This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
the American administration of the PhilipP
bl»'
In 1914, before the creation of the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels, seated, considered Marine Major General Commandant George Barnett, second from left, just another of his Bureau Chiefs. But, four years later, Barnett had his eye on bigger and better things when he ought to have been keeping his eye on an implacable Josephus Daniels.
Military and naval historians generally agree that the most far-reaching institutional changes in Marine Corps history occurred during World War I. The Corps grew from fewer than 10,000 men to more than 75,000. More importantly, the role of the Marine Corps in the age of the battleship Navy was fixed while detached service with the Army proved successful. The man largely responsible was Major General Commandant George Barnett (1859-1930). Even so, he was abruptly sacked in 1920 by Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels. The sudden removal is illustrative of the sharp and often bitter political infighting surrounding the highest Marine Corps post in the early years of the century.
From his commissioning in 1883 until his appointment to the office of Commandant in 1914, Barnett served almost half his time at sea with marine detachments. During the Spanish-American War, he served in the cruiser New Orleans in Cuban waters. Barnett also served in Marine Barracks at various navy yards and it was while commanding “Eighth and Eye” in Washington, 1906-1908, that he married Lelia Montague Gordon, a beautiful young widow with three children. She became the doyenne of society wherever the Barnetts were stationed. It is likely that Mrs. Barnett provided the fiber necessary in her husband’s quest for the com- mandancy.
Selection for the highest Marine Corps poSt ^ based largely on political patronage. Through rank of colonel (there were no brigadier genera ^ promotion was based strictly on seniority, an(-| 1 ,e officer did his job and remained physically could reasonably expect to attain the rank of c0 . before mandatory retirement at age 64. To ac the post of Commandant required more than a g record; friends in high places were needed.
In the autumn of 1913, Major General ^orn^n)y dant William P. Biddle applied for retirement- four contenders were considered seriously- Llfic Karmany, a Naval Academy classmate of B>$. had political backing and was a favorite of b|cC But Karmany had experienced a troublesome ulV and anyone familiar with the fundamentalist na^f_ of the Secretary of the Navy would realize that many stood no chance for the position. Lieut1en^ Colonel John A. Lejeune, a highly popular 0 ^ and graduate of the Army War College, was ‘aV by Daniels but ultimately pronounced too jun'° Qte rank. Littleton W. T. Waller probably had forces at his disposal than all other candi > ^ Thirty-one Democratic Senators signed a petiti011^ President Woodrow Wilson on Waller’s behal ■ Waller had been court-martialed for ex£Cr^n-\»! mutinous Filipino bearers during the infamous campaign in 1902.* Although exonerated, was tainted in the eyes of an administration ^ t0 hoped to inaugurate a new and positive appr°a
Thus, George Barnett, supported by heavy can backing including his Naval Academy mate, Senator John Weeks, became the 12th mandant of the Marine Corps in February 19* '.
By then, it was becoming increasingly 0^V*jt)i that the Corps could not meet its commitments 10,000 men. Should an Advance Base F°rce ^ jt forerunner of the Fleet Marine Force) be requite ^ would result in the removal of marine guards
. proc#*
*Sce Captain Paul Melshen, USMCR, “He Served On Samar. ings, November 1979, pp. 42-48.
eve 'taval
ft
(.p nange. Moreover, Barnett’s logical successor 'vant0dC<>mmandancy and Daniels’s favorite, Lejeune, ^arnettdesPerately to join the AEF in France. Thus, toUncj. tarne to be reappointed, but the events sur- abrutbis decision probably contributed to his p rosmissal in 1920.
or
Kj|g appropriation Hearings of 1916, 1917, and s0nne'i ^arnett pleaded effectively for increases in per- neej strength. Justification at first was simply the t°0tlHd° ■meet ex*st*ng commitments. But as war Serve ■ ln ^urope, Barnett pressed for marines to ^ ,rj t^le American Expeditionary Force (AHF). dufy UtCant Secretary of War accepted marines for AEF, although the route was strewn to pr^ Ureai-icratic obstacles for Barnett. Attempting tr()0psent che marines from being among the first tyar ^EF t0 arrive in France, the Secretary of
transCnied the Fifth Regiment berths in the troop Hia(je °rts- Anticipating such a move, Barnett had to p arrangements for the marines to be transported shipsCe ln the naval vessels escorting the troop- an<j ^ ^‘s intensity to see marines serve in France iticreasUreaucratic machinations involving personnel the s S’ Barnett probably succeeded in alienating InCprttary °f the Navy by mid-19 18.
