What do you think?
Rate this book
Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point
A New York Times bestselling author writes about West Point. This new paperback edition of Stephen E. Ambrose's highly regarded history of the United States Military Academy features the original foreword by Dwight D. Eisenhower and a new afterword by former West Point superintendent Andrew J. Goodpaster.
432 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1966
11 people are currently reading
336 people want to read
About the author
Stephen E. Ambrose
138 books2,419 followersStephen Edward Ambrose was an American historian and biographer of U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon. He received his Ph.D. in 1960 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In his final years he faced charges of plagiarism for his books, with subsequent concerns about his research emerging after his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 30, 2022
I was a civilian professor at West Point in 2000-20, so this book was of great interest to me. I found it a fascinated read, disappointing only because it stops in the min-1960s.
The United States Military Academy (located at an Army post named West Point) was founded in 1802. It was very unstructured in its early years, with no fixed admission criteria or curriculum. Its purpose was to produce some officers with knowledge of military engineering, there being no other school of engineering in the country at the time.
MAJ Sylvanus Thayer arrived at USMA as superintendent in 1817 and standardized admissions and the four-year curriculum, as well as making other reforms in instruction, discipline, and military training. He was eased out in 1833, but his legacy endured and he is still regarded as the Father of the Academy. (He tried to rein in the hazing of first-year cadets, one part of his legacy that did not stick.) He continued in Army service until 1863.
In the Jackson administration there was sentiment to abolish the Academy as an elite east-coast institution. Indeed, young men from the West had little opportunity for schooling and had trouble with the demanding curriculum. However, the idea went nowhere because West Point was the country's primary source of engineers, which the Jackson administration badly wanted to build the roads, canals, and railroads that would develop the West. Anti-USMA sentiment mostly died away after the Mexican War, when Academy graduates performed exceptionally well (not generals yet, but many as field-grade officers).
In this period West Point was perhaps the most academically demanding college in the country. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and so on still operated on the old classical education model for creating cultured gentlemen, based on Latin and Greek conveyed by lectures. West Point taught in small sections by recitation of material studied the previous evening. In order to cast a wide net (and thus please Congress), admission criteria were modest--arithmetic and literacy, basically. Attrition was high. Even so, graduates exceeded the needs of the small army of the time, and many graduates went directly into civilian life. There was no service commitment. This was justified by the idea that these civilian graduates would join the state militias and share their military experience.
Academy graduates distinguished themselves in high command on both sides in the Civil War, of course. Oddly, GEN Winfield Scott, the Union general-in-chief, tried to keep academy graduates in regular US Army units at the war's start, rather than letting them join state militia units. The Confederate side did not do this, perhaps explaining some of the superior performance early in the war.
After the war, the Academy entered a period of near-perfect stagnation. Nothing changed, and no-one there wanted anything to change. The leadership of the Army (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and so forth) wanted nothing to change. Almost half of the instruction was in math, often from 50-year-old textbooks, but not because math was so important to Army officers. It was considered mostly just mental training. In contrast, this was a period of great change and development in American higher education, abandoning the classical model and introducing electives, practical academic majors, organized extracurricular activities, and research universities. Most American colleges stopped evaluating character, going to strictly academic ratings. USMA stood alone, isolated, and indifferent to all the progress.
Around the turn of the 20th century some gradual changes started: a better physical fitness program, more practical military training, better public relations, less isolation, some broader education (fiercely resisted by the senior faculty), development of a respectable library. Performance of West Point officers in WWI was generally very good, but the war showed the need to prepare for wars of mass mobilization. Officers would no longer lead a small army of society's misfits, but a mass army of citizen-soldiers. To speed change, a brilliant young general was appointed to be the new superintendent in 1919: Douglas MacArthur.
MacArthur had graduated only 16 years early, and his permanent rank was major. He now commanded the colonels who had previously taught him. He pushed for some broadening of the curriculum, resisted intransigently by the Academic Board. He ended the traditional summer camp on West Point's Plain, substituting training with the Army by sergeants eager to show cadets how it's really done. He allowed more leave and more contact with the outside world (previously cadets had lived in almost monastic isolation--there was only one furlough allowed, in the middle of the 4-year program). He allowed plebes (first-year cadets) to receive packages from home. He allowed the cadets to elect class officers. He organized competitive company athletics (intramural sports). He regularized the honor system, previously run informally by cadets. MacArthur was reassigned after only 3 years, but his reforms (after a little backsliding) eventually stuck. In 1933, USMA started conferring bachelor's degrees on its graduates.
