This week, we had the distinct pleasure of welcoming NHF member Mrs. Ruth Rosow to the Washington Navy Yard. In 2000, as we sought to purchase the Arizona model, Mrs. Rosow generously stepped forward to provide the funds needed for the purchase. She traveled from Florida to visit our offices and the Museum, and we arranged for the Arizona model to be carefully transported to the Navy Yard, so that the she and her family could have their first in-person look at the intricately crafted model. We thank Mrs. Rosow once again for her generous support!

Donor Gets First Look at Battleship USS Arizona (BB 39) Model was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 13, 2013.

Admiral Bruce DeMars, our Chairman, and Rear Admiral John T. Mitchell, our President, look forward to welcoming you to the special ceremony for this new exhibit. Former Navy POW Rear Admiral Bob Shumaker, who assisted in the preparation of this compelling exhibit, will introduce the premiere of an NHF underwritten video.

Guests will also receive an update on the Naval Historical Foundation’s successful Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and History (STEM-H) program that will be conducted in July 2013 at the Navy Submarine Force Library and Museum in Groton, Connecticut. This summer’s program will be our first off-site program, which we plan to offer at other navy museums across the country.

The Foundation’s work is possible only with the participation provided by your membership and contributions for our ongoing work. We appreciate your continued membership and financial support as we build new exhibits for the Navy Museum, expand our STEM-H initiative, support the War of 1812 bicentennial, celebrate the Battle of Midway victory and the Navy’s Birthday, organize historical seminars, and promote naval history through social media and our Pull Together newsletter and e-newsletter.

As we continue to build new exhibits in the Cold War Gallery and export our STEM program to other naval sites across the U.S., we want to ask you to consider making a special contribution to support these important NHF initiatives. Your support makes a real difference in preserving and celebrating naval history. Donations can be made online through our GiveDirect site.

To RSVP, please contact us by phone or email:

Director of Development Leslie Cook, (202) 678-4333 ext 6, lcook@navyhistory.org

Membership Manager Ali Medlin, (202) 678-4333 ext 5, AMedlin@navyhistory.org

We look forward to welcoming you and your guests on June 15^th!

RSVP for Naval Historical Foundation 2013 Annual Meeting was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 13, 2013.

For those who aren’t familiar with the story of the “Sammy B,” it is one of the truly legendary stories in the U.S. Navy’s history. In October 1944, as Allied landing forces swarmed the beaches of Leyte, in the Philippines, the Japanese Navy rallied their remaining forces for one last desperate naval battle. A series of far-ranging engagements covering hundreds of miles around the Philippine Islands, which came to be known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, saw this massive Japanese force defeated in stunning fashion. But they came perilously close to inflicting major damage to the Allied landing forces, if not for the heroic efforts of “Taffy III,” a small, overmatched American force of escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts. During this engagement on 25 October, which came to be known as the Battle Off Samar, the deadly Japanese Center Force, comprised of destroyers, cruisers, and battleships – including the superbattleship Yamato – slipped through to the eastern side of the Philippines, and was bearing down on the lightly defended Allied landing forces. The only thing stopping the Center Force from raining destruction on the landing beach was Taffy III. In what amounted to a suicidal charge, the American destroyers and destroyer escorts turned and steamed directly into the face of the Japanese battle line. Pounding away with torpedoes and 5″ gunfire, and supported by aircraft, the ships of Taffy III achieved the impossible, as the Japanese armada turned and headed home before reaching their target.

In achieving this victory, the U.S. Navy suffered terrible casualties. An escort carrier and two destroyers were lost, as was the Roberts. The story of this lightly armed and armored destroyer escort, steaming straight into a force of Japanese battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, has come to epitomize the highest ideals of the U.S. Navy. Along with the larger destroyers of Taffy III, the Sammy B. inflicted heavy damage on the Japanese force, firing hundreds of 5″ shells and scoring hits with her torpedoes. But in a toe-to-toe slugging match with larger ships, the little DE was doomed, and was soon afire and dead in the water. As her crew abandoned ship, Chief Torpedoman Rudy Skau retrieved her battle ensign, and tucked it safely away. The ship went down, and her crew floated for nearly 3 days awaiting rescue, with many survivors perishing from wounds and shark attacks.

