ing the officers and their families for divine worship, but were generally unsuccessful in gathering soldiers. Occasionally, they were able to interest enlisted men in lectures and sermons. On posts where commanding officers and chaplains were "positive and active" Christians, barriers created by service customs were partially overcome at religious gatherings, and chapel attendance was larger. On posts without chaplains but with post commanders who were positive and active Christians, there were usually Sunday schools for the children and some opportunity for adult worship services. Catholics, who were "less inclined to aristocratic differences in all that pertains to their public worship," were "habitually more regular and more devoted,” and the general believed that other Christians could learn from them.2

24

Howard thus stated some important reasons why chaplains were frequently ineffective and their religious programs unsuccessful: political appointments of the unqualified, unfit, and unworthy; social barriers created by military customs; and, by implication, uninterested commanding officers. He could have mentioned other reasons. There were officers who objected to the commissioning of chaplains in a grade equivalent to captain when it took so many years to reach that rank themselves. Some officers especially resented chaplains who occupied officer quarters when they were scarce, or who slowed down officer promotions by serving a relatively short time on active duty and then taking a space on the retired list.25 Most important, however, by sternly denouncing drunkenness and gambling, and by outspoken support of the temperance movement and sabbath observance, chaplains alienated many persons of their military parishes.26

The monthly chaplain reports generally indicated both the nature of the chaplains' ministry and the response to it. Initially, chaplains submitted reports on plain, lined paper; later, they reported on printed. forms. Though the format of the forms changed periodically, the chaplains usually reported the same information: number of visits to prisoners; number of persons seeking advice; number of children of Sunday school age living on post; number of children attending Sunday school; and number of religious services held, along with attendance figures. The forms also contained space for chaplains to comment about almost anything pertaining to "Religious and other Public Services in the interest of Good Morals." Many chaplains let the statistical data explain itself; others used the space for remarks about problems encountered and progress made, or whatever did not fit neatly into a category printed on the forms.

What they wrote occasionally aroused the ire of officers who read the reports.

David White learned this early in his career, while stationed at Fort Phil Kearny. He reported that morals were poor and that intemperance, profanity, and gambling prevailed at a great rate; his commander, Colonel Henry B. Carrington, took no exception to these allegations, but other officers did, even some on other posts. Returning to Fort Kearny in 1867 after a leave of absence, White stopped over at Fort Laramie, where Lieutenant Colonel Innis N. Palmer took him to task, saying that the allegations in his reports partially implicated Fort Laramie. The chaplain's response to the colonel is unknown, but he recorded the rebuke in his diary, along with the words, "O the immorality of the Western posts and Army officers." " Nine years later, Palmer told a Congressional committee that there were only two classes of persons as useless as post laundresses"the judges advocate and the post chaplains”—and that the chaplains were "the greatest incubus in the Army." Perhaps he had Chaplain White in mind. Moreover, even though Palmer acknowledged "a few honorable exceptions" among the chaplains, he presumed to speak for "almost every intelligent officer" when he said that "unless we can procure refined and cultivated gentlemen to administer to the religious wants of a man, we had better have none at all." 28

27

White stirred the wrath of some officers again in 1872 by reporting that drunkenness, gambling, and a disposition to desert were quite common at Camp Verde. Not only did the post commander deny these allegations, but he also instructed his adjutant to give White a written reprimand. As a result of this incident, White was reported to higher headquarters as being obnoxious to the officers and men, and some thought was given to transferring him to Alaska." Subsequently, the adjutant's memoir contained a reference to White as an ignorant, itinerant lay preacher, "unattractive in person and manner.

9 30

General Alfred H. Terry, who read chaplain reports carefully, read one in which Chaplain George P. Robinson addressed such subjects as the attempted assassination of the President, the surrender of Sitting Bull, and guarding the railroad along the Yellowstone River. Terry endorsed the report forward, but commented that Robinson "appears. to pay too much attention to matters that do not pertain to his duties and too little to those that do." 31 On another occasion, Chaplain Henry V. Plummer made a routine remark that the post schools for children and enlisted men had been conducted throughout the month and that the morality and gen

eral deportment of the troops were very good. When Terry read it, he wrote that the Inspectors General of the Departments reported on such matters at all posts and that chaplain reports were unnecessary and should be discontinued. The Adjutant General agreed with Terry, saying the reports were "practically useless" but that the law "distinctly requires them to be made." Terry's remarks about the comments in the reports and the reports themselves probably reflected his attitude toward chaplains; for instance, he once said that there were no chaplains at most Army posts and that they were in no worse condition than the few posts where chaplains were stationed.32

99 34

Other officers entertained similar ideas about chaplains. In his testimony before a Congressional committee in 1876, Captain Guy V. Henry said there might have been some exceptions, but that chaplains were "not much account" and that their presence was demoralizing. His impression was that they were "generally old men who did not exert a good influence upon men. .” 33 Brigadier General E. O. C. Ord believed that “not more than one in ten" was really useful and suggested that they be examined for "competence and fitness for entry into service and for promotion." Major Henry G. Thomas thought it would prove economical if chaplains were mustered out of the Army.35 On the other hand, Lieutenant General Sheridan told Congress that "chaplains are necessary"; and Colonel George L. Andrews believed their “status should be such, both by law and their own conduct, that both officers and men must respect their commissions." Andrews even recommended that their pay and allowances be raised from that of a "first lieutenant not mounted" to "a captain mounted.' 36

