Which came first -- The Navy or the Marines?
I've mentioned before that my maternal grandfather, William, served in the U.S. Marines. I'm still trying to find out how that happened, given that he was born in Stratford, Ontario, Canada, which was noted in his service record.
His record came from the Department of the Navy, and given that I know basically nothing about military history, I assumed that at the time of his service, the Marines were a part of the U.S. Navy when he served and later were separated to be a standalone branch of the armed forces.
I was wrong.
Now whoever reads this may scoff and say, "Well, of course. Everybody knows this." In that case, you may skip the rest of this post. But if, like me, you had the same misconception, allow me to tell you what I've discovered.
My views, I realized, were primarily formed from my consumption of popular entertainment -- movies where members of each service ride each other about which is better, whose function is more indispensable, those sorts of things -- and historical novels about the British Navy in which the Marines are the newer of the two forces by a few years and part of the Royal Navy.
But this is America, after all, so why should the same be true here?
The Continental Congress passed enabling legislation for the Continental Navy in October 1775, providing for two ships, and the next month Congress approved the raising of two battalions of marines. Seems that should settle the question, but it doesn't.
After the Revolutionary War, according to the military.com site, the services "went into abeyance," being re-established in the 1790s, Navy first, Marines second, as separate services.
Comments
Post a Comment