20. See, generally, Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe (New York, 1952), pp. 89–90, 162, 188, 332; Hans Speidel, Invasion: 1944 (Chicago, 1950), pp. 27–30; E. A. Shils and Morris Janowitz, “Cohesion and Disintegration of the Wehrmacht in World War II,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XII (Summer 1948), 303–308; N. W. Caldwell, “Political Commissars in the Luftwaffe,” Jour, of Politics, IX (February 1947), 57–79; H. A. Sheen, “The Disintegration of the German Intelligence Services,” Military Review, XXIX (June 1949), 38–41.
21. General Dittmar, quoted in Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, p. 59.
22. See Schlabrendorff, They Almost Killed Hitler, pp. 39–40; Görlitz, General Staff, pp. 329–330; Gen. Günther Blumentritt, Von Rundstedt: The Soldier and the Man (London, 1952), pp. 34, 39–40; Rauschning, Revolution of Nihilism, pp. 151–152, 169–170.
23. Quoted in Wheeler-Bennett, Nemesis of Power, p. 381. See also Hans Bernd Gisevius, To the Bitter End (Boston, 1947), pp. 223–267; Taylor, Sword and Swastika, pp. 337–343.
24. Hans Speier, “German Rearmament and the Old Military Elite,” World Politics, VI (January 1954), 150, n. 4; H. A. DeWeerd, “The German Officer Corps versus Hitler,” Military Affairs, XIII (Winter 1949), 200–207; Kurt Assmann, “Hitler and the German Officer Corps,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, LXXXII (May 1956), 520.
25. Ulrich von Hassell, The Von Hassell Diaries, 1938–1944 (New York, 1947), p. 6; Speidel, Invasion: 1944, p. 16. Compare Blumentritt, Von Rundstedt, p. 25.
26. New York Times, Nov. 10, 1952, p. 7; Gordon A. Craig, “NATO and the New German Army,” in William W. Kaufmann (ed.), Military Policy and National Security (Princeton, 1956), pp. 203–204, 209.
27. D. C. Holtom, Modern Japan and Shinto Nationalism (Chicago, rev. ed., 1947), pp. 7ff. See also Uichi Iwasaki, The Working Forces in Japanese Politics (New York, 1921), pp. 12–13; E. E. N. Causton, Militarism and Foreign Policy in Japan (London, 1936), ch. 1; Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (Boston, 1946), pp. 43–75; J. F. Steiner, “Basic Traits of Japanese Character,” Proceedings, Institute of World Affairs, V (1944–45), 44; Inazo Nitobe, Bushido: The Soul of Japan (New York, 10th ed., 1905), passim.
28. J. C. Balet, Military Japan: The Japanese Army and Navy in 1910 (Yokohama, 1910), p. 3; John M. Maki, Japanese Militarism: Its Cause and Cure (New York, 1945), p. 182.
29. Alfred Vagts, A History of Militarism (New York, 1937), p. 319.
30. Robert Leurquin, “The Japanese Punitive Expedition in China,” The Army Quarterly (April 1938), quoted in Paul W. Thompson, et al., The Jap Army (Army Orientation Course, Series I, No. I, 1942), pp. 23–24. See also Hillis Lory, Japan’s Military Masters (New York, 1943), pp. 94–95.
31. Nitobe, Bushido, p. 188.
32. Quoted in Lory, Japan’s Military Masters, p. 37.
33. Quoted in Benedict, Chrysanthemum and the Sword, pp. 22–23.
34. M. D. Kennedy, Some Aspects of Japan and her Defence Forces (London, 1928), p. 164, and The Military Side of Japanese Life (London, 1924), pp. 311–312, 355; Alexander Kiralfy, “Japanese Naval Strategy,” in Earle (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy, pp. 457–462.
35. Lory, Japan’s Military Masters, pp. 81, 41–47, 79–95; Balet, Military Japan, p. 7; Kennedy, Japan and her Defence Forces, p. 153; Causton, Militarism and Foreign Policy, p. 83; Benedict, Chrysanthemum and the Sword, pp. 38ff.
