'.(Tn. 
 
 / 
 
 ranv 
 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 President's mes 
 Conf Pam #297 
 
 lllllllllllllllllllll 
 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, M .y ;M, t^6 4. —Referred 
 to the CoJiiraittee on Military Affairs and oniercil to be printed. 
 
 [By the Chair.] 
 
 rRESlDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 To the SenGie and House of Representatives 
 
 Of the Confederate States of America : 
 
 A bill '* to provide and organize a general staff fo*r armies in the 
 field, to serve during the war," was passed by your predecessors and 
 submitted for my approval at the close of the last session. I was 
 unable to approve it, and now desire to state ray objections to it, as 
 well as my views on this important subject, in the hope that, by a 
 comparison of opinion, some measure may be framed equally accepta- 
 ble to the Legislative and Executive Departments of the Government. 
 
 I believe it to be established by the experience of Europe, as well 
 as our own, that it is impracticable to organize and administer armies 
 with efficiency without the aid of a general staff permanent in its 
 character, trained in its duties, aspiring to promotion in its own 
 corps, and responsible to the head of the department. Such a staff 
 should be composed of a small body of officers whose education, ex- 
 perience, activity and special adaptation to their duties render them 
 peculiafily competent to perform functions on which an army depends 
 for its capacity to act with vigor. In Europe, years of varied edu-* 
 cation in the schools, the cantonment and the field, fit the staff officer 
 for his position, and a long experience in the lower grades is required 
 before he is deemed competent to duty in a more important sphere. 
 We are forced to make experimental appointments of officers unpre- 
 pared by any previous training, and who can only acquire in actual 
 service that experience which must serve in place of .well-grounded 
 instruction. It is scarcely possible to make this experience supply 
 the defect of previous military education otherwise than by the organ- 
 ization of the officers into one corps, responsible to one head, who 
 
can assign them to positions independent of the movements of gen- 
 eral officers, and who, by judiciously varying the field or character of 
 their duties, can give them larger opportunities for instruction and 
 prevent their views being narrowed to the routine and usages of a 
 single commander, himself, perhaps, without military education. 
 
 Hope of promotion founded on their own merit and length of good 
 service is as necessary to the officers of the general staff as to those 
 of the line, furnishing the best stimulus known to honorable exertion 
 and zealous discharge of duty. This- stimulus cannot exist unless 
 the staff be organized into one corps, responsible to one chief, who, 
 thus becoming intimately acquainted with the capacity and merits of 
 each, is able properly to distribute the duties so as to secure the ser- 
 vices of the right man in the right place, and afford to each an 
 opportunity for distinction. If otherwise, each staff officer becomes 
 dependent upon the particular commander with whom he is serving. 
 No means of comparison exist between the relative merits of the offi- 
 .cers. Each looks for promotion to the favor of his general, and 
 rises in grade, not by his own relative merit, but by the patronage of 
 his commander, A gallant and able commander^ whose, own promo- 
 tion is exceptionally rapid by reason of his special merits, is thus 
 enabled to lift to higher grades the officers of his staff to whom he 
 has become attached by companionship in the field, although these • 
 officers may be far inferior in merit and length of service to others 
 ■whose duties have connected them with generals less distinguished. 
 Promotion thus becomes with the staff a matter of hazard, dependent 
 on the merit, not of the officer himself, but of the general with whom 
 he serves, and heart-burnings, jealousy and discontent are the natural 
 results of so false a system. 
 
 Again : If the general staff is not formed into corps, there will not 
 be the "esprit" necessary in all military organizations, and there 
 cannot be tlie co-intelligence among the officers thereof which secures 
 the certain and rapid communication of all information through the 
 different parts of an army. There will also be embarrassment in their 
 tenure of office and assignment to duty. As when a general officer 
 dies, or is relieved from his command, there remain no duties to be 
 performed by the staff which had been authorized for him especially. 
 However, valuable or meritorious the officers may be, they are dis- 
 placed by the staff chosen by the successor of their commander. 
 Nothing remains but to deprive them of their commissions without 
 fault of their own, or to keep tliera in service as supernumeraries, and 
 thus to add to the number of officers already in excess of the wants 
 of the army. 
 