Years later, Skau passed along the tattered flag to his employer, James Massick, a 1954 graduate of the University of Washington. Massick had his own personal connection to the Roberts. While a student at the University of Washington, he met Captain Robert Copeland, who had commanded the Sammy B. during the battle, and was awarded the Navy Cross for his inspirational leadership. Copeland was a 1935 graduate of the University of Washington’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, and he encouraged Massick to apply for the program, which he did. Massick eventually graduated and was commissioned as an Ensign. Early in 2013, Massick contacted Captain David Melin, Commanding Officer of the school’s NROTC unit, and offered to return the priceless battle ensign to the Navy. Captain Melin contacted the Naval Historical Foundation, and we arranged to have the flag officially donated to the Navy’s collection at the Washington Navy Yard. It is currently in the possession of NHHC, for preservation and framing. It will be loaned back to the NROTC unit for display on the University of Washington campus later this year. We were pleased to play a very small role in finding the best home for this symbol of the U.S. Navy’s finest hour.

USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE 413) Battle Ensign Donated to Navy was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 13, 2013.

Last month, the Naval Historical Foundation was the recipient of a generous donation of approximately 400 books from CNA. The donation was arranged by Captain Peter Swartz, USN (Ret), analyst at CNA, and a loyal member and supporter of the Foundation. Museum Store Manager Frank Arre went down to the CNA office located in Alexandria, and carted out nearly 30 boxes of books that the CNA Library no longer needs. The books will be available for purchase through the Foundation’s Used Book Sale. In addition to the quarterly Book Sale (scheduled for 29/30 May, stay tuned for more details) books are also available on a daily basis on the shelves in the front of the Navy Museum Store, located in the Navy Museum at the Washington Navy Yard. We hope to see you in the store or at the Book Sale!

CNA Donates Huge Collection of Books to Naval Historical Foundation was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 13, 2013.

Reviewed by Diana L. Ahmad, Ph.D.

Art historians Paula Calvin and Deborah Deacon take readers on a journey through two and a half centuries of American military art as depicted by female artists. They demonstrated that war impacted not only men, but women and their families as well.

Defining art works as paintings, sculpture, textiles, quilts, knitting, needlepoint, and photography, the authors clearly showed the impact of war on American women’s art. The book provided a chronological history of women’s art contributions from the Revolutionary Era through the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan showing how women contributed art works at many levels. They also briefly explained the early history of women referencing “republican motherhood” and the Cult of Domesticity, as well as women crossing the North American continent on the overland trails. Each chapter followed the same format and provided information on the genre of art and the women who provided military art of a particular design. Female artists largely incorporated military art into their repertoire of work, but did not devote their lives to the genre.

During the nineteenth century, female artists often came from elite families that allowed the women to study and travel, most commonly in Italy and Paris with renowned artists, many of them male. The military art done by these women focused on paintings and sculptures and were most often commissioned by states or societies to commemorate historic encounters such as Civil War battles or important generals or admirals, such as Admiral David Farragut. Often the commissions came many years after the event or the death of the person causing the women to seek out photographs or other illustrations to show them what had occurred at the incident in question.

Although generally not permitted on the fields of battle until the conflicts of the Cold War era, women commemorated their feelings for or against a war in needlepoint, quilts, and the like. Many times, these items remained in the family and only recently have found their way into museums. In addition to Anglo-Americans artists, the authors noted the artwork of Japanese-Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans, but only briefly.

