The Naval Academy has been in existence for nearly a century. This period has spanned the most significant epoch in the development of naval weapons. Ships of the fleet have changed from wood to armor plate, from sail to steam, from coal burning to oil burning, from smoothbore guns of 1,500 yards range to high-powered rifles firing with accuracy more than 15 miles. The submarine has been developed and perfected and aircraft are an integral and essential element of naval operations.
During this time four wars have been fought and won. The Navy has kept pace with scientific developments and in many of these has pioneered and led the way for civil enterprise. Naval tactics have evolved from the single-ship action at point-blank range to the complex maneuvers of hundreds of ships operating as a co-ordinated fleet responsive to the control and direction of a single command. A vigorous and energetic system of training keeps the fleet at a high state of operating efficiency, self-reliant and self-sufficient to a large degree. On shore an organization has been created in the Navy Department, at the War College, and on shore stations to study, plan, and provide for the necessities of the fleet.
The Naval Academy has supplied practically in its entirety the leadership which has been necessary to accomplish this progress and development. It has been the sole source of commissioned line officers supplied to the Navy except for groups which have been taken in during the Civil War and the World War. It may be said without question that the commissioned personnel of the Navy has never failed in any important respect to display those standards of honor, courage, adaptability, and devotion to duty which the country has a right to expect. Furthermore, the officers of the Navy have always been keen and vigilant in keeping abreast of scientific development, in developing new methods and weapons of tested and approved worth and in adapting the discoveries of science to the art of war.
Without question the severe demands outlined above which have been met successfully could not have been supplied except for the creation of the Naval Academy to provide trained officers working with diligence, singleness of purpose, and enlightened enthusiasm for a common end.
Prior to 1845 naval officers were inducted into the service in a haphazard and happen-so fashion. It is a matter of historical record that midshipmen, during the first half century of our Navy's existence, were lacking in directive influence and educational facilities so necessary to their development as trained officers. It is a high tribute to the inherent qualities of our national psychology that men of the caliber of John Paul Jones, Perry, and Farragut rose above these circumstances to prove their metal and worth in the test of battle. Their attainments were in spite of and not because of the system from which they sprang.
Midshipmen were often chosen as a result of influence and political preferment. Some were enrolled in early childhood or infancy and hence without any regard to their qualifications. After induction into the service they learned what little they could from the hard knocks of experience—a long and inept method of training. Their education was such as could be provided in spare time by the ship's doctor and chaplain, and a few instructors designated for this special duty from time to time. Formal education at best was in later years provided in three schools located at New York, Philadelphia, and Norfolk, respectively, where attendance was more or less voluntary and correspondingly scanty.
The Naval Academy came into existence as the result of demands from within the commissioned personnel of the Navy, who realized the inadequacy of the then existing system. There were many advocates for the establishment of a Naval Academy and proposals to this end were advanced as early as 1814, however, the sentiment for a Naval Academy was crystallized by George Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy in 1845. Fully realizing the inadequacy of education in the Navy, Bancroft determined to take steps toward the establishment of a naval school and with forthright directness he proceeded to the founding of the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His wisdom and foresight have been justified throughout the succeeding years. The results speak for themselves.
It may be argued that progress and development from wooden ships to modern super-dreadnoughts is a direct measure of the quality of output from the Naval Academy. Modern weapons of naval warfare have been the creations of the men who use them. As in other professions, the progress that has been made is a direct measure of the unselfish devotion, enthusiasm, and ability of those men who have chosen the profession as a life-work.
The administration of the Naval Academy must be characterized by the same singleness of purpose which is so essential to progress in all other fields of endeavor. The main purpose for which the Academy was created must stand out in bold relief as a guide to the objective and as a warning against digressions and defections which do not contribute to the end in view. In any discussion of Naval Academy policies, the responsible authorities must subject all proposals for changes to the acid test—"Does this proposal contribute to the ultimate efficiency of the United States Fleet?" The answers to this question in all cases determine the issue.
Contrary to conception in some quarters, the Naval Academy is not a national university. It has one justification for existence—to educate and to train officers to fight the fleet. No matter what may be the result from a standpoint of erudition and culture, if the Academy fails in the one single particular for which it was created, it has failed to justify its existence and as a matter of national economy would better be abolished. It therefore follows that any element introduced into the Naval Academy curriculum which takes its place at the expense of professional training and development has no place in the scheme of things and should be excised forthwith. Will anyone in all reason take the ground that influences which tend to decrease by ever so little the efficiency of a turret officer, a navigator, an engineer, a tactician, or a strategian are justified? To do so would be to temporize with the keen edge of national defense and prostitute the appropriated moneys of the government for unauthorized purposes.