36. War Ministry Pamphlet, 1934, quoted in Kenneth W. Colegrove, Militarism in Japan (Boston, 1936), pp. 52–53.
37. General Mazaki, quoted in Hugh Byas, Government by Assassination (New York, 1942), p. 150.
38. Quoted in K. W. Colegrove, “The Japanese Cabinet,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., XXX (October 1936), 916–917. See also Chitoshi Yanaga, “The Military and the Government in Japan,” ibid., XXXV (June 1941), 529–530; Causton, Militarism and Foreign Policy, ch. 2; Lory, Japan’s Military Masters, pp. 239–245.
39. Quoted in Lory, Japan’s Military Masters, pp. 139–140.
40. Ibid., pp. 116, 122, 126–128; M. F. Gibbons, Jr., “The Japanese Needed Unification,” Military Review, XXIX (August 1949), 20–27.
41. Quoted in Lory, Japan’s Military Masters, p. 114.
42. Lt. Gen. Tamon, quoted in O. Tanin and E. Yohan, Militarism and Fascism in Japan (London, 1934), p. 186. See also Tatsuji Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (Garden City, N.Y., 1935), pp. 349–357.
43. Quoted in Tanin and Yohan, Militarism and Fascism, p. 187.
44. Kennedy, Military Side, pp. 108–109.
Chapter 6 — The Ideological Constant
1. Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1789, XXVII (June 2, 1784), 518, 524; Memorandum of General Tasker H. Bliss in Frederick Palmer, Newton D. Baker: America at War (New York, 2 vols., 1931), I, 40–41.
2. The implications of the prevalence of liberalism in the United States have been brilliantly probed by Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York, 1955). See also Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, 1953), and Clinton Rossiter, Conservatism in America (New York, 1955).
3. Quoted in Harold Steams, Liberalism in America (New York, 1919), p. 80.
4. See Merle Curti, Peace or War: The American Struggle, 1636–1936 (New York, 1936), and Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York, 1956).
5. Carl J. Friedrich, et al., Problems of the American Public Service (New York, 1935), p. 12.
6. Quoted in Dorothy Burne Goebel and Julius Goebel, Jr., Generals in the White House (Garden City, N.Y., 1945), p. 147.
7. Public Papers (New York, 6 vols., ed. by Ray Stannard Baker and William E. Dodd, 1925–1927), V, 83, 86.
8. On military heroes in American politics, see: Goebel and Goebel, Generals in the White House; Albert Somit, “The Military Hero as Presidential Candidate,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XII (Summer 1948), 192–200; L. B. Wheildon, “Military Leaders and the Presidency,” Editorial Research Reports (Dec. 5, 1947), pp. 869–883; Frank Weitenkampf, “Generals in Politics,” American Scholar, XIII (Summer 1944), 375–378; Sidney Hyman, The American President (New York, 1954), pp. 210–217; P. F. Boller, Jr., “Professional Soldiers in the White House,” Southwest Review, XXXVII (Autumn 1952), 269–279.
9. The Hero in America (New York, 1941), p. 12.
10. Quoted in Hyman, American President, p. 211.
Chapter 7 — The Structural Constant
1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford, 3rd ed., 4 vols., 1768), I, 407, 413–414.
2. For the discussion of this clause, see Max Farrand (ed.), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, 4 vols., 1911–1937), I, 380, II, 286–290; Jonathan Elliot (ed.), The Debates in the Several Conventions (Washington, 4 vols., 1836), III 372–373. For the few instances in which the clause has been invoked in practice, see Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives (Washington, 1907), ch. XVI, and Cannon’s Precedents (Washington, 1935), ch. 16.
3. Farrand, Records, II, 326, 329–330, 563, 640, III, 207; Elliot, Debates, I, 326, 328, 335, II, 77–80, 136–137, III, 381, 660, IV, 244; Charles Warren, The Making of the Constitution (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 474, 483; James Madison, No. 41, The Federalist (Modern Library ed.), pp. 262–263.
4. Farrand, Records, I, 465, II, 385; No. 8, The Federalist, pp. 42–43; Elliot, Debates, II, 520–521, III, 169, 378, 410–411. Patrick Henry commented with respect to the nationalist claim: “This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise.”
