War Eagles: Auburn University?s Tradition of Training Soldiers 
 
by 
 
Daniel Garrison McCal 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submited to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfilment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Arts 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 4, 2014 
 
 
 
 
Reserve Oficers? Training Corps, Army, Auburn University, Specialized Training 
Program, Summer Camp, Land-grant 
 
 
Copyright 2014 by Daniel McCal 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Mark Sheftal, Asistant Profesor of History 
Charles Israel, Asociate Dean for Academic Afairs and Asociate Profesor of History 
David Carter, Asociate Profesor of History 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 As a land-grant university, Auburn University maintains a tradition of training 
American soldiers. Its Army Reserve Oficers? Training Corps (ROTC) unit was once 
central to campus life, but in 1969 the university eliminated its mandatory ROTC 
program. Having offered a remarkable contribution to national defense, as a case study 
Auburn University Army ROTC embodies an exceptional microcosm for understanding 
how the United States government has prepared the Army to fight wars requiring mas 
mobilization. With the old model of cadet training based upon raising a mas army to 
fight wars in the industrial age and the new model based upon fighting wars with more 
powerful weaponry but fewer personnel in the modern age of science and technology, 
examining how these developments within the Army interrelate to the evolution of 
Auburn University Army ROTC provides an opportunity to consider the significance of 
how Auburn?s commitment as a land-grant university to supporting ROTC has remained 
constant, although the centrality of Army ROTC to campus life is dramaticaly diferent.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iii 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii 
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv 
List of Illustrations ...............................................................................................................v 
Introduction   ........................................................................................................................1 
Chapter 1.  The Establishment of the Army Reserve Oficers? Training Corps ..................6 
Chapter 2.  The Interwar Years ..........................................................................................43 
Chapter 3.  World War II ...................................................................................................78 
Chapter 4.  The Decentering of ROTC ............................................................................104 
 Auburn University Army ROTC (1945-1965) ....................................................105 
 Auburn University Army ROTC (1965-1974) ....................................................109 
Conclusion   .....................................................................................................................139 
References   ......................................................................................................................152 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iv 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 1. Auburn University war efort as of June 5, 1944 ..............................................101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Illustrations 
 
 
Illustration 1  ......................................................................................................................58 
Illustration 2  ......................................................................................................................65 
Illustration 3  ......................................................................................................................85 
Illustration 4  ......................................................................................................................87 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
Introduction 
 
 Auburn University maintains a long and distinguished tradition of training 
American soldiers. Unfortunately, the memory of this proud legacy is mostly forgotten 
today by members of the younger generation. Although alumni who graduated from the 
university prior to the fal of 1969 - when the university required al able bodied male 
students to enroll in either the Army or the Air Force basic course Reserve Oficers? 
Training Corps (ROTC) ? may recal the prominent role that Army ROTC once played 
on the Auburn University campus, most individuals presently only think of the university 
in terms of its footbal team or its distinguished academic standing. The reality is that 
Army ROTC at Auburn University was once a fundamental institution of the campus that 
tremendously influenced the student body, faculty, administrators, and visitors.
1
 
 The Auburn University Army ROTC program also represented a remarkable 
contribution to national defense. For example, many people understandably recognize 
The Citadel: The Military College of South Carolina as a powerhouse for producing 
future leaders of the Army, yet during the 1955-1956 school year Auburn University 
commisioned more Army officers than the Citadel.
2
 Similarly, enthusiasts of the Texas 
A&M Corps of Cadets enjoy bragging about their proud military tradition; however, 
concerning the contribution of Auburn Army ROTC to mobilization during World War 
II, Executive Secretary R. B. Draughon aserted in 1942 that, ?as a result of our ROTC 
                                                
1
 Although this paper constitutes what is primarily a history of Army ROTC at Auburn University, it uses 
2
 Chart of ROTC Units Third Army Area: Schol Year 56-57, box 25, ?ROTC, Misc., 1956-57,? Pres. 
Draughon Papers. For 195-1956, Auburn University commisioned 149 officers, while the Citadel 
produced 143. 
For those interested, these 149 from Auburn University were comisioned during a schol year when ?net 
resident enrolment? for the university consisted of 834 men and 2486 women. For more information se 
Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957, box 25, 
?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957,? Pres. Draughon 
Papers. 
 2 
program we believe we have as high a percentage of officers in proportion to the number 
of students trained as any institution in the country, even including Texas A. & M.? 
Indeed, their 1942 graduating clas commisioned 177 men who later served on active 
duty in the Army.
3
 
 Finaly, as a case study, Army ROTC at Auburn University embodies an 
exceptional microcosm for understanding how the United States government has 
prepared the Army to fight wars requiring mas mobilization. The reason lies with its 
outstanding history of training soldiers, with its status as a land grant university ? which 
means that by federal law Auburn University must provide military training to students ?, 
and with its relationship to the continuum of evolving factors afecting Army ROTC 
training. As wil be fully explained in chapter 1, Army ROTC style instruction and the 
military training mandate for land grant colleges and universities have the same origin: 
Norwich University. Senator Justin Morril employed the example of military training at 
Norwich as his guide when inserting the military training mandate into his bil 
establishing land grant universities. Pased during the egregious mobilization dificulties 
of the Civil War, which resulted in part from a deficiency in qualified officers, Morril?s 
bil establishing land grant colleges and universities represented the first major atempt by 
the United States government to create an efective reserve force of personnel possesing 
military training. Despite these eforts, land grant colleges and universities never realized 
the entirety of Morril?s vision for military training until the National Defense Act of 
1916 bestowed a truly capable infrastructure for delivering valuable military training to 
students: ROTC. Conversely, land grant colleges and universities would later grant 
                                                
3
 R.B. Draughon to President C. B. Hodges of Louisiana State University, October 19, 1942, box 6, file 
216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 3 
valuable aid to the Army ROTC program by enthusiasticaly supporting ROTC and by 
resisting the movement against collegiate military training that, continuing from the 
1920s to the present, seks to obstruct the mision of Army ROTC. Additionaly, 2013 
marked the beginning of a dramatic transformation in how the United States Army Cadet 
Command (USACC) approaches cadet training.
4
 With the old model of cadet training 
based upon raising a mas army to fight wars in the industrial age and the new model 
based upon fighting wars with more powerful weaponry but fewer personnel in the 
modern age of science and technology, examining how the transformed Army ROTC 
program might afect Auburn University provides a useful opportunity to ponder what are 
the most significant diferences betwen the past and present forms of Army ROTC on 
the Auburn University campus.     
 In order to create a holistic narrative of soldier training at Auburn University, this 
thesis considers the interconnected relationship betwen four main groups: (1) the 
Auburn University Army ROTC War Eagle Batalion ? principaly focusing upon cadre 
members and the instruction they provided; (2) the university community ? chiefly 
regarding students but including university personnel, visitors, alumni, and members of 
the surrounding communities; (3) the leading administrators of the university; and (4) the 
federal government ? primarily concerning the strategic plans and directives of the War 
Department/Department of Defense. The result is a history that primarily focuses on how 
representative individuals afected or responded to experience.  
 Since few individuals have writen about the history of Army ROTC and virtualy 
no one has published articles or books on the history of a specific Army ROTC program, 
                                                
4
 United States Army Cadet Comand, USACC Strategic Plan 2013, Major General Jeforey A. Smith, 
2013. 
 4 
this project represents a noteworthy addition to the historiography. Acordingly, this 
paper relies principaly upon primary sources to construct the narrative. The following 
are the most important source bases: the Auburn Plainsman, the Glomerata, the records of 
past presidents of Auburn University, Auburn University course catalogues, and 
interviews. The Auburn Plainsman and Glomerata contribute considerably to 
understanding the role that Army ROTC played in the culture of the Auburn University 
campus community. The records of past university presidents furnish the majority of 
material pertaining to the War Eagle Batalion itself and to the leading university 
administrators. Being necesary to establish the background context for how national and 
international events influenced soldier training at Auburn University, secondary sources 
abound almost exclusively in Chapter 1.  
 Four chapters comprise the substance of this historical acount. To introduce the 
topic, Chapter 1 covers approximately from the 1860s to the end of World War I, and it 
examines the search by members of the federal government for an efective means of 
furnishing the nation with a competent reserve force of officers who could rapidly 
mobilize in time of war. The chapter also analyzes how these eforts influenced the 
nature of military training at Auburn University. Chapter 2, using isues of the Auburn 
Plainsman as its primary source, discusses the interwar years and demonstrates that 
during this time period university personnel and the ROTC cadre combined to establish 
Army ROTC as an ever-present fixture of campus community life. Chapter 3 considers 
the performance of the Auburn University ROTC program during World War II, the 
additional Army training programs that the War Department established on the campus as 
part of the war efort, and the wartime strengthening of the bond betwen Army ROTC 
 5 
and the university. Chapter 4 chronicles the dramatic transformation of the centrality of 
Auburn University ROTC to the Auburn campus, with the university administration in 
1969 instituting a voluntary program to replace the mandatory one. The conclusion offers 
a ?then and now? discussion of Army ROTC, analyzing the changes sustained by the 
program since the end of mandatory ROTC at Auburn University. It subsequently 
considers the manner in which the dramatic post-2013 transformations of ROTC wil 
modify the experience of cadre in the War Eagle Batalion. The sincere desire is that as a 
result of reading these chapters, individuals wil recognize the contribution of Auburn 
University Army ROTC to national defense, the integral role of Army ROTC to Auburn 
University as a land grant university, and that Auburn University represents a fine case 
study through which to acquire a holistic understanding of the history of Army ROTC at 
land-grant universities.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
The Establishment of the Army Reserve Oficers? Training Corps 
 Since founded in 1872 by the State of Alabama as a land grant university, Auburn 
University has maintained an inalienable connection to military training. The heritage of 
this military tradition at Auburn University began imediately, with its administrators 
managing the university as a military institute, yet the foundation of that tradition rests 
with its identity as a land grant university. Based on lesons learned during the Civil War, 
the intent behind military training at land-grant universities was to furnish the nation with 
a competent reserve force of officers who could facilitate rapid mas mobilization in time 
of war, but it was not until the introduction of the Reserve Oficers? Training Corps 
(ROTC) program at Auburn University in 1916 that the university finaly began to fulfil 
the fundamental intent of its military training. No longer an informal program in which 
students acquired litle actual military training beyond that of dril and ceremony, the 
implementation of Army ROTC meant that for the first time in its history Auburn 
University would substantively contribute to providing a qualified reserve of trained 
personnel that the Army might cal upon in time of national emergency. Nevertheles, 
this convergence of ROTC and military training at land grant universities could not 
materialize until the innovation of Gen. Leonard Wood, who exemplified the Army?s 
quest during the early twentieth century for increased profesionalization and realisticaly 
conceived war preparation. Despite the apathy generaly displayed by members of 
Congres and the Army toward his training ideas, Wood tirelesly advocated his unique 
vision of ROTC style military officer training with the aim of producing an excelent 
model for training future officers. In 1916, the National Defense Act formaly authorized 
the type of student military training program that Wood had been promoting for several 
 7 
years. In response to its pasage, Auburn University enthusiasticaly and promptly 
implemented Army ROTC. The forthcoming dictates of wartime witnesed the temporary 
disbandment of that program at Auburn University - in place of Student Army Training 
Corps, which the War Department established on its campus. Upon reinstatement at the 
end of World War I, the War Department firmly implanted Army ROTC at Auburn 
University, enabling it to become a basic component of the identity of the university.  
 One cannot fully appreciate the history of the Army ROTC military tradition at 
Auburn University without cognizance of these national and international events that 
were necesary in order to bring about the introduction of Army ROTC at Auburn 
University, which signified a dramatic transformation in officer training methodology. 
Understanding this background history is also important because it efectively 
demonstrates the foundational reasons for why Auburn University Army ROTC serves as 
an excelent microcosm through which to examine the proces by which the United States 
government prepared the Army to fight wars of mas mobilization. As wil later in the 
chapter be explained in detail, Auburn University Army ROTC is valuable for this type 
of analysis primarily because of its status as a land-grant university and because of its 
imediate adoption of Army ROTC. This chapter considers the multifaceted course of 
events that led to the implementation of Army ROTC at Auburn University.   
 Acording to a history published by United States Army Cadet Command, 
modern Army ROTC originated with the program of military instruction taught by the 
American Literary, Scientific, and Military Academy - present day Norwich University. 
Before founding the university in 1819, Alden Partridge had served as the superintendent 
of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and under his guidance Norwich 
 8 
became the first civilian university to teach military science in concert with its regular 
curriculum.
5
 Partridge was a close neighbor and friend of Vermont Senator Justin S. 
Morril, and they conferred together on how the federal government could best respond to 
America?s educational needs.
6
 As Morril constructed his own beliefs on how the 
government should best foster education, Partridge?s influence over Morril apparently 
played a significant role.  
 During the late 1850s Morril perceived the growing need for the creation of 
American industrial schools that could teach agricultural and mechanical skills ? schools 
that would operate in a similar manner to the English industrial institutions of this time 
period.
7
 He believed that America?s steadily declining agricultural industry during the 
1840s and 1850s resulted from a lack of understanding and expertise on the part of 
farmers. Morril aserted that only federal intervention could rectify this untenable 
situation.
8
 Therefore, on December 17, 1857, he introduced into Congres a ?Bil 
Granting Lands for Agricultural Colleges.?
9
 Despite the fact that it pased the House and 
Senate, President Buchanan vetoed the bil because he sympathized with Southerners 
who thought the bil caled for a marked increase in the level of federal intervention in 
American society, which they did not want in the South.
10
 Morril tried again in 1861, 
introducing the Land-Grant College Act on December 16.
11
 This second bil, difering 
                                                
5
Arthur T. Coumbe and Le S. Harford, U.S. Army Cadet Comand: The 10 Year History (Fort Monroe, 
Va: Office of the Comand Historian, U.S. Army Cadet Comand), 196, 7-8. 
6
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 9; J. B. Edmond, The Magnificent Charter: The Origin and Role 
of the Morril Land-Grant Coleges and Universities (Hicksvile, N.Y.: Exposition Pres, 1978), 19. 
7
 Coy F. Cros, Justin Smith Moril: Father of the Land-Grant Coleges (East Lansing: Michigan State 
University Pres, 199), 79. 
8
 Cros, ?Justin Smith Moril,? 80-81.  
9
 Ibid., 79.  
10
 Richard Franklin Bensel, Yanke Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-
1877 (Cambridge, Mas: Cambridge University, 190), 69; Cross, ?Justin Smith Moril,? 82-83.  
11
 Cros, ?Justin Smith Moril,? 83. 
 9 
slightly from the original, gave each state 30,000 acres of federal land for each member it 
sent to congres, and the bil alocated the proceds of that land to finance a minimum of 
one industrial and agricultural college in every state.
12
 Southern secesion removed most 
of the original bil?s opponents and alowed the new bil to pas easily with President 
Lincoln signing it into law on July 2, 1862; however, the exigencies of wartime prompted 
Morril to insert an important new stipulation into his bil.
 13
 The act stipulated that land-
grant colleges teach subjects predominantly related to the agricultural and mechanical 
arts as wel as provide a general curriculum of instruction in science, the clasics, and 
military tactics.
14
   
 With the onset of the Civil War, the United States Army had expanded operations 
to an unprecedented level. Initial wartime demands caled for the mobilization of 20,000 
officers, but West Point and Norwich combined could only contribute 1,500. The Army?s 
desperate need for officers meant that most regiments possesed inexperienced officers 
having litle or no training. In response, Congres sought to overcome this deficiency in 
leadership, which culminated in Morril inserting into his bil the requirement for al land-
grant colleges to teach military leadership.  
 During their first several years of operation, land-grant colleges provided military 
training that was incapable of complying with Army standards. Although veterans, the 
trainers were first-and-foremost regular academic profesors; they taught military 
leadership as an after thought to their other duties, which hurt the programs. The most 
training that students typicaly received was in dril, and often this was conducted at an 
                                                
12
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 9.  
13
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 9; Edmond, ?The Magnificent Charter,? 21. 
14
 Justin Moril, Transcript of Moril Act (1862). U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, 
http:/ww.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=33&page=transcript (acesed December 5, 2012). Emphasis 
Added. 
 10 
extremely elementary level. These programs further suffered from a lack of definitive 
purpose, of equipment, and of such basic items as uniforms. It is possible to conclude that 
even if this program had been able to produce officers in time to enter the war, such 
officers would have likely not been any more competent than existing leadership.
15
 
 After the Civil War, Congres enacted several steps to improve military 
instruction at the land-grant coleges.
16
 In 1866 Congres approved the alocation of 
Army officers to land-grant colleges that maintained no les than 150 male pupils.
17
 
Congres made alowance in 1870 for the provision of smal arms and equipment to these 
programs, and it approved other beneficial changes as wel. After 1880, retired officers 
could teach these military courses, and 1892 witnesed the dispatch of 100 Army officers 
to serve as military science instructors at land-grant institutions.
18
 Not withstanding these 
atempts to improve military instruction at these universities, the contribution of the land-
grant to the nation?s defense needs were generaly inadequate. With the cadre at each 
diferent university operating under minimal guidelines from the War Department, each 
program was diferent.
19
 Often the instruction emphasized dril to the exclusion of 
teaching useful combat skils.
20
 
 The military training at these institutions defined their male students? college 
experiences in many ways. Al students were cadets whose daily routine was determined 
by the university?s faculty or board of trustes. At al land-grant universities, military 
training was compulsory for males throughout their freshman and sophomore years. A 
                                                
15
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 9. 
16
 Ibid., 9. 
17
 James E. Polard, Military Training in the Land-Grant Coleges and Universities, With Special Reference 
to the R.O.T.C. Program (Washington, D.C.: Asociation of State Universities and Land-Grant Coleges, 
1964), 15. 
18
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 9. 
19
 Ibid., 10. 
20
 Ibid., 1. 
 11 
noteworthy distinction is that land-grant colleges in the North typicaly favored a relaxed 
atmosphere that restrained the extent to which military training interfered in the lives of 
their students; often, these cadets only wore the uniform during periods of military 
instruction and training. In contrast, land-grant universities in the South usualy exalted 
their warrior-leader training with much greater emphasis; for example, southern cadets 
almost always remained in uniform.
21
 
 On March 20, 1872, Alabama Governor Robert Lindsay and his board of directors 
established the Agricultural and Mechanical College of the State of Alabama on the site 
of what had been the East Alabama Male College.
22
 (What started as the Agricultural and 
Mechanical College of the State of Alabama later became the Alabama Polytechnic 
Institute, which in turn eventualy asumed the title of Auburn University. To avoid 
confusion, this paper hereafter refers to the university using its present name.) As 
Alabama?s first land-grant university, Auburn University fully embodied its status as a 
land grant university through its curriculum.
23
 Initialy, the university sustained its 
military training mandate through the formation of two cadet companies. By 1898 
Auburn University had expanded to the extent that it organized the cadets within a 
batalion.
24
 Auburn University cadets lived under a highly regimented system. For 
example, they could not leave campus on the wekends and had to be in bed by 2200 
hours. In 1909 the university had further grown such that its cadets composed a regiment. 
                                                
21
 Edmond, ?The Magnificent Charter,? 165. 
22
 Wiliam Waren Rogers, ?The Founding of Alabama?s Land Grant Colege at Auburn,? Alabama Review 
40, no. 1 (Jan 1987): 35. 
23
 Kathryn Lindsay Anderson Wade, ?The Intent and Fulfilment of the Moril Act of 1862: A Review of 
the History of Auburn University and the University of Georgia? (Master?s thesis, Auburn University, 
2005), 68-71. 
24
 John H. Napier II, ?How They Put the ?War? in War Eagle Being a Short History of the Military at 
A.P.I.,? 1958, 2, Auburn University Special Collections & Archives ? Non-circulating colection, Auburn, 
Alabama. 
 12 
That same year the university also created the Department of Military Science and 
Tactics.
25
 
 In 1915, one year before Congres pased its bil establishing the Reserve 
Oficers? Training Corps (ROTC), Auburn University was holding true to its status as a 
land grant university. Under the leadership of president Charles Thach, by the 1915-1916 
school year Auburn University boasted a thriving academic community of 880 students. 
While most of these students were local to Alabama, some arrived from other states and a 
few from countries such as China, Mexico, and Russia.
26
 In acordance with the Morril 
Act and as explained in the university catalogue, ?The leading object of the Institute?is 
to teach the principles and the applications of science.? Thus, a large number of these 
students engaged in scientific and technological studies, with especial focus ?to those that 
relate to agriculture and the mechanic arts.?
27
 Auburn University also provided a liberal 
arts education through such means as the study of Latin, history and the ?mental and 
moral sciences?; however, the university offered only one Bachelor of Science degree, 
out of the ten available, that was not primarily technological or scientific in scope.
28
 The 
?General Course? degree granted ?a general and les technical education? for students 
either with no particular vocation in mind or with the desire to teach or engage in 
commercial busines activities.
29
 Bestowing no Bachelors of Art degrees, the other 
bachelor degrees were in various kinds of engineering, in agriculture, in pharmacy, in 
chemistry and metalurgy, and in architecture.
30
 
                                                
25
 Napier II, ?How They Put the ?War? in War Eagle,? 3. 
26
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1915, 5, 46, AU. 
27
 Ibid., 10. 
28
 Ibid., 10,61-63. 
29
 Ibid., 63. 
30
 Ibid., 61-62. 
 13 
 Although the Morril Act does not demand that land grant universities provide any 
specific amount of military training, Auburn University offered for every physicaly 
capable student, ?practical instruction in the school of the soldier, of the company, and of 
the batalion in close and extended order, in guard mounting, inspection, parades, 
reviews, etc.?
31
 As a result, al able male students were inducted to the university as 
cadets. Comprising a regiment with two batalions and a band, President Thach was at the 
top of the chain of command, with Colonel Benjamin Patrick serving imediately under 
him as Commandant and Profesor of Military Science.
32
 In addition to his general 
responsibilities for the entire regiment, Colonel Patrick gave special oversight to the 
surgeon, J. H. Drake; the Band Master, Major A. L. Thomas; and the cadet Regimental 
Staff.
33
 As part of their military training, students could acquire leadership building 
opportunities and practical experience with military afairs through serving in cadet 
leadership positions. With 802 cadets in the program, abundant leadership slots existed.
34
 
 The commandant selected potential cadet commisioned and cadet non-
commisioned officers based upon demonstrated ?military eficiency, good conduct, and 
scholarship.? Cadet commisioned officers always were juniors or seniors, and ? 
although seniority could impact promotion ? the university emphasized a merit-based 
system. Hence, any cadet facing either a promotion or an appointment to a leadership 
position was subject to a possible examination in which university personnel would 
scrutinize his ?moral fitnes, including demerits.? Understandably, no cadet could remain 
in a leadership position if he acumulated over one hundred demerits in a single 
                                                
31
 Ibid., 106. 
32
 Ibid., 5, 52. 
33
 Ibid., 52. 
34
 Ibid., 47. 
 14 
sesion.
35
 Upon nomination by the commandant, al candidates for leadership had to 
await final confirmation by the university president.
36
 
 Until one?s junior year, cadet military training consisted mostly of learning and 
executing the procedures for dril and ceremony. In a statement, which soldiers past and 
present wil likely find humorous, Auburn University posited this statement about the 
role of dril in a cadet?s life: 
 There are three regular military drils each wek, and al undergraduate students, 
 not physicaly incapacitated to bear arms, are required to engage in these 
 exercises; privates of the senior clas are exempt. The drils are short and the duty 
 involves no hardships. The military dril is a health-giving exercise, and its good 
 efects in the development of the physique and improvement of the carriage of the 
 cadet are manifest.
37
 
 
The university considered dril so important that, of those physicaly capable, only two 
types of students were exempt. First, senior clas privates of good report who were 
graduation candidates could atain an excuse from the president. Second, students who 
were over twenty-one when beginning college and who had received permision to focus 
their studies on a single field, such as agriculture or engineering, could skip dril provided 
that they invested the time absent in laboratory work.
38
 Not only did dril represent a 
?health-giving exercise,? but excelence in it also furnished a source of collective and 
individual pride. If selected as the soldier most capable at dril, then Auburn University 
honored that cadet with the Regimental Medal. To the ?Best Driled Company? for each 
year, the Board of Trustes awarded a sword.
39
    
                                                
35
 Ibid., 175. 
36
 Ibid., 106. 
37
 Ibid., 175-176. 
38
 Ibid., 175. 
39
 Ibid., 179. 
 15 
 During a cadet?s junior and senior year, he began enrolling in theoretical courses 
taught by the Department of Military Science and Tactics.
40
 In addition to regular dril, 
juniors studied for an hour each wek both the methods of conducting infantry dril and 
the procedures for handling smal arms. Seniors devoted three total credit hours a wek to 
the following clases: Manual of Military Science, Field Service Regulations, and 
Manual of Guard Duty.
41
 Unfortunately, for any cadet who completed the military 
training and desired to serve as an officer, the university could not guarante a 
commision - either for the regular Army or the militia. In terms of formal proceses 
whereby one could atain a commision, the best hope for such a cadet was for the 
university to include him with the names of cadets demonstrating extraordinary military 
service capability, which Auburn University submited to the Adjutant General of the 
Army and to the Adjutant General of a cadet?s respective state.
42
 Although no guaranted 
promise of military service, it was beter than nothing.   
 At a university where the educational model follows that of a military institute, 
one should not be surprised to find regulations corresponding to the discipline inherent in 
such a program. With a simple statement provided in the catalogue for 1915-1916, 
Auburn University explained the rationale behind its regulations: ?While every atention 
is given to the mental discipline of the students?their moral and Christian training wil 
always constitute the prominent care and thought of the faculty.? In other words, the 
?institute thus endeavors to educate as wel as to instruct, to form character as wel as 
                                                
40
 Ibid., 106-107. 
41
 Ibid., 107. 
42
 Ibid., 106. 
This ocured at a time when the United States Military Academy represented the only colegiate program 
for training officers that was formaly conected to the United States Military.  
 16 
give information of value.?
43
 Some of the regulations were clearly of a military nature. 
For example, when clases were in sesion, al cadets wore a gray uniform ? the same 
type worn by West Point cadets.?
44
 Additionaly, whether lodged at Smith Dining Hal or 
with a family from the local community, students not only enjoyed the protective and 
advantageous efects of living with a family, but they also faced the constant hazard of 
inspection for possible rule violations. In every house was a university appointed 
inspector who periodicaly reported to the commandant.
45
 Auburn University prohibited 
students from transporting or consuming alcohol on campus, and they could not posses 
firearms other than those related to their military duties. Even the students? recreational 
activities were subject to approval. University policy required that students atain faculty 
consent before partaking in publicaly available recreational events. Given the popularity 
of collegiate footbal ? even at this early stage in the history of Auburn University ? 
another intriguing regulation stipulated that students could not publicaly play footbal 
without parental consent.
46
     
 In order to appreciate the transition of military training at Auburn University from 
its decentralized, non-standardized roots into the formal, uniform program of the Reserve 
Oficers? Training Corps, one must understand the role of national and international 
afairs in the development and pasage of the 1916 National Defense Act. In the 1910s, 
presure from military and university officials, who sought a more profesional system of 
military training, combined with American society?s rising defense concerns which 
would become markedly more powerful in the years leading up to America?s entrance 
                                                
43
 Ibid., 10. 
44
 Ibid., 106, 174. 
45
 Ibid., 175. 
46
 Ibid., 174. 
 17 
into the First World War. To create this transformation, the result was a nation-wide 
officer program that at Auburn University comprised a high level of conformity to 
national military standards while concurrently reinforcing its identity as a land grant 
university.  
 In the years of the twentieth century preceding World War I, military training at 
universities was typicaly disorganized and inefective. In acordance with the dictates of 
the Morril Act, land grant universities continued offering military training, and by 1900 
most of them required students to participate for at least one year.
47
 While some private 
and public institutions also provided military training, as Arthur Coumbe and Le 
Harford explain in U.S. Army Cadet Command: The 10 Year History, it was primarily at 
land grant universities where ?the tradition of military training?and the concept of 
citizen-soldier officer education became the most firmly embedded.?
48
 Unfortunately, 
military training at al types of universities was often deficient because no uniform 
standard for training existed, and because the federal government possesed no 
supervisory role for regulating these collegiate military training programs. With each 
university?s cadre permited to instruct in the manner they saw fit, every program ? 
whether at a land grant university or otherwise ? was unique. Instead of supplying a 
sizable force of wel-trained civilians who could quickly fil America?s military ranks in 
times of national emergency, military training at civilian institutions held litle 
significance to the defense preparations of the nation.
49
 In addition to the lack of 
                                                
47
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 10. 
48
 Ibid., 10-11. 
49
 Ibid., 10. 
 18 
standardized training instruction, the shortcomings among these programs also included 
the inability to requisition modern military equipment.
50
 
 In 1911 a military board inspected the quality of instruction at universities where 
the Army had asigned officers as Profesors of Military Science, and concluded that the 
officers commonly fel short of their intended purpose.
51
 Instead of yielding quality 
soldiers with officer potential, the programs principaly developed ?fine dril corps.?
52
 
The board argued that the problem lay with the freedom that the cadre at each university 
possesed, with the courses of instruction habitualy designed acording to individual 
concerns and not the defense needs of the nation.
53
 The War Department also complained 
about a perceived ?indiference? that a majority of university officials exhibited toward 
military training.
54
 Although universities might complain about the Army failing to 
supply training equipment, a study by the War College Division of the Army?s General 
Staf Corps aserted, in turn, that the universities often demonstrated tremendous apathy 
for military training by seldom alocating sufficient resources or infrastructure.
55
 
 University personnel also possesed many reasons to support the creation of a 
more suitable system of collegiate military training. Instead of sending experienced 
officers to teach at the universities, the War Department typicaly asigned officers no 
higher than lieutenant.
56
 Even at large land grant universities with thousands of cadets, 
the Army normaly sent just a single active duty officer to act as commandant. 
Additionaly, since time as a university instructor counted very litle or not at al toward 
                                                
50
 Michael S. Neiberg, Making Citizen-Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service 
(Cambridge, Mas: Harvard University Pres, 200), 2; Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 10.  
51
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 10.  
52
 Ibid., 10-11. 
53
 Ibid., 1. 
54
 Ibid., 1, 307. 
55
 Ibid., 12. 
56
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 22. 
 19 
one?s promotion, cadre members generaly displayed indiference towards their 
asignments, which adversely impacted the quality of training.
57
 Another problem was 
that no formal relationship existed betwen these programs and the proces by which 
either the War Department or state militias selected and commisioned officers.
58
 On 
average, the War Department commisioned into the Regular Army only one noteworthy 
cadet from each of the top ten schools with military training. With almost no opportunity 
to actualy apply their training through military service, low student motivation hindered 
efective military training. Although militias would have been a logical option for these 
cadets, most state militias were disdainful of college graduates; a college president 
outlined the problem with this statement: ??The ordinary college graduate usualy has 
dificulty in securing the approval of his untrained and uneducated compeers (in the 
militia). They naturaly look upon him as a college felow who is trying to show off what 
he has learned in college.?
59
 Despite these shortcomings, the desire by military officials 
and academics for an eficacious collegiate officer training program operated in concert 
with American society?s partiality toward non-profesional officers in order to produce a 
system of military training that would satisfy al three entities.
60
     
 To fully understand the impetus behind the Army?s newfound desire for a 
consolidated officer program, one must look back to the unprecedented modernization 
reforms of the War Department that began during President McKinley?s administration.   
Familiarity with this background is important for three reasons. First, it outlines the 
evolving culture of the Army that became increasingly focused on modernization, which 
                                                
57
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 11.  
58
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 22. 
59
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 12.  
60
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 22. 
 20 
provided opportunities for unconventional leaders like General Leonard Wood to 
experiment with new ideas concerning military preparednes. Second, this background 
elaborates on the mobilization problems of the Spanish American War and the 
subsequent changes that it helped to inspire within the military; this is especialy salient 
since it represented the foundational point of reference for General Wood and Theodore 
Roosevelt, who were the greatest proponents of what eventualy became ROTC style 
collegiate training. Third, this military reform movement motivated the War Department 
to create the position of Army Chief of Staf. By occupying that position General Wood 
acquired the opportunity to test his proposal for a unique system of military training. 
 Thanks to the reform minded desire of leadership within the War Department, 
which sought a more eficient and scientific military, the Army and Navy experienced a 
momentous cultural transformation betwen 1890 and 1910.
61
 The Spanish-American 
War was an especialy important catalyst in this development. Despite waging a 
succesful campaign, the War Department?s abysmal mobilization proces in the 
Spanish-American War left much to be desired. The pres exposed the egregious lack of 
coordination, foresight, planning, and competency that characterized the haphazardly 
organized mobilization. In response to these alegations, the President established a 
commision to review the mater. The investigators determined, as one authors explains, 
that ?poor leadership and excesive paperwork? caused most of the problems, and they 
suggested that President McKinley initiate substantial reforms within the War 
Department. Therefore, with an opening in the position of Secretary of War, on August 1, 
1899 the president appointed Elihu Root ? a prominent lawyer with proven corporate 
                                                