 Again : An organization of a general staff should possess flexibil- 
 ity, so that the proper number and class of staff officers can be sent 
 where needed. If an inflexible rule of assignment be fixed by legis- 
 lation, some commands will be cumbered with unnecessary officers, 
 while others will be deficient in the number indispensable to perform the 
 necessary duties. Legislation would surely be considered unwise, if 
 it allotted by inflexible rule the number of troops to be used in each 
 military department, yet it would be scarcely more objectionable than 
 
the assignment of the same specified number of staff oflScers to each 
 commander according to his grade, thus applying a general rule to a 
 series of cases, each requiring special treatment. 
 
 The inspecting duties in an army ought not, in my judgment, to 
 be separated from those of the adjutants. The erroneous impression 
 prevails that an inspecting department, independent of the general 
 staft". is established in most of the armies of Europe. The reverse is 
 the fact, and the duties of inspection are so intimately connected with 
 the other duties of the general staff that they can be properly per- 
 forn:ed by it alone. The objections to the separation are manifold. 
 In the first place, officers having no other than inspecting duties must 
 frequently be unemployed even in war, while in peace their duties 
 will occupy but very little time. Next, it is to be observed, that where 
 the adjutants and inspectors form one corps, the duties of the adjutant 
 make him familiar with the details of tlie service where reform and 
 discipline are most needed, and thus render him more competent to 
 effective inspection when assigned to that duty, than he could be, if 
 exclusively employed as inspector. Lastly, the duties of an inspector 
 arc such as not to render the officer Avho performs them, acceptable to 
 his brother officers, if his duty be properly performed. It is not to 
 be wondered at fliat an officer whose duties may not be inappropriately 
 described as those of a detective, should, if his duty be rigidly per- 
 formed, incur somewhat of the odium of an informer ; and when these 
 duties constitute the sole service of an officer permanently attached 
 to an army, he must become either so lax in their performance as to 
 render him useless, or his professional pride and self-respect are 
 wounded, ;ind h!s relations with his brother officers, unfavorably af- 
 fected by the distrust and dislike resulting from his official reports. 
 When, however, an assistant mijutant and inspector general is, from 
 time to time, assigned to the making of necessary inspections at various 
 points, this temporary discharge of an unpleasant duty becomes but 
 an incident in his professional career, ami does not aifect his relations 
 with his brother officers. 
 
 Having stated tliese as the general principles which, in my judg- 
 ment should govern legislation on the subject, the objections to the 
 bill passed at the last session can be more easily umierstood, and I 
 proceed to state them briefly : 
 
 I. The first section of the bill authorizes a general commanding 
 armies, or a separate army, to assign to duty one of the general offi- 
 cers under his command, as chief of staff; one of the brigadier gen- 
 erals under his command as inspector general ; and one other briga- 
 dier as chief quartermaster ; one officer below the rank of brigadier 
 as chief commissary, and one as chief of ordnance. 
 
 This power of assignment is given without reference to, or consul- 
 tation with, the War Department or the Executive, and might be 
 exercised in contravention of the views and judgment of both. Leav- 
 ing out of viaw the question whether it is in accordance ^ith the 
 Constitution to make the commander of an army independent of the 
 commander-in-chief in the discharge of any of the duties of his 
 office, and ^poking only to the effect of such a system, it plainly ere- 
 
ates, in this branch of the service, as many independent executives as 
 there are generals commanding armies in the field, and thus destroys 
 that unity of design and concert of action which are indispensable 
 elements of success in war. The generals commanding armies would 
 be, by this section, vested with the right to derange the organization 
 of their commands, as settled by the commander-in-chief, by remov- 
 ing from their appropriate functions the commanders of corps, divi- 
 sions and brigades, whom the Executive had selected and the Senate 
 approved, as specially fitted to lead the troops in battle. 
 
 That the general comnianding,, the army has, under the terms of 
 this section, the right of assigning general officers under liis command 
 to the duties of the general staff", without reference to the authority 
 of the Executive, is plain from the other sections, which declare that 
 the President is to appoint, Avith the advice of the Senate, the staffs 
 of all general officers other than those wJio command armies. 
 