The book clearly shows how the role of women grew from housewives who knitted socks for soldiers to women who became part of official military art programs, such as the Navy Art program during World War II, the Air Force Art Program starting in 1950, and military artists in today’s armed forces. They successfully explained that as women’s roles grew, their art became more and more accepted by society as the women were no longer stationed on the home front, but were, instead, stationed in combat areas, such as in Vietnam or Iraq.

Much of the book’s research came from secondary sources and it is unclear whether or not the artists in question left any diaries or papers at historical societies or archives. Generally, the book provides a good overview of the development of female artists throughout American history and provided some excellent choices of illustrations. Many of the sculptures and paintings done by the women were of men. Although not a specific part of this volume, it would be wonderful to see if modern women changed their focus from male warriors to female ones. The book provides a long list of female artists who successfully brought their work into the public world demonstrating that war is not an activity that influences or affects only men.

Dr. Diana L. Ahmad and is on the faculty of the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

BOOK REVIEW – American Women Artists in Wartime, 1776-2010 was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 13, 2013.

The first Navy flight nurse on Iwo Jima (6 March 1945) and later Okinawa (6 April 1945), ENS Jane Kendeigh, NC, USNR, became a symbol for casualty evacuation and high altitude nursing. (BUMED Archives)

When the Naval Air Transport Service (NATS) R4D broke through the clouds of volcanic dust and smoke to land on Iwo Jima on March 6, 1945, it carried more than whole blood and medical supplies for the wounded.

On board this flight was a 22-year old Navy nurse named Jane Kendeigh ¹, marking the first time in history that a Navy flight nurse appeared on an active Pacific battlefield. Kendeigh may have become a symbol for casualty evacuation and high altitude nursing on that day, but she was far from alone in this daring mission.

From 6 to 21 March 1945, Kendeigh and her fellow flight nurses air evacuated some 2,393 ² Marines and Sailors from Iwo Jima.  Pictures of these first combat nurses show them offering encouragement and comfort to the rows of littered patients along the battlefield runways. For these physically and psychologically wounded warfighters, flight nurses served as the military equivalent of Dante’s Beatrice ³, appearing at a critical moment in their lives and escorting them from the pits of hell to the safety of forward operating hospitals. It’s little wonder why a special bond often developed between these patients and nurses.

In a recent telephone interview, Mary Hudnall, one of the first flight nurses on Iwo, recalled one patient being so grateful of his rescue that he insisted on giving her a memento from the battlefield. “He asked me to take a small medicine bottle and said ‘It’s sand from Iwo Jima. I don’t want you to forget what we did here.’” When he fell asleep she tucked the trinket under his blanket.  However, when he awoke he begged her to take it. As of April 2013, Hudnall still had this souvenir and still remembered the sacrifice of the men on Iwo. ⁴

By the time of the invasion of Iwo Jima, the concept of air evacuation was nothing new.⁵ On 1 September 1942, the joint-service South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command (SCAT) began using cargo planes to evacuate wounded servicemen during the Guadalcanal campaign. These missions were initially free of medical personnel until November 1942, when Navy pharmacists mates were added to flights.⁶

Flight nurses on Guam appear before an R5D (Douglas Skymaster) in April 1945. (BUMED Archives)

In March 1943, SCAT formally established a joint medical section comprised of Army and Navy flight surgeons to supervise and select casualties for air evacuation in theater. ⁷ Flight nursing first took off when the U.S. Army employed nurses on evacuation missions to North African campaign in December 1942. A year later, in June 1943, the Army formally established the Army Air Force School of Air Evacuation at Bowman Field, KY to offer specialized training for its flight nurses.

Owing to the need for flight nurses in the Pacific war, the Navy established its own School of Air Evacuation Casualties at Naval Air Station Alameda, CA in 1944. Overseeing the school was a former United Airline stewardess and registered nurse named Mary Ellen O’Connor, later dubbed the most “flyingest woman in the world” for her long career aboard airplane. ⁸ On 10 December 1944, the first class, consisting of 24 Navy nurses and 24 pharmacists mates,⁹ commenced.

