General and physician Leonard Wood arrived in Cuba to serve as its Governor General.
Last edition:
Ostensibly exploring the practice of law before the internet. Heck, before good highways for that matter.
General and physician Leonard Wood arrived in Cuba to serve as its Governor General.
Last edition:
The Boer Potchefstroom and Lichtenburg commandos attacked and captured the British garrison and railway siding at Kraaipan between Vryburg and Mafeking.
Admiral Dewey was welcomed home to his native Vermont in what was declared as Dewey Day.
Last edition:
In a somewhat bizarre episode of the Spanish American War/Philippine Insurrection, on this day in 1899, the Spanish soldiers at Baler, who had held out for a year in a fortified church, were recognized as friend of the Filipino people and granted safe conduct.
A film about this event was earlier reviewed by us here:
1898: Our Last Men In the Philippines
Baler had been under siege from June 26, 1898, until June 2, 1899, which exceeded the period of time during which Spain was at war with the United States. The troops under siege had not realized that Spain had departed, and when informed, they refused to believe it and kept fighting. Ultimately, the besieging Filipinos became concerned for the garrison and began to supply it with food, beverages and cigarettes. An American expedition to relieve the garrison was launched and failed.
Finally, on June 2, 1899, the garrison surrendered.
The Spanish troops were lauded by Aguinaldo, but two Franciscan Priests who had been at the church, Fr. Félix Minaya and Fr. Juan López, plus a captured Yorktown seaman, George Arthur Venville, were kept as prisoners. The priests were freed when the US occupied the town on June 3, 1900 but Venville was executed by Filipino tribesmen.
Last edition
The Battle of Calumpit (Filipino: Labanan sa Quingua), alternately known as the Battles of Bagbag and Pampanga Rivers) concluded with U.S. forces under Arthur MacArthur Jr. combating Filipino forces under General Antonio Luna. U.S. forces were comprised completely of state militia units, essentially the equivalent of today's National Guard, somewhat, those being the 20th Kansas Volunteers, the Utah Volunteer Light Artillery, the1st Montana Volunteers, the1st Nebraska Volunteers and the 51st Iowa Volunteers. All were probably mustered to fight against the Spanish in Cuba, and not the Filipino's in their native land.
U.S. forces prevailed with Medals of Honor, under the original standards, going to Colonel Frederick Funston, Private (later First Lieutenant) William B. Trembley, and Private Edward White.
The Filipinos, interestingly enough, grossly over reported American losses.
A terrible tornado struck:
A statute of Grant was unveiled in Philadelphia.
That't not to draw a conclusion that I do not intend to suggest, I m'just noting it.
The Labour Parties attempt to have the House of Commons call for an international conference was rejected by the Conservatives.
Canada's Squamish Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, were politically amalgamated and adopted a democratically elected council.
The funeral of Rear Admiral Sigsbee was held. He had been the commander of the USS Maine when it fatefully exploded in Havana.
Charles R. Forbes, the Director of the U.S. Veteran's Bureau, resigned the position from his self-appointed refuge of Europe, following suspicions that he had been selling surplus supplies at huge discounts to contractors for kickbacks. His confrontation with Harding on the matter had resulted in a physical altercation, with Forbes reportedly begging Harding to be allowed to depart for Europe prior to resigning.
The Scottish born Forbes had lived a colorful life, having been a Marine Corps musician at age 16, an engineer, a soldier in the Army charged with desertion and ultimately discharged as a Sergeant First Class after only eight years of service, employed in the construction field, and a Lieutenant Colonel in World War One.
He'd be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government and end up serving 20 months in prison. He'd live until 1949, dying at age 74.
Greece expropriate additional dwellings from the Albanian Cham Muslims in order to free up dwelling space for expelled Greeks from Turkey, thereby compounding the injustice.
Albanians had nothing to do with Greece's situation and the event signals out how Greece, in some ways, set the table for the disaster it was experiencing. Turkey was being barbarous to the Anatolian Greeks, but the Greeks had not been kind to the Anatolian Muslims.