After WWII, broadening continued. A course in the psychology of leadership was added. Guest lectures, almost unknown before WWI, became common. By 1948, 40% of the curriculum was liberal arts. It became general practice for instructors (junior officers on the faculty) to get a master's degree in their field.
West Point has undergone many further changes in the 60 or so years since this book was written. It has expanded to over 4,000 cadets. Sections are no longer grouped by ability. Women have joined the Corps of Cadets. All cadets now select an academic major (you can go to West Point and major in Art, Philosophy, and Literature!). Civilians like myself have joined the faculty, and now make up about 25%. It would be great to read a book of similar quality that covered these more recent changes.
The United States Military Academy (located at an Army post named West Point) was founded in 1802. It was very unstructured in its early years, with no fixed admission criteria or curriculum. Its purpose was to produce some officers with knowledge of military engineering, there being no other school of engineering in the country at the time.
MAJ Sylvanus Thayer arrived at USMA as superintendent in 1817 and standardized admissions and the four-year curriculum, as well as making other reforms in instruction, discipline, and military training. He was eased out in 1833, but his legacy endured and he is still regarded as the Father of the Academy. (He tried to rein in the hazing of first-year cadets, one part of his legacy that did not stick.) He continued in Army service until 1863.
In the Jackson administration there was sentiment to abolish the Academy as an elite east-coast institution. Indeed, young men from the West had little opportunity for schooling and had trouble with the demanding curriculum. However, the idea went nowhere because West Point was the country's primary source of engineers, which the Jackson administration badly wanted to build the roads, canals, and railroads that would develop the West. Anti-USMA sentiment mostly died away after the Mexican War, when Academy graduates performed exceptionally well (not generals yet, but many as field-grade officers).
In this period West Point was perhaps the most academically demanding college in the country. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and so on still operated on the old classical education model for creating cultured gentlemen, based on Latin and Greek conveyed by lectures. West Point taught in small sections by recitation of material studied the previous evening. In order to cast a wide net (and thus please Congress), admission criteria were modest--arithmetic and literacy, basically. Attrition was high. Even so, graduates exceeded the needs of the small army of the time, and many graduates went directly into civilian life. There was no service commitment. This was justified by the idea that these civilian graduates would join the state militias and share their military experience.
Academy graduates distinguished themselves in high command on both sides in the Civil War, of course. Oddly, GEN Winfield Scott, the Union general-in-chief, tried to keep academy graduates in regular US Army units at the war's start, rather than letting them join state militia units. The Confederate side did not do this, perhaps explaining some of the superior performance early in the war.
After the war, the Academy entered a period of near-perfect stagnation. Nothing changed, and no-one there wanted anything to change. The leadership of the Army (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and so forth) wanted nothing to change. Almost half of the instruction was in math, often from 50-year-old textbooks, but not because math was so important to Army officers. It was considered mostly just mental training. In contrast, this was a period of great change and development in American higher education, abandoning the classical model and introducing electives, practical academic majors, organized extracurricular activities, and research universities. Most American colleges stopped evaluating character, going to strictly academic ratings. USMA stood alone, isolated, and indifferent to all the progress.
Around the turn of the 20th century some gradual changes started: a better physical fitness program, more practical military training, better public relations, less isolation, some broader education (fiercely resisted by the senior faculty), development of a respectable library. Performance of West Point officers in WWI was generally very good, but the war showed the need to prepare for wars of mass mobilization. Officers would no longer lead a small army of society's misfits, but a mass army of citizen-soldiers. To speed change, a brilliant young general was appointed to be the new superintendent in 1919: Douglas MacArthur.
