The U.S. Naval Institute on U.S. Naval Academy: Histor

Introduction

IT IS NOT SURPRISING that in the many decades since the founding of the U.S. Naval Institute in 1873, there has been a special relationship between that organization and the U.S. Naval Academy, as both USNI and USNA cohabitate along the banks of the Severn River. The Naval Institute was born at the Naval Academy when a group of naval officers gathered to discuss the Navy’s problems and to offer solutions, and it has remained there ever since, sanctioned by Congress and embraced by many generations of caring Sailors who see its unique value.

But it is more than a matter of real estate that has led to the natural symbiosis that these two institutions enjoy. As one of the cradles from which officers of the Navy and Marine Corps are nurtured and prepared for the challenges of national leadership, the Naval Academy is rightfully scrutinized, praised, and critiqued by the Naval Institute, whose primary purpose is to make the nation’s sea services stronger through the open forum it provides. Over the decades many articles have appeared in Proceedings and Naval History magazines dealing with the U.S. Naval Academy; the Naval Institute Press has published a number of books on it as well. Sometimes these offerings merely enlighten outsiders and remind insiders of the unique character and history of this school where the best of Athens and Sparta are merged. At other times these writings offer helm orders to keep this vital ship on the proper course, and occasionally there are existential challenges that any worthwhile endeavor must be prepared to endure and ultimately reap the benefits that such exercises can bring about.

A companion volume, The U.S. Naval Academy: The Challenges, delves into the various issues that have confronted the Academy over the decades, but this edition of Chronicles presents a number of selections from that large catalog of Naval Institute offerings dealing with the history of the Naval Academy. In these pages readers will find articles and excerpts from the Naval Institute’s vast archive that record the Academy’s founding and chronicle its development over more than a century and a half. It is a rich history that not only illuminates the creation and evolution of a unique national treasure but also reflects the evolving customs and values of the nation that this institution serves in such an unusual way.

1

The Establishment of the Naval School at Annapolis

Henry Francis Sturdy

U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings

(April 1946): 1–17

THERE HAD BEEN much opposition in the Navy to any attempt to educate midshipmen ashore. It was felt that only by practical experience aboard ship could the youngster, fresh from home, be properly trained for his work as an officer afloat. Though several suggestions for an organized naval school had been made since the permanent establishment of the Navy in 1794, nothing had been accomplished and the only educational facilities available for the midshipmen up to the War of 1812 had been the instruction of the chaplains who had no special qualifications for such work, except a supposedly liberal education. During the War of 1812 provision had been made for a school-master on each of the 74’s, which were not completed till after the war, but the small pay, cramped quarters, sometimes shared with their pupils, and a very inferior position aboard ship did not draw men of ability. With the increase of pay to $1,200, in 1835, for duty at sea or at a navy yard, some eminent men began to be drawn into the Service as professors of mathematics. They still, up to September, 1842, had to mess with their pupils, however, and continued to suffer constant interruption of their school work aboard ship.

Beginning with the twenties three unorganized governmental schools had come into existence at the navy yards at Norfolk, New York, and Boston, for those midshipmen on waiting orders between cruises. The instruction was very irregular, the midshipmen attending or not as they pleased, and discipline, apparently, did not exist. Such lack of education and restraint helped to give rise among the young officers to both intemperance and financial irresponsibility. The early age at which some of the midshipmen entered the Navy, Farragut entering it when only nine, made them peculiarly susceptible to such adverse conditions. Some private nautical schools had come into existence at an earlier date and some of the younger officers had even attended college, one midshipman, indeed, going to West Point. A fourth school established by the government in 1839, at the Naval Asylum in Philadelphia, was really the forerunner of the Naval Academy, for it was on account of their proficiency of attainments at the Naval Asylum School that Professors Chauvenet and Lockwood, Lieutenant Ward, and Passed Midshipman Marcy were selected to be members of the faculty at the permanent naval school to be organized at Fort Severn, Annapolis, by Secretary Bancroft.