And this also demonstrates how something that began in World War One with good intention, independent nation states comprised of free peoples, was morphing into expelling minorities from lands they'd occupied for eons.
The game was between the Toronto St. Patrick's, now the Maple Leafs, against the Ottawa Senators, which is now defunct. Toronto won 6 to 4.
CFCA would only broadcast for ten years before going out of business.
French authorities seized 85,000,000 Marks from the city hall treasury of Gelsenkirchen, and 17,000,000 from the railway station, in retaliation for the city's refusal to pay 100,000,000 Marks due to the wounding of two French officers in clashes with the police.
For the first time in history, a National Hockey League match concluded with no penalties having been imposed. The Montreal Canadiens defeated the Hamilton Tigers, 5 to 4.
Hockey, unlike football, is not boring.
Italy required public school students to start using the extended arm fascist salute, claimed to have been derived from Rome, but with little historical support for the proposition.
The general gesture was in vogue at the time, having been popularized in the United States as the Bellamy Salute. It's co-opting by fascism, forever associated it with fascist movements.
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt Jr., occupying the position that his father had leading up to the Spanish American War, and his cousin had during World War One, addressed the midyear graduating class of the Peter Force School, a school he had attended during his father's occupancy of the office. The class planted a Lombardy Poplar in memory of Quentin Roosevelt, aviator, who had died in action in World War One.
The school had been founded in 1879 and was named for a former Washington, D.C. mayor. Many children of important personages attended the school, including the late Quentin Roosevelt and Charles Taft, the son of President Taft.
The school would not have a much longer run. It was abandoned in 1939 and demolished in 1962 in order to make way for the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies.
Infantry, we’re often told, is the most basic of
all Army roles. Every soldiers starts off, to some extent, as a rifleman. But save for those who
have been in the infantry, which granted is a fair number of people over time,
we may very well have an wholly inaccurate concept of how an infantry company,
the basic maneuver element, is made up, and what individual infantrymen
do today.
And if that's true, we certainly don't have very good idea of how that came to be.
And we’re also unlikely to appreciate how it’s
changed, and changed substantially, over time.
So, we’re going to go back to our period of focus
and come forward to take a look at that in a series of posts that are relevant to military history, as well as the specific focus of this blog.
Prior to the Great War, the Old Army.
Much of this blog has focused on the Punitive Expedition/Border War which ran up to and continued on into World War One. As we've noted before, that event, the Punitive Expedition, was one in which the Army began to see the introduction of a lot of new weaponry. While that expanded the Army's capabilities, it also, at the same time, presented problems on how exactly to handle the new equipment and how its use should be organized.
Historians are fond of saying that the Punitive Expedition served the purpose of mobilizing and organizing an Army that was in now way ready to engage in a giant European war, and that is certainly true. But the fact of the matter remains the infantry that served along the Mexican border in 1916 (the troops who went into Mexico were largely cavalry) did not serve in an Army that was organizationally similar at all to the one that went to France in 1917.
American infantrymen became riflemen with the introduction of M1855 Rifle Musket. Prior to that, the normal long arm for a U.S. infantryman was a musket, that being a smoothbore, and accordingly short range, weapon. Rifles had been issued before but they were normally the weapon of specialists. Starting in 1841, however, the Army began to make use of rifle muskets which had large bores and shallow rifling, combining the best features of the rifle and the musket and addressing the shortcomings of both. The advantages were clear and the rifle musket rapidly supplanted the musket
Squads at the time, that is prior to 1917, were formed by lining men in a company up and counting them out into groups of eight men per squad. Each squad would have a corporal in charge of it and consist of eight men, including the commanding corporal. The corporal, in terms of authority, and in reality, was equivalent to a sergeant in the Army post 1921. I.e., the corporal was equivalent to a modern sergeant in the Army. He was, we'd note, a true Non Commissioned Officer.