61
 Ibid., 2-23. 
 21 
managerial skils ? whom President McKinley rightfully believed was capable of 
reorganizing and modernizing the department.  
 Root?s changes proved critical in transforming the Army into a competent, wel- 
organized, eficient force capable of succesfully executing the increasingly complex 
warfare of the twentieth century.
62
 The first isue he tackled was the need to improve 
Army leadership through an integrated system of military education.
63
 Imediately 
following the Spanish-American War one out of every three Regular Army officers 
lacked even the slightest amount of formal military instruction.
64
 In response, Root 
ordered that every Army duty station of noteworthy size maintain a school for the 
ongoing education of officers. Outstanding performers at these schools were, in turn, 
eligible to atend advanced Army training at military bases housing the primary training 
center for a given branch of the Army. Especialy important, Root created the Army War 
College, which would eventualy become the ?Army?s premier educational institution.? 
Root?s intent was for that institution to train the most briliant officers in the Army as 
wel as to provide intelectual direction and policy guidance for the Army.
65
 
 Alongside such innovations as the exploitation of more contemporary weapons 
systems, the War Department also created an improved Army organization with greater 
centralization of decision-making, which operated in conjunction with the newly 
established War College in an atempt to solve the many problems confronting the 
military.
66
 Congresional pasage of the General Staf Act of 1903 was key to this 
                                                
62
 US Department of the Army, I Am the Guard: A History of the Army National Guard, 1636-2000, by 
Michael D. Doubler, Pamphlet No. 130-1, 2011, 136.  
63
 Ibid., 136-137. 
64
 Ibid., 136. 
65
 Ibid., 137. 
66
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 23. 
 22 
reform, which among other things created an Army Chief of Staf. This act was the 
brainchild of Root who had concluded that, with its increasing prominence as a world 
power, the War Department criticaly lacked strong leadership. More specificaly, Root 
explained that, ?Our system?makes no adequate provision for the directing brain which 
every army must have to work succesfully.?
 67
 For inspiration, Root examined European 
militaries, finding an excelent model in the German Great General Staf, which 
embodied the highest standard of military eficiency atained by any nation at that time.
68
 
The Great General Staf had demonstrated its potency during the Franco-Prussian War of 
1870-1871, and Root began considering how to incorporate a similar leadership apparatus 
in such a manner that corresponded with the American military system. The result was 
the General Staf Act, which established a General Staf Corps with an alocated 
maximum of forty-five officers to serve in the War Department. Replacing the position of 
Commanding General of the Army, the principle role of the new Army Chief of Staf was 
to overse the staf and to act as chief adviser to the secretary of war. Acording to 
historian Michael Doubler, this ?new staf made significant gains in improving oficer 
education, field maneuvers, inteligence gathering, and mobilization planning.? Also of 
noteworthy importance, the General Staf Act formaly authorized the Army War College 
and legitimized its significance.
69
      
 The ongoing modernization proces of the War Department notably coincided 
with the Progresive Movement. In Against the Specter of a Dragon; The Campaign for 
American Military Preparednes, 1914-1917, John Finnegan aserts that in order to 
understand fully the reform initiatives that soldiers and civilians espoused on behalf of 
                                                
67
 US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 137. 
68
 Ibid., 137-138. 
69
 US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 138.  
 23 
the War Department one must recognize the influence exerted upon them by the 
Progresive Movement, which emphasized the need to ?rationalize and democratize 
American life.?
70
 Finnegan explains that military Progresivism exhibited a diferent 
afect upon the mindset of soldiers than it did upon their civilian counterparts. Although a 
majority of civilian Progresives believed that the Progresive Movement was ushering in 
a new era of world peace, Army officers within the Progresive Movement ? who were 
typicaly more skeptical of such claims ? sought to apply the principles of the movement 
to developing a more eficient and fully prepared military.
71
 
 General Leonard Wood exemplified this influence of the Progresive Movement 
upon the Army. Serving as Army Chief of Staf from 1910 to 1914, Wood was distinct 
from most Army officers in that he was not a formaly trained career soldier. As a 
graduate of Harvard Medical School, he had worked as a physician at the White House, 
but during the Spanish-American War Wood began his military career by voluntering in 
Theodore Roosevelt?s Rough Riders, eventualy becoming colonel of that unit.
72
 
Remaining in the Army after the war, Wood continued to advance up the military ranks 
thanks to his relationships with prominent politicians like Roosevelt and McKinley.
73
 As 
an idealistic, ambitious, and highly competent Chief of Staf, Wood promoted several 
reforms that would exhibit a lasting influence upon the Army, especialy in regard to the 
education of future officers.
74
 
                                                
70
 John Patrick Finegan, Against the Specter of a Dragon; The Campaign for American Military 
Preparednes, 1914-1917 (Westport, Con: Greenwod Pres, 1974), 9. 
71
 Ibid., 10. 
72
 Ibid., 1. 
73
 John Whiteclay Chambers, To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (New York: Free 
Pres, 1987), 78. 
74
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 11; Chambers, To Raise an Army,? 78. 
 24 
 Through their close friendship, Roosevelt appears to have greatly afected 
Wood?s perspective on the correlation betwen military experience and American 
nationalism. In fact, acording to Finnegan, having been ?schooled in the beligerent 
nationalism of his friend Theodore Roosevelt,? Wood sought an imediate 
transformation that would enable the Army to compete efectualy against any military 
threat
 
.
75
 Roosevelt?s ?beligerent nationalism? formed an integral part of his imperialist 
conception of American nationalism. In American Crucible: Race and Nation in the 
Twentieth Century, Gary Gerstle describes this ideology as representing a new civic 
nationalism in which ? among other things ? Roosevelt advocated a ?deeply gendered,? 
masculine conception of nationalism.
76
 Believing men to be the natural leaders of a 
nation, Roosevelt was greatly troubled by what he perceived as the increasing tendency 
of America?s wealthy men to become efeminate as a result of their desire to adopt a 
delicately gentel, cultured sophistication.
77
 Rejecting such dangerous aristocratic 
pretensions, Roosevelt posited the example of his own hyper-masculinity, which he fully 
exhibited when serving as lieutenant colonel of the First Volunter Calvary ?Rough 
Riders? in the Spanish-American War.
78
 In Roosevelt?s opinion, the war infused much 
needed patriotic fervor into the nation, reviving its flagging manhood.
79
 Not only did he 
consider the batlefield to be the best test of a man?s character, but, acording to Gerstle, 
Roosevelt resolutely contended that the strength of a nation ?rested on the intense 
homosocial bonds arising among men sharing the perils of combat.?
80
 Eventualy, this 
                                                
75
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 11. 
76
 Gary Gerstle, American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton 
University Pres, 202), 57. 
77
 Gerstle, ?American Crucible,? 253. 
78
 Ibid., 26, 54, 253. 
79
 Ibid., 54. 
80
 Ibid., 27, 57-58. 
 25 
new civic nationalism with its acute emphasis on masculinity would converge with the 
Army?s quest to enact an efective plan for national wartime mobilization.   
 In the several years preceding America?s entrance into the First World War, the 
Army stil did not posses a sound plan for large-scale mobilization in the event of war. 
In 1910 a report by the Secretary of War bluntly summarized that the nation?s defense 
primarily relied upon ?volunter forces composed of entirely untrained citizens 
commanded in great part by equaly untrained officers.?
81
 This lack of readines sparked 
the Preparednes Movement, which sought a remedy. Not surprisingly, Wood and 
Roosevelt represented the two most important leaders of this movement. As Chief of 
Staf, Wood focused on the martial questions of how best to implement such a 
mobilization plan, while Roosevelt promoted Wood?s solutions in the public sector.
82
 
Progresives in the military, like Wood, believed that incorporating European 
mobilization methods represented the best option.
83
 From his experience as a military 
observer in 1902, Wood had developed a tremendous appreciation for the capabilities of 
Germany?s conscript army.
84
 Borrowing heavily from the mobilization ideas of English 
General F.S. Roberts, Wood began work on implementing an American system of 
universal military training that would create a reserve force to be employed during 
national emergencies and which the Army would train by means of limited rotations as 
active duty soldiers.
85
 
                                                
81
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 13. 
82
 US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 15; Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 78. 
83
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 13. 
84
 Ibid., 78. 
85
 Ibid., 79. 
 26 
 Universal military training corresponded nicely with Roosevelt?s Progresive 
conception of civic nationalism.
86
 Just as Progresives were intent on curbing rampant, 
self-serving capitalism in order to create a more equitable, just society, Progresive 
advocates in the Preparednes Movement were ready to utilize both governmental and 
collective social action in order to met the nation?s defensive needs.
87
 Instead of 
dweling upon the possibility of actual service in combat, most Progresives ? including 
Roosevelt at times ? emphasized the positive civic benefits of military training.
88
 
Acording to scholars such as John Chambers, one learns that many Progresive 
intelectuals during this time such as Charles H. Cooley, John Dewey, Walter Lippmann, 
and Mary Parker Follet were deeply concerned by the chaotic cosmopolitanism of the 
early twentieth century in which industrial leaders ruthlesly exploited the 
underprivileged of society, who possesed an egregious lack of personal agency. For 
instance, Chambers explains that, as in Edward Belamy?s Looking Backward, 
Progresives caled for a ?new and larger sense of community to link individuals?into a 
more interdependent national community.?
89
 For elite Progresives who desired an 
unprecedented expansion of the power of the central government, this goal provided an 
excelent justification for such an outcome in order to mold what Dewey labeled a ?Great 
Community.?
90
 Thus, Roosevelt?s promotion of universal military training represented a 
tempting solution when he aserted that the chief benefit ?would not be of prime military 
consequence, but of prime consequence to us socialy and industrialy.? From an 
industrial perspective, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce echoed this belief by aserting 
                                                
86
 Gerstle, ?American Crucible,? Chapter 2. 
87
 Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 87-88, 101; Gerstle, ?American Crucible,? 383. 
88
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 110. 
89
 Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 90. 
90
 Ibid., 90-91. 
 27 
that universal military training would ?take up this slack of idlenes in the industrial field 
and substitute a period of helpful discipline for a period of demoralizing freedom from 
restraint.?
91
 As for resolving the dog-eat-dog social divisions, universal military training 
purportedly offered the possibility of exerting the centralized control of the federal 
government in such a manner that would remove clas distinctions and foster a new era 
of mutual understanding and brotherhood.
92
 Indeed, Roosevelt proclaimed that, ?the 
military tent, where al slep side by side, wil rank next to the public school among the 
great agents of democratization.?
93
 
 This fusion of Progresive adherence to democratization with the Preparednes 
Movement produced what has become one of the fundamental dogmas of the American 
military system: that the military ought to reflect the democratic characteristics of the 
broader society ? as opposed to embodying a distinct military caste ? thereby 
undercutting the danger imposed by the presence of a large standing Army.
94
 Along these 
lines, Wood stated, ?Real democracy rests upon one fundamental principle, and that is 
that equality of opportunity and privilege goes hand in hand with equality of 
obligation?The army of to-day is the army of the people.?
95
 This new emphasis on a 
distinctly democratic military united with a renewed interest on the part of the Army in 
finaly resolving the problems underlying collegiate military training. Thus, under 
Wood?s leadership as Chief of Staf, the General Staf became keenly interested in 
military training at universities. The General Staf believed that the Army should 
incorporate a program whereby in the event of rapid mobilization most of the prerequisite 
                                                
91
 Both, quoted in Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 110. 
92
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 110-111; Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 89-90. 
93
 Quoted in Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 89. 
94
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 110-111. 
95
 Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 95. 
 28 
officers would come from a reserve force that had been trained by civilian universities. 
This formed one of the guiding principles of the General Staf?s examination and 
evaluation of collegiate military training; however, as a War College study highlighted, 
the prime concern to the General Staf was how to implement the ?central control? 
necesary ?to insure eficiency and standardization,? which would be no smal task given 
America?s incredibly diverse system of higher education.
96
 
 To rectify this isue of command and control, as Chief of Staf, Wood promoted a 
format for instruction that fit within the existing style of collegiate military training.
97
 His 
eforts involved a two-pronged strategy. The first part of Wood?s strategy was to improve 
the quality of instruction taught at the universities providing military training. He thought 
that if those universities could relieve students from the monotonous boredom, 
characteristic of training programs consisting mostly of dril, by providing wel-taught 
instruction on military science, then the students would expres renewed interest in 
military training. In Wood?s opinion, the ideal program would combine lecture with the 
practical application of military science. Finnegan credits these initiatives of Wood as 
gradualy beginning to afect how at least a few universities approached military training. 
For example, he states that by fal of 1915 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton had begun 
serious deliberations on the mater. That said, the second prong of Wood?s strategy 
proved much more succesful.
98
   
 Wood believed that summer camps could be an ideal method for providing cadets 
with a fundamental understanding of the practical basics of military life. In 1913 he 
established experimental camps at Pacific Grove, California and Getysburg, 
                                                
96
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 13.   
97
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 13; Finnegan, ?Against the Specter of a Dragon,? 61. 
98
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 61. 
 29 
Pennsylvania that high school and college students could atend for five weks in the 
summer.
99
 With the exception of military supplies, the students financed this training 
themselves, which entailed weapons training, tactical exercises, and dril.
100
 Although 
intimately connected with the Preparednes Movement, Wood justified the program to an 
isolationist American public as simply being a means for introducing boys to the 
masculine, outdoor lifestyle. Even President Wilson approved the camps, choosing to 
ignore the militant aspects of the training. By summer of 1914, the Army was operating 
four of these camps for college students.
101
   
 Unfortunately for supporters of the summer training camps, as of 1915 members 
of the War Department remained largely indiferent to the existence of the camps. 
Believing them incapable of producing a legitimate reserve force, the general sentiment 
in the War Department was that the camps were nothing more than a publicity stunt by 
Wood - who by this time had asumed command of the Army?s Eastern Department. 
Similarly, Congres did not apportion any funds specificaly for the camps. On the other 
hand, within the civilian populace, the subsequent sinking of the Lusitania invigorated 
interest in the camps ? especialy among businesmen and other profesionals.
102
 After a 
group of these men approached Wood about holding a camp in the summer of 1915 
specificaly for businesmen, he agreed to provide one at Platsburg, New York ? which 
was within Wood?s department ? after the student training at that camp had completed for 
the summer.
103
       
                                                
99
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 61; Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 13 
100
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 13 
101
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 62. 
102
 Ibid., 63-64. 
103
 Ibid., 63-65. 
 30 
 Beginning in August, for five weks this group of profesionals, which included 
several of the nation?s most influential men, endured the same military training as had the 
young students. Finnegan characterizes their time at the camps as one in which ?the 
upper-clas elite underwent a conversion experience of patriotism, individual 
responsibility, and collective action.?
104
 As a result, they recognized the time consuming, 
multifaceted proces that wartime mobilization would involve, and they also became duly 
impresed with the unifying, democratizing afects of military training.
105
 
 Although containing the initial group of profesionals who had first requested to 
participate in a summer training camp, the Platsburg camp for businesmen was simply 
one of many such camps; however, this original group would play a critical role in 
making Wood?s vision of military training a reality. In January 1916, these profesionals 
united with an advisory board of college presidents and with students who had also 
graduated from these camps in order to form the Military Training Camps Asociation of 
the United States (MTCA).
106
 A ?Governing Commite? directed the organization and 
included representatives from numerous university presidents, from graduates of the 
businesmen?s camps, and from other individuals working with the student training 
camps.
107
 With Congres and President Wilson already discussing how to proced with 
mobilization in the event America entered the war in Europe, the MTCA lobbied 
forcefully in favor of the creation of a permanent reserve force, with the training camps 
being a permanent fixture of their training. Thanks to the legacy of the Platsburg camp 
                                                
104
 Ibid., 6, 68. 
105
 Ibid., 68. 
106
 ?The Military Training Camps Asociation of the United States,? Orange and Blue, April 15, 1916; 
Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 70.  
107
 ?The Military Training Camps Asociation of the United States,? Orange and Blue, April 15, 1916 
 31 
for profesionals, an engaged citizenry was driving the initiative, instead of just military 
profesionals.
108
   
 Auburn University students would have been at least moderately aware of the 
Preparednes Movement?s promotion of a formalized and widely available form of 
military training, as demonstrated by an April 15, 1916 article entitled ?The Military 
Training Camps Asociation of the United States,? that appeared on the front page of the 
Orange and Blue ? Auburn?s student newspaper at the time.
109
 The article fully describes 
the history of the movement and provides details of how the MTCA operated. With the 
summer fast approaching, the article may have been a subtle atempt to lure students to 
atend the proposed summer camps, as it explains that the training camps ?are esentialy 
democratic and are open to al applicants of good moral character, [who are] physicaly 
qualified.?
110
 
 Further evidence indicates that some Auburn University students were active 
participants in the summer training camps. Published in the midst of the Preparednes 
Movement?s demand for a proactive and practical system of military training, a February 
18, 1916 Orange and Blue article offers insight into what at least some students at 
Auburn University thought about military training ? particularly in terms of the summer 
training camps. Entitled, ?Summer Instruction Camp for College Students,? the article is 
not an advertisement, yet it ardently advocates that students enjoy atending as part of 
their summer vacation plans one of the camps offered by the Summer Camp for College 
Men program. Some Auburn students had previously atended these camps, and they 
                                                
108
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 71.  
109
 Note: the Orange and Blue was the Auburn University newspaper during this time, being the 
predecesor of what eventualy became the Auburn Plainsman.   
110
 ?The Military Training Camps Asociation of the United States,? Orange and Blue, April 15, 1916. 
 32 
were ?unanimous in their praise of the camps for furnishing recreation, instruction, and 
enjoyment.? In this case, students who were taler than five fet, four inches, were 
betwen ages eighten and thirty, and were students at such institutions as universities or 
colleges ? or had just graduated high school ? could atend the summer camp provided at 
Ft. Oglethorpe, which began acepting students on July 5
th
 of that year. The article cites 
the numerous advantages for students who atend. For example, it describes the plentiful 
time available for recreation after the completion of military duties, the tremendous 
?physical benefits? that come with the ?active, healthful outdoor life of a military camp,? 
and the enhanced busines skils that they would acquire through internalizing habits such 
as ? discipline, obedience, self-control, order, and command.? 
 Within the article one witneses a practical example of the far-reaching influence 
both of Roosevelt?s concept of civic nationalism and of his promotion of the ideology of 
the Preparednes Movement. Echoing Roosevelt?s vociferous commentary on the source 
of American strength, the article states,  
 The benefit of permiting the atendance of these young men is that thereby wil 
 be fostered a patriotic spirit, without which a nation soon loses its virility and fals 
 into decay[,] and spread among the citizens of the country some knowledge of 
 military history, military policy, and military needs, al necesary to the complete 
 education of a wel-equipped citizen in order that he may himself form just and 
 true opinions on military topics. 
 
 Continuing, the article describes the ?military aset? that a man becomes upon 
completion of the military training since he would form part of a national reserve from 
which the nation could quickly appoint officers in time of war. The article also displays 
the metaphorical tight rope that members of the Preparednes Movement had to walk in 
an atempt to appease the Isolationists: ?The ultimate object sought is not military 
aggrandizement, but?to met a vital need confronting us as a peaceful and unmilitary 
 33 
people.?
 111
 Interestingly, for students at most land-grant universities like Auburn, their 
participation in camps like this one would place them closer than ever to embodying the 
military trained civilian force that Senator Morril had originaly envisioned with his land 
grant act; however, as of yet no official connection existed betwen the training camps 
and the universities from which the atendees came.  
 While Wood was preoccupied with establishing the first summer training camps, 
President Wiliam O. Thompson and Dean Edward Orton, Jr. from The Ohio State 
University led a movement to resolve finaly the long-standing deficiencies that 
characterized military training at most ? if not al ? universities. In 1913, at the annual 
convention of land grant colleges, Orton argued that the federal government should pas 
legislation to improve the quality of military education and instruction taught at 
American universities.
112
 At a minimum Orton wanted such legislation to entail: ?two 
years of military dril; three periods per wek of military instruction; strict discipline 
during dril periods; a wek of field training each year; and instruction in smal unit 
tactical exercises.?
113
 Orton also desired that al students who completed the full course 
of military training be commisioned as officers in the reserve. Later, in November of 
1915, members of civilian and Army educational institutions gathered in the nation?s 
capital to draft suitable legislation. With Orton?s proposal providing the guiding 
framework, this body drafted legislation that would enact a Reserve Oficers? Training 
Corps. Thanks to receiving ample backing from academic organizations, Congres would 
                                                
111
 ?Sumer Instruction Camp for Colege Students,? Orange and Blue, February 18, 1916.  
112
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 13.  
113
 Ibid., 13-14. 
 34 
eventualy approve this bil upon incorporating it into the National Defense Act of 
1916.
114
    
 By 1916, the ever-growing possibility of America becoming involved in the 
European war was afecting popular American perception of the Wilson Administration. 
While Wilson vehemently rejected the idea of American intervention, he also had to 
reasure the public that the nation would be ready in the event of war. Thus, Wilson 
invited the War Department and Congres to formulate and approve new defensive 
measures capable of meting any foreign threat.
115
 As with virtualy al major pieces of 
legislation, an ardent political batle preceded the final product, but on June 3, 1916 
Congres managed to compromise in order to enact what is arguably the most important 
defense legislation ever pased: the National Defense Act of 1916.
116
 
 The act fundamentaly restructured the military, creating the active duty 
component, the reserve component, and the National Guard.
117
 Especialy important, it 
introduced the Reserve Oficers? Training Corps (ROTC). This new program would fit 
relatively easily into the existed framework for military training at most universities. The 
General Staf of the Army highly approved of it, contending that an ROTC program was 
the only efective means through which to acommodate the vast expansion of military 
education required to train a reliable reserve force.
118
 Due in no smal part to the lobbying 
eforts of the MTCA, the defense act alocated federal funds for the summer training 
                                                
114
 Ibid., 14. 
115
 US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 157.  
116
 Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 116; US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 158. 
117
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 23. 
Note: the reserve component consisted of the Officer Reserve Corps (ORC) and the Enlisted Reserve Corps 
(ERC). Se Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 117 and US Department of the Army, ?I Am the Guard,? 158.  
118
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 24. 
 35 
camps, which the War Department and MTCA would cooperatively operate.
119
 Available 
to men betwen 25 and 43, graduates of these camps could be commisioned into the 
Oficers Reserve Corps (ORC).
120
 The act also pleased National Guard supporters since 
ROTC graduates would principaly be available to National Guard units, instead of the 
active duty Army. Additionaly, to the great satisfaction and approval of military 
educators, the new program would involve standardized equipment and training 
procedures, representing a marked improvement from the old system.
121
 
 During the 1916-1917 academic year, Auburn University welcomed Army ROTC 
onto its campus. Operating under the supervision of the commanding general of the 
Army?s Eastern Department, Army ROTC at the university consisted of a regimental size 
unit under the command of Captain Frank W. Rowel, who was an active duty officer 
asigned by the War Department to serve as the Profesor of Military Science and 
Tactics. The university, in turn, appointed Rowel to the position of acting Commandant 
of Cadets.
122
 Asisting Rowel were three sergeants detailed from the Army: Sergeants 
Wiliam G. Mueler, Richard McAndrew, and Thomas P. Bradley.
123
 The cadets quickly 
developed a high opinion of these NCOs, with the 1917 Glomerata providing this report: 
?Their asistance in supervision of the drils has made possible a more personal and 
individual mode of instruction in military maters, and their work, if kept up in the 
manner started, wil bid fair to bring Auburn to the front in wel-trained men.?
124
 
                                                
119
 Finegan, ?Against the Specter,? 147; Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 117.  
120
 Chambers, ?To Raise an Army,? 117.  
121
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 24. 
122
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1916, 70, AU. 
123
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1916, 70, AU; Glomerata, Vol. 20, Auburn, AL: 
Auburn University, 1917. 
124
 Glomerata, Vol. 20, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1917.  
 36 
 Significantly, ROTC altered the nature of military instruction for Auburn 
University cadets. For example, cadets now only had to enroll in the formal military 
courses for the equivalent of two years. Nevertheles, even non-ROTC students were stil 
cadets and, therefore, they could continue to enjoy the military model of education, with 
wekly dril remaining an ubiquitous component.
125
 If a cadet wished to enter the 
Advanced Course of ROTC, then the president of the university and the Profesor of 
Military Science and Tactics had to select that cadet; in response, that cadet would isue a 
writen statement in which he agreed to pursue the Advanced Course for the rest of his 
time at the university, to include atending summer training camps.
126
 Cadets interested in 
this route also had the added incentive of receiving from the Army, for the rest of their 
time in ROTC, a subsistence stipend ?at such rate, not exceding the cost of the garrison 
ration prescribed for the Army, as may be fixed by the Secretary of War.? As part of the 
Advanced Course, cadets enrolled in five credit hours per quarter, and for two summers 
they went to a military training camp ?not to exced six weks in any one year.? 
 Cadets in the Advanced Program did not have to serve in the military upon 
graduating. As explained in the Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute for 1916, 
the purpose of ROTC was ?to educate college men in the duties of a subaltern officer in 
the Army.? Hence, ?After graduation he is as free as any other citizen.?
127
 That said, as 
with the old system, the university reported the names of cadets exceptionaly fit for 
military service to the Adjutant General of the Army and to the Adjutant General of that 
                                                
125
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1916, 70-71, 140. 
126
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1916, 70-71 
127
 Ibid., 71. 
 37 
particular cadet?s state. For cadets desiring a commision, with ROTC they gained the 
option of requesting an appointment in the ORC.
128
 
 The general opinion of the campus community appears to have been of great 
appreciation for the newly introduced Army ROTC program. An article in the Orange 
and Blue, published on September 15, 1917, praised the ?excelent record? established by 
Army ROTC during its first year at Auburn, aserting that, ?It was by far the best year of 
Auburn?s military department.?
129
 Furthermore, looking back on the introduction of 
ROTC in 1916, the Clas History of the Auburn University 1918 graduates described 
their experience with these approving words: 
The R. O. T. C. was organized with practicaly the total enrollment of both the 
upper clases. Col. Rowel adapted himself to the situation and with his 
generalship and fairnes won the love and respect of the entire student body; and 
converted our nucleus for soldiers into embryo officers.
130
 
However, America?s entrance into the First World War temporarily halted development 
of Army ROTC on the Auburn University campus. Due to the rising needs of a 
mobilizing Army, that program soon gave way to its wartime replacement: the Student 
Army Training Corps.  
 In Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning in 
America, Carol S. Gruber examines the circumstances that led to American institutions of 
higher learning becoming directly involved in preparing the Army to fight overseas. She 
explains that in the early years of the twentieth century, and in those leading up to 
American involvement in World War I, most Americans believed that academics and the 
                                                
128
 Ibid., 72. 
129
 ?Our New Comandant,? Orange and Blue, September 15, 1917. 
130
 Glomerata, Vol. 21, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1918.  
 38 
courses they taught were only beneficial when providing knowledge and skils that 
students could practicaly apply.
131
 As a result, when America declared war on Germany, 
the ?special character and claim to legitimacy? of the nation?s modern universities rested 
upon their ?commitment to the ideal of service.?
132
 If they could not convincingly asert 
their educational importance to providing valuable wartime instruction, then they faced 
the possibility of losing their students to the war efort. This necesity of offering a 
curriculum that corresponded the service ideal facilitated a keen desire among members 
of American universities to play an active role in the mobilization proces, with the 
government coordinating their activities through the War Department Commite on 
Education and Special Training.
133
 A product of that commite, the Student Army 
Training Corps (SATC) was a program whereby the Army sought to addres its 
deficiencies in the number of soldiers possesing highly technical skils, and in the lack 
of sufficient officer candidates.
134
 Established at 516 colleges and universities, the SATC 
set aside potential officer candidates and provided advanced technical instruction, making 
efective usage of the existing infrastructure and course offerings.
135
 Al students at these 
institutions who were over eighten years old and who were physicaly fit enough for 
military service were drafted into the Army as privates on active duty asignment at those 
universities. The military provided cadre who taught military courses and who enforced 
rules and regulations. University personnel managed the remaining aspects of the 
program.
136
 The outcome, as Gruber explains, was that the SATC dramaticaly 
                                                
131
 Carol S. Gruber, Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning in America, 
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Pres, 1975), 43-44. 
132
 Gruber, ?Mars and Minerva,? 44. 
133
 Ibid., 98. 
134
 Ibid., 215. 
135
 Ibid., 213, 216. 
136
 Ibid., 217. 
 39 
transformed ?the American campuses into military training camps for the War 
Department.?
137
        
 On October 1, 1918, the War Department officialy instated the SATC at every 
participating university in the nation, with Auburn boasting the South?s largest SATC 
program.
138
 With the temporary disbandment of ROTC, Gruber highlights the noteworthy 
support given to the SATC program among university presidents of institutions 
previously hosting a ROTC unit. She further aserts that, ?the importance of a long-
standing presidential commitment to campus military training in facilitating aceptance 
of the SATC must not be underestimated.?
139
 This statement certainly applies to Auburn 
University, when considering its long history of sponsoring military training. President 
Charles C. Thach placed great faith in the possibilities of the training to be provided by 
the SATC. For example, in response to an inquiry about the military course work that the 
SATC would offer, Thach expresed the following opinion in a leter writen on August 
24, 1918: ?I advise any young man prepared for college to take as much work as possible 
and at the same time have the benefit of the military training here. This wil give him 
every advantage possible when he finaly is caled into active service.?
140
  
 Despite being operational for only three months, the SATC program at Auburn 
University represented a sizable unit. The student section contained more than 1,000 
individuals, and the vocational section consisted of approximately 300 members. 
Representing a regiment of three batalions with four companies in each, Captain Albert 
E. Barrs commanded the SATC program at Auburn University. Contained within the 
                                                
137
 Ibid., 102. 
138
 Gruber, ?Mars and Minerva,? 213; Glomerata, Vol. 22, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1919, 127. 
139
 Gruber, ?Mars and Minerva,? 225. 
140
 Charles C. Thach to R. Hays Johnson, August 24, 1918, box 5, file 101, ?August, 1918,? Pres. Thach 
Papers. 
 40 
Auburn University SATC program were ?a medical corps, a motorcycle corps, and a 
motor corps.?
141
 Although the short existence of the SATC at Auburn University offered 
the students only a brief experience with this form of collegiate military training, it is 
surprising what one learns from it. In remembering the semester following the conclusion 
of the SATC at Auburn University, the Senior Clas Oration of the 1919 Glomerata 
castigates it as ?that trying period of reconstruction? in which they were ?struggling that 
our college might come out of the demoralization of the S. A. T. C. days.?
142
 In light of 
the students? previous approbation for the ROTC program, one might wonder why they 
viewed the SATC with such disdain, but such is not too dificult to grasp. The problem 
appears to have been the intense rules, regulations, and conditions of Army life. In ROTC 
the students remained civilians with a choice of whether or not to contract with the Army, 
but in the SATC they had no choice as soldier-students not possesing the liberties of 
regular students. This reaction by Auburn students to the SATC supports General Wood?s 
vision for ROTC; atending summer training offered students a taste of the military life 
without forcing them to relinquish during the school year the freedoms they enjoyed as 
college students. Despite this general displeasure of Auburn University students with 
their time in the SATC, an article from the Orange and Blue did admit that, ?S. A. T. C. 
training has done al of us good and our heroism and bravery?wil forever remain noble 
traditions in the history of our school.?
143
 
 Fortunately for Auburn University students, the cesation of hostilities on 
November 11, 1918 reduced the SATC to a short existence. The proces of demobilizing 
the SATC at Auburn University began officialy on December 4, 1918, and Army 
                                                
141
 Glomerata, Vol. 22, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1919, 127. 
142
 Ibid., 93. 
143
 ?Old Auburn Again,? Orange and Blue, December 6, 1918.  
 41 
personnel mustered out its ranks from December 7 to December 20.
144
 One contributor to 
the Orange and Blue poignantly described the general mood of the campus during 
demobilization, explaining that SATC realy stood for ?Stick Around Til Christmas.?
145
 
In a statement corroborating Gruber?s characterization of the SATC, the 1919 Glomerata 
outlines that, ?Though proud to be in their country's service, every man was glad to 
receive his discharge and happy to know that Auburn would once again be Auburn and 
no longer an Army Post.?
146
   
 This narrative of SATC is important on two other counts. First, it amply 
demonstrates an important limitation of Army ROTC: the inability to produce sufficient 
numbers of officers during wartime. Unlike Oficer Candidate School in which the Army 
can simply increase recruitment and production levels as needed during wartime, in order 
to yield an efectively sized officer corps, Army ROTC is dependent upon long-term 
strategic policies that acount for the potential wartime need for officers. In this regard, 
and as wil be addresed when examining the contributions of Auburn University Army 
ROTC to World War II mobilization, the War Department enabled Auburn University to 
produce during the interwar years a formidable reserve force of wel-trained officers, 
which would later display the tremendous capability of Army ROTC to prepare for future 
wars if directed by an ideal national defense vision. The second noteworthy aspect of the 
saga of SATC at Auburn University is that it represents the only time since the 
establishment of Army ROTC that the university has ever been without the program. In 
fact, one recognizes a manifest irony when alowing a quick foray into the future. World 
War I prompted the first large-scale removal of ROTC units from universities across the 
                                                
144
 ?S. A. T. C. Being Demobilized,? Orange and Blue, December 6, 1918.  
145
 Orange and Blue, December 6, 1918.  
146
 Glomerata, Vol. 22, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1919, 127. 
 42 
nation; however, the second dramatic removal of ROTC came about during another war 
but for reasons exactly opposite from those facilitating the first ? as we wil se when 
examining developments steming from the Vietnam War.  
 Considered in and of itself, the implementation of Army ROTC on the Auburn 
University campus may not sem al that noteworthy. After al, the university appears to 
have incorporated ROTC without much dificulty; however, this single transformative 
event is overwhelmingly important since it demonstrates the beginning of Auburn 
University?s substantive and on-going contribution to American national defense. 
Interestingly, Morril?s dream of a collegiate military officer training program began with 
problems experienced in the Civil War, but it took the disastrous mobilization for the 
Spanish-American War and the Preparednes Movement?s concerns over entering 
another war ? combined with a healthy dose of the reformist spirit of the Progresive Era 
? before America finaly enacted a program that fulfiled his vision. As a land grant 
university, Auburn University can never remove ROTC from its curriculum ? unles 
Congres enacts another law or another comparable military program replaces it. Just as 
national and international events paved the way for implementation of a modernized form 
of officer training at Auburn University, so also throughout its history at Auburn 
University did outside forces continue to influence ROTC. Recognition of this interplay 
betwen local and national historical events provides the critical frame of reference for 
fully understanding the history of the Auburn University Army ROTC program and how 
it relates to the larger narrative of how the Army prepared an officer corps capable of 
succesfully waging war on a mas scale.  
 
