Watershed

at

Leavenworth

DWIGHT D.

EISENHOWER

and the Command and

General Staff School

by

Major Mark C. Bender

~ II ~I rr

~ II , II
FOREWORD

In 1926, Dwight D. Eisenhower was first in his class and

an honor graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General

Staff School at Fort Leavenworth. Eisenhower's year at the

school was a formative period in his career and prepared him

for many of his demanding future assignments. In his study of

Eisenhower, Major Mark C. Bender eloquently testifies to Ike's

drive, individualism, and sense of purpose as they relate to his

assignment at the school.

This Combat Studies Institute Special Study provides the most

complete account of Eisenhower's year at Leavenworth. Major

Bender reveals why Eisenhower came to Leavenworth, what he

accomplished in and out of the classroom, and how the

Leavenworth experience influenced his subsequent military

achievements. The publication of this study commemorates

Eisenhower's birth centennial and illuminates the significant

connection between Eisenhower and Fort Leavenworth.

March 1990 RICHARD M. SWAIN

Colonel, Field Artillery

Director, Combat Studies Institute

CSI Special Studies cover a variety of military history topics. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Army

or the Department of Defense.
WATERSHED

at

Leavenworth
11
Watershed

at

Leavenworth

DWIGHT D.

EISENHOWER

and the Command and

General Staff School

by

Major Mark C. Bender

U.S. Army Command

and

General Staff College

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

66027-6900

I

I ,

I- ,

_I --
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bender, Mark C. (Mark Christian), 1951-

Watershed at Leavenworth: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the

Command and General Staff School/by Mark C. Bender.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969-

Knowledge and learning. 2. Command and General Staff

School (U.S.) 3. Generals-United States-Biography.

4. United States. Army-Biography.

I. Title.

E836.B46 1990

355'.0092-dc20

[B] 90-44

CIP
CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ............................................ vii

I. Perspectives on Eisenhower's Year in

Leavenworth ....................................... 1

II. The Road to Leavenworth ............................. 5

III. What Kind of School? ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

IV. The Year at Leavenworth ............................. 37

V. What Kind of Watershed? ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.57

Notes ......................................... 67

Bibliography ................. ............................... 75

I - I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank Dr. Timothy Nenninger, Lieutenant Colonel

James Holbrook, Lieutenant Colonel Buddy Albritton, Major

Stephen Bourque, and Mr. Don Gilmore for their contributions

and encouragement. Dr. Nenninger's skills as an archivist and

his knowledge of the history of the Command and General Staff

College were invaluable to this effort. Don Gilmore's painstaking

editing and photograph research are very much appreciated.

I would also like to thank Carol Morrison of the Combined

Arms Research Library at Fort Leavenworth for her perseverance

in locating the yearbook for the class of 1926 and Kathleen

Struse at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library for

her able assistance.

Special thanks to Heidi Bender, who deciphered my handwriting, figured out the Macintosh, and typed and retyped the

numerous drafts. Thanks, too, to my sons Jimmy and Bobby,

through whose eyes the Eisenhower home and museum took on

new meaning.

I.

PERSPECTIVES ON EISENHOWER'S

YEAR IN LEAVENWORTH

In May 1926, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, entered its 100th

year of existence. One month later, on 18 June 1926, Dwight

David Eisenhower would graduate from Fort Leavenworth's

Command and General Staff School en route to military and

political responsibilities that would shape the world. "Ike," as

he was known throughout his life, would lead the Allied forces

in the conquest of Germany, serve as Army chief of staff, and

serve two terms as president of the United States. Leavenworth

would have its share of distinguished graduates, but Eisenhower's accomplishments and contributions are unparalleled.

The year Eisenhower spent at Leavenworth was significant

for what he learned at the school and the effects the experience

had on him. Despite references to Eisenhower's attendance at

the Command and General Staff School in virtually every biographical treatment of his life, analyses of his Leavenworth

experience have been incomplete. Many accounts on the subject

contain factual errors and contradictory interpretations. Eisenhower's experience at the school deserves further scrutiny.

Eisenhower's year at Leavenworth can best be understood in

the context of several themes that characterized his life. One

theme was his inspired competitiveness and consistent concern

with how well he was succeeding. Ike was a competitor and

despite his likability and basic humility was committed to doing

his best-especially when he sensed his best was required. To

gloss over the obvious in this case is to miss something of the

essence of the man. Eisenhower felt himself inspired and was

devoted to duty. Ike did not drift into supreme command or the

presidency of the United States, and he did not graduate first

in his class at Leavenworth without demonstrating considerable

drive. His sense of purpose and dedication are exhibited in many

small things, masked, perhaps, by his essentially modest personality and affability. His complex character prompts such

questions as: What sort of effort did Ike put forth at Leavenworth? How did he study? And, more important for some, "Did

Ike play golf at Leavenworth?"

Eisenhower's individualism-another theme-also attracts

attention. His "war with the War Department" is legendary. Ike

was not a joiner; he spurned the study groups of Leavenworth.

In a system that demands conformity, Ike was a rebel of sorts.
2

His disciplinary infractions at West Point would take mature

form in his questioning of established doctrine and the War

Department's assignment logic later in his career.

Also characterizing Ike was his uncanny ability to recognize

talent in other people and harness it to enrich his own efforts.

His ability to cultivate friends in high places would help him

persevere in his dilemmas with the War Department. Indeed,

his entrance into the Command and General Staff School would

come only through the efforts of Fox Conner, his friend and

mentor. Ike made the right friends-some at Leavenworth-and

impressed senior Army leaders, who later would place him in

key positions of responsibility.

Eisenhower was also a pragmatist who learned how to get

things done, including how to take tests. His willingness to study

hard was surpassed only by his ability to study intelligently

and to draw on all resources available to him. What better way

could Ike have traversed the Command and General Staff School

than with the aid of Patton's notes? Eisenhower had his own

study methods, and if he preferred the untraditional approach

to problem solving and if his superiors frequently cited him for

a lack of speed in his approach, he felt, so what? Ike gained

more by the circuitous route. Ike knew his own thought processes, and by a series of mental testings-not the least of which

was his success at Leavenworth-convinced himself that his

mental techniques were unique and invaluable.

Many of these themes of Eisenhower's life are evident from

his memoirs, especially his book, At Ease, Stories I Tell to

Friends. Written some forty years after his tour at Leavenworth,

the stories are sometimes self-serving and undoubtedly tinted

by Eisenhower's interests as well as the passage of time. Yet

the work has a certain credibility and expresses the tone of a

man truly at ease with himself and his place in history. At

Ease shows the events of Eisenhower's life as he seems to view

them himself. Often revealing, the work has become a point of

departure for every Eisenhower biographer since its writing. At

Ease gives us the events of Ike's life and their interpretation.

It also reveals Eisenhower's flaws and imperfections, his penchant for card playing, his guilt and frustrations, as well as

the biographical corrections he feels compelled to make. But

while the memoirs are certainly a departure point, they are not

the full story. Army efficiency reports, interview files, and personal correspondence-much of which is on file at The Dwight

D. Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas-form a primary and

indispensable source of information.
The Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, must also be understood to gain a relevant perspective on Eisenhower's experience there. From this school, in

one of its forms or another, graduated such notables as George

Marshall, Omar Bradley, George S. Patton, Jr., Matthew B.

Ridgway, Mark Clark, and Maxwell Taylor-men trained to

understand the common language of war and men who would

assume the key military leadership positions of their time. How

did the Command and General Staff School evolve, and what

was its curriculum during the 1925-26 school year? Coming as

one of the final years of the "competitive period" of the school,

just how much rivalry prevailed in the 1925-26 class? Students

were reported to have died during previous school courses-some

by suicide-and nervous breakdowns were a hazard of the

experience. What skills and doctrine were, taught at the school

during the critical interwar period? Did the school adequately

prepare its officers for the challenges to come?

This study will examine Eisenhower's year at Leavenworth

against the backdrop of the Command and General Staff School

as it had evolved to the 1925-26 school year. It will also consider Eisenhower's year at Leavenworth in relation to .his development prior to attending the school and the effect the school

experience had on his future. Ultimately, this study will attempt

to discern the reasons why Ike would describe his year at

Leavenworth as "a watershed in my life."1

II.

THE ROAD TO LEAVENWORTH

At the age of eight, Eisenhower overheard his mother reveal

her age as thirty-six. Intrigued by the number, he calculated

the year in which he would attain that age. Ike described the

result as disheartening: "Nineteen-twenty-six was ridiculously far

off, a whole lifetime in the future."1 Eisenhower was to spend

the first half of 1926 at Fort Leavenworth attending the Command and General Staff School.

It is curious that Eisenhower, some sixty years later, would

remember his musings as an eight year old. Remarkable, too,

that in those same recollections of his childhood, he would recall

"the only peak of my personal horizon [at that early age] would

have been something like entering the halls of higher learning

(the eighth grade)." 2

There were several important family and community influences on the young Eisenhower that led him beyond his town's

typical eighth-grade education to West Point and then to Leavenworth. The themes that characterized the remainder of Ike's life

developed in this early period, themes that played a part in the

Leavenworth "watershed." The pre-Leavenworth experiences took

place during three periods: Ike's formative years in Abilene, the

West Point years, and the active-duty Army years.

The Formative Years

Dwight David Eisenhower was born in Denison, Texas, in

1890, the third of seven sons born to David and Ida Eisenhower.

When Dwight was about two years old, the family moved to

Abilene, Kansas, where his father worked at the local creamery.

Among the poorer families in town, the Eisenhowers were members of a Christian church that opposed war and violence of

any kind.

In his memoirs, Ike describes his parents' relationship as a

"genuine partnership,'' where "Father was the breadwinner,

Supreme Court, and Lord High Executioner:" 3 Eisenhower credits

his mother as having the greater personal influence on the

Eisenhower boys. She was the family manager and tutor, who

was able to invest the required time in the boys' development.

Ike's father worked long hours, six days a week, in order to

support the family. If Ike's father was quick to judge, he describes his mother as a "Psychologist," dealing effectively with
each son's "unique personality" and "adapting her methods to

each." 4

The first-known photo of Dwight Eisenhower, age three, 1893. Left to right are

Arthur (holding Roy), Edgar, and Dwight.

Eisenhower portrays his early reading interests as fixed on

ancient history to the neglect of other subjects. "The battles of

Marathon, Zama, Salamis, and Cannae became as familiar to

me as the games (and battles) I enjoyed with my brothers and

friends...."5 Acknowledging Hannibal as his childhood "favorite," Eisenhower explains: ".... Hannibal always seemed to be
0

The Belle Springs Creamery, where Dwight, his father David, and his brother Edgar

worked

an underdog, neglected by his government, and fighting during

most of his active years in the territory of his deadly and powerful enemy." 6 Eisenhower also idealized George Washington and

his accomplishments at Princeton, Trenton, and Valley Forge,

citing his "stamina and patience in adversity" and "his indomitable courage, daring, and capacity for self-sacrifice."' "Of

course," Eisenhower wrote concerning his youth, "I could read

also about scholars and philosophers, but they seldom loomed

so large in my mind as warriors and monarchs."8 Perhaps it

was his family's religious distaste for war that made the subject

so enticing to the young Eisenhower. His recollections of the

Spanish-American War, which he gained from his uncle's descriptions to him at the age of seven, remained clear in his mind

throughout his life. He took seriously the town rumors about

the possibility of Spaniards bombarding American cities by air,

once mistaking a large box kite for the mysterious crafts.9

Family learning was an important part of the Eisenhower

regimen, and the family invested considerable effort in luring

Ike toward the more traditional subjects of arithmetic, spelling,

and geography. Occasionally, Ike's parents secured his historical

classics so the books would not provide too great a temptation.

Reading of the Bible was a shared honor in the family, and

reading errors were not tolerated. 0
The Eisenhower family in 1902. Back row-Dwight, Edgar, Earl, Arthur, and Roy;

front row-David, Milton, and Ida

Quarters were close at the Eisenhower house-818 square feet

for 8 occupants (one of the Eisenhower sons had died during

infancy). Ike shared a bedroom with two brothers and slept in

the same bed with his brother Roy. Ike apparently envied his

eldest brother Arthur, whose six and one-half foot by six and

one-half foot private room he regarded as "splendid isolation."1 '

Eisenhower recalls Abilene, Kansas, as "peaceful, pastoral,

and . . . happy,"-a far cry from its earlier reputation as "the

toughest, meanest, most murderous town in the territory."12 After

the Civil War, Texas cattlemen drove their cattle into the town

because it afforded the nearest railhead.

With the cattlemen had come expansion, saloons, and a reputation for wildness. As the railroads extended west, the town

mellowed, taking on an almost serene quality during Ike's boyhood. Social distinctions within the town appeared to Ike to be

few; "work" was the common denominator, and folks were

expected to do just that.13

While Kansans of the period were largely literate, school was

intended to introduce students to civic responsibility and prepare

them for the job opportunities of the period. Of the town's 200

children who joined Ike at grade school in 1897, only 67 entered
(a

0

Abilene, Kansas, during a pioneer parade, ca. 1920s

Abilene High School in 1905, of which only 31 graduated.14 The

ability to write, spell, and work hard were the standards that

Abilene demanded of its youth; graduation from high school

was an accomplishment, indeed.

Ike maintained an indifferent attitude toward schoolwork

throughout his attendance in the Abilene school system. He liked

spelling as a child, because spelling bees aroused his "competitive

instincts,"'5 and he was fascinated with synonyms and how a

letter could change the meanings of a word. He tolerated arithmetic "because of the finality with which an answer was right

or wrong."16 Ike describes his penmanship as poor, and matters

of his deportment were frequently reported to the school superintendent while he was at Lincoln Grammar School.' 7

When Ike was nine or ten, an incident occurred that deeply

affected him. He apparently allowed his three-year-old brother

Earl to get possession of a knife with which the youngster

blinded himself in one eye. Ike recalls, " . . if I [had] been more

alert the accident would not have happened. My feeling of regret

is heightened by a sense of guilt .. ."18

In 1905, Eisenhower attended newly completed Abilene High

School-a building that attracted a more professional teaching

staff and stimulated a new-found community pride in education.