Pointy rUary t'lat year. Barnett’s four-year ap- to Cnt as Commandant was up, and he expected PolicyreapP°inted. Daniels, however, had advocated a tltity °^s'ngle four-year tours for officers assigned to beCarnn Washington. Otherwise, in his view, they
With^et^argiC and tHebficient-
tffect ^ America at war, however, it was no time to saht ()fKey personnel reassignments merely for the
Summoned by the Secretary of the Navy, Barnett was notified of his reappointment. Daniels then asked for an undated letter of resignation, indicating that it was the wish of President Wilson. “Fine,” said Barnett. ‘I’ll discuss it with him. Since every officer serves at the pleasure of the President, he need only indicate when such service is no longer required.” It was not the response expected. Later, the secretary told Barnett to forget the matter, but in his published memoirs, Daniels recalls that Barnett offered to tender his resignation when the war was over.
By now, the commandancy had grown significantly in bureaucratic size. In 1914, Daniels considered Barnett just another of his bureau chiefs. Four years later, Barnett believed himself on a level with the Chief of Naval Operations and that his three principal staff officers—Adjutant and Inspector, Paymaster, and Quartermaster—were of the rank of the Navy bureau chiefs. The next and seemingly logical step was to increase the rank of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Barnett’s supporters in the Senate attached a proviso on the naval appropriations bill of 1918 which provided for his promotion to lieutenant general and increases in rank to major general for his three principal staff officers. Although Barnett was careful to couch his support for this bill in terms of promotions for his subordinates, enough evidence exists to support later charges that he was working very hard behind the scenes to gain a promotion to lieutenant general. Barnett even asked Lejeune to use any political influence he had to gain the promotion.
No such support existed in the House of Representatives. Armed with the knowledge that Daniels was
Barn'
.etc
toward ]
to send
fusal
set'"
much larger chess game. Writing to his fatber
’s
The socialite background of Lelia Barnett, right, was helpful to her husband in carrying out such obligations as escorting movie actress Mary Pickford, left, during a World War I bond drive.
not in favor of Barnett’s promotion, Representative Thomas S. Butler, the father of Lieutenant Colonel Smedley D. Butler, one of the Corps’ most colorful characters, rose to denounce the bill. Drawing attention to the presence of Barnett and his wife in the gallery, Butler characterized Barnett as a “rocking chair warrior” and “swivel chair hero.” Contending that promotions should be saved for those fighting in France, he was able to convince the House to send the bill back to the Senate. To cap the spurious attack on Barnett’s character, another congressman rose to suggest Barnett be court-martialed for going over Daniels’s head in seeking a promotion. A shaken Barnett took his almost prostrate wife home.
Afterward, Daniels seemed to be sympathetic to Barnett’s plight. He even suggested that Mrs. Barnett write to the congressman who wanted to court-martial her husband after she told the secretary of the elder Butler’s promise to “humiliate my husband as no one has ever been so humiliated.” In his diary, however, Daniels noted displeasure over Barnett’s machinations and wrote, “Barnett wanted [the] same rank as an admiral.” On another date, Daniels recorded that he had admonished Barnett for going behind his back in seeking a promotion.
The Butlers’ animosity toward Barnett requires explanation. Smedley Butler had made a career of expeditionary duty and held two Medals of Honor. He was especially scornful of professional staff officers and even line officers who seemed to have experienced little duty in foreign and inhospitable climates. Butler identified himself with the type of Marine Corps officer who sought action and arduous duty. Barnett was the antithesis of the officer idealized by Butler. The Commandant’s total time under fire consisted of shelling the forts of Santiago from the safety of the New Orleans. Moreover, Barnett championed the cause of the staff officers for promotion, much to the dismay of Butler, who thought such types should be elevated in rank only after line officers had received due recognition.