Nevertheless, there are influences from many quarters which are continually being brought to bear which tend to deviate from the objectives of the Academy. Influences of this nature are in the form of proposals to add nonessentials to the curriculum of the Academy in the guise of broader education and cultural background. Such proposals arise from well-meaning but uninformed sources. They are not subversive in intent, but the inevitable effect of compliance therewith would be to surrender some measure of professional education and training. It behooves the responsible officers of the Navy to be constantly on guard against such encroachments. Not only are these officers the custodians of the public trust, but in a narrower sense they have a selfish interest in the product of the Naval Academy. The midshipman of today is the shipmate of tomorrow. It is to him that we must look to uphold the hands of leadership, justify the trust that is reposed in him, and carry on with intelligence, vigor, and enlightened courage in time of stress. Further than this, the midshipman of today is the commander of fleets and squadrons of tomorrow. He will justify and produce according to the degree and quality of instruction that is bestowed upon him by his seniors. In the final analysis, the United States Fleet in the coming generation will reflect this effort.
Young men come to the Naval Academy from every part of the country. This body of youth represents a cross-section of the United States. Every shade and degree of political, economic, and social background is represented. From this material must be created a trained body of officers with common habits of thought and a common understanding. They must be capable of unity of action within the several ships of the fleet and to an even greater degree, unity of action among the units which comprise the fleet. So far as is humanly possible, they must think and act alike under a given set of conditions. How essential the perfect understanding between the engine-room and the bridge, the turret and the fire-control tower! How even more vital a high degree of co-ordination between the battle flanks and the battle line and among the tactical units, surface, sub-surface and air, which go to make up a modern fleet!
The foundation of this ideal must be laid at the Naval Academy by precept and example and the responsibility which devolves upon the instructor is indeed a heavy one. From this point of view, it can be maintained that there is no more important duty in time of peace to which a naval officer may aspire than the training, instruction, and education of future officers in the Navy. This problem should be a matter of interest and concern to every officer who thinks deeply of the welfare, progress, and efficiency of our sea forces and from this reasoning inescapably flows the conclusion that the Naval Academy is the foundation of our naval structure.
As has been indicated, interest in the administration of the Academy is not lacking elsewhere. But the vital quality which must govern is informed and responsible interest in the integrity of the institution.
Among numerous proposals for changes in the Naval Academy policies and curriculum which have been made from time to time a few will serve to illustrate.
It has been proposed that all midshipmen be required to spend at least one year in the enlisted ranks before the commencement of their formal Naval Academy education. Just what this is designed to accomplish is somewhat obscure, as is the case with many other suggestions. Presumably it is designed to give to midshipmen and officers a better appreciation of the point of view of the enlisted man. It is believed that no possible good could result from this move commensurate with the waste of time involved, and time in the education of an officer is a vital factor. So far as is known to the writer, there is no evidence whatsoever of any lack of sympathetic understanding between the officers and men of the fleet. Their relations are eminently satisfactory, as is evidenced by close co-operation in all departments of shipboard activity, in gunnery and engineering competitions, in war games and athletics. There has never in the entire history of the United States Navy been a situation of dissatisfaction which has resulted in mutinous conduct of sufficient importance to become a matter of historical record. This record stands out in notable relief as contrasted with experiences in other navies. It is contrary to experience that officers who have come up from the ranks are more successful in dealing with enlisted men than are graduates of the Naval Academy.
Among other objections to this proposal may be cited the following: A delay of one year before entry upon active duty in the fleet, a hiatus of one year between the preparatory education and the Naval Academy education of the student.
It has been proposed that the Naval Academy course be extended to five years in order to permit of retaining all factors which go to make up the professional elements of a midshipman's education and provide additional time which may be utilized in cultural studies. With respect to this proposal, it may be stated that there is a fine balance between the sufficiency of education preliminary to active duty as a naval officer, and the time of entry upon active duty involving adjustments to a strange environment and the formulation of sea habits at an impressionable age. This consideration always comes to the fore when the proposal to advance the age limit of entry into the Naval Academy is made. The fact remains and will go unchallenged among experienced naval officers that younger men more readily adapt themselves to the life and work on board ship than do those whose associations and habits have been crystallized on shore. It is positively asserted that the young man ambitious for a naval career cannot too long delay getting his feet on the deck of a ship.
