You’re loving the reinstatement of the search function aren’t you? 
Like a fish loves the water, baby.
Heinlein wrote a story before WW2, “If this goes on…” that contained almost exactly the same sort of battlefield assumption of command that Cox (unknowingly) went through. Sounds like the sort of tale that all naval cadets would have learned by heart.
In the British forces of that time, though I dont know if it was the rule in other armed forces going below decks when in action was considered cowardice and a marine sentry was posted to prevent this happening.
The only people allowed below were the “Powder monkeys”,kids who resupplied the guns with powder etc and who had to show an empty container.
Likewise I recall reading somewhere though I dont have a cite that a Brit commanding officer (I think in the Crimean war) as he led his infantry forward said words to the effect that if your mate is wounded keep going forward dont drop out to take him to the rear.
So it was pretty much considered a strategem by the majority to get out of danger.
Slightly OT but relevant I think.
Not rereading the thread because I don’t want to get freshly spoiled at all, just commenting on how interesting it is that this popped up again while I’m listening to the unabridged reading of ST from audible.com 
John Lyle’s taking of command in “If This Goes On” wasn’t legal, though; it was usurpation and probably mutinous, as he himself notes in his narration. He decides, correctly, that if he follows the chain of command, he will set in motion a chain of events that will lead to his side losing the battle.
It’s also possible that it all fits the ST storyline for the minor information of the reinstatement to be forgotten in the post-war turmoil and other troubles of the 100-odd years between 1952 and the present time of the book, while the main story was remembered because of its message.
Kipling said it best:
When first under fire an’ you’re wishful to duck,
Don’t look nor take ‘eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you’re livin’, and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
My objection to the Heinlein anecdote is that a Third Lieutenant on a frigate in the age of sail is a very, very different rank from the land forces temporary Third Lieutenant commissions the cadets were getting.
A naval frigate at that time would have been commanded by a Post Captain, a rank equivalent to today’s Captain in the navy. His junior commissioned officers would be Lieutenants, but each Lieutenant would be designated by an ordinal number identifying his relative position, with the First Lieutenant being senior, the Second Lieutenant being next, going down the line, with ships of the line having Sixth or more Lieutenants.
As such, Cox was the fourth-ranking officer of the ship, and it would not be extraordinary for the three senior officers aboard a ship to be incapacitated in a naval battle of the time. Further, the Chesapeake was one of the top U.S. warships of the time, and an equivalent billet in today’s navy would probably be filled by a Lieutenant Commander, or at the very least, a “full” Lieutenant – the equivalent of an army Captain.
Moreover, at the time, there were substantial numbers of Midshipman aboard ships, who were not commissioned but had full rank, status and command authority over the enlisted crew. The Midshipmen served as junior officers, more or less like the ranks of Ensign and Lieutenant (J.G.) today. If Midshipmen successfully completed years at sea along with other requirements, they would be commissioned as full Lieutenants.
Thus, the story of command devolving on a Third Lieutenant is not one of ranks of officers being wiped so that command fell upon a junior officer just out of training, but rather the fourth in command of a substantial warship leaving his assigned post in the middle of a battle when he knew the captain was incapacitated and did not know the status of his two senior officers.
Bumped.
Just finished The Fortune of War (1979), part of Patrick O’Brian’s masterful series of Napoleonic naval adventures, and it includes a lightly-fictionalized version of the battle between the *Chesapeake *and the Shannon. No reference to Lt. Cox, though.
The USS Chesapeake was the black sheep of the original 6 Frigates. Besides being smaller and only 36 guns instead of the 44 she was spec’d out for, was there other problems with the Chesapeake?
I was wondering if inferior wood was used or if she didn’t sail as well as the other 5? Anyone know more about the Chesapeake?
It happened exactly as Heinlein wrote it-That story (and so many others) differ from our historical records because they take place in an alternate universe.
The easiest answer is that Heinlein didn’t know about it. I too grew up before the internet, and I grew up in a small city. I was constantly starved for information, and I lived at the library. But if the library didn’t have a book, I was out of luck. Information was hard to come by. I still have stacks of old technical magazines because they were the only source of certain types of information I could get.
Yes, Heinlein was a voracious reader. All the more reason he might have missed a story if it was buried in the back pages of a magazine or newspaper. And he lived in Colorado Springs, so an ‘easy check’ would have required him going to the library in Denver AND knowing what to look for.
Since the story in the book works either way, there was no reason for him to ignore the facts. He could have just finished the story with, “And it took that midshipman’s family over a hundred years just to clear his name.”