Smedley Butler opposed Barnett from the outset of his commandancy. But his disapproval was couched more in Waller’s failure to achieve the high post than in resentment toward Barnett. In 1913, Waller represented Butler’s interests in the Corps. By 1918, because of shifting political fortunes, Butler identified with Lejeune. His animosity stemmed from the Commandant’s rei him to France.
When America entered the war, Buder was^.th ing as the head of the Gendarmerie de Haiti- the U. S. declaration of war in April 1917 caIT1^Ep. peated requests from Butler for duty with die ^ Lejeune probably stimulated the succession of requesting a transfer by suggesting that Butler , command one of the two regiments in the Lejeune hoped to lead in France. Subsequently’ ^ Secretary of War insisted that the Marine Corps ^ organized along Army lines. Thus, the briga^e 1 ^ formed became the Fifth Marine Regiment-" regiments were twice the size of the equlV‘lJe Marine Corps unit—and thus there was no for Lejeune to command. Butler remained in ^ inexplicably blaming his exile on Barnett. ^,n 1 j, making it to France in command of the Thift ^ Marine Regiment in late 1918, he ended UP j^qs- manding a rear area camp after the cessation 0 j tilities. His bitterness knew no bounds, as evi1- in a letter to Mrs. Butler: “Old Barnett ^ through here ... he is a weak old woman an blame for my failure to get to the front.”
Even while Butler and Lejeune were in Franc<|‘’ ^ political machinations continued. In April Daniels visited France and Germany. While there’ ^ dined with Lejeune three times in four days- ^ Lejeune was vehement in his denial that a oust Barnett was formed during this time- ^ more subtle maneuvering was taking place, ho"e
The secretary’s son, Josephus Jr., went t0 . j » with Butler’s regiment, and after Butler rece>ve^ promotion to brigadier general, he made 7°.^ a Daniels his aide. But the young man was a pa's'11
February 1919, he complained bitterly over LeJe f abrupt decision to transfer him to the headquat
^hen the time comes to pick the next Com- ant y°u will see why this major general is doing ** Way . . . my opinion of this officer has
tiin
D _Pct°ber,
td from his Western speaking tour. But about
Lejeune was again summoned to
Riels'
of ty 9ue:
'Ison
s severe illness, Daniels was unable to re-
Itune
motored back to Quantico, Smedley Butler
rev,
of
his
Plan.
r . ■ Called to Daniels’s office in May 1920,
Jeun
request for an inspection tour of the West
C,
Dar)i lUst t0 get him out of town. Upon his return,
C0rris planned to ask for Barnett’s resignation as
mandant of the Marine Corps.
Larlk- • • - - -
d;
^arn>Ut^Vec^ b>s usefulness.” He charged further that ett s bureaucratic machinations over personnel aes and a promotion to lieutenant general had
il
aide-^«?n<^ Division and assignment as Lejeune’s
^and;
me this
yged fiuite a bit since I left you.” ent) <)UnS Daniels’s misgivings held no sway, appar- ga because the secretary continued to plan for etlCor s premature relief with the enthusiastic anj U^ernerlt of the Butlers. Shortly after Lejeune Statee Second Division returned to the United ^ftS’ lejeune was summoned to Daniels’s office. inan exchange of pleasantries, Daniels told him nett. ttest confidence that he planned to oust Bar- eha ’ eleur>e would be the new Commandant. This *e would take place as soon as the president res office where it was explained that, because aga.t change in the commandancy just now. pj0 ° ‘■Larging Lejeune with confidentiality, Daniels recsed t0 unseat Barnett as soon as the president U-jc fCd sufficiently to discuss the matter. As , e<J that Daniels had informed the elder Butler
bf0a^°rd*ng to Lejeune, the subject was not sprj ed again by the secretary until late in the tjjjj ^ 1920, even though they met socially several
Wn C,Was informed that the secretary had approved
°ast
iailer m the spring, the change in the comman- ek ^ "'as the subject of at least two heated ex- ^ between Butler and Lejeune. A lieutenant Ccss,n& 'n the adjutant’s office at Quantico on suc- cqs . e Sundays overheard the two senior officers dis- f0r & cbe issue. In the first encounter, Butler in- Da . Lejeune that he had everything arranged with ttieS t0 oust Barnett. Although Lejeune expected he ,t0rT1mandancy and certainly deserved the office, not want to achieve it in such a duplicitous tV r’ "Lbt'Se misgivings were pressed on Butler, tek excbange the following week was sharper. Butler haj t0 Barnett as a “god damned old fogey who
o-
Vn,
'tic
Conattd any influence the Marine Corps had in the n0t^ress- Finally, Butler told Lejeune that if he was Pmpared to accept the commandancy, someone
else would be found.