 43 
  The Interwar Years 
 
?A new atitude toward dril and military work is beginning to show. The idea that it is a 
bore and a burden is giving way to that of opportunity. It sems that the ROTC is about 
the only new form of preparednes that politics is going to alow to continue and it is up 
to college boys to make that litle count for the most. Auburn has come out of the war 
with a wonderful record for military service and now faces a much finer opportunity for 
the future.? 
 ? R. H. Turner, ?Military Outlook,? Orange and Blue, September 26, 1919 
 
 With the disbandment of the SATC and the reintroduction of Army ROTC at 
Auburn University, the interwar years proved to be the definitive time period that 
solidified the relationship betwen Auburn University and its Army ROTC program. 
Thanks to the establishment by the National Defense Act of 1916 of a modernized, 
profesional method for collegiate military training, the culture and influence of the 
Army grew in its centrality to the experience of Auburn University students. Covering 
from the end of World War I to the beginning of World War II in September 1939, this 
chapter examines the multifaceted nature of the close bond that developed betwen the 
campus community and Army ROTC ? devoting a special emphasis to the student 
perspective. This involves consideration of the training and recreation provided by the 
ROTC program, of the inclusion of ROTC in official university events, and of the 
resulting experience for students at the university. The discussion also examines the 
possible level of engagement of Auburn University students in the ongoing national 
debate betwen pacifists and proponents of military preparednes, comparing their 
opinions and subsequent actions with those of individuals from other parts of the nation. 
 Articles from the Auburn University student newspaper constitute the chief, 
primary source employed. Proceding from a meticulous review of nearly 880 editions of 
that newspaper, the following narrative atempts to permit the sources ?to speak for 
 44 
themselves? as much as possible. Recognizing that historians should always avoid the 
trap of selectively pasting quotes together, the intent is to integrate a methodology that 
enables the sources to direct the narrative and commentary ? instead of the reverse. Since 
the Plainsman was the only published venue through which to publicly expres the 
cultural atitudes and activities of the campus, this approach is necesary for imparting to 
the reader a meaningful understanding of the remarkable influence that Army ROTC 
exerted upon the culture of the Auburn University community.
147
 Given the extreme lack 
of sources available, atempts at using any other source to acquire an acurate 
representation of campus activities would involve more speculation than a historian can 
justify.  
 In Plainsman articles the influence of Army ROTC on the campus community is 
demonstrated primarily through descriptions of events that involved the ROTC program. 
With the newspaper not becoming independent until 1985, the persistent presence of a 
university adviser to the student staf of the Plainsman suggests that the narration of 
events is generaly reliable in terms of what definitively happened.
148
 Furthermore, the 
president of the university and the Profesor of Military Science and Tactics often used 
the Plainsman to voice their directives, concerns, or praise to the students, which 
indicates the possibility of a high rate of subscription to the paper among students. It also 
intimates a certain level of approval for the paper from the university administration and 
the Army ROTC cadre. Further evidence of a large volume of readership among the 
                                                
147
 The Orange and Blue was renamed the Plainsman after the 192 spring semester. 
148
 ?Student Media Oportunities,? Auburn University, acesed April 2, 2014, 
http:/ww.cla.auburn.edu/cmjn/journalism/student-media/.  
 
 45 
students is that the ROTC cadre, campus clubs, and other campus organizations would 
routinely post information in the Plainsman concerning upcoming metings and events.  
 When placing local events within the context of national and international events, 
by design, this chapter does not include any other information than that acquired from the 
student newspaper. The hope is that this wil permit readers to recognize ? through 
consciously dismising the benefits of hindsight ? the perspective that informed the 
opinions and actions of Auburn University students as it pertained to military service. 
Due to the before mentioned evidence that suggests a high rate of readership among 
students, one can realisticaly expect the students at minimum to have been aware of the 
national and international events outlined in the Plainsman. Although the students surely 
possesed other means of learning what was happening nationaly and internationaly, the 
Plainsman is the only news source that was directed specificaly to the students. Trying to 
determine to what other sources a large number of students may have also been exposed 
would be entirely conjecture. Hence, the desire is to focus on what they as a group likely 
knew about such events and not on what an unknown number of them might have known.  
 The Plainsman also represents the only available source for atempting to gauge 
student opinion concerning the ROTC program at Auburn University, the ongoing debate 
betwen pacifists and military preparednes proponents, and the controversy beginning in 
the 1920s over whether or not universities should either compel ROTC participation or 
even alow it. Given source limitations, one cannot acurately determine whether or not 
the opinions of the Plainsman staf represented the overal opinion of the students; 
however, such statements do indicate the minimal level of diversity of opinion on the 
campus. Concerning the debate, some of the opinions are those of the staf on the 
 46 
newspaper and others are from leters submited to the editor. Unfortunately, since few of 
the articles cite the name of the contributor, one cannot conclusively say which opinions 
were those of the staf or of another member of the university community. The views 
specificaly of the Plainsman staf are identified as such in the forthcoming discussions. 
The diversity of opinion may have been much greater than portrayed in the Plainsman, 
but ascertaining the nature of such potential opinions would be extremely dificult given 
the incredible lack of records pertaining specificaly to the atitudes of students as 
exhibited during the late 1910s to the late 1940s.  
 Of note, since this chapter must encompas a twenty-year time span, only 
significant and excedingly representative examples are discussed in detail. Desiring to 
facilitate a holistic understanding, each diferent aspect is presented topicaly, 
corresponding to a chronological timeline, respectively. The chapter discusses three 
overal subjects, which often overlap; however, the general arrangement, respectively, is 
the ROTC program, the events jointly staged by the university community and the ROTC 
program, and the student perspective regarding isues related to ROTC.       
 Having been ?very popular before the war,? the War Department vigorously 
reinstated Army ROTC at Auburn University, beginning in earnest during the 1919-1920 
school year.
149
 Replacing the monotony of the previous method of military training, 
which consisted mostly of dril, the Army ROTC program now provided branch specific 
training for field artilery, combat engineer, signal corps, and infantry.
150
 The later two 
                                                
149
 R. H. Turner, ?Military Outlok,? Orange and Blue, September 26, 1919 
150
 R. H. Turner, ?ilitary Outlok,? Orange and Blue, September 26, 1919; Catalogue of the Alabama 
Polytechnic Institute, 1919, 82-83. 
Note: to preclude confusion, ?branches? within the Army references specific military occupational 
specialties, and the term should not be confused with the diference betwen ?service branches,? consisting 
of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. 
 47 
were recent additions to the program, with the War Department wel preparing the field 
artilery program earlier that spring through alocating an impresive array of weaponry: 
?four 3-inch guns, six 3-inch caisons, one 155mm howitzer, one 4.7 inch rifle, one 
75mm French gun, two 5 ton tractors, two batery wagons and two escort wagons.?
151
 
Major Spalding, who had been the Profesor of Military Science & Tactics (PMS&T) in 
the spring of 1918, returned from France, and he, along with eight other officers and 
several non-commisioned officers (NCOs) asigned to Auburn University, oversaw the 
smooth introduction and operation of these new courses of instruction.
152
 The main 
diference betwen this new course of instruction and the type implemented upon 
establishment of ROTC in the 1916-1917 school year was twofold. First, cadets now 
entered not a general military course curriculum but one specific to whichever branch 
unit they entered. Second, the university now required al ROTC cadets to enroll in at 
least two credit hours of physical training, which covered ?calisthenics,?swiming, 
boxing, wrestling, fencing, and hand-to-hand combat.?
153
 Stresing group oriented 
athletic competitions, the intent was to train cadets how properly to react when facing 
various situations.
154
 
 Over the next several years, the ROTC program continued to evolve both in terms 
of type of instruction and in size. For example, by 1927 the university had lost both its 
signal corps unit and, despite an excelent record of performance, its infantry unit.
155
 For 
                                                
151
 ?Field Guns Arive,? Orange and Blue, May 24, 1919. 
152
 R. H. Turner, ?Military Outlok,? Orange and Blue, September 26, 1919; Catalogue of the Alabama 
Polytechnic Institute, 1919, 81.  
153
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1919, 83.  
154
 Ibid., 84. 
155
 ?Auburn Unit of Infantry Goes Permanently,? Plainsman, May 21, 1927. 
 48 
the interwar years, the university retained only the artilery and engineer units.
156
 
Nevertheles, within its field artilery program, the ROTC cadre expanded the course of 
instruction to include a mounted batery, which they organized in the fal of 1931. 
Introduced to familiarize students with such operations, a Plainsman article later testified 
that ?The worth of the batery is being proven in the valuable training it is giving the 
participating members by preparing them for the work that wil be required at ROTC 
camp next summer.?
157
 That same year, the program atained the noteworthy distinction 
of transforming from a single regiment to a brigade consisting of three regiments.
158
 The 
expansion was in response to a significant increase of enrollment in the cadet corps, 
which brought the size to about 1200 cadets.
159
 The Plainsman likewise greeted this 
change enthusiasticaly, aserting ?The expansion announced today by the military 
department is one of the most progresive steps taken in this institution in many years. R. 
O. T. C. at Auburn now rests on a parity, in regard to organization, with any school in 
America.?
160
 To its credit, throughout these adjustments the program maintained its high 
standards. Regarding the annual inspection of Army ROTC units by the War Department, 
in the spring of 1933 the Auburn University Army ROTC program boasted the honor of 
representing the ?only school in the Fourth Corps Area to win continuously? a maximum 
rating since re-establishment after the First World War.
161
   
                                                
156
 Another evolution of the department that deserves atention, but unfortunately does not fit within this 
narative, is the adoption in fal of 1928 of the unit insignia. It was a tiger head positioned on a field of 
blue, which ? except for the color scheme ? is esentially the same unit insignia worn today by Army 
ROTC cadets at Auburn University. For more information, se ?ROTC Department Secures Insignia,? 
Plainsman, December 6, 1928.  
157
 ?Mounted Batery,? Plainsman, March 9, 1932. 
158
 ?Military Unit Is Changed from Regiment to Brigade by War Department Ruling,? Plainsman, 
September 12, 1931. 
159
 ?120 Are Expected to Enrol in ROTC,? Plainsman, September 12, 1931.  
160
 ?R. O. T. C. Expansion,? Plainsman, September 12, 1931. 
161
 ?Fourten Years,? Plainsman, May 6, 193. 
 49 
 Indeed, the positive opinion of the campus community toward its ROTC program 
continued to grow. In reports submited to the university Board of Trustes during 1921, 
Auburn University President Spright Dowel exemplified the appreciation for ROTC, 
which amid the interwar years would characterize the relationship betwen the university 
presidents and ROTC cadre. In addition to expresing his appreciation for the quality of 
instruction, he posited that ?the advantages to the college of military units are many and 
the patriotic duty cannot be dodged.?
162
 Dowel also described the importance of Army 
ROTC to student retention, explaining that the ROTC stipend for cadets in the advanced 
program ?makes it possible for a large number of men to stay in college? since it offered 
? along with a clothing alowance ? ?In the Junior and Senior years an additional wage of 
fifty cents per student per day.?
163
 
 As for the training itself, PMS&T Major John T. Kennedy contended that, ?the 
student who avails himself of the opportunity offered by the military department of this 
institution wil graduate a beter man for himself, for his family and for his country. He 
wil go out beter prepared for peace as wel as for war.?
164
 The cadre atempted to prove 
this asertion by providing practical training and a variety of instruction. Much of the 
former came during the routine, wekly dril periods, but cadre also trained the cadets 
through other means, such as regular trips to a local firing range for practice with 
machine guns and rifles.
165
 Interestingly, the Auburn University Army ROTC engineer 
unit was the first ROTC unit of its type in the country to conduct a field training exercise 
                                                                                                                                            
Note: this is an honor that they would continue to poses in the spring of 1939. 
162
 Spright Dowel report to Board of Trustes, May 1921, box 1, file 2, ?Dowel, Report to Board of 
Trustes, May 1921,? Pres. Dowel Papers. 
163
 Spright Dowel report to Board of Trustes, February 1921, box 1, file 1, ?Dowel, Report to Board of 
Trustes, February 1921,? Pres. Dowel Papers.  
164
 ?Military Training Is Large Part of Student Work Here,? Plainsman, February 14, 1929. 
165
 ?R. O. T. C. Notes,? Plainsman, December 7, 1923. 
 50 
(FTX) in the form of hiking to a bivouac site. Revealing a high level of enthusiasm for 
military training from the participating cadets ? who consolidated themselves into two 
companies for the event ? it was entirely voluntary with each atending cadet paying one 
dollar in order to help finance it.
166
 A similar example of experience based training was 
the Batle of Auburn, which the ROTC program staged several times on the campus. On 
one occasion, the infantry unit split into two teams to conduct a mock atack behind the 
mansion of the university president. Being part of the festivities surrounding the 1924 
celebration of George Washington?s Birthday, many spectators came to watch the event. 
Although the cadets carried real weapons, the Plainsman elaborated that, ??the reason 
everyone knows this was a sham batle is that not even a Profesor got hit with a 
bullet.?
167
 
 Instructing ROTC cadets must have been at times a dificult and irritating task, as 
indicated by this description of a cadre member: ?Captain Grower is a forcible man. One 
must be very forcible to keep a Junior R. O. T. C. clas awake, but some of the students 
seated in the vicinity of Captain?s whizing erasers suggest that he be transferred to the 
artilery.?
168
 Throughout the interwar years, the ROTC program labored to deliver quality 
instruction to cadets, often asking outside sources to lecture to the students.
169
 Sometimes 
this instruction focused on topics for practical application in the future, such as when in 
1934 a field artilery lieutenant taught the cadets about advanced techniques for 
acurately adjusting artilery fire and engaging enemy bateries.
170
 Other times, the 
instruction stresed lesons learned from past military campaigns, as in the case of a 
                                                
166
 ?Enginer Unit Holds Two Day Encampment,? Plainsman, March 7, 1925. 
167
 ?Busy Wek R. O. T. C.,? Plainsman, February 29, 1924. 
168
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, November 22, 1930. 
169
 For example, ?Two Hundred Hear Capt. Hones Speak,? Plainsman, March 8, 193.  
170
 ?Lieut. Grene Is Featured Speaker,? Plainsman, February 21, 1934. 
 51 
presentation offered by a colonel from the Fort Benning Infantry School.
171
 Naturaly, the 
regular course lectures pertained to general military subjects and to branch specific 
topics. Describing the quality of the instruction, in 1939 a cadet confesed that, ?College 
ROTC clases are a true example of this pasing up of something that is realy 
worthwhile. As freshmen we never sem to fel that our ROTC unit is a valuable part of 
the United Sates Army.? He explained that this ambivalence remained until ?after camp 
at the end of our junior year [when] we fel ourselves defenders of our country.?
172
   
 Originaly, the War Department required al Army ROTC cadets wishing to 
become officers to atend ?two summer camps, not to exced six weks in any one 
year.?
173
 A brief perusal through the university catalogues reveals that beginning in the 
1920-1921 school the War Department elected to reduce the requirement to simply ?one 
summer camp, not to exced six weks,? which virtualy al advanced cadets participated 
in during the summer before their senior year.
174
 Apparently, for a time cadre members 
permited and ?strongly urged? students in basic Army ROTC to atend the camps with 
their upperclasmen, sincerely believing that they would ?not only secure valuable 
training but also?enjoy the camp life.?
175
 Unlike the present day, in which at advanced 
camp the Army intentionaly prevents cadets of the same university from asignment to 
the same platoon, during the interwar years Auburn Army ROTC cadets atended summer 
camp together, and acording to their published acounts they certainly shared many 
worthwhile character building experiences.  
                                                
171
 ?Col. Keley Wil Lecture Tuesday At Langdon Hal,? Plainsman, January 30, 1935.  
172
 H.M., ?Colege ROTC,? Plainsman, February 28, 1939. 
173
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1916, 71. 
174
 Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1921, 71.  
175
 ?R. O. T. C. Sumer Camps,? Orange and Blue, March 15, 1921. 
 52 
 Much of the cadet?s time at camp consisted of advanced hands-on training in 
general military skils and in branch specific operations. Acordingly, the training 
schedule for the engineer unit and the artilery unit difered, and a careful examination of 
Plainsman articles indicates that each unit atended summer camp at a diferent military 
instalation, until in 1925 when both units began atending summer camp at Fort 
Bragg.
176
 The Auburn Army ROTC cadets? experience at ROTC camp that year is a fine 
representation of what camp was like. The cadets from both units were at camp from June 
12 to July 23. For the artilerymen, their day began with first formation at 0545 and 
calisthenics afterwards. During camp they learned how to care for horses, practiced good 
horsemanship, and impresed the regular officers with their rapid familiarization with and 
utilization of 75 mm guns. Since Auburn University hosted the only field artilery unit at 
a southern university, its cadre members directed their summer camp activities.
177
 Like 
their engineer counterparts, cadets in the artilery unit finished their last wek of camp 
with an arduous hike in the field.
178
 The engineers? training entailed marksmanship, 
bridging operations, and practicing seting up field fortifications. Not surprisingly, when 
the officers in charge consolidated Auburn University cadets into a unit with students 
                                                
176
 ?Field Artilery Have Most Sucesful Camp,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925; ?Engineers Work at 
Fort Brag is God,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925.  
Based on these articled and ?War Department Changes Sumer Camp to Bening,? Plainsman, February 
19, 1927, Auburn University cadets of both units atended camp at Fort Brag for the sumers of 1925 and 
1926. Apparently, for the rest of the interwar years, Auburn University Army ROTC summer camp was at 
Fort Bening. For examples se ?War Department Changes Sumer Camp to Bening,? Plainsman, 
February 19, 1927; ?158 auburn Juniors Atend Sumer Camp at Ft. Bening,? Plainsman, September 9, 
1931; ?Plans Announced for Summer Camp,? Plainsman, April 25; ?171 Students Will Attend June 
Camp,? Plainsman, May 19, 1937.    
A useful means of determining the relative size of the Auburn Army ROTC program is found in the 
numbers of students from various universities who atended summer camp, as outlined by the following list 
taken from ?158 auburn Juniors Attend Sumer Camp at Ft. Bening,? Plainsman, September 9, 1931: ?In 
camp there were 158 men from Auburn, 38 from the U. of Florida, 31 from the U. of Tenn., 2 from the U. 
of Alabama, 23 from Georgia Tech, and 1 from Iowa State.? 
177
 ?Field Artilery Have Most Sucesful Camp,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925. 
178
 ?Field Artilery Have ost Sucesful Camp,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925; ?Enginers Work at 
Fort Brag is God,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925.  
 53 
from the University of Tennese and the University of Alabama, the Auburn cadets were 
a litle competitive with their Alabama brethren; however, they soon overlooked their 
diferences in order to become an efective team.
179
 
 Although the work was trying for the cadets, they also enjoyed the sort of pleasant 
opportunities that cadets atending Army ROTC summer camp today would likely find 
quite enviable. For example, summer camps involved a plethora of recreational activities 
such as swiming, horseback riding, basebal, wrestling, polo, tennis, boxing, and 
basketbal, and the cadets especialy enjoyed participating in regularly held dances.
180
 
Additionaly, at al of these camps, cadets typicaly had the opportunity to visit the sights 
and scenery of the surrounding area. In light of this multifaceted camp experience, one 
student summarized their time at camp this way: ?We look back upon the camp, hard and 
unbearable as it semed, with pleasure, for we had a wonderful experience and gained 
valuable information along military lines which wil greatly aid us in the defense of our 
flag when we are caled upon to do so.?
181
 Of course, not everyone was enamored with 
the pain and pleasures of summer camp, prompting another student to pointedly forewarn 
that, ?The date for the last remark about last summer?s R.O.T.C. camp has been set for 
November the first. Any remarks made after that time wil be excuse for justifiable 
homicide.?
182
 
 However, Army ROTC summer training in certain cases proved a vexation for 
more than just felow students tired of hearing tales of summer camp. Although a hearty 
advocate of ROTC at Auburn University, an incident involving two cadets who were 
                                                
179
 ?Enginers Work at Fort Brag is God,? Plainsman, September 18, 1925.  
180
 ?Hapenings at Camp McClelan,? Plainsman, September 19, 1924; ?Auburn at Fort Bragg,? Plainsman, 
September 19, 1924; ?R. O. T. C. Sumer Camps,? Orange and Blue, March 15, 1921. 
181
 ?Auburn at Fort Brag,? Plainsman, September 19, 1924. 
182
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, October 28, 1931. 
 54 
visiting the university after summer camp was the root cause behind president Dowel?s 
eventual resignation from the university. Having just returned from Army ROTC summer 
camp at Fort Benning, someone discovered that the two students were drinking on 
campus, which in that day was grounds for imediate suspension from atending the 
university. Dowel enforced the rules, but during the following fal semester encountered 
extreme opposition from students and faculty. Since one of the suspended students was a 
?favorite quarterback,? they vehemently blamed Dowel?s adherence to the rules as the 
cause for the university losing two footbal games.
183
 To shorten a complicated story, the 
situation concluded with the Board of Trustes reluctantly acepting the July 1, 1928 
resignation of a man whom the board considered ?highly competent and eficient.?
184
 
Fortunately, ROTC summer camp more often exhibited a unifying efect upon the 
campus. For ROTC members of the rising senior clas, the time spent together at camp 
brought them closer together as a group.
185
 An obituary, writen in 1939 for a student 
who had become il and died, exemplifies this ability of summer camp to instil cohesion, 
when it explains ?He was not our close friend, but we were close to him in the sense that 
al seniors who go through camp together know each other beter.?
186
 
  In fact, the Army ROTC program often played a prominent role in official 
Auburn University events, such as the annual ROTC graduation review.
187
 Of special 
importance was the participation of the ROTC program in routine visits by the Governor 
of Alabama for various university events. For example, on February 22, 1921, the 
                                                
183
 Spright Dowel report to Board of Trustes, November 5, 1927, box 2, file 15, ?Dowel, Administrative 
Controversy ? Concerning the Campaign in 1927 for the Removal of President Dowel,? Pres. Dowel 
Papers, 2-23.  
184
 ?Trustes Board Acepts Dr. Dowel?s Resignation,? Plainsman, November 1, 1927. 
185
 The Editor, ?Sumer Camp at Fort Bening,? Plainsman, December 16, 1938. 
186
 ?Jack Brown,? Plainsman, March 3, 1939. 
187
 ?Awards Named at Last Cadet Event Tuesday,? Plainsman, May 13, 1936. 
 55 
governor visited the campus, among other reasons, to review the cadets and to watch a 
tactical demonstration.
188
 Typicaly, the governor would review the Army cadets at least 
once or twice a year. Governor Bibb Graves possesed an exceptionaly close relationship 
with the university and its ROTC program, exhibiting a ?keen interest? in the unit.
189
 On 
November 1, 1930, the unit held a review for the Governor, honoring him with 
seventen-gun salute. On this particular occasion, Governor Graves also dedicated the 
newly created Bullard Dril Field as wel as atended an initiation ceremony of the local 
Scabbard and Blade military honor society.
190
 In response to the excelent showing and 
after hearing ?many favorable comments,? university president Bradford Knapp 
expresed that, ?I fel under deep obligation to the Military Department and to the entire 
student body for putting on a very wonderful review and cooperating fully in the morning 
exercises.?
191
 Like many of his predecesors, the next governor, B. M. Miler, followed 
suit in participating in this proud university tradition.
192
 
 Auburn University also paraded ?the War Machine of the Institution? during 
various other special occasions.
193
 For instance, during an inspection of the university by 
the Alabama State Legislature Educational Commite, the ROTC unit gave an 
impromptu review, primarily to honor J.G. Wilkins who was the first woman legislator in 
the state and as wel as acting chairman of the commite. Incidentaly, this was the first 
time in the history of the university ? even prior to the establishment of Army ROTC ?
                                                
188
 ?Military Exhibit on Twenty-Second,? Orange and Blue, February 5, 1921. 
189
 ?Farewel Review for Gov. Graves Be Held Nov. 1st,? Plainsman, October 24, 1930. 
190
 ?Governor Makes Dedication of New Dril Field,? Plainsman, November 1, 1930. 
The Bulard Dril Field was named in honor of Lieutenant General Robert Le Bulard, a famous alumnus 
of the university. For more information se Glomerata, Vol. 22, Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1919, 11; 
and ?General Robert L. Bulard To Visit Auburn March 14,? Plainsman, March 10, 1929. 
191
 Bradford Knap, ?Prexy?s Paragraphs,? Plainsman, November 5, 1930. 
192
 ?Governor Miler Reviews R. O. T. C. for First Time,? Plainsman, February 25, 1931. 
193
 ?Thunderations by Gum,? Plainsman, March 1, 193.  
 56 
that its military program had ever pased in review before a woman.
194
 Like this one, 
sometimes other commemorative events were held for irregular occasions, such as when 
in 1929 the ROTC regiment marched in Montgomery as part of the festivities 
surrounding the Florida-Auburn game.
195
 With about 1,000 cadets present and wearing 
new uniforms, the locals in the city were understandably impresed.
196
 Other university-
held military exercises involved annual celebrations of holidays like George 
Washington?s Birthday, Memorial Day, and Armistice Day. Later events like these often 
involved presentations from individuals such as the Alabama State Governor, members of 
the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Senator Hugo Black, and other distinguished 
members of the community.
197
 The university also hosted in 1927 a series of activities to 
celebrate Mothers? Day that entailed a special military review.
198
 Nevertheles, perhaps 
the most remarkable military review ever staged during the interwar years was 
orchestrated in honor of President Franklin Roosevelt who visited the campus on March 
30, 1939. He paid the visit when making a few detours while on a trip from Washington 
D.C. to Warm Springs, Georgia.
199
 With Roosevelt preferring to make his addres while 
siting in his car, the ROTC cadets did not formaly pas in review before him; however, 
the approximately 1,500 cadets at Bullard Field were ?lined up in impresive military 
                                                
194
 Photo Caption, Plainsman, May 12, 1923. 
195
 ?R. O. T. C. Unit Wil Parade Strets of Montgomery before Fray Begins,? Plainsman, October 11, 
1929. 
196
 ?Military Unit Invades Montgomery Friday,? Plainsman, October 15, 1929. 
197
 ?Memorial Day Exercises Held,? Plainsman, May 1, 1925; ?Fitting Program Held Here on Armistice 
Day,? Plainsman, November 13, 1925; ?Governor to Review R. O. T. C. on Washington?s Birthday,? 
Plainsman, February 19, 1927; ?R. O. T. C. Will Hear Black in Armistice Day Program,? Plainsman, 
November 1, 1927; ?Gov. Graves is Speaker on Washington Birthday Program,? Plainsman, February 21, 
1930; ?Students and Oficials wil Participate in Memorial Day Friday,? Plainsman, April 23, 1930; 
?Armistice Day Be Celebrated with Ceremony,? Plainsman, October 26, 1935. 
198
 ?Exercises Are Held in Honor Mothers? Day,? Plainsman, May 7, 1927. 
199
 ?Rosevelt Visits API Thursday,? Plainsman, March 28,1939. 
 57 
formation before him and other members of the student body of thirty-three hundred, 
members of faculty, and a large crowd of visiting spectators.?
200
 
 Alas for the cadets, approbation for splendid performance at these periodic 
university events came at the cost of many hours devoted to practicing on the dril field. 
Although many cadets might have cherished their time spent marching others apparently 
developed the following atitude: 
I use to hate the old dril field 
And choking dust galore, 
But now I kinder like the thing.  
I never did before. 
Just why I?ll tel you folks. I am 
Not marching any more.
201
 
 
Saturday dril was for a time a mainstay at the university - although the actual day of the 
wek set aside might have varied.
202
 Profesor of Military Science & Tactics, Major 
Kennedy, outlined in 1927 that he wished for each such dril sesion to also involve some 
form of martial display, whether marching in review or performing calisthenics. He 
hoped that the entire ROTC unit acting in concert during these activities would help them 
become ?a smooth operating unit.?
203
 Although members of the surrounding community 
frequently atended the reviews by the ROTC unit, review such as these were sometimes 
strictly military in purpose ? as opposed to being part of an official campus-wide 
event.
204
 One example is Major Kennedy ordering a special review for Saturday dril as a 
                                                
200
 Photo Caption, Plainsman, April 4, 1939. 
201
 Redlig, ?Poems from Student Body,? Plainsman, October 5, 1932. 
202
 For another example se ?Military Review to be Held Saturday,? Plainsman, October 19, 1932.  
203
 ?Review to be Held Every Saturday,? Plainsman, November 4, 1927. 
204
 ?Cadets Wil Direct Trafic at Parades,? Plainsman, April 22, 1936.  
 58 
means of honoring the legacy of General Leonard Wood, ?the father of our present 
system of citizen military training.?
205
 
 With few writen acounts describing dril available, determining exactly what 
dril looked like is a litle dificult; however, 
one student did submit this brief portrayal: 
?The dril field resembled a youthful army 
camp. A perspiring platoon of engineers was 
trying to learn to execute a dificult 
movement, acompanied by the exasperated 
shouts of an officer. A group of Artilerymen 
peeped thru range-finders.?
206
 
Understandably, a few cadets approached 
their time at dril very seriously. Such was 
the case of one unnamed student who, to the 
surprise of his felow cadets, participated in dril in spite of the blood dripping from the 
side of his body. Refusing to reveal the source of his bullet wound, he departed the field 
after dril muttering that he ?could take it.?
207
 Other cadets were not always as serious, 
which was revealed by ?one of the celebrated colonels in the artilery unit? who fel 
asleep at dril He quickly gained the opprobrium of his regiment after forgeting to 
dismis them by the regular time.
208
 The coeds ? that is, the female students ? also 
represented another potential problem for the cadets during dril, compeling one 
                                                
205
 ?Major Kenedy Orders Review Held Saturday,? Plainsman, October 7, 1927. 
206
 Benjamin Provost, ?Meditations on This and That,? Plainsman, January 13, 1929. 
207
 ?Valiant Soldier Displays Loyalty at Dril Tuesday,? Plainsman, February 22, 193. 
208
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, November 25, 193. 
 59 
exasperated cadet to exclaim, ?One can?t play at war seriously with girls looking at one?s 
soldiers.?
209
           
 One cannot discuss the Auburn University student experience as a cadet without 
also mentioning one of the more enduring and contentious isues surrounding it. Army 
ROTC uniforms possesed the capacity either to boost or to lower morale ? and not just 
that of the cadets wearing them. Apparently, 1928 was the first year in which the 
uniforms represented an important concern to the students, with a contributor to the 
Plainsman arguing that one reason for cadets demonstrating a ?sloppy appearance? was 
that the uniforms were ?unatractive and drab.?
210
 To the pleasure of cadets and other 
members of the community, the Army ROTC department soon secured in 1929 much 
nicer looking uniforms.
211
 Happy endings such as this one were not the norm when it 
came to the uniforms. Acording to student acounts, even the finer quality uniforms 
lacked the comforts of home, which the following joke highlights: ??Frosh: May I have 
an R. O. T. C. uniform? Sergeant: How do you want it?too large or too smal??
212
 
Indeed, cadet disatisfaction over uniforms culminated in one of the more humorous 
exchanges betwen the students and the cadre. The conversation began with this 
anonymous submision to the Plainsman:  
Major Franke, Lord Sublime,  
Have you in the summer time 
Ever worn a shirt of wool??  
Realy now it?s not so cool. 
Marching in the sun is hot. 
And shirts of wool is al we got. 
                                                
209
 ?Thunderations by Gum,? Plainsman, October 7, 1932. 
Carton taken from the November 4, 1938 edition of the Plainsman.  
210
 ?It Is Imposible to Improve Present R. O. T. C. Uniforms,? Plainsman, December 9, 1928.  
211
 ?New Uniform Wil Bost R.O.T.C.,? Plainsman, September 7, 1929. 
212
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, December 7, 1932. 
Note: ?frosh,? refered to the campus freshmen.  
 60 
We humbly pray that you wil get. 
Some shirts that wil not make us sweat.
213
 
 
PMS&T, Major Frank in a later isue of the Plainsman responded with his own poetry:   
 
To the student who wrote the rhyme: 
Major Franke in summer time 
Has woolen shirts worn off and on 
For twenty years this August gone. 
 
