Mr. Dana’s speech against the military Academy.--Objections--
it is an aristocratic institution.--1st in its selection of
candidates--2nd in its monopoly of military commissions.--Its
expenses are enormous and wholly disproportioned to any advantages
to be derived from it.--Its positive evils, as it operates on the
officers and on the private soldiers.--Mr. Dana might have added,
that if this republic is in danger from any quarter, its danger
lies in this institution.
Immediately after the funeral obsequies, Congress took up, on the 6th
of March, the bill making appropriations for the Military Academy at
West Point. Mr. HALE of New Hampshire, one of the best debaters in the
House, moved to strike out the appropriation from the bill. On this
occasion, Mr. Dana of New York delivered a powerful speech in favor of
the motion. The intrinsic value of this speech entitles it to a place
in our book, so that its home truths may be duly considered by all who
read books or public documents. The institution itself should be given
away to the regents of the University of New York, or to some literary
institution, and no longer be connected with the general government.
But we proceed to lay before the reader extracts from this elegant
speech.
Mr. Dana said: My first objection to the academy is, that it is _an
aristocratic institution_. It is aristocratic in its _nature and
character_. It gives to a few individuals privileges which it denies to
the many. Out of a population of eighteen or twenty millions, about one
hundred individuals are annually selected as the exclusive recipients
of the national bounty, and are paid and educated at the public
expense, without making the least return for the benefits they receive.
All other persons who draw pay or salaries from the government, perform
services of some kind--often perhaps very inadequate but the cadets
do nothing for the public; make no return whatever. Their pay and
education are mere gratuities. Is it just, or right, or republican,
thus to pamper a few at the expense of the community?
The institution is aristocratic in the manner of _selecting the
cadets_. They are nominated and virtually appointed by members of
Congress. The privilege of appointing a cadet has become an appendage
of a seat in this House. A member is thus enabled, at the public
expense, to provide for a relative, dependant, or favorite, by
quartering him for life upon the treasury. He thus enjoys a patronage
almost equal to his pay. Why should he have this extra privilege?
Are not members sufficiently compensated for their services? If
not, increase their pay; but do not suffer them to quarter their
dependants upon the public. Such a privilege will be abused; it cannot
exist without abuse. It is not only unjust to the community, but it
is injurious to this House. Congress is called upon to legislate
continually in relation to the academy; and will not such a patronage
tend unconsciously to bias the judgment of members, however pure their
intentions? It is not in the nature of man to be entirely impartial
and indifferent when his own interests are involved. But even if he
succeeds in divesting himself of every improper influence, and acts
with the strictest justice and propriety, his country’s good his
only object, he will be likely to gain little credit by it; he will
still be suspected. Men incapable of acting with the like nobleness
themselves will be slow to believe it of others. I do not doubt that
every member will act on this subject from the purest motives; but if
we would stand well with the country--if we would have full credit for
disinterestedness with the people, we ought to divest ourselves of this
patronage.
Again, sir, if this power be confined without check or control to
members of Congress, will there not be danger of the institution being
aristocratic in the _persons_ selected as cadets? Whom will a member
be most likely to nominate? Will it not be a son or relative, or some
one dependent for support upon the member?--or, if there happens to be
none such, the son or friend of some wealthy or influential constituent
whose influence the member desires to secure? I would rejoice to find
it otherwise. But when we examine the roll of cadets, and compare it
with the lists of members of Congress, we find such a coincidence
of names as I cannot attribute wholly to accident; there must have
been some relationship between them to produce such a striking family
likeness.
[Mr. Giddings. I wish to state a fact for the information of the
gentleman. Some years ago, being applied to to nominate a cadet for my
district, and having at that time a son of the proper age to enter the
academy, I wrote to many of the prominent men of my district to send me
the name of a candidate, and could not procure one.]
Mr. DANA. The district of the gentleman from Ohio appears to a be
very peculiar one in many respects. Unless I am greatly mistaken,
relatives and connexions of many men of wealth and high stations have
been educated at the public expense at West Point, and the privilege
has been highly coveted and eagerly sought by them generally, the
single instance of the constituents of the gentleman from Ohio to the
contrary notwithstanding. I am entirely opposed to the whole system of
educating any person, or class of persons, at the public expense; but
if some must be so educated, let them be selected for their merits--for
their talents and virtues; give the preference to the poor and to the
orphan--they are the most needy and deserving--instead of bestowing the
national bounty on the rich and influential, who have other means of
education. I admit there have been many instances in which members,
waiving all selfish considerations, (and I honor them for it,) have
selected the most meritorious candidate; but as a general rule, in this
contest for patronage between wealth and power on the one side, and
poverty on the other, it needs not the gift of prophesy to determine
which will triumph. If this Academy shall be continued, I hope that, at
least, its organization will be so changed as to secure to the poor a
fair participation in its benefits.
