes more to what it has been in the immediate past than to what it has been in the remote past. This is simply because of development. It is not a mere law of development. It is development itself. The new of to-day must come directly from the conditions of yesterday. The composition of our navy at this moment contains far more of the new that has displaced the old, than it does of the old that has been retained. I regard it therefore as a more comprehensive and i a safer truth to follow in discussion, to say that the navy is what t is today because of Ericsson's monitor, because of modern steel production, and because of the battles of Manila and Santiago.
In providing for the needs of the navy of to-morrow we will be best guided by noting the requirements of the navy of to-day. Among these I do not find yards and sails, nor do I find chocking quoins or handspikes. I see no strong necessity for working along any of these lines. I believe greater progress will be made and wiser preparation for the future by using every effort to educate and train men directly to the preservation and use of all the mechanical devices and equipment found on service ships from the main engines and their appurtenances, down to the simplest electrical connection.
I wish to express my entire agreement with all those who regard the old time man-of-war top man as a type embodying in the highest degree the qualities of “courage, resourcefulness, activity, strength," etc. But in the development of these, or any other desirable qualities in man, there must be a spiritual motive behind or underneath the efforts, else the development will fail. Does any one believe for a moment that such qualities could have been developed if the masts and sails had not been a necessity of the man's environment? Would they have been developed if the masts and sails had been of no use to the ship but were carried along for mere gymnastics? Was it possible to arouse enthusiasm in either officers or men regarding the battery drill, when for years we were forced to carry old smoothbores on Marsilly carriages, while other navies had rifled guns and mechanical mounts?
The duties of a fireman in the fire, department of any of our large cities require exactly such qualities as have been named. But is it anywhere advocated that to obtain such men a sailing cruise is necessary? Exactly such qualities are needed in the army but their recruits are not sent to sea. Now what are the facts in these professions? There are no braver, handier, no more skillful men anywhere than can be found in the fire departments of our large cities. A similar statement can be made of the army, and of the organized police and other forces. These men are trained directly to do the very things for which they are wanted. They realize the usefulness and necessity of their work, there is a spiritual prompting to effort and it results that in them is of necessity developed the peculiar kinds of courage, resourcefulness, activity and strength that their professions demand. In the future needs of the navy it will be precisely the same. When a man of courage and strength is required to haul a fire in an emergency he will be found among those who have had their beards singed in such experiences before. When one is needed to start up a dynamo for light or power in the peril of a collision or other disaster, among those familiar with the 'valves and switches will be found the man of resourcefulness and skill to overcome obstacles and accomplish his work. Throughout each and every department of the ship, if the men do riot get the old-time facility and training by doing the old-time work, it merely proves that the old-time work is no longer necessary; and where there is so much to learn that is new and necessary it seems unwise to devote any time to that which has been abandoned in actual service. I would emphasize the fact that courage is not like a material object that can be turned out to order by a machine and thenceforward be carried about in a kit to be applied to any occasion on demand. On the contrary, it is in the highest degree, of a spiritual nature and may be cultivated and developed in any field of endeavor where high standards of duty are set up and men urged and encouraged to live up to them.
Why should we assume that intelligent specialists will be helpless “in the presence of phenomena different . . . from those with which they are habitually concerned"? It can hardly be merely because they are specialists; for if ever there was a person that could properly be so characterized it was the old-time sailor. Moreover, if any reliance can be placed upon tradition, or even upon the memory of men now living, we must believe that the tarry top man himself sometimes became helpless when he encountered phenomena of an unaccustomed character. In our desire to avoid narrow specialties are we to go to the other extreme and spend time and effort in this pressing age to educate men
to meet conditions avowedly different from those for which they are wanted?
As long as pulling boats are necessary to the service of a man-of-war we may confidently rely upon both officers and men to have proficient oarsmen among the crew. It is difficult to see how any amount of sail drill previous to, or during, general service would improve the skill of the oarsmen. As long as tugs, torpedo boats, lighters and other small craft are of necessity associated with our ships we will have men who can throw a line as adroitly as could Benbow himself. Here again, if our modern ships carried sails, it is difficult to see how that particular fact would contribute much to improvement.
It would seem in following the discussion that there is a frequent tendency to regard knowledge and skill in the use of spars and sails as the full and exact equivalent of seamanship. If such were the fact one could well understand and sympathize with the fear that should sails be entirely abandoned, then indeed there would be no more seamen, no more seamanship, and all would be lost. But it is far from the fact. So long as men go to sea, whether in sailing ships, in mastless steamers, or in submarine, there will be seamen and there will be seamanship. He who is master of his craft and of the conditions of its use will be a seaman. The art and the science that produce such mastery will be seamanship. It is one thing to-day and may be another to-morrow; and if, for example, in the development of the submarine, sails should be found necessary to its efficient operation, men might well receive a
Preparatory training on sailing ships, but if they are not carried it would seem unreasonable to insist upon such training.