fortifications?" why not ask, what will the Artillery do out of them? Is it desired by the Government, that the Infantry should be instructed as Artillery? No. Does the Government desire the Artillery to be instructed in Infantry duties? They already understand them. Then it follows, according to the reasoning of the paper, so often referred to, that the Artillery ought to relieve the Infantry, at their present inland posts, merely because such posts are not the Artillery's proper station." MANLIUS. No. III. Having shown that instruction was a primary consideration in the organization of the Military Peace Establishment, it follows that such places as offer the greatest facilities, on the most economical plan to the Government, for the acquisition of every species of knowledge appropriate to the different arms. of service, are the proper stations for such divisions of the Army. The artillery, therefore, was named to occupy the fortifications on the sea-board, and the principal arsenals where military pyrotechny, and the arts of construction necessary for every species of military equipage were taught If in the formation of our Army, legislation had had a view to the immediate exertion of physical force, it is certain that the ranks of the Army would have been extended far beyond their present numbers; but such was evidently not the object, and therefore, every regulation intended to bind together the component parts, by insuring uniformity and precision in the various departments of the science, has had a direct bearing tovards this single object of instruction. In opposing ourselves to the opinions and arguments of the writer of the article, it is not altogether for the purpose of weakening or destroying their influence, in reference to the particular question in debate, but to show also some principles of action upon which the miitary service must rely, and by which be governed. We have no doubt that there are many infantry officers quite as capable to perform the duties now performed by the artillery, (in the light in which this writer views them, viz. mere infantry and police duties,) as any of this latter arm. But we do not believe, ror is it within the province of ordinary reason to show, that the infantry, as a body, are as capable of performing the duties required, and to be required of the artillery, as the artillery viewed as a body, is itself.--However imperfect the system for the instruction of the artillery may have been, and however deficient the means for the acquirement of professional knowledge offered to this body, yet there are consequences of reflection and contemplation, awakened by many causes in their daily duties, which give a character to their minds, and a bent to their geni us, as military men, highly important and essential, and with which the infantry, from their positions and avocations, are totally unacquainted. It is very evident that the writer of the article has a very limited comprehension of the duties and instruction of artillerists, and he asserts with a complacency adequate indeed to his knowledge of the subject, that the infantry perform the same duties as are now occasionally' performed by the artillery; which consist in firing and exercising a piece of ordnance, and throwing a few shells in the course of a twelve-month. These are performances simple enough; every day presents to us some train band, who accomplish the same thing; and yet it is not supposed that they possess, nor do they make any pretension to military science and proficiency; and we may conclude from this part of his exposition, that it would be a very useless expense to transport the infantry, merely to prove that they could do, in the fortifications, what we are all willing to acknowledge they now do upon the frontier. As to the question of capacity of the officers of either arm, that is a matter which, in the abstract, we would not have noticed; but as this writer has made it a point, we will give it a passing observation. There is a wide difference between capacity to acquire and ability, the result of knowledge, to perform. Nature may have endowed the lowly mechanic with higher attributes of mind, than she has dispensed to the scholar or statesman; yet if such powers have been neglected, or wanted opportunity for exertion, of what use can they be? These observations connect themselves with, as indeed they were elicited by, the following remarks:-"Are they (artillery duties) such as could not be learned and performed by officers and men of infantry? Obviously not; for the officers of infantry go through the same course of instruction at the Military Academy, that officers of artillery do." The same course of theory is presented at the Military Academy to every cadet. This arises from the necessity of having as a test of ability, a uniform academic course; but it does not follow, however, that every graduate is equally proficient. This inequality may proceed from several causes; as indolence, difference of age, and want of mental energy or capacity. The best scholar is very reasonably esteemed the cleverest youth; and the Government, as an incentive to study, will give commissions only according to their degree of merit. If then, the change proposed in the articles of the magazine should take place, and thus remove young graduates from the means of future advancement in professional learning, would the Government not violate the pledge which it has given for the encouragement of such learning? We entertain an opinion on another point, at variance with the writer. It is, that the organization of the artillery alone, in contradistinction to that of the infantry, is a strong reason against the proposed change. A regiment of artillery consists of eight companies, which include eight captains, eighteen first lieutenants, and eighteen second lieutenants. A regiment of infantry consists of ten companies, which comprise ten captains, ten first lieutenants, and ten second lieutenants. As both the artillery and infantry were organized with reference to particular duties, by this conversion the government would not only incur greater expense, but destroy the intentions and objects, which were the motives that impelled Congress to create them, as distinct bodies. The government indeed have no right to destroy these characteristic qualities of their service, although it may at any time change the stations of the troops, when the public good requires it. The regiment of Dragoons, was raised for particular service, yet not more distinct from the artillery, than the artillery is from the infantry. For the same reasons urged by this writer, might this regiment put in a claim to occupy the fortifications and arsenals; and the artillery, for no other reason than that they are such, should mount and be off, to scour the hills and valleys of the Indian country. There would be much more reason, because their duties are assimilated, if a change or rotation between the engineer corps, ordnance corps, and artillery should be urged. But however agreeable this might be to individuals, we doubt if the public would approve of the system; for supposing the duties of each branch of these services to be equally well performed, as at the present moment, still the expenses incident to the change, with the loss of time, would be too great to admit the commendation, of judicious. arrangement. The present plan is obnoxious to all these objections, with many others superadded; and that which makes it so surprising is, that the artillery and infantry are entirely dissimilar, not only in the elements of their formation, but in their means and opportunities of action. If, however, such a system should be commenced, it must be adopted throughout, and be applied to every regiment and corps in the service; and when in time, the dragoons are detailed for duty, or shipboard, one will at least enjoy a hearty laugh at the gaucheries displayed by a troop of horse on the deck of a ship of the line! In such a case the nation will certainly have the satisfaction of exhibiting to the world that monster, a "Horse-marine," which we think quite as wonderful and curious, as the centaur or satyr of former days. MANLIUS. REVOLUTIONARY REMINISCENCE. After the close of the Revolutionary war, a Board of Officers was convened by order of the commander-in-chief "for the purpose of investigating the several pretensions of the candidates for the Badge of Military Merit," the only badge or title ever bestowed in this country. In a recent examination of some old papers, in possession of a friend, a part of the proceedings of this board has come to light, and, even if it have already been published elsewhere, will afford interest to some of the readers of the Magazine. Proceedings of the Board of Officers appointed in the General orders of the 17th inst. for the purpose of investigating the several Pretensions of the Candidates for the Badge of Military Merit. BRIGADIER GENERAL GREATON, PRESIDENT. Col. STUART, Lt. Col. SPROUT, Members Major PRESCOTT, The Board being met agreeable to order, proceeded to an examination of the certificates and papers laid before them relating to the several facts on which the several pretensions are founded, and thereon REPORT: 1st. That Sergeant ELIJAH CHURCHILL, of the 2d Regiment of Light Dragoons, in the several enterprizes against Fort St. George and Fort Slongo, on Long Island, in their opinion acted a very conspicuous and singularly meritorious part; that at the head of each Body of attack he not only acquitted himself with great gallantry, firmness, and address; but, that the surprize in one instance, and the success of the attack in the other, proceeded in a considerable degree from his conduct and management. 2d. That Sergeant BROWN, of the late 5th Connecticut Regiment, in the assault of the Enemy's left Redoubt, at York Town, in Virginia, on the evening of the 14th of October, 1781, conducted a forlorn-hope, with great bravery, propriety, and deliberate firmness, and that his general character appears unexceptionable. The Board are therefore of opinion, that Sergeant CHURCHILL, of the 2d Regiment of Light Dragoons, and Sergeant BROWN, of the late 5th Connecticut Regiment, are severally entitled to the Badge of Military Merit: and do, therefore recommend them to his Excellency the commander-in-chief, as suitable characters for that honorary distinction. J. GREATON, B. Gen. President. Cantonment, New Windsor, April 24, 1783. HIS EXCELLENCY GEN. WASHINGTON. Certificate for the Badge of Military Merit. GEORGE WASHINGTON, ESQUIRE, GENERAL AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, &c. &c. To all to whom these Presents shall come, sendeth Greeting: Whereas, it hath ever been an established maxim in the American Service, that the Road to Glory was open to all, that Honorary Rewards and Distinctions were the greatest stimuli to virtuous actions, and that distinguished Merit should not pass unnoticed or unrewarded; and whereas, a Board of Officers whereof Brigadier General Greaton is President, hath been constituted and appointed for the purpose of investigating the several pretensions of the Candidates for the Badge of Military Merit; and said Board having Reported in the words following, viz: "That Sergeant Elijah Churchill of the 2d Regiment of Light Dragoons, in the several enterprizes against Fort St. George and Fort Slongo on Long Island, in their opinion acted a very conspicuous and singularly meritorious part; that at the head of each Body of attack, he not only acquitted himself with great gallantry, firmness, and address, but that the surprise in one instance, and the success of the attack in the other, proceeded in a considerable degree from his conduct and management." Now, therefore, know ye, that the aforesaid Sergeant ELIJAH CHURCHILL, hath fully and truly deserved, and hath been properly invested with the Honorary Badge of Military Merit, and is authorized and entitled to pass and repass all Guards and Military Posts, as fully and amply as any Commissioned Officer whatever; and is hereby further recommended to that favourable notice which a brave and faithful Soldier deserves from his Countrymen. Given under my hand and seal, at the Head Quarters of the By his Excellency's Command, JOHN TRUMBULL, Jun. Secretary. A Badge was also awarded to Sergeant BISSEL, of the 2d Connecticut Regiment. The particular services he rendered, or the occasion on which he so distinguished himself, as to entitle him to this Military Honor, is not mentioned in the foregoing proceedings of the Board. Sergeant BISSEL was sent into New York, in August, 1781, for the purpose of obtaining information of the strength and state of the enemy's force, at that place. "On his arrival in New York, there being a hot press to man the King's ships, and finding no other means to avoid it, or escape, but by entering into the land service, he enlisted in Arnold's corps, and never had an opportunity of getting off until the 27th of September, 1782," when he made his escape from Staten Island, and returned to the American Camp. Perhaps he received a Badge for this dangerous service, in which he appears to have acquitted himself with much prudence and address. |