by Daria Sommers

A conversation with Major Joseph Amoroso, Assistant Professor of American Politics at the US Military Academy at West Point.

Whenever anyone takes the Oath of Enlistment or the Oath for Commissioned Officers and swears to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ they are pledging to uphold ideals originally exemplified by George Washington. As Commanding General of the Continental Army, Washington embodied the idea of selfless service. His example inspired the Army’s underfed and underpaid troops to stay the course. At the end of the war, Washington resigned his military commission and willingly returned to private life. In so doing, he enacted the principle of civilian authority over the military, which the Founding Fathers embedded in our Constitution.

The conversation below explores how Washington’s model of the citizen-soldier influenced the meaning of the military Oath and continues to guide our understanding of civil-military relations today.

Sommers: How do you teach the Oath at West Point?

Major Amoroso: To understand healthy civil-military relations, we start with the early example set by George Washington. Our Founding Fathers were extremely fearful of the military abuse of power they had observed or experienced by leaders in Europe. Their goal was to create a country where citizens didn’t fear that from their government. And so before we had the Constitution, before we had institutional frameworks that help us understand our responsibilities and our roles in a formal way, George Washington set the example just by his character and leadership.

In 1775, just as Washington is about to assume command of the newly established Continental Army, elected officials wanted George Washington to commit that, once the Revolutionary War ended, he would relinquish his military authority and return to private life in Virginia. What they didn’t want to have happen was for Washington to hold on to military power and become King Washington. And so elected officials wrote letters to him sharing these concerns. Washington replies telling them he will give up his military commission willingly. He says, “Because when we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” What he means by that is when service members put on the uniform, they are citizens first, reinforcing his dedication to the principle of civilian control of the military and the republic. The letters from this exchange are assigned to our cadets.

And so, we teach that the same worries that you would have as a citizen of this country, should reflect in your service as a soldier. You wouldn’t want the military to ever turn their guns on you, your family and your town and the people you love. We are a citizen army and should always reflect this idea. We would never want the military to behave in a way that violates the rights and freedoms and liberties that we as citizens value. And we are so attuned to what we value as citizens when we give up some of those rights to serve. It is this belief and love of our rights as citizens that motivates our desire to then put on a uniform and serve, to protect those rights and defend them for others from outside aggressors. That connection between soldier and citizen is what Washington is trying to emphasize. This connection is at the heart of our service oath.

Sommers: How did Washington’s example of selfless service influence the formation of the nation?

Major Amoroso: In 1787, as our Founding Fathers are developing the Constitution, the idea of the citizen as authority, and the soldier as the subordinate is codified into law. George Washington again inspires us—He gives us this idea by his own example of leadership towards the end of the American Revolution.

We teach our cadets about the Newburgh conspiracy of 1783. There were complaints from the Continental Army, particularly the officers, that they weren’t getting paid. That’s because the Continental Congress didn’t have the ability to tax the states or colonies. It was thought there was going to be a rebellion or some sort of mutiny. General Washington got word of this and took action to prevent this, basically ridiculing his officers, effectively saying…How dare you ever think about engaging in a mutiny just because your government hasn’t paid you yet. We have to demonstrate some patience and civic-minded virtue here. We are responsible for the lethal force of this budding nation, and we must honor our commitment to defend it. Our obligation is to the people and to this new nation.

Washington famously ended his speech to the officers with the line, “I have grown gray and blind in service to my country.” He was essentially saying that, even as their general, he had endured hardships in service to the country. However, he reminded them that just because times are hard, it does not justify abandoning the values they had fought for or undermining the principles the new nation was trying to uphold. Washington emphasized that if he could place the needs of the country and its government above his personal grievances, so too should they. This, he argued, is what it means to serve in the military with virtue and in accordance with democratic principles.

The Founders put these same ideas into the Constitution, in our framework for civilian control of the military. Article I of the Constitution defines the people’s branch, or legislative body, responsible for declaring war and deciding how much to fund the military, and Article II defines the executive branch, establishing the office of the President of the United States, whose powers include serving as Commander-in-Chief. Washington again exemplifies the idea of the citizen first—that the military is subordinate to the civilian authority. In 1783, he resigns his military commission and then, in 1789, takes up the role of our first President and Commander-in-Chief as a civilian. And so from Washington’s example and his own service, we see that translate pretty quickly after the war into how we devise the framework for our government.

Sommers: So the examples you reference from the American Revolution seem to inspire the oath of military service. When was it first formalized and today how is it administered to cadets at West Point?

Major Amoroso: Before the first official oath requiring Service Members to support and defend the Constitution—and even before the Constitution was written—there were several unofficial oaths that required officers and enlisted soldiers of the Continental Army to acknowledge their commitment. As early as 1775, when the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Army, Continental Army service members acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States, swore to support, and defend the new nation, and renounced King George and the British royal government. This means that at the time of the Newburgh Conspiracy, when officers were challenging the authority of the new government, they were contemplating going against an oath they swore. Washington’s remarks and example at Newburgh reminded the conspirators of their commitment.

The first oath under the Constitution was written into law in 1789 and has since undergone several modifications, reflecting the nation’s challenges and adjustments to its legal framework.

Cadets take a unique cadet oath when they arrive at the Academy, one that dates back to a version of the oath from 1861. They swear to support the Constitution, pledge allegiance to the national government, and obey orders and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They then reaffirm that oath after their second year when they commit to five years of military service. Upon graduation, they take the oath of commissioned officers. It’s in the oath of commissioned officers that they commit to their responsibility as leaders in the military, charged with adhering to constitutional principles and exercising professional judgement.