When the weather gets cold you?ll be darn glad,  
For woolen shirts wil not then be bad.  
They may bring out the perspiration  
But prevent too rapid evaporation; 
Thereby they keep you wel and strong. 
Now can?t you se wherein you?re wrong? 
His sympathies for you are great,  
But a man of you sweat?s bound to make. 
 
What can he do? He has not pull 
To get you shirts that aren?t wool.. 
It?ll take more dough from Uncle Sam 
To get light shirts for you, by damn!!! 
 
The cadet, in turn, replied by confesing that he actualy loved the shirts but that, 
nevertheles, ?sir, I?m here to tel Those woolen shirts are hot as Hel.?
214
 Although time 
may heal some wounds, this one just reversed poles, with the same anonymous student 
later informing Major Franke that, ?my oh-so-hot wool shirt of a month ago has been 
amazingly transformed into a refrigeration device.?
215
 To the benefit of the university, 
this appears to have been the most egregious division betwen the cadre and cadets, given 
that numerous Plainsman articles convey the generaly high regard felt toward them by 
Auburn University students.  
 Cadets of good character and military ability could experience social activities 
perhaps more pleasing than dril. Established on May 5, 1924 during a special instalation 
                                                
213
 ?Deadly Deductions by Derf,? Plainsman, September 20, 193. 
214
 ?Deadly Deductions by Derf,? Plainsman, September 30, 193. 
215
 ?Deadly Deductions by Derf,? Plainsman, November 11, 193. 
 61 
ceremony, the Auburn University ??L? Company, 5
th
 Regiment? chapter of the Scabbard 
and Blade was a national military honor society that became active on the campus.
216
 The 
organization originated in 1905 at the University of Wisconsin, and by 1924 had chapters 
on 59 diferent campuses, consisting of slightly over 5,000 members.
217
 The goal of the 
organization was to promote high military training standards, to strengthen the bonds 
betwen military science programs, to uphold good officer traits, and to build esprit de 
corps among felow cadets. Eligibility for cadets depended upon their exhibiting ?military 
eficiency? and ?qualities of character and manhood.? Holding two initiations a year, the 
Auburn University chapter conducted a public initiation and, at least for some period of 
time, a ?formal initiation? that they held during ?an al night hike out of town.?
218
 The 
public portion of the initiation was typicaly a source of great comedy enacted in full 
view of the campus community.
219
 For example, the 1939 initiation involved a mock 
batle betwen the new members, with one team dresed in kilts as ?Ladies from Hel? 
and the other dresed as ?invaders from Mars.?
220
 Additionaly, cadre members 
occasionaly subjected themselves to the ordeal of initiation.
221
 Regular social events for 
the group entailed such activities as celebrating Scabbard and Blade Day or periodicaly 
venturing out on horseback for early morning, Sunday ?breakfast rides.?
222
 
                                                
216
 ?Scabard and Blade Instal Local Chapter,? Plainsman, May 2, 1924; ?Scabard and Blade Installation 
Held,? Plainsman, May 9, 1924.  
217
 ?Scabard and Blade Instalation Held,? Plainsman, May 9, 1924. 
218
 ?Know Your Campus Organizations,? Plainsman, October 14, 193. 
219
 ?Unique Parade is Enjoyed by Local Citizens,? Plainsman, October 30, 1926; ?Scabard & Blade 
Initiation is Held at Morning Dance,? Plainsman, October 4, 1929; ?Pledges to Scabard and Blade Given 
Fre Entertainment Today,? Plainsman, October 5, 1935. 
220
 ?Blade Initiation Planed for Friday Wek,? Plainsman, April 11, 1939. 
221
 ?Scabard & Blade Initiation is Held at Morning Dance,? Plainsman, October 4, 1929; ?Scabard and 
Blade Elects Army Men,? Plainsman, October 8, 1930. 
222
 ?Military Society to Celebrate Scabbard and Blade Day,? Plainsman, October 25, 193; ?Scabard and 
Blade to Stage Ride Son,? Plainsman, May 1, 1935; ?Military Group is Host at Breakfast Ride,? 
Plainsman, February 21, 1939.  
 62 
 The annual military bal was another opportunity for cadets to enjoy the finer 
benefits of military service, furnishing ?the Senior R.O.T.C. Cadets a chance to strut.?
223
 
First held in 1926, the military bal is a tradition that the Auburn University Army ROTC 
continues to practice today. Atending that initial military bal were the majority of the 
senior cadets, the cadre members, some faculty members who were officers in the Army 
Reserves, and several coeds and girls from out of town. In a marked diference from 
current day War Eagle Batalion military bals, ?The gym was decorated with the 
Regimental colors, flags, and guidons of the companies and bateries of the regiment. 
Machine guns and light field weapons were placed around the wals to add a military 
touch to the occasion.
224
 A mock military court was held.?
225
 Acordingly, the military 
bals were often grand afairs, considered by the students to be ?one of the most briliant? 
social gatherings of the year.
226
 Lavish decorations representative of the military life 
remained one of the many atractions, as further exemplified with this description of the 
1932 military bal: 
?Decorations for the Military Bal?wil depict a scene from the war which is 
now being waged in China?The orchestra wil be surrounded by a barricade of 
sand bags over the top of which numerous rifles wil protrude. At either end of the 
floor wil be seventy-five milimeter guns of the type used in the field artilery 
unit, and various pieces of lighter artilery wil be placed around the 
floor?Behind the orchestra wil be?painted a Chinese batle scene, and sand 
bags wil have to be surmounted to gain entrance to the bal room.?
227
   
 
                                                
223
 Tom Bigbe, ?Litle Things,? Plainsman, January 31, 1930. 
224
 Present day Auburn University Army ROTC military bals are much les grandiose. The type of uniform 
worn and the ceremonial customs are formal, but the general environment is comparable to that of a formal 
civilian event, with the main exception being the posting and retiring of the colors by an honor guard. 
225
 ?Oficers and Cadets Hosts at Military Bal,? Plainsman, February 27, 1926. 
Incidentaly, station WAPI broadcast the dance over the radio, with it being the first time that anouncers 
from the station had ever broadcasted a dance. 
226
 ?Comites are Apointed for Anual Military Bal,? Plainsman, February 21, 1929. 
227
 ?Chinese War to be Theme of Military Bal Decorations,? Plainsman, February 27, 1932.  
 63 
Normaly, the Army ROTC unit extended invitations to individuals such as the local 
Army Reserve officers, Army officers from Fort Benning and Maxwel Field, the 
Alabama State Governor, and other distinguished persons.
228
 Of course, one particular set 
of guests typicaly matered most to the cadets. With bylines like, ?Many Southern Beles 
Expected for R. O. T. C. Bal? and ?Many Girls Expected,? the cadets ? who at this time 
were stil al males ? were clearly excited, and commonly ?a large number of girls from 
al over the state? acepted invitations, which might be another reason why the cadets 
viewed this military dance as ?one of the outstanding events of the social calendar.?
229
 
The unpleasant downside to this eagerly expected influx in population was a university 
regulation stipulating that al females traveling to the bal from within 70 miles of campus 
had to return home that evening. This inspired one student to compose a lengthy editorial 
against the ?asinine? regulation.
230
 Notwithstanding such minor irritations, many cadets 
greatly enjoyed the annual military bal. In fact, one cadet who did not appreciate the 
thought of marching in dril the next morning posited this idea: ?I am for having a parade 
during intermision instead of the next morning. Post a yelow-haired gal by the flag and 
I?ll do ?Eyes Right? al night.?
231
    
 Although they had various opportunities to enjoy life as a cadet, Auburn 
University students were constantly reminded by the very nature of their military 
instruction that someday Uncle Sam might require them to apply that knowledge in actual 
                                                
228
 ?Comites are Apointed for Anual Military Ball,? Plainsman, February 21, 1929; ?Everything in 
Readines for Third Anual Military Bal,? Plainsman, March 7, 1929; ?Many Southern Belles Expected 
for R. O. T. C. Bal,? Plainsman, February 25, 1930; ?Notice!,? Plainsman, February 25, 1931; ?Gov. 
Graves Wil be invited Here for Cadet Dance,? Plainsman, February 23, 1935.    
229
 ?Many Southern Beles Expected for R. O. T. C. Bal,? Plainsman, February 25, 1930; ?Auburn Knights 
to Furnish Music at Military Ball,? Plainsman, February 21, 1931. 
230
 Her Diogenese Geufelsdrockh, ?Thoughts in Silhouette,? Plainsman, February 21, 1930.  
231
 ?Thuderations by Gum,? Plainsman, March 1, 193. 
 64 
combat.
232
 Many Americans hoped that the First World War would be ?the war to end al 
wars,? but events in Asia and Europe gradualy transformed that desire from optimistic 
hope to anxious concern. A similar phenomenon occurred on the Auburn University 
campus, with the exception that the general opinion on the campus sems to have been a 
hope combined with emphasis on military preparednes, which many campus lectures 
reinforced.
233
 Student opinion on campus sems to have reflected the larger debates in the 
country, and throughout the world in the 1920s and 1930s. A Plainsman article from 1927 
offers an excelent example of this atitude through a series of short editorials refuting the 
pacifist ideology that was especialy active in other parts of the nation at the time.
234
 In 
response to this mindset and to the persistent military preparations occurring around the 
world, some members of the university community felt tremendously disturbed and 
expresed their fears with statements like one from 1929, which is consistent with 
sentiment asociated with pacifist movements at the time: ?We commemorate the ending 
of the most godles blood festival by preparing for another one. God! What a sordid, 
unimaginative world of fools we are!?
235
 Of course, another student was quick to contend 
in the following isue that only ?power through preparednes? could enable to America to 
promote global peace, and in remarkably prescient statement aserted, ?Unles humanity 
changes astoundingly, America wil be forced to arms again??
236
 Not easily persuaded 
by comments like these, pacifist students maintained a persistent voice on campus. 
                                                
232
 Cecil Strong and Walter Brown, ?Cabages and Kings,? Plainsman, December 15, 1934.   
233
 For examples se ?Armistice Program Very forceful,? Plainsman, November 16, 1923; ?Captain Althaus 
Makes Armistice Day Talk to Rats,? Plainsman, November 13, 1925; ?Major Smith Makes Talk to 
Upperclasmen,? Plainsman, April 3, 1926; ?General Bullard is Guest Speaker at Convocation Today; 
Program is Presented During Kiwanis Luncheon,? Plainsman, February 28, 1934; ?Defense Subject Used 
by Starnes in Addres Here,? Plainsman, November 13, 1935.  
234
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, January 17, 1927. 
235
 Aaron Bilowhel ?Wel, I?d Say This,? Plainsman, November 12, 1929 
236
 Tom Bigbe, ?Litle Things,? Plainsman, November 15, 1929. 
 65 
Ofering perhaps another indicator that students recognized the tentative nature of world 
peace in their day, another observed Armistice Day with an article postulating that, 
?Peace cannot, and wil not survive as long as we cherish such selfish ideals as patriotism 
and nationalism.?
237
 Similarly, after learning that Congres was considering an expansion 
of the Navy, one editorial advised ?as many students as possible to take advanced R. O. 
T. C.; second lieutenants make the most palatable cannon fodder.?
238
 In contrast to these 
two factions, university president Bradford Knapp supported a middle ground position, 
stating that, ?I hope there may be the inteligence and the high-mindednes which wil 
make our America a leader for peace. I hope we may be prepared to defend our ideals and 
our honor only in case these are realy at stake.?
239
 
 In 1931 the official position of the 
Auburn University newspaper aserted 
that,  
In respect to world peace, 
The Plainsman stands firm 
in favoring it in its 
entirety?It has been 
proven, however, that peace 
cannot be insured by 
disarmament with the world 
mired within the state she 
finds herself at the present. 
World peace can only be 
insured by providing a 
defense sufficient to instil 
within al other nations a 
desire for universal 
brotherhood; a weakened 
defense invites disaster.
240
 
                                                
237
 Haakon Provost, ?Solitary Speculations,? Plainsman, November 12, 1930. 
238
 Haakon Provost, ?Solitary Speculations,? Plainsman, December 17, 1930. 
239
 Bradford Knap, ?Prexy?s Paragraphs,? Plainsman, November 6, 1931. 
240
 ?In Defense of Militarism,? Plainsman, November 6, 1931. 
 66 
 
By contrast, during the years following the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and 
the rise of Hitler in 1933, one notices a definitive increase in rhetoric either lery of war 
or directly against it. One student in 1934 claimed to be representing the approximately 
170 cadets who would soon commision when he discussed how they al became ?ardent 
pacifists? during tense international political situations. He wrote that, ?they aren?t 
exactly scared but?wel, bullet holes don?t improve the look of any kind of uniform. 
We?re not afraid?just shaky.?
241
 The following year, university students across the nation 
protested against the threat of a future war by means of a strike for peace that occurred on 
April 12. At 11:00 A.M. al participating students walked out of their clases as ?a 
demonstration against war.?
242
 An article in the Plainsman vociferously advocated that 
Southern students join the protest rather than reveal that students from the East and 
Midwest were more inteligent than their counterparts in the South who lacked ?enough 
sense to stand up for their rights.? The author lamented that, ?students from other sections 
wil give vent to bloody yels which wil inform the world that they are pacifists while we 
Southerners wil sit idly by and let everybody say we don?t care whether or not we have 
to fight.?
243
 Contemporary reports indicated that at some universities, such as UCLA, the 
strike turned disconcertingly violent, but the protest at Auburn University was very 
peaceful, perhaps due to the fact that only one student participated.
244
 As evidenced by 
the fact that more than half of the senior clas was enrolled in Army ROTC, most 
                                                                                                                                            
Of note, the available sources do not outline to what extent ? if any ? that this statement was representative 
of anyone other than the student members of the Plainsman; however, it does reveal another opinion to 
which Auburn University students would have ben exposed regarding this isue.  
Carton editorial taken from the November 3, 1937 edition of the Plainsman. 
241
 ?Deadly Deductions by Derf,? Plainsman, February 17, 1934. 
242
 ?Peace Strike to Halt Clas work at Many Coleges,? Plainsman, April 10, 1935. 
243
 ?They?re Striking,? Plainsman, April 10, 1935. 
244
 Cecil Strong and Bil Emrey, ?Cabages and Kings,? Plainsman, April 17, 1935. 
 67 
students at Auburn University were more in favor of preparednes than pacifism.
245
 
Nevertheles, campus pacifists continued to preach against war, and their pleas sounded 
even more desperate after events like the sinking by Japanese warplanes of the gunboat 
Panay in China in 1937, which a student discussed in the article ?Stay out of War!?
246
 
 Another group of individuals also disliked what advocates of military 
preparednes were doing to the nation. Distinct from the pacifists, yet by no means 
mutualy exclusive, campaigners against mandatory ROTC became active during the 
1920s and 1930s, and by 1928 they were forcefully opposing compulsory ROTC 
training.
247
 A thorough examination of Plainsman articles reveals that the first mention of 
agitation against mandatory ROTC printed in the paper was most likely in the article, 
?Military Training Under Discussion,? which appeared on February 27, 1926.
248
 The 
article expounds upon a recent movement against mandatory ROTC at both the 
University of Washington and the College of the City of New York, which had garnered 
?considerable comment in the pres.? For the rest of the interwar years, Auburn 
University students continued to stay abreast of this ongoing batle against compulsory 
collegiate military training. Sometimes, the news releases pertained to universities like 
Ohio State University or the University of Minnesota that excused conscientious 
                                                
245
 Of the senior clas of 1935, 124 of the 127 enrolled in the advanced course satisfactorily pased the 
1934 summer camp. 214 graduated that following May. Se ?127 Auburn Junior R. O. T. C. Cadets Atend 
Bening Camp,? Plainsman, September 7, 1934 and ?214 Graduates Will Receive Degrees on Monday, 
May 27; Alumni to Meet for Anual Sesion in Langdon Hal,? Plainsman, May 11, 1935. 
For a more acurate but slightly diferent comparison that exhibits the same rationale, please se ?Military 
Course,? Plainsman, September 22, 1934.  
246
 ?Stay Out of War!,? Plainsman, December 15, 1937. 
In another fascinating sign of the times, one student submited this anti-war leter to the Plainsman, stating, 
?I do not believe a war can end war; only peace can do that. Public opinion is the only weapon. Education 
and eugenics are the only two posible avenues to freedom. From ?Cabbages and Kings by Cecil Strong 
and Bil Emrey,? Plainsman, April 27, 1935. 
247
 ?Snapy Uniforms Sel R. O. T. C. Work to Colege Students,? Plainsman, October 21, 1928. 
248
 I say ?most likely? since human eror is an ever-present possibility when examining such a large source 
base. 
 68 
objectors from dril.
249
 Other times, they discussed the movements against mandatory 
ROTC at universities such as University of Oregon, University of Minnesota, 
Washington University, Ohio State University, and University of Oklahoma.
250
 One of 
the more significant demonstrations against this mandatory training occurred in 1931 
when approximately 10,000 students, representing 55 collegiate institutions, signed a 
petition to eliminate compulsory ROTC training from al American colleges and 
universities. Consisting of students from ?Swarthmore, Byrn Mawr, Harvard, Yale, Johns 
Hopkins, George Washington, and the University of Wisconsin,? 45 delegates of this 
movement formaly delivered the petition to President Hoover?s secretary in Washington 
D. C. Their rationale was threefold: 
1. That military training teaches doctrines contrary to the best principles of 
the principles [sic] of the American people; 2. That military training 
idealizes war and is thus inconsistent with the Kelog pact outlawing war; 
and 3. That the majority of student opinion is opposed to military 
training.
251
 
 
 The Plainsman also exposed Auburn University students to the arguments 
happening outside of the university either supporting or opposing compulsory military 
service. For example, one article reprinted from the Florida Gator applauded the 
following report: ?Former President Coolidge is opposed to compulsory military training 
for school or college students and to anything that stimulates a military spirit in the youth 
                                                
249
 ?Student Excused from Dril for Pacifist Ideas,? Plainsman, November 11, 1931; Billie Thomas, ?With 
Other Coleges,? Plainsman, November 1, 193.  
250
 ?What Of It?,? Plainsman, May 2, 1929; ?College Students Involved in Anti-R.O.T.C. Row Suspended,? 
Plainsman, March 21, 1931; ?With Other Colleges,? Plainsman, October 28, 1931; ?Without the Pale,? 
Plainsman, October 10, 1934; ?Minnesota Abolishes Compulsory R.O.T.C.,? Plainsman, October 24, 1934; 
?Optional ROTC retained by Vote at Washington U.,? Plainsman, March 13, 1935; ?Without the Pale: 
Oregon Campaign Against Dril Fails,? Plainsman, April 27, 1935. 
One of the more comical reports regarding these agitations concerned a coed at University of Minnesota 
who refused to sign a petition against compulsory ROTC, stating, ?I like the prety uniforms.? Found in 
?With Other Coleges,? Plainsman, March 23, 1932.    
251
 ?Fight on R. O. T. C. Taken to Capital,? Plainsman, March 7, 1931. 
 69 
of the land.?
252
 In contrast, another Plainsman article juxtaposed pro-military training 
arguments from the Citadel Bull Dog with that of Misisippi Congresman Ross Collins 
who opposed collegiate military training; positing the final word, the Plainsman aserted 
that, ?The argument of the Bull Dog sounds more convincing than that of the 
politician.?
253
 Plainsman reports also outlined possible outcomes of this ongoing debate. 
At Emory, the university acommodated student protests in 1930 through implementing a 
mandatory physical fitnes regimen to replace its compulsory military education 
program.
254
 Princeton University applied a diferent approach in 1936. In conjunction 
with its ROTC department, university personnel incorporated two clases on ?peace? into 
the military training program in order to pacify antagonists of military preparednes.
255
     
 Unlike the leaders of some of the colleges and universities in the Midwest and 
East, Auburn University administrators firmly supported the compulsory Army ROTC 
program. Acording to a 1927 Plainsman article, ?Auburn has never reacted against the 
preparing of her young men for national crises.? Instead, the official policy of the 
university declared that,  
Military training teaches the proper respect for men in authority and 
recognized leaders, streses precision and acuracy in the discharge of 
duty, promptnes and reliability in meting engagements, high standards 
in manhood and morality, and the ability to think clearly, logicaly and 
analyticaly along with other esential qualities that are fundamental in the 
development of leadership so necesary at the present time in our modern 
complex civilization.
256
    
 
                                                
252
  ?Colidge on the military,? Plainsman, October 17, 1930. 
253
 ?Acros the Campus by Axel,? Plainsman, February 7, 1931.  
254
 ?Military,? Plainsman, March 14, 1930. 
255
 ?ROTC Reconciliation,? Plainsman, January 15, 1936. 
256
 Photo Caption, Plainsman, April 2, 1927. 
Note: this oficial policy was recited in an unusualy lengthy photo caption that comemorated the 
disbandment of the Auburn University Army ROTC Infantry Unit. 
 
 70 
Nonetheles, this commitment to the military training program may not have precluded 
the possibility of instating a voluntary ROTC program. In the Auburn University records 
asociated with president Bradford Knapp exists an official opinion from Atorney 
General of the United States, Wiliam D. Mitchel. Composed in a leter writen June 20, 
1930, the opinion addreses the legality of whether or not land-grant universities must 
maintain a compulsory ?military tactics? course of instruction. With the salutation simply 
addresed to ?Sir,? one cannot definitively determine from president?s Knapp?s papers 
whether he wrote the initial leter to the Atorney General or if someone else pased along 
the final opinion to him; however, its presence in Knapp?s papers suggests that the 
Auburn University president was, at least, evaluating his options. Of particular interest, 
the leter aserts that the first noteworthy display of discontent with compulsory ROTC 
occurred in 1923 when the Wisconsin State Legislature enacted a law that eliminated 
mandatory military training at the state university. In the absence of opposition to that 
law from the federal government Wisconsin efectively established a precedent for the 
legal removal of mandatory military training at land grant colleges and universities. Thus, 
the Atorney General recommended an elective program as a viable alternative.
257
 
 Auburn University was not isolated from these debates on university campuses 
about the status of mandatory ROTC. Perhaps the earliest public example of disafection 
with the Army ROTC program was this commentary submited to the Plainsman in 1923: 
Now al R. O. T. C. is rotten?take my advice,  
Those felows wil tel you anything?s nice.  
Be non-R. O. T. C. and be something keen.  
Join our ranks?you jely bean.?
258
 
                                                
257
 Attorney General of the United States, Wiliam D. Mitchel to unspecified recipient, June 20, 1930, box 
3, file 34, ?Reserve Oficer Training Corps ROTC, 1930; Department of Justice Opinions on Compulsory 
ROTC Courses, 1930,? Pres. Knap Papers. 
258
 ?Bevo,? ?What a Freshman Hears about R. O. T. C.,? Plainsman, September 21, 1923. 
 71 
 
As was true with the campus debate over pacifism versus military preparednes, much of 
the commentary directed toward the Auburn Army ROTC program supported it as 
necesary to national defense and beneficial to the character of young men ? although the 
approaching threat of another war did correspond to an increase in voiced opposition to 
participation in ROTC. Perhaps aluding to their southern identity, when students ?from 
the campuses of the large northern and western universities? were rising against 
mandatory ROTC, in 1927 this Plainsman contributor rejoiced, ?that we are not prone to 
advance extremely precarious hypotheses on the injustice of the government in forcing us 
to take military training.? Admiting that ?grumbling is habitual? during days set aside for 
dril, the author expresed the generaly felt opinion of the students that they had atained 
an ideal medium betwen the ?curse of pacifism? and the ?equaly undesirable curse of 
militarism.?
259
 Another article, writen in 1932, likewise admired the diference betwen 
Auburn University and other campuses. From their perspective, ?Practicaly every 
college newspaper in the country is at present actively engaged in a wrangle over the 
question of the Reserve Oficers Training Corps,? and ?there is no denying that the 
greater portion have taken an opposing view.?
260
 Wishing no part in this faction, they 
staunchly profesed their ?sympathy with the R. O. T. C. movement, as a plan of national 
defense, as a benefit to young manhood, and as a vital factor of education,? and they 
afirmed that such was ?the opinion of the majority of Auburn students, and bids fair to 
                                                
259
 ?Justification of Auburn R. O. T. C. is By Its Works,? Plainsman, April 2, 1927. 
260
 The article, ?Invictus by Casual Observer? from the March 8, 193 edition of the Plainsman described 
the situation this way: ?The average college newspaper is one of the greatest targets for the anual flood of 
rabid pacifist propaganda in the country.? 
 72 
remain so.?
261
 Considering the general run of opinion in the various articles appearing on 
this subject throughout the rest of the interwar years, they were correct.
262
       
 Likely due to the persistent ideological atacks against ROTC ? both compulsory 
and elective, the Department of Interior sent a questionnaire to ROTC graduates al 
across the country in order to gauge public opinion concerning the benefits of ROTC 
training. The department received more than 10,000 responses, with 256 from Auburn 
University alumni. As of 1932, al but two of the Auburn University graduates agreed 
that ?R. O. T. C. training had a definite educational value,? and 225 supported the two-
year mandatory program. This atitude closely corresponded to the overal national 
opinion.
263
 Additionaly, in 1932 an article reprinted in the Plainsman from the 
Birmingham News provided an example of what public opinion may have been in 
regions of Alabama besides Auburn. The article highlighted the leson to learn from the 
recent events in China where ?Japan?s tough-minded and seasoned troops stepped in and 
wrested Manchuria away from these folk too peaceful for their own good.? Disavowing 
any desire for a standing Army, it outlined the need for ?a great breed of civilian soldiers, 
like these trained at Auburn and other colleges?as a powerful nucleus about which to 
build regiments and divisions in time of possible need.? As a concesion, however, the 
article did concede to the possibility of dismising compulsory ROTC ?until need for it 
should arise.?
264
 
                                                
261
 ?ROTC and the Pres,? Plainsman, March 19, 1932.  
262
 ?Military Course,? Plainsman, September 22, 1934; ?Has Reached the South,? Plainsman, December 14, 
1935; L. E. Foster, Jr., ?Benefits of Military Training,? Plainsman, April 30, 1937; ?Sory We Missed It,? 
Plainsman, November 29, 1938; ?The Editor?s Mailbox,? Plainsman, December 2, 1938. 
263
 ?Alumni of Auburn Voice Aproval of R. O. T. C. Training,? Plainsman, March 23, 1932. 
264
 ?The R. O. T. C.?s Value in Piping Times of Peace,? Plainsman, April 27, 1932. 
 73 
 While much of the commentary in the Plainsman supported the Auburn 
University Army ROTC program, one can stil find a series of remarks and discussions 
revealing the unease with which some students viewed the training. Consider this poem 
for example: 
The ROTC 
May be a good thing; 
We learn much marching, shooting,  
And skirmishing,  
Statistics, balistics,  
First aid, parade,  
A wealth of things,  
And yet I?m afraid 
In the frenzy of war 
There?s more to be said 
For a two year course 
In dodging lead.
265
 
 
A number of articles in the pages of the Plainsman conveyed the presence of this line of 
thinking.
266
 However, as the old adage says, ?actions speak louder than words,? and one 
ses in occasional reports of particular incidents the degree to which a minority of 
students showed irreverence toward the ROTC program. With the dril field representing 
one of the more public and frequent sites for ROTC activities, this was also where 
individuals commited some of the most blatant acts of disrespect against the military 
training program. As explained earlier, visitors would often atend dril in order to watch 
the cadets on parade. Spectators? social mores of that day typicaly ensured that they stil 
displayed patriotic respect during, for instance, the pasing of the American flag. In 1926, 
                                                
265
 ?Auburn Fotprints,? Plainsman, October 1, 1938. 
266
 For more examples, se ?Cabages and Kings by Cecil Strong and Walter Brown,? Plainsman, 
November 24, 1934; ?Cabbages and Kings by Cecil Strong and Walter Brown,? Plainsman, December 15, 
1934; ?New War Film Teaches Object Leson About War Horrors,? Plainsman, September 24, 1937; 
?Scabard and Blade Acts Against Plan of Handling Military in Glomerata,? Plainsman, November 29, 
1938; ?The Editor?s Mailbox,? Plainsman, November 29, 1938; ?Board Gives Decision in Matter of 
Glomerata Military Section,? Plainsman, December 2, 1938; ?The Editor?s Mailbox,? Plainsman, 
December 2, 1938; ?ROTC Seniors Vote Down Plan; Schwartz Makes Statement,? Plainsman, December 
6, 1938. 
 74 
however, ?two youths and their feminine companions? sat in their vehicles one Saturday 
morning, rather than watching the review chose to conduct a ??necking? party.? These 
individuals, as wel as a few others present, demonstrated none of the traditional signs of 
respect, thereby gaining the great ire of at least the contributor who wrote the Plainsman 
piece about it.
267
 Another example from several years later reveals the persistent nature of 
this behavior, describing spectators who did not stand at atention during the playing of 
the national anthem or the pasing of the American flag. The article from 1934 aserts, 
?This atitude of neglect has been carried far enough and we would recommend that al 
individuals?adhere to the proper gestures at future dril formations.?
268
   
  Although examples of disafection toward the Auburn University Army ROTC 
program exist, when considering the relationship of the program with the students and the 
university administration one is struck by the overwhelming evidence of amicable 
cooperation. Acordingly, the year 1939 embodies a powerful testimony of the extent to 
which Army ROTC had become firmly entrenched as a permanent fixture of Auburn 
University.
269
 Resulting from their performance during the annual Army ROTC 
inspection, that year the Army ROTC unit earned an ?Excelent? rating from the War 
Department, the twentieth time in a row that the program had received such a rating. 
Forth Corp Area Commanding Oficer Major General S. D. Embick praised the program, 
stating, ?That there should be such uniform and continuous excelence evidenced in the 
                                                
267
 ?Flagrant Disrespect,? Plainsman, May 4, 1928. 
268
 ?Patriotism,? Plainsman, April 28, 1934. 
269
 Another excelent example of this is the folowing statement from the article ??Justification of Auburn 
R. O. T. C. is By Its Works,? which apeared in the April 2, 1927 edition of the Plainsman: ?It has often 
been said that military training made Auburn what it is today. Certainly it cannot be doubted that the 
military department is one of the most important and popular branches of the colege. In fact, the oficers 
seems to get in closer touch with the vital interests of the student body than the majority of the professors 
of the college.? 
 75 
ROTC in this corps area is gratifying indeed to al at this headquarters.? He also 
commented to Auburn University president L. N. Duncan that,  
All here are aware of the cooperation and interest displayed by yourself 
and your faculty, of the zeal and industry of the profesor of military 
science and tactics (Col. C. Walace) and his officers and enlisted 
asistants, and of the high morals and sustained endeavor of the student 
membership of the corps.
270
  
 
That May the Army, in turn, received 136 newly commisioned officers from Auburn 
University ? out of a senior clas of 457 students.
271
 With the date of America?s entrance 
into a global confrontation fast approaching, Auburn University Army ROTC was 
furnishing the Army with a tremendous number of wel-trained officers who could ably 
lead soldiers when the time came.
272
 
 The best way to summarize how Army ROTC prepared the capabilities and 
character of Auburn University students for the coming war is through a Plainsman 
student-author?s description of what happened in May of 1939 during a parade held for 
the Alabama State Legislature Appropriations Commite. The author confesed that 
?even to the best soldier there sometimes comes an urge to desert,? which proved true 
that day. Increasingly dark clouds acompanied by occasional lighting and thunder 
invoked ?a distinct stir of uneasines? among the cadets on the dril field. With each unit 
                                                
270
 ?ROTC Unit Given Excelent Rank for 20thTime,? Plainsman, May 12, 1939. 
271
 ?136 Cadets Receive ORC ommisions,? Plainsman, May 19, 1939. 
272
 A useful means of determining the relative size of the Auburn University Army ROTC program is found 
in the numbers of students from various universities who attended sumer camp, as outlined by the 
folowing list taken from ?158 auburn Juniors Atend Sumer Camp at Ft. Bening,? Plainsman, 
September 9, 1931: ?In camp there were 158 men from Auburn, 38 from the U. of Florida, 31 from the U. 
of Tenn., 22 from the U. of Alabama, 23 from Georgia Tech, and 1 from Iowa State.? 
The only other record available through which to make a comparison concerns the comisioning numbers 
for the 1956-1957 school year. That year, Auburn University commisioned 149, University of Florida 68, 
University of Tenese 63, University of Alabama 81, and Georgia Institute of Technology 119 (Iowa 
State University was not included on the list). Chart of ROTC Units Third Army Area: Schol Year 56-57, 
box 25, ?ROTC, Misc., 1956-57,? Pres. Draughon Papers.   
 76 
waiting its turn to pas in review before the cadet colonel, one student remarked, ?I hate 
to lose anybody any money, but if it rains I?m leaving.? Immediately after that statement,  
Suddenly the water came down in sheets. As the wind was already 
blowing directly into the faces of the men, the rain became almost 
blinding. Remembering what the men had vowed, an officer said, ?Look 
on the road behind the reviewing stand felows.? The men looked. There 
in the road, alone now since the spectators had sought shelter and without 
a raincoat, stood Colonel Walace. That same torrent beat on him, too, but 
he stood at atention, unnaturaly rigid in the high wind, and saluted each 
time the colors pased. You know what happened. Every man marched in 
those drenching blasts until his uniform was a sogging mas, some of the 
platoons even had a beter line than they had ever had before.
273
 