MacArthur had graduated only 16 years early, and his permanent rank was major. He now commanded the colonels who had previously taught him. He pushed for some broadening of the curriculum, resisted intransigently by the Academic Board. He ended the traditional summer camp on West Point's Plain, substituting training with the Army by sergeants eager to show cadets how it's really done. He allowed more leave and more contact with the outside world (previously cadets had lived in almost monastic isolation--there was only one furlough allowed, in the middle of the 4-year program). He allowed plebes (first-year cadets) to receive packages from home. He allowed the cadets to elect class officers. He organized competitive company athletics (intramural sports). He regularized the honor system, previously run informally by cadets. MacArthur was reassigned after only 3 years, but his reforms (after a little backsliding) eventually stuck. In 1933, USMA started conferring bachelor's degrees on its graduates.
After WWII, broadening continued. A course in the psychology of leadership was added. Guest lectures, almost unknown before WWI, became common. By 1948, 40% of the curriculum was liberal arts. It became general practice for instructors (junior officers on the faculty) to get a master's degree in their field.
West Point has undergone many further changes in the 60 or so years since this book was written. It has expanded to over 4,000 cadets. Sections are no longer grouped by ability. Women have joined the Corps of Cadets. All cadets now select an academic major (you can go to West Point and major in Art, Philosophy, and Literature!). Civilians like myself have joined the faculty, and now make up about 25%. It would be great to read a book of similar quality that covered these more recent changes.
September 14, 2020
Even as a Navy man, this gave me a greater appreciation for West Point, its tradition, and its ethos. It is also comforting to read of its past challenges in light of the assault on higher education today, not excepting West Point.
January 9, 2022
Excellent read
After reading this history of West Point I have a deeper understanding and reverence for this institution and it’s contribution to our country
After reading this history of West Point I have a deeper understanding and reverence for this institution and it’s contribution to our country
September 17, 2021
An excellent piece of history
December 25, 2016
I had been searching for a one volume history of West Point for quite some time. Stephen Ambrose has a reputation as a fine military historian, so I purchased this one, from Amazon, advertised as "used, very good." The book was a Christmas gift in 2000 to someone identified by an inscription in the front--cool fact.
It's an impressive history of the academy, ending chronologically at around the year 2000. What I really wanted to know was what the academy was like from its founding until the Civil War. How cadets lived, what they studied, who taught there--all of these subjects are described well. There's much detail about how notable superintendents left their mark on West Point. Douglas MacArthur was someone I really knew little about, except that he was fired by Truman during the Korean War. He was the leading superintendent after WWI, who pushed tirelessly for the reforms it needed.
If you have visited West Point, as I have, you will appreciate this book. If it had been updated further, to include life since the year 2000, it would be rated five stars.
It's an impressive history of the academy, ending chronologically at around the year 2000. What I really wanted to know was what the academy was like from its founding until the Civil War. How cadets lived, what they studied, who taught there--all of these subjects are described well. There's much detail about how notable superintendents left their mark on West Point. Douglas MacArthur was someone I really knew little about, except that he was fired by Truman during the Korean War. He was the leading superintendent after WWI, who pushed tirelessly for the reforms it needed.
If you have visited West Point, as I have, you will appreciate this book. If it had been updated further, to include life since the year 2000, it would be rated five stars.
August 1, 2011
An interesting history of an institution of which I knew almost nothing before - The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. The political debate around its creation and early days was fascinating, as related to European history and American issues that linger to this day. The lengths to which the academy went to distinguish itself from other learning institutions in the United States also provided much interesting information regarding the evolution of private and public universities in the United States, especially regarding the development of the powerful athletic programs today.
January 3, 2017
The history of West Point is really the history of the US in a lot of ways. I learned a lot since I have only taken one college level US history course (I'm a science/nursing person). It was a bit dry and I would have enjoyed some more anecdotes about student life. My son is applying and inspiring a greater interest in military history on my part.
March 8, 2008
Not as gripping as some of his other books. Really just a timeline of events in the history of west point without many stories of those who have attended. This book would have been much more interesting had he told great stories of success and failure of those who attended West Point.
May 2, 2009
a decent book on the history of west point. very thorough although at times a little dry. i would also have liked more information about what the cadet life is actually like. but overall a good book with a lot of good information.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews