The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-13
GENERAL scHoFIELD's VIEWS.


In his testimony before the Senate mill
tary committee General schoheld, former
commanding general of the army, talked
like the professional soldier that he is He
Endorsed the main features of the pending
army reorganization bill. which was at
tackled by General Miles, and especially that
feature of it which abolishes the Office of
commanding general of the army and
creates general staff with a chief to be
appointed by the President. whom the Con-
stitution makes the supreme commander
Of the army. and who, General Schofield
thinks, should be the only one. He was
emphatic on this point, saying: THE very
exalted individual office, so-called. of COM
handing general of the army must disap-
pear. There is no room for it IN this gov
eminent, no matter who occupies it. 1t is
not a question of personality at all or the
character of The individual so far as this
great question is concerned. He must be
what other nations of the earth have, a
chief of staff. not commanding general"
No American soldier now living has had a
longer more varied military experience
than General Schofeld, and as he also
served a term as secretary of war he is
competent to Judge of the army reorganiza-
ton question from all points of view. The
point made by him that there should be
perfect confidence and sympathy between
the President and his next highest mill
tary adviser is obviously a good one. He
would give the chief of staff large powers,
but instead of being commanding general
of the army he should be the right hand of
the President, the supreme commander.
When asked if this might not result in Ger
manizing the army General Schofeld re-
piled: 1T am not afraid Of that. I think
we might Germanize other things little
with advantage, possibly" "Germanizing"
the army is a very vague expression, but
in matters of army organization and mill
tary efficiency there is no better school to
learn from than the German. General
Schofield said the British had no system,
and what we have is what they had
hundred years ago, and we have not i'm
proved on it. and they have not, either"
These views Of the most experienced Amer
lean soldier now living should receive care
full consideration from Congress.
A feature of General Schofelds testi-
mony that will excite some surprise and
perhaps criticism was his comparison be-
tween the army organizations Of the North
and OF the South during the civil war He
expressed the opinion that the Southern
system of selecting high officers was far
better than that of the North. THE Con-
federates," he said, were a great deal
wiser than we were in that respect. They
were better soldiers and better educated
and knew more about it. They carried off
the greater proportion Of the best blood
that we had. to tell the truth. and they
organized their army scientifically" OF
course General Schofeld did not mean to
imply that the Southern soldiers, officers
or men, were better fighters than those OF
the North but that in his opinion they
had a better military system and were more
successful in getting the right men into
the right places early in the war. It Is
undoubtedly true that prior to the war the
Southern people were more imbued with
the military spirit than were those of the
North. and 1t might have been expected
that their military system and army or
ganization would be some improvement
on the old United States plan, as their Con-
stitution was in some respects on that of
the United States. When General Scho-
field says the Confederates had a better
| military system than the North had he
IL
| liberate conviction. His statement that
they carried off the greater proportion of
the best blood that we had refers, of
course, 10 the educated military men,
| graduates of West Point. who went with
the South. Just how many of these there
were is not known. but on that point again
General Schoheld probably speaks intelIi-
gently.
When General Schofield said the South
ern people were better soldiers than those
OF the North he came dangerously near
raising a point that used to be discussed
great deal, and sometimes acrimoniously.
1t was a contention which. in the nature
of things. could never be definitely settled
and which there was no profit in discussing.
President Hayes came near starting it anew
when he said in a speech delivered in Ken
lucky in 1877: 1.-THE war has closed and we
came out with no particular credit to our
selves, and you Speaking to Confederates)
came out with no discredit to yourselves -
He meant that the victory of the North
was nothing to gloat over and the defeat
Of the South was no cause for humiliation
President Roosevelt phrased it better In
his speech at Charleston a few days age
when he said: 'All of US. North and South
can glory alike in the valor OF the men who
wore the blue and of the men who wore the
gray" General Schofeld evidently meant
that the Southern people were naturally
more military than those Of the North.
4 VALOROUS DEED RECALLED.
AS our troops came up they were at once
1 20 for fha t,farhf l