There were usually six squads per platoon. The squads were organized into two sections, with each section being commanded by a sergeant. The sergeant, in that instance, held a rank that would be equivalent to the modern Staff Sergeant, although his authority may be more comparable to that of a Sergeant First Class.
The platoon was commanded by a lieutenant. One of the company's two platoons was commanded by a 1st lieutenant, who was second in command of the company, and the other by a 2nd lieutenant. The company was commanded by a Captain, who was aided by the company Field Sergeant, who was like a First Sergeant in terms of duties and authority. The company staff consisted of the Field Sergeant, a Staff Sergeant and a private. The Staff Sergeant's rank is only semi comparable to that of the current Staff Sergeant, but he did outrank "buck" Sergeants.
Sergeants were, rather obviously, a really big deal.
While this structure would more or less exist going far back into the 19th Century, the Army had undergone a reorganization following the Spanish American War which brought to an end some of the remnants of of the Frontier Army in some ways and which pointed to the future, while at the same time much of the Army in 1910 would have remained perfectly recognizable to an old soldier, on the verge of retirement, who had entered it thirty years earlier in 1880.* This was reflected by an overhaul of enlisted ranks in 1902 which brought in new classifications and which did away with old ones, and as part of that insignia which we can recognize today, for enlisted troops, over 100 years later. Gone were the huge inverted stripes of the Frontier era and, replacing them, were much smaller insignia whose stripes pointed skyward. The new insignia, reflecting the arrival of smokeless powder which had caused the Army to start to emphasize concealment in uniforms for the first time, were not only much smaller, but they blended in. . .somewhat, with the uniform itself.
The basic enlisted pattern of ranks that came into existence in 1902 continued on through 1921, when thing were much reorganized. But the basic structure of the Rifle Company itself was about to change dramatically, in part due to advancements in small arms which were impacting the nearly universal identify of the infantryman as a rifleman.
Automatic weapons were coming into service, but how to use and issue them wasn't clear at first. The U.S. Army first encountered them in the Spanish American War, which coincidentally overlapped with the Boer War which is where the British Army first encountered and used them. The US adopted its first machinegun in 1895. The 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, which fought as dismounted cavalry in Cuba during the Spanish American War, used them in support of their assault of Kettle Hill, although theirs were privately purchased by unit supporters who had donated them to the unit. The Spanish American and and Boer Wars proved their utility however and various models came after that. They were, however, not assigned out at the squad level, but were retained in a separate company and assigned out by higher headquarters as needed. There was, in other words, no organic automatic weapon at the company level, and certainly not at the squad level.
There also weren't a lot of them. Running up to World War One the Army issued new tables of organization for National Guard units, anticipating large formations such as divisions. Even at that point, however, there were no automatic weapons at the company level at all. The infantry regiment table provided for a Machine Gun Company which had a grand total of four automatic rifles.
Just four.
Most men in a Rifle Company were just that, riflemen. Automatic weapons were issued to special sections as noted. Rifle grenadiers didn't exist. Most of the infantry, therefore that served along the border with Mexico was leg infantry, carrying M1903 Springfield rifles, and of generally low rank.**
That was about to change.
Well, some of it was about to change. Some of it, not so much.
So, in 1916, anyhow, where we we at. A company had about 100 men, commanded by a captain who had a very small staff. The entire company, for that matter, had an economy of staff. Most of the men were privates, almost all of which were riflemen, and most of who's direct authority figure, if you will, was a corporal. There were few sergeants in the company, and those who were there were pretty powerful men, in context. There were some men around with special skills as well, such as buglers, farriers, and cooks. Cooks were a specialty and the cook was an NCO himself, showing how important he was. Even infantry had a small number of horses for officers and potentially for messengers, which is why there were farriers. And automatic weapons had started to show up, but not as weapons assigned to the company itself, and not in large numbers.