Barnett was at home recovering from a minor ailment on 18 June 1920 when a messenger arrived at 1:30 P.M. with a note from Daniels informing him of his relief. The secretary expected, by 4:30 the same day, Barnett’s written request for continued active duty (as a brigadier general) or retirement. As Barnett noted ruefully, even a servant gets 30 days’ notice. Daniels assumed that Barnett would bow out quietly as an honorable old soldier of the sea and was, therefore, surprised when he opted to remain on active duty. Barnett also asked for duty at Quantico and even suggested he receive the major general’s stars vacated by Lejeune’s appointment to the major general commandancy. In addition, Barnett appealed directly to the president while marshaling his Republican supporters.
Not expecting such a maelstrom, Daniels sent Barnett on leave. The general’s request for duty at Quantico was refused and the post given to Smedley Butler. As for the vacant promotion to major general, Barnett was told rather tartly that he could take his chances with the other brigadier generals. But Barnett had hardly begun to make matters difficult for Daniels.
Events moved toward the inevitable change in the commandancy scheduled for the end of June. The packers arrived at “Eighth and Eye” to remove the Barnetts’ possessions. At the completion of their work, Mrs. Barnett invited friends over for a party. Not a stick of furniture remained, and the walls were bare except for a framed photograph of Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels inscribed affectionately to Barnett. None of the guests missed the point.
Late in the morning on 30 June 1920, Lejeune arrived at Headquarters Marine Corps to relieve Barnett. One of Barnett’s aides, Clifton B. Cates, remembers that Barnett said: “John, stand up there just a minute. We’ve been good friends all our lives—close friends. Why didn’t you let me know what was going on?”
Lejeune replied, “George, my hands were tied.”
Barnett continued to admonish Lejeune, but the only response was “George, my hands were tied.”
A more acidic exchange was reported by Barnett’s other aide, Charles Murray, to a friend, General William A. Worton. According to Worton’s version, Lejeune walked into Barnett’s office and said, “George, you don’t know how sorry I am.”
Barnett then reminded Lejeune just who was Commandant until 12 o’clock, “Stand at attention, Sir, in front of my desk. I have something to tell you.” Then, according to Worton, Barnett told Lejeune of a lifetime of friendship, then disloyalty. Finally, at one minute to 12, the informal relief took place. Barnett then turned to Murray and said “take off one star, Murray, I’m a brigadier general now.” And where was Smedley Butler when all of this took place? According to his aide, Major General Roy A. Robinson, he and Butler were sitting in a car across the street from Headquarters Marine Corps, because Butler wanted to see Barnett come out after
“Take it from me that we are soon g°’n£ ^ have a Marine Corps and it is now command1' ^ a real soldier. My I am pleased with y°ur pointment and mean to assist you in any make your administration a great success • right thing has been done. Tell me always et can serve you.”
As the autumn of 1920 approached, Barnett sumed his duties as Commander of the Depart*11 of the Pacific, a meaningless post in San Franc* ^ Daniels moved ahead, expecting the Senate to ,
the
lano*0
maj°f
to
firm Lejeune’s appointment. In addition, he p to nominate Wendell C. Neville to receive the generalcy made vacant by Lejeune’s elevation^ Commandant. Daniels’s plans went awry, ho" with the election of Republican Warren G. Hat All previous appointments, including Lejeune s.
set aside to await the pleasure of the new PreS1
dent-
block
Barnett and his supporters moved now to Lejeune’s appointment.