Despising algebra, Ike found himself entranced with plane geometry, which he saw as an "intellectual adventure."l 9 Perhaps
.:r'e" +>' t = a ; . t!' "3u. o

1>

Dwight Eisenhower's fifth-grade class at Lincoln School, ca. 1900. Dwight is second

from left, first row.

as a result of his apparent aptitude, he became the subject of a

learning experiment. Guaranteed an A-plus grade, Ike's teacher

asked him to dispense with the textbook and work out the problems on his own. This proved a successful experience for Ike,

as he learned to reason out solutions to problems, a method he

preferred to the rigors of study and memorization. Ike learned

poker outside the walls of Abilene High, mastering the probabilities so thoroughly that (as he put it) until "I was thirtynine or forty ... I was never able to play the game carelessly

or wide open." 2 0

Ike disdained high school social clubs, describing himself as

unacceptable because of his awkwardness and "probably... more

than happy that I was never invited to membership."21 Nonetheless, he was an active leader in the school athletic association

and a much-lauded participant in a Shakespearian play his

senior year-both experiences from which he gained social and

communicative skills. Always there were summer and after-school

jobs and money saved with the 'hope of attending college. 2 2

West Point

The notion of an "Admiral Eisenhower" has a distinctly odd

ring, yet it was for Annapolis that the young Eisenhower was

preparing after high school. It was only after he discovered that
11

Milton, David, Dwight, Ida, and Earl Eisenhower (and Dwight s dog, Flip) outside the

family home in Abilene, Kansas, 1910

his two years of preparation had rendered him "too old" for

admission that West Point became an option. Ike had put himself

through a preparatory regimen for the Navy that remarkably

resembled the one he would use for Leavenworth. He and a

friend had requested and received tests from the Naval Academy

and studied them assiduously in preparation for the naval examination. Fortunately for Ike, the Navy tests were similar to those

he used for the later West Point entrance exam. Ike's former

high school teachers also assisted by tutoring him in selected

subjects. He was determined to make a good showing in all

subjects. 2 3

The application process was also a learning experience for

Eisenhower in the interaction of politics, power, and reputation.

Ike was pleased to rely on his own and his father's reputation

for honesty and frugality in Abilene and had little difficulty
garnering endorsements for the appointment. "Some score or

more letters" 24 were sent to Senator Joseph Bristow, who eventually awarded Eisenhower the appointment. Ike took the final

examination at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, near St. Louis. In

At Ease, Eisenhower relates his success in typical style: ". . . I

learned I passed the exam somewhat above the middle of all

those admitted. Since a number of those had undergone special

training, I did not feel badly about my showing." 2 5

Ike's class at West Point would be one of the most distinguished in the academy's history. Of the 265 who matriculated

in 1911, 164 graduated in 1915. The class produced twenty-six

brigadier generals, twenty-three major generals, seven lieutenant

generals, and Eisenhower and Omar Bradley would attain fivestar rank. In many cases, cadets appeared earmarked for greatness; not so with Ike-at least not so obviously. While he graduated 28th in practical engineering, 29th in drill regulations,

and 61st overall, he was far from a model cadet in terms of

discipline-where he graduated 125th in the class. 26

Ike himself admits to "a staggering catalogue of demerits," 27

the full list of which was brought to his attention after he

became president. At Ease lists the demerits of his last six

months, revealing a smorgasbord of absences, lateness, unauthorized smoking, and failure to complete work assignments,

among others. But none of his offenses breached West Point's

code of honor, which would have been serious indeed. Eisenhower

attributed his indiscipline to "a lack of motivation in almost

everything other than athletics" 28

-a situation that worsened

when a serious knee injury knocked him off the football team.

Ike simply did not think of himself as "a scholar whose position

would depend on the knowledge he had acquired in school or

as a military figure whose professional career might be seriously

affected by his academic or disciplinary records." 2 9 Moreover,

Ike "looked with distaste on classmates ... haunted by fear of

demerits and low grades." 30

Still, Eisenhower's West Point experience was a valuable one,

a great source of inspiration to him throughout his life. He said

of taking the oath: "From here on it would be the nation I

would be serving, not myself. Suddenly the flag itself meant

something. ... " 3 1 Many of Ike's colleagues at the time viewed

his most important accomplishments as occurring outside the

classroom-particularly on the football field, where he was an

exceptionally hard worker. Underclassman Mark Clark said of

these years: "He had to excel. He always had to excel." 3 2
A portrait of Eisenhower taken for the Howitzer following his graduation from West

Point
A young Eisenhower at football practice at West Point, 1912
In his mathematics studies, cadet Eisenhower's modus operandi was borrowed from his plane geometry class back at Abilene

High, where reasoning was emphasized. He was only a halflistener in integral calculus, relying on his mastery of probability

to help him figure the odds of being called on in class at any

given moment. Figuring incorrectly one day, he was called on

to solve an extremely difficult problem for which he had not

prepared. After fumbling initially, he was able to apply his own

logical processes to arrive at the correct solution. This infuriated

his instructor, who accused him of knowing the answer beforehand and faking the procedures to arrive at it. Fortunately for

Eisenhower, an associate professor of mathematics happened to

be monitoring the episode and was impressed with Ike's methodology, calling it "easier than we've been using .. ." and fit to

be "incorporated in our procedures from now on." 33 Ike's final

report card termed his performance "very good," adding:

"... should be assigned to an organization under a strict

Commanding Officer." 34

The Early Army Years

The ten years of Army duty leading to Eisenhower's attendance at the Command and General Staff School are tremendously important to our understanding of his school experience.

Many of his life's themes were developed during this periodincluding his personal dedication to excellence and his realization

of the importance of other people to his life. Eisenhower met

many of the people who would play key roles in his life during

these early Army years, and he quickly mastered the skills that

would allow him to profit from these associations. These years

would also be frustrating for Ike. Stereotyped as a football coach,

his conflicts with the War Department grew strident, and he

would not reach the battlefields of World War I. Still, the period

was a rewarding one marked by a series of assignments and

opportunities that Eisenhower skillfully combined into a powerful

learning experience.

Eisenhower departed West Point convinced that his request

for duty in the Philippines would be approved-somehow believing himself to be the only applicant for positions there.

Because fewer and less expensive uniforms were required for

this duty in the Pacific, Ike expected to reap a small windfall

from the standard uniform allowance. When the assignment

failed to materialize, Ike, who had squandered his windfall over

the summer of 1915, was forced to purchase a full set of uniforms

for continental duty. This he accomplished by traveling from

his home in Abilene to the town of Leavenworth-the location
16

of the nearest military tailor. It is not known whether Eisenhower

visited Fort Leavenworth on that occasion, but we do know that

the uniforms were bought on credit-an inauspicious beginning

to his active-duty Army career.35

Eisenhower may well have wondered about the utility of his

required uniforms, for his first active-duty assignment was at

Fort Sam Houston, Texas, near San Antonio. Fort Sam Houston

was a showcase Army post in 1915 concerned with providing a

deterrent to Mexican border raids. Days were spent drilling and

training enlisted men who had little equipment.36 Ike's reputation

as a football player brought him to the attention of Major

General Frederick Funston, who coerced him into coaching a

local academy football team-which Ike accomplished with great

success and attendant publicity. Funston would later return the

favor by bending policy to allow Ike the necessary leave to

marry Miss Mamie Genera Doud of Denver, Colorado. Ike and

Mamie had met on post while the Doud family was spending

its winter months in nearby San Antonio. 37

Marriage to Mamie had an immediate effect on Ike, who

determined to tidy up his "carefree, debt-ridden" life. 38 At the

request of Mamie's parents, he decided not to change branches

to the Aviation Section, about which he had become enamored.

The responsibilities of marriage and the career choice it necessitated were profound experiences for Eisenhower, who seemed

deeply affected by the experience: ". . . it had brought me face

to face with myself and caused me to make a decision that I

have never recanted or regretted. The decision was to perform

every duty given me in the Army to the best of my ability and

to do the best I could to make a creditable record, no matter

what the nature of the duty."39

Ike's duties were varied during his Fort Sam Houston assignment-a period in which the Army was mobilizing for the Punitive Expedition against Mexican revolutionaries. Serving as an

instructor inspector for the federalized 7th Illinois National

Guard Regiment, Ike effectively took over the running of the

regiment, which drilled in the hot summer months and held

field exercises, combat firing, and maneuvers. 40 Ike enjoyed his

new responsibility and authority and was drawn also to further

study and readings in his profession. An efficiency report of

the period notes his "energy, zeal," and the fact that he "availed

himself of opportunities for improvement." 41

Fort Sam Houston provided Eisenhower a dynamic introduction to Army life and the opportunity to meet a number of

bright, ambitious, and engaging young officers. Assigned there
Ike and Mamie's wedding portrait, Denver, Colorado, 1916
was Robert L. Eichelberger, West Point class of 1909, who commanded the Eighth Army in the Luzon and southern Philippines

campaigns of World War II. The alphabetic proximity of Eichelberger's last name to Eisenhower's made him Ike's desk mate

at the Leavenworth course. Ike also met his life-long friend

Leonard T. "Gee" Gerow at Sam Houston. Gerow later commanded V Corps at Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion. Gerow and Eisenhower became dedicated study mates

at the Command and General Staff School. 42

Following his assignment at Fort Sam Houston, Eisenhower

saw continued duty with troops at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia,

where he conducted tough training as part of a second series of

officer training camps designed to weed out weak officer-cadets

preparing for the rigors of World War I. In September 1917, Ike

applied for duty with a machine-gun battalion earmarked for

overseas combat. He was instead provided three months of temporary duty at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 43 Upon arrival at Fort

Leavenworth in December, the post commandant immediately

reprimanded him on behalf of the adjutant general of the Army.

The War Department did not approve of young officers applying

for special duty-even if it was hazardous duty. The message

was clear: obey orders and let the War Department determine

priorities. The episode exacerbated Eisenhower's already untrusting attitude toward the War Department. In addition, he

had recently received a bill for missing supplies for which he

did not feel responsible. Eisenhower later summarized his

thoughts in At Ease: "If this was my first encounter with bureaucratic blundering, it was far from the last before World War I

was over . . . I felt that in a nebulous region called the War

Department, I had been found wanting." 44

While Ike's view of the War Department "continued to be

beyond easy conversion to parlor language," 45 he applied himself

with vigor to his new duties. As assistant instructor for Company

Q, he helped train provisional lieutenants-again in preparation

for World War I duties. Author F. Scott Fitzgerald was a member

of Eisenhower's platoon. 46 Busily engaged in the writing of his

first novel, This Side of Paradise, during a mandatory military

study period, Fitzgerald was told to redirect his efforts. 47 Leavenworth lore would have it that Ike himself issued the reprimand,

but while it is probable that he did, we cannot be sure.

Ike was also put in charge of the regiment's physical training

program-a challenging task during the Leavenworth winter of

1917-18. Bayonet drills, calisthenics, and exercises were the

order of the day. Eisenhower described conditions as "frequently
unpleasant, and at times bitter, my duties were one way of

keeping warm." 48

In early March 1918, the War Department assigned Eisenhower to Camp Meade, Maryland, where he was under the mistaken assumption that he was preparing for overseas duty with

the 301st Tank Battalion (Heavy). Deeply involved in organizing

the new unit, Ike was extremely disappointed when his instructional and organizational abilities made him invaluable to the

continental mobilization effort. After coordinating final embarkation of the 301st, he followed War Department orders and reported

to Camp Colt at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in April.

The Camp Colt assignment initially depressed Eisenhower,

and as the camp grew to over 10,000 men, he found himself

more and more tightly bound to its mobilization and training

mission. Promoted to the rank of temporary lieutenant coloniel,

he was given command of the camp. Though humiliated by his

inability to gain a combat command in the war effort, Camp

Colt provided him a more valuable training ground. Combat

command for Ike in Europe would have been at company or

battalion level-a useful, though narrow, view of warfare. Camp

Colt, on the other hand, required broad understanding and skills.

Building the camp and training program from the ground up,

Eisenhower experienced firsthand the logistical and leadership

demands of an Army in microcosm. Furthermore, he learned

how to apply preventive medicine and proper hygiene to combat

disease. A congressional inquiry, with accompanying political

measures, tested his resolve. Shortages in supplies and equipment

Eisenhower as an instructor in the Tank Corps, Camp Meade, Maryland, 1919
required his utmost innovation and skill. Various postwar

reductions taught him invaluable lessons concerning the motivation of soldiers and techniques successful in maintaining

morale. He also learned to identify competent subordinates and

strategically place them to accomplish his mission. Ike always

begrudged the War Department his chance at combat command

in World War I, but few combat theater positions would have

offered Ike better preparation for the challenges to come than

the one at Camp Colt. Of his stateside experience during this

period, Eisenhower would later say: ". . . I had been singularly

fortunate in the scope of my first three and a half years of

duty. How to take a cross-section of Americans and convert them

into first-rate fighting troops and officers had been learned by

experience, not by textbook.... My education had not been

neglected."4 9

While Ike was at Camp Colt preparing tank crews for overseas duty, George S. Patton, Jr., was intimately involved in their

tactical use in France, where he earned the Distinguished Service

Cross for heroism and courage. The two men met during assignment to Camp Meade, Maryland, in the fall of 1919. Patton

was the commanding officer, 304th Tank Brigade; Eisenhower

was second in command, 305th Tank Brigade. Although different

in many ways, both men shared a passion for tank warfare.

They were together at Meade for a year and spent much time

together.5 o

Patton was preparing for attendance at the Command and

General Staff School, and he invited Ike to participate. Patton

had received tactical problems from the school that the two

analyzed, compared with the solutions of the school faculty, and

then reanalyzed, factoring in their own field-tested tank tactics.

Ike found the problems relatively easy, particularly since he was

allowed to solve them in a stress-free environment.51 He and

Patton tested their tank theories extensively, confirming speed,

reliability, firepower, mass, and surprise as essential ingredients

in successful tank warfare. They believed that by using terrain

properly, tanks could break into enemy defenses, create confusion,

and exploit the advantage by envelopment. Both published

articles on their findings. Ike's November 1920 article in Infantry

Journal, though professional and seemingly noncontroversial,

resulted in a summons from the chief of Infantry, who informed

Ike that his ideas were wrong and that henceforth he would

keep them to himself or face a court-martial.52

Eisenhower's ideas received a more enthusiastic reception from

Brigadier General Fox Conner, to whom Ike was introduced at
21

a Sunday dinner in the home of the Pattons. Conner had served

in France with General Pershing as the assistant chief of staff

for operations of the American Expeditionary Force. Months later

he would ask Ike to join his command in Panama. 5 3

But Camp Meade held additional trials for the Eisenhower

family. Some days before Christmas 1920, their three-year-old

son "Icky" was stricken with scarlet fever. He died a short time

later. Eisenhower's most eloquent and touching prose in At Ease

Mamie, David Dwight ("Icky"), and Dwight Eisenhower, ca. 1919
22

is dedicated to his and Mamie's loss. The boy apparently contracted the disease from a housekeeper the Eisenhowers had

hired. In addition to his grief, Ike had to wrestle with a sense

of guilt-much as he had over the loss of his brother's eye. 54

Some six months later, another crisis occurred. Eisenhower

was charged with "offenses of the gravest character for which

he might not only be dismissed from the service but imprisoned."5 5 Ike had claimed the sum of $250.67 for the support

of his son during a period of several months when the child

had been living with an aunt in Iowa. Since Mamie and he

lived in quarters on Camp Meade, he had no claim to the money.