So he could have chosen to tell the tale other than how it worked out in real life, but I don’t think Heinlein would do that. Not about a story in the Navy. And especially not since the story worked either way. So the simplest answer is that he learned about it in the Academy, and never saw the story in the 1950’s, because information was hard to come by, and a single story was very easy to miss. He might even have looked it up again in books to make sure he remembered the facts right, but any book he read while writing the story would almost certainly not have that information in it.
If he knew the full story, and wanted to deliver the maximum impact while still being literally 100% true, he could have said “And a century later, the conviction still stood”.
I think he just didn’t check.
As a writer myself, I know that the things that get you are the “facts” you were so sure you knew that you don’t bother checking them. I suspect he heard this story in the way back when and either didn’t hear of or didn’t recall the repeal. I suspect the latter – Heinlein seems to have kept in touch with folks in the military, and would’ve heard about the overturn.
It wouldn’t be the first time Heinlein’s memory lead him astray. as a big fan of Holst’s “Planets” Suite, it bugs me that Heinlein refers to it in Stranger in a Strange Land as “The Planets Symphony”. And he clearly is referring to the movement “Mars” from Holst’s composition, from the description he gives.
As for it being a major undertaking to drive all the way to Denver to check it out, and that being too much of a hassle, I protest. I used to look up lots of things in the pre-computer days. It certainly was possible to look things up relatively easily back then using citation indices and the like. Heinlein could easily have looked this up in Denver, had he chosen. But he lived close to Colorado springs. And, as I say, he had contacts in the military, and was visited by folks from the Academy (he writes about it). He could also call librarians in Denver, the Air Force Academy, Annapolis, or elsewhere to have them look it up if he really wanted. I suspect he really didn’t want.
I think Heinlein called it the “Nine Planets Symphony” - and Holst only has 7 movements in “The Planets”
I’m curious about a few things relating to Heinlein and Starship Troopers. As mentioned, Heinlein was a US Navy officer. He wasn’t “unceremoniously booted”; he was medically discharged (IIRC, he was medically retired). He entered the Navy via the US Naval Academy. He wrote (at least) two books with military themes: Starship Troopers, and Space Cadet.
Now, the two books I’ve mentioned above are considerably different in their attitude towards the military. Starshoop Troopers is quite authoritarian and a bit over the top with “only the miitary understands civic duty” approach to citizenship. Space Cadet is a bit dismissive of military tradition (although the Patrol in the story does substitute its own traditions which smack of miitary tradition), rank, and outlook. This leads me to the questions: what kind of officer was Heinlein himself? What was his preferred philosophy of goverment.
Oh, I just realized that If This Goes On— might be considered a military themed novel since the theocracy running the country was kept in power by the military and, of course, the rebellion against that theocracy was organized on military lines.
Yeah it makes it a better story to tell, and with greater impact for two reasons - depending on the listener it either shows how important the army takes following orders, or it shows how intractable the armed forces decision making process is. Both valuable lessons with which to scare junior officers.
Pardon the zombie reply to the zombie post, but it’s interesting that the 2007 Naval History article doesn’t mention the 1952 decision by Truman. Kind of shows that even if Heinlein had researched the incident, he might not have found that bit of information if he didn’t read the right articles.
As to Heinlein simply seeing the story in Time magazine himself back in 1952 when the event happened–the timing doesn’t quite fit, but it’s interesting to note the Heinlein was traveling all over the world in 1953 and 1954; and back then, you couldn’t just connect your laptop to the hotel Wi-Fi, fire up the old VPN, and log on to all the newspapers and magazines you’ve subscribed to. If you were off in Tristan da Cunha (OK, so I guess he never actually made it there) or someplace, I bet you could very easily miss the news from back home for anything short of a war or a presidential assassination.
Yeah, but he was plugged into a network of military folk. Even if he missed the article, you’d think someone would have brought it up.
One reason this bothers me is that this is a pretty long story in Starship Troopers, not some throwaway line (I have the novel on audiodisc. When I get to this part anymore, I skip it, which requires several pushes of the “skip” button to flip past the whole story), but is a pretty significant aside made to emphasize a serious point about military Chain-of-Command. The fact that it IS such an outrageous story makes you take note of it. It demonstrably sticks in Johnny Rico’s head.
BUT
It’s like with accounts of miracles – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If Heinlein was going to tell such an outrageous story, he should’ve checked it. Certainly he checked on the probability of Robert Ripley’s “Marching Chinese” story that he told in Tunnel in the Sky, and he writes of checking his orbital calculations for Space Cadet. You’d think he’d devote the same care to non-mathematical thing, as well.
This is of far more moment and occupies a bigger chunk of the book than those cases. He really ought to have checked. As I say, it’s the things you THINK you know really well that you don’t check. He was just too sure of his memory of an extraordinary event in this case.