 
The metaphor is obvious. As Plainsman articles indicate, Auburn University students 
recognized the situation in Poland and the rest of the world.
274
 In spite of the looming war 
clouds, many of these students stil pursued commisions through Army ROTC, which 
enabled Auburn University Army ROTC to contribute a significant number of officers 
during the coming war. The university leadership and the ROTC cadre played an 
important role in encouraging students to make this decision. When summarizing the 
leson to learn from the above encounter at dril, the author posited, ?To men in uniform 
a sounding bugle and a waving flag might come to be mere emblems, but add to them an 
inspiring leader and even the elements can?t win.?
275
 Although referring to Colonel 
Walace, the statement prompts one to consider the leadership of the university and the 
ROTC program. Through their cooperation, they gave meaningful direction and purpose 
to the national preparednes intent of the military training mandate of the Morril Act, 
transforming military training at Auburn University into an efective means of preparing 
for mas mobilization in wartime. Thus, Auburn University Army ROTC was able to 
                                                
273
 Batery Comander, ?The Editor?s Mailbox,? Plainsman, May 12, 1939. 
274
 For another example, se John Godbold, ?Before Tomorow,? Plainsman, May 2, 1939. 
275
 Batery Comander, ?The Editor?s Mailbox,? Plainsman, May 12, 1939. 
 77 
fulfil General Leonard Wood?s mision intent by creating a viable reserve force for the 
nation to summon in time of national emergency. As the next chapter wil discuss, this 
relationship betwen Auburn University and its ROTC program enabled them both to 
efectualy participate in America?s national defense eforts during World War II.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 78 
World War II 
 
?It is everyone?s duty to give complete support to our nation in this time of national 
emergency. It is our responsibility as a college and as individuals to do gladly everything 
we are caled on to do. We are in a war which we must win. It won?t be easy.?
276
 
 ? Profesor Ralph B. Draughon, Executive Secretary Auburn University 
    
 With the German invasion of Poland triggering World War II in Europe in 
September 1939, the Auburn University community suddenly became aware that they 
might soon be involved in another global struggle. In response the campus administration 
wholly commited the university to contributing to the national defense, initiating a war 
efort so intense that it atracted nation-wide atention from other colleges and 
universities. The Auburn University Army ROTC program played a substantial role in 
this efort by imediately furnishing large numbers of criticaly needed commisioned 
officers, by continuing to provide students with a basic level of military training, and by 
serving as a pre-existing apparatus through which the War Department could readily 
institute the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) for enlisted personnel.    
 Since university actions during the Second World War displayed the greatest 
manifestation of the earnest desire of Auburn University to fulfil the national 
preparednes mandate of land grant universities, the focal point for this chapter is the 
relationship betwen the university and military training, as prominently displayed 
through Army ROTC during the war. The contributions of the ROTC program were 
three-fold. It supplied commisioned officers for the war efort, continued to train 
students in the basic course throughout the war, and provided the infrastructure and 
existing relationship with the War Department that was necesary for the university to 
host and train a special detachment of soldiers during the war. This unity of action and of 
                                                
276
 ?Auburn and the War---Coments by Duncan, Draughon, Yarbrough and Alen,? Plainsman, December 
9, 1941. 
 79 
national service intent displayed by Auburn University and its ROTC program is 
arguably the finest example of the contribution of collegiate military training at Auburn 
University to national defense. The experience overwhelmingly strengthened the 
asociation betwen Auburn University and the Army. One must appreciate this national 
defense mindset as exhibited by the university during World War II in order to appreciate 
the intense bond betwen the university and its Army ROTC program, and to beter 
recognize the significance of events during the 1960s that dramaticaly altered the form 
of that relationship. This chapter also reveals in more detail the record of the Reserve 
Oficers? Training Corps at Auburn University and highlights the significant wartime 
contributions of Auburn University during World War II.  
 The start of World War II filed many Americans with a growing sense of unease 
as they witnesed the nation?s increasing commitment to the Alied cause. Acording to 
the 1941 President?s Report to the Board of Trustes, Auburn University students were 
no diferent: 
The uncertainties of the National situation, the unrest that the War has 
caused among al citizens has naturaly been reflected in the student body, 
but in general wholesome conditions have continued to exist, and the 
tradition of Auburn students of readines to serve the needs of the Country 
and the college in time of crisis has been steadfastly maintained. The 
students have been remarkably free from many of the ?isms? that are 
upseting students throughout the country.
277
 
 
Evidence of such ?unrest? appeared in many Plainsman articles during the two years 
preceding America?s entrance into the war. An early example is the January 1940 article 
?Students Believe We Can Stay out of War,? which cites a national student opinion 
survey demonstrating that 68% of students believed America could abstain from ?the 
                                                
277
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustees, June 2, 1941, box 6, file 202, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 1941,? Pres. Duncan Papers.  
 80 
present European war.?
278
 One student-writer in the Plainsman reminded his readers that 
in the event of intervention by the United States, ?It?s we who?ll be the glorious dead, but 
dead just the same.? He further outlined that, ?If the US is ever in danger of invasion, 
we?ll be there when the shooting starts, but until that real danger is upon us we figure that 
we can do more here, trying to improve something that we have.?
279
 Other articles 
decried the undue favoritism that many American political and busines leaders extended 
to the British, which blinded the United States to British violations of international law 
and brought America closer to ?a war which we swear we don?t want or need.?
280
 An 
article entitled, ?The First Die is Cast,? argued that permiting Americans either to send 
ships into conflict areas or to offer financial credit to beligerents was an initial step 
toward entering the war. The contributor rhetoricaly and sarcasticaly aserted that, 
?Maybe we can even save the world for democracy again.?
281
 
 Representing what appears to have been the minority opinion, not every 
contributor to the Plainsman in these years saw al forms of involvement in the war as 
something to avoid. A couple of noteworthy examples of support for the alied cause 
exist. After the federal government announced that it would begin sharing the latest 
American flight technology with France and Britain, one individual portrayed the fight as 
being betwen ?democracies? and ?totalitarianism,? which meant, ?America does have a 
stake in the war? and that ?seling materials now may save us from sending men later.?
282
 
Almost a year later, another article advocated a more pro-active approach to the European 
                                                
278
 ?Students Believe we Can Stay Out Of War,? Plainsman, January 16, 1940. 
279
 Herbert Martin, ?Plains Talk,? Plainsman, April 16, 1940.   
280
 John Ivey, Jr., ?Wel?,? Plainsman, April 19, 1940; ?Britain is Guilty To,? Plainsman, April 26, 1940. 
281
 ?The First Die is Cast,? Plainsman, April 30, 1940. 
For more examples of commentary writen in the hope of avoiding war, se ?American Undergraduates 
More and More in Favor of Staying Out of War,? Plainsman, May 14, 1940; Vivian Stallworth, ?War?
Right or Wrong?,? Plainsman, April 25, 1941.  
282
 ?You, Me and The War,? Plainsman, March 29, 1940. 
 81 
situation. Employing the final scene from Alfred Hitchcock?s Foreign Correspondent as 
the guiding ilustration for the commentary, that author mused, ?It?s al very wel to say 
that we wish to preserve democracy, even if we must fight to do so. But do we realy 
believe this?? Juxtaposing the isolationist desires of innumerable Americans with the 
urgent pleas by some for American intervention, the individual asked, ?When are we 
going to wake up??
283
 
 Like the rest of the country, Auburn University students recognized the path to 
war on which the nation was headed. One student from the university gained a glimpse of 
the German war machine during a ski trip to the German Alps that coincided with the 
German invasion of Austria.
284
 As fascinating as such first-hand acounts are, Auburn 
University students only had to pay atention to the news to realize the seming 
inevitability of war. Responding to German aggresion against Poland, President Franklin 
Roosevelt?s September 8, 1939 declaration of a minor ?national emergency? signaled a 
definitive change.
285
 The following year, one far-sighted student advised, ?Follow the 
diplomatic moves by the United States toward maters arising out of Japan?s moves 
toward the Dutch possesions nestling in the Asiatic waters. Things are beginning to pop 
in that vicinity.?
286
 In October 1941, an entire page of the Plainsman, dedicated in honor 
of Navy Day, conveyed a sense of conclusivenes when elaborating that, ?the Navy has 
been able to acept and met the swift chalenge of the dangers to this nation lurking in 
the second World War.?
287
 
                                                
283
 ?When Are we Going to Wake Up America?,? Plainsman, February 4, 1941. 
284
 Paul Weisz, ?Auburn Student Finds Adventure on Skis in Europe?s Theatre of War,? Plainsman, April 
12, 1940. 
285
 Louis E. Kefer, Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of the Army Specialized Training Program in World 
War I (Jeferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 198), 4. 
286
 John Ivey, Jr., ?Wel?,? Plainsman, April 19, 1940.  
287
 ?Navy Day to be Observed Monday,? Plainsman, October 24, 1941. 
 82 
 The university also encountered the chalenges of preparing for war. One of the 
first problems, which would plague the university throughout the war years, was losing 
quality faculty and staf to military service. The 1941 President?s Report to the Board of 
Trustes explains that, ?There have been some losses of excelent faculty members 
through the demands of the Military Services, and through the National Defense 
Program. This has?[left] the institution with a dificult problem of making adequate 
replacements.? For instance in early 1941 B. M. Cornel, head profesor of the 
Aeronautics Department, left to become Director of Ground Training at an Army airfield 
in Camden, South Carolina.
288
 Despite ongoing limitations, the university efectively 
employed its resources to support national defense initiatives. This was facilitated by the 
fact that, ?In these times of national emergency and world-wide chaos, there has been a 
growing recognition upon the part of the Government, the people, busines, labor and 
industry, of the peculiarly efective training available in the Land-Grant Colleges.? An 
excelent ilustration is the Engineering Defense Training Program. Part of a statewide 
initiative conducted in cooperation with various universities in Alabama. Auburn 
University acted ?as truste for the administration of the courses,? which they provided at 
night to men ?who are anxious to aid in the national emergency by fiting themselves for 
a vital engineering defense job.? Additionaly, through its Civilian Pilot Training 
program ? sponsored in conjunction with the Civil Aeronautics Administration ? the 
university by June 1942 had trained 225 students during the past year and a half.
289
 
                                                
288
 David Allen, ?Our Flying Lieutenant Cornel is Leaving Us--The Army Cals,? Plainsman, January 17, 
1941. 
289
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustees, June 2, 1941, box 6, file 202, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 1941,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 83 
 The national emergency likewise afected the Auburn University Army ROTC 
program. With the Army preparing for war during the 1940-1941 school year, the ROTC 
program lost seven of its active duty personnel. Only three remained, and the Army 
replaced them with thirten Reserve officers who were alumni of the university. 
Fortunately, the cadre maintained the high standards of the program in the face of 
acommodating these changes, with the program ataining an excelent rating that year 
for its twenty-second consecutive time. That year they commisioned 116 second 
lieutenants, with twenty-two more from that clas expected to commision soon.
290
 Due 
most likely to the anticipated war, upon their commisioning the War Department 
activated al of these individuals  ? except those receiving a deferment ? to active duty for 
one year.
291
      
 On December 7, 1941, ?Al Auburn woke up?to find the United States in war 
again.? Understandably, ?No one was particularly surprised about it.?
292
 A few of the 
university administrators offered their outlook on the war in comments made the 
following day. Among other statements, President Duncan avowed that, ?Of course the 
Alabama Polytechnic Institute, in keeping with its long tradition, wil cooperate fully in 
support of the international policy proclaimed by our President and our Congres.? The 
Auburn University Executive Secretary, Ralph Draughon, implored everyone to wilingly 
do their duty, and he commended the recent military expansion by praising ?the wisdom 
                                                
290
 Ibid. 
291
 ?Corps Area Comanders to Order to Duty Al Senior Graduates in ROTC,? Plainsman, May 21, 1941. 
292
 ?To the Students,? Plainsman, December 9, 1941. 
 84 
of President Roosevelt in recognizing that in this world today we are dealing with forces 
who know no law and order.?
293
 
 The students had their own thoughts on the war. First, they al wondered how long 
it would last. Disregarding the optimism of some of their peers, the Plainsman staff 
wrote, ?we?re inclined to be more pesimistic?We think it?ll either be a mater of a 
couple of weks?or a long, long time.?
294
 Their second main topic of conversation 
pondered what should be their imediate response. Several articles published in the next 
few days after the atack encouraged the students to remain at school.
295
 President 
Duncan advocated this proposition, stating that ?I admonish our young men and young 
women students to view this mater soberly and calmly, to keep their fet on the ground 
and to go steadily ahead with their college work until they are caled upon by the 
Government.?
296
 Most students heeded his advice, with only a few withdrawing from 
school; ?eight were drafted, two voluntered, two went to enlist in the Royal Canadian 
Air Force, one enlisted in the U. S. Army Air Corps, one joined the RAF, and one left, 
?On acount of the war?.? In contrast to the conventional narrative of mas enlistments in 
reaction to Pearl Harbor, at Auburn University ?The general atitude of the students 
sems to be one of grim determination to go steadily ahead with the job at hand until 
caled upon by their country.?
297
 A Plainsman article reinforced this mindset by 
                                                
293
 ?Auburn and the War---Coments by Duncan, Draughon, Yarbrough and Alen,? Plainsman, December 
9, 1941. 
294
 ?To the Students,? Plainsman, December 9, 1941. 
295
 ?What Then Are Your Ods in This War,? Plainsman, December 9, 1941; ?And Now What?,? 
Plainsman, December 12, 1941; Jimy Pasteur, ?Only Fiften Students Leave Auburn for Military 
Reasons,? Plainsman, December 19, 1941. 
296
 ?Auburn and the War---Coments by Duncan, Draughon, Yarbrough and Alen,? Plainsman, December 
9, 1941. 
297
 Jimy Pasteur, ?Only Fiften Students Leave Auburn for Military Reasons,? Plainsman, December 19, 
1941. 
 85 
emphasizing that students with college experience were more likely to become officers 
after either enlisting or being drafted.
298
 
 Auburn University quickly adopted several 
wartime measures. Some of these were relatively 
simple additions to campus life. For instance, the 
Home Economics Department worked with the Red 
Cross to provide clases in canten service and 
nutrition, and the university administration formed a 
campus Commite for Civilian Defense to prepare 
for possible air raids.
299
 Some war related changes, 
however, were more significant. For example, on 
January 13, 1942, President Duncan submited a ?war-time proposal? that fundamentaly 
restructured the courses of instruction at Auburn University.
300
 Previously, as part of a 
nation-wide efort among American universities to secure a viable role in the war efort, 
the Commite on Military Afairs of the National Commite on Education and Defense 
had cosponsored with the United States Ofice of Education the National Conference of 
College and University Presidents on Higher Education and the War, which met betwen 
January 3-4.
301
 The resolutions and recommendations of this conference prompted 
president Duncan to implement a new education model whereby ?in June 1942 the 
                                                
298
 ?To the Students,? Plainsman, December 19, 1941. 
299
 ?New Defense Courses Begin on Monday,? Plainsman, January 9, 1942; ?What?s the Use of Air Raid 
Precautions?,? Plainsman, February 20, 1942; ?Campus Civilian Defense is Organized,? Plainsman, 
February 17, 1942. 
300
 Charles Edwards, ?Special Features of Auburn?s War-Time Program,? box 6, file 209, ?Duncan, Quarter 
System ? Policy, 1940-42,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
301
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 13; Comite on Military Afairs of the National Comite on 
Education and Defense and the United States Ofice of Education, Resolutions and Recommendations 
Adopted by the National Conference of Colege and University Presidents on Higher Education and the 
War, 1942, box 6, file 209, ?Duncan, Quarter System ? Policy, 1940-42,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 86 
college would go on a continuous program of instruction with the year divided into four 
quarters of twelve weks each.?
302
 
 The three main features of this new program were acelerated academics, which 
provided a ?four-year? degree in three years; daily physical training; and military 
instruction and dril, which remained exclusive to able-bodied male students.
303
 As 
Auburn University Executive Secretary Draughon later clarified, the new program was 
?based upon the contemplation that the destination of every able-bodied male student is 
in the armed forces?
304
 Nevertheles, Auburn University also incorporated the system 
with women in mind; in addition to being subject to the faster paced academic schedule, 
they also participated in the enhanced physical fitnes regimen because president Duncan 
believed that ?After leaving college our graduates, both men and women, wil go into 
branches of the armed forces, take jobs in the defense industries, or do other work in 
which a sound body wil enable them to give maximum efort during the emergency.?
305
 
For men, the university required four hours per wek of physical fitnes, entailing 
?calisthenics, mas games, ?heavy apparatus and sports fundamentals,? road marching, 
and a 650 yard obstacle course that the university built for the new regimen.
306
 Despite 
these intrusive wartime alterations of campus life, the hardest felt change for the students 
was probably the cesation of intercollegiate footbal for the duration, with one student 
                                                
302
 Charles Edwards, ?Special Features of Auburn?s War-Time Program,? box 6, file 209, ?Duncan, Quarter 
System ? Policy, 1940-42,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
303
 ?API to Go on Quarter System in June,? Plainsman, January 16, 1942. 
304
 R.B. Draughon to President C. B. Hodges of Louisiana State University, October 19, 1942, box 6, file 
216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
305
 Charles Edwards, ?Special Features of Auburn?s War-Time Program,? box 6, file 209, ?Duncan, Quarter 
System ? Policy, 1940-42,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
306
 Charles Edwards, ?Special Features of Auburn?s War-Time Program,? box 6, file 209, ?Duncan, Quarter 
System ? Policy, 1940-42,? Pres. Duncan Papers; ; David Allen, ?At Last! We Finally Got Our Obstacle 
Course,? Plainsman, July 7, 1942; ?Cadet Gray Gives Way to Khaki for ROTC Uniforms,? Plainsman, 
June 8, 1943.   
 87 
lamenting, ?in al corners of the globe Auburn men bow their heads in sincere shame and 
regret that their Alma Mater should have to submit herself to such humiliation.?
307
 
 Wartime demands also prompted several changes to the Auburn University Army 
ROTC program. Having served with the unit since 1939, PMS&T Colonel Waterman 
retired from active duty after 36 years of service; however, by order of the War 
Department, he remained at his post for the rest of the war.
308
 The first significant 
wartime diference came with the announcement on February 13, 1942 that the War 
Department had canceled Army ROTC junior summer camp for both the duration as 
wel as six months afterwards. Colonel Waterman elaborated that the cancelation was 
due to the numerous colleges and 
universities that had reduced by a 
year the time required to 
graduate.
309
 A few days later on 
February 17, the PMS&T further 
announced that the Army had 
decided to lower the minimum 
commisioning age from twenty-one to eighten, qualifying many additional individuals 
to commision that May. Al of the new officers ? except those with deferments ? would 
receive orders for active duty service.
310
   
 For advanced cadets and other students who were enlisted in the Army Reserves, 
when the Army would activate them was an important question. In a statement released 
                                                
307
 ?It Gives Us An Empty Feling,? Plainsman, July 9, 1943. 
308
 ?Waterman Retires from Active Duty,? Plainsman, January 16, 1942. 
309
 ?Junior Sumer ROTC Camps are Cancelled,? Plainsman, February 13, 1942. 
310
 ?Army Comision Age Lowered to 18,? Plainsman, February 17, 1942. 
Photo from ?New 105-MM Guns Arive for ROTC Training,? Plainsman, July 24, 1942. 
 88 
by Colonel Waterman in January 1943, the Secretary of War outlined this proces. The 
senior cadets simply waited until commisioning before going on active duty. For the 
junior cadets, the Army sent them to basic training at a replacement training center, 
which took the place of second year advanced course ROTC. They would afterwards 
atend Oficers Candidate School (OCS). With the War Department prohibiting any more 
cadets from entering advanced ROTC for the rest of the war, civilian junior level 
advanced cadets could volunter for the enlisted reserve in order to participate in this 
final opportunity through ROTC to become an officer. Enlisted students studying in the 
medical fields possesed opportunities for remaining in their work. For freshmen and 
sophomores not in those fields, the War Department sent them to basic training after the 
Winter Quarter, but the department alowed those who were qualified to return and 
pursue special course work for the Army.
311
 
 During this time, Auburn University administrators expresed the hope that the 
numbers of such individuals returning to school for military training might provide the 
university with a significant role in the mobilization proces. Early in 1943, Executive 
Secretary Draughon visited Washington D. C. specificaly for this purpose. He acquired 
information pertaining to efective utilization of their ROTC program, and of particular 
importance to the university, he investigated the prospect of Auburn University hosting 
either an Army Air Corps cadet unit or a new Army training program. Not surprisingly, 
the university appears to have been wel connected to a few key Army personnel. 
Draughon described one general who, having a son at Auburn University, was ?red hot to 
                                                
311
 ?Waterman Gives New War Status,? Plainsman, January 5, 1943. 
 89 
help us? and working ?to shake something loose.?
312
 The Army Specialized Training 
Program (ASTP) was the most valued prize. 
 In Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of the Army Specialized Training Program in 
World War II, Louis E. Kefer examines the history of the ASTP in order to examine the 
reasons for its creation, the nature of its operation, and the reasons why the Army 
dismantled it after approximately a year. He criticaly evaluates the program, considering 
the ASTP?s afects upon the soldiers it trained and its efectivenes to mobilization as a 
whole. Kefer argues that, in the early days following the atack of Pearl Harbor, college 
and university profesors offered the soundest ideas for how to resolve the manpower 
needs of the nation. They were motivated, at least in part, by the recognition that a mas 
exodus of students into the Army could prove disastrous for college enrollment.
313
 With 
the financial problems of the Great Depresion stil manifest, such tremendous enrollment 
drops could ? and did in some cases ? instigate the financial collapse of universities.
314
 
Thus, they sought a substantial means of contributing to the war efort.
315
 To be fair, 
regarding institutions boasting a vibrant relationship with military training, like Auburn 
University, one may convincingly argue that their leadership also supported this goal 
based upon patriotic fervor and first-hand knowledge of the benefits of on campus 
military training.  
 By late 1942, leaders from multiple universities isued a statement directed 
toward the War Department, proposing that ?a college training corps be set up to function 
in as many institutions as possible,? which would offer ?technical training with the armed 
                                                
312
 R.B. Draughon, Trip to Washington, February 5, 1943, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 
1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
313
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 13.  
314
 Ibid., 31. 
315
 Ibid., 13. 
 90 
forces.?
316
 President Roosevelt, in turn, asked Secretary of War Henry Stimson to 
consider the idea.
317
 While this served as an additional goad to action, the Army had 
already begun pondering the isue. Brigadier General Joe N. Dalton, Personnel Director 
for the Army Service Force, contended during October 1942 that, ?no other single 
problem which faces us is as important to the Army and the Nation as this problem of 
education under an Army college-training program.?
318
 After a proces of deliberation, 
on December 17, 1942 the federal government diseminated its plan in a publication 
entitled the ?Joint Statement of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy on 
Utilization of College Facilities in Specialized Training for the Army and Navy.?
319
 
Army Chief of Staf General Marshal outlined the purpose of the program. The Army 
intended for the ASTP to overcome ?a shortage of men possesing desirable 
combinations of inteligence, aptitude, education, and training in fields such as medicine, 
engineering, languages, science, mathematics, and psychology? by ensuring ?that there 
would be no interruption in the flow of profesionaly trained and technicaly trained 
men? proceding from colleges and universities.
320
 
 On February 12, 1943, the Plainsman revealed president Duncan?s announcement 
that the War Department had selected Auburn University to provide engineering 
                                                
316
 Ibid., 27. 
They ofered this recomendation in the form of an oficial statement from the American Council on 
Education.  
317
 Ibid., 27-28. 
318
 Ibid., 28, 292. 
319
 Ibid., 37. 
Note: both the Navy and Army had their own versions of the specialized training program; however, this 
paper is only concerned with the ASTP. For those interested, an examination of president Duncan?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees for 1943 and 194 indicates that Auburn University did not host the Naval Version 
of the specialized training program, but it did provide aviation and radio training to seamen. 
320
 Ibid., 40. 
 91 
instruction to a unit of the ASTP.
321
 Members of the university community also soon 
learned that Auburn University would maintain an ASTP veterinary unit.
322
 Based on the 
correspondence that followed, these new programs, which exhibited a remarkable 
similarity to ROTC, must have confused some university personnel. Acordingly, 
Duncan received from the Army a leter dated February 4, 1943, which delineated several 
of the particulars for how the ASTP would afect the Auburn University. Writen by 
Brigadier General Edward E. Smith, Executive for Reserve and ROTC Afairs, the leter 
afirmed that for the ASTP program the Army would employ every colege and 
university offering advanced course ROTC. Given that general policy, the following 
statement may have been praise that universities other than Auburn received as wel: 
?The contribution which your institution has made over the years to an adequate national 
defense is distinctly recognized by the War Department and is one of the most 
compeling factors in selecting your institution in its educational program.? At any rate, 
the leter further explained that the ASTP would not coopt ROTC but instead operate 
alongside it, utilizing the ROTC ?system and its framework to the maximum consistent 
with the Army Specialized Training Program.? Despite the cesation of advanced course 
ROTC, for the rest of the war the basic course would continue to prepare male students 
for military service, typicaly until they were drafted or old enough to enlist. Although 
intended to elucidate maters, the general further posited, ?The name ?R.O.T.C.? wil be 
retained in the A.S.T.P. as wel as in the basic.?
323
 From this statement, one can readily 
comprehend why numerous individuals erroneously thought that the ASTP would alow 
                                                
321
 ?API to Train Army Enginers for WMC,? Plainsman, February 12, 1943.  
322
 ?Sixty-Five Men Enroled in Army Veterinary Training,? Plainsman, June 8, 1943. 
323
 Brigadier General Edward Smith to Luther Duncan, February 4, 1943, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, 
Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 92 
soldiers an opportunity to atend Oficer Candidate School ? as opposed to being 
principaly a program to train enlisted personnel.
324
 
 To populate the ASTP units, the Army originaly sent soldiers from various 
training camps directly to the universities. This initial plan proved unsatisfactory after a 
large number of under-qualified soldiers entered the ASTP. Realizing that the ?field 
selection boards? lacked the prerequisite cognizance of contemporary university 
standards, the Army asigned Specialized Training and Reasignment (STAR) units at 
twenty-two diferent colleges.
325
 Auburn University was one of these universities, and 
from April 15, 1943 to September 1943 its STAR unit procesed over 5,000 soldiers who 
would either enter the ASTP or return to regular duty.
326
 The STAR units? specific 
purpose was for ?receiving, housing, clasifying, and instructing personnel selected by 
Army Specialized Training Program field selection boards? as eligible to enter the ASTP. 
Within these duties, the chief function was ?the testing and clasification of trainees.? 
While there, the trainees might participate in activities such as military training, sundry 
duties, and refresher courses. They also enjoyed liberty from 1600 Saturday to 1830 
Sunday. Recognizing that the college environment might appear ?les demanding? than 
their previous training asignments, one directive stresed that STAR units reinforce this 
?strong sense of discipline? by occupying these soldiers incesantly with meaningful 
activity. 
327
 
                                                
324
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 71-78. 
325
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 52.  
326
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustes, June 7, 1943, box 6, file 204, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 1943,? Pres. Duncan Papers; Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustees, June 5, 
1944, box 6, file 205, ?Duncan, President?s Report to the Board of Trustes, 1944,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
327
 Information: S.T.A.R. Units Army Specialized Training Program, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, 
Army Specialists Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 93 
 Although succesful in their primary mision, the STAR unit at Auburn 
University may have created a les than austere impresion in regard to their later 
asignment, as highlighted by the July 1943 article, ??STARs Have Easy Life? Says the 
Hardened Infantryman.? The contributor concluded that for soldiers temporarily asigned 
to Auburn University ?it certainly does sem like a G. I. vacation to most of the boys who 
come here straight from maneuvers, a permanent camp, or worst of al, a replacement 
training center.? They tremendously appreciated the chance to gain plenty of slep and to 
eat the excelent food. These trainees also enjoyed the environment. On the one hand, 
they could enjoy the company of ?men whose inteligence and abilities are above those of 
the average soldier.? On the other hand, they thoroughly valued the ?tactical advantage? 
of being stationed near a town where the trainees could interact with civilians ? 
?particularly female[s].?
328
 Such was hardly the experience at STAR units nation-wide. 
Kefer explains that for some soldiers the qualification and evaluation proces was truly 
miserable, but he chose Auburn University as a particularly striking example of the 
reverse, offering this statement from a leter sent home: ?I don?t believe it. This place is 
beautiful. Miracles never cease. I never dreamt army men could enjoy the kind of living 
that goes on here. It?s beter than paradise!?
329
 
 On July 8, 1943, Auburn University began a three-day orientation program for its 
first clas of ASTP trainees. The university would provide these 400 men with 36 weks 
of basic course engineering instruction, consisting of three twelve-wek terms. In 
addition to the typical orientation procedures necesary to prepare the soldiers for their 
first day of clas that following Monday, the university also provided a warm welcome 
                                                
328
 Pvt. Peter H. Weidenreich, ??STARs Have Easy Life? Says the Hardened Infantryman,? Plainsman, July 
9, 1943. 
329
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 56.  
 94 
for the soldiers during a formal reception at president Duncan?s home. Under the 
leadership of the Women?s Student Government Asociation, coeds also provided the 
newcomers with hospitality.
330
  Understandably, like those sent to the STAR unit, the 
trainees reporting to the Auburn University ASTP unit quickly developed a favorable 
opinion of the campus. Acording to a Plainsman article, their general opinion was that 
?Everyone in Auburn sems to go out of their way to help the service man.?
331
     
 The faculty and staf at Auburn University whole-heartedly gave their full support 
to the program. In an evaluation conducted after the disbandment of the ASTP at Auburn 
University, Draughon would later afirm, ?This institution takes some pride in the fact 
that it gave its best facilities, a picked faculty, and its best services to the ASTP.?
332
 A 
memo from Draughon to president Duncan corroborates this asertion. Because he 
expected the trainees arriving at the STAR and ASTP units to be of exceptional intelect, 
Draughon argued that their profesors should likewise ?be of superior atainments.?
333
 In 
response, the president requested that al deans and department heads ?cooperate to the 
fullest with Mr. Draughon? regarding any personnel requests.
334
 With the commitment of 
the best resources of the university to the ASTP, the trainees also had to exert their best 
efort in order to remain in the ?tremendously intensive? program. Draughon explained 
that course work for ASTP students consumed 48 hours a wek ? as opposed to 18 hours 
for the civilian college students.
335
 In a leter to his father, one Auburn University ASTP 
                                                
330
 ?ASTP Enginering Unit Invades Auburn,? Plainsman, July 9, 1943. 
331
 ?Crosed Canon and Castles,? Plainsman, July 9, 1943. 
332
 R. B. Draughon, Criticism of ASTP, August 2, 194, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army Specialists 
Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
333
 Memorandum by R. B. Draughon, June 2, 1943, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army Specialists 
Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
334
 Memorandum by Luther Duncan, June 2, 1943, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army Specialists 
Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
335
 ?Draughon Outlines API?s Part In Al-Out War,? Plainsman, October 1, 1943. 
 95 
student confirmed that, ?We go from 8:00 in the morning ?til 8:40 at night. They realy 
slap it on you fast?I know a lot of felows have said they would rather be back in the 
infantry. I am almost inclined to think so myself.?
336
 
 The burdensome workload exacted a relatively high toll upon these soldiers, with 
approximately 50% failing during this first term.
337
 Seking a resolution to this excesive 
washout rate, Draughon explained to Colonel J. W. Harrelson, the Asistant Chief of the 
A.S.T. Branch, Fourth Service Command, that the atrition rate revealed ?the severity of 
the curriculum? and not ?the real ability of the trainees.?
338
 Perhaps due to improvements 
in the course curriculum, the second ASPT term performed much beter with 
approximately 10% flunking.
339
 Nevertheles, the performance of the Auburn University 
ASTP unit on standardized Army tests consistently distinguished the university as 
ranking among the best of al the ASTP host institutions. To ilustrate, Auburn University 
?ranked [either] first or second in chemistry among 43 colleges tested in Term 1 
curriculum?; ?[either] first or second?in Term 1 physics, mathematics, and geography?; 
and ?in Term 1 English it placed among the first three.? Over the course of four terms, 
these high marks ranked Auburn University in quality of instruction alongside 
universities such as Vanderbilt, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and Georgia Tech.
340
 This 
performance also credited Auburn University with possesing the top ASTP unit in the 
South.
341
     
                                                
336
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 229.  
337
 ?Over a Thousand ASTs Wil be In New Term; Some Leave for AAF,? Plainsman, January 7, 1944. 
338
 R. B. Draughon to Colonel J. W. Harelson, September 1, 1943, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army 
Specialists Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
339
 ?Over a Thousand ASTs Wil be In New Term; Some Leave for AAF,? Plainsman, January 7, 194. 
340
 ?ASTP Unit Remains at the Top,? Plainsman, March 17, 194. 
341
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustes, June 5, 194, box 6, file 205, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 194,? Pres. Duncan Papers.  
 96 
 In the face of an extremely burdensome academic schedule, the ASTP students 
stil managed to build close bonds with the campus community during various social 
events that they sponsored. A fine example is the variety show they presented for the 
residents of Auburn at Langdon Hal in December 1943. This was the soldiers? way of 
conveying their appreciation for the hospitality of the community.
342
 ASTP students also 
sponsored several dances, which offered them the opportunity to build amicable 
relationships with the coeds.
343
 The later might easily have been their chief priority 
alongside their military training, if this comment from the Plainsman is any indication: 
?There is another aspect about Auburn that rates very highly with the soldiers?the 
girls?Several soldiers declared that they were ?the pretiest gals we?ve sen since we?ve 
been in the Army?.?
344
 From the other perspective, one acount aserts that the women 
did not entirely fel the same way at first. The coeds did not appreciate the ASTP 
students acting ?as if they owned the place? or the ASTP formations marching to clas 
forcing the coeds out of their way. Fortunately, the ASTP soon delivered a more 
favorable impresion as they managed to fit into the campus way of life, with one female 
student stating that after a while, ?we realized the ASTs were a rather nice bunch of 
felows after al.? As a testament to the relationship betwen the ASTP and the regular 
students, the 1944 Glomerata included a 24-page section devoted to the ASTP students. 
Of course, no relationship is perfect, as this coed explained: ?We do have one complaint, 
                                                