The eight-week course consisted of lectures and demonstrations on survival training, air evacuation techniques, physiology of flight, first aid with emphasis on shock, splinting/redressing wounds, and treatment of patients in non-pressurized cabins. Students also learned about artificial horizons, and altitude through flight simulation exercises.  Hallmark in the course was the intensive 18-hour “watermanship” training organized to simulate conditions of a water landing/crash scenario. The prospective flight nurses were required to swim under water, swim one-mile, and be able to tow victims 440 yards in 10 minutes ¹⁰.

Following graduation in January 1945, 12 of the first flight nurses were sent to Naval Air Station Agana, Guam, to prepare for their first battlefield mission while the others were used to transport casualties in the Continental United States and from the (Territory of) Hawaii. By the end of March, after two more classes graduated from the school, the Navy had 74 trained flight nurses in its employ; almost all would be used for the next big challenge, perhaps the biggest of them all: Okinawa.

The Battle of Okinawa alone accounted for 17 percent of the total Navy and Marine Corps casualties suffered in World War II.  Owing to the enormous casualty totals, Okinawa was the largest combat casualty evacuation operation in U.S. military history and marked the first time the Navy evacuated more casualties by air than sea. Unsung heroes in this campaign, the Navy flight nurses, now using larger R5D which could accommodate up to sixty patient litters, would help evacuate some 11,771 to Guam. ¹¹.

After Okinawa, many of the flight nurses were used to repatriate Prisoners of War from the Philippines to Guam. A few who stayed in service years after the war would participate in the Berlin Airlift.

Owing to a longstanding ban on marriage that was renewed after the war, the choice of service and family was not possible for flight nurses and most left the Navy.¹²

Today, the story of the brave women of Iwo Jima and Okinawa remains a footnote in most histories of military nursing; they never achieved any medals for their service let alone much notoriety. Then again, most would say that they were just happy doing their jobs.

As ENS Jane Kendeigh would remark about her service:  “our rewards are wan smiles, a slow nod of appreciation, a gesture, a word—accolades greater, more heart-warming than any medal.” ¹³

Lt. J.G. Mae Hanson, NC, USNR, serves fruit juice to the casualties from Okinawa, while Pharmacist Mate, 2nd Class Kenneth Plain checks on a patient. May 1945. (BUMED Archives)

FOOTNOTES

Angels of the Airfields: Navy Air Evacuation Nurses of World War II was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 9, 2013.

Vice Admiral F.H. (Mike) Michaelis, U.S. Navy

By Norman Polmar

(Editor’s note: This is the eighth in a series of blogs by Norman Polmar, author, analyst, and consultant specializing in the naval, aviation, and intelligence fields. Follow the full series here.)

A telephone call in early March 1974 from one of my consulting customers in the Navy Department alerted me to a problem:  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, was upset with me. I had written a brief article in the March issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings—“Sea Control Ship and Navy Missions”—raising questions about the proposed sea control ship, one of several Zumwalt ship initiatives.

I had met the admiral several times before, and was managing two small programs for him, one producing the Navy guide book “Understanding Soviet Naval Developments.” Further, on 7 March I was to host a dinner at the National Press Club for Admiral Zumwalt; Tom Wolf, the Rand Corporation’s Soviet expert; John Moore, the new editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships; and Peter Hackess, a celebrated TV commentator (and a Naval Reserve officer). The next day, the eighth, we were to record a TV show narrated by Hackess on the importance of sea power in the modern age.

I was told to be in Admiral Zumwalt’s office at 12 noon the day after the call. It would be a one-on-one discussion over lunch in his office. For most of an hour, Zumwalt, a surface warfare officer, explained to me why I was wrong in my commentary and why the Navy needed more aircraft carriers—large nuclear-propelled CVNs and small, sea control ships.  For the last few minutes of our lunch, I tried to make five or six points, attempting to justify my commentary and identifying flaws in his thesis. Then there was silence for a minute or two.