The institution is aristocratic in the _monopoly of military
commissions_ which it secures to the cadets after they have received
their education. It is not sufficient to educate them at the public
expense, but they must also be provided for in the same way ever
after, and that too in the most objectionable form of a monopoly. No
man, whatever may be his talents or qualifications, or his thirst for
military fame, can get into the army unless he enter through the gate
of the West Point Academy, the only portal open to ambition. Thus every
person who has passed the age of 21, without obtaining an appointment
in the academy, and every person under 21 who does not graduate there,
is disfranchised, and rendered incapable of holding a commission. He
may have spent his days in toil, and his nights in study, to qualify
himself for his country’s service; he may have mastered all military
science; the fire of genius may burn bright in his soul; he may be
impelled by the purest patriotism, and be the “bravest of the brave;”
but he comes not through the door of privilege--he has never graduated
at West Point--he is rejected! Is this the equality of your boasted
institutions? If “all men are created equal,” that equality is soon
lost by congressional legislation. It is said that military science
is necessary in the army, and that there is no institution except at
West Point where it is taught. How can it be taught elsewhere? The
science acquired any where but at West Point is of no value to the
possessor. Abolish the monopoly of military commissions, throw them
open for competition to merit and science, wherever acquired, and there
will be places enough for instruction in the art, without burdening
the treasury, and a much wider range for the selection of officers
will be afforded to you. West Point is a beautiful and healthy place,
and a strong military position; but there is nothing in its air or
climate, however salubrious, that in itself creates a soldier. It has
the monopoly of commissions--not of qualifications--the same instruction
at another location would have equal effect in qualifying an officer
to command. I object to the institution, because it is aristocratic,
also, in the _habits and feelings_ which it inculcates. Petted as the
cadets are, it would be surprising if they did not become proud and
vain. It is not their fault--your laws make them so. They are placed
in such a position as to render the adoption of such feelings almost
inevitable. They alone have a public education at the expense of the
nation. They are instructed in things which no other individuals have
any motives for learning--they only are deemed legally competent for
officers of the army; and they naturally reason: “If our services were
not indispensable, we should not be educated at the public expense.
If persons not educated at West Point were capable of performing the
duties of military commanders, we would not be allowed to monopolize
military commissions. If the knowledge we have obtained could be had
elsewhere, the United States would not, at great expense, erect and
maintain the military academy. If our country could dispense with
us, we should not be commissioned and retained for years under pay
without employment. We alone have been educated for officers. All the
military science of the nation centres in us; no others are qualified
to command. We are a caste by ourselves--a military nobility, on whom
the fortunes of the country depend.” Censure not these young men for
their opinions. They are the legitimate fruits of your legislation--fair
and just inferences from your enactments. But they are not, therefore,
the less to be regretted. Such enactments are calculated to draw a wide
line of separation between the cadets and their fellow citizens; to
foster a spirit of pride and arrogance, and self-sufficiency, on the
part of the former, mixed with scorn and contempt of the multitude, to
be returned by the latter with feelings of envy and detestation. Have
not these consequences resulted? Does not, even now, an ill feeling
exist between West Point and the country?
My next objection to the academy is, that the expenses are exorbitant,
and greatly disproportioned to the benefits.
A report made by the Secretary of War at the present session of
Congress, states the expenditures to have been upwards of four million
of dollars. Over seven hundred thousand dollars of that sum is the cost
of the grounds, buildings and fixtures, in the nature of capital, which
cannot be considered as entirely wasted, though they are of little
value in any other respect than as connected with this institution.