342
 ?AST Unit to Present Show for Auburn,? Plainsman, December 10, 1943. 
343
 An Auburn Coed, ?Auburn Coed Finds ASTs ?All Right,? Plainsman, February 18, 194; ?Private?s 
Prom to Feature ?Pin-Up-Girl?,? Plainsman, March 10, 194; ?ASTs Give Bost to Saturday Night Dances 
in Gym,? Plainsman, March 28, 194. 
344
 ?Crosed Canon and Castles,? Plainsman, July 9, 1943. 
 97 
and that is we wish they wouldn?t whistle and ?eyes right? when a girl walks by, but 
maybe that?s the same as saying we wish wolves wouldn?t howl.?
345
 
 Despite the apparent succes of the Auburn University ASTP unit, in 1944 
president Duncan received a memo from the Army Chief of Staf, who explained that 
I am aware of your strong feling regarding the Army Specialized 
Training Program. However, I wish you to know that in my opinion we 
are no longer justified in holding 140,000 men in this training when it 
represents the only source from which we can obtain the required 
personnel, especialy with a certain degree of inteligence and training, 
except by disbanding already organized combat units. I recognize that it 
would be desirable, if circumstances permited, to withdraw personnel 
from the Army Specialized Training Program only as they complete 
scheduled terms of instruction; however, our need for these basicaly 
trained men is imediate and imperative.
346
 
 
Keefer outlines that the manpower crisis of 1943 precipitated the decision of the War 
Department to masively reduce the ASTP. Neding about 446,000 additional soldiers by 
the end of the year, Army leadership sought to enhance their combat strength through 
reorganizing units in such a manner as would release every unnecesary soldier for 
combat duty. The 7.7 milion-man limit that Congres had imposed on the Army 
necesitated this internal approach. By the middle of January 1944, Chief of Staf 
General Marshal learned that the European Theatre needed an extra 50,000 combat 
troops within the next couple of months.
347
 This abrupt requirement meant the Army 
could not wait for potential draftes to finish training, but they had no more replacements 
available. With no other option, on February 10, 1944 General Marshal officialy asked 
                                                
345
 An Auburn Coed, ?Auburn Coed Finds ASTs ?All Right,? Plainsman, February 18, 194. 
346
 Memorandum for the Secretary of War from the Chief of Staf, U.S. Army, February 10, 194, box 6, 
file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army Specialists Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
Emphasis in original. 
347
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 168.  
 98 
Secretary of War Stimson to disolve the ASTP.
348
 President Roosevelt approved the plan 
on February 18, 1944.
349
 
 Understandably, some members of the academic community were hardly pleased 
when the Army announced its plan to reduce the ASTP from 145,000 to 35,000 
trainees.
350
 Kefer, who was in the ASTP during World War II, aserts that much of their 
protest actualy regarded how the change might adversely afect the financial situation of 
colleges and universities, instead of expresing concern for the soldiers themselves.
351
 
For Auburn University the financial situation imposed by the loss of the government 
contract for the ASTP does not appear to have been a particularly great concern. First, the 
university had a steadily increasing rate of women students who helped to compensate for 
the men who left the university due either to the draft or to enlistment. For example, 
betwen the 1933-1934 school year and the 1942-1943 school year women enrollment 
grew from 241 to 1101. Second, the university maintained contracts to provide other 
forms of military training, such as aviation and radio training. Third, the university 
believed that of the thousands of men already discharged from the service and in the state 
at least some of them would soon enroll at Auburn.
352
 As far as the Army was concerned, 
Kefer contends that most of its leadership felt ambivalent toward the program.
353
 
General Lesley J. McNair, Commander of the Army Ground Forces, was possibly the 
most outspoken Army officer against it, believing that college training did not 
                                                
348
 Ibid., 168-169. 
349
 Ibid., 169. 
350
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 181-182; Major General J. A. Ulio to Luther Duncan, February 24, 
1944, box 6, file 215, ?Duncan, ROTC, Army Specialists Training, 1943-44,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
351
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 182.  
352
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustes, June 5, 194, box 6, file 205, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 194,? Pres. Duncan Papers.  
353
 Keefer, ?Scholars in Foxholes,? 31. 
 99 
significantly increase a soldier?s combat prowes.
354
 Kefer argues that, although wel 
intentioned, the ASTP ?was probably established more because of politics and having the 
?right people? in favor of it than because high-ranking Army personnel felt it possesed 
true military purpose.?
355
 
 On March 28, 1944, the Plainsman announced the imediate disbandment of the 
Auburn University ASTP engineer unit, which represented its largest contingent of the 
ASTP.
356
 The Plainsman staf dedicated that isue to the departing ASTP soldiers, 
alowing Private Robert L. Thompson to serve as editor. The following poem 
commemorated the ASTP participants? collective feling about the sudden news of their 
transfer: 
Say goodby [sic] to the slide rules and textbooks,  
Say goodby to the Auburn coeds and clases,  
And take one last spree 
As you finish term III, 
For you?re going right out on your??ear.  
 
It wil make litle diference to study,  
You?re just like the rest of the dupes,  
For win, lose, or draw, 
You?ll be eating it raw,  
And heading right back for the troops. 
 
The dear days at Auburn are over,  
The profs and the T-squares are gone 
So cry in your beers,  
You poor engineers,  
You?ll be digging a ditch from here on.
357
     
 
                                                
354
 Ibid., 31-33. 
355
 Ibid., 31. 
356
 Mimi Sims, ?Auburn?s ASTP Students Leave This Wek,? Plainsman, March 28, 194. 
Of note, the veterinarian unit remained at Auburn University a litle longer. The Plainsman announced its 
disbandment on June 9, 1944 in the article ?Vet ASTP Unit is Disbanded.? 
357
 ?Say Godby,? Plainsman, March 28, 194. 
 100 
The university community was likewise sorry to se them leave. President Duncan 
described ?the source of real happines? that asociating with the ASTP trainees had 
provided and stated that as part of the university war efort, ?nothing we have done in this 
entire program has given us more pleasure or real joy than to participate in your 
training.?
358
 In this edition of the Plainsman, PMS&T Colonel Waterman also expresed 
his regret over the departure of a unit that had markedly impresed him, as revealed in a 
previous statement: ?I?ve dealt with a great many young men in the last 50 years?but 
these boys are the best appearing and are more serious minded in their work than any 
with whom I have been asociated. My work with them has been a pleasure.?
359
 The rest 
of the Auburn community also received a final opportunity on March 28, 1944 to convey 
their best wishes, when the ASTP unit marched from the campus to the train station in 
companies with the Auburn Band at the lead. A Plainsman article depicted the scene as 
reminiscent of one of those tear jerkin? I?ll-be-waitin? when you-come-
marching-home-Johnny-dear movies. It would be hard to say when 
Auburn has sen such another mas exodus??or such concerted interest on 
the part of the students and townspeople.
360
 
 
 Responding in kind, an Army official later articulated his service branch?s 
tremendous appreciation for the profesional and steadfast support that Auburn 
University had extended toward the Army. Major General Uhl, Commanding General of 
the Army Service Forces Headquarters, Fourth Service Command, praised the Auburn 
University war efort, stating that,  
The Institute has been one of the main factors in the Army Specialized 
Training Program since its inception during the Spring of 1943. The 
wholehearted cooperation and asistance given the Army by the 
                                                
358
 Luther Duncan, ??A Warm Place in Our Hearts?,? Plainsman, March 28, 194. 
359
 John J. Waterman, ?It?s Ben a Pleasure, Men,? Plainsman, March 28, 194; ?Military Personalities,? 
Plainsman, February 18, 194.  
360
 Dotie Wodal, ?Band, Bikes, Dogs, Gals, Say Goodbye to AST Pals,? Plainsman, March 31, 194.  
 101 
administration heads and the faculty of the Institute has contributed 
materialy to the war efort, and merits the highest commendation.
361
 
 
The university had also distinguished itself through numerous other programs that it had 
sponsored alongside the ASTP. The following chart offers a cursory overview of the 
Auburn University war efort as of June 5, 1944:  
Civilian Pilot Training????????????????....? 378 Trainees 
Army Air Corps, Marine Corps, and Naval Aviation Training....... 1,031 Trainees 
Naval Radio Training???????????????.??. 2,725 Trainees 
Signal Corps Pre-Radar Training?????????????... 375 Trainees 
Vocational Training for War Production?????????.... 2,944 Trainees 
Engineering Science & War Management Training  
(In 28 Alabama cities)????????????????... 26,050 Trainees 
Army Specialized Training???................????????. 1,392 Trainees 
              Total?34,895 Trainees
362
 
When surveying these numbers, one might recal President Duncan?s statement on the 
day after the atack on Pearl Harbor. In his afirmation of the commitment of the 
university to contributing wholeheartedly to the war efort, Duncan had prefaced his 
asertion with the expresion, ?Of course.?
363
 Those two words speak volumes about the 
past history of the university. For Auburn University contributing to national defense was 
nothing new. As a land-grant university, the very identity of Auburn University rested 
upon military preparednes, and the integration of Army ROTC into its culture during the 
interwar years had made those preparations ubiquitous to campus life. Therefore, in 1942 
Draughon confidently boasted that ?as a result of our ROTC program we believe we have 
                                                
361
 Major General F. E. Uhl to Luther Duncan, February 26, 1945, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, 
Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
362
 Luther Duncan report to Board of Trustes, June 5, 194, box 6, file 205, ?Duncan, President?s Report 
to the Board of Trustees, 194,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
Given these numbers, one can understand why Draughon stated that, ?It is our sincere belief that no colege 
in the country has in proportion to its faculty and staf made a greater contribution to the war efort than the 
Alabama Polytechnic Institute.?  
Found in R.B. Draughon to President C. B. Hodges of Louisiana State University, October 19, 1942, box 6, 
file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
363
 ?Auburn and the War---Coments by Duncan, Draughon, Yarbrough and Alen,? Plainsman, December 
9, 1941. 
 102 
as high a percentage of officers in proportion to the number of students trained as any 
institution in the country, even including Texas A. & M.?
364
 Maintaining an annual 
commisioning rate of around one hundred ? and often larger ? for the previous ten years, 
the university had been providing a sizable contribution to national defense through its 
Army ROTC program for years before the war.
365
 This prior history of ROTC training 
provided the bulk of the contribution of the Auburn University Army ROTC advanced 
course to the war efort, while the basic course continued throughout the war to introduce 
students to Army life before they in most instances were drafted or decided to enlist. For 
this reason, the ASTP as a detachment operating under the supervision and existing 
infrastructure of ROTC represents the greatest singularly, localy displayed contribution 
of ROTC to World War II. Without its Army ROTC program, Auburn University would 
not have possesed the prerequisite relationship with the War Department necesary to 
host an ASTP unit.  
  Indeed, the history of Army ROTC at Auburn University is intimately connected 
to the history of the university itself because both entities enable the other to more 
efectively contribute to the greater good of society - regionaly and nationaly. During 
World War II, this close relationship culminated in what is arguably the finest example of 
the contribution of collegiate military training to national defense. The experience 
overwhelmingly strengthened the asociation betwen Auburn University and the Army. 
President Duncan?s statement to General Uhl near the end of the war ilustrates this 
relationship: 
                                                
364
 R.B. Draughon to President C. B. Hodges of Louisiana State University, October 19, 1942, box 6, file 
216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
365
 The sources available do not ofer a means of comparing these numbers with similarly sized land-grant 
universities; however, footnote 125 in Chapter 2 contains information that suggests what might have been 
the relative size of the Auburn University Army ROTC program.  
 103 
May I expres?the appreciation of the institution for the opportunity to 
serve and especialy for the most cordial and cooperative spirit uniformly 
maintained by the officers with whom we have dealt in carrying out this 
program. One of the real pleasures of my administration during this period 
has been the opportunity of meting these fine representatives of the 
Army?
366
 
 
Although events in the 1960s would later test the perseverance of this bond, Auburn and 
the Army through the medium of ROTC would continue to acommodate one another for 
their mutual benefit.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
366
 Luther Duncan to General F. E. Uhl, March 2, 1945, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 
1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 104 
The Decentering of ROTC  
 In the years imediately following World War II, the course of development for 
the Army ROTC program at Auburn University followed a similar patern as it did during 
the interwar years. The technology and infrastructure changed, but the fundamental 
nature of the training remained the same. Concurrently, the university developed a closer 
relationship with the War Department ? which eventualy became the Department of 
Defense ? through welcoming the establishment of Navy and Air Force ROTC. This 
chapter briefly outlines these developments, but the primary focus is the decision by the 
university leadership in 1969 to replace its compulsory ROTC training program with a 
voluntary one. This dramatic year of change for Auburn University coincided with the 
persistent national trend of universities abolishing their mandatory ROTC programs and 
paraleled the pronounced distrust that many Americans in the late 1960s ? particularly 
those on campus ? felt toward the United States military. To gain insight into the 1969 
decision that removed ROTC from the center of campus life for Auburn male students, 
this chapter examines the multifaceted nature of Auburn University?s decision to adopt a 
voluntary ROTC program, paying special atention to the national political situation 
occurring during the time of the decision, and to the many individuals connected with the 
university who contributed to the decision making proces.  
 The primary source supporting this chapter is the Auburn University records 
asociated with president Harry Philpott, which chronicle the leading role that university 
administrators played in the 1969 decision. These records in conjunction with articles 
from the Auburn Plainsman indicate that student actions opposing mandatory ROTC 
came in response to initiatives from the university profesors and administration. For 
 105 
example, an Auburn Plainsman article from May 1969 explains, ?The suggestion to 
replace the present compulsory basic two-year ROTC program with an optional one was 
first proposed by Project ?67, a university self-study.?
367
 Similarly, the Auburn University 
Student Government Asociation pased on January 13, 1969 a resolution in support of a 
voluntary ROTC program, which occurred after the January 7, 1969 appointment of the 
university ROTC Study Commite.
368
 This suggests that the faculty and staf represented 
the driving force behind the removal of mandatory ROTC at Auburn University. 
Secondary sources outline that their actions corresponded with the growing disafection 
that many university communities throughout the nation exhibited toward ROTC during 
this time as a result of American involvement in Vietnam. University records specify that 
they acted in response to the national and regional trend of land grant universities 
replacing their mandatory ROTC programs with elective programs during the 1960s. This 
chapter wil examine the international, national, and regional context of these 
developments after providing an overview of Auburn University Army ROTC from 1945 
to 1965. 
 
Auburn University Army ROTC (1945-1965) 
 
?Please be asured that it is the desire of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute that Advanced 
Course ROTC be reactivated and strengthened and that the excelent tradition of military 
training at this institution, which has played so vital a part in the lives of so many of our 
students, be continued.?
369
 
 ? Auburn University President L. N. Duncan to Commanding General, Fourth Service 
Command, November 14, 1945 
 
                                                
367
 Pat Randal, ?University Senate aproves voluntary ROTC proposal,? Auburn Plainsman, May 8, 1969. 
368
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Commite, 1969, 6, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
Memorandum by L.P. Burton, April 8, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 
1969,? Pres. Philpott Papers.  
369
 Luther Duncan to Commanding General, Fourth Service Command, November 14, 1945, box 6, file 
216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 106 
 In November 1945, Auburn University president Duncan learned that the Army 
would reactivate advanced course Army ROTC at Auburn University on January 1, 
1946.
370
 Unlike in years past, the Army would no longer represent the only officer 
training program on campus. Earlier that year, on May 3, 1945 the Navy had notified 
Duncan of their selecting Auburn University for a Naval ROTC program, which they 
planned to instate on November 1, 1945.
371
 The Navy chose Auburn University because 
of its distinguished engineering curriculum and because of its ?unusual and remarkable? 
history of supporting national defense.
372
 This later statement intimates that the 
relationship of Auburn University to Army ROTC helped create an academic 
environment conducive to Naval collegiate training. Having proven themselves during 
World War II, the Auburn University leadership was ?excedingly proud? of their 
contributions to national defense and regarded seriously their major objective of 
providing military preparednes training.
373
 This wilingnes on behalf of the university 
to acommodate fully the wishes of the military would distinctively characterize Auburn 
University until the later 1960s.    
 Other than the requirement of coordinating with other ROTC programs, the 
principle diference betwen Auburn University Army ROTC during the postwar era and 
the interwar years was the incorporation of advanced technology into the training. In 
addition to branch specific training for combat engineering and field artilery, the postwar 
program also included a curriculum for the ?Air Force, Signal Corps, and Armored 
                                                
370
 Major A. D. Sanders to Luther Duncan, November 19, 1945, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, 
Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
371
 Vice Admiral Randal Jacobs, Chief of Navy Personel to Luther Duncan, May 3, 1945, box 6, file 217, 
?Duncan, ROTC, Naval, 1945,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
372
 Luther Duncan to Judge Robt. K. Grene, November 2, 1945, box 6, file 217, ?Duncan, ROTC, Naval, 
1945,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
373
 Luther Duncan to General George Marshal, Army Chief of Staf, April 5, 1945, box 6, file 217, 
?Duncan, ROTC, Naval, 1945,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 107 
Cavalry.?
374
 For example, the cadre no longer offered instruction in horsemanship. 
Instead, they trained cadets using tanks.
375
 Army ROTC lost its Air Force program on 
July 1, 1949 when Air Force ROTC officialy became available at Auburn University as a 
result of the Army Air Corps? transformation into the United States Air Force in 1947; 
however, in 1957 Auburn University Army ROTC did introduce the Army Aviation 
Flight Training Program.
376
 
 Given the significant contribution of Army ROTC to World War II mobilization, 
the Army recognized it as ?a vital and esential source of the officer material for our 
country?s post-war armed forces,? and in 1946 the Commanding General of U.S. Army 
Ground Forces intended for postwar Army ROTC to commision officers at a higher rate 
than before the war.
377
 Simply put, the Army wanted the universities during the postwar 
years to keep doing what they had been doing before the war, but to do it beter if at al 
possible. Auburn University gradualy did fulfil this desire, albeit not always 
consistently. For a basis of comparison, recal that Auburn University commisioned 136 
                                                
374
 Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, October 1, 1948, box 25, 
?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, October 1, 1948,? Pres. Draughon Papers. 
375
 As of March 1949, the Army ROTC program had received several vehicles from the government, to 
include tanks. Se Memorandum by Colonel Geo M. Wiliamson, Jr., March 29, 1949, box 26, ?Draughon, 
ROTC, Army, 1947-59,? Pres. Draughon Papers. 
By fal of 1954, they posesed a large tank driving area, and during that same time the ROTC program 
acquired four modern M-47 medium tanks. Se respectively Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report 
to the Board of Trustees, October 2, 1954, box 25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of 
Trustes, October 2, 1954,? Pres. Draughon Papers and Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to 
the Board of Trustees, November 4, 195, box 25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of 
Trustes, November 4, 195,? Pres. Draughon Papers.  
376
 Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustees, November 4, 1949, box 25, 
?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 4, 1949,? Pres. Draughon 
Papers; John H. Napier II, ?How They Put the ?War? in War Eagle Being a Short History of the Military at 
A.P.I.,? 1958, 6, Auburn University Special Collections & Archives ? Non-circulating collection, Auburn, 
Alabama; Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957, box 
25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957,? Pres. Draughon 
Papers.  
377
 General Jacob L. Devers, Comanding General, U.S. Army Ground Forces, to Luther Duncan, June 25, 
1946, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 108 
officers in 1939, having a total cadet corps of approximately 1500.
378
 While the President 
Draughon Papers do not include the commisioning totals for the years betwen 1949 and 
1955, those records do outline that during those years the advanced program consistently 
maintained betwen 200 and 300 cadets.
379
 From this, one logicaly can asume that their 
yearly commisioning numbers averaged, at least, betwen 100 and 150 commisioned 
officers. For the 1955-1956 school year, the program commisioned 144 officers, having 
a total cadet corps of approximately 1,254.
380
 As a basis of comparison with other Army 
ROTC programs, during the 1956-1957 school year Auburn University Army ROTC 
commisioned 149 officers, making it the top officer producing program in the entire 
Third Army Area, which consisted of colleges and universities in Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Misisippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennese. The three schools 
coming closest were the Citadel with 143, Clemson Agricultural College with 124, and 
Georgia Institute of Technology with 119.
381
 
   Although the commisioning numbers sometimes did fluctuate to below interwar 
year levels, the compulsory program at Auburn University corresponded to a generaly 
                                                
378
 ?136 Cadets Receive ORC ommisions,? Plainsman, May 19, 1939; Photo Caption, Plainsman, April 
4, 1939.  
379
 See Ralph Draughon?s Official Reports to the Board of Trustees for 1949-1955, from box 25 of the Pres. 
Draughon Papers.  
380
 Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 9, 1956, box 25, 
?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 9, 1956,? Pres. Draughon 
Papers.  
381
 Chart of ROTC Units Third Army Area: Schol Year 56-57, box 25, ?ROTC, Misc., 1956-57,? Pres. 
Draughon Papers. 
For a further basis of comparison, the University of Alabama comisioned 81, ranking 6
th
 in the Third 
Army Area. 
Also, for those interested, these 149 from Auburn University were comisioned during a schol year 
when ?net resident enrolment? for the university consisted of 834 men and 2486 women. For more 
information se Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957, 
box 25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, November 1, 1957,? Pres. 
Draughon Papers.   
 109 
high rate of commisioned officers.
382
 At the same time that Auburn University Army 
ROTC was noticeably increasing, on the national level students were becoming 
increasingly disafected with collegiate military training. As a result, in 1964 Congres 
pased the Vitalization Act. A noteworthy development in ROTC afairs, the Department 
of Defense designed it in an atempt to raise the annual number of officers commisioned 
through ROTC.
383
 Congres approved the act in hopes of counteracting the increasing 
trend of universities rejecting mandatory ROTC, and of making up the recent shortfals in 
the production of commisioned officers.
384
 Nevertheles, implementation of the action 
coincided with the gradualy increasing unease that many Americans felt regarding the 
conflict in Vietnam, which negated some of its intended afects.
385
 
 
Auburn University Army ROTC (1965-1974) 
?February 27, 1969, this commite voted six to one, to recommend that Auburn 
University adopt a voluntary basic ROTC program. [Among] the primary factors 
influencing the decision were?A recognition that Auburn University is one of a smal 
number of major institutions, even land-grant institutions, which has not responded to a 
trend, begun in 1923 but acelerating with surprising rapidity during the last six years, 
away from compulsory to voluntary basic ROTC.?
 386
 
 ? Report of the ROTC Study Commite, Auburn University 
 
 American involvement in the Vietnam War, and its resulting political and social 
upheaval, provides the international and national context for understanding the national 
                                                
382
 For examples of fluctuations se Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, 
October 6, 1961, box 25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustees, October 6, 
1961,? Pres. Draughon Papers and Ralph Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustes, 
November 9, 1962, box 25, ?Draughon, President?s Oficial Report to the Board of Trustees, November 9, 
1962,? Pres. Draughon Papers. Ironically, during these two years of lower comisioning numbers, the 
cadet corps simultaneously experienced a dramatic increase, as noted in those two reports.  
383
 Michael S. Neiberg, Making Citizen-Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service 
(Cambridge, Mas: Harvard University Pres, 2000), 85. 
384
 Arthur T. Coumbe and Le S. Harford, U.S. Army Cadet Comand: The 10 Year History (Fort Monroe, 
Va: Office of the Comand Historian, U.S. Army Cadet Comand), 196, 221. 
385
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 86. 
386
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Commite, 1969, 1-2, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 110 
and regional developments occurring at numerous universities concerning their ROTC 
programs that facilitated the controversy over Auburn University?s mandatory ROTC 
program. Growing discontent over the American military?s engagement in Southeast Asia 
eventualy manifested itself on university campuses and began to adversely efect the 
ROTC program as a whole. ROTC units were the most visible and acesible example of 
the American military available to students, and for on campus anti-war activists those 
units were logical targets.
387
 The Tet Ofensive of 1968 proved a major turning point in 
American opinions about the war, with public support for U.S. military involvement in 
Vietnam plummeting. This period provides evidence of a large shift on many campuses 
in student opinions toward ROTC.
388
 Traditionaly at many colleges and universities 
ROTC had been a respected part of campus life, but that began to change after early 
1968.
389
 For example, at one university the hatred toward ROTC was so intense that the 
ROTC personnel wore civilian clothes when walking from their cars to their building and 
then changed into their uniforms once inside.
390
 The Students for a Democratic Society 
(SDS) were perhaps the most notable organization that helped lead the charge against 
ROTC on university campuses. As conveyed in one of their directives, the SDS believed 
that, ?a nationwide atack against ROTC would severely hurt the military.?
391
 Disidents 
launched an incredible number of such atacks during the 1969-1970 school year. A U.S. 
News and World Report article from 1970 compiled the number of on-campus incidents 
that ROTC personnel considered significant enough to warrant a report to the Pentagon, 
                                                
387
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 33. 
388
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 113. 
389
 Ibid., 113-116. 
390
 John Hepler, ??.Cripled, Defeated, and Silenced?: A Professor Views the National 
Dangers Posed by Mindles Attacks on the ROTC,? Army Magazine, September 1969, 24. 
The author did not state the name of the university.    
391
 Keneth Y. Tomlinson, ?ROTC Under Atack,? Reader?s Digest, November, 1969, 234. 
 111 
and the article calculated that seventy-six college ROTC units suffered 145 ?atacks 
resulting in property damage or personal injury;? seventy-three atempts ?to burn or blow 
up buildings provided by the schools for ROTC use;? and sixty-seven counts of 
vandalism at ROTC offices. These statistics marked a notable increase from the pre-Tet 
Ofensive demonstrations that had produced, ?a total of 95 anti-ROTC incidents of al 
kinds recorded by the Pentagon in 1968-69, including 20 atempts to destroy buildings by 
fire or bombs.?
392
   
 At some universities during this time, the campus movements directed toward 
ROTC sought not the abolition of ROTC but the establishment of an elective program. 
As outlined in chapter 2, this particular movement began in 1923, but an official 
statement isued from the Department of Defense reinvigorated it.
393
 During 1960 the 
Department of Defense in a leter to the presidents of colleges and universities, as a point 
of clarification, explained that the department was ambivalent about the isue of 
mandatory versus compulsory ROTC, preferring that the administration at each 
university decide which option to pursue.
394
 That same year the Asistant Secretary of 
Defense, Charles C. Finucane, similarly stated that, ?Compulsory Basic ROTC is not 
needed to met quality standards nor is it needed to produce the number of officers 
required.?
395
 In a memorandum sent to the Auburn University Board of Trustes in May 
1969, Auburn University President Harry Philpott atributed the announcement of this 
policy as the chief reason why state universities and land-grant colleges began adopting 
                                                
392
 Behind the Drive to Destroy ROTC,? U.S. News and World Report, June 26, 1970, 20.  
393
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 7-8, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
394
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 8, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
395
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 7, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 112 
elective ROTC programs.
396
 As an example of the change, an official Auburn university 
commite learned that in 1963 fifty-one out of the sixty-eight land-grant universities 
maintained a compulsory program, but in 1969 only fiften stil possesed compulsory 
programs.
397
 To compare this with al college ROTC programs in the nation, for the 
1968-1969 school year, only one-third mandated ROTC; ten years prior, two-thirds of 
them had mandated it.
398
 Additionaly, by 1969 Texas A & M and Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute ? universities with exceptionaly distinguished military traditions ? had removed 
their mandatory ROTC curriculum. As of April 1969, three more universities were also in 
the proces of reevaluating whether or not to maintain mandatory ROTC.
399
      
 Around July 1967, the growing trend against compulsory ROTC began to afect 
Auburn University. Unlike some universities that sought to expel ROTC from their 
campuses entirely, the debate over Auburn University?s ROTC program consistently 
centered on whether or not the university should stil require male students to complete 
the ROTC basic course. In 1967 an Auburn University self-study report, known as 
?Project ?67,? proposed that the university adopt a voluntary ROTC program but not do 
so imediately ?in view of the present world situation.?
400
 Nevertheles, the ongoing 
                                                
396
 Memorandum by Hary M. Philpot, May 28, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory 
Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpott Papers. 
397
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 11-12, box 
46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
These fiften universities were ?Auburn University, Misisipi State University, Clemson University, 
South Carolina State University, University of Tenese at Martin, Agricultural Mechanical and Normal 
Colege, University of Arkansas, Louisiana State University & A & M Colege, Cameron State Agriculture 
Colege, Southern University and & A & M College, Panhandle State College of A & AS, Prairie View A 
& M Colege, Lincoln University, South Dakota State University, [and] University of Nevada.? 
398
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 11, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
Note: the total number of coleges with ROTC programs for 1968-1969 was 268. 
399
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comittee, 1969, 12, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
These thre were ?the University of Misisipi, Misisipi State, and the University of Arkansas.? 
400
 Pat Randal, ?University Senate aproves voluntary ROTC proposal,? Auburn Plainsman, May 8, 1969. 
 113 
movement in favor of elective ROTC eventualy prompted Auburn University?s Vice 
President for Academic Afairs, W.S. Bailey, to appoint an official commite composed 
of administrators, faculty, and students to examine the isue.
401
 In the January 7, 1969 
memorandum that he sent notifying individuals on their appointment to the ROTC Study 
Commite, he offered an interesting rationale for why the topic rated a formal 
commite.
402
 Downplaying the interest of faculty members concerning ROTC on 
campus, he posited that the debate had ? been the subject of considerable 
discussion?among students and, to some extent, faculty groups.? Upon task completion, 
the commite would submit a concluding report to the University Senate by means of its 
Curriculum Commite. Afterward, the university president, Harry M. Philpott, would 
consider whether or not to approve the recommendations of the report.
403
 
 Several months later in 1969, Philpott explained to the members of the Board of 
Trustes the situation that had prompted the establishment of the ROTC Study 
Commite. Referring to the isue as ?particularly troublesome,? Philpott stated his 
partiality toward a compulsory ROTC program but expresed that,  
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that without backing for this position 
from the Department of Defense, with the fact that almost al of the major land-
grant colleges and state universities have moved to a voluntary program, and with 
a clear majority of our students and faculty favoring such a move, I fel that I 
must concur?  
 