A career soldier could expect himself, irrespective of the accuracy of the expectation, to spend his entire career in this sort of organization, and many men in fact had. Some men spent entire careers as privates. Sergeants were men who had really advanced in the Army, even if they retired with only three stripes. Corporals had achieved a measure of success. Most of the men lived in common with each other in barracks. Only NCO's might expect a measure of privacy. Only sergeants might hope to marry.
That, of course, was the Regular Army. The National Guard was organized in the same fashion, but there was more variance in it. Guardsmen volunteered for their own reasons and had no hope of retirement, as it wasn't available to them. Some were well heeled, some were not, but they were largely armed and equipped in the same manner, although they received new material only after the Army had received a full measure of it first. Their uniforms and weapons could lag behind those of the Regular Army's. And some units who had sponsors could be surprisingly well equipped, some having automatic weapons that were privately purchased for the unit and which did not fit into any sort of regular TO&E.
And then came the Great War.
Footnotes:
*Thirty years was the Army retirement period at the time.
**We've dealt with the weapons of the period separately, but in the 1900 to 1916 time frame, the Army adopted a new rifle to replace a nearly new rifle, with the M1903 replacing the M1896 Krag-Jorgensen, which was only seven years old at the time. While M1896 rifles remained in service inventories up into World War Two, to some degree, is field replacement was amazingly rapid and by World War One there were no Regular Army or National Guard units carrying them.
In terms of handguns, of which the US used a lot, in 1916 the Army was acquiring a newly adopted automatic pistol, the M1911. Sizable quantities had been acquired but stocks of M1909 double action .45 revolvers remained in use. The M1909, for that matter, had been pushed into service due to the inadequacies of the M1892, which was chambered in .38. The M1892 had proven so inadequate in combat that old stocks of .45 M1873 revolvers were issued for field use until M1909s were adopted and fielded. Given this confusion, and rapid replacement of one revolver by another in 1916, there weren't enough M1911s around, and some soldiers went into Mexico with M1909s.
Related threads:
Naming Army Installations
The naming of posts started as a tradition when the Army was young. In the Continental Army, many posts and camps were named by the commander or supervising engineer for high ranking officers, including those still living; for example, Fort Washington on the New York and Fort Lee on the New Jersey sides of the Hudson in 1776, Fort Putnam at West Point, or Fort Mifflin below Philadelphia on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware. Forts were also named for fallen heroes, such as Fort Mercer, built in 1777, on the New Jersey side of the Delaware opposite Fort Mifflin, named in honor of Brig. Gen. Hugh Mercer who fell at Princeton in January of that year.
For much of the Army's history in the 19th Century, the naming of posts was still mainly a local prerogative. For example, War Department General Order Number 79, dated 8 November 1878, left the naming of installations to the commander of the regional Military Division in which the installation was located. Although not always, the names of installations usually reflected a local influence, such as Fort Apache in Arizona, established in 1871, and the Chickamauga Post in Georgia, established in 1902. In the 1890s, the then Quartermaster General, Maj. Gen. Richard N. Batchelder, recommended that the War Department assume responsibility for naming installations, but that did not become policy until World War I when the massive general mobilization saw the establishment of numerous installations of various sizes and functions. The names usually, but not always, reflected some regional connection to its location, and usually with a historic military figure significant to the area: for example, Camp Lee near Richmond, Virginia, and changing the name of the Chickamauga Post in Georgia to Fort Oglethorpe.
In the years between the World Wars, it became the common practice for the War Department to entertain recommended names for posts from installation commanders, corps and branch commanders, and the Historical Section Army War College, as well as from outside the Army. Public opinion and political Influence sometime weighed heavily on the decisions. For an example of the latter, when in 1928 the Army renamed Fort George G. Meade in Maryland as Fort Leonard Wood, the Pennsylvania delegation in Congress held up the Army's appropriation bill until the service agreed to restore the name of the Pennsylvania-born general. The regional connection, however, cannot be overemphasized. Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, for example, was originally named Camp Alfred Vail, in honor of the Army's then chief Signal Officer, when the installation was established as a Signal Corps training facility in 1917, but changed to Fort Monmouth, for the 1778 battle fought nearby, when it became a permanent installation in the 1920s.