 Nor does this section restrict the commanding general in relation 
 tion to the branch of the service or the grade of the officers whom he 
 is permitted to assign to commissary and Ordnance duties of the gen- 
 eral staff. It is only necesaary that they be below the rank of brig- 
 adier general. The commanding general would have the power, 
 therefore, to assign a captain commissary to be chief* of ordnance, or 
 a lieutenant of infantry to be chief commissary, without check or 
 control from the President or Senate, while the President would be 
 without power to appoint subordinates to the officers thus selected by 
 the general of an army, without submitting their nominations for the 
 approval of the Senate. Not only, therefore, is all order of authority 
 interverted by these provisions, but the officers assigned to duty by 
 the commanding generals, not being permanent members of the gen- 
 eral staff", would be independent of its chief, and inextricable confu- 
 sion would necessarily result. 
 
 This section, so far from responding to the title of the bill, by jJro- 
 viding a general staff', in reality breaks up that which now exists, 
 subdivides it into a number of small bodies, irresponsible to the head 
 of the department, and destroys the possibility of any regular, con- 
 sistent and intelligent co-operation in the action of our forces, so 
 essential to success. Its effect is to create a staff" for generals, not a 
 general staff". 
 
 If a contest should arise between the quartermaster generals, the 
 commissarie generals, or the chief of ordnance, of Generals A. and 
 B., in any district of country, for supplies or means of transporta- 
 tion, who is to deternjine between these" rivals, each equal in authority 
 and each dependent on a separate chief? How are the chiefs of those 
 bureaus in Ridj^mond to apportion the supplies in store, according to 
 the wants of the diff"erent armies, without authority to exact from 
 them reports and returns. If it be said that these officers 'would be- 
 come temporarily responsible to the heads of departments, how is 
 this resjionsibility to be enforced if the orders of the general and 
 those of the chief of the department should conflict ? If ordnance 
 depots are provided at different points, for diff"erent commands, how is 
 the oflScer in charge of these depots to act, if ordered by the chief of 
 
ordnance of a general in the field to make a different disposal of the 
 stores from that ordered by the head of the department in Richmond ? 
 
 If such a bill should become a law, in vain would the War Depart- 
 ment seek to exact rigid obedience to law or orders from the irrespon- 
 sible staff created under its provisions. In vain would it seek for the 
 information necessary for its guidance, or attempt to change the rel- 
 ative strength of armies, to meet the varying movements of the ene- 
 my. The staff officers could be made the ready and safe means of 
 thwarting the •Government in its orders for the removal of troops from 
 one command to reinforce threatened positions in another, and could 
 be easily rendered subservient to the natural but dr.ngerous propen- 
 sity of most commanders to retain all the troops under their own con- 
 trol for the safety of their own commands, withoi^j; reference to more 
 urgent needs at other points. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add to these considerations more than a 
 bare {illusion to the tendency of such bodies of officers, when depen- 
 dent for their own promotion on the favor of their special chiefs, to 
 resort to agencies less commendable than the zealous discharge of 
 their legitimate duties for the attainment of their desires. 
 
 II. Another very objectionable feature of the bill proposed is its 
 effect on the officers of the general staff other than those who may be 
 selected as the favorites of commanding generals. 
 
 Numbers of zealous,' meritorious, and valuable officers have made 
 the duties of the general staff objects of special study, have embraced 
 the staff as a branch of the profession in which, under existing laws, 
 they are entitled to promotion for merit and long service, just as the 
 line officers have a right to promotion in their branch. 
 
 This bill deprives the staff officers of this, the great incentive to 
 the zealous discharge of duty. It debars them from promotion to the 
 higher grades of their own branch of service, and bestows these prizes 
 of honorable ambition .on the officers of the line, who will thus 
 monopolize the promotions to the higher grades, both in the line and 
 staff to the entire exclusion of the officers of the latter. Few will 
 be Avilling to remain in the staff under such circumstances. Those 
 who consent to continue will be those least ambitious of promotion, 
 and the whole staff service will be impaired in tone and efficiency. 
 