Probably the greatest privilege I’ve had here as a member of the faculty is to administer the commissioning oath to our graduates. On graduation day, cadets first recite it in the stadium. All of them together. Then they do it again at a location of their choosing on post, surrounded by their mentors and family. It’s intimate. And it’s just them in their new officer’s uniform, the American flag, and an officer who administers the oath. So, in total, it’s really four or more times that they publicly take an oath during their four years at the Academy. But that last time when they swear the commissioning oath surrounded by the people that mean so much to them, I cannot tell you how important it is to all of them to do that in a way that is reflective of why they’re serving.

Sommers: But the oath itself is just words. How do you measure a cadet’s understanding of it and the degree to which they take it to heart?

Major Amoroso: The oath is our North Star. West Point is fundamentally a leader development institution. Our mission is to build, educate, train, and inspire our graduates to be leaders of character. Our curriculum, military program, and the experiences we offer are all designed to reinforce cadets’ understanding of the oath—emphasizing that understanding their oath is an essential part of their future ethical service to the nation. There’s teaching about them about their role in supporting our system of government, but there’s also an ethical component. What does obedience to orders mean? How does that square with moral ethical standards and requirements? How do you lead an organization dedicated to a mission of oath-minded service? West Point is a forty-seven month character development program in which we challenge our cadets to grapple with these questions. I see the oath as the affirmation of this character development program. The oath cadets take upon graduation is the culminating event of their time at West Point.

The truest test of the oath is a life of civic-minded, selfless service to the nation, guided by our Army values. Practically, the Army ensures ongoing support by checking in throughout a graduate’s career to assess their progress and remind them of their commitment. This character development continues through professional military education, and with each promotion, when they reaffirm their oath.

Sommers: In both the Officer’s Oath and the Oath of Enlistment, those taking it swear to defend the Constitution. However, the Oath of Enlistment includes the additional clause “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me.” The Officer’s Oath does not. Can you explain the difference?

Major Amoroso: The difference reflects the distinct responsibilities that our enlisted corps and our officer corps have within our military chain of command and our military structure. What that does for us is make it even more important that our officers understand their oath because they are expected to have ethical judgment and strategic understanding of their role in leading our military. They have to be guardians of the Constitution. That’s incredibly important. And their actions, whatever they decide to do and how they execute the orders from above is going to guide our enlisted folks. And so I think it’s important because it puts the onus on the officers to understand their role to defend the Constitution. It is their responsibility.

Sommers: What happens if the President or the officers at the top of the command chain make a decision that is at odds with the Constitution?

Major Amoroso: There are a lot of leaders and an institutional framework that operates between the president and the enlisted soldier. Included are checks and balances, and leaders also committed to supporting and defending the Constitution. But even if all that fails, even if officers go a different way, there is an obligation on the enlisted soldier to also support and defend the Constitution. That’s part of their oath too. So it does not absolve an adherence to the Constitution from enlisted folks just because there’s a statement about obeying the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. I just want to make that clear because I think we harp on the line about obeying the orders of the President but the Constitution is very much still in that oath.

Sommers:  How do you teach your cadets to negotiate orders or situations that are problematic, unlawful or when there are gaps in the guardrails?

Major Amoroso: It’s a good question. Our programs absolutely include courses and lessons in which we talk about the struggles throughout our history where we’ve learned and we’ve gotten stronger as a military serving a civilian leadership. And so those lessons are all codified in law and become the formal structures that keep this very, very lethal military force in check.

The Uniform Code of Military justice and a body of regulations flow from that original institutional framework that we get from our Constitution and gives us more specific guardrails. But as you say, there are gaps in these guardrails. What we do in the American politics course, that we teach to all cadets, is talk about that gray area, when there’s doubt or lack of clarity about how regulations ought to be applied, there are the norms our military must adhere to.

When there is uncertainty, when there are gray areas, when there is a gap between one regulation and the next, that’s when the forty-seven months of character development at West Point as well as the equivalent programs at other Academies and commissioning sources kicks in. The idea is that the norms, adherence to norms, appreciation and devotion to the norms will help guide our officers through those gray and uncertain areas.

Sommers: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of active duty military personnel to execute domestic law enforcement. Today the Act is viewed as a necessary guardrail to keep the federally controlled military from turning on civilians. How does the oath align with the military’s interpretation of this?

Major Amoroso: At the end of the day, the military’s job is not to enforce laws in the United States. That’s not our responsibility. Our mission is to engage in national defense. And there are exceptions or gray areas when it comes to Posse Comitatus. And I think that’s what many people are highlighting. What I would tell you is that our military is responsible for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and obeying lawful orders. Lawful orders. That’s it. If we were ever told as a military to occupy a civilian space, that’s unlawful. We can’t follow that. We would be violating the Constitution, and we would be held accountable.

And now you’re probably wondering, okay, well, does every officer or enlisted soldier know every law? I don’t even know every law. But that’s okay because we have an entire chain of command and an entire institutional structure with experts and military lawyers dedicated to ensuring we comply with authorizations and law. And so we’re going to follow orders that absolutely hold the Constitution as our guiding light. We will not engage in activity that would ever violate the law.

Ultimately, the Services are guided by the same core mission: a devotion to duty and our commitment to the Constitution. But that only works if we’ve got a public that trusts us to do that job for them and to do that on behalf of the values that our nation was founded upon.

The views expressed in this article are those of the interviewee and do not represent the official policy or position of the United States Military Academy, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.