Wiser counsel prevailed, however. Barnett s v mature relief was a fact, and the resulting actitn could serve to damage the splendid reputation ^ cently earned by the Marines Corps’ service *n war. Republican supporters had to ask thetnse what good would come of reinstating Barnett. In dition, Lejeune was the most popular officer irl^)f Marine Corps and Barnett’s logical succe ^ Moreover, Lejeune was a war hero and had sU ^ fully commanded an Army division when John J. Pershing, the Commander of the AEF> ^et fired dozens of generals found wanting. As the ^ Butler put it, Lejeune was “a real soldier- ^ spite would be served if Lejeune’s appointment
blocked. But what to do about Barnett?
Lejeune set events in motion to solve the Pr°
blen1
he
in a long and thoughtful letter to Daniels. 1°
being relieved. In a letter to a friend, Major Alexander A. Vandegrift, Butler revealed his satisfaction over Barnett’s relief: “It was very quiet; no fireworks, and no one has been killed, although the Barnett faction has been making a big noise and yelling for vengeance, which vengeance I do not believe they will get.”
Congressman Butler was also elated over the change in the commandancy and he pledged his support to Lejeune:
suggested a promotion to major general Barnett’s bruised feelings. Weeks, Barnetts Republican supporter and later Harding’s Jeg( of War, argued for the same solution. In a n0t jf caution to Mrs. Barnett, Weeks was unsur^tt’s Lejeune’s appointment could be prevented, ®ar°|ggl close friend from the Naval Academy class or was fearful of a situation developing in
to
w.
ch<e
ta O'
nett’s position would be compared with the re"‘3flJ expected for two returning war heroes, Lejeune ^ Neville. In early 1921, the new Secretary 0 Navy, Edwin H. Denby, accepted both the s° ^atr to Barnett’s wounded pride and Lejeune as Com dant of the Marine Corps. ofy
Barnett served in San Francisco until 11130 , ng' retirement for age in 1923. Returning to was ^ ton, he died in 1930. A few days before the
f*>eune •'and
affo
ecti0
Paid him a visit. Holding the dying man’s Lejeune remembers that they . . exchanged ^nate greetings, and we had a brief heart to talk about old times, and our service together.
were deeply disturbed. He died two
m-art
Mv „ j ’ em°tions daVs lati
Lei
er.
ess
leune’
Not:
e s relationship with Barnett was neverthe-
' a close one; no evidence can be found in their iw 1Ve papers to support a suggestion of warm Cu,,nal friendship. And, until the period of the not ^ Maneuvers, late 1913-early 1914, they had /\(a(S|tTVc4 together. A common background as Naval tit. graduates was most likely their strongest tvtri / n° evidence of professional dislike is revealed . °ugh Lejeune, like Butler, was cut in the ex-
tCsPectiVe
Lieutenant Colonel Bartlett received an M.A. at San Diego State University and is currently a doctoral student in history at the University of Maryland. He was the recipient of a Naval Academy Research Council grant to edit the autobiography and papers of Major General George Barnett. Lieutenant Colonel Bartlett is now an assistant professor of history at the Naval Academy. In May 1980, he was the recipient of the William P. Clements Award for Excellence in Education.
N
c°mfc
‘tion
ary mold. Clearly, Lejeune was acutely un-
C^Ie in his role in the unseating of Barnett.
tiVt. ary Daniels left Lejeune with only one alterna- 0 Leing a passive participant in the ouster of
^rriett____
danct0 k°\v out of contention for the comman-
***? Butler’s part in Barnett’s premature relief 'vith S ^'s penchant for the hyperbole. Sensitive and C°r0tn tendency t0 remorse' his views on Barnett’s a sia^4ancy and the Marine Corps in general were T^j , . ICant influence on his congressman father.
reflective of the elder Butler’s actions as a i. ,Cr °f the House Naval Affairs Committee can
hnked
persuasive letters from Smedley Butler lig^t . Parents. And Daniels was doubtlessly de- t0 have such allies.