He responded along the lines of, “I’ll tell you what I would like you to do,” he began. He would ask Vice Admiral F.H. (Mike) Michaelis, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic Fleet, to come up from Norfolk and, with Vice Admiral William D. (Bill) Houser, the Deputy CNO for Air, to put me on the correct path to understanding the carrier situation.

Michaelis was a pilot, having seen major action in World War II, earning the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Distinguished Flying Cross. In the 1960s he became the second commanding officer of the world’s first nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier, the Enterprise (CVAN 65). I had not previously met the admiral.

At the time I was consulting to Houser, having begun working for that office in 1970 (when Admiral Weisner “borrowed” me from the Northrop Corporation; see my earlier blog). Houser saw combat in a cruiser in the Pacific during World War II and then as a fighter pilot in the Korean War. He later commanded the large carrier Constellation (CVA 64) and served as military assistant to the Secretary of Defense.

Our respective schedules delayed our meeting. Finally, on Sunday morning, 9 June, Michaelis, Houser, and I had breakfast at the visiting flag quarters in the Washington Navy Yard. We discussed aircraft carriers for several hours. I came to understand the need for sea control ships, primarily for the anti-submarine role. My “sticking point” on large carriers was cost—the next CVN would cost more than $2 billion. As we continued, I asked if it was possible to design and build an “austere” carrier and then add features at a later date, so that the construction costs could be reduced.

My question and the following discussion led to one of the admirals asking a steward for some large sheets of paper and pencils. He brought in a role of brown wrapping paper and we three sprawled on the floor sketching “flattops.” Finally, Michaelis suggested that I undertake a study of how to build such an “envelope aircraft carrier” that could be “filled up” at a later time.

Exhausted, we parted.

Admiral Michaelis and I kept in contact and, when I was working on a study of tactical nuclear war at sea, he invited me down to his Norfolk headquarters to give a briefing on the subject to his staff. During lunch at his headquarters he asked me, “Where are we with the envelope aircraft carrier study?”  “Nowhere,” I responded—I had not followed up on our meeting because Admiral Zumwalt had retired and, I believed, Houser would leave in the near future.

Admiral Micahelis informed me that he would soon become the Chief of Naval Material and that he would fund such a study. On 18 April 1975, Admiral Michaelis was sworn in as head of the Naval Material Command in Washington with four-star rank. He kindly invited me to the ceremonies. A day or two later his secretary telephoned me with an invitation to have lunch with the admiral. I responded that I would be pleased to meet with him, but that I preferred to host him at the National Press Club in Washington rather than have lunch in his office. We arranged to have lunch at the club on the 23^rd.

As soon as we had ordered lunch, I handed the admiral a copy of the formal proposal from my firm, the Santa Fe Corporation, to undertake “Analysis of the Feasibility of the Envelope Aircraft Carrier Concept,” dated 5 March 1976. The effort would be undertaken with the firms of BDM and Gibbs and Cox as subcontractors. The later was one of the nation’s top naval architectural firms. The proposal stated:

It is our belief that the ”Envelope Aircraft Carrier Concept” may provide an approach through which significant reductions in construction costs can be attained without unacceptably impacting on basic carrier effectiveness.

Accordingly, the goal of this effort is to identify aircraft carrier features which significantly contribute to total construction cost and which can be deleted or delayed without impacting on carrier size and basic effectiveness. Special emphasis will be given to features for which space can be reserved for subsequent installation during the operational lifespan of the carrier.

As a secondary objective, the study will key on the identification of systems and components which, if deleted or deferred, would allow for substantial personnel reductions.

The unsolicited proposal was staffed at the Naval Material Command, approved, and funded. I was named the study program manager with an all-star team assembled. The hard-core engineering work was directed by Kenneth Brower, an insightful and versatile naval architect. A key consultant was Hebert Meier, recently retired as the senior naval architect at the Naval Sea Systems Command and probably the leading U.S. authority on carrier design. Aviation aspects of the study were directed by Charles Stalzer of BDM, a leading authority on aviation and weapons systems.