To his credit, Ike had raised the issue himself when he learned

that another officer on post had been prosecuted for a similar

offense. This did not mollify the acting inspector general of the

Army, Brigadier General Eli Helmick, and the matter was

vigorously pursued over an ensuing six-month period.56

Interestingly, it was General Pershing's rise to chief of staff

of the Army that turned the tide in the matter. Fox Conner

immediately sent a memo to his old boss vouching for Eisenhower's efficiency and requesting his assignment to Conner's

command in Panama. A previous request had been flatly denied

by the War Department because charges were pending. This time,

however, Army politics had changed. While Helmick had been

friends with the previous chief of staff, Peyton March, it would

perhaps not be wise to pursue an officer so well connected with

the new leadership. Helmick executed an about-face, and orders

were issued reassigning Eisenhower to Panama by January

1922.57

Eisenhower makes no mention of the incident in At Ease,

saying of his reassignment: "the red-tape was torn to pieces."

No doubt he learned a valuable lesson in bureaucratic politics

from this episode, as well as the value of having a friend in

high places. Ultimately, the incident had little effect on his

career. His efficiency ratings in "tact" and "judgment" slipped

a bit from previous ratings-relatively minor nicks considering

Ike had faced a career-ending charge.5 8

The Panama assignment began a fresh chapter in the life of

Dwight Eisenhower. Assigned as Conner's executive officer at

Camp Gaillard, Ike's experience and loyalty made him the ideal

right-hand man. The mission of Conner's command was to reorganize and modernize the defense of the Canal Zone. Conner

was relentless in this pursuit, and Eisenhower was often the

enforcer of his policies. Conner required Eisenhower to submit

a daily five-paragraph field order, an exacting task that involved
analysis of mission, training, and logistics. 59 Because Conner

believed that the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles and the

U.S. failure to join the League of Nations would lead to a major

conflict, he urged Ike to be ready for it.60

General Conner was a prewar graduate of the staff college

at Leavenworth, and he encouraged Ike to prepare for his own

attendance. Gradually, Conner shaped Ike's assignment into an

intellectual proving ground for the future. This began with the

rekindling of Ike's boyhood love of military history-a love forsaken as a result of the tedious memorization requirements at

West Point. The Conner library became an inspiring place for

Ike. He read The Long Roll by Mary Johnston, The Exploits of

Brigadier Gerard in the Napoleonic Wars, and The Crisis by

Winston Churchill.61

Conner questioned his pupil about the books he read, the

decisions of commanders in the past, the alternatives available

to them, and the conditions of each situation. Ike claims to have

read Clausewitz' On War three times during the assignment.

Conner also encouraged him to read the works of Jomini and

Mahan. 62 Ike became fascinated with the histories of the American Revolution and Civil War, his screened porch becoming a

war room with a drawing board and pinned-up maps used in

studying the campaigns of past wars.

Discussions with General Conner were often conducted during

mounted reconnaissance, as the two men "were constantly laying

out routes and charting them on maps for the rapid deployment

of troops and their supply trains. ... "63 Conner is described as

"something of a philosopher," who "quoted Shakespeare at

length" and was a virtual "storehouse of axiomatic advice." 64

To hold up his end of the conversation, Ike was drawn to the

works of Plato, Tacitus, and Nietzsche, sure that "sooner or later

the General would be asking me about them." 65 Ike would describe his tutelage as "a sort of graduate school in military affairs

and the humanities, leavened by the comments and discourses

of a man who was experienced in his knowledge of men and

their conduct."66

Conner rated his executive officer as "superior" in most categories, consistently slighting only Eisenhower's "physical activity"-a category that included "agility" and the "ability to work

rapidly." The lower rating was probably due more to Ike's old

football knee injury than a mental deficiency on his part. One

of Conner's superiors, who admitted to knowing Eisenhower only

"slightly," questioned the rating: "I have faith in the judgment,
24

spirit of fairness and impartiality of the reporting officer, yet I

believe the rating given is too high." Later superiors began to

echo General Conner's assessment, which found the young major

"exceptionally well fitted for general staff training." Always

Conner closed with the remark-"he should be sent to the course

at the Army Service Schools."6 7
III.

WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL?

The American Civil War and the German wars of unification

had demonstrated the changing nature of warfare. Wars were

becoming more technological and complex and required highly

educated officers to conduct them. Out of the general despondency of the post-Civil War period, the need for additional officer

education became apparent to U.S. military leaders. With Indian

pacification largely accomplished, the U.S. military was struggling to refocus on what its principal mission should be. This

malaise, together with the serious leadership shortcomings experienced during the war, did not go unnoticed by U.S. Army

leaders, who saw education as a means of rekindling professionalism.' As a result, on 7 May 1881-the 54th anniversary

of the founding of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas-Commanding

General of the U.S. Army William T. Sherman ordered the establishment of the School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry.

Sherman established the new school in Leavenworth in recognition that the military was a profession with its roots in a

unique body of knowledge and that officers needed to master

that knowledge to be considered professionals.

General Sherman's concept of military education guided the

School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry through its infant

years. Sherman felt that officers, especially those being groomed

for increasing responsibility, would benefit from the broadest

possible educational experience. While he would have preferred

that the school concentrate entirely on military subjects, the wide

disparity of educational backgrounds of officers required remedial

courses to make up for deficiencies. Many officers of the period

required the basics of math, geography, and American history,

as well as military theory and its practical application. The early

years of the School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry

afforded its students preparation for the duties they would perform at company level in an Army making a transition from

the Civil War and Indian War periods to a peacetime Army

with its attendant administrative requirements.2

During the 1890s, the school evolved from its early focus on

daily recitations and "emphasis on drill, ceremonies, and garrison

duties." 3 Key players in this transition were Arthur L. Wagner

and Eben Swift, both of whom were instrumental in the development of pre-World War I Leavenworth doctrine, tactics, and
General William T. Sherman, who ordered the establishment of the School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry, a precursor of the U.S. Army Command and General

Staff School

course curriculum. Wagner, who served as a course instructor

and assistant commandant and influenced the school until 1903,

"wanted to immerse officers in the details of a variety of tactical

situations, where they could draw their own conclusions regarding a proper course to be pursued." 4 Eben Swift, whose direct

association with the school extended until 1912, introduced the

applicatory method to the curriculum by standardizing tactical

analysis through the use of the five-paragraph field order-an

order format that survives to this day. The process, similar to
that required of Eisenhower by Fox Conner during his Panama

assignment, demanded that a student study a map, conduct an

estimate of a situation, and make a tactical decision prior to

writing a five-paragraph field order. The efforts of Wagner and

Swift were critical in the maturation of a school that began

with an essentially garrison mentality but developed into a

doctrine- and skill-producing institution with far-reaching effects

on officer development and professionalism.5

In 1904, the War Department reorganized the school as part

of Secretary of War Elihu Root's proposals for a system of postgraduate military education. In theory, only the best graduates

at one level of Army schools would progress to the succeeding

level. Thus, Leavenworth developed into two schools, with only

Eben Swift, an early organizer of Leavenworth doctrine, tactics, and course development (as a captain)
the top half of the first year School of the Line graduates to

attend the second year Staff College. Students at the School of

the Line studied engineering, law, military hygiene, and foreign

languages, with emphasis on command and staff duties in units

up to division and with tactics as the central theme. The Staff

College emphasized the functioning of large-unit general staffs,

corps-level operations, and logistics. Naturally, competition

became quite keen for admission to the second year course. In

the decade prior to World War I, Leavenworth stressed consistency in military operations, downplaying the role of "genius."

Uniformity of application and mutual understanding of tactical

situations was of paramount importance at the school. A common

language was developed among school graduates based on shared

experiences and a similar approach to problem solving. As

"Leavenworth men," graduates came to exude pride in their

development and understanding and found increasing respect

throughout the Army.6

Leavenworth graduates were in great demand in World War

I. Many of the officers in General John J. Pershing's American

Expeditionary Force (AEF) required special expertise in the planning, logistics, and deployment of large units. Hence, Leavenworth graduates were uniquely suited for the numerous command

and general staff positions available. In a 1924 address at the

Army War College, General Pershing attested to the contribution

of school graduates: "During the World War, the graduates of

Leavenworth and the War College held the most responsible

positions in our armies ... had it not been for the able and loyal

assistance of the officers trained at these schools, the tremendous

problems of combat, supply, and transportation could not have

been solved."7

Offensive combat conducted by the Americans in the summer

and fall of 1918 was remarkably like that studied at Leavenworth

before the war, AEF doctrine conforming in many respects to

the tactical teaching of the school. Pershing spurned British and

French doctrine, insisting on uniquely American efforts. But the

small number of school graduates and the demand for large

numbers of trained staff and combat officers compelled Pershing

to set up a three-month officer course in France patterned after

the curriculum and doctrine at Leavenworth. Throughout the

conflict, Leavenworth men had the advantage of associations

made at the school, the common language developed there, and

the confidence of having worked out difficult battle problems

using the applicatory method. Evidence compiled at Pershing's

direction after the war strongly suggested that Leavenworth
graduates had a distinct advantage over nongraduates in performing their wartime functions.8

Suspended in May 1916 "by exigency of service," 9 the Leavenworth schools reopened for the 1919 school year. After the war,

authorities at Leavenworth stated that the War Department's

closing of the school during national emergencies was "believed

to be wrong" and noted that it seemed "improper to close it at

General John J. Pershing, commander in chief of the AEF, 1918, and an early

promoter of Leavenworth graduates
just the time when it could perform the greatest service."' 0 In

addition, reopening the school for the 1919-20 school year required a tremendous effort to reestablish the curriculum and, in

most cases, to rewrite textbooks based on the enlightening experience of World War I. On reopening, Leavenworth reverted to

its prewar organization of the one year School of the Line, which

emphasized military operations up to division level, and the

second year General Staff School, which focused on corps and

army levels. The General Staff School course was reserved for

the top 40 to 60 percent of the graduates of the School of the

Line or for those having equivalent military experience.

Both schools acquired considerable expertise with the influx

of combat veterans into the faculty and student body. The new

staff and faculty believed that the doctrine and tactics taught

at the School of the Line before the war had been in large part

confirmed. As their goal, they now sought to establish a uniquely

American doctrine and to get away from the use of foreign

manuals and pamphlets. They recognized that while much had

been learned during the European war, many of the details and

events of the war were unique and not likely to be repeated.

Classifications such as "open," "position," "stabilized," and

"trench" could be used to describe different combat situations

but were not to be viewed as special classes of warfare. Leavenworth was to inculcate offensive spirit by the study of open

warfare offensive situations, taking into account war experiences

with new weapons and their employment methods."

During the immediate postwar period from 1919 to 1923, the

schools capitalized on lessons learned from the wartime experience. By 1922, the publication of American texts on the war

had been completed, as had a complete revision of the War

Department's Field Service Regulations. The Leavenworth curriculum concentrated on military organization; the tactics and

techniques of the various services-both separately and in combination; plans and orders; decision making; and logistics. Instructors continued to use the applicatory method, by which students

learned principles in the classroom and then applied them to

tactical decision making during map exercises, maneuvers, war

games, and staff rides.' 2

Throughout this period, school administrators noted the students' general irritation with the marking system and the competitiveness that it fostered. Competition for admission to the

General Staff School was keen; in the 1922 graduating class,

197 officers attended the School of the Line, but only 75 continued for a second year at the General Staff School. Indeed,
Brigadier General Hugh A. Drum, assistant commandant of the school at Leavenworth, September 1920-July 1921

eleven members of the School of the Line did not graduate

because of academic failure.-Noting that "the question of the

marking system of these schools has been carefully studied by

successive commandants for the last twenty years,"' 3 Assistant

Commandant Hugh A. Drum saw the main question as how to

announce the marks to students: "The announcement of the exact

percentages after each problem ... seemed to disturb the student

officers and cause so keen a personal competition as to be

undesirable."14 Drum supported the competitive system and
viewed opposition as the product of the "failures of officers who

fear competition with brother officers."1 5 Citing his seven years'

association with the schools, and perhaps facing considerable

pressure to change the system, Drum philosophized in his 1922

annual report:

Competition is the finest and healthiest trait in the American race. In all walks of American life, competition, in one form or

another, is a daily incident. From boyhood to manhood Americans

foster and practice healthy competition. Why should the Army be

an exception to this national characteristic? Competition is the life

of these schools. Once it is removed, I believe the present high

standard will be greatly reduced.16

Drum noted that "the spirit of the officers under instruction ... has been uniformly excellent," although "under such keen

competition, it is but natural that individual officers are at times

disappointed."1 7 Drum thought "healthy, outdoor experience of

extreme importance" in dissipating "the intense mental application required at the schools."" According to him, the eighteenhole golf course, polo field, twelve tennis courts, three bowling

alleys, and swimming pool added much to the enjoyment and

recreation of staff, faculty, families, and especially students. 19

Drum's successor as assistant commandant, Robert H. Allen,

also attested to the value of recreational activity at Leavenworth:

"The golf course, especially, is of extreme importance as a large

majority of the officers on duty at the schools play golf. It is a

conservative estimate to state that without the golf course the

efficiency of these schools would be decreased by twenty-five

percent." 2 0

Allen also praised the consolidation of the School of the Line

and the General Staff School (begun in 1923) by noting: "The

consolidation into one class will do away with the disappointment which heretofore existed in the minds of those who

had not made the General Staff Class." 2

1 The purpose of the

consolidation was to accommodate a large group of over a thousand officers who had entered service during World War I and

who had no schooling in general staff or higher command duties.

In order to consolidate the two courses into a single course (now

renamed the Command and General Staff School), some of the

instruction in the separate arms was transferred to the various

branch schools. Subjects pertaining to army and theater levels

of operations were transferred to the Army War College.

Considerable debate within the Army on the structure of the

officer education system accompanied the transition. General of

the Armies John J. Pershing suspected that too much money
was being spent shuttling officers to and from the schools, too

much of an officer's time was spent in the schools at the expense

of field experience, and that there was duplication of effort within

the system. Pershing convened a board of officers to study the

problem. The result was a series of battles over doctrine and

territorial prerogatives that was played out against a background

of greatly reduced funding from which to support any decisions

made. Pershing himself made the final decision concerning

Leavenworth. The school at Leavenworth was reduced to a one

year course, with the School of the Line and the General Staff

School combined to form the Command and General Staff School.

The effect of the decision was to limit the breadth of what could

realistically be accomplished at both Leavenworth and the War

College. Whereas the War College had earlier focused on the

larger issues of national defense, the reduction of the Leavenworth course to a single year compelled the War College to

concentrate instead on the strictly military aspects of army and

theater operations. 22 Directly affected by the transition was Major

Dwight Eisenhower, who attended the 1926 class at Leavenworth

and the 1928 class at the War College.

The mission of the new Command and General Staff School

was to provide instruction on (1) the combined use of all arms

in the division and in the army corps; (2) the proper functions

of commanders of divisions and of army corps; and (3) the proper

functions of general staff officers of divisions and of army

corps. 23

Although officers in the first one-year class at the Command

and General Staff School (1923) were not as well prepared for

the course as school authorities desired, officials expected future

classes to improve as potential students prepared themselves by

using Correspondence Course D, available through the school.24

Within a year of the change to the one-year course, the commandant could declare it "eminently practical ... free from extraneous matter and so-called padding." 25

Despite the generally positive response to the one-year concept,

the Army and Leavenworth leadership considered it a temporary

measure, a three- or four-year effort to increase the number of

officers with Leavenworth experience. Some observers continued

to believe the one-year curriculum sacrificed quality for quantity

since instructors presented less in-depth analysis, and students

were forced to digest material at a hurried pace. In 1928, the

school returned to the two-year course, reducing the size of

classes in the process. Brigadier General Edward L. King, the
commandant, would later pronounce the two-year curriculum

successful, as it provided students more time to "assimilate the

instruction and practical exercises." 26

The seven classes graduating from the one-year course at

Leavenworth from 1923 to 1929 experienced a stable curriculum

and doctrine. To avoid trench warfare, school doctrine directed

strong and aggressive offensive action to envelop or penetrate

enemy defensive positions. Follow-on pursuit required units to

push both friendly and enemy troops to the limit to deny the

enemy time to reorganize. Mobility and finesse were keys to

the offense, rather than concentrated brute force, which required

a greater investment of men and materiel. Surprise was also

advantageous, because the attacker was able to choose the time

and place of attack. While a commander in the defense. could

choose ground and buy time, doctrine considered the defense as

a temporary expedient until the offense could be resumed. Furthermore, extended periods of defense forfeited freedom of maneuver and had a negative impact on troop morale. 2 7

Leavenworth instruction involving the use of tanks and air

power was not immune from the military-political wranglings

of the day. Air power doctrine at the school emphasized air

support of tactical ground forces and reflected the groundversus-air controversies and resolutions of the period. Coordinated

air and ground operations, such as those being developed in

Germany, were not a part of the Leavenworth curriculum. Tanks

were viewed as infantry weapons for overcoming defensive obstacles to infantry advances, but they were seen as too vulnerable

to artillery to operate independently of infantry. While some

freethinkers encouraged innovations in the use of tanks, the

proponents of existing dogma threatened disciplinary actions

against those who pressed on concerning controversial tank

issues.28

In July 1925, as the 1925-26 class began its course, a new

commandant also came to the Command and General Staff

School-Brigadier General Edward L. King. A pre-World War I

graduate of the School of the Line and Staff College, King was

sensitive to student morale and more willing than his predecessors to change established procedures. He had a somewhat

different view of competition at the school and seemed to adopt

a students'-eye view of proceedings. King ended the A, B, C

grading system and had instructors mark students' products "S"

for satisfactory or "U" for unsatisfactory, with appropriate comments provided to rectify important errors. The faculty continued

to maintain percentage grades in order to calculate class stand-
ings, but authorities would reveal neither the percentages nor

the standings to students until the end of the year. This was

the system in place for 1925-26, but King ended both class

standings and the "honor" and "distinguished" classifications

for the 1927-28 class. 29

King saw the mission of the school as teaching first and

testing afterward. He had the class divided into committees of

about twenty students, and each committee had two instructors

"to assist in every way possible the members of the committee

to which assigned." 30 The instructors would "consult with and

counsel student[s]," clear up academic matters, and bring about

"a closer relationship between the faculty and student body." 31

The bulk of the 1925-26 curriculum consisted of three main

subjects: tactics and technique; tactical principles; and command,

staff, and logistics. Other subjects taught included history, training, leadership, military organization, combat order, field engineering, military intelligence, strategy, and legal principles.

The major subjects emphasized the tactics and techniques of

the various branches, including their individual capabilities and

their potency when incorporated with other branches. The

command, staff, and logistics subject area required officers to

compare administrative and field orders, to develop the details

for moving a division by truck and rail, and to determine the

logistics of supply during attack, pursuit, and defense. Perhaps

the most important course, Tactical Principles and Decisions,

took up the full spectrum of tactical considerations and principles

and was reinforced by the students' application in staff rides,

map maneuvers, and problem solving.32

Another course, Methods of Training, required students to

prepare map and terrain problems, map maneuvers, and field

problems as if they were using them as means of instruction.

The Military History course emphasized the campaigns of World

War I and touched briefly on historical methodology. Leadership,

taught mostly by lectures, included sections on psychology, troopleading procedures, and leadership in a historical context. 33

Attendance at the 1925-26 Command and General Staff

School was voluntary, with the policies for attendance established

by the War Department, which calculated allotments for each

branch. Combat branches received 232 allotments, noncombat

branches 18 allotments. Candidates would be field grade officers,

although exceptional captains who expected to be promoted to

major by September 1928 could be considered. Half the class

would be officers thirty-eight years of age or under; officers
36

forty-seven or older had to have special qualifications. Candidates were to have an efficiency rating of at least "average"

and were to be

.. familiar with the organization of the division and included units,

should have a knowledge of the methods of solving tactical problems

and of the form and expression of field orders, and should have a

grasp of the tactics and technique of the separate arms as will

properly enable them, after a brief review of the reinforced brigade,

to pass to the solution of problems involving a division. 34

The War Department and the applicants' branch offices determined who would enter each Leavenworth class. Because those

eligible for the class of 1925-26 fell within that enlarged group

of officers commissioned during World War I, it was a highly

competitive year in which to seek entrance. Branch managers

would be selective in who they sent; those not selected would

have to wait their turn. This set the stage for a confrontation

between a bureaucratic, authoritarian War Department, on the

one hand, and an obscure but determined major on the other.
IV.

THE YEAR AT LEAVENWORTH

In a letter to the adjutant general dated 3 August 1924,

Dwight D. Eisenhower made his formal request to attend the

Command and General Staff School for the school year

1925-26. With his tour of foreign service in Panama expiring

in January 1925, Eisenhower submitted his application explaining that "if the request is approved it may affect the orders to

be published for my next assignment to duty."1 The letter closes

with the admission: "I am a graduate of no service school except

the Infantry Tank School." 2 Fox Conner endorsed the application, noting that Eisenhower was "especially fitted to profit by

the course," had "marked qualities for General Staff training,"

and despite his lack of service school training ". . . [had] kept

pace with the Benning course, by special study and contact with

recent Benning graduates." 3

The letter, with endorsement, was received in the Adjutant

General's Office on 28 August and was promptly forwarded to

the Office of the Chief of Infantry for comment. A handwritten

response addressed to the adjutant general and initialed "For

the Chief of Infantry" stated: "The name of Capt. D. D. Eisenhower has been placed on the tentative list of those officers

who will be considered to attend the 1925-26 course at the

C&G.S.S. Capt. Eisenhower will be eligible for the detail as he

is about to be promoted to the grade of Major at the present

time."4

The chief of Infantry returned the request to the Adjutant

General's Office on 29 August. The action officer, Major Whipple,

referred the paperwork to a Mr. Becker on 30 August with the

handwritten directive: "usual action." What resulted was a

3 September endorsement through the Panama Canal Department addressed to Eisenhower. The approval statement lifted

the first sentence from the chief of Infantry's draft almost verbatim, stating that Eisenhower's name "has been placed on the

tentative list of those officers who will be considered for detail

to the Command and General Staff School, 1925-26 course."5

The endorsement consisted of just the one sentence. Although

Captain Eisenhower's permanent promotion status was an

important consideration in his qualification for the school, comments in that regard to the requesting officer would not have

been appropriate.
General Fox Conner, Ike's mentor (Panama Canal Zone)

One can only marvel at the dispatch with which the entire

application process took place. The Adjutant General's Office

received the request on 28 August, staffed it, and prepared a

response by 3 September. The speed with which it was processed,

coupled with the essentially noncommittal nature of the response,

suggests that it was a routine action. Major Whipple's "usual

action" comment supports this interpretation. While considered

technically qualified for attendance at the school, Eisenhower

was still far from attaining his objective-perhaps even farther

away as a result of his application.

In the fall of 1924, three months ahead of schedule, the War

Department moved Eisenhower back to Fort Meade, Maryland,

to coach football. Ike describes the reasons for the move as "a

cosmic top-secret to me. Then or now, one guess would be as
good as another."6 The reasons are perhaps not so difficult to

discern. Ike had in fact coached three years of football during

his previous Fort Meade assignment and with considerable

success. The War Department wanted to build a first-rate Army

team at Fort Meade, and Ike was their man. His Command

and General Staff School application may well have reminded

the War Department they had a "football coach" scheduled to

return from overseas-the perfect match.

The season did not go well for Ike, and it must have been

difficult for him to return to the post where his son had died

three years earlier. Told that he would be reassigned to Fort

Benning, Georgia, at the end of the season, Ike traveled to

Washington to inquire of the chief of Infantry whether the orders

could be changed so that he could attend Leavenworth. "I should

have known better," Eisenhower later wrote, "he refused even

to listen to my arguments."7 But by this time, General Conner

was serving in Washington as deputy chief of staff to General

John L. Hines-in the same State-War-Navy Building as the

chief of Infantry.8 Ike probably visited his old mentor after the

chief of Infantry's rebuff, for several days after his return to

Meade, he received a telegram that read: "NO MATTER WHAT

ORDERS YOU RECEIVE FROM THE WAR DEPARTMENT,

MAKE NO PROTEST ACCEPT WITHOUT QUESTION SIGNED

CONNER." 9

Shortly thereafter, Ike received orders detailing him to recruiting duty at Fort Logan, Colorado. In Ike's words: "To be assigned to the recruiting service, in those days . . . was felt to be

a rebuke a little less devastating than a reprimand."10 But Ike

had been pulled from the fire by Conner once before, and he

had confidence the general was again working his magic. A

letter from Conner explained everything. Because the chief of

Infantry had jurisdiction over Fort Benning, he would always

have to approve the request of any officer at that post (Ike

included) to attend Leavenworth. But Conner had arranged for

Ike's temporary transfer from the Infantry to the Adjutant

General's Office, which had charge of recruiting officers and

had two billets for the 1925-26 class at Leavenworth. Conner

arranged for Eisenhower to receive one of the billets. Upon receiving orders to the school with an August 1925 reporting date,

Ike declared: "I was ready to fly-and needed no airplane!""

Reflecting on the process by which he circumvented the chief

of Infantry and gained entrance to the Command and General

Staff School, Eisenhower's own words are instructive:
To the cynic, all this may seem proof of "It's not what you

know, it's who you know." .. . Certainly, had I been denied the good

fortune of knowing Fox Conner, the course of my career might have

been radically different. Because I did know him, I did go to

Leavenworth. And I must confess that the school there, a watershed

in my life, might not have been half so professionally profitable to

me had I gone three years later on the schedule the Chief of Infantry thought suitable. 12

Concerned that young readers might misunderstand his

message, Ike continues in At Ease:

Always try to associate yourself closely with and learn as much

as you can from those who know more than you, who do better

than you, who see more clearly than you. Don't be afraid to reach

upward. Apart from the rewards of friendship, the association might

pay off at some unforeseen time-that is only an accidental byproduct. The important thing is that the learning will make you a

better person.13

As the euphoria of gaining entrance faded, Ike began to have

misgivings about his qualifications for the school. Unlike most

of his future classmates, he had not attended a service school

and consequently felt himself "being sent to college without a

secondary school education."14 An aide in the Office of the Chief

of Infantry suggested Leavenworth attendance without a service

school education could render him useless as an infantry officer

and predicted: "You will probably fail."15 Ike, having reservations and doubts on the matter, wrote to General Conner for

advice on how to prepare for the course. The response was

reassuring:

You may not know it, but because of your three years' work in

Panama, you are far better trained and ready for Leavenworth than

anybody I know.

You will recall that during your entire service with me I required

that you write a field order for the operation of the post every day

for the years you were there. You became so well acquainted with

the technics and routine of preparing plans and orders for operations

that included their logistics, that they will be second nature to you.

You will feel no sense of inferiority .... 1

6

If Eisenhower was reassured, he was not overconfident, and

his preparation took on the same earnestness as his studies for

the West Point entrance examinations some fifteen years earlier.

Throughout the winter and spring, he worked the school's

correspondence problems, probably Correspondence Course D,

which was designed for that purpose. The course presented

problems to students for independent solution and included

approved solutions in separate envelopes. Ike did not consider
the work a chore and spent considerable time on his studies.

Of his correspondence effort, he remembered: "I loved to do that

kind of work ... practical problems have always been my equivalent of crossword puzzles."' 7

In August 1925, Ike took the additional precaution of having

his appendix removed at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital. While

doctors attributed his internal disorder to the ravages of adjusting from the dissipating Panamanian climate, Ike thought

it best to err on the side of safety and lower the risk of illness

during the year-long grind of the Leavenworth course.'8 The trip

from Fort Logan, Colorado, to Fort Leavenworth was not a long

one, but the Eisenhowers encountered considerable heat in that

part of the country in the summer of 1925. In a sense, the

journey was another rite of passage for the Eisenhower family,

which now included three-year-old son John. Mamie's parents,

the Douds, were Denver residents, and it was undoubtedly with

mixed emotions that the trip back to Eisenhower country was

undertaken. It is not known whether the Eisenhowers stopped

in Abilene, some 150 miles west of Fort Leavenworth, but it is

difficult to imagine the Eisenhowers not visiting there as it was

along the route.

Upon reporting at Fort Leavenworth, a piece of good luck

met Ike and Mamie. Rather than being quartered in the

"Beehive," with nearly 100 other student families, they were

given quarters across the street in Otis Hall. Converted from

engineer troop barracks, the cramped "Beehive" was a tremendous community trial for the students who lived there-especially

for their children, who were restricted from playing in the halls

or making other noise that might interfere with studying. James

L. Collins, Sr., a classmate who rented a house outside the post,

wrote his wife in August 1925: "Am certainly glad we are not

in the bee hive. . . "19

Otis Hall, on the other hand, had been converted from

twenty-four bachelor apartments in 1921 to eight apartments for

married couples in 1925.20 In 1922, the post added electric ranges

to the kitchens and central heating to replace separate

furnaces. 21 The Eisenhowers were assigned apartment 2C, a

second-floor apartment that included a third-floor dormer. The

dormer became Ike's model command post, "off limits to all post

and family personnel." His childhood desire for "splendid

isolation" effectively achieved, the dormer gradually took on the

look of his screened porch in Panama. He had soon covered

the walls with maps, installed a large work table, and stacked

the bookshelves with class reference materials. 22
The Eisenhower's living quarters at Otis Hall, Fort Leavenworth

Fort Leavenworth's "Beehive," the quarters for nearly 100 student families during

1926
In the words of another student, "the usual joys of getting

settled were intensified by the sweltering weather during the

first part of September." 2 3 That the "post administration" had

systematized the procedure for processing and moving onto the

post was one of the saving graces of the experience. 24 Perhaps

exacerbated by the September heat, the class considered the

opening exercises a test of endurance. Yet here began the class'

love affair with the new school commandant, Brigadier General

Edward L. King, or "Big Hearted Eddie," as he was affectionately known. 2 5

On 11 September, King presented a lecture to the class on

the subject of command in which he skillfully articulated how

the inherent power and authority of command must be tailored

by the unique abilities and personality of the individual commander. In terms that must have been especially heartening to

Major Eisenhower, King took many of his command analogies

from the football field. King described the commander as the

"one who gives the signal" and likened staff members to members of the team. The team would push the "play" to the limit

"until the ball is down." Individual members of the staff were

also like players, as they were "presumed to be competent else

[they] would not be on the team." Just as players must keep

the "field captain" informed as to "whether his opponent is hard

to handle," so "staff officers should keep their chief constantly

informed as to the possibilities." And finally, "A football team

composed of individuals of medium ability, indoctrinated in

teamwork and led by a real leader, will beat a team of hastily

assembled stars, all wanting to carry the ball individually and

in eleven different directions." 2 6

The Class of 1926 (classes are known by their date of graduation) began with 248 students; 245 would graduate. Of the

three students who did not, one transferred, one resigned, and

one was relieved for illness. 27 It was a "young" class, perhaps

younger than any before it, with the average age of students

"well under forty." 28

Welcomes and advice from the school director and various

instructors characterized the opening days of the course.

Instructors assured the students that there were no "trick"

problems and warned them not to play hunches, to blindly follow

the solutions or methods of previous problems, or to attempt to

straddle the fence in presenting solutions. Students were told to

"tackle" problems with an open mind and were encouraged to

put themselves into the equation as though the situation actually

existed. 2 9
But soon, the students faced the hard daily schedule that

had come to symbolize the Leavenworth course. During the first

month, to give students a feel for the "applicatory system," the

staff did not grade the solutions to problems. (These early

problems reinforced important military principles.) As part of

the daily routine, mornings were divided into three periods of

one hour each, beginning at 8:30 A.M. and continuing until

noon, with breaks scheduled after each hour. During these lecture

or conference periods, instructors randomly called on students

for comments but again did not grade these "recitations." Afternoons began at 1:00 P.M. and normally consisted of map problems and practical exercises, where students prepared an estimate

of a situation for their instructors' criticism. Despite numerous

free-afternoon periods, students had extensive readings to prepare

for future classes, which required afternoon and evening study

time. 0

Tactical rides provided a welcome change for some, though

Ike would recall that "many hated this with a passion."31 This

was certainly not the case for Ike, because General Conner had

thoroughly rehearsed him in the process. During the rides, the

entire class rode horseback to an unknown destination for

reconnaissance. Maps provided by the instructors showed principal terrain features, but the students conducted detailed analyses

of the ground by observation. Students received a statement of

the tactical situation and several requirements that involved

drafting orders for troop movements and the like-to be turned

in by a designated hour. Students received their first graded

problems in October, but the weight of the problems again

reflected a gradual introduction to the course. The first 8 problems counted 5 units each out of the 1,000 units in the total

course. Five of the eight problems were terrain exercises conducted on the tactical rides. These rides ended in October and

would not resume until spring. During the winter, map problems

were solved indoors, usually on the Gettysburg and Leavenworth

three-inch maps. 32 The Gettysburg map provided Ike a rare

advantage: he knew the terrain from his Camp Colt days and

could orient himself quickly from his first-hand knowledge of

the area.

Though he had no way of knowing it at the time, Ike's

performance relative to his peers was lowest in that first graded

month of October. Although ranking 14th in a class of nearly

250 students was exemplary, he finished in the top 10 every

month thereafter. 33 His increasing success was due in large part

to his selection of a good study system, which students chose
in October. There were three general study systems in use at

the school during that time: the single, committee, and partner

methods. Committees usually consisted of four to eight members, who split up work and shared each other's views. Although

one committee invited Ike to join, he declined, not wanting "to

get involved with too much conversation, argument, and

discussion."34 Perhaps reminiscent of his early eschewal of

Abilene's social clubs, Ike was not interested in a group approach

to tasks. At least this time, he was apparently asked to join a

group-a point he would find significant enough to mention in

At Ease some forty years later.

While solitary study offered the greatest independence, Ike

also saw its drawbacks-loss of perspective and the possibility

of going stale. In the partner system, he saw many advantages

and few disadvantages. Partners could serve as a check on each

other and help remove much of the monotony of study. Moreover,

while plotting tactical situations on a map, one partner could

read instructions, while the other marked the map. Although

the partner system had no direct effect on problems solved by

students in class, Ike could see in teamwork a legitimate method

of saving "precious hours" and assimilating the principles of a

subject. 35

Although he considered several of his friends for partners, Ike ultimately teamed up with Leonard T. Gerow, a close friend

from his Fort Sam Houston days. Gerow, a graduate of the

Virginia Military Institute, was about the same age as Ike and

shared his distrust of committees and his desire to excel in the

course. He had also graduated first in his class at Fort Benning's

Infantry School. Because Gerow lived across the street in the

"Beehive," Ike's "model command post" in the dormer of Otis

Hall was the ideal meeting place, and it became the site of

their most intense efforts. "We learned far more in quiet concentration than in the lecture room," Ike would later say of their

joint efforts.36

Ike clearly favored a measured and reasonable approach to

the course and discounted theories that ascribed mysterious

qualities to it. He shared his views of the school in an article

designed for prospective students that he entitled "The Leavenworth Course," published in the June 1927 issue of Infantry

Journal.37 In the article, Ike notes that "some officers keep a

rather complete system of notes covering points considered

important, others keep none at all." 38 Ike had unusual assistance

in this regard. Exactly where on the note-taking continuum
General Gerow, Ike's study mate at Leavenworth before the war

George S. Patton, Jr., stood is not known, but Ike had a copy

of Patton's notes throughout the course. Despite the basic similarity of Patton's 1924 course and Ike's in 1926, the use of

materials from prior years was not prohibited. In fact, a classmate of Ike's publicly advised in the Cavalry Journal: "Among

the most helpful aids to study are the old problems used in

former years .... "3 Apparently, Ike thought the notes of his

old friend from Fort Meade helpful, or so Patton intimated

shortly after Ike's graduation: "You are very kind to think my
notes helped you ... I feel sure that you would have done as

well without them." 40 Exactly how helpful the notes were will

probably never be known. Patton was considered a hard worker

in the 1924 class and was an honor graduate. Other than the

rather oblique reference to notes in his Infantry Journal article,

Ike makes no reference to their use.4' Patton's generous tone is

discounted by his biographer, Martin Blumenson, who notes:

"Eisenhower graduated first in his class and Patton was sure

that his papers were responsible." 4 2

As the course moved indoors for the winter months, the

problems given to students, though less frequent, were of greater

complexity and carried increased weight for class standings. The

subjects of the problems became increasingly more complex,

requiring students to review the principles and techniques presented in earlier classes. During map maneuvers, where the

tactical and logistical deployment of units were simulated by

moving bits of cardboard around on maps, instructors required

students to assume the roles of the various staff officers.

Usually, school solutions "carried conviction" and seemed

"surprisingly simple and obvious once [they were] given"; at

other times, solutions were highly debatable and hinged on a

complete understanding and interpretation of the given

circumstances. 4 3

System and method were key to the Eisenhower approach to

solving the written problems, an approach he shared with future

students in his Infantry Journal article. Success in the problem

solving hinged on a comprehensive estimate of the situation, or

as Ike would write: ". . . a problem cannot be correctly solved

unless the situation as issued is thoroughly understood." This

he termed the "common sense solution of problems," citing

"prosaic common sense" as of more value than the spark of

genius. Most errors, he felt, came as a result of the basic failure

of students to methodically stake out the problems. Visualization

was also important. Ike tried to regard troop movements as real

actions carried out under the actual circumstances described by

the problem, always asking the question, "Does it carry out my

mission?" 44

This visualization process of working oneself thoroughly into

a problem had some interesting side effects, as described by

William H. Gill, a 1925 graduate and instructor for the 1926

class:

Well, you worked yourself so thoroughly into the problem to

consider every angle that would influence General A in his decision,
that the first thing you knew, you assumed the time of the problem

being your time as you sat there. . . . I did this one time and I got

so absorbed in the problem... that I thought to myself-well what

the devil am I doing here at 4:00 in the morning. Well I just lost

sight of the fact that that was a fictitious problem . . [and the real]

time . . was about four or five in the afternoon.4 5

The pressure students felt concerning graded problems was

considerable-even if largely self-imposed. Many still viewed

performance at Leavenworth as a stepping-stone to continued

career success. General Omar N. Bradley, a 1929 graduate, later

wrote: ". .. the assumption had taken root that a high grade at

the Command and General Staff School would almost insure

promotion to colonel or general, for too long the competition

had been literally killing." 4 6 Bradley, Eisenhower, and much of

the secondary literature on the school cite nervous breakdowns

and suicides among students throughout this period. Although

little hard evidence exists to support these accounts, they do

reflect the pressures perceived by the students. While Ike noted

that "students became tense under the competition," no one in

his class committed suicide. But Eisenhower added, "we must

have been a very difficult group because one of the instructors

did." 4 7 The 1926 annual report reports that Major Phillip H.

Bagby, a school instructor, died on 16 March 1926.48 Reasons

for the death of students and instructors are not provided in

the annual reports. The reports of nervous breakdowns and

suicides may well have risen since the class of 1925, when the

American generals who fought in Europe. Front row (left to right)-Simpson, Patton,

Spaatz, Eisenhower, Bradley, Hodges, Gerow; back row (left to right)-Stearley,

Vandenberg, Smith, Weiland, Nugent
annual report records the "relief' of four Regular Army officers

due to illness and the death of a student whose name is not

listed. 49

Whatever the pressures at work within the class of 1926, they

had to have been considerably lessened with the arrival of

Commandant Edward L. King. King downplayed the role of

competition in the school and made "every effort to increase

the morale factor, particularly with reference to the student

body."50 He viewed the selection of the top graduate as well as

the division of the class into "honor" graduates, "distinguished"

graduates, and "graduates" as an administrative bother. The

1926 yearbook, which the class dedicated to King, describes him

as "fun loving," solving the "problems of manhood with ...

simplicity and carefree abandon . . . ," and retaining

"optimism ... from his boyhood days."51 If previous classes took

themselves too seriously, the influence of General King was the

perfect antidote. The attitude adjustment engineered by General

King may well have been a conscious effort on his part to

reverse the overseriousness of previous years.

The class of 1926 seems to have emerged from the year with

its sense of humor intact. Hardly a serious note can be found

in the class yearbook, The Horseshoe, whose object was "merriment and laughter" and whose writers had "already had all

the troubles due us and our friends for a lifetime." 52 Robert

Eichelberger, Ike's desk mate, said of his experience: "I had at

no time any feeling of depression because of my work at that

school,"5 3 and midway through the course, another student

observed that "our morale as a class is still excellent." 54

Ike also enjoyed his experience at Fort Leavenworth, recalling:

"Leavenworth is in every way a reasonable and normal place."55

Students had weekends free and were encouraged to use them

for recreational pursuits. The Officers Club or Golf Clubhouse

frequently held formal dances on Friday and Saturday nights,

and the Dramatic Club gave monthly performances. Accounts

of the school during the 1920s also allude to frequent trips by

officers to Kansas City, where students carried complimentary

guest cards to the Kansas City Athletic Club.56

General King cites the fort's "splendid facilities . . . for exercise and entertainment" and notes that "these facilities have

been used to the maximum."5 7 Among these facilities was the

newly laid out golf course to which Major Eisenhower found

his way: "It was in the spring of 1926 that I first picked up a

golf stick, but if my progress in academics had been no greater
50

[than that] in golf I would never have gotten through the

course."58 Golf became a lifelong hobby for Ike and a source of

needed relaxation for him. "You can't have a low score card if

you worry about something else," Mamie later said of his pastime, "That's why golf is good for Ike. He can really get his

mind off his problems for a few hours a week." 59

Ike was perhaps fortunate that Mamie indulged his occasional

sojourns on the golf course, because some students' wives pushed

their husbands to do well. Low pay and slow promotions combined with the prevailing air of significance applied to success

at the school undoubtedly created additional pressures for some

officer-husbands. Wives developed their own social cliques,

usually centered on their living area, and tended to establish.

their own versions of success. "Miss Em, like most wives, was

pushing hard for my success," Robert Eichelberger recalled. "It

was rather ludicrous to realize that she was falling for the

immodest statements of some of the officers who were quartered

in the same building with us." 60

As the course progressed, Ike found it "easy to identify those

people who were studying too long ... coming to the daytime

sessions . . . without fresh minds and an optimistic outlook."61

In his Infantry Journal article, he would refer to Leavenworth

as "not a place, but a state of mind."62 As in any school, these

states of mind undoubtedly varied among students. While the

importance of the grading system had been deliberately minimized to relieve tension, students could still become distracted

by speculation. Since students received an "S" for any satisfactory grade covering the spectrum from 75-100 percent, speculation on the actual percentage achieved or the relative class

standing of the student was, according to Ike, "always interesting, but not too much time should be spent on it."63

How hard did Ike really work at Leavenworth? Ike denigrated

his efforts. Most biographers, on the other hand, disregard Ike's

comments and focus on the obvious efforts required of a student

to graduate number one in his class. Proponents of this view

tend to exaggerate the number of students in the class, most

frequently increasing the class size from the actual 245 to 275.

It is difficult to discern where the 275 figure originated, although

a special class of 32 reservists and National Guardsmen also

graduated in 1926. Someone perhaps added students for good

measure, either miscounting the names in records or simply

rounding the number to 275. More important, a serious discrepancy exists between what Ike says of his approach to the course

and the efforts biographers attribute to him. Merle Miller, per-
haps the most thorough researcher of Eisenhower during this

period, surmises: "The advice he [Eisenhower] gave ... is excellent advice indeed, but, as is so often the case with advice givers, he didn't follow it."64

Ike emphasized in the Infantry Journal article that students

should maintain a positive attitude and avoid worry. Because

throughout the course students did not know their class standing, they would ultimately do best by not worrying about it and by keeping "interested in the work."65 With respect to his own study

habits, Ike reported: "I established a routine that limited my

night study to two hours and a half; from seven to nine-thirty.