Not infrequently the Naval Academy is indicted for failure to provide education in Social and Political Economy, Art, the Drama, Music, Psychology, and numerous other fields of thought and endeavor which, however desirable they may be, can only be undertaken at the expense of essentials.
In all of this criticism and advice, no voice has been raised among naval officers in the fleet urging deviation from the pursuit of professional study. When the fleet demands a change in existing policies at the Naval Academy, this demand will be entitled to the most respectful and serious consideration. In fact such changes will be automatically imposed on the Academy by virtue of the fact that officers returning to the Academy from the fleet will themselves impose them. Meanwhile, I cannot in all conscience subscribe to a line of reasoning which runs somewhat as follows:
Admittedly the mission is well served. The fleet is efficient, the ships are smart and well handled, the guns shoot accurately and are controlled with accuracy. Repairs are effected efficiently afloat, material is in excellent condition and all of this can be credited to the efficiency of personnel and to the officers who lead them. But let us change the system out of which these desirable conditions have grown . . . and see what happens!
Critics of the Naval Academy system, while acknowledging its efficacy, are prolific of arguments in support of changes in existing methods. Many of them go so far as to advocate that a civilian be the head of the Naval Academy and that the entire faculty staff be drawn from civil life with the exception of those in immediate charge of the military routine and discipline of the regiment. It would seem wasteful in time and effort to attempt to refute a proposal of this nature. Suffice it to say that in such an event the necessity for the Naval Academy would cease to exist. An alternate plan to the one suggested would be to commission officers directly from civil life. Graduates of accredited colleges and universities could be commissioned on the mere certification of completion of the required course and the cost of maintaining the Naval Academy would be saved to the government.
However, the most essential factor in the training of officer personnel would thereby be sacrificed. Education is only one factor in the plan which goes to make up the development of the naval officer. The other vital factors, such as military character, esprit de corps, inspiration and discipline in the highest sense of the term, would be sacrificed.
There is a sound middle ground between the proposals of those who advocate all instruction by civilian professors and those who advocate all instruction by naval officers. The Naval Academy curriculum provides for study of general educational subjects, which can best be taught by the trained specialists. This is instanced in Languages, in the study of English and of History and in pure Science. But even in these fields, naval officers have qualified to a most satisfactory degree as instructors and their inclusion in the faculty injects a most desirable naval point of view which is capable of interpreting the basic subject in terms of its application to naval usage.
To deal specifically with the essential elements which go to make up the education of a naval officer, it is well to state at the outset that the Naval Academy is unique as an educational institution. The field of instruction and indoctrination must include:
- Education in basic principles as a foundation for professional advancement.
- Training in the arts which may be characterized as the tools of the naval officer.
- The development of military character, an essential for dependability.
- Inspiration, the mainspring of initiative and esprit de corps.
In the field of education, the objectives include the following:
- The development of mental capacity capable of reasoning to a logical conclusion. This principle involves mental training and mental discipline. One of the most important features of the Naval Academy system has been the development of initiative and resource in the acquisition of knowledge. The midshipman is guided to the sources of information, but is left largely to his own devices in the acquisition thereof. The results of his efforts are then criticized and faulty methods are corrected. This system is in contrast with that which depends largely on pure instruction. In brief, it is the recitation system as contrasted with the lecture system. We of the Navy believe that it is superior for our ends. It is productive of that quality which is epitomized in "The Message to Garcia."
- Education at the Naval Academy must supply a knowledge of the technical groundwork of the profession. It is essential that the naval officer be familiar with the basic principles underlying the arts of Navigation, Ordnance, Marine Engineering, Seamanship, and Aviation. Everyone is familiar with the artisan who accomplishes results of whose causes he is in total ignorance. We know there are navigators who find their way from port to port by rule of thumb, but who have no knowledge of nautical astronomy or geophysical phenomena. We recognize and pay tribute to the skill whereby the gunner serves his gun with fidelity and success. He may have no conception of the principles of ballistics or the elements of fire control. His sphere is limited and his capabilities are definitely circumscribed. We are familiar with the practical engineer who has no knowledge of science. He operates his mechanism like a blind man weaving a basket.
- Finally, the naval officer's education should supply that degree of general culture which is the basis of a better understanding of human contacts and relationship. As much of this should be supplied at the Naval Academy as will enable the future officer, through further study, travel, and experience, to become a man of liberal education, capable of understanding leadership and able to co-operate with others in different fields.