Preserving mandatory ROTC at Auburn University had not presented a problem for 
Philpott as long as universities in the surrounding region maintained such programs. 
                                                
401
 Given the sources available, the identify of the original person or persons who inspired Bailey to take 
this action is unknown.  
402
 Memorandum by L.P. Burton, April 8, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 
1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers; Memorandum by W.S. Bailey, January 7, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC - General 
1969-77,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
403
 Memorandum by W.S. Bailey, January 7, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC - General 1969-77,? Pres. Philpot 
Papers. 
 114 
Although the Auburn University administration was under litle presure to change its 
ROTC program after the University of Alabama removed mandatory ROTC in 1966, the 
isue became an important topic on the Auburn campus after ?Tennese, Georgia, and 
Florida? adopted voluntary programs.
404
 Philpott also atributed the recent elimination of 
compulsory ROTC at Texas A & M and Clemson as the most significant impetus behind 
faculty and student advocacy for a voluntary program.
405
    
 While the Auburn University ROTC Study Commite was considering the isue 
of mandatory ROTC, the Department of Defense was also reevaluating ROTC.
406
 Elected 
in 1968, President Richard Nixon supported abolition of the draft, which alarmed many 
individuals within his administration because the draft provided a substantial incentive 
for participation in ROTC.
407
 Responding to a recommendation from the Asociation of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, this new concern ? coupled with the growing 
turbulence on college campuses concerning ROTC ? compeled Secretary of Defense 
Melvin Laird to appoint the Special Commite on ROTC, which he tasked with 
reasesing the nation?s ROTC program in order to determine the best means of 
improving the reputation of ROTC within the academic community and the 
responsivenes of ROTC to student needs.
408
 The Special Commite on ROTC would 
                                                
404
 Philpot did not specific the proper names of these universities. 
405
 Memorandum by Hary M. Philpot, May 28, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory 
Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
Of note, the Board of Trustes for Clemson decided in March 1969 to implement a voluntary program, 
beginning during the 1969-1970 school year. Like Texas A & M, Clemson had a widely recognized 
reputation because of its military tradition. Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University 
ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 1, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. 
Philpot Papers. 
406
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 33-34. 
407
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 130. 
408
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 33; Roger T. Kelley to presidents of ROTC host institutions, 
September 15, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. 
Philpot Papers. 
 115 
then offer its suggestions to the Department of Defense.
409
 Of note, the Department of 
Defense had since 1949 maintained an advisory panel on ROTC education, which 
submited reports to both the Asistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve 
Afairs and to the Reserve Forces Policy Board. This panel already exhibited its 
significant influence when the Department of Defense incorporated into the 
Revitalization Act of 1964 some of the major policy changes that they proposed.
410
 A 
member of this panel, George Benson, chaired the Special Commite on ROTC, and the 
special commite eventualy acquired the informal title, ?Benson Commite.?
411
 Among 
his many qualifications to chair the commite, Benson had been president of Claremont 
Men?s College since 1946 and also a member of the ROTC Advisory Panel of the 
Army.
412
 Several academics from Ivy League universities as wel as high-ranking 
military personnel served on the commite.
413
 Acording to a Department of Defense 
news release, the commite?s official purpose was ?to appraise the interrelationships of 
the ROTC programs of the Services, and their relations to university faculties, students, 
and administrators.? Holding its first meting in early July, the Department of Defense 
hoped that the Special Commite on ROTC would be ready to submit its final report 
before universities began the fal semester.
414
 
                                                
409
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 33.  
410
 Roger T. Keley to presidents of coleges and universities having ROTC units and to profesors of 
military science, naval science, and aerospace studies, July 8, 1969, box 45, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Army 
1969-70,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
411
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 130. 
412
 Roger T. Keley to presidents of ROTC host institutions, September 15, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, 
ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
413
 U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary Laird Authorizes Establishment of Comite to Apraise 
ROTC Programs, Melvin Laird, June 25, 1969, News Release from the Ofice of Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Public Affairs), box 45, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Army 1969-70,? Pres. Philpot Papers; Neiberg, 
?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 130. 
414
 U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary Laird Authorizes Establishment of Comittee to Apraise 
ROTC Programs, Melvin Laird, June 25, 1969, News Release from the Ofice of Asistant Secretary of 
Defense (Public Affairs), box 45, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Army 1969-70,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 116 
 In examining the debate over mandatory ROTC on the Auburn University 
campus, one cannot overlook the supporting role played by Bil Nichols, Alabama?s 
Fourth District member of the House of Representatives. Nichols possesed close ties to 
Auburn University, where he had earned his bachelor and masters degrees.
415
 
Commisioning from Auburn University as an Army officer, he served with distinction 
during World War II, earning the Bronze Star. Nichols also received the Purple Heart 
after a land mine blew off one of his legs.
416
 In 1947 he retired from the Army as a 
Captain.
417
 Later, he served on the Auburn University Executive Commite and as a 
member of its Board of Trustes.
418
 In fulfiling his duties to the university, he regularly 
used his connections in Washington D.C. to aid the university in whatever manner 
appropriate. 
 Nichols? main contribution to resolving the ROTC controversy were his actions to 
ensure that Auburn University?s Executive Commite and Board of Trustes possesed 
as much helpful information as possible concerning the mater, such as by forwarding to 
members of the Executive Commite copies of a relevant article that he found from 
                                                
415
 ?Rep. Bil Nichols, 70; Led Pentagon Inquiry,? New York Times, December 14, 1988; Auburn 
University Special Colections & Archives, ?Guide to the Wiliam F. Nichols 
Papers, RG 194,? Auburn University, htp:/ww.lib.auburn.edu/archive/ find-aid/194.htm (accessed 
December 5, 2012). 
416
 Bil Nichols to Roger T. Keley, October 20, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers; ?Rep. Bil Nichols, 70; Led Pentagon Inquiry,? New 
York Times, December 14, 198; Auburn University Special Colections & Archives, ?Guide to the 
Wiliam F. Nichols 
Papers, RG 194,? Auburn University, htp:/ww.lib.auburn.edu/archive/ find-aid/194.htm (accessed 
December 5, 2012). 
417
 Auburn University Special Colections & Archives, ?Guide to the Wiliam F. Nichols Papers, RG 194,? 
Auburn University, htp:/www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/ find-aid/194.htm (accessed December 5, 2012). 
418
 Bil Nichols to Roberts. H. Brown, October 25, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers; Bil Nichols to Roger T. Keley, October 20, 1969, 
box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 117 
Army Magazine.
419
 More importantly, Nichols kept them abreast of what he learned from 
his communications with Benson ? chairman of the Special Commite on ROTC ? and 
Roger T. Keley ? Asistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Afairs) for the 
Department of Defense. Benson provided Nichols with especialy salient information. 
Regarding the steady trend of universities eliminating their mandatory ROTC programs, 
Benson wrote that of the 360 universities with ROTC on campus, by the fal 1969 only 
fifty stil possesed mandatory programs. He also outlined that,  
the officers of the services have pointed out?three advantages of 
voluntary basic ROTC: 1. It requires les regular service personnel for 
instruction. 2. It is les of an irritant on campus. 3. Experience has 
indicated that we probably get more officers from a voluntary unit which 
has a higher esprit de corps. The disadvantages of voluntary basic ROTC 
are: 1. Les students have the advantage of having some contact with the 
military. 2. There probably are some potential officers who would not 
come into contact with a strictly volunter ROTC.
420
   
 
In a leter to the chairman of the Auburn University Executive Commite, Roberts H. 
Brown, Nichols further disclosed what he had learned from Benson, describing an 
important distinction betwen the various branches regarding the topic of mandatory 
ROTC. During this time, the Navy operated a highly selective voluntary ROTC program 
and the Air Force tended for financial reasons to favor a voluntary program.
421
 In 
contrast, the Army ?being an old line service? with a high level of dependency upon 
ROTC for producing officers, generaly preferred a mandatory ROTC program because it 
                                                
419
 Bil Nichols to Hary M. Philpot, October 20, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. For anyone interested, the article was John Hepler?s 
??.Cripled, Defeated, and Silenced?: A Profesor Views the National Dangers Posed by Mindles Atacks 
on the ROTC? from the September 1969 isue of Army Magazine.  
420
 George C. S. Benson to Bil Nichols, October 23, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
421
 From the context of the source, ?Navy? apears to refer to the Department of the Navy and would, 
therefore, include Marine ROTC training. 
 118 
offered military training to a large number of individuals who could be mobilized during 
a national emergency.
422
 
 Additionaly, Nichols relayed to Philpott the findings of Congresional 
?Subcommite No. 2,? which had investigated the ROTC controversy and submited a 
report to the Armed Services Commite. The subcommite highlighted two particularly 
important findings. First, many individuals at universities objected to applying the term 
?profesor? to Profesors of Military Science since ROTC personnel did not have to 
?earn? that title in the same way as regular profesors. Second, a significant number of 
people objected to seing cadets wear uniforms and conduct dril on campus.
423
      
 On April 18, 1969, L.P. Burton, Chairman of the Auburn University ROTC Study 
Commite, submited the commite report to Bailey, who then forwarded it to the 
Curriculum Commite of the Auburn University Faculty Senate.
424
 The report contained 
the rationale undergirding the recommendations of the commite members who, during 
their fourth meting on February 27, 1969, voted six to one in favor of a voluntary ROTC 
program.
425
 Through a brief discussion within the report, the commite explained the 
perspective and methodology that produced the majority opinion. They explained that no 
bias against ROTC tainted their deliberations, but rather every member acknowledged the 
crucial worth of ROTC to national defense. 
 The report presented three recommendations for university action, stating 
                                                
422
 Bil Nichols to Roberts. H. Brown, October 25, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
423
 Bil Nichols to Hary M. Philpot, August 7, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory 
Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
Words in quotation marks are the precise language of the comite. 
424
 Memorandum by L.P. Burton, April 8, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 
1969,? Philpott Papers. 
425
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 1, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers.  
 119 
we admit to the value of two of the main themes of ROTC instruction: (1) the 
need for students to understand the concept of ?force? as it relates to the National 
defense; and (2) the need for students to understand the advantages of a 
predominantly ?citizens? as opposed to a ?profesional? military establishment.
426
 
 
Nevertheles, the majority opinion expresed their overriding belief that the students 
?should and do develop proper value judgments toward the military establishment 
through their academic work and general reading.?
427
 The commite?s seven weks of 
research involved activities such as visiting the University of Tennese and the Georgia 
Institute of Technology which had both recently switched to a voluntary program, 
examining the reports of other universities that had investigated the mater, discussing the 
mater with Army ROTC command level staf, and deliberating upon secondary sources 
like newspapers and magazine articles.
428
   
 The first recommendation of the ROTC Study Commite was for the 
implementation of a voluntary ROTC program.
429
 They believed that this change would 
best serve the ?dignity? of male students through enabling them to ases their own 
personality in regard to the military before exercising their choice on the mater. 
Resulting from extensive research into outcomes at other universities that had eliminated 
mandatory ROTC, their belief that a voluntary system would enhance the quality of 
cadets while stil producing a sufficient number of commisioned officers was the other 
critical element supporting this first recommendation.
430
 Their ?conviction? was that 
                                                
426
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Commite, 1969, 3, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
427
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 3-4, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpott Papers. 
428
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 4-5, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
429
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 1, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
430
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 1-2, 4-5, 7, 
9-10, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 120 
?with continued support from the University faculty and administration, a voluntary 
ROTC program at Auburn University wil produce each year, as it has at many other 
institutions, an appropriate number of high-caliber commisioned officers.?
431
 
Department of Defense ambivalence on the isue further supported their argument, with 
the report explaining that neither Congres nor the Department of Defense ?find it 
necesary to require or even encourage compulsory ROTC programs.?
432
 In the opinion 
of the ROTC Study Commite, the change would yield no ?adverse efect? on either 
Auburn?s ROTC units or Auburn?s students; this reflected ?the confidence of the 
Commite in Auburn students.? Furthermore, in the past six years many other colleges 
and universities of the same caliber and size as Auburn University had already eliminated 
their compulsory ROTC programs - including southern land-grant universities with 
longstanding military traditions; thus, the commite likewise desired to correspond to 
this new norm among academic institutions. The commite?s second recommendation 
simply reafirmed that the standard course credits toward graduation should stil apply for 
completing the ROTC basic course.
433
 For the third recommendation, the commite 
requested that the university incorporate a voluntary program as quickly as possible.
434
    
 In defense of their recommendations, the ROTC Study Commite referenced 
several diferent sources. The leading evidence they cited in support of the first 
                                                
431
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 1, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
432
 This may have ben true in the past; however, Nieberg quotes Melvin Laird from an April 30, 1969 
news article in which the recently appointed Secretary of Defense stated, ?We are not prepared to se the 
ROTC program degraded in any way.? ?Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 138. 
Of note, Assistant Profesor of Military Science, Lieutenant Colonel George B. Anderson, in the minority 
report for the Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, cited a similar quote from Secretary Laird - as 
revealed later in this chapter.  
433
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Commite, 1969, 2, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
434
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 3, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 121 
recommendation was a resolution pased by the Auburn University Student Senate on 
January 13, 1969, which asked that ?the newly formed ROTC commite recommend to 
the University Senate Curriculum Commite that ROTC be placed on a voluntary basis.? 
Acording to the resolution, the following points expresed the feling among Auburn 
University students concerning mandatory ROTC: ?(1) It is of questionable academic, 
spiritual, physical or mental value, hence incongruent with the rest of the University 
curriculum. (2) It is often an unnecesary drain of a student?s time and government?s 
resources.?
435
 The ROTC Study Commite further buttresed their asertions with quotes 
from the findings of a research project that a commite of the Louisiana State University 
(LSU) Student Government Asociation conducted concerning the controversy of 
mandatory versus voluntary ROTC.
436
 Near the end of the report, the commite 
extensively cited Lieutenant Colonel Morgan J. Cronin, Executive Secretary of the Army 
Advisory Panel on ROTC afairs, who had writen to LSU?s president on October 25, 
1968 about the isue. When asked what might be the outcome of adopting a voluntary 
ROTC program, Cronin emphasized the multifaceted nature of any outcome; the results 
would rest upon factors such as ?student-faculty disidence? and the levels of ideological 
support for the program from the entire university community. Referencing the chief 
question of the ROTC Study Commite, Cronin wrote: 
If it is the character of the school to support a strong defense establishment, instil 
citizenship and adhere to traditions that hold military training as an integral part 
of the curriculum, the compulsory course is defensible and probably desirable. 
                                                
435
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 6, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
436
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Commite, 1969, 8-9, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 122 
However, if the philosophy recognizes and encourages the student to make his 
own commitment the mater of compulsory ROTC is les defensible.
437
 
 
Regarding these two characterizations, Auburn University appears to have been amidst a 
transformation from one to the other. Although the former statement certainly 
characterized the history of the university from the 1910s to the 1950s, the later 
statement more closely corresponds to the rationale exhibited in the majority opinion of 
the ROTC Study Commite.
438
    
 Appendix A of the ROTC Study Commite report contained Auburn University 
student Robert C. Hicks? opinion on the mater. One of two students represented on the 
commite, he was moreover a cadet captain in Air Force ROTC. In his remarks, he 
confesed that at the time of his appointment to the commite he whole-heartedly 
supported mandatory ROTC. He believed that ROTC efectively introduced students to 
military life in a fashion that enabled them to objectively decide whether or not to pursue 
the advanced program. For him, the ability of ROTC to build student character proved 
another valuable aset. Hicks also postulated that ROTC at Auburn University 
significantly correlated with ?the traditional conservative atmosphere that surrounds the 
Auburn campus? and that, ?With compulsory ROTC abolished, this atmosphere would 
gradualy disappear and be replaced with the current ultra-liberal atmosphere of some of 
the campuses on the West Coast.? From his perspective, the majority of the on campus 
                                                
437
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 10, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
438
 For example, regarding the former sentence in Cronin?s statement, Auburn University clearly exhibited 
this characteristic as exemplified by the following statement from 1945: ?The record of our students in this 
war more than justifies the serious maner in which the program has ben handled here?We feel?that the 
very system of self-responsibility and initiative which we have encouraged here in conection with our 
regular [compulsory] ROTC program has contributed much to the qualifications of the several thousand 
students of this institution who are now comissioned oficers in every branch of the armed forces.? R. B. 
Draughon to President F. D. Paterson of Tuskege Institute, February 12, 1945, box 6, file 216, ?Duncan, 
ROTC, Miscelaneous, 1940-47,? Pres. Duncan Papers. 
 123 
opposition to voluntary ROTC appeared comparable to ?the hippies which are prominent 
on the West Coast.?
 439
 Nevertheles, based on the reports of other universities that 
eliminated mandatory ROTC, he determined that participation in basic ROTC after the 
change had ?not dropped a great deal.? He observed no dificulties in those universities? 
ROTC programs ataining their quotas for commisioning officers. Like others, he 
concluded that a voluntary program enhanced ROTC units since only motivated students 
enrolled.
440
 In his final words of advice, Hick?s warned that if Auburn University 
implemented the commite?s recommendations, then the ROTC programs would require 
increased recruiting and the university would need to exercise greater vigilance over male 
students and the general campus environment as a result of the loss of military 
discipline.
441
 He also recommended that upon adoption of the new program the university 
completely cooperate with the ROTC unit in order not to ?cause any more interference 
with students? choices to get into the program than?absolutely necesary.?
442
    
 Lieutenant Colonel George B. Anderson, Asistant Profesor of Military Science 
and member of the ROTC Study Commite, authored the commite?s minority report. 
He stresed the vital responsibility of ROTC in providing the increased number of 
commisioned officers required due to the Vietnam War, believing that ?It is esential to 
our national security that an efective ROTC program be maintained.? Employing the 
traditional defense of collegiate military training, Anderson additionaly cited several 
character and civic benefits students acquired through ROTC. He argued that a 
                                                
439
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 13, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
440
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 14, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
441
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 14-15, box 
46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
442
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 14, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 124 
compulsory program alowed students first-hand experience through which to acurately 
determine whether ROTC was worth pursuing, and such a program also instiled a sense 
of patriotism in those students. Thus, he maintained that, ?The advantages derived from 
the required program outweigh, by far, the imposition the program places on the 
university facilities or the students? time.?
443
 While the majority report correctly 
described the Department of Defense?s posture concerning mandatory ROTC, Anderson 
clarified that the new Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird, was alarmed by the recent 
downward trend in ROTC afairs. He quoted Laird as stating that, ?The ROTC program 
is esential in producing a major portion of the Commisioned Oficers and future leaders 
for our Armed Forces.?
444
 As a result, Anderson wrote, ?I cannot conscientiously support 
the recommendation of the Study Commite.?
445
       
 Given the longstanding, intimate asociation betwen Auburn University and its 
Army ROTC program, no investigation of this isue could be complete without learning 
what the Profesor of Military Science (PMS) thought about the findings of the ROTC 
Study Commite.
446
 His opinion was especialy important since the efects of adopting a 
voluntary program would adversely afect Army ROTC disproportionaly more than the 
other branches, which might experience litle or no significant change. PMS Colonel 
Andrew W. LaMar, Jr., provided historians with an excelent record of his thoughts on 
the mater. Scheduled to present his views before a Faculty Senate meting on May 6, 
1969, a debilitating leg injury left him unable to atend. Instead, LaMar articulated his 
                                                
443
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 17, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers 
444
 Neiberg, ?Making Citizen-Soldiers,? 138: Neiberg cites a similar quote from Laird, which states, ?We 
are not prepared to see the ROTC program degraded in any way.?  
445
 Report of the ROTC Study Comite, Auburn University ROTC Study Comite, 1969, 18, box 46, 
file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
446
 Only heads of Army ROTC units poses the title ?Profesor of Military Science.? The other service 
branches use a diferent term to designate a ROTC unit?s highest-ranking oficer.  
 125 
beliefs in a short esay that he forwarded to the meting in his absence.
447
 He approached 
the isue not just from the position of PMS but also from his background as an Auburn 
University alumnus and the parent of an Auburn University student.
448
 LaMar prefaced 
his remarks by strongly emphasizing that his opinions were completely his own and not 
intended to reflect in any way the views of the Department of the Army.
449
 
 LaMar began his critique of the ROTC Study Commite?s report with his belief 
that it was overal ?a very fine report? but overlooked two important aspects of the 
mater. First, the report inclined readers to believe that the personnel at universities who 
had switched from mandatory to voluntary were pleased with the results; LaMar 
cautioned that a significant number of individuals at those universities would rather 
return to a mandatory program. Second, he believed that any change in the program must 
sek the advice and approval of alumni and parents since Auburn University was ?a state 
supported institution, existing mainly to serve the people of Alabama.? LaMar believed 
that ignoring their opinions in the commite?s final report was a critical error.
450
 
 Entering into the mix of difering opinions, LaMar presented his own thoughts on 
the potential merits of a voluntary program. He agreed that the benefits would include 
?beter motivated? cadets, a ?more flexible and meaningful? system of teaching 
leadership and dril, a diminished financial burden, and ?elimination of student 
gripes?and possible future unrest.? Regarding the latter benefit, LaMar aserted that at 
                                                
447
 Memorandum by George B. Anderson, May 2, 1969, box 46, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Voluntary-
Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
448
 Lamar entered as a student in 1941 but did not graduate from Auburn University due to his apointment 
to West Point in 1943; however, he maintained close ties to the university for the rest of his life. Guy 
Rhodes, ?La Mar - ?and here I am again?,? Auburn Plainsman, October 27, 1968.   
449
 Andrew W. LaMar, 1969, esay presented at Auburn University Faculty Senate, Auburn, AL, 6 May 
1969, box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers.  
450
 Andrew. W. LaMar, 1969, esay presented at Auburn University Faculty Senate, Auburn, AL, 6 May 
1969, box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers.  
 126 
present the students were generaly ambivalent about whether or not to enact a voluntary 
program. Although told upon becoming PMS at Auburn University in the fal of 1968 
that mandatory ROTC represented ?the ?burning? isue on?campus,? his personal 
experience with the mater supported the opposite conclusion. He gave the example of his 
atending a public, campus forum that the ROTC Study Commite organized in order to 
elicit student input in their investigation. Of the twenty in atendance, ?four?girls, 
six?cadets, four?faculty, and six other? were present, and of these ?others,? several 
?were the long hair, far left types.? LaMar judged the situation to comprise nothing more 
than another ?example of the smal disident groups prevalent on campus? today, pushing 
for elimination of many policies and proven establishments.?
451
 
 LaMar believed that Auburn University should continue with mandatory ROTC. 
In his opinion, ROTC trained students in important life skils such as ?self-discipline, 
bearing, and good appearance,? which would enhance their succes no mater what career 
they chose. Additionaly, LaMar extolled ROTC?s inculcation of the American values of 
?patriotism and citizenship? as an excelent advantage to students. Like Lieutenant 
Colonel Anderson, LaMar similarly couched his support of mandatory ROTC in terms of 
preserving student choice, arguing that the university?s requiring al male students to 
participate in the program enabled those students to gain ?first hand information and 
experience? from which to knowledgably decide whether they wanted to pursue a 
commision. To support his point, Lamar explained that the Auburn University Army 
ROTC cadre had asked their senior cadets ?if they would have enrolled in ROTC if it had 
been elective when they were freshmen. Fifty percent said they would not have taken 
                                                
451
 Andrew. W. LaMar, 1969, esay presented at Auburn University Faculty Senate, Auburn, AL, 6 May 
1969, box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 127 
ROTC.? He finished supporting his arguments with a lengthy pasage from John Locke?s 
?Freedom Related to Reason.? The quotation argued that freedom without knowledge or 
discernment reduces someone to a status below that of ?brutes?; hence, young people 
should submit to their guardians until capable of making wise decisions on their own.  
Lamar closed his remarks with the ?undisputable fact? that ?Whatever the decision is on 
our basic ROTC, I and my staf wil support this decision one hundred percent.?
452
       
 Within the period that the ROTC Study Commite members were conducting 
their research and imediately after they revealed their findings, several Auburn 
University profesors wrote leters to Philpott expresing their own opinions regarding 
the debate.
453
 These leters yield a glimpse into what might have been the overal 
consensus among profesors. Aserting themselves in the face of what one profesor 
labeled as ?patently absurd charges of lack of patriotism,? the vast majority of these 
leters promoted the adoption of a voluntary ROTC program.
454
 On an interesting note, 
profesors from the History Department acount for most of these leters. Of the twelve 
leters in this file from profesors regarding the debate, eight came from members of the 
History Department. Overal, several general themes emerge. A few of the profesors 
emphasized the benefits that ROTC would enjoy through a voluntary program since only 
motivated, interested students would participate, thereby improving cadet morale.
455
 
Other profesors invoked the need to conform to modern trends, remarking that most 
land-grant universities no longer mandated ROTC participation and that even the federal 
                                                
452
 Andrew W. LaMar, 1969, esay presented at Auburn University Faculty Senate, Auburn, AL, 6 May 
1969, box 46, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
453
 The leters discused here came from box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory Controversy 1969,? 
Pres. Philpot Papers. 
454
 Robert R. Rea to Hary M. Philpot, May 21, 1969.  
455
 Robert R. Rea to Hary . Philpot, May 21, 1969; W. Harold Mon to Hary M. Philpot, May 29, 
1969; Brit. A. Storey to Hary M. Philpott, May 23, 1969. 
 128 
government was gradualy shifting away from mandating military service through the 
draft.
456
 Moreover, others aserted the overriding responsibility of protecting the 
academic, political, and social freedom of students, which precluded compulsory 
ROTC.
457
 For example, Asociate Profesor of History, Edward C. Wiliamson argued 
that, ?The right to disent is a precious right in any society, a must in a democratic 
society. Such a right is violated by the concept of compulsory ROTC insofar as the 
student is concerned.? He wrote this statement from the perspective of someone who had 
been ?in the reserve? for thirty years and who had served in two wars.
458
 President 
Philpott subsequently forwarded to each member of the Board of Trustes a copy of 
every leter he received from faculty and staf concerning the debate.
459
  
 On April 14, 1969 the Curriculum Commite of the Auburn University Faculty 
Senate unanimously approved the ROTC Study Commite report. The next step was for 
the Faculty Senate to discuss the report. Clarence Scarsbrook, the Faculty Senate 
president-elect who would preside over the deliberations, explained, ?The report wil not 
be delayed by the senate?We wil consider the report at our May 6 meting?If 
necesary we wil hold a special meting in May to act on the recommendation and pas 
it on to President Philpott.? When asked whether or not he personaly approved of the 
recommendation, Philpott refused to comment, explaining that he did not wish to 
potentialy influence the outcome of the senate vote. He did state, however, that, ?If the 
proposal for voluntary ROTC is not approved by the senate, there wil be no need to 
                                                
456
 W.C. Sug to Hary M. Philpot, May 28, 1969; Wiliam H. Maehl to Hary M. Philpott, May 21, 1969; 
Chester W. Hartwig to Philpot, May 29, 1969 
457
 Wiliam H. Maehl to Hary . Philpot, May 21, 1969; Edward C. Wiliamson to Hary M. Philpot, 
May 2, 1969; W.C. Sug to Hary M. Philpot, May 28, 1969; Chester W. Hartwig to Philpot, May 29, 
1969. 
458
 Edward C. Wiliamson to Hary M. Philpot, May 2, 1969.  
Profesor Wiliamson did not specify in which military branch he had served. 
459
 Hary M. Philpot to M. J. Burns, May 13, 1969.  
 129 
present it to the Board of Trustes?They would not want to consider it unles the senate 
favors it.?
460
 By a vote of thirty-five to twenty one, the Auburn University Faculty Senate 
on May 6 approved the recommendation.
461
 
 On May 28, 1969, Philpott sent a memorandum to the members of the Board of 
Trustes to update them about the pasage of the recommendation and to present his 
overal asesment of the situation. He explained that about 62% of the university 
departments favored adoption of an elective ROTC program, with faculty from the 
departments of Education, Arts and Sciences, and Busines generaly taking this side. 
The loudest opposition came from individuals in the schools of Veterinary Medicine, 
Engineering, and Agriculture. Given the ?fundamental atacks? that other universities in 
the nation were currently directing at ROTC, Philpott conveyed his great displeasure over 
the timing of the debate at Auburn and over its resulting in a majority position against 
compulsory ROTC. Nevertheles, he asured the trustes that ?I can detect among the 
faculty and the students very litle sentiment against having the ROTC program at 
Auburn, against giving it academic credit, or against acording the program and 
personnel full academic status.?
462
 Overal, they were stil commited to the ROTC 
program, but those favoring an elective program believed that it offered more advantages 
both to the cadet and to the student wishing to abstain from ROTC.    
 Some members of the student body feared that the margin of approval might not 
be great enough for Philpott to endorse the Faculty Senate?s resolution in favor of it, but 
on June 2, 1969 Philpott presented the recommendations of the report to the Executive 
                                                
460
 Jimy Reder, ?Senate Gets Voluntary ROTC Report; Action Expected Before Board Meets,? Auburn 
Plainsman, April 18, 1969.   
461
 Pat Randal, ?University Senate aproves voluntary ROTC proposal,? Auburn Plainsman, May 8, 1969.  
462
 Memorandum by Hary M. Philpot, May 28, 1969, box 46, file ?ROTC, Voluntary-Compulsory 
Controversy 1969,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 130 
Commite of the Auburn University Board of Trustes.
463
 The Executive Commite 
investigated the mater until the November 7, 1969 meting of the Board of Trustes. 
Whatever conclusions the Executive Commite reached would determine whether or not 
the Board of Trustes would approve the recommendations of the ROTC Study 
Commite.
464
 In a six to three vote, the Board of Trustes on November 7, 1969 
approved the recommendation that Auburn University ROTC become voluntary. 
Representative Nichols ? along with Roberts H. Brown and Robert C. Bamberg ? cast a 
disenting vote. The new elective program became efective during the summer of 
1970.
465
    
 Adoption of the voluntary program demanded that Auburn University Army 
ROTC exercise considerable vigilance in order to ensure the maintenance of their 
commisioning standards. To aid this proces, on July 8, 1970 Philpott wrote on LaMar?s 
behalf to the Department of the Army and requested that LaMar?s three-year tour be 
extended another year so that he could remain until the end of the 1971-1972 school year. 
Representing an official request from the Auburn University, Philpott explained that the 
request was ?because of the superior service rendered by Colonel LaMar in the 
performance of his duties, and because of the transition from the compulsory to the 
voluntary ROTC program.? Philpott asured that Auburn University would greatly 
benefit from LaMar?s continued asistance during the initial two years of implementing 
?the voluntary program as we endeavor to maintain a high level of official productivity in 
                                                
463
 Pat Randal, ?University Senate aproves voluntary ROTC proposal,? Auburn Plainsman, May 8, 1969;  
?ROTC Proposal Gets More Study,? Auburn Plainsman, June 20, 1969.   
464
 ?ROTC Vote Friday,? Auburn Plainsman, November 6, 1969.  
465
 John Samford, ?Voluntary ROTC Plan to Replace Compulsory,? Auburn Plainsman, November 13, 
1969. 
 131 
the program.?
466
 In a response arriving shortly afterward on July 23, 1970, the Army 
granted LaMar?s extension, planning to replace LaMar as PMS upon his intentioned 
retirement after the 1971-1972 school year.
467
 
 Acording to an April 18, 1969 article from the Auburn Plainsman, LaMar 
envisioned that the adoption of a voluntary program would result in no considerable 
change in the 125 officers annualy commisioned through Army ROTC ?because of the 
present world situation and male military obligations.? He further expounded that, ?Most 
students realize the advanced program is one of the best ways to fulfil their military 
obligations.?
468
 Nevertheles, Auburn University Army ROTC annual reports to the 
university president portray a gradual reduction in their enrollment and commisioning 
numbers. During the academic year 1969-1970, Army ROTC comprised a corps of cadets 
with 1500 students, an advanced program with 330, and a commisioning rate of 167 
during the past four quarters combined.
469
 Academic year 1970-1971 witnesed a decline 
that resulted in 530 students in their cadet corps, 246 advanced cadets, and 152 
commisioned that year. The report atributed the decrease ?primarily to the 
                                                
466
 Hary M. Philpot to Director, Officer Personel Directorate, Office of Personel Operation, Department 
of the Army, July 8, 1970, box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1969-70,? Pres. Philpot Papers.  
467
 J. N. Conmy, Jr. to Hary M. Philpot, July 23, 1970, box 45, file ?Philpot, ROTC, Army 1969-70,? 
Pres. Philpot Papers.  
468
 Jimy Reder, ?Senate Gets Voluntary ROTC Report; Action Expected Before Board Meets,? Auburn 
Plainsman, April 18, 1969.   
469
 Andrew W. LaMar to Hary M. Philpot, ?Army ROTC Report, Auburn University Schol Year 1969-
70,? November 14, 1969, box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1969-70,? Pres. Philpot Papers. This 
actualy reflected a reduction from previous years. Prior to the 1969-1970 school year, after Naval ROTC 
selected the desired students for its program, Army ROTC received 5% of the remaining male students 
and Air Force ROTC received 45%. Due to a mutual agreement between Army and Air Force ROTC, 
beginning in the 1969-1970 school year the split became an even 50%; as highlighted in the Army ROTC 
report for 1970-1971, the elective system removed this division since the students could then decide for 
themselves which ROTC service branch to enter. Note that Auburn University used to divide the academic 
year into four ?quarters? as opposed to its current division into two primary ?semesters.?   
 132 
implementation of an elective ROTC program.?
470
 Army ROTC witnesed an even 
greater decline during academic year 1971-1972 with the results being 269 total cadets in 
the corps, 164 in the advanced program, and 139 cadets commisioned. Once again, the 
report stated that the reason for the lower numbers was ?due primarily to the elective 
ROTC program,? but it also pointed to the detrimental impact of ?the status of the draft 
bil at the start of the current quarter.?
471
 The losses prevailed into the 1972-1973 
academic year, which saw a cadet corps of 240, an advanced program with 100, and a 
commisioning rate of 111. Echoing the prevailing trend, the report credited the problem 
as ?due primarily to the elective ROTC Program and current draft requirements.?
472
 
Finaly, by the 1973-1974 academic year, the ?elective ROTC Program and the draft 
termination? had reduced Auburn University?s Army ROTC program to a cadet corps of 
181, an advanced program of 69, and a commisioning rate of 59.
473
 To some extent, 
these numbers reflect the national situation for Army ROTC at the time. From academic 
years 1967-1968 to 1972-1973, total Army ROTC enrollment descended from 165,430 to 
41,294 (approximately seventy-five percent).
474
 
 As undesirable for Auburn University Army ROTC as these declining 
commisioning numbers may sem, in reality the Army was already in the proces of 
reconsolidating its force structure in a manner so that it no longer needed such high 
commisioning rates. To understand this evolution of Army commisioning needs, ?The 
                                                
470
 Auburn University Army ROTC, ?Army ROTC Report, Auburn University Schol Year 1970-71,? box 
45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1971-1974,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
471
 Auburn University Army ROTC, ?Army ROTC Report, Auburn University Schol Year 1971-1972,? 
box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1971-1974,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
472
 Auburn University Army ROTC, ?Army ROTC Report, Auburn University School Year 1972-1973,? 
box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1971-1974,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
473
 Auburn University Army ROTC, ?Army ROTC Report, Auburn University Schol Year 1973-1974,? 
box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1971-1974,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
474
 Coumbe, ?U.S. Army Cadet Comand,? 36. 
 133 
Army 1974 Year-End Report? provides valuable information. The report outlines that by 
1974 the Army had been an al-volunter force for two years, with the last drafte who 
wished to leave the Army being discharged in November 1974. The Congresionaly 
authorized limit for the active duty Army in 1974 was 781,600 soldiers, which had been 
slowly decreasing over the years. For example, in 1964 the Army contained about 
985,000 soldiers, and in 1971 the Army contained 850,000 soldiers.
475
 What these 
numbers do not explain is the masive officer reduction initiative implemented by the 
Army as it gradualy disengaged from the Vietnam War. Despite involuntary separation 
of 5,000 officers from the Army, during 1972 the officer to enlisted ratio for the Army 
atained 1:5.7. As of 30 June 1974, the Army had reduced it to a ratio of 1:6.4 by means 
of involuntary separation of another 4,900 officers and by curtailing officer production. 
Moreover, projected force reduction for 1976 necesitated releasing an additional 2,143 
officers.
476
 These numbers explain that shortly after the elimination of mandatory ROTC 
at Auburn University the Army had already initiated its post-Vietnam drawdown. The 
program suffered initialy in terms of meting its officer production quotas, but the 
demand for officers was going to decline soon regardles. Similarly, although Army 
leadership believed it should enlarge ?its conventional combat power within existing 
manpower limits? so as to ?increase our combat preparednes in Europe? and other parts 
of the world, they applied an internal approach whereby they streamlined and reorganized 
existing command and support units.
477
 Consequently, the Army possesed more officers 
than required.  
                                                
475
 US Department of the Army, Army 1974 Year-End Report, 1974, ii. 
476
 Ibid., II-6. 
477
 Ibid., III-1, II-4. 
 134 
 Despite this surplus of officers, as of late 1973 the Auburn University Army 
ROTC program had not yet adjusted its recruitment eforts to acommodate the decline in 
demand. In November 1973, the devastating loss in enrollment and commisioning 
numbers compeled PMS Colonel George G. Tucker, Jr. to appeal to Auburn University?s 
administrative vice-president, Ben T. Lanham, for asistance. Tucker asured Lanham 
that his aid was ?urgently needed? because ?despite determined eforts? Army ROTC 
participation continued to decline. Previous eforts by the Army ROTC program to halt 
the decline included, 
Increased academic credit, a significant reduction in the amount of 
dismounted dril for freshmen and sophomores, increased pay, a masive 
mail-out program for incoming freshmen and transfer students, lengthened 
and improved summer orientation sesions, and greatly increased 
advertising on TV and in local media.  
 