We worked hard over the next few months. We produced a highly readable, intuitive and analytical study.  However, despite our best efforts, we found that few major features could be delayed or deferred in constructing a large aircraft carrier. Some features, such as weapons stowage, could be changed or delayed, but no major efficiencies could be identified. The concept of an “envelope aircraft carrier” was not valid.

However, when we looked at engineering-related features (e.g., steam catapults), we became intrigued with the basic engineering plant—two pressurized nuclear reactors combined with four steam turbines turning four propeller shafts. At the time the Soviets were constructing the first of the four large, 28,000-ton “battle cruisers” of the Kirov class. These would be the largest surface combatants built from the keel up by any navy since World War II.

The Kirovs had a combination two-reactor/oil-burning steam plant. For several reasons the concept was attractive: The steam plant was efficient at providing high speed and the nuclear plant at providing endurance. Other benefits of such a “split plant” in a large aircraft carrier would be a reduction in nuclear-trained (expensive) personnel and a reduction in construction costs. Oil was relatively cheap at the time.

Thus, our report as submitted to Admiral Michaelis contained two parts: The basic envelope carrier study and a classified volume addressing the split-plant concept. We briefed the admiral and he reviewed the report. He felt that the envelope concept had been worth pursuing to demonstrate whether or not it could be feasible. As for the split plant, as a former skipper of the Enterprise, Michaelis thought that the idea was interesting. But, he pointed out, the idea would never “sell.” It would be fought by Admiral H.G. Rickover, the long-time and intractable head of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. Indeed, we were told to submit only three copies of our final report. And, we later learned, that all three copies of the second volume—examining the split-plant propulsion concept—were immediately destroyed.

Thus ended an interesting study effort.

Admiral Michaelis served as Chief of Naval Material until August 1978. We remained in contact and I did some additional work for him…but nothing as thought-provoking as the envelope aircraft carrier.

Norman’s Corner: The Envelope Aircraft Carrier was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 8, 2013.

Rosalie Calhoun, outgoing President of the Society of Sponsors of the United States Navy, poses with the President’s Cup.

On Thursday, 2 May 2013, Naval Historical Foundation Executive Director Captain Todd Creekman, USN (Ret), his wife Debbie, and Digital Historian Dave Colamaria had the pleasure of attending the annual Society of Sponsors of the United States Navy luncheon. The event was held at the Westwood Country Club in Vienna. The featured speaker was former Undersecretary of the Navy the Honorable Robert Work, who spoke about the Navy’s current fiscal challenges, as well as the history of ship naming. During an earlier private business meeting, Dr. Barbara Pilling was elected President of the Society of Sponsors for 2013-2015. Dr. Pilling, an NHF Board member, has been the guiding force behind our STEM-H Teacher Fellowship Program. We congratulate her on this new position! We also want to congratulate outgoing President Rosalie Calhoun, who completed a very successful (and very busy) term of office.

On display at the luncheon was the striking Society of Sponsors President’s Cup, which features the names of each of the Society’s Presidents since 1908. The sterling silver cup was produced in the early 1900s by Washington, DC’s oldest business, Galt & Bro. Jewelers which was established in 1802 by James Galt. During the period the cup was designed and produced, Edith Galt became manager of the firm in 1908 following her husband’s death, and married President Woodrow Wilson in 1915. The business closed in 2001 after nearly two centuries of continuous operation; it’s final year in operation was reportedly its most profitable. The Cup is normally on display in the Navy Museum at the Washington Navy Yard, under the terms of a special arrangement with the Society. NHF assists the Society by receiving the Cup on temporary loan from the Museum for updating the engraved President’s listing and display at the luncheon. In addition, NHF hosts and maintains the Society’s website, which you can visit at: http://societyofsponsorsofusn.org/.