5. Farrand, Records, II, 136, 168, 182, 330, 385, II, 332; Elliot, Debates, III, 382, IV, 422–424.
6. See Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States (Washington, 1912), pp. 100–103; F B. Wiener, “The Militia Clause of the Constitution,” Harvard Law Review, LIV (December 1940), 192–193; Leonard D. White, The Jeffersonians (New York, 1951), pp. 540–541. Compare Washington’s revolutionary difficulties. James B. Scott, The Militia (S. Doc. 695, 64th Cong., 2d Ses
s., 1917), pp. 25–26.
7. F. P. Todd, “Our National Guard: An Introduction to Its History,” Military Affairs, V (Summer, Fall 1941), 73–86, 152–170, at pp. 162–163. Aside from these brief articles and a few law review pieces, little scholarly work has been done on the National Guard and the National Guard Association. There is a gold mine here for an enterprising student of American political history.
8. Official Proceedings of the Natl. Guard Assoc., 66th Annual Convention, 1944, pp. 28–29, 44; 1948, pp. Ill, 242–244, 254–255; 1949, pp. 202–210. For the Gray Board recommendations, see Committee on Civilian Components, Reserve Forces for National Security (Washington, 1948), pp. 9–24.
9. Statement of Policy Adopted by the Natl. Guard Assn. and the Adjutants General Assn. in Joint Convention, Baltimore, May 4, 1944, pp. 1, 4; Proceedings, NGA Convention, 1944, p. 100; 1945, pp. 65–66; 1946, pp. 114–115; 1948, p. 65; Public Administration Clearing House, Public Administration Organizations, 1954 (Chicago, 1954), pp. 102, 119.
10. Proceedings, NGA Convention, 1943, pp. 89, 93–96; 1945, pp. 50–55.
11. Proceedings, NGA Convention, 1945, p. 47; 1946, p. 43; 1948, pp. 34. 66, 80–81; 1950, pp. 264–265; 1953, pp. 288–290.
12. Proceedings, NGA Convention, 1943, pp. 56, 67, 88; 1944, pp. 44, 53, 55, 58, 65, 69, 73, 74; 1945, p. 56; 1946, pp. 28–32; 1948, pp. 47–49, 57, 91–92; 1953, p. 28; Time, LXIII (Mar. 1, 1954), 18.
13. Proceedings, NGA Convention, 1948, pp. 33–34; 1950, p. 245.
14. For discussion of royal and parliamentary authority, see Blackstone, Commentaries, I, 257–258, 262, 412–413; J. S. Omond, Parliament and the Army, 1642–1904 (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 7–8; John W. Fortescue, A History of the British Army (London, 13 vols., 1899–1930), II, 568. The Framers at first adopted in toto the language of the basic English statute, 13 Car. II, c. 6 (1661), but then realized that they could not make the President, like the king, commander in chief of the militia in peace as well as war. See Farrand, Records, I, 139–140, II, 185, 426–427; No. 69, The Federalist, p. 448. For the continuing debate as to whether the war power was properly legislative or executive, see Farrand, Records, I, 64–66; Alexander Hamilton, Works (New York, 12 vols., ed. by H. C. Lodge, 1904), IV, 145–146; James Madison, Writings (New York, 9 vols., 1900–1910), VI, 145; Clarence A. Berdahl, War Powers of the Executive in the United States (Urbana, 111., 1921), p. 79. Compare W. W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution (Chicago, 2 vols., 1953), I, 422–428.
15. Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615, 618 (1850). The powers of the British king as general of the kingdom extended to many nonmilitary areas. Blackstone, Commentaries, I, 262ff. For the views of the Framers on the Commander in Chief power, see Farrand, Records, I, 244, 292, II, 145, 319, 426–427, III, 624; Elliot, Debates, IV, 114; The Federalist, pp. 448, 482.
16. For the boundaries between presidential and congressional military powers, see Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers (New York, 1948), ch. vi; Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866); Berdahl, War Powers, passim; Howard White, Executive Influence in Determining Military Policy in the United States (Urbana, 111., 1924), ch. iii; and R. G. Albion’s interesting, if unconvincing, views, “The Naval Affairs Committee, 1816–1947,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, LXXVIII (November 1952), 1929.