The War Department better defined the criteria when it established the policy for "naming military reservations in honor of deceased distinguished officers regardless of the arm or service in which they have served" in a memorandum dated 20 November 1939.
Shortly after World War II, in 1946, the Army established the Army Memorialization Board. Governed by Army Regulation (AR) 15-190, Boards, Commissions, and Committees: Department of the Army Memorialization Board, it assumed responsibility for deciding on the names of posts and other memorial programs and the criteria for naming them. The regulation stated that all those individuals memorialized must be deceased and fall within one of five categories:
(1) a national hero of absolute preeminence by virtue of high position,
(2) an individual who held a position of high and extensive responsibility (Army and above) and whose death was a result of battle wounds,
(3) an individual who held a position of high and extensive responsibility and whose death was not a result of battle wounds,
(4) an individual who performed an act of heroism or who held a position of high responsibility and whose death was a result of battle wounds, and
(5) an individual who performed an act of heroism or who held a position of high responsibility and whose death was not a result of battle wounds.On 8 December 1958 , AR 1-30, Administration: Department of the Army Memorialization Program superseded AR 15-190 , and removed responsibility for naming installations from the Memorialization Board and transferred it to Headquarters, Department of the Army. In turn, AR 1-33, Administration: Memorial Programs superseded AR 1-30 on 1 February 1972. This revision retained the same memorialization criteria and categories as the previous regulation, but added a list of appropriate memorialization projects for each category. For example, it would be appropriate to name a large military installation after a person in category two, while it would be appropriate to name a building or a street after a person in category five. The final decision on naming a post was still made by the Headquarters, Department of the Army. The 15 January 1981 revision of AR 1-33 named the Army Chief of Staff as the responsible individual for the naming of installations.
This post here, of course, started off with the topic of the Confederate named posts, and the Congressional Research Service recently issued this short synopsis of the Confederate posts and military installation names in general, about which it must have been receiving inquiries from members of Congress.
The current AR 1-33 became effective on 30 June 2006, and redefined and expanded the categories of individuals to be memorialized, and listed appropriate memorialization programs for each category. The naming of installations is now the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). The Director of the Installation Management Agency is responsible for the naming of streets, buildings, and facilities on all military installations except medical installations, where the Commander of the U.S. Army Medical Command has the approval authority, and on the United States Military Academy, where the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy has the approval authority.
Confederate Names and Military Installations
Updated June 16, 2020
On June 8, 2020, an Army spokesperson made a statement that the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and the Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy are “open to a bi-partisan discussion” on renaming the Army's 10 installations named after Confederate leaders. This statement follows the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger’s message (MARADMIN 331/20) on June 5, 2020, instructing commanders to “identify and remove” displays of the Confederate battle flag on Marine bases. Gen. Berger's order was signed following a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing on February 11 regarding the rise of white supremacy in the ranks. A 2019 Military Times survey found that “36 percent of troops who responded have seen evidence of white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military, a significant rise from the year before, when only 22 percent reported the same in the 2018 poll.” In addition to some Department of Defense (DOD) officials, certain Members of Congress have expressed interest in renaming military installations named after Confederate leaders. There is also interest in the DOD’s selection and approval process for naming military installations.
U.S. Military Bases Named in Honor of Confederate Military Leaders
There are 10 major military installations named after Confederate Civil War commanders located in the former states of the Confederacy. These installations are all owned by the U.S. Army. They are: Fort Rucker (after Col. Edmund W. Rucker, who was given the honorary title of “General”) in Alabama; Fort Benning (Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning) and Fort Gordon (Maj. Gen. John Brown Gordon) in Georgia; Camp Beauregard (Gen. Pierre Gustave Toutant “P.G.T.” Beauregard) and Fort Polk (Gen. Leonidas Polk) in Louisiana; Fort Bragg (Gen. Braxton Bragg) in North Carolina; Fort Hood (Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood) in Texas; and Fort A.P. Hill (Lt. Gen. Ambrose Powell “A.P.” Hill), Fort Lee (Gen. Robert E. Lee) and Fort Pickett (Maj. Gen. George Edward Pickett) in Virginia.