Responding to the potential alegation that the ROTC cadre could be to blame, Tucker 
emphasized their high student retention average. Rather, he argued, ?Our problem is that 
we simply don?t get many to start with.? Based on this asertion, Tucker posed his 
specific plea for help. In his opinion, the ?critical point? of the mater rested with the 
counseling sesions conducted by profesors with entering freshmen and transfer students 
during which they formulated the student?s first clas schedule. He believed that if 
Lanham and ?the other faculty advisors were to recommend Army ROTC as an elective, 
[then] our enrollment would increase significantly.? 
 Tucker then proceded, in an atempt to garner Lanham?s support, to respond to 
the many arguments that existed against ROTC and to detail the copious benefits that 
accrued to ROTC cadets, including even those who only pursued the basic course. 
Acknowledging that, ?I know from past experience that some members of our faculty 
 135 
wil question the value of ROTC,? Tucker also presented a brief defense of the purpose of 
the Army, making the case that the Army was analogous to the policeman?s relationship 
to crime or a doctor?s to ilnes. His leter concluded with an additional plea for 
asistance and an invitation to discuss the mater further.
478
 
 From this perspective, Auburn University?s Army ROTC program faced what 
appeared to be some daunting days ahead; however, what Tucker may have been 
encountering was not bias against ROTC but rather a lack of the favoritism that the 
university had customarily shown the program in the past. The language of the Auburn 
University ROTC Study Commite report had demonstrated that faculty support for the 
rights of students to make an individual decision about ROTC coincided with an 
expresed desire to se the ROTC program improved through the benefits of an elective 
program. As a result, the loss in numbers may not have been due to any failure on the part 
of the faculty to support ROTC. Lacking definitive evidence to the contrary, Tucker?s 
depiction of a potentialy maligned Army ROTC program is not conclusive. Just as 
possible is that the faculty sought to promote student choice through ensuring that 
students understood al options available, as opposed to presuring them to enroll in 
ROTC ? or in any other particular course. In this regard, the decentering of ROTC away 
from the focal point of campus life was likely the greatest change that Tucker and the 
other cadre members were experiencing.     
 Nevertheles, Auburn?s rich military tradition did suffer what some viewed as a 
tremendous blow with the Board of Trustes? decision to adopt a voluntary ROTC 
program ? a decision that occurred after Auburn had maintained a mandatory military 
                                                
478
 George G. Tucker to Ben T. Lanham, November 26, 1973, box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, Army 1971-
1974,? Pres. Philpot Papers. 
 136 
training program for ninety-seven years. From the early days of military instruction at 
Auburn University in the 1870s to its formation as a formal Army ROTC unit after 
pasage of the National Defense Act of 1916, Auburn life was in many ways an 
encounter with Army life. One alumnus ? writing in 1969 imediately before deploying 
to Vietnam ? stated in a leter to the Auburn Plainsman that the pride that comes with 
membership in the Army ?stems from three basic military principles: 1) Acomplishment 
of an asigned mision. 2) Aceptance of responsibility. 3) Respect for authority.? He 
recommended that, ?Instead of asociating this pride with the military, let?s cal it Auburn 
Pride, because that is where it was first instiled in me.?
479
 Arguably, the military values 
that permeated Auburn University from the very point of inception became a part of its 
own steadfast values.  
 Implementation of an elective ROTC program at Auburn University would 
gradualy separate the universal memory of male members of the Auburn University 
community from one of the sources that had helped to establish and ?to foster the Auburn 
spirit.?
480
 Traditionaly, and currently, every Auburn University Army ROTC cadet can 
be viewed as an example of living history. Each one shares a common experience with 
their predecesors and keeps alive the recognition that the identity of Auburn University 
is irrefutably linked to military service. Despite their presence on campus, the loss of the 
recognition of that legacy of soldier training proved to be the real tragedy of the 1969 
decision. For example, discussions with students on campus today reveal that most 
posses only a vague sense of the link betwen Auburn University and the tradition of 
collegiate military training; conversely, ask someone who atended Auburn University 
                                                
479
 G. T. (Ted) McDonald leter to the editor, Auburn Plainsman, May 1, 1969. 
480
 ?To Foster the Auburn Spirit? apeared under the newspaper title of the Auburn Plainsman during 1969 
editions. 
 137 
prior to 1969 about the relationship betwen the university and military service, and one 
can hear al sorts of stories about military life on campus. When it was a universal 
experience for able-bodied male students, the visibility and ubiquitous nature of ROTC 
represented a potent reminder for students and alumni that military training, as enacted 
through ROTC, is esential to the identity of Auburn University. Currently, the story of 
the dramatic change to Auburn University Army ROTC after 1969 is one that few 
individuals asociated with Auburn know anything about. Revisiting the climatic 
transformation of Army ROTC at Auburn University in 1969 is important since, by 
outlining the decline in influence of a tradition fundamental to the identity of Auburn 
University, one understands the critical shift in the mindset of the university leadership 
that redefined the role of military training on the campus. The university would no longer 
hold ROTC training on a pedestal like it previously did; however, the commitment of the 
university to the ROTC program would remain strong into the future. 
 With relatively few colleges and universities retaining compulsory ROTC in the 
wake of the Vietnam War, a new norm for collegiate military officer training emerged, 
which continues into the present. While the post-1969 transformation of Army ROTC 
and its presence on campus life had consequences that could be perceived as drawbacks, 
in acordance with the new standard, Auburn University Army ROTC would continue 
among non-Senior Military Colleges to represent a top-performing program in the early 
years of the 21
st
 Century. During this time, the Army?s requirements for officer 
production would alternate away from an emphasis on high quantity in preference for the 
development of high quality, adaptable officers capable of leading troops in a more 
technologicaly and scientificaly advanced style of warfare. In the midst of these many 
 138 
changes to the Auburn University Army ROTC program, the university would continue 
to provide a hospitable, supportive environment. Indeed, the conclusion for this thesis 
wil discuss how the present-day higher quality Army ROTC program manifests benefits 
that members of the 1969 study commite predicted would result from adopting an 
elective program.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 139 
Conclusion 
 
?If we do not develop leaders wel we cannot build quality units, design cogent 
campaigns, or execute efective operations in theater. While the past 12 years of combat 
have honed the skils of both our troops and our leaders, we must sustain and improve 
upon the Army?s proven advantage in leadership as we complete combat operations in 
Afghanistan and re-orient the force to the expanding set of global chalenges.?
481
 
 ? Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 
 
 In the early years of the 21st Century, from 2001 until present-day 2014, Auburn 
University Army ROTC has been indirectly engaged in the global War on Terror as wel 
as afected by it. Having adapted to the new model of elective ROTC designed to 
acommodate the force needs of an al-volunter Army, the War Eagle Batalion 
continues to represent a top-performing program. The principle diferences betwen 
Auburn University Army ROTC past and present are twofold. On the university level, the 
elective program has reduced the size and acompanying visibility of Army ROTC. As 
regards Army strategic policy, the needs of the Army are no longer based solely upon 
preparation for and execution of conventional style 20
th
 Century warfare. Nevertheles, 
the relational commitment of Auburn University to Army ROTC is fundamentaly the 
same. In order to understand how the program has evolved due to these changes while 
stil enjoying a tremendous level of commitment and support from the university 
community, this conclusion examines the current status of the program as wel as how it 
is projected to adapt in response to strategic imperatives resulting from Congresional 
limitations on the budget and size of the Army. 
 For this final consideration of Auburn University Army ROTC, the source base 
consists of official documents from the United States Army, an interview with the War 
                                                
481
 US Department of the Army, Army Leader Development Strategy, Sergeant Major of the Army 
Raymond F. Chandler II, United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, Secretary of 
the Army John M. McHugh, 2013, 3.  
 140 
Eagle Batalion Profesor of Military Science (PMS), Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey 
Copeland, and sundry other sources such as Auburn Plainsman articles. Of note, some of 
the information contained in this chapter wil not be directly footnoted since it is based 
upon first hand observation and knowledge that is common to members of the Auburn 
University Army ROTC program.
482
 Moreover, source limitations preclude a detailed 
quantitative comparison betwen the measured quality of the program in the past versus 
the present; thus, a general comparison wil have to suffice.    
 As of 2014, the Army has again been engaged in the proces of reconsolidating 
force structure in order to maintain combat capabilities.
483
 Examining the anticipated 
downsize of the active duty Army offers both a useful comparison in light of past 
commisioning needs as wel as outlines the strategic concerns undergirding the future 
role of Army ROTC.
 
The ?Army Posture Statement? for 2014 states that the Army is 
currently ?reducing end strength as rapidly as possible,? in acordance with 
Congresional stipulations; at the height of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the active 
duty Army possesed 570,000 soldiers. While stil a large number, this denotes a marked 
decrease in officer production compared to the 781,600 soldiers in the Army during 1974, 
given that a substantial number of officers must acompany any sizable force.
484
 Before 
the start of fiscal year (FY) 2015, the Army intends a further reduction in force to 
490,000 soldiers.
485
 If current policies remain in efect, then by FY 2019 the Army wil 
                                                
482
 For almost two academic schol years, the author has been an advanced course cadet in the War Eagle 
Batalion. 
483
 US Department of the Army, Army Posture Statement, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh and 
United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, March 25, 2014, 3-4. 
484
 US Department of the Army, Army 1974 Year-End Report, 1974, ii. 
485
 US Department of the Army, Army Posture Statement, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh and 
United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, March 25, 2014, 3. 
 141 
compose a force of 450,00 active duty soldiers, which wil also acompany personnel 
cutbacks in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
486
 
 In light of these current and projected force needs of the Army, United States 
Army Cadet Command (USACC), which is in charge of the Army ROTC training 
program, ascertains how many officers it wil need each of its eight brigades to 
commision. The War Eagle Batalion operates under 6
th
 Brigade, which includes al 
Army ROTC programs at universities in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, 
Georgia, Louisiana, Misisippi, and Alabama.
487
 Therefore, 6
th
 Brigade then notifies its 
university ROTC programs of the ?commision mision? for every program. For Auburn 
University Army ROTC that mision requires the cadre to commision 26 officers 
annualy. As a basis of comparison, the annual commisioning rate for the War Eagle 
Batalion has in the past averaged 30 officers over a 3-year period, 26 over a 5-year 
period, and 23 over a 10-year period.
488
 This number represents a dramatic drop from the 
average annual commisioning rate of 125 that Auburn University Army ROTC 
acomplished as of 1969; however, as explained above, the operational environment has 
changed for the Army ? and not merely in terms of numbers.
489
 For example, women 
could not enroll in Army ROTC until September 1972, but now they are one of many 
factors that USACC considers when trying to produce an officer corps that is 
                                                
486
 Ibid., 3-5. 
From FY 2014 to FY 2019, the Army National Guard is projected to decrease from 358,20 to 35,00 
soldiers and Army Reserve to decrease from 205,00 to 195,00 soldiers.  
487
 ?Brigades,? United States Army Cadet Comand, acesed March 30, 2014, 
http:/ww.cadetcommand.army.mil/brigades.aspx. 
488
 Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
Of note, the minimum anual comisioning number for an Army ROTC program to remain in god 
standing is 15. 
489
 Jimy Reder, ?Senate Gets Voluntary ROTC Report; Action Expected Before Board Mets,? Auburn 
Plainsman, April 18, 1969.   
 142 
representative of the demographics of the Army as a whole.
490
 USACC also focuses on 
developing officers who represent the broader ethnicity of the Army.
491
 
 Due to the plethora of factors that Cadet Command must consider when 
establishing the commisioning mision for each ROTC unit, the Auburn University 
Profesor of Military Science (PMS), Lieutenant Colonel Copeland, explains that 
USACC considers the War Eagle Batalion a ?blue chip program? because of its ability to 
contribute to the diversity requirements of the Army. For example, the level of ethnic 
diversity within the undergraduate student population at Auburn University is 12.7%, but 
the Army ROTC program contains a diversity level of 18.2%. Additionaly, the program 
is especialy suited to atracting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) degree students. Given the scientificaly and technologicaly complex nature of 
the present-day military, in an October 2013 statement the former Commanding General 
(CG) of Cadet Command, Major General Jeforey Smith, understandably stresed that the 
modern Army requires a larger percentage of officers with these skils.
492
 In this 
recruiting efort, on average 20% of cadets commisioned through the War Eagle 
Batalion are from these majors, as compared to the 16.1% average among USACC 
brigades as a whole.
493
 
 Along with examining the commisioning numbers of an Army ROTC program, 
the other criteria for evaluating a program is in terms of the quality of cadet performance 
at the ROTC advanced course Leadership Development and Asesment Camp (LDAC) 
                                                
490
 ?Women in the U.S. Army,? The Oficial Homepage of the United States Army, acesed March 30, 
2014, http:/ww.army.mil/women/newera.html; Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by 
author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
491
 Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
492
 Gary Sheftick, ?Cadet Comand Boldly Changing ROTC Program? Army News Service, October 24, 
2013, acesed March 30, 2014, http:/ww.army.mil/article/113856/. 
493
 Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
 143 
and as compared with al other ROTC cadets by means of the national Order of Merit List 
(OML).
494
 Thus, when asked what he thought about the commisioning numbers at 
Auburn University compared to the 1960s and if he would prefer a higher commisioning 
rate, Lieutenant Colonel Copeland expresed that he was excedingly pleased with the 
current status of the program because, ?More is not beter when you take a look at 
quality.? He then elaborated on the performance of the seniors in the program who had 
atended LDAC during the summer of 2013. Out of the 39 ROTC programs in 6
th
 Brigade 
who participated in LDAC 2013, Cadet Command ranked the War Eagle Batalion 6
th
 in 
its brigade based upon camp performance. Of the 29 cadets from Auburn sent to camp, 
11 exceded the standards for evaluation and 6 earned Recondo, which is a special award 
for performing exceptionaly high on al graded events.
495
 More importantly, al Auburn 
cadets pased each event on the first atempt, and none of them were evaluated as needing 
overal improvement; to the best of Lieutenant Colonel Copeland?s knowledge, this was a 
first for the War Eagle Batalion. The batalion also received recognition from the 6
th
 
Brigade commander for ataining the highest land navigation test scores out of the entire 
brigade. In terms of overal quality that includes academic excelence, 11 cadets in the 
program wil be designated as Distinguished Military Graduates, which only cadets 
ranked in the top 20% of the OML receive.
496
 
                                                
494
 Note, the OML numericaly ranks every cadet based upon such factors as camp performance, level of 
achievement when taking the Army Personal Fitness Test, extracuricular activities, academic achievement, 
etc. 
495
 Note, the Army designates cadets with one of thre overal ratings: ?N? for neds improvement, ?S? for 
satisfactory, and ?E? for exceds the standard. Anualy, 26.9% of Auburn cadets earn E?s at camp 
compared to the national average of 23.7%. 
For the previous 3, 5, and 10 years, 57%, 58%, and 51% of Auburn cadets have ben ranked in the top-half 
of the national OML.  
496
 Ibid. 
 144 
 Fundamental to these atainments is commitment on the part of Auburn 
University Army ROTC cadets. When further outlining why he favors a voluntary ROTC 
program, Lieutenant Colonel Copeland used the present-day commitment of Army 
ROTC cadets as an example of why the War Eagle Batalion improved as a result of the 
1969 transformation of ROTC. Commitment is the main, subjective quality that the cadre 
members ases in a cadet. As PMS, Lieutenant Colonel Copeland wants cadets whose 
?hearts? are invested in what they do as cadets. He contends that in a mandatory program, 
?morale, welfare, good order and discipline, and training are not going to be as high? in 
terms of quality. Given the decline in the commision needs of the Army as wel as these 
favorable aspects of the elective ROTC program at Auburn University, it appears that the 
decision of the 1969 Auburn University ROTC Study Commite did prove beneficial to 
the program, as the majority opinion had speculated. Echoing one of the main arguments 
of the faculty and staf during 1969, Lieutenant Colonel Copeland summarized the 
advantage of the current program by afirming that the ?commitment piece is something 
that you are not going to get if ROTC is compulsory ?
497
 
 This emphasis on acquiring a higher quality of cadet corresponded in 2013 with 
the overriding desire of former USACC CG, Major General Smith to reinforce the 
recruitment of high quality cadets with that of providing higher quality training.
498
 As the 
2013 Army Leader Development Strategy explains, ?leadership underpins everything the 
Army does,? and therefore even with severe budgetary restraints the Army is commited 
                                                
497
 Ibid. 
498
 United States Army Cadet Comand, USACC Strategic Plan 2013, Major General Jeforey A. Smith, 
2013, 4. 
 145 
to investing in leader development.
499
 Possesing no definitive idea of what the future 
looks like in terms of Army capabilities or combat operations, the top Army leadership 
argues that the only asured way to maintain readines is to cultivate leaders who exhibit 
the critical traits of ?being adaptable, agile, flexible, responsive, and resilient.?
500
 
Responding to this necesity, 2013 marked the beginning of a dramatic transformation in 
how USACC approaches cadet training. In the 2013 USACC Strategic Plan, Major 
General Smith offered his vision for how Cadet Command would evolve from its ?pre-
transformation state in 2013.? Employing similar language to the 2013 Army Leader 
Development Strategy, he explained that 
Changes to Cadet Command and ROTC were initiated in 2013 by the 
Army?s need for higher quality, adaptive leaders and resource constraints 
associated with reduced defense spending. Although pre-2013 ROTC met 
out Army?s needs, [sic] it did so with considerable atrition and 
unaceptable fiscal ineficiency. The primary measure of succes was 
quantity, and the quality of training and development of our Army?s future 
leaders suffered.
501
 
 
The new vision contains many operational changes, but in terms of the broader 
continuum of ROTC style training, arguably the most revealing plan is for cadets to 
atend ROTC summer camps not only the summer of their junior year but also the 
summers after their freshman and sophomore years. These additional training camps, as 
wel as a few alterations to LDAC, are probably the greatest ways in which cadets at 
Auburn University wil be afected by this new strategic vision. Becoming fully 
operational in 2016, rising sophomores wil atend Cadet Initial Entry Training (CIET), 
                                                
499
 US Department of the Army, Army Leader Development Strategy, Sergeant Major of the Army 
Raymond F. Chandler II, United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, Secretary of 
the Army John M. McHugh, 2013, 1. 
500
 Ibid., 4-5. 
501
 United States Army Cadet Comand, USACC Strategic Plan 2013, Major General Jeforey A. Smith, 
2013, 4. 
 146 
which wil emphasize basic individual combat skils. Available by 2017, rising junior 
cadets wil participate in a Cadet Leader Course (CLC) involving tactical training and 
instruction in special topics.
502
 What makes these developments, which began in 2013, 
truly remarkable is that they demonstrate the prescience of General Leonard Wood who 
exactly one hundred years earlier in 1913 first experimented with ROTC style summer 
training camps and found them the critical factor to improving existing military training 
programs for young men. This action on the part of USACC to mandate additional 
summer training actualy corrects a problem with Auburn University Army ROTC that a 
contributor to the Plainsman, almost eighty years prior, in 1934 wrote concerning 
freshmen cadets:   
Three years here as a cadet warrior wil do litle more than give him a 
rather hazy idea of the theory of war, and wil do litle towards causing 
him to regard his work as a soldier seriously?it remains for that much 
discussed camp after his Junior year to convince him that he is the 
property of Uncle Sam, and that he is an integral part of the national 
defense. If there were only some way in which our ? [average freshman] 
could be imbued with this spirit of felowship with the U.S. Army, he 
would find his war clases much more interesting, and infinitely more 
valuable.?
503
 
 
 One aspect of the War Eagle Batalion that certainly has not changed is the level 
of commitment shown by the university toward the program. Given his experience as 
PMS for the past three years, when asked to describe the relationship of the program with 
the university, Lieutenant Colonel Copeland emphaticaly aserted, ?I couldn?t ask for 
anything beter.? For example, the cadre have full aces to university facilities and 
posses a phenomenal level of support from the university administration. He further 
explained that not only do a large number of the university administrators have military 
                                                
502
 Gary Sheftick, ?Cadet Comand Boldly Changing ROTC Program? Army News Service, October 24, 
2013, acesed March 30, 2014, http:/ww.army.mil/article/113856/. 
503
 ?Cabages and Kings by B. S,? Plainsman, September 12, 1934. 
 147 
backgrounds but Auburn University President Jay Gogue is also a graduate of the War 
Eagle Batalion, which beter enables him as president to satisfy the needs of Army 
ROTC at the university. Particularly beneficial to the program was Dr. Gogue hiring 
retired Lieutenant General Ron Burges as a special asistant to the president. Himself a 
graduate of the War Eagle Batalion, in addition to being in charge of university cyber 
operations, Lieutenant General Burges is the university director for military afairs, 
which includes supervising the ROTC program. As Lieutenant Colonel Copeland 
explained regarding the general, ?He takes care of us, and our needs are communicated to 
the president.?
504
 For these reasons, the university demonstrates in the present-day an 
exceptional level of commitment to its Army ROTC program. 
 What has changed is the public visibility of the Army ROTC program. The 
present-day War Eagle Batalion contains around 120 cadets in contrast to the 
approximately 1500 that it contained both in 1939 and 1969.
505
 As a result, Army cadets 
are perhaps most likely to be recognized by the general campus community as 
representing a collective group of cadets, encompasing Army, Naval, and Air Force 
ROTC at Auburn University. For example, the three ROTC units act in unison for events 
such as marching on parade during Tiger Walk and executing flag detail prior to local 
footbal games. They also collaborate for the annual Auburn University President?s Day 
festivities each May, which entail a motivational run in the morning and a military review 
held that afternoon in honor of the university president. Nevertheles, the Army ROTC 
program is also active on the campus in other ways. Every Wednesday during the 
                                                
504
 Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
505
 Photo Caption, Plainsman, April 4, 1939; Andrew W. LaMar to Hary M. Philpot, ?Army ROTC 
Report, Auburn University Schol Year 1969-70,? November 14, 1969, box 45, file ?Philpott, ROTC, 
Army 1969-70,? Philpott Papers.  
 148 
semester, when Army ROTC cadets participate in the ?lab? portion of their training ? 
formerly referred to as dril ? the cadets wear their uniforms, which helps to sustain 
visibly the legacy of soldier training at Auburn University. Army cadets can also be sen 
raising or lowering the flags behind Samford Hal on wekdays ? an honor that the 
diferent ROTC units share on a rotational basis.         
 In truth, cadets tending to flag detail at Samford Hal symbolize the general 
understanding most individuals have in regard to Army ROTC on the Auburn University 
campus. They se it in action every now and then, but do not understand the full history. 
For example, in 1927 Auburn University Army ROTC cadets in Scabbard and Blade and 
in the Engineer unit erected the first flagpole for the campus. Based on the available 
records, the original flagpole was located almost, if not exactly, in the same spot where it 
is today.
506
 Moreover, one of the compeling reasons for acquiring the flag was the War 
Department awarding the Army ROTC unit a distinguished rating for seven years in a 
row.
507
 Auburn University posseses not just an ordinary history of solider training but 
rather one characterized by high achievement and contribution to national defense 
throughout its entire existence.  
 Collegiate solider training as enacted at Auburn University is a direct result of 
atempts by the United States government to prepare for mas mobilization warfare. 
Senator Morril inserted the military training provision into the his land-grant bil as a 
means of preventing another mobilization fiasco like that of the early days of the Civil 
War; however, land grant colleges and universities never realized the entirety of Morril?s 
vision for military training until the creation of Army ROTC in 1916 provided a truly 
                                                
506
 ?New Flagpole Comes to Rest,? Plainsman, April 30, 1927; ?Presentation of Flag Made by Legion 
Here,? Plainsman, May 21, 1927.  
507
 ?Honor Society to Erect Flagpole on Campus,? Plainsman, March 12, 1927. 
 149 
capable infrastructure for delivering valuable collegiate military training. During the 
interwar years, the Army ROTC program became a central part of Auburn University 
campus life, and the many officers commisioned at Auburn University during the later 
part of the interwar years represented an important reserve force, which American could 
and did cal upon in time of war. That close relationship with Army ROTC proved to be 
one of the key factors that enabled Auburn University during World War II to contribute 
to the national war efort on a large scale by means of the Army Student Training 
Program, since it already contained the military infrastructure and personnel necesary to 
run such a program. During the tumultuous 1960s, while some campuses removed their 
ROTC programs entirely, the longstanding afect of the Morril Act was evident in that 
debate at Auburn University revolved not around possible removal of ROTC but on how 
to protect the rights of students while also increasing the quality of the program. 
Although the decentering of ROTC on the Auburn University campus may have semed 
like a downward turn, the subsequent product of that decision was a higher quality 
program. In response to the modern day preparednes needs of the Army, the Auburn 
University ROTC program is likely to continue to improve. Whether furnishing the high 
quantity of officers required by mas mobilization wars of the 20
th
 Century or the high 
quality of officers demanded by scientificaly and technologicaly advanced warfare in 
the 21
st
 Century, Auburn University and its Army ROTC program have adapted to fulfil 
the military preparednes provision of the Morril Act.     
 As a land-grant university, with its countles scientific, mechanical, and 
agricultural acomplishments, Auburn University maintains an enviable record of 
working for the beterment of the surrounding and national community, going above and 
 150 
beyond what one might normaly expect from a public university. It is unfortunate that 
most people only regard Auburn University in terms of its footbal team. Of course, a 
lasting testament to the martial background of the university is the often-heard 
exclamation, ?War Eagle!? As the university website explains, it is ?Auburn?s batle cry,? 
not simply a cheer.
508
 People may debate the origin of the expresion, but its military 
character is clear, and every time someone hollers ?War Eagle!? they indirectly help keep 
alive the heritage of the university?s connection to the military. Acordingly, despite what 
some individuals might say, the overwhelmingly important contribution of Auburn 
University is not about its footbal team ataining another win for its own fan base but 
rather that of contributing to victories that the broader society may enjoy, whether on the 
agricultural field, the engineering field, or the batlefield. Similarly, Lieutenant Colonel 
Copeland aserts that, ?You know, everybody knows about the Auburn footbal team, 
[but] we?re a division I competitive formation right here. Our ROTC program is one of 
the best in the nation.?
509
 This high quality of officer instruction and training is 
reasuring, given that former cadets from Auburn University Army ROTC currently are, 
and likely wil be in the future, engaged in combat operations overseas. In fact, such a 
possibility for graduates of the War Eagle Batalion becomes even more real when 
considering that the second to last sentence in the 2014 Army Posture Statement warns of 
the ?high likelihood? of America being at war within the next twenty years.
510
 
Fortunately, a Plainsman article from January 1944 offers some final comforting words 
of hope in regard to Auburn University and its Army ROTC program: 
                                                
508
 ?Traditions,? Auburn University, acesed March 30, 
2014,http:/www.auburn.edu/main/welcome/traditi ons.html. 
509
 Lieutenant Colonel Jefrey Copeland, interview by author, Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 2014. 
510
 US Department of the Army, Army Posture Statement, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh and 
United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, March 25, 2014, 32. 
 151 
 Auburn?It has sen the women of the town and the girls of the school 
serve as nurses; it has watched the Army come and the students go into 
Army uniform. It has been altered with each war, yet the esential spirit of 
War Eagle has never changed. The part Auburn has played in these wars 
has been great; but the preparation of her young men [and women] to go 
into a world of either war or peace has been her greatest gift.
511
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
511
 ?Thre Down and One to Go,? Plainsman, January 14, 194. 
 152 
Bibliography 
Bensel, Richard Franklin. Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in 
 America, 1859-1877. Cambridge, Mas: Cambridge University, 1990. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1915, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1916, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1917, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1918, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1919, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1920, AU. 
 
Catalogue of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 1921, AU. 
 
Chambers, John Whiteclay. To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America. 
 New York: Free Pres, 1987. 
 
Coumbe, Arthur T. and Le S. Harford. U.S. Army Cadet Command: The 10 Year 
 History. Fort Monroe, Virginia: Ofice of the Command Historian, U.S. Army 
 Cadet Command, 1996. 
 
Cross, Coy F. Justin Smith Morril: Father of the Land-Grant Colleges. East Lansing: 
 Michigan State University Pres, 1999. 
 
Dowel, Spright, Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & Archives. 
 Auburn, AL. 
 
Draughon, Ralph Brown, Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & 
 Archives. Auburn, AL. 
 
Duncan, Luther N., Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & 
 Archives. Auburn, AL. 
 
Edmond, J. B. The Magnificent Charter: The Origin and Role of the Morril Land-Grant 
 Colleges and Universities. Hicksvile, N.Y.: Exposition Pres, 1978. 
 
Gerstle, Gary. American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: 
 Princeton University Pres, 2002. 
 
Glomerata. Vol. 20. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1917.  
 
 153 
Glomerata. Vol. 21. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1918.  
 
Glomerata. Vol. 22. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1919. 
 
Glomerata. Vol. 47. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, 1944.  
 
Gruber, Carol S. Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning in 
 America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Pres, 1975. 
 
Kefer, Louis E. Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of the Army Specialized Training 
 Program in World War II. Jeferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 
 Inc., Publishers, 1988.   
 
Knapp, Bradford, Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & 
 Archives. Auburn, AL. 
 
Lieutenant Colonel Copeland, Jefrey. Interview by author. Auburn, Alabama, March 7, 
 2014.  
 
Morril, Justin. Transcript of Morril Act (1862). U.S. National Archives & Records 
 Administration. http:/ww.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=33&page=transcript 
 (acesed December 5, 2012). 
 
Napier III, John H. ?How They Put the ?War? in War Eagle Being a Short History of the 
 Military at A.P.I.? 1958. Auburn University Special Collections & Archives ? 
 Non-circulating collection, Auburn, Alabama.  
 
Neiberg, Michael S. Making Citizen-Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American 
 ilitary Service. Cambridge, Mas: Harvard University Pres, 2000.  
 
Philpott, Harry M., Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & 
 Archives. Auburn, AL. 
 
Pollard, James E. Military Training in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, With 
 Special Reference to the R.O.T.C. Program. Washington, D.C.: Asociation of 
 State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1964. 
 
Rogers, Wiliam Warren. ?The Founding of Alabama?s Land Grant College at Auburn.? 
 Alabama Review 40, no. 1 (Jan 1987): 14-37. 
 
Thach, Charles C., Presidential Papers. Auburn University Special Collections & 
 Archives. Auburn, AL.  
 
United States Army Cadet Command. USACC Strategic Plan 2013. Major General 
 Jeforey A. Smith, 2013. 
 
 154 
US Department of the Army. Army Leader Development Strategy. Sergeant Major of the 
 Army Raymond F. Chandler III, United States Army Chief of Staf General 
 Raymond T. Odierno, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh, 2013.  
 
US Department of the Army. Army Posture Statement. Secretary of the Army John M. 
 McHugh and United States Army Chief of Staf General Raymond T. Odierno, 
 arch 25, 2014.  
 
US Department of the Army. I Am the Guard: A History of the Army National Guard, 
 1636-2000 by Michael D. Doubler. Pamphlet No. 130-1, 2011.   
 
US Department of the Army. Army 1974 Year-End Report, 1974.  
 
Wade, Kathryn Lindsay Anderson. ?The Intent and Fulfilment of the Morril Act of 
 1862: A Review of the History of Auburn University and the University of 
 Georgia.? Master?s thesis., Auburn University, 2005.