In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

86 11 Commander in Chief A president of the United States plays many roles—chief of state, chief executive, party leader, moral leader, among others. But the role that seems to give the greatest pride to a president is that of commander in chief of the armed forces. Certainly, it was a role that Theodore Roosevelt relished. By the time Roosevelt assumed the presidency on the death of McKinley, the war between Spain and the United States was long over. Its aftermath, however, the fighting between the Americans and the Philippine insurrectos, was still dragging on, though it had been temporarily relegated to the back burner in the minds of the American public. Roosevelt was free to turn his attention to reorganizing the War Department. As one of the most vociferous critics of the Army’s mismanagement of the Spanish–American War, he was determined to rectify the worst of the evils that had caused so many needless casualties in that conflict. The effort was already under way. President McKinley had taken the first steps back in 1899 when he removed the congenial but largely ineffective secretary of war, Russell A. Alger. As Alger’s successor, McKinley had chosen New York lawyer Elihu Root. Root, at age fifty–four, had never held public office, but he was a highly respected corporate lawyer. He had, it will be recalled, represented Roosevelt when the latter had needed to establish his New York credentials while campaigning for the governorship in 1898. Root’s list of clients was wide; it ranged from former president Chester A. Arthur to William “Boss” Tweed. When McKinley summoned him to be secretary of war, he was serving as US attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he had no desire to leave that position. Among other considerations, he was reluctant to leave New York and move to Washington. But McKinley prevailed on his patriotism, Commander in Chief 87 and Root had finally accepted. When Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on McKinley’s death, Root willingly stayed on. Although McKinley had begun the process, it was Roosevelt who gave impetus to the Army reorganization. Spurred on by the president, Root focused his efforts in that direction. He began by launching a study of existing military systems, both foreign and domestic. Most important to his study was a body of work produced by Brevet Major General Emory Upton, a Civil War hero and the author of several books on military organization. Upton ’s most meaningful writing was an unfinished manuscript,“The Military Policy of the United States,” which Root immediately ordered published as a book. Upton’s views could not be taken in full, because they reflected the young officer’s distaste for the American concept of civilian control of the military. But it was not philosophy that Root was seeking; it was Upton’s studies of organization. And central to all that study was the need to create a general staff, something previously neglected in the United States Army. Upton’s manuscript, begun in 1875, had been much influenced by his personal contacts with the Prussian General Staff, which enjoyed a unique position in German hierarchy. Ever since Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke of Prussia had directed the decisive defeat of Napoleon III’s France in the War of 1870–71, it had been viewed in military circles with something approaching awe.1 The core of this system lay in its professionalism and the meticulous selection of its members. Its stability had made it into a sort of cult, because its members, if they stayed in favor, remained in the organization for their entire careers. By no means, however, was it an ivory tower. To prevent its members from losing touch with reality, it required every officer to serve periodic tours in the field with troops. It worked well, at least for Germans. The General Staff provided both intelligent guidance and continuity.2 Upton had also studied other systems, such as the French, who also employed a form of general staff, but the French version was loose and casual in comparison with the Germans. Its members, for example, were not set aside from their peers, instead being drawn only on a temporary basis from troops in the regular lines. Besides, France’s recent defeat by its Teutonic rival had done nothing to enhance its prestige. 1. The word general in its name signified that it concerned itself with overall military strategy, not with a single service. 2...

Share