The Naval Historical Foundation has a long standing relationship with the Society of Sponsors, dating back to the early 20th century. For those who aren’t familiar with the Society, it is composed of the select group of women who have been chosen over the years by the Secretary of the Navy to sponsor a U.S. Navy warship. The most recognizable function of a Sponsor is to break the bottle of champagne on the bow of her ship at a christening ceremony, but the role of a Sponsor extends far beyond that, as detailed here on the Society’s website.

NHF was founded in 1926, but the Society predates us nearly 20 years, with a founding date of 1908. Over the years our partnership has grown, and NHF attendance at the annual luncheons has been a regular occurrence. Recently we uncovered a fascinating document in our archives: a speech delivered by Commodore Dudley Knox (standing in for NHF President Fleet Admiral Ernest King, who was unable to attend) at the 1947 Society luncheon. We’ve scanned that speech, and you can download a copy here. Knox closed the speech by stating that “your objectives are akin to ours. You perpetuate naval history and tradition in an inspiring way that helps to build and keep alive naval morale. The service counts you among its best friends–friends of the spirit–the spirit of our Navy and our country.” More than 60 years later, those words continue to ring true.

NHF Attends Annual Society of Sponsors of the US Navy Luncheon was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 3, 2013.

The emotions captured by the War of 1812: patriotic fervor, anxiety, the immediacy of the moment, the joy of peace… all and more abound in In Their Own Words. Whether encouraging peers, issuing orders to subordinates, lamenting a hero’s death or reporting a glorious frigate action, these emotions spring from the stirring contemporary letters, newspapers and broadsides of the War of 1812 assiduously assembled and presented by Vice Admiral George W. Emery, USN (Retired).

Arranged to carry the reader chronologically from pre-war preparations to post-war celebration by way of the words of contemporary pens and printing presses, these selected documents from Admiral Emery’s collection of early naval Americana bring the naval challenges, successes and disappointments of the war at sea to life sans interpretational bias.

According to historian Christopher McKee, “each reader will probably have a favorite item…Mine is Charles Morris’ letter of 19 June 1812…recounting Morris’ unsuccessful (fortunately for him) effort to avoid being ordered to Constitution as her first lieutenant. Whatever our favorite letter or pamphlet or broadside may be, we can all be enthusiastically grateful to Admiral Emery for sharing some of his treasures…”

In Their Own Words can be ordered online from the US Navy Museum Store at this link.

In Their Own Words: A New Look at the Naval War of 1812 was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on May 1, 2013.

The Naval Historical Foundation recently acquired an 1878-vintage historical document, and generously donated it to the Naval History and Heritage Command’s rare book and document collection in the Navy Department Library. This document, a letter addressing the nineteenth century debate between staff officers and line officers, completes a pair, as the staff officer’s response to the letter is already in the collection. The acquisition of this document enhances the ability of naval historians to understand the thoughts and concerns of the officer corps during the post-Civil War period.

The age of steam introduced a new type of officer on board United States Navy ships, the boiler engineer. This officer, originally unschooled in the art of naval tactics (this would later change as the Naval Academy began to train its own engineers), was not eligible for command of ships. This arrangement was not unusual for the time. Other staff officers, such as surgeons and pursers, while having been granted assimilated rank in 1846 and 1847 respectively, did not serve in the line of command. That, however, did not make the engineer’s job insignificant. It was the engineer’s task to keep the ship moving and maneuvering in combat.

In the last half of the nineteenth century, the lack of coaling stations abroad meant that, for the U.S. Navy, fuel was in short supply. It was, therefore, common practice to cruise under sail and steam into battle. This, however, subverted the “normal” order of things.

Previously, when ships sailed under wind power alone, it was the captain’s job, as the most experienced officer aboard, to direct his ship through storm and doldrum, battle and diplomatic mission. The existence of the engineer, who controlled a ship’s ability to maneuver during engagements, limited the control of the line officers. As can easily be imagined, the latter did not enjoy the loss of control.