In the Naval Academy, as in every professional school, there is inevitably a conflict between the demands of the professional and the liberal education. The Naval Academy must, as does every professional school, weigh the value of one against the other and arrive at that compromise which will best serve the objective.
Training at the Naval Academy must encompass an understanding of those arts which contribute to the exercise of the naval profession. The Naval Academy is a sea school and always must be. It is essential that the graduate has a working knowledge of practical gunnery, seamanship, navigation, and operating engineering. He must be able to go aboard ship and after a brief period of adjustment to his new environment direct and train the enlisted man in the performance of his manual duties. The Naval Academy encourages, stimulates, and requires the development of ability along these lines. The midshipman must be trained to handle boats and ships. He must have a practical working knowledge of the service of guns, he must be able to work with confidence and practical knowledge in the engineering installations to be found on board the modern man-of-war.
To this end the Naval Academy is able to use to good purpose all types of naval equipment. The policy is to stimulate interest in and encourage familiarity with the work, the habits, and the recreation of a life at sea. Outstanding performance in great guns and small arms on the part of midshipmen is rewarded with recognition. Medals are conferred upon those who comprise gun crews which attain to a merit of "Excellence." Provision is being made for an increased number of small boats available to the midshipmen for training and recreational purposes. A boat club of more than 200 members is thriving and membership therein involves a high order of qualification in seamanship and marine installations. A radio club is fostered and encouraged, the members of which build and operate their own equipment and communicate by short wave with the furthermost points of the civilized world. Midshipmen are encouraged to build boats of their own handiwork and many have turned out creditable products which are sources of practical knowledge and pride for themselves and inspiration for others. These are some of the aims and instrumentalities in the training of the midshipmen.
One of the outstanding needs of the Naval Academy today is the assignment of a modern man-of-war, with up-to-date engineering installation, ordnance, and fire-control equipment, permanently assigned to the Naval Academy as a practice ship. It is believed that nothing would contribute as much to the advancement of training at the Naval Academy as would the assignment of such a ship. It would enable the theory of the classroom to be immediately interpreted in terms of practical application and in this manner the current lessons would be indelibly impressed on the mind of the student. The midshipman would step from the academic building into the full-scale laboratory of shipboard installation. He would no longer be asked to visualize the handling of a sub-chaser in terms of a cruiser. His imagination would no longer be strained in fire-control drill as at present. The plotting room would be found in its proper place properly equipped, and not installed in the uppermost reaches of the Armory. The fire-control tower would be a thing of reality instead of a cage of wood and glass with a cardboard label. The engineering equipment, including the involved electrical equipment, would be available for study in the form of a practical operating installation and this would provide immeasurable advantages over the study of disassociated units in the engineering laboratory on shore.
It is a curious contradiction that in the days of sailing vessels the Naval Academy invariably had a practice ship permanently assigned for practical drills and exercises. But in this modern age, when the complexities of shipboard installation have multiplied beyond the most fantastic dreams of a Jules Verne, a practical, fullscale model of a modern naval ship is no longer available.
The third essential in the development of a naval officer is the building of military character. The Naval Academy is striving to produce men whose ideal is, above all, to be first-class fighting men, resolute, skillful, aggressive, and capable of upholding the Navy's highest tradition of never having engaged in an unsuccessful war—men of honor, self-discipline, self-respect, and respect for others, with a high standard of conduct. One of the most important attributes of military character is subordination of self to the plan of the whole—the obligation of the individual to the community. The average youth who enters the service is more or less irresponsible and an essential individualist. Real effort must be put forth to give him the point of view that he is a part of a general plan and that in carrying out his orders and instructions he is meeting his obligations to the organization. The Naval Academy has progressed in this field along sound and constructive lines. The so-called Executive Department or Discipline Department, as it was at one time known, is no longer a subdivision of the administration which provides for quartering and messing of midshipmen and their supervision to the end that they do not run wild with boyish pranks. The officers of this department no longer are confined to mere functions of patrolling the quarters and administering the daily routine. They have as their daily duties important functions of counsel and guidance for those who are assigned to their charge.
There is a point of view which abhors the tendency to mold the individual to a standard plan. This point of view bespeaks freedom of development along natural bents and inclinations. It has much to recommend it in fields other than a military profession. In the latter case, however, there are stern necessities which dictate. And in justification it may be said that if the standards and ideals are sufficiently worthy, the individual cannot suffer thereby.
