Letters
Need Spirit, Not Teeth
[The following communication to PresidentRoosevelt deserves publication in every newspaper and magazine in the country. It is especially appealing to us, because we know ofmany young Dartmouth men who are eager todo their part and who want to fight in thiswar, but whose preparation for military leadership cannot even begin because their backteeth don't meet. We are glad to support thecause of Judge McKinlay whose letter (thatfollows) was sent us by one of his two Dartmouth sons.—ED.]
Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt,Commander-in-Chief, V. S. ForcesWashington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT:
I would like to call to your attention and, if the press is interested, to the attention of the public, something that is hampering the nation's war effort.
Thousands of young men well qualified for leadership in our armed forces and anxious to enter combat service, are being refused an opportunity to compete for commissions because of minor physical defects. The rigid application of inefficient standards to men of spirit and courage is not only tragic to them but may be to our country. These standards and regulations gather over the years with each new bright idea and at last the cumbersome mass becomes an impediment to action.
Young men who want to fight for their country are barred for ridiculous reasons while others who have neither the spirit nor will are forced to fight. A slight physical defect is emphasized out of all proportion, while qualities of courage, intelligence and leadership which are all-important, are apparently regarded as minor considerations.
In the latest news from London, I read that the British have adopted the Nazi Personality Test to choose new officers. This is designed to bring out potential qualities of leadership. Napoleon said, "In war the spirit is to the material, as ten to one." Sergeant York, had he had no teeth, one eye and flat feet in the last war, would have captured the group of Germans just as he did without those defects. He had courage and spirit. The Germans could still pass standard army medical examinations but four years of struggle had worn down their fighting spirit. The British say they captured 100,000 Italians in Africa without much struggle. Practically all were physically fit, but apparently had no will to fight.
General Wavell, the East Indies Commander could not pass our tests. His absence of sight in one eye might some day be serious, but we weigh his good points against that possibility and choose him to lead our forces. Lord Nelson, famous for violating regulations, had only one eye and one arm at Trafalgar but was kept in command. The list could easily be extended. A one-legged man with crutches and a pistol in his hand who will stand his ground and rally his company is worth fifty fine physical specimens who throw down their arms and cause a disastrous retreat.
No one would claim that the ordinary recruiting sergeant or officer should have general discretion to act without rules or standards. But if an applicant has a good record and seems to possess the all important qualities of spirit, courage and leadership, that man with his slight physical defect should be referred to some higher officer with authority to compare the assets and liabilities and make a decision.
This is not a new thought with me. In March 1941 I addressed a letter on the subject to General George C. Marshall and recently I sent a copy of same to Secretary Knox. I received a courteous reply from each. General Marshall said that courage, character and spirit can only be determined after actual observation of men in service. I cannot agree with that. The Army and Navy possess many men of discernment in their recruiting service who if allowed proper latitude could judge those values. But they are hamstrung by a rigid and inefficient set of standards prepared from records and statistics. Efficiency experts seldom give proper value to the human equation. One routine explanation of why we do this, is that trouble might result from the physical defect, but the advantage that is lost by excluding the youth of high courage and intelligence is not considered. Another excuse is that the post-war financial burden might be increased.
The Senate Naval Affairs Committee complained of waivers given some individuals to avoid combat service. That is not as important as the need of liberalizing standards to allow youth who want combat service, to enter same. Until these rules are changed, more wai\®rs should be given such men. These young men are angry and discouraged and deservedly so. Their morale will be conserved if thoughtful consideration is given them, to the end that a minimum of red tape is indulged in.
With best wishes tor your continued health and for the success of our armed forces, I remain
Respectfully yours,
Chicago, Ill.Feb. 9, 1942,
Webster's Deer Hunt
To THE EDITOR: At the dinner of "Dartmouth Alumni—Fifty Years and Over"—in Boston, October 18, Burnett '87, an attorney in Plymouth, Mass., told an interesting story of Daniel Webster. When asked to put it in writing for the MAGAZINE, he consented, and in forwarding it wrote that he had referred it to Dr. A. L. Douglas of Plymouth, a nephew of Martin Douglas, to ask if the description of the incident is accurate. He received the reply that "it is just as I have heard my relatives tell the story on many different occasions."
The story follows: I have observed that whenever Dartmouth men are assembled, they are ready to listen to narratives about Salmon P. Chase, Daniel Webster, Rufus Choate. Several years ago I heard an aged man, Martin Douglas, of Plymouth, tell of a deer huntone of many—with his Marshfield neighbor, Daniel Webster. A letter from Webster had asked if there were any deer to be had that season son. A prompt and cordial response brought a second letter stating that he would be down the following Thursday. Douglas cleaned and oiled his rifles and saw that his hounds were ready for the chase. He planned to have the dogs round up a deer and drive it through a wooded ravine, at the foot of which was a big boulder, between two cliffs. Daniel's station was to be by the boulder where, screened by thick foliage,, he would have a shot at short range, when the deer approached. Daniel arrived, heard the plan, went to the boulder. The dogs found a deer and started him through the ravine. Douglas waited to hear a rifle shot. He heard none. So he hastened through the thick underbrush to find Webster. Before he could see him, he heard a loud voice. He went nearer and saw Daniel standing on the massive boulder, waving his arms and speaking earnestly in denunciation of something which Douglas knew nothing about. He listened, silent and undiscovered, until Webster had finished speaking. A few weeks later Douglas read in a newspaper the text of Webster's REPLY TO HAYNE in the United States Senate. This was said to have been delivered extemporaneously and was considered to have been his most eloquent oratorical effort up to that time. As he read the speech, Douglas recognized that what he had heard Daniel deliver, on the boulder in the Plymouth woods, had been included in the three hour "REPLY" of January 26 and 27, 1830, an address which Claude Fuess has called "the noblest effort of his career," and of which Lodge said "He never surpassed it, he never equalled it afterward."
Boston, Mass.