17. Quoted in T. H. Williams, ‘The Committee on the Conduct of the War: An Experiment in Civilian Control,” Jour. Amer. Mil. Institute, III (Fall 1939), 141.
18. Lloyd M. Short, The Development of National Administrative Organization in the United States (Baltimore, 1923), p. 119; Berdahl, War Powers, pp. 111–114; Upton, Military Policy, pp. 250–251; Pendleton Herring, The Impact of War (New York, 1941), pp. 141–142; Arthur A. Maass, Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation’s Rivers (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), passim; White, Executive Influence, pp. 237–238, 263; Otto L. Nelson, Jr., National Security and the General Staff (Washington, 1946), pp. 130–166; John Dickinson, The Building of an Army (New York, 1922), p. 320; Bradley A. Fiske, From Midshipman to Rear Admiral (New York, 1919), pp. 563–571.
19. Donald W. Mitchell, History of the Modern American Navy from 1883 through Pearl Harbor (New York, 1946), pp. 62–63.
20. Farrand, Records, I, 244, III, 217–218, 624, IV, 53; Elliot, Debates, II, 408, 412, 522–523, III, 59–60, 496–498; Leonard D. White, The Jeffersonians, p. 220, and The Jacksonians (New York, 1954), pp. 51–57; Herring, Impact of War, pp. 146–147.
21. The theoretical rationale of the balanced pattern was developed in A. T. Mahan, “The Principles of Naval Administration,” Naval Administration and Warfare (Boston, 1908), pp. 3–48, and Spenser Wilkinson, Preface to the 2d edition of The Brain of an Army (London, 1913). Mahan’s essay and Wilkinson’s preface are brilliant analyses of executive military organization and are basic to an understanding of the subject.
22. Secretary of Defense, Semiannual Report, July I to December 31, 1954. p. 58; New York Times, January 13, 1956, p. 6; New York Herald Tribune, November 22, 1953, p. 1, November 20, 1955, Sec. 2, p. 3.
Chapter 8 — The Roots of the American Military Tradition before the Civil War
1. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York, 10 vols., ed. by Paul L. Ford, 1892–1899), X, 239; William A. Ganoe, The History of the United States Army (New York, 1932), p. 95.
2. Secretary of War to Congress, Jan. 13, 1800, American State Papers: Military Affairs, I, 133–135 (hereafter cited as ASP:MA). This communication by McHenry and a subsequent one of Jan. 31, 1800 (ASP:MA, I, 142) were based on Hamilton’s letter to him of Nov. 23, 1799, Alexander Hamilton, Works (New York, 12 vols., ed. by H. C. Lodge, 1904), VII, 179ff. For further expression of Hamilton’s views, see his Works, IV, 457, 464, VII, 11, and The Federalist (Modern Library ed.), pp. 42, 62–69, 206–207. Washington’s words in his Farewell Address were suggested by Hamilton. See Edward Mead Earle, “Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List: The Economic Foundations of Military Power,” in Earle (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton, 1952), pp. 128–138. For Washington’s views, see P. F. Boller, Jr., “Washington and Civilian Supremacy,” Southwest Review, XXXIX (Winter 1954), 10–12; William R. Tansill, The Concept of Civil Supremacy in the United States (Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Public Affairs Bulletin No. 94, 1951), pp. 3–5.
3. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, 20 vols., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association ed., 1905), IV, 218, XIII, 261. For further expression of Jeffersonian military policy, see ibid., II, 242, X, 365, XIV, 261; The Works of Thomas Jefferson (New York, 12 vols., ed. by Paul L. Ford, 1905), V, 386, 426–428, IX, 18, X, 190–191, 206ff., 222–223, XI, 68–69, 426, 436–437.