Larnt”lels Probably entertained an aversion for C based simply on personality differences.
to
hi
to
r9;
nayal aristocracy with which Barnett identified Pugnant to the egalitarian and humanistic sec
tary. A A a ^
ciety "Lfs- Barnett’s prominent position in so-
C°uld only serve to exacerbate this animosity.
°Ut
Marjn^etlerite4 removal of a Commandant of the
CorPs'll) resiJlt of Barnett’s persistent pleas for person-
ers°nal dislike alone cannot explain such an
f. rented o C Ammonflanf rir fhp
Pranncreases and for the sending of marines to
Co " "
Da
•rigiy i““4ant. At first bemused and then increas-
--Om Daniels nurtured a growing distaste for the mriianda
Cfaticlrntated, Daniels interpreted Barnett’s bureau- strvjn Machinations as being motivated by self- Ple3cj j aggrandizement. No matter that Barnett
V ‘
„ %
ltaded u
w1115 efforts were for the good of the Corps.
r'ation 6 lncidents over the undated letter of resig- t'°ri to maladroit attempt to gain a promo-
rhat g leutenant general, Daniels became convinced BUtiersarnett Lad to go. The encouragement of the Caliberan<^ r^e availability of an officer of Lejeune’s 'fade the premature relief possible.
Notes on Source Materials
The most useful source for information on Barnett’s Naval Academy days and Marine Corps career is his personal papers located at the Marine Corps Historical Center (MCHC). His unpublished autobiography, "Soldier and Sailor Too," contains the most valuable material. Additionally, the MCHC has the transcripts of three oral history interviews which contain information relative to Barnett’s dismissal: Clifton B. Cates, William A. Worton, and Raymond Robinson. Barnett’s Officers Qualification Record contains fitness reports submitted by Daniels and an assortment of other correspondence useful in any study of Barnett and his commandancy. Also at the MCHC are the personal papers of Joseph H. Pendleton and Smedley Butler. A more interesting and revealing collection of Butler papers has been retained by the Butler family in Newtown, Pennsylvania. Letters pointing to a growing dislike on the part of Butler for Barnett are found here.
The Edwin H. Denby collection in the Detroit Public Library has a small folder of documents probably provided by Mrs. Barnett. They relate to his premature dismissal by Daniels and to the Haitian inquiry.
Two important documents are located in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers, Hyde Park, New York. After Barnett’s relief in 1920, his wife wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy asking for help in the matter. Another letter from Congressman Butler in this collection reveals an extreme distaste for Barnett’s attempt to gain a lieutenant generalcy.
Mrs. Barnett's papers are kept by her daughter at Wakefield Manor, Huntley, Virginia. This collection includes several scrapbooks of photographs and press clippings. An unfinished autobiography and several short articles by Mrs. Barnett are also included.
The most valuable materials relating to Barnett's commandancy are contained in the Josephus Daniels Papers in the Library of Congress. Container 531 has several folders relative to Marine Corps matters, including candidatures for the commandancy in 1913- Container 64 is almost exclusively devoted to correspondence to or concerning Barnett and is sorted into folders by date. Container 88 contains correspondence with Lejeune arranged in a similar fashion. John A. Lejeune’s papers are also located in the Library of Congress. Container 1 has materials relative to Lejeune’s bid for the commandancy in 1910, 1913, and 1920. Container 9 holds the most valuable document for this study. Written by Lejeune between 1935-40, this 32-page summary of selection for the commandancy is the most revealing source for any inquiry into the political infighting fdV the Marine Corps’ highest post. The Woodrow Wilson papers are also at the Library of Congress. Volume 1 of the register lists several documents pertaining to Barnett; however, all deal with minor matters or political patronage.
Surviving relatives and friends were also interviewed. These include his stepdaughter, Mrs. Albert Lucas (nee Lelia Gordon); a nephew. Vice Admiral Lloyd Mustin; his stepson’s widow, Mrs. Basil Gordon, Sr.; and two former Marine Corps officers who knew Barnett as lieutenants in World War I, Brigadier General Lester Dessez and Lieutenant Colonel R. Frederick Roy.