The residue amounting to 3,291,500 dollars, is stated as the current
expenses of the institution--the cost of educating the cadets. This
would amount to an annual expenditure of about 130,000 dollars. The
number of cadets who have graduated, including those who are expected
to graduate on the 30th of June next, amounts only to 1,231; each
graduate, therefore, has occasioned an expense to the nation of three
thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; or, if we take only the
current expenses, deducting what may be considered as an investment
of capital, the cost of each amounts to 2,673 dollars. But the amount
thus reported by the Secretary of War, I understand, includes only
the direct and immediate expenditures for the institution, and omits
many expenses which the academy has indirectly occasioned. A friend
who has carefully investigated the matter, and whose general accuracy
I cannot doubt, makes the cost of each cadet who graduates this year
amount to five thousand dollars. All of the expenditures direct and
indirect, by reason of the military academy, I have no doubt, exceed
five millions of dollars, which is the cost of educating 1,231 persons
in military science sufficiently to qualify them for subaltern officers
in the army. A part of them have taken their commissions, and are
employed in the public service. Some have declined to accept, others
have resigned soon after their acceptance, while many have received
commissions, and been placed on the roll of supernumeraries--officers
without men to command, or military duties to perform. Those who have
graduated are by no means all who have entered the academy. Since
1815 the whole number of students has been 2,942. Deducting the 1,231
who have graduated, and are expected to graduate at the close of the
present year, and there will remain 1,711 who have not graduated. Less
than 200 remain at the academy, and between 1,500 and 1,600 must have
left it without completing their education, or rendering any equivalent
to the nation for the expense incurred for them. Perhaps, however,
it is not a subject of regret that so many of the cadets have left
the institution, or been dismissed from it without completing their
education, and claiming their privilege of military commissions, as
many more yet remain than we have the means of employing. The number of
cadets at the academy usually amounts to about 250--the number annually
admitted to about 100, of whom about 40 graduate. The army absorbs 22,
and the remaining 18 are supernumeraries, holding brevet commissions,
without active duties. It is rather a subject of congratulation,
therefore, than of regret, that 60 out of a hundred of the students do
not so persevere unto the end as to entitle themselves to commissions,
and become quartered for life upon the treasury; but it is not on this
account less objectionable in principle thus to educate them at the
public expense, without an equivalent, in service or otherwise. A law
providing, in terms, that 100 students should be admitted annually into
the academy, and educated at the public expense--that 40 of them should
be retained as officers of the army, and the remainder be discharged
from all claims for the instruction they receive, and the expense they
occasion, would be denounced as unjust and unconstitutional; but a law
effecting indirectly precisely the same objects, receives not only
the sanction, but the eulogies of the most strict constructionists.
What cannot constitutionally be done directly, may be accomplished
indirectly, without trenching upon the constitution. Be it so. I shall
not raise a constitutional question here. My observation has taught me
that the constitution is formed of materials very like India-rubber. It
will stretch on the one side so as to admit anything a man desires to
introduce, and close so tight on the other as to shut out everything he
wishes to exclude.
But to return to the question. I hold it to be a less evil to give
the supernumerary cadets a gratuitous education, if the nation can
be thereafter discharged from their support, than to retain them as
officers of the army, when their services are not wanted. Already
the supernumeraries, at the lowest estimate, amount to seventy, whose
support and pay cost the nation nearly 70,000 dollars a year; and the
number will be largely increased at the next examination, which occurs
in June. Prior to the Florida war, the number of unemployed officers
was much greater; but, at its commencement, resignations were “plenty
as blackberries.” It is but justice, however, to those who retained
their commissions, to say, that they fought gallantly and well in the
most unpromising and disagreeable contest.
Not only is the military academy an aristocratic and expensive
institution, but it is also the parent of some _positive evils_. The
first that I shall notice is the jealousies and controversies which it
occasions between the officers of the army. Some of the officers have
been educated at West Point, others have not. Most of the superior
officers have not enjoyed the advantages of that institution: nearly
all of the inferior officers have. Thus they are divided into two
classes--the regular and the irregular. The cadets, having enjoyed
greater advantages than their superiors--served a regular apprenticeship
to their business, and entered the service by the only door the law now
recognises--can hardly fail to look upon their superiors as unlearned,
as mere intruders, the creatures of accident, as usurper of stations
of right belonging to themselves. Is it possible for such feelings
to remain smothered for years in the bosom, like the hidden fire of
a volcano, without occasional eruptions? Will not such sentiments be
very apt to break out in overt acts of disrespect and contempt? And
will not the older officers, annoyed and disgusted by what they deem
the vanity and presumption of the juniors, be likely to meet this
spirit by a haughty and imperious bearing, calculated and intended to
mortify their pride, and check their assumptions? Have not the many
quarrels and controversies, often ending in courts of inquiry and
courts-martial, which have been so frequent in, and so disgraceful
to the army, originated principally in these conflicting sentiments?
Sir, I apprehend the difficulties have been so produced, and under the
same circumstances they will continue to occur, while human nature
remains unchanged. Harmony can no more be expected to exist between
two distinct classes of officers, so differently taught and appointed,
than between different sets of children in the same family, whom all
experience has shown to be irreconcilable.