4. Samuel Tillman, “The Academic History of the Military Academy, 1802–1902,” The Centennial of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, 1802–1902 (Washington, 1904), p. 276; H. Wager Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science (New York, 1846), p. 134; Sidney Forman, West Point (New York, 1950), pp. 43–44, 51–58; R. Ernest Dupuy, Men of West Point (New York, 1951), p. 13. French texts used in the early days of the Academy included Gay de Vernon, Treatise on the Science of War and Fortification (New York, 2 vols., 1817); Louis de Tousard, American Artillerist’s Companion (Philadelphia, 3 vols., 1809); H. Lallemand, A Treatise on Artillery (New York, 1820).
5. Hamilton to McHenry, Nov. 23, 1799, Works, VII, 179ff.; ASP:MA, I, 133ff.
6. Jacob D. Cox, Military Reminiscences of the Civil War (New York, 2 vols., 1900), I, 172, 177–179; Forman, West Point, pp. 23, 74ff., 82, 87–89; W. V. Judson, “The Services of Graduates,” Centennial, pp. 833–835; Tillman, ibid., pp. 282–283, 374; Eben Swift, “Services of Graduates of West Point in Indian Wars,” ibid., p. 527; W. S. Chaplin, “The Services of Graduates in Civil Life, 1802–1902,” ibid., pp. 876–877; William Baumer, Jr., Not All Warriors (New York, 1941), p. xi, and West Point: Moulder of Men (New York, 1942), pp. 241–242; R. Ernest Dupuy, Where They Have Trod (New York, 1940), pp. 368–371, 399–402, and Appendix A; Report o
f Committee on the General Condition of the Military Academy, June 20, 1826, ASP:MA, III, 375; Report of the Board of Visitors to the Military Academy, 1830, ASP:MA, IV, 603; Ann. Report of the Secy, of War, 1828, ASP:MA, IV, 2ff.
7. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 364 (1841); Amer. State Papers: Naval Affairs (hereafter cited as ASP:NA), I, 320, II, 44, III, 350; James R. Soley, Historical Sketch of the United States Naval Academy (Washington, 1876), pp. 7–61; W. D. Puleston, Annapolis: Gangway to the Quarterdeck (New York, 1942), pp. 11–47.
8. Art. 63, Articles of War, Act of Apr. 10, 1806, 2 Stat. 367; Act of Mar. 3, 1813, 2 Stat. 819; Leonard D. White, The Jeffersonians (New York, 1951), pp. 236–240.
9. “Report of the secretary of the navy, of a plan for reorganization of the navy department,” Niles’ National Register, Jan. 25, 1840, pp. 343–345. On nineteenth-century naval organization, see S. B. Luce, “Naval Administration,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (hereafter cited as USNIP), XIV (1888), 574–575, 582–583; “Naval Administration, II,” USNIP, XXVIII (1902), 841–844; “The Board of Naval Commissioners,” USNIP, XXXVII (December 1911), 1123–1124; C. O. Paullin, “Naval Administration Under the Naval Commissioners, 1815–1842,” USNIP, XXXIII (1907), 598–599, 606–611, and “A Half Century of Naval Administration in America, 1861–1911,” USNIP, XXXVIII (December 1912), 1315ff.; Act of Feb. 7, 1815, 3 Stat. 202; Act of Aug. 31, 1842, 5 Stat. 579; Rept. of the Secy, of the Navy, Dec. 4, 1841, S. Doc. 1, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 378 (1841); Rolf Haugen, “The Setting of Internal Administrative Communication in the United States Naval Establishments, 1775–1920” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1953), p. 133.
10. Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States (Washington, 1912), p. 225; James D. Richardson (ed.), Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1910 (New York, 11 vols., 1908), II, 438; Joseph L. Blau (ed.), Social Theories of Jacksonian Democracy (New York, 1947), p. 64.
11. Rept., Com. on Mil. Affs., H. of Reprs., May 17, 1834, ASP:MA, V, 347; Rept. of Select Committee on the United States Military Academy, Mar. 1, 1837, ASP:MA, VII, 14. For the decline of the legal profession and the diplomatic service under the Jacksonian impact, see Roscoe Pound, The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times (St. Paul, Minn., 1953), pp. 226–228, 232–233; J. Rives Childs, The American Foreign Service (New York, 1948), p. 4.
The Soldier and the State Page 59