Mamie was charged with the duty of seeing that I got to bed

by that time. This went on five nights a week." 66 Mamie

Eisenhower recounted a somewhat different view to her

biographer, recalling her husband "up at one or two in the

morning . . . still fighting his theoretical battles, while mounds

of cigarette stubs littered every ash tray." 67 As final exams

approached, "his absorption in his studies became demoniacal,"

and Mamie had to "force her husband to take ten minutes to

eat." 68

Although at their extremes, the two pictures appear contradictory, they are not irreconcilable. Certainly Ike had long

slighted his efforts at West Point, and in At Ease, he again

clearly shows his tendency to look. down on classmates overly

concerned about grades. This propensity seems to carry over to

his view of Leavenworth and to his advice on how others should

approach the course. The big change in Ike from West Point to

Leavenworth, however, is how he viewed academic accomplishment and its benefits. At West Point, he had difficulty visualizing himself as "a military figure whose professional career might

be seriously affected by his academic or disciplinary record." 69

By the time he attended Leavenworth, he had a much clearer

vision of himself, a more developed thirst for learning, and an

understanding of the impact doing well at the school could have

on his career.

In evaluating the disparity between accounts regarding Ike's

effort 'at Leavenworth, a case can be made that each of the

two basic accounts are valid but have not been correctly reconciled to one another. To make the two views compatible, one

must first accept Ike's basic desire to excel in the course. There

is ample evidence to support this conclusion: his extensive

preparation, his basic competitiveness and concern for "doing

well," his recognition of the importance of the course, and,

indeed, his ultimate number-one standing. Once we accept his
essential ambition in the course, the question of how hard he

studied becomes rather-"how smart did he study?" The answer,

undoubtedly, is very smart.

If Ike chooses to emphasize pacing, rest, and positiveness in

his account of his efforts, he is probably correct in doing so.

Certainly there was little payoff in the course for rote memorization and academic drudgery. Leavenworth emphasized problem

solving-a skill at which Ike excelled in every period of his life.

Ultimately, rest, pacing, and grace under pressure were key

ingredients in his success. Mamie's recollections probably hearken

to the final months of the course when, despite official silence

on the matter, Ike may well have known a great deal about his

relative class standing. He certainly picked up the pace those

last three months: he was fourth in the class in March, third

in April, and third again in May-clearly his most successful

period in the course.70

Ike developed close relationships with several of his instructors during the course and likely received some inkling of his

relative class standing from them. Of these relationships, Ike

would write:

During recesses between conferences you have splendid opportunities for dropping into the office of any instructor you'd like to

see. The little talks you will have with these officers .. . will prove

invaluable to you. Instructors are anxious to help, and you can ask

specific questions or just sit around and listen to the general conversation. The insight into the school, and the understanding of

the whole course you will pick up in this manner is remarkable.71

Competition for the number-one position in the class of 1926

was extremely keen, a situation that the faculty followed closely.

William H. Gill, an instructor that year, revealed the faculty's

behind-the-scenes interest in the class of 1926:

We made a pool after we began to realize that two men were

more or less fighting . .. for first place. . . . One day, one would be

ahead, and the next test they had, the other one would be ahead.

So it seesawed back and forth all through the year. But the people

like myself had nothing to gain by it except maybe betting. . . . But

one of them was Gerow . .. who was a bright young fellow. The

other one was named Eisenhower. ... We bet a dollar and we would

win maybe a pot of 10 or 15.. .. In June, when the thing was over,

it turned out that Ike was the final head man and Gerow was

number two.72

Although Gill repeats the frequently made error that Gerow

was the number-two graduate (he was actually eleventh),73 his

revelation of the behind-the-scenes jockeying is enlightening.
Apparently, student standings were well known to faculty

throughout the year and a subject of considerable interest. If,

as Ike advised future students to do, he spent time with

instructors-"listening to the general conversation" and gaining

"insight into the school" 74-then it is not difficult to imagine

that he picked up intimations that he was doing well in the

course.

One of Mamie's biographers states that in May, "Ike was

no use to anybody," that as final examinations approached, he

became absorbed in his studies. During examination time, Mamie

was "amazed that Ike was suddenly calm," but he explained

that he had "done all he could and there was no use worrying."75

The account is a simple one, but in it can be seen the evidence

of sharply increased effort at the end of the course, coupled

with Ike's special ability to produce the calm he extolled in his

Infantry Journal article.

The Faculty Board met at 9:00 A.M. on 16 June 1926. Chaired

by Brigadier General King, the committee included the assistant

commandant, school director, Correspondence School director, and

the school secretary. Their function was to confirm the statistical

analyses of students provided to them, approve the graduation

of students, and make specific recommendations on students'

capabilities for higher training in command and staff duties,

general staff corps duty, and future attendance at the Army

War College. Dwight Eisenhower's class standing is recorded

as number "1," and he is classified "HG" or honor graduate, a

distinction extended down to the twenty-fifth graduate-the top

10 percent of the class. Having achieved 930.79 units out of the

1,000 possible, his percentage is recorded as 93.08-slightly ahead

of Major Charles M. Busbee, who finished second with 92.85.

Major Gerow was eleventh with a 91.37 percentage. The board

recommended both Ike and "Gee" for the full spectrum of

higher-level command and staff duties and additional advanced

schooling. The board adjourned at 3:00 P.M.; all 245 students

who completed the course would graduate. 76

Mamie remembered the neighborhood hubbub created by the

16 June announcement of Ike's class standing as anything but

calm. Their quarters became a parade of "hand-shaking, backslapping, and well wishing" conducted by "front door, back door,

and telephone." It made for a "long day and longer night"

through which Mamie recalled being "hoarse with laughter and

excitement."77

Separate telegrams arrived from the Douds. Mamie's father,

on business in Boone, Iowa, sent the words: "Congratulations I
54

felt that you would do it and am pleased."7 8 From Denver, Mrs.

Doud wired: "Oh Boy what a thrill Hurrah I am broadcasting

the news we are all fine love and kisses." 79 Mamie had

undoubtedly called one or the other with the news, and the

enthusiasm of their responses indicates their awareness of the

significance of the accomplishment. Mr. Doud's brief words

suggest an awareness that a specific goal had been achieved.

The celebration continued the following evening in Kansas

City. Ike and "Gee" Gerow arranged a party at the Muehlbach

Hotel, reportedly with a $150 loan from Ike's brother, Arthur,

who was then vice president of the Commerce Trust Company

in Kansas City.80 Arthur's connections also made possible the

provision of gin and whiskey-no small feat during the prohibition era. The party lasted until daybreak, most accounts of which

feature a great deal of singing, with Ike in the lead.8'

Ike's Command and General Staff School efficiency report,

endorsed by Brigadier General King, describes him as "alert,

forceful, resourceful, dependable and courteous." He was

"superior" in attention to duty, initiative, intelligence, energy

and resolution, judgment and common sense, and leadership.

He was judged "above average" in physical endurance, military

bearing and neatness, and tact. He fell to "average" in only

his old nemesis-physical activity, which included "agility" and

the "ability to work rapidly." The narrative denotes him an

"Honor graduate-especially qualified for all staff positions at

division and corps." 82

Dwight Eisenhower (at arrow), shown in a blowup of a small portion of the

1925-26 class photo. Eichelberger is to Ike's right.
Ike's performance was noted by General King, who personally

asked Ike if he had any objection to being placed "on the list

of instructors for the next year at Leavenworth." 83 Ironically,

in his 1925-26 annual report, King included two comments that,

had they been applied to Major Eisenhower, would have precluded him from attending the school: "Officers recently recovering from an appendicitis or similar operation should not

be sent to this school ... officers coming here should be graduates of the special service schools . . . ." King also questioned

the labor required in determining honor and distinguished graduates,

stating: "I do not know that it is of any particular value to

anybody in the service in later years to be rated as Honor and

Distinguished." 84

King's words to the graduates at commencement exercises

were somewhat more uplifting. In a ceremony interrupted by a

heavy downpour, King stated: "At the completion of your

schooling here, the foundation has been laid, and the framework

of your future life erected."85 Describing the post as a "desolate

place on Saturday morning," the Leavenworth Times noted "cars

loaded to the guards with luggage ... speeding along the fort

road and heading for the open highway."86 Speaking of the

members of the class of 1926, King said: "It is for him [the

student] to decide whether he shall be a leader or follower,

whether he shall use his knowledge, or whether he shall be

content to let it lie dormant."87 For at least one Leavenworth

graduate, on the road to a family reunion in Abilene, the answer

was no longer in doubt.

V.

WHAT KIND OF WATERSHED?

After the Leavenworth graduation, the Eisenhowers journeyed

home to Abilene for a family reunion that has become almost

legendary among Ike's biographers. It may have been the only

time in their adult lives the six Eisenhower brothers gathered

at the Second Street house. The reunion was an act of mutual

congratulation-and with good reason; the brothers were rising

above their humble beginnings and achieving remarkable success.

Arthur was a successful banker, Earl an engineer, Milton an

assistant secretary of agriculture, Edgar a lawyer, and Roy a

pharmacist. The brothers played golf at a local country club

and swaggered, arm in arm, down the streets of Abilene, as if

in celebration of their success.' Throughout the reunion, there

was competition, with Ike bent on wrestling his older brother

Edgar, who had held the upper hand as a child. Edgar successfully avoided the challenge, but their father, David, now 63,

accepted it. The men's father achieved quite a moral victory,

for it was only after considerable struggle that Ike was able to

wrestle him to the ground. The family, in a photograph taken

at the reunion, appears serious. Only Ike, dressed in his Army

uniform, is smiling.

Ike apparently wrote to his comrade from Fort Meade days,

George S. Patton, Jr., with news of his Leavenworth class

standing. Patton responded early in July stating that the news

"delighted me more than I can say. . . . It shows that Leavenworth is a good school if a HE man can come out number one

in his class. . . . If a man thinks war long enough it is bound

to effect him in a good way." 2 Patton attempted to put the

Leavenworth experience in perspective: "I am convinced that

as good as Leavenworth is it is still only a means not an end

and thus we must keep on. I have worked all the problems of

the two years since I graduated and shall continue to do so.

However I don't try for approved solutions any more but rather

to do what I will do in war.'3

This exchange of letters between the two men began a

correspondence that would continue until Patton's death. Ike

deferred to Patton in most matters, asked for a regiment in

Patton's 2d Armored Brigade in September 1940,4 and assumed

in April 1942 that Patton would be "the 'Black Jack' of the

damn war."5 Patton responded that ". . . being selfish there is

nothing I would like more than to be the 'Black Jack' of this
A family portrait of the Eisenhower family on the porch of the family home, Abilene,

Kansas, 1926. Left to right are Roy, Arthur, Earl, Edgar, David, Dwight, Milton, and

Ida.

war with you the assistant 'B.J.' or even the other way around."6

In May 1942, with Ike serving as chief of the Operations Division of the War Department's general staff under Marshall and

with Patton bucking for a combat command, Patton wrote:

"Sometimes I think your life and mine are under the protection

of some supreme being or fate, because, after many years of

parallel thought, we find ourselves in the positions we now

occupy."''

Ike's meteoric rise had included key positions under John

Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, and George Marshall. In a sense,

he owed these connections to Patton, who had introduced him

to Fox Conner. It was Conner who made possible the Pershing

and Marshall connections and the entry to Leavenworth. Conner

would again rescue Ike, whose graduation from Leavenworth

had placed him in the clutches of the War Department. His

class standing availed little in the War Department, which made

assignments well before the class standings were determined.

The War Department had assigned Ike to Fort Benning, Georgia,

as the executive officer of an infantry regiment and coach of

the Fort Benning football team. When the season ended, Conner,
still serving as deputy chief of staff of the Army, arranged for

Ike to come to Washington and write a guidebook to World War

I battlefields on which Americans had fought.8 It was to be

written under the direction of General Pershing, then serving

as chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Eisenhower established a close rapport with Pershing, but Ike's

work was interrupted by his selection to attend the Army War

College in August 1927.

While Ike devotes five pages of At Ease to his Leavenworth

experience, the War College garners only a brief comment: "To

graduate from the War College had long been the ambition of

almost every officer and I was anxious to take the assignment." 9

The War College was a relaxed assignment, seen by some as a

reward for a successful career and by others as a stepping-stone

to the general officer ranks. Nevertheless, the War College built

on Ike's Command and General Staff School experience as it

dealt with the large problems of war: "supply, movement of large

General George S. Patton, Jr., Ike's early colleague and friend
60

bodies of troops, relations with allies, grand strategy"-knowledge

Ike would need in his World War II role as supreme

commander.10

The War College commandant, Major General William D.

Connor, who some writers have confused with Major General

Fox Conner, took a personal interest in Ike, his ideas, and

career. 1 Connor played a major role in reorganizing the War

College curriculum, although much of the restructuring took place

after Ike's attendance. Connor insisted that students "know the

facts" and then conduct in-depth analysis in arriving at courses

of action. This approach was philosophically akin to Ike's

championing of the estimate of the situation. While Connor

recognized the intangibles of war, he required students to

determine "how many men and weapons were required to defend

a sector of specific size and configuration and how many days

and hours were needed to concentrate, move, and deploy corps

and divisions."12 Connor had War College students participate

in the writing of four staff studies pertaining to war preparations, complete two historical analyses of past campaigns, and

contribute to the drafting of a hypothetical war plan. Students

participated in three month-long war games, a command post

exercise, and a strategic reconnaissance. They heard lectures on

a variety of subjects, from within and outside the Army, and

prepared individual staff memorandums proposing an action to

better the Army.13 Ike wrote on "An Enlisted Reserve for the

Regular Army," which drew high praise from General Connor.

Seventeen pages long, the paper argued against the isolationist

mentality of the time and for developing a rapidly expandable

expeditionary force that would ultimately save resources and

lives. 14

Although as Army chief of staff Ike faulted the Army War

College for its shortcomings in providing a doctrine for Allied

combined operations, he would find the War College experience

helpful in approaching tactical and strategic challenges. He wrote

to William Connor in March 1943:

There is no doubt about the extent of influence that you are still

exerting on operations in this war. Oddly enough, when the decision

was made last November 11th to start rushing toward Tunisia in

an effort to grab off the last foot that we could in the direction of

Tunis before the German could get in, I actually related to some

members of my Staff your particular solution to a very "defensivelooking" problem we once had in the War College. When we were

still wondering whether the French would fight us or help us, there

were many people who counselled me to be more cautious, to develop

my bases, perfect my build-up and bring in steadily the troops that
we would need to wage a rather ritualistic campaign in that direction. Had we done this, we would probably now be fighting a rather

heavy battle somewhere in the vicinity of Constantine.