 III. Tlie assignment of general officers to staff duties, as provided 
 in the bill, would leave many brigades, some divisions, and perhaps 
 some corps without their appropriate commanders, and no provision 
 is made to supply the vacancies thus created. Are their commands 
 to be considered vacant and successors appointed ? If so, what is to 
 become of those assigned to staff duty, should the commanding gen- 
 eral revoke the assignment ? If the contrary, many brigades will be 
 commanded by the officer next in rav.k to the assigned brigadier, 
 however incompetent such officer may be to command a brigade, and 
 the like would occur as to divisions and corps, in contravention of the 
 policy well considerfed and established that generid officers are ap- 
 pointed by selection for merit and not promoted by seniority. If the 
 commanding general is ordered to another command, is he to take his ' 
 staff with him or is he to leave it for service with his successor ? In 
 
either case, is the whole general staff of each army to' be changed at 
 the caprice of the new commander ? This must be the effect of the 
 bill, for the power to assign necessarily implies the power to revoke, 
 as it Avould otherwise be equivalent to a permanent appointment that 
 could only be made by the President with the advice and consent of 
 the Senate. 
 
 lY. The fourth objection to the bill is that it applies ong rigid rule 
 for the number of the general staff, based solely on the rank of the 
 commander, and hixving no reference to the necessities of a command. 
 The staff allowed is excessive in number and rank, in niany instances, 
 and entirely inadequate in others. A luw providing a general staff 
 on such a basis as is assumed in this bill, cannot, from its very nature, 
 be executed according to its terms. The labor required of the staff 
 connected with a bngade, division or coips depends on the fact of its 
 being part of an army or a separate command, as well as on the num- 
 ber of men, the extent of country over which operations ar-e to be con- 
 ducted, the abundance or scarcity of supplies in the district, the 
 existence or absence of raiload, river or other transportation, the 
 concentration or dispersion of the troops, and the many other circum- 
 stances which control military movements in time of war. It is im- 
 possible to apply a rigid, unbending rule to such diverse cases. 
 
 An organization into corps meets all these difficulties by providing 
 for assignment of the proper number of officers to different commands 
 according to the needs of each. 
 
 V. The number and rank of the aides-de-camp allowed by the bill 
 is believed to be greatly in excess of those allowed by other govern- 
 ments, and quite unsuited to the nature of ours. Tliey would rather 
 impede than improve the service. They Avould encourage a love of 
 ostentation and feed a fondness for vain display which should rather 
 be discouraged than fostered The experience of this war has de- 
 monstrated that the most efficient commanders, those who have most 
 attracted the respect, gratitude and admiration of their country, have 
 avoided the large retinue of personal staff which this bill would seem 
 to sanction as proper or desirable. 
 
 VI. The objection to the enormous increase in the number of offi- 
 cers and expenditure that would result from the passage of such a 
 bill, becomes a matter of serious concern when no conesponding in- 
 crease of efficiency is secuied ; of still graver importance, Avlien the 
 opposite result is to be feared. 
 
 According to the bill as pa"ssed, the staff w^ould embrace an addi- 
 tion of about four bundled officers, involving an increased annual ex- 
 penditure for pay, rations, forage and allowance, amounting to 
 ^1,1 08, 728' above the present staff, as organized by general orders 
 under existing legislation. 
 
 If generals are to be ailoAved to change the staff of each army to 
 which they may be assigned at their pleasure, it is difficult to calcu- 
 late the extent to which this abuse wo.uld grow, the number of men 
 that Avould be withdrawn from useful service to cumber the staff, or 
 the increase of expenditure involved. 
 
 Congress will perceive that with objections so radical it was im- 
 
possible for me to apj)rovo the bill passed at the last session, and that 
 the subject was too important to be treated in a hurried message with- 
 in the last few hours, of the close of a Congress. Concurring in the 
 expediency of legislation for the organization of a general staff, 1 
 have thought a full exposition of my views on the subject would per- 
 haps*conduce to tlie framing of a measure which would carry into 
 effect the views of the Legislative Department while excluding the 
 provisions which have compelled me to decline approving that devised 
 by your p;-edecessors. 
 
 JEFFERSON DAVIS. 
 Richmond, May 28, 1864. 
 
I 
 
pH8.5