Naval Academy

Establishment of the Naval Academy

Until the creation of the academy, the Navy followed the British custom of training its officers at sea. Bancroft and other reformers believed that this system of preparation was too haphazard to give consistent results. Although some captains took their responsibilities seriously, others ignored their training obligations or treated their midshipmen cruelly to gauge their fitness for service. This system led to periodic scandals, the most infamous of which was the Somers incident of 1842. Midshipman Philip Spencer, along with two conspirators, were hanged on the training brig for allegedly organizing a mutiny. An event of this magnitude [Page 583]would have attracted attention under normal circumstances, but Spencer was the secretary of war's son and the ship's captain had a reputation for excessive discipline. The ensuing outcry prompted the end of the Navy's longstanding practice of training midshipmen at sea.

The American public was long ambivalent toward the creation of professional military schools. Many believed that their existence fostered attitudes of elitism among military officers that were dangerous to the health of the new republic. Since the nation's founding, citizen–soldiers had been deemed sufficient to ensure its security and were not seen as threats to civil liberties. A standing army did not seem essential with large oceans protecting America's borders from its greatest threats. Americans tolerated the establishment of the Military Academy at West Point in 1802, but were more comfortable with its existence as an engineering school than as a repository for martial knowledge and values and as a potential training ground for a military aristocracy. By contrast, the creation of a professional naval school did not generate much popular resistance. Americans were not as suspicious of the Navy as they were of the Army. Nor did the Navy have to contend with an institutional rival like the regular Army did with the state militias and volunteer companies.

Bancroft sidestepped the thorny issue of congressional funding by locating the academy on an Army post, Fort Severn, in Annapolis, Maryland. At the time, this seemed to be a wise decision. The land was near the Chesapeake Bay, which provided an ideal training site. However, the school's fixed boundaries, with water on one side and Maryland's capital on the other, left little room for expansion. The academy's limited capacity became an issue in the 20th century as the naval officer corps grew to meet the country's needs as a world power. Although undermining Annapolis, 20th-century naval leaders would develop alternative commissioning sources, including the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) and Officer Candidate School (OCS).

The Naval Academy Experience

In the 19th century, Naval Academy midshipmen were a fairly homogeneous group demographically. Many came from upper-middle-class or upper-class families. Significant numbers were “Navy juniors” whose fathers or brothers had also attended Annapolis. Their religious upbringing was largely “High Church” Protestantism. Chapel attendance was mandatory; many sermons reflected on service values of hierarchy, duty, and obligation. The Naval Academy did not practice formal segregation, but it would not graduate its first African American, Wesley Brown, until 1949. This culture produced a very tight-knit community. Academy graduates dominated the upper echelons of the Navy's leadership; most alumni completed a minimum of 20 years of active service. The common glue was the Annapolis experience.

...