When that argument was going on, I recalled the particular War

College problem that made such an impression on me. We had been

working on a problem of resisting invasion in Connecticut, and all

the statistical technicians had worked out in detail the most advanced line that they could defend consistent with getting the logistics properly arranged and the necessary forces on the field. Your

criticism of the problem was that it obviously called for an instant

and continuous attack. I remember you said-"Attack with whatever

you've got at any point where you can get it up, and attack and

keep on attacking until this invader realizes that he has got to stop

and re-organize, and thus give to us a chance to deliver a finishing

blow." 15

In his ever-increasing positions of responsibility during World

War II, Ike had his Leavenworth and War College experiences

as a theoretical foundation from which to analyze the harsh

problems of total war. He undoubtedly felt as well that his

actions would one day be judged in these sterile school environments, that the actions he took in the fog of battle would one

day be dissected by future students-aided by hindsight. The

schools gave Ike a frame of reference and a means of measuring

the conduct of the war. In December 1942, he told a colleague:

"I think the best way to describe our operations to date is that

they have violated every recognized principle of war, are in conflict with all operational and logistic methods laid down in textbooks, and will be condemned in their entirety by all Leavenworth and War College classes for the next twenty-five years."16

While World War II, like any war, produced its own litany

of lessons learned, "Leavenworth men" again proved their worth

in battle. In campaigns that dwarfed previous American experience, U.S. military leadership demonstrated that the nation could

mobilize, train its forces, transport armies to multiple theaters

worldwide, and bring to bear the full might of its strength

against its enemies. The war challenged Eisenhower's intellect,

stamina, and ability to lead, but he emerged as an American

hero. Many Americans viewed the success of the Allies as in

large part synonymous with his success. Ike emerged as a figure

many Americans could love. His style contrasted with the

pomposity and heavy-handedness of Patton and MacArthur. His

celebrated smile and apparent grace under pressure were

characteristics Americans greatly admired. Ike, perhaps more

than any military figure in the war, epitomized how Americans

wished to see themselves-humane, confident, and warm-even

as they engaged in the ruthlessness of war.
Eisenhower's stature and postwar career significantly affected

U.S. military education, both in structure and doctrine. His

success in coalition warfare had demonstrated the critical

importance of effectively coordinating air, land, and sea power

with our Allies. Neither Leavenworth nor the War College had

adequately prepared officers for the undertaking, and Ike, perhaps better than anyone, understood the nature of this shortcoming. During his tenure as chief of staff (1945-48), the Armed

Forces Staff College was founded, an institution designed to fill

this void. Much of the impetus for this change grew from the

War Department Education Board, which Eisenhower approved

in his capacity of chief of staff in November 1945. Ike's former

study mate at Leavenworth, Lieutenant General Leonard Gerow,

headed the board. Interestingly, Gerow was then serving as

commandant of the Command and General Staff School at

Leavenworth. Thus, the two former classmates played a major

role in shaping postwar officer education.' 7

As president, Eisenhower also had an impact on officer

professional development and the school at Leavenworth. His

administration adopted the "New Look" defense policy, which

sought to limit defense spending to levels that the economy could

comfortably support. The policy had the effect of reducing

defense budgets and the Army's force structure. In 1953, the

Eisenhower administration essentially forsook the concept of

conventional warfare and adopted a doctrine based on tactical

nuclear weapons and strategic air power.' 8 For a nation seeking

to lower its defense costs while maintaining a strong defense,

"massive retaliation" with nuclear weapons seemed to offer a

rational solution. The policy was not without its opponents in

the defense community, however, and the policy and its attendant programs were hardly a boon to the morale of the Army.

At Leavenworth, operations incorporating a nuclear scenario

assumed priority, with conventional war scenarios taught only

as a variation. By 1960, students spent more than 600 hours on

nuclear warfare in comparison to only 33 hours on unconventional war. General warfare in Europe dominated the school

curriculum, clearly reflecting the Eisenhower administration's

major area of interest.19 (John F. Kennedy later challenged

massive retaliation doctrine as well as its European emphasis,

charging that U.S. policy had not responded to the smaller

insurgencies that threatened the framework of the Western

world.)

As his presidency ended, Eisenhower warned of "the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military-industrial complex." 20 Certainly more than any other

American, Eisenhower knew the subject of which he spoke. While

his administration's defense policy is faulted by many for its

lack of vision and scope, it must be remembered that

Eisenhower's presence at the helm was in itself an extra dimension. He was the great World War II manager, the man who

presided over the resolution of the Korean War, and a leader

who could manage national defense. Who was more trustworthy?

If his presidency was lackluster, Eisenhower still delivered

prosperity and a breathing space in which Americans could enjoy

it.

It is odd, perhaps, that Eisenhower never revisited Fort

Leavenworth, the site of what he viewed as a turning point in

his life. He certainly had ample opportunity to do so. Besides a

career that spanned over four decades from his 1926 graduation,

his three-year stint as Army chief of staff and his two-term

presidency provided ideal opportunities for a visit. He did return

to the Army War College located at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, for the dedication of the Eisenhower Room at the

Officers Club and the General Dwight D. Eisenhower Chair of

Strategic Appraisal. 21 The nearness of Carlisle Barracks to his

retirement farm at Gettysburg may have made it an easy trip.

But despite numerous official and campaign appearances at

Abilene and nearby Kansas City, neither Ike nor Mamie ever

revisited Fort Leavenworth. Not even the opening of Eisenhower

Auditorium, capable of seating the entire student body of the

Command and General Staff College, elicited a visit. Since many

of the school's distinguished graduates revisited Fort Leavenworth later in their careers, Ike's absence in this regard is

mysterious indeed. There seem to be no clues to the separation,

no tangible reasons why Ike did not find a way to return to a

place that could only have held fond memories for him.

Dwight Eisenhower's year at Leavenworth was a watershedand he saw it as such. The year was a microcosm of the themes

developed earlier in his life and provided Ike with the opportunity to hone the skills and techniques that made his number

one class standing possible. The year was tailor-made for Ike,

and he was eminently prepared for it. His tutelage under Fox

Conner had provided him with a firm intellectual and military

base. His experiments with tanks and infantry conducted with

George Patton gave him practical tactical experience. His command of Camp Colt, Pennsylvania, provided him with important

experience in the training and support of a small army and

acquainted him with the local Gettysburg terrain-the knowledge
of which he later utilized in many of the Leavenworth map

problems. Even Ike's lack of service school experience had a

positive effect: it raised in his mind the possibility of failure

and stimulated him to work correspondence course problems. In

solving the correspondence problems, Ike learned that he had a

knack for problem solving-something he had suspicioned earlier

in his academic career when unriddling geometry and calculus

problems.

By the Leavenworth year, Ike also had something to prove:

that he was the equal of World War I combat-theater veterans.

Ike believed he had missed the great military experience of his

lifetime, a feeling exacerbated by a War Department that he

felt considered him persona non grata and which, in fact, told

him he would probably fail at the school. But the Eisenhower

who attended Leavenworth was a somewhat different Eisenhower

than had graduated from West Point some ten years earlier. At

West Point, Ike saw himself as an athlete, and when a knee

injury curtailed his athletic career, he lacked the maturity to

channel his competitive drive into academic pursuits. He could

not see the connection between West Point academics and his

military career. But this would soon change. His marriage to

Mamie in 1916 refocused Eisenhower's life. With marriage came

responsibility and the passing of a period of debts, card playing, and even a flirtation with Army aviation. Ike emerged with a

more mature attitude and a renewed dedication to his Army

service. The years that followed were years of strengthening for

Eisenhower, years applied to his development as an officeryears that could be tested at the school at Leavenworth.

The successful year at Leavenworth was a product of

Eisenhower's dedication, competitiveness, preparation, and

individuality. Patton's notes were undoubtedly helpful, as was

Ike's teaming with Leonard Gerow-an able and knowledgeable

officer in his own right. In Gerow, Ike was supplied a missing

ingredient in his own experience-contact with someone who had

had success at an Army service school. Ike viewed his experience

at Leavenworth as a reasonable one, free of mystery and mental

strain, and he sought to keep it so. Rote memory was of little

value: problem solving was the true test. Ike was uniquely suited

for this arrangement, where his efforts to formulate an accurate

estimate of situations and perform in a relaxed manner were

key. He took advantage of the accessibility of school instructors

and from them undoubtedly reinforced the official, though

limited, feedback that he was doing well. His especially high

achievement the last three months of the course suggest he
possessed this knowledge. The nature of the congratulatory

messages received upon the announcement of his number-one

class standing and the party in Kansas City suggest the attainment of a specific goal.

The year at Leavenworth fostered important friendships for

the Eisenhowers, took them through a year in their son John's

life (that had been so tragic for their son Icky), and strengthened

the bond between the couple. Mamie accommodated Ike's

schedule and ensured he took time out for meals and adequate

rest. She also indulged his sojourns to the golf course-a new

found hobby that Ike would pursue throughout his life.

While his Leavenworth success did not immediately result in

a key assignment for Ike, the politics applied in getting him

into the school reinforced in his mind the role important friends

could play in the gaining of desirable assignments. Just as Fox

Conner had arranged his assignment to Panama, he would again

manipulate the assignment process in securing Ike a key position

under Pershing. These lessons were not lost on Ike, whose

subsequent career assignments demonstrated his ability to find

key positions at critical times.

The Leavenworth experience was a confirming plateau for

Eisenhower that reinforced lessons he had learned in previous

assignments, in his association with Fox Conner, and in his

preparation for the school. The course reinforced his knowledge

of the tactical and logistical fundamentals of battle, preparing

Ike for the larger issues of war he would soon encounter at the

Army War College. Eisenhower's success at Leavenworth cast

him in a new light with his contemporaries and changed the

way he thought about himself. Forty years later, he would call

it a watershed in his life-and with good reason. The success

confirmed his dedicated efforts and validated, in his own mind,

his worthiness for greater responsibility.

NOTES

Chapter 1

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (Garden City,

NY: Doubleday & Co., 1967), 200.

Chapter 2

1. Eisenhower, At Ease, 2.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 31.

4. Ibid., 33.

5. Ibid., 39.

6. Ibid., 40.

7. Ibid., 41.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., 82.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., 72.

12. Ibid., 65.

13. Piers Brendon, Ike: His Life and Times (New York: Harper & Row, 1986),

15-16.

14. Merle Miller, Ike the Soldier: As They Knew Him (New York: G. P. Putnam's

Sons, 1987), 101.

15. Eisenhower, At Ease, 95.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., 83.

19. Ibid., 100.

20. Ibid., 88-90.

21. Ibid., 68.

22. Robert Fredrick Burk, Dwight D. Eisenhower: Hero and Politician (Boston,

MA: Twayne Publishers, 1986), 11-12.

23. Eisenhower, At Ease, 105.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 108.
26. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 45-46.

27. Eisenhower, At Ease, 12.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., 4.

32. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 29.

33. Eisenhower, At Ease, 20.

34. Personal Records (Dwight D. Eisenhower), (A Component of the Records of

the Office of the Adjutant General: Record Group 407), 1920-1973, Dwight

D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS, hereafter cited as Personal Records

(Eisenhower). The library is hereafter cited as the Eisenhower Library.

35. Eisenhower, At Ease, 112.

36. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 137.

37. Brendon, Ike, 39-41.

38. Eisenhower, At Ease, 118.

39. Ibid.

40. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 147.

41. Personal Records (Eisenhower).

42. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 138.

43. Eisenhower, At Ease, 133.

44. Ibid., 131.

45. Ibid., 133.

46. Andrew Turnbull, Scott Fitzgerald (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1962), 80.

47. Arthur Mizener, Afternoon of an Author (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), citing F. Scott Fitzgerald, "Who's Who and Why," The

Saturday Evening Post, 18 September 1920.

48. Eisenhower, At Ease, 133.

49. Ibid., 156.

50. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 182-83.

51. Ibid., 186.

52. Eisenhower, At Ease, 169-72.

53. Ibid., 178.

54. Ibid., 181.

55. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 196.
56. Ibid., 196-97.

57. Ibid., 202-3.

58. Personal Records (Eisenhower).

59. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 209.

60. Eisenhower, At Ease, 195.

61. Ibid., 185.

62. Jules Archer, Battlefield President, Dwight D. Eisenhower (New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1967), 36.

63. Eisenhower, At Ease, 186.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., 187.

66. Ibid.

67. Personal Records (Eisenhower).

Chapter 3

1. Elvid Hunt, History of Fort Leavenworth, 1827-1927, 2d ed., brought up

to date by Walter E. Lorence... (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Fort Leavenworth

Historical Society, 1981), 131-33.

2. Timothy K. Nenninger, The Leavenworth Schools and the Old Army:

Education, Professionalism, and the Officer Corps of the United States

Army, 1881-1918 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978), 22-26.

3. Ibid., 35.

4. Ibid., 43.

5. Ibid., 45-46.

6. Ibid., 84, 129.

7. Hunt, Fort Leavenworth, 155.

8. Nenninger, Leavenworth Schools, 137-39, 144, 149.

9. U.S. Army, Service Schools, Fort Leavenworth, Annual Report of the

Commandant, 1920 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: The General Service School

Press, 1920), 3; the annual reports are hereafter cited as Annual Report,

followed by the year.

10. Ibid., 9.

11. Ibid., 18-21.

12. Boyd L. Dastrup, The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: A

Centennial History (Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 1982), 64,

hereafter cited as Dastrup, CGSC.

13. Annual Report, 1922, 12, 21.

14. Ibid., 12.
70

15. Ibid., 28.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 17.

18. Ibid., 16.

19. Ibid., 17.

20. Annual Report, 1923, 17.

21. Ibid., 9.

22. Harry P. Ball, Of Responsible Command: A History of the U.S. Army War

College (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Alumni Association of the United States

Arry War College, 1984), 180-86.

23. Annual Report, 1923, 36.

24. Ibid., 7.

25. Annual Report, 1924, 3.

26. Dastrup, CGSC, 64-65.

27. Ibid., 70.

28. Ibid., 70-72.

29. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, A Military History of the

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1881-1963 (Fort

Leavenworth, KS, c1964), 29-30.

30. Annual Report, 1926, 11.

31. Ibid.

32. "Command and General Staff School," Cavalry Journal 35 (July 1926):

413-15.

33. Ibid., 415.

34. U.S. Adjutant General's Office, "Apportionment of student officers, General

Service Schools, 1925-1926 course, and policies governing their selection"

(Washington, DC, 22 December 1924), National Archives and Records

Administration, Washington, DC. The National Archives is cited hereafter

as NARA.

Chapter 4

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, letter, "Assignment to Staff and Command School,

1925-1926" (Headquarters, 20th Infantry Brigade, Camp Gaillard, Canal

Zone, 15 August 1924), NARA.

2. Ibid.

3. First Indorsement from Fox Conner to the Adjutant General (Headquarters

Camp Gaillard, Canal Zone, 15 August 1924), NARA.

4. Handwritten note, for the chief of Infantry to the AG (Major Whipple), 29

August 1924, The National Archives.
71

5. U.S. Adjutant General's Office, Fourth Indorsement from the Adjutant

General's Office to Captain D. D. Eisenhower, 3 September 1924, NARA.

6. Eisenhower, At Ease, 196.

7. Ibid., 198.

8. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 224.

9. Eisenhower, At Ease, 199.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., 200.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., 200-201.

14. Ibid., 201.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Brendon, Ike, 53.

19. James L. Collins, Sr., letter to his wife, 26 August 1925, James L. Collins,

Sr., Collection, U.S. Army Center of Military History, Washington, DC; the

center is cited hereafter as CMH.