But it is doubtful whether even as astute and clever a man as Bancroft could have achieved the permanent establishment of an organized naval school, if conditions in the Navy had not become so bad. During and immediately after the War of 1812, the Navy had been looked up to and esteemed by the people of the United States. Its work had been the one bright spot in the war. Its officers and men had been toasted and feted. By 1840 it had become the object of censure and reproach. The newspapers contained numerous accounts of alleged misdeeds of officers in command. Dishonesty, low morals, and brutality were charged against them. This state of things, Park Benjamin declares, in his history of the Naval Academy, was the result of the lowered morale of the whole service incident to the severe discipline of the ‘smart ships’ and the educational neglect of the young officers. The culminating episode was the hanging at the yardarm on the brig Somers, in 1842, of Midshipman Philip Spencer, an apparent social delinquent, but with great political influence, his uncle being the Secretary of War, John C. Spencer. Midshipman Spencer was convicted of leadership in a conspiracy to mutiny against the officers and the ship. Though this affair gave basis for another attack against the Navy, it clearly disclosed to the public the existing evils in the method of appointing and educating the midshipmen. As Benjamin so aptly says:

It showed the absurdity of taking in youths at the behest of politicians without a proper proof of fitness, and the wretched folly of sending bad boys into the Navy as a reformatory, or even subjecting good ones to the wholly unfamiliar influences of naval life afloat without previous preparation.

Rear Admiral S. F. Franklin, in his Memories of a Rear Admiral, gives a vivid picture of some of the conditions when he entered the Service in 1841. He had been sent first in the spring to the receiving ship North Carolina in New York:

Finally in September, I was ordered to the Frigate United States . . . Our trials came on with the night, for, as I have said, our mess-room, which was our bedroom also, was about large enough fairly to accommodate two people, yet twelve of us were huddled together in this apartment like so many pigs in a pen. Our hammocks, instead of hanging loose to the sport of the wind, formed a sort of continuous sheet of canvas, dotted over with mattresses. We could neither turn in or out of them without disturbing our neighbors, causing growling and quarreling which often led to serious consequences. I think there was but one basin for the morning toilet—at the most, two—but we made the best of our inconveniences, and accepted the situation with good grace. Ranged around this luxurious apartment were the lockers for our clothes. They were not ample, but we accommodated ourselves to their capacity, and managed to get on with small wardrobes. . . . There was something very cruel, as I look back at it, in permitting a lot of boys to be huddled together, with no one to look out for their well-being, most of them only sixteen or under, with no experience, and expected to manage a mess. . . . There was something very faulty in this regard in those days, and we were sufferers, from a bad system. . . . The whole system of Naval education in those days was rough and crude.

Different secretaries of the Navy had urged the establishment of a permanently organized naval school. President John Quincy Adams, in 1825, in his first annual message, stated to Congress:

The want of a naval school of instruction corresponding with the Military Academy at West Point, for the formation of scientific and accomplished officers, is felt with daily increasing at aggravation.

The next year a bill to establish a naval school was introduced in Congress. The Maryland Assembly, sensing the superior advantages which the city of Annapolis and its neighborhood possesses as a situation for a naval academy, requested that Maryland members of Congress use their best exertions in favor of the establishment of such an institution.

In the Navy itself there had been successive pleas for some organized plan of education for the young officer. In 1836 a memorial from some 30 midshipmen and about 25 other commissioned officers prayed Congress to establish such a school. Articles criticizing the lack of proper schooling appeared in the Madisonian and in the Army and Navy Chronicle. Lieutenant Maury, the famous scientist, in articles published in the Southern Literary Messenger, aroused the thinking public by his denunciation of conditions, which he thought could be corrected by the establishment of cruising school ships. After the lamentable happening on the Somers, the officers of the Vincennes, in 1844, urged the abolition of sea professors and the organization of naval schools; and Commodore Charles Stewart, who had been president of the court of inquiry investigating the hanging of young Spencer, felt that one national school should be established to instruct the midshipmen in international law, languages, mathematics, and the fundamentals of the steam engine. And, indeed, it was this last subject, the study of the steam engine, which aided the advocates for a naval school ashore in winning their fight. In 1839 the first appropriation for building steam warships had been made. So no longer could it be possible to train afloat the midshipmen in all the methods of ship propulsion, and more and more would it become necessary to acquire ashore the necessary knowledge of ship propulsion.

