The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-14

I warfare. the most brilliant soldier in the
/ army, was urigadieE commanding some
| 5000 men. The explanation was that
Raglan was born Lord Fitzroy Somerset,
| while Campbell was born to name so
humble that he was ashamed TO own Il.
! Campbell did shining service in the Cri-
mea: the panic OF the Indian mutiny forced
| the governments TO do him tardy justice,
| but his career as the only child Of peasant
| stock that ever got first honors and
peerage in the English army is in striking
contrast to that Of our own Sheridan,
| whose parents we're poor Irish immigrants.
Does anybody suppose that the heroic
child of this sturdy peasant stock would
have ever had q chance TO rise 10 the
pinnacle Of military fame had his parents
remained in Ireland and he had sought
distinction in the English army? In the
first place, no Irish peasant boy could have
secured admission to the English military
college Of Saudhurst, which corresponds
to our West Point.
Our West Point is democratic ins,itu-
ton. A Creek Indian was graduated from
West Point as early as ls22, and was killed
in the Seminole war fighting for the flag
in 1885. He is not the only Indian gradu-
ate of West Point. and since the war
colored cadets have been graduated. Our
war breaks out. Sheridan joins as q regular
army captain and qaartermaster, gets a
colonelcy Of volunteer cavalry, and in two
years he is a major general in the regular
army al 50 years OF age. He has
no social or political influence to back
him like Sherman, Mcclellan, Mcdowell,
Hazen and many others. Lincoln was an
absolutely poor boy; 50 was Sheridan. and
yet Sheridan at 50 was the greatest soldier
of the Union army save Grant. There is
nothing like it in English history since
the volcanic forces of the Revolution of
1910 threw Cromwell to the surface. To
find a parallel We must go back TO the
lie that made Bonaparte general at IS
and Hoche general at .. No country
offers so absolutely free a field to aspiring
brains as America.
In England, On the other hand, the
radical leaders are never weary of de-
nouncing the system which prefers men,
bers of the royal family to great places in
the army and navy without military e1-
perience. severe training or important ser
vice. The Duke of Cambridge is signal
example of this kind of favoritism which
has cursed the English public service with
royal incompetents and wasted the public
money. The Duke of Connaught is COM
IS = T.
ord of the Duke Of Cambridge for
military incapacity in the Crimea was only
equaled by that of Plon Plon prince Ma
poleon) in the French army. The Duke of
Cambridge was brave man, but courage
is expected of every English soldier, high
or low, and today the English radicals
grow FESTIVE at the spectacle of the Duke
of Cambridge, the Duke of Connaught
and the Duke of Edinburgh standing for
the same royal military and naval wooden
fgureheads that the Duke of York and the
Duke of Clarence stood for under George
the Third. England begins to tire of seeing
royalty without merit sitting in places of
vast naval and military responsibility
that ought to be the reward of years of
important military achievement. We'll
lington and Nelson's shoes ought never to
have been filled by men who could not set
an army in the field or put q feet in action
with professional skill and courage The
day is not far distant when royal English
duke will have to win his spurs as the
Black. Prince did at Cressy and as the Red
Prince of Prussia did at Sadowa, without
any thanks TO his sovereign.
1t is little curious that English royalty
is suffered to hold high military COM
mand without even the baptism of battle
Germany expects royal soldier will re-
ceive before given an important command.
1t is not probable that this army of royal
military and naval stipendaries in the
places Of statesmen and soldiers will en-
dure another century. Royal incompe-
tents may get pension, but they will be
robbed of all command.