20. Annual Report, 1921, 5-6.

21. Annual Report, 1923, 6.

22. Eisenhower, At Ease, 203.

23. "Command and General Staff School," 412.

24. The Horseshoe (Fort Leavenworth, KS: The Command and General Staff

School Press, 1926), 48, Combined Arms Research Library, Fort Leavenworth,

KS; the library is cited hereafter as CARL.

25. Ibid.

26. Brigadier General Edward L. King, Command, Lecture Delivered by

Brigadier General Edward L. King, Commandant, the General Service

Schools, to the Command and General Staff School, Fort Leavenworth,

Kansas, September 11, 1925 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: GS Schools, 22

September 1925).

27. Annual Report, 1926, 11.

28. "Command and General Staff School," 414.

29. Ibid., 412.

30. Ibid., 412-13.

31. Dwight D. Eisenhower, letter to the Fort Leavenworth Historical Society,

16 February 1967, Leavenworth County Museum, Leavenworth, KS.
72

32. "Command and General Staff School," 413.

33. Class Standing Report (FM 1035 G.S. Schools Fort Leavenworth) in

Personal Records (Eisenhower).

34. Eisenhower, At Ease, 202.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., 203.

37. It is Merle Miller in his 1987 biography, Ike the Soldier, who attributes

the article to Eisenhower. Some caution may be required here. Miller's

biography of Eisenhower makes numerous finds of this sort, but his chapter

notes are unclear as to how the connection was actually made. Miller died

in June 1986 and correspondence 'with Carol Hanley, a research assistant,

was reassuring, though not conclusive. "The Leavenworth Course" does fit

remarkably well with Ike's comments about the school in his book, At Ease.

Similar themes are present in both accounts: the need for an optimisticoutlook, the virtues of the "partner system," and the downplaying of rote,

memorization. Infantry Journal attributes the article simply to "A young

graduate." A Young Graduate [pseud.], "The Leavenworth Course," Infantry

Journal 35 (June 1927):589-600, hereafter cited as "Leavenworth Course."

38. Ibid., 595.

39. "Command and General Staff School," 416-17.

40. George S. Patton, Jr., letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 9 July 1926,

Eisenhower Library.

41. "Leavenworth Course," 595.

42. Martin Blumenson, Patton, the Man Behind the Legend, 1885-1945 (New

York: William Morrow and Co., 1985), 126.

43. "Command and General Staff School," 416-17.

44. "Leavenworth Course," 596-97.

45. William H. Gill, interview by Jack Smith, Tape #13 (General Gill), the

William H. Gill Papers, Archives, U.S. Army Military History Institute,

Carlisle Barracks, PA. The institute is hereafter cited as MHI.

46. Omar N. Bradley and Clay Blair, A General's Life: An Autobiography (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 60.

47. Eisenhower to Leavenworth Historical Society.

48. Annual Report, 1926, 4.

49. Annual Report, 1925, 3.

50. Annual Report, 1926, 22.

51. The Horseshoe, 6.

52. Ibid., 58.

53. Robert L. Eichelberger, "Memoirs and Dictation on Career," Section VIII,

The Robert L. Eichelberger Papers, Archives, MHI.
54. "Command and General Staff School," 417.

55. "Leavenworth Course," 589.

56. "Command and General Staff School," 417.

57. Annual Report, 1926, 14.

58. Eisenhower to Leavenworth Historical Society.

59. Dorothy Brandon, Mamie Doud Eisenhower: A Portrait of a First Lady

(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954), 156.

60. Eichelberger, "Memoirs."

61. Eisenhower, At Ease, 202.

62. "Leavenworth Course," 592-93.

63. Ibid., 593.

64. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 229.

65. "Leavenworth Course," 593.

66. Eisenhower, At Ease, 202.

67. Alden Hatch, Red Carpet for Mamie (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1954),

143.

68. Ibid.

69. Eisenhower, At Ease, 12.

70. Class Standing Report, in Personal Records (Eisenhower).

71. "Leavenworth Course," 595.

72. Gill interview.

73. "Special Report and Recommendations on Members of the Command and

General Staff Class 1925-1926," The General Service Schools, Fort

Leavenworth, KS, NARA.

74. "Leavenworth Course," 595.

75. Hatch, Red Carpet, 143.

76. "Special Report, 1925-1926."

77. Brandon, Mamie Eisenhower, 157-58.

78. J. S. Doud, telegram to Major D. D. Eisenhower, 16 June 1926, Eisenhower

Library.

79. Mrs. J. S. Doud, telegram to Major D. D. Eisenhower, 16 June 1926,

Eisenhower Library.

80. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 231-32.

81. Kenneth Sydney Davis, Soldier of Democracy: A Biography of Dwight D.

Eisenhower (New York: Bantam Books, 1952), 189.

82. Personal Records (Eisenhower).
74

83. Eisenhower, At Ease, 203.

84. Annual Report, 1926, 13.

85. "Hold Exercises on Main Parade for Army Grads," Leavenworth Times, 18

June 1926:1.

86. "Goodbyes in Order at Garrison," Leavenworth Times, 20 June 1926:2.

87. "Hold Exercises," Leavenworth Times, 1.

Chapter 5

1. Brendon, Ike, 55.

2. Patton to Eisenhower, 9 July 1926.

3. Ibid.

4. Dwight D. Eisenhower, letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 17 September 1940,

Eisenhower Library.

5. Dwight D. Eisenhower, letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 4 April 1942,

Eisenhower Library.

6. George S. Patton, Jr., letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 13 April 1942,

Eisenhower Library.

7. George S. Patton, Jr., letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1 May 1942,

Eisenhower Library.

8. Miller, Ike the Soldier, 233-34.

9. Eisenhower, At Ease, 204.

10. Benjamin Franklin Cooling, "Dwight D. Eisenhower at the Army War

College, 1927-1928," Parameters 5 (No. 1-1975): 27.

11. Ibid., 28.

12. Ball, Responsible Command, 214-15.

13. Ibid., 218.

14. Cooling, "Eisenhower at War College," 28.

15. Dwight D. Eisenhower, letter to William Durward Connor, 22 March 1943,

Eisenhower Library.

16. Cooling, "Eisenhower at War College," 35.

17. Ball, Responsible Command, 261.

18. Dastrup, CGSC, 101.

19. Ibid., 102.

20. Burk, Eisenhower, 167, quoting Dwight D. Eisenhower, 17 January 1961.

21. Ball, Responsible Command, 389.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations

CARL Combined Arms Research Library, U.S. Army Command and

General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS

CMH U.S. Army Center of Military History, Washington, DC

Eisenhower Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS

Library

MHI U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA

NARA National Archives and Records Administration, Washington,

DC

Documents

Collins, James L., Sr. Letter to his wife, 26 August 1925. James L. Collins, Sr.,

Collection, CMH.

Doud, J. S. Telegram to Major D. D. Eisenhower, 16 June 1926. Eisenhower

Library.

Doud, J. S., Mrs. Telegram to Major D. D. Eisenhower, 16 June 1926. Eisenhower

Library.

Eichelberger, Robert L. "Memoirs and Dictation on Career." Section VIII. The

Robert L. Eichelberger Papers. Archives, MHI.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Letter, "Assignment to Staff and Command School,

1925-1926," Headquarters, 20th Infantry Brigade, Camp Gaillard, Canal Zone,

15 August 1924. NARA.

_ Letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 17 September 1940. Eisenhower

Library.

_ Letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 4 April 1942. Eisenhower Library.

_ Letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 21 April 1942. Eisenhower Library.

_ Letter to George S. Patton, Jr., 20 July 1942. Eisenhower Library.

_ Letter to the Fort Leavenworth Historical Society, 16 February 1967.

Leavenworth County Museum, Leavenworth, Kansas.

_ Letter to William Durward Connor, 22 March 1943. Eisenhower

Library.

First Indorsement from Fox Conner to the Adjutant General, Camp Gaillard,

Canal Zone, 15 August 1924. NARA.

Gill, William H. Interview by Jack Smith. Tape #13 (General Gill). The William

H. Gill Papers, Archives, MHI.

Handwritten note, for the chief of Infantry to the AG (Major Whipple), 29

August 1924. NARA.

King, Edward L., Brigadier General. Command, Lecture Delivered by Brigadier

General Edward L. King, Commandant, the General Service Schools to the
Command and General Staff School, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, September

11, 1925. Fort Leavenworth, KS: GS Schools, 22 September 1925. CARL.

Medical File (Dwight D. Eisenhower), 1924-1936. Eisenhower Library.

Patton, George S., Jr. Letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 9 July 1926. Eisenhower

Library.

_ Letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 13 April 1942. Eisenhower Library.

_ Letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1 May 1942. Eisenhower Library.

_ Letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower, cJuly. 1942. Eisenhower Library.

Personal Records (Dwight D. Eisenhower) (A Component of the Records of the

Office of the Adjutant General: Record Group 407), 1920-1973. Eisenhower

Library.

"Special Report and Recommendations on Members of the Command and

General Staff Class, 1925-1926." The General Service Schools, Fort

Leavenworth, KS, n.d. NARA.

The Horseshoe. Fort Leavenworth, KS: The Command and General Staff School

Press, 1926. CARL.

U.S. Adjutant General's Office. Fourth Indorsement from the Adjutant General's

Office to Captain D. D. Eisenhower, 3 September 1924. NARA.

Letter, "Apportionment of student officers, General Service Schools,

1925-1926 course, and policies governing their selection." Washington, DC,

22 December 1924. NARA.

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. A Military History of the U.S.

Army Command and General Staff College, 1881-1963. Fort Leavenworth,

KS, 1964. CARL.

U.S. Army Command and General Staff School. Map Problems. Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1925-26. CARL.

U.S. Army Service Schools, Fort Leavenworth. Annual Report of the Commandant. Fort Leavenworth, KS: The General Service Schools Press, 1920-30.

CARL.

Ward, Orlando W. "Ft. Leavenworth, 1926." The Orlando W. Ward Papers.

Archives, MHI.

Books

Albertson, Dean, ed. Eisenhower as President. New York: Hill and Wang, 1963.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Eisenhower. Vol. 1. Soldier, General of the Army, PresidentElect, 1890-1952. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Eisenhower. Vol. 2. The President. New York: Simon and Schuster,

1984.

Archer, Jules. Battlefield President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1967.

Ball, Harry P. Of Responsible Command: A History of the U.S. Army War

College. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Alumni Association of the United States Army

War College, 1984.
77

Blumenson, Martin. Patton, the Man Behind the Legend, 1885-1945. New York:

William Morrow and Co., 1985.

The Patton Papers. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1972.

Bradley, Omar Nelson, and Clay Blair. A General's Life: An Autobiography.

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Brandon, Dorothy. Mamie Doud Eisenhower: A Portrait of a First Lady. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954.

Brendon, Piers. Ike: His Life and Times. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.

Burk, Robert Fredrick. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Hero and Politician. Boston, MA:

Twayne Publishers, 1986.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. The Papers of Dwight D. Eisenhower: The War Years.

Edited by Alfred D. Chandler, et al. 5 vols. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

Press, 1970.

Childs, Marquis William. Eisenhower: Captive Hero: a Critical Study of the

General and the President. New York: Harcourt, Brace. and Co., 1958.

Dastrup, Boyd L. The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: A Centennial History. Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 1982.

Davis, Kenneth Sydney. Soldier of Democracy: A Biography of Dwight D.

Eisenhower. New York: Bantam Books, 1952.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday & Co., 1967.

Eisenhower, John S. D. Strictly Personal. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.,

1974.

Hatch, Alden. Red Carpet for Mamie. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1954.

Hunt, Elvid. History of Fort Leavenworth, 1827-1927. 2d ed. Brought up to

date by Walter E. Lorence... Fort Leavenworth, KS: Fort Leavenworth Historical Society, 1981.

Lyon, Peter. Portrait of the Hero. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1974.

Miller, Merle. Ike the Soldier: As They Knew Him. New York: G. P. Putnam's

Sons, 1987.

Mizener, Arthur. Afternoon of an Author. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1957.

Neal, Steve. The Eisenhowers: Reluctant Dynasty. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

& Co.. 1978.

Nenninger, Timothy K. The Leavenworth Schools and the Old Army: Education,

Professionalism, and the Officer Corps of the United States Army, 1881-1918.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978.

Turnbull, Andrew. Scott Fitzgerald. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962.

Weigley, Russell. Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and

Germany, 1944-1945. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
Articles and Unpublished Papers

A Young Graduate [pseud.]. "The Leavenworth Course." Infantry Journal 30

(June 1927):589-600.

"Classification of Officers." Infantry Journal 28 (May 1926):548.

"Command and General Staff School." Cavalry Journal 35 (July 1926):412-17.

Cooling, Benjamin Franklin. "Dwight D. Eisenhower at the Army War College,

1927-1928." Parameters 5 (No. 1-1975):26-33.

"Goodbyes in Order at Garrison." Leavenworth Times, 20 June 1926:2.

Hoffman, George F. "The Demise of the U.S. Tank Corps and Medium Tank

Development Program." Military Affairs 37 (February 1973):20-25.

"Hold Exercises on Main Parade for Army Grads." Leavenworth Times, 18 June

1926:1.

"New Policy for Detail to Command and General Staff School." Infantry Journal

28 (January 1926):64-65.

"Notes From the Chief of Infantry." Infantry Journal 27 (September 1925):

299-302.

"Relative Efficiency of Infantry Officers." Infantry Journal 27 (April 1926):427.

Woolley, William J. "At the Heart of Professional Military Education: Military

History at the Command and General Staff School in the Period Between the

Two World Wars." Paper presented at the Missouri Valley History Conference

at Omaha, Nebraska, 12 March 1987.

3'2 U.S. Government Printing Office: 1990--754-001/40022
Major Mark C. Bender -

Major Mark C. Bender was commissioned in

the Adjutant General Corps upon his graduation from Wheaton College (Illinois) in 1974. He

holds an M.A. in education from Chapman College and M.M.A.S. in history from the U.S.

Army Command and General Staff College. He

has served as an instructor and course director

at the Adjutant General School and was selected Officer of the Year in 1980 for Headquarters,

Allied Forces Central Europe, in the Netherlands. Major Bender has served with the 7th

Infantry Division, 513th Military Intelligence

Brigade, and is presently the assistant chief of

staff GI/AG for the 1st Infantry Division

(Forward) in Goeppingen, West Germany.

COMBAT STUDIES INSTITUTE

Missions

The Combat Studies Institute was established on 18 June 1979 as a department-level activity within the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College,

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. CSI has the following missions:

1. Prepare and present instruction in military history at USACGSC and assist

other USACGSC departments in integrating military history into their

instruction.

2. Serve as the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command's executive agent

for the development and coordination of an integrated, progressive program

of military history instruction in the TRADOC service school system.

3. Conduct research on historical topics pertinent to the doctrinal concerns of

the Army and publish the results in a variety of formats for the Active

Army and Reserve Components.
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas