HOMOSEXUALS AND THE MILITARY: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE |
by David
Barton Preface: There was a series of events that led to the need for this historical
analysis. Below is a general chronology providing context. There were, no doubt, numerous
other events that occurred-- newspaper articles, magazine articles, government reports,
meetings, etc. However, these key events will preface the analysis: January 20, 1993--William Jefferson Clinton assumes the Presidency,
promising to end the historic ban on homosexuals serving in America's Armed Forces. January 29, 1993--President Clinton issues the following memorandum to
the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin: I hereby direct you to submit to me prior to July 15, 1993, a draft of an Executive
Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may
serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. June 2-21, 1993--survey entitled, "Congressional Survey of All
Active-Duty Admirals and Generals Shows Overwhelming Opposition to Lifting Military Gay
Ban." Ninety-seven and a half percent do not wish to have homosexuals serve in the
military. Over ninety percent of the military's senior officers question "national
security" if homosexuals are allowd to serve. July 19, 1993--"Don't ask; don't tell" plan announced by the
President. Under this plan, new recruits are not to be asked if they are homosexual.
Homosexual "orientation" is allowed; homosexual conduct remains a reason for
separation. July 23, 1993--Senate Armed Services Committee votes to pass law
supporting President Clinton's policies. July 27, 1993--House Armed Services Committee offers similar
legislation. Court challenges started by the ACLU and others, and debate rages in the media. Elected officials and others begin requesting an historical perspective on homosexuals
in the military. David Barton prepares the following essay, supporting the contention that
immoral conduct never has been allowed in America's Armed Forces. In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the
issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will
explore the issue via three questions: Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service? While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of
great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the
military's inception. George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a
strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his
general orders for March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778),
Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy,
with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was]
found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th.
Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service
with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with
abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out
of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The
drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that
Purpose. 1 General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order
and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to
forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military. An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at
the base of Washington's actions: The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in
themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very
vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance
and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are
contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of
the same. 2 Noah Webster--a soldier during the Revolution and the author of the
first American dictionary --defined the terms "dissolute" and
"immoral" used by Congress: Dissolute: Loose in behavior and morals; given to vice and
dissipation; wanton; lewd; debauched; not under the restraints of law; as a dissolute man:
dissolute company. This meaning of the word "moral" versus "immoral"
was understood throughout American society; the practice of sodomy was clearly adverse to
and "contravene[d] Divine precept." The order to "suppress all dissolute,
immoral, and disorderly practices . . . contrary to the rules of discipline and
obedience" was extended throughout all branches of the American military, both the
Army and the Navy. 4 It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject
of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the
Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of
significant Founders. 5 In
addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was
ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted: What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to
be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to
another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed
either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and
then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of
sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state
of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson
himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar
or even more severe penalties: That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from
henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict,
confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the
neck until he or she shall be dead. 9
NEW YORK That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind,
both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the
penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is]
detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or
male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial
Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and
by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so
offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors,
aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as
felons. 13 [And]
shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and
chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of
the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of
correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be
kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA [T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be
from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by
verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such
pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they
both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of
prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the
military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for
differing interpretations. 17 The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would
have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed
Forces. Why Should the Military Be Concerned With a Person's Morality? Concern for the character and morality of military personnel has a strong historical
basis. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society,
and that philosophy extended to our military. Before considering the importance of morality to the military, first consider some
general statements on the importance of morality by those responsible for originally
creating the rules that have stirred so much controversy of late in the debate over
homosexuals in the military. John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798,
while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 18 Adams similarly explained: Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and
morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.
The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. 19 George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, summarized
the same truth in his "Farewell Address." Significantly, this address was also
partially authored by John Jay (the author of America's first military discipline manual)
and Alexander Hamilton (a General during the Revolution). These three military leaders
emphasized the necessity of moral behavior, declaring: Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and
morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their
connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked,
"Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of
religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition
that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of
popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of
free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with
indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? 20 Since moral behavior was necessary for society in general, it was
even more necessary for military personnel in whose hands rested the security, and thus
the future, of the nation. The importance of good morals in the military can be seen in
the following three selections from Washington's general orders: It is required and expected that exact discipline be observed and due subordination
prevail thro' the whole Army, as a failure in these most essential points must necessarily
produce extreme hazard, disorder, and confusions; and end in shameful disappointment and
disgrace. The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those
articles of war established for the government of the Army which forbid profane cursing,
swearing, and drunkenness; And in like manner requires and expects of all officers and
soldiers not engaged on actual duty a punctual attendance on Divine service to implore the
blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defence. 21 His Excellency [George Washington] wishes [it] to be considered that
an Army without order, regularity, and discipline is no better than a commissioned mob;
Let us therefore . . . endeavor by all the skill and discipline in our power, to acquire
that knowledge and conduct which is necessary in war--our men are brave and good; men who
with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in
Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next
under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and
respected in the world. 22 Purity of morals being the only sure foundation of public happiness
in any country and highly conducive to order, subordination, and success in an Army, it
will be well worthy the emulation of officers of every rank and class to encourage it both
by the influence of example and the penalties of authority. It is painful to see many
shameful instances of riot and licentiousness. . . . A regard to decency should conspire
with a sense of morality to banish a vice productive of neither advantage or pleasure. 23 Consequently, moral improprieties were met with severe punishment in
the American military-- as illustrated by the opening example in this paper. Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society? Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long
considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for
example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the
Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S.
Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American
Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution.
Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his
legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it. He thus declared: The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence. 24 America's first law book, authored by founding jurist Zephaniah
Swift, communicated the popular view concerning sodomy: This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent
in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have
depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest
ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this
crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is]
punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this
abominable crime. 25 John David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work,
outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than
virtually any other moral vice in society: If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to
which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the
principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins
to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor
will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and
infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness,
for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very
first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils
may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this
degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different
way from what is the result of whoredom. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for
it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be
propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a
footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to
predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred
years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present. 26 In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources,
there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. 27 The Founders
instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on
the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be
hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making
America the world's foremost military power. Endnotes 1. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John
C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.
83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.(Return) |