The second positive evil I shall notice, is the effect produced upon
the soldiery. By means of the Military Academy, the door to promotion
is effectually closed against the men; the cadets having the exclusive
right to preferment, and there being already seventy supernumerary
officers and the number annually increasing. The soldier, thus excluded
from promotion, has no incentive to bravery or good conduct; all he
has to desire is to shirk danger and hardship as much as he can,
without incurring the risk of punishment. Does not this state of things
necessarily degrade and demoralize the army? Who would enlist into such
a service? None but the desperate and the vicious. Having no hopes,
they can be influenced only by their fears--the ties which should unite
them to their leaders are all broken, and their obedience, instead of
the submission of respect or affection, becomes the base servility of
apprehension, and a desire to escape bodily suffering. The officers
can regard such men as little better than brutes, to be controlled by
fear and force, while the men look upon their officers as tyrants, to
whom they are compelled to yield an unwilling obedience. What motive or
feeling in the soldier can be appealed to as incentive to good conduct?
Ambition, hope, pride? All are crushed and blighted. Conscience? Its
voice is powerless with such men. Fear alone remains--the fear of
personal suffering; and to this the officers appeal. Hence, despite
your laws, corporal punishment has been, and continues to be, and, I
fear, will continue to be, inflicted. True, it is prohibited; but has
the prohibition banished it from the army? No; nor can it, until you
so change the organization that the soldier will have other motives
of action besides a fear of punishment. A late court-martial has
exemplified the operation of these feelings in the army. A soldier
who had been committed to the guard-house for some misconduct, was
brought out by an officer and severely beaten with a sword. The
officer was arraigned before a court-martial for unofficer-like
conduct in thus beating the soldier in violation of law and of the
rules and articles of war; and the court-martial, although they found
that the act was committed as charged, decided that no criminality
was attached thereto, and honorably acquitted the accused. When the
proceedings were reported to the commanding general, he disapproved of
the decision, and ordered the court-martial to reassemble to consider
the case, and demanded of the court by what law or order a soldier
could be taken from the guard-house and beaten with a sword; and if
there was none, that then the accused should be punished according
to law. The court reassembled, and reaffirmed its decision; and, the
proceedings being reported to the War Department, were again sent
back for recommendation and reconsideration, and the decision shown
to be entirely erroneous. But the court-martial refused to change its
decision, and I regret to be obliged to say that the department tamely
submitted. Now, it may be considered as an established principle,
decided by a court-martial and acquiesced in by the government, that an
officer may take an unprotected and imprisoned soldier, beat him with
an implement not more dangerous or cruel than a sword, without being
guilty of “unofficer-like conduct,” although it be in direct violation
of law, and of the rules and articles of war; and if the officer be
arraigned for misconduct, he is entitled to an “honorable acquittal.”
Perhaps it is necessary, as an act of justice to other officers, to add
that the accused, and most of the members of the court were graduates
of West Point. Is this the submission to the laws which is there
inculcated?--the respect for the rights of inferiors taught at that
“_democratic institution_?” After all, sir, the fault is as much in
the system as in the men. By excluding every non-commissioned officer
and private from promotion, you so degrade the army, and destroy its
moral power, that is difficult to govern it without the infliction of
corporal punishment. Abolish the West Point monopoly--open the way to
merit for promotion from the ranks--and a new and far better class of
soldiers will enlist in your service, a new spirit will pervade the
army, obedience will be prompt and willing, emulation and hope will
lead to acts of daring bravery, and you will gain in efficiency far
more than you lose in science.
The last evil I shall notice is the want of confidence, respect and
attachment between the army and the people. The main reliance of
this country for defence is, and ever must be, the militia. Anything,
therefore, which tends to prejudice the militia, or the mass of the
people, against the army, should be cautiously avoided, as it is
essential to have them act in concert and harmony. Whether merited or
unmerited, it cannot be denied that the people, and especially that
portion of them which compose the militia, look upon West Point, and
West Point officers, with great disfavor; they are specially unpopular.
If war should occur, and the army and militia be brought in contact,
the most disastrous consequences might ensue from their dissensions.
It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to induce the militia to
volunteer their services when they would be placed under the command
of the cadets. In the objections I have made, and the views I have
taken of West Point, I believe I have expressed the general sentiment
of the militia of my district, and of the majority of the State I have
the honor in part to represent. Located, as the academy is, in the
State of New York, its character and influences must be as well known
and appreciated there as in any part of the Union; yet it has been
repeatedly denounced by military conventions, composed of the most
distinguished and enlightened men of that State. Believing it to be
an expensive, extravagant, and anti-democratic institution of little
use, the occasion of many controversies between the officers, and of
discontent and degradation to the soldiers, I cannot give my vote for
its continuance.