General Sherman's wife attended Catholic mass daily, and his son became a priest and served as a chaplain during the Spanish-American War. But the general himself had seen the chaplaincy abused from various vantage points over the years, and therefore was "never extravagant in his praise of army chaplains." " Moreover, in 1876 he told the Commission for Army Reorganization that the abuses could be abolished by changing the status of chaplains from that of commissioned officers to what it was before 1867, namely, civilian clergy selected and employed by the post councils of administration. He believed that the council members could be entrusted to hire a clergyman from the denomination with the greatest representation among the post population.38 Six years later, he wrote the Honorable C. D. McDougall of Newport, Rhode Island, and left no doubt that he still felt the same way:

Yours of July 24th is received, and if your brother, the Rev. Archibald McDougall, of Illinois, will make his application to the Secretary of War for a Chaplaincy in the Army, and send me his papers, I will endorse and lay them before the Secretary for the action of the President, who alone always makes these appointments.

I never give original letters to the President or Secretary of War because it would be wrong for me to do so, as they might refer several applicants to me for selection, and I would seem to be committed to the one holding my letter. I think there are several hundred applicants now, each one of whom is stronger in the Faith than St. Paul, and most of whom before appointment, are anxious to be martyrs; but once appointed and confirmed they object to our frontier posts because they are ill adapted for raising a large family of small children.

Of course the whole system is now a farce and meant to be so. If Congress wanted the Army to have the influence of Religion, it would allow the Commanding Officer of each post remote from civilization to hire and pay for a minister while employed, like Surgeons. Of such posts there are nearly a hundred, whereas the Chaplains are limited to thirty-say half of whom are sick, or don't like the isolation of Texas, Arizona, Etc. Of course there are no vacancies now, and they are gobbled up as soon as the telegraph announces a death-there are no resignations and so greedy are the applicants that they will not even wait for the funeral.

If your brother wants to join in this scramble to become a martyr, let him send me his papers, and I will see they are filed; and then let him have some Senator or member of Congress to rush to the Presi

dent the moment he learns a Chaplain is "in extremis.” 39

There were also voices from the enlisted ranks indicating that some chaplains were not respected and that others exercised little influence. First Sergeant George Neihaus claimed that one chaplain conducted a Sunday service and spent the rest of the week "indulging in liquor"; fortunately, such behavior among chaplains was the exception rather than the rule. Corporal Louis Courville said that soldiers "rarely visited" the chaplain, and unfortunately that was not uncommon." Not only did the statistics in some chaplain reports confirm Courville's impression, but there was other corroboration as well. Chaplain David White once went to attend a service of Chaplain Charles Reynolds at Fort Riley; when no one showed up for the service except White, Reynolds cancelled it without "even a prayer." White wrote that the "Sabbath passed away wearily." Captain Guy V. Henry, who was a Sunday school teacher and regular chapel attendant, said that out of about 400 soldiers at Fort D. A. Russell, he never saw over 10 in the chapel on any one Sunday.'

42

41

Certainly there were chaplains whose religious programs were not well attended and who suffered the contempt of some officers and enlisted men; they were by no means, however, always men of mediocre ability and questionable integrity who considered their position a mere sinecure. As General Howard, Lieutenant Colonel Palmer, and Captain Henry said, there were "good," "honorable" chaplains, "notable exceptions," and there was undoubtedly a difference of opinion regarding the identity of those exceptions. Then, too, there were extenuating circumstances not mentioned by General Howard. When it came to church attendance and building a congregation, chaplains encountered difficulties similar to those of their civilian counterparts. The solders of the Regular Army were not particularly known for their religious interests and church attendance, any more than were civilian miners, trappers, cowboys, and railroaders. Moreover, the lack of a room or building suitable for religious services and post schools did little to promote organized religion and education within a mobile community. Most important, a large proportion of enlisted men were probably Catholics. Captain Guy V. Henry told a Congressional committee in 1876 that "nearly all" privates were Catholic and suggested that "there would be a different state of affairs" if there were more Catholic chaplains. At that time, there was only one Catholic chaplain in the Army; a larger ratio might have resulted in better chapel attendance.

43

Chaplains were not unaware of the odium attached to the chaplaincy, and by providing what General Howard called a positive and active ministry, some lessened that disapproval. In addition, a few worked toward that same end by arousing public support on behalf of the chaplaincy; the leader of those chaplains was Orville J. Nave. His efforts were instrumental in the creation of what eventually become known as denominational endorsing agencies and of a separate "corps" of chaplains, headed by a chief of chaplains.

CHAPLAIN ORVILLE J. NAVE

Chaplain Nave was commissioned as a Regular Army chaplain in 1882, but not as a stranger to either the Army or the chaplaincy. During the Civil War he had served as an enlisted man in the 111th Illinois Volunteers; at the time, he was a licensed preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, and substituted for the regimental chaplain during the latter's sickness and absence. For about a year, at the commander's request, and along with his soldierly duties, he buried the dead, visited the