So, when the staff officers, specifically the engineering corps, sought to be assimilated into the regular officer corps, the line officers resisted. The document, newly acquired, details the line officers’ reasoning as to why the process of assimilation, already in progress (it took half a century), should proceed no further. This document, along with its mate, the staff officer response, already in the collection, constitute two historically significant documents leading up to the Naval Reform Act of 1899.

The newly acquired document is a letter, dated January 22, 1878, from the officers of the line of the US Navy, addressed to Secretary of the Navy Thompson, listing the officers’ concerns regarding the then-current state of naval affairs, specifically the ambiguities in the chain of command resulting from the granting of positive (normal officer) rank to the engineering corps in 1871. Hundreds of line officers signed this letter, including then-Commanders George Dewey and Alfred Thayer Mahan and Ensign Bradley Fiske!. The line officers maintained that, having received positive rank equivalent to line officers, the staff officers were no longer considering themselves subordinate to the executive officers of ships (second in the line of command), when the staff rank was superior to the executive officer rank. This, the line officers said, led to a “deterioration of discipline.” The line officers, therefore, sought new military regulations that would strengthen the authority of the executive officer to carry out the policies of the commanding officer.

Alfred Thayer Mahan (at left, NH 48058) and George Dewey (at right, NH 66609) two of the naval officers to sign the letter.

The staff officers of the engineering corps took offense at this assertion. They responded in an unsigned, undated, paragraph by paragraph, published rebuttal; each claim rebuked, each fear assuaged. The most significant of these was the assertion that the staff officers made no claim to being superior to the executive officer, only superior to those of lesser rank, all serving at the pleasure of the commanding officer.

This issue continued to fester for several more decades, compounded by a bloated officer corps in the wake of the downsizing of the US Navy fleet following the Civil War, –until the passage of the Naval Reform Act of 1899. That act, whose first line stated its goal was “to increase the efficiency of the personnel of the Navy…”, addressed the issue by folding the engineering corps into the chain of command, thereby completing the process of assimilation. This compromise, which both addressed the line officer’s desire to clarify the chain of command and the engineer’s desire to be treated the same as any other ranking officer, seemed to resolve the issue, ending a period of resentment between the various officer communities dating back to before the Civil War. While this may seem simple and logical to the modern mind, at the time it was a radical move. To this day other navies, such as the Royal Navy, still maintain separate engineering officer corps with no shared command responsibility. Nor did this necessarily relax the line officer’s antipathy towards engineering. As late as the First World War Admiral Samuel Robison advised Lieutenant Commander Chester Nimitz to redirect his energies from engineering and technology to leading and organizing men. This, however, is understandable as Robison was one of the old sailors from a time of the unassimilated corps.

In the post-World War II, Cold War era, the increasing complexity of the engineering plants aboard Navy ships, and repeated, high-visibility failures of ships to meet operational requirements because of engineering failures, led the Navy to require prospective commanding officers to complete engineering officer of the watch qualifications before they could be considered qualified for command. Furthermore, once ordered to command, those prospective COs were further required to attend the nuclear navy-inspired “Senior Officer Ship Material Readiness Course, or “SOSMRC” before assuming command. The engineer officers of the 1890s would surely have enjoyed the spectacle of their line officer comrades lighting fires under boilers, sounding fuel tanks, checking lubrication levels and performing the myriad tasks inherent in running a power plant. In a sense, their assimilation into the line officer community was now matched by the line officers’ assimilation into the engineering community!

If you are interested in reading the letter that first articulated this dispute, you can download a digital version here.

Zach Kopin is a sophomore in American University’s College of Arts and Sciences University Honors Program double majoring in History and Music. He currently works as an intern under Dr. Michael J. Crawford for the Early History Section of the Naval History and Heritage Command.

Convergent Corps: Line Officers, Staff Officers and the Modernization of the U.S. Navy was published by the Naval Historical Foundation and originally appeared on Naval Historical Foundation on April 30, 2013.