Thus the time seemed ripe for Bancroft to carry to a successful issue his ideas for a single permanent national naval school. Before he had been in office two months, he had asked for suggestions, from four professors there, to improve the Naval Asylum School. And by June 6 he had come to the conclusion that Annapolis would be a more suitable place. He had to achieve, however, the seemingly impossible task not only of gaining approval of the Navy itself for such a school, but also of establishing it without recourse to additional appropriations, to avoid the danger of Congressional opposition. Part of this task he successfully accomplished through the co-operation of the Secretary of War, William L. Marcy, who was undoubtedly influenced by his son, Passed Midshipman Samuel Marcy, an assistant in navigation to Professor Chauvenet at the Naval Asylum School. Secretary Marcy, in August, 1845, with the approval of President Polk, had transferred to the Navy, for use as a naval school, Fort Severn, which had been built in Annapolis, in 1808, as a defense against an invading enemy penetrating the waters of the Chesapeake. This site had been approved in June, 1845, by the Naval Asylum School Examining Board, apparently through the influence of Commodore Isaac Mayo, who owned a farm about 8 miles from Annapolis and who, in the words of Professor Lockwood, as quoted by Benjamin, believed that the world revolved around that place (Annapolis). Thus Secretary Bancroft gained the approval of the high-ranking older officers to organize a permanent naval school. He had presented the problem to them in such a way that it became a question of not whether a school should be organized but where it should be located. A second board of younger officers, Commanders McKean, Buchanan, and Dupont was appointed by Secretary Bancroft, shortly after, to consider again the subject. It also approved of Annapolis and recommended Chauvenet, Lockwood, Ward, and Marcy to be transferred from the Naval Asylum School to Annapolis. Bancroft had now gained the approval of the Navy for his revolutionary change in American naval education.

Though he had surmounted a part of the financial difficulty of his task by acquiring from the Army, without cost, the site and buildings at Fort Severn, he still had to find the necessary means to maintain the school without recourse to Congress. Fortunately for him the $28,200 used annually for the pay of the naval professors and the teachers of languages was designated merely for instruction. Bancroft, therefore, during the year 1845–46 by gradually placing on waiting orders, without pay, half of the instructors, most of whom were attached to various ships, obtained, without recourse to Congress, the necessary funds for establishing the naval school at Annapolis. The obstacles had been surmounted. The Navy was agreeable to his plan and the place and the necessary means were now at his disposal. He next turned to the question of school organization and administration and of the repairs and improvements to the buildings at Fort Severn. In studying the problem of organization and administration the most natural thing was to turn to the Military Academy at West Point, which had its experience of over forty years to offer in the way of organization and administration. This had been pointed out to him by the report of the Board of Examiners. So Professor Lockwood was sent back to his Alma Mater, in July, 1845, by Bancroft, to study West Point’s improvements in methods and organization.

Commander Franklin Buchanan, well known in the Navy for his discipline and determination, as well as for his ability to organize, was selected by Secretary Bancroft to be the Superintendent of the Naval School. . . . *

As originally published in 1929, this article ran more than eleven thousand words and contains an amazing amount of detail about the early days of the Naval Academy, but it is too long to include here in its entirety and has therefore been abridged.

Buchanan’s success . . . was due not only to his ability to organize an institution revolutionizing naval education and to administer it by wise disciplinary restraints through the first period of its trying infancy; but also to his having an unusually capable faculty and to his creating at the School an effective spirit of harmony. Thus was laid the firm and lasting foundation of the present Naval Academy.

Editor’s Note

2

The First Academic Staff

Charles Lee Lewis, Henry Francis Sturdy, and Louis Harrison Bolander

U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings

(October 1935): 1389–1403

THE EARLY SUCCESS of the United States Naval Academy and the constant effort to attain higher standards, that has continued to this date, are in a large measure due to the first Academic Staff and the precedents set under the very effective leadership of Commander Franklin Buchanan, U.S. Navy, who became Superintendent with the founding of the Naval Academy on October 10, 1845. Assisting him was a very able and enthusiastic group—the first Academic Staff:

Commander Franklin Buchanan, U.S. Navy, Superintendent.

Lieutenant J. H. Ward, U.S. Navy, Executive and Instructor in Gunnery and Steam.

Professor W. Chauvenet, Instructor in Mathematics and Navigation.

Professor H. H. Lockwood, Instructor in Natural Philosophy.

Professor A. N. Girault, Instructor in French.

Chaplain G. Jones, U.S. Navy, Instructor in English.

Surgeon J. A. Lockwood, U.S. Navy, Instructor in Chemistry.

Passed Midshipman S. Marcy, U.S. Navy, Assistant Instructor in Mathematics.

No description of the Naval Academy would be complete without an account of