Naming Policy by Military Service
Currently, DOD does not have a department-wide review process to evaluate the naming of military installations. Each military service has its own naming criteria and approval process summarized below.
ArmyIn general, the naming of Army installations is the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA (M&RA)), However, the Secretary of the Army retains final approval authority for the Army Memorial Program—a program that oversees the naming of all Army real property. For the Army, the naming of a U.S. Army installation after a deceased individual is considered a memorialization, while naming an installation after a living individual is termed a dedication. The Army maintains separate criteria for memorialization and dedication of Army real property. The regulation that sets these criteria is Army Regulation (AR) 1-33, The Army Memorial Program (October 2018). In addition to dedicating and memorializing installations after people, the Army can also name an installation after an event. AR 1-33 provides a separate set of criteria for this “naming” and is defined as “the non-permanent naming of Army real property after famous battles and events.”
NavyOPNAV INSTRUCTION 5030.12H(October 2017) explains the U.S. Navy’s policy and procedures for the naming of streets, facilities and structures. According to this instruction, “names selected should honor deceased members of the Navy.” It may also be appropriate to honor deceased persons other than Navy personnel who have made significant contributions to the benefit of the Navy. This instruction is applicable to naming a structure or building that is identified by a real property unique identifier or a street. Naming designations of internal portions of buildings or spaces can be assigned at the discretion of the local installation commander. The spokesman for the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday announced on June 9, that Adm. Gilday directed his staff to draft an order that will ban the Confederate battle flag from all public spaces and work areas on Navy bases, ships, subs, and aircraft.
Marine CorpsThe Manual for the Marine Corps Historical Program addresses the Commemorative Naming Program and specifies that “property may be named for individuals highly regarded within the Marine Corps and/or local communities. Names of deceased Marines, or members of other military organizations who died while serving with or in support of Marine Corps units, will be considered first.”A Marine Corps Installations Command Policy Letter 3-15 offers guidance for Marine Corps Installations Command.
Air Force Air ForceManual 36-2806, Awards and Memorialization Program (2019), sets Air Force policy for the Air Force’s memorialization program. The manual states “The memorialization program is designed to provide enduring honor and tribute to living and deceased military members and civilians with records of outstanding and honorable service through the naming of Air Force installations, streets, buildings, and interior spaces of buildings.” Chapter 4 of the manual provides naming criteria and approval authorities for Air Force installations, and states: “When naming an Air Force installation ensure only the most deserving individuals are selected for memorialization. Selections should bring honor to the Air Force and reflect the goodwill of the local community.”
Well, there you have it. From that you can take it to be the case that the Army wouldn't be naming any posts after Confederate rebels today as they wouldn't meet the first two criteria. I.e., no Confederate figure is a "national hero", in spite of what some in the South may have viewed over the last century about figures like Robert E. Lee, and in spite of the treatment those same figures were given by the Army in the early and mid 20th Century, and the second criteria implicitly presumes that they were in the U.S. service, which none of the Confederate figures was at the time of their famous or infamous service.Author InformationBarbara Salazar Torreon Senior Research Librarian
(1) a national hero of absolute preeminence by virtue of high position,(2) an individual who held a position of high and extensive responsibility (Army and above) and whose death was a result of battle wounds,(3) an individual who held a position of high and extensive responsibility and whose death was not a result of battle wounds,(4) an individual who performed an act of heroism or who held a position of high responsibility and whose death was a result of battle wounds, and(5) an individual who performed an act of heroism or who held a position of high responsibility and whose death was not a result of battle wounds.