Within recent years, the administration of the regimental organization has been entrusted largely to midshipmen of the first class, under the supervision, direction, and guidance of officers. It is found that by entrusting the senior class with important responsibilities and obligations, they rise to these requirements and profit in the development of character. In extension of this idea, the system of rotating midshipmen officers in the regiment has been inaugurated and experience has demonstrated that this step was fully justified. It gives to the maximum number of midshipmen an opportunity to form and to exercise habits of command and to develop in themselves a spirit of confidence in their dealings with subordinates. It was expected that this system would entail a certain sacrifice in the general smartness and efficiency of the regiment as a military organization and the Naval Academy was prepared to accept this sacrifice in exchange for benefits to the individual. However, it has been found that no sacrifice in efficiency is involved. On the contrary, the keen competition to excel which has arisen and the pride of the individual which has been stimulated have combined to produce a gratifying increase in smartness and efficiency.
The plan for the rotation of midshipmen officers which has been devised and placed in effect differs from previous practices of this nature. The academic year is divided into three periods for this purpose. In the first and second periods, midshipmen are selected for officer rank based on their previous records. During the last period of the first class year, midshipmen officers are assigned as the result of selection based on their performance as midshipmen officers in the previous two periods. This practice has introduced the principle of selection to which the Navy is committed. It serves to keep alive the interest to excel and stimulates competition among the members of the First Class throughout the year.
Inspiration is a factor in the education, training, and indoctrination of a midshipman which is worthy of attentive cultivation. Inspiration is the mainspring of esprit de corps and provides that intangible incentive to excel in emulation of our best naval traditions. The Naval Academy is the fountain-head of naval ideals and it is here that must be accomplished the infusion of spiritual values, which is no better expressed than in the simple words "That Good Old Navy Spirit." From the time when the entering candidate takes the oath of allegiance with his eyes fixed on the original battle flag flown by Perry at Lake Erie, which bears the motto "Don't Give Up The Ship," until the time when he leaves the gates of the Academy a newly commissioned officer on the threshold of his career, the atmosphere of the Academy must be an atmosphere of inspirational values.
We are not an emotional people and are given more to logical reasoning than to emotional fervor. However, the quality of inspiration is one ever to be reckoned with in the profession of arms. It reaches its high point of value under stress of battle and history teaches us that it has frequently been the deciding factor. Will anyone in the naval service be better or worse for a realization that he is dedicated to the same ideals which inspired John Paul Jones at Flamborough Head, Perry at Lake Erie, Farragut at Mobile Bay, and Dewey at Manila? The education of the naval officer should perforce include critical study of naval history to supply the lessons which may be learned therefrom. It can ill afford to neglect a knowledge of the human characteristics of our illustrious predecessors which contributed to their greatness.
In this connection, there is a very real need at the Naval Academy for an appropriate building dedicated to the purposes of a museum. Already the Academy is in possession of a large and growing collection of articles and objects of naval historical value. A museum would be the proper place for gathering together the battle flags, swords, original letters and papers of distinguished officers, models, log books and prints of famous men-of-war, and a thousand and one other articles made sacred by their contact with some momentous crisis in our history. These things, though mute, speak to the midshipman of today and of tomorrow of the inspiring deeds of the Navy of bygone days. They are an undying inspiration to future generations. They should be cared for and adequately displayed in order that they may continue to speak of the traditions of the past.
In a letter to Congress, dated September 14, 1775, John Paul Jones outlined with particularity the essential qualities of a naval officer. Every naval officer is, or should be, intimately acquainted with the contents of this document. In this communication the father of the American Navy disposed offhand of those qualities which, it might be taken for granted, should be found in every officer. He then proceeded to detail qualities of education and character which epitomize the finer instincts of human nature. John Paul Jones was writing in an age when the sturdy capabilities of the seafaring man in his every day battle with the forces of nature were essential to survival. His intent was to emphasize the need at that time for those human qualities which would balance professional attainments in the composite of the ideal naval officer.
If John Paul Jones could write on this theme today, I venture to say that, out of his sound philosophy, his keen appreciation of human values and his capacity for deep insight into naval affairs, he would reverse the emphasis of his reasoning and write,
It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor. He must be these, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a capable seaman, an efficient gunner well grounded in the theory and uses of ordnance equipment, an operating engineer of ability and understanding, a sound tactician, and an inspiring leader.