Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Navy still came first.
15 posted on 11/08/2002 6:28:37 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
The Navy still came first.

We needed drivers.. :)

17 posted on 11/08/2002 6:32:07 AM PST by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
The Navy still came first.

So did its totally blase birthday come and go without notice. The Marine Corps is the only branch of the service with a real sense of history and tradition.

The Navy has the lamentably elitist "Anchors Aweigh" hanging like a millstone around its tradition also.

Walt

19 posted on 11/08/2002 6:33:35 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Parade Precedence

The rationale behind the present parade precedence structure appears to be based more on custom than an any documented set of criteria. The majority of texts, manuals, and guides on the subject of military and naval customs and traditions appear to cite service seniority as the determining factor in deciding the precedence of forces in parades.

The Marine Officer’s Guide, section 1823, states “To avoid conflicts at parades or ceremonies, the places of honor are allocated in order of Service seniority…” Likewise, in Military Customs and Traditions, it is stated that “Precedence among military units very much as among people - is normally determined by age.”

In theory, this criteria for establishing the parade precedence of the various armed forces would seem to be very straightforward and easily comprehendable. However, in practice this is not the case. There exists among the various branches of the service a divergence of opinion on the issue of dates which mark the beginnings of their respective branches.

Service seniority can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, one could trace the origins of the various branches in their respective dates when the Continental Congress passed initiating resolutions. Using this criteria we could find the Army being established in June 1775, the Navy in October 1775, and the Marines on 10 November 1775.

However, seniority of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is obscured by the divergent elements of the intentions of the Continental Congress as compared to the realization of those intentions. Although the intention of the Congress to established an Army is apparent in several resolutions of June 1775, the realization of those intentions was not effected until 1 January 1776 when General Washington states in his orderly book, “This day giving commencement to the new Army which in every point of view is entirely Continental.”

Likewise, the Navy which the Congress created by resolution in October 1775 was not to be realized until several months later. The process of procuring and outfitting ships as well as enlisting and commissioning personnel was a time-consuming one. The commander in chief of the Navy and other officers were not commissioned until 22 December 1775.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, even though established by resolution on 10 November 1775, was actually a force in readiness before the Army or the Navy. Samuel Nicholas was commissioned a Captain of Marines on 28 November 1775, a month before the first officer of the Continental Navy was commissioned. Indeed, the Marine Corps’ claim to being the oldest integral force in being results primarily from fortunate circumstances. The Corps was much smaller and more closely knit than either of the other services, and its origin was not complicated by the existence of provincial and local forces already in the field. Thus, the Continental Marine force was all regular Marine from the beginning during the period when the Army was an amorphous mass of mixed Continentals and militia, and the Navy lacked ships. The Marine Corps appears, therefore, to be the first truly “federal” armed services branch.

The question of seniority of the armed services is further confused by the fact that nearly all of the original Colonies placed militia, ships, and troops serving as Marines in action at the opening of hostilities, before the establishment of the Continental Congress. It could be argued that these forces, having been taken under Continental pay and control, constituted the beginning of the American Army, Navy, and Marines.

Thus, it seems that no definitive case can be made for establishing the relative seniority of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. In fact, the only facts that correspond with the present parade order of Army, Marine Corps, and Navy respectively, are the dates when their first officers were commissioned, in June, November, and December of 1775. It appears that the present order of parade precedence has evolved over the years, perhaps initially based on early opinions of the actual dates of origin of the services. In any case, the present order of parade precedence has become one of our foremost military customs and as the foregoing has indicated, there appears to be little evidence to support any change in that order. The present order of parade precedence is indicated in DoD Directive 1005.8 as Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. Therefore, by analogy, the order of display of colors should be in the same order.

Reference Section
History and Museums Division
53 posted on 11/08/2002 7:59:18 AM PST by opbuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Precedence of the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps
Related Source: Navy Birthday Information - 13 October 1775

The Marine Corp has had precedence over the Navy since 1921 because the Marine Corps has been very consistent in citing its origins in the legislation of the Continental Congress that established the Continental Marines on 10 November 1775, but the Navy, until 1972, gave various responses to the question of when it was founded. At the time the order of precedence was established, the Navy was using the dates from the 1790s, when the Navy was reestablished, as its founding, and hence was viewed as a younger service than the Marine Corps. Despite several efforts to reverse the Marine Corps/Navy order of precedence in recent years, it has not occurred. In point of fact, however, the Continental Navy preceded the Continental Marines; both services went into abeyance after the end of the War of Independence; and the reestablishment of the United States Navy preceded the reestablishment of the United States Marine Corps in the 1790s.

On 13 October 1775 Congress enacted the first naval legislation providing for the outfitting of two warships. This marked the beginning of the Continental Navy, the forerunner of the United States Navy. Almost one month later, 10 November 1775, as an extension of than naval legislation, Congress resolved that "two Battalions of marines be raised." An order by the Marine Corps Commandant in 1921 designated 10 November 1775 as the birthday of the Marine Corps. Over the years, the U.S. Navy cited two other possible dates as founding events, the legislation of 27 March 1794, "to provide a naval armament," authorizing the construction of six frigates under the War Department, and the act of 30 April 1798, which established the Department of the Navy.

Despite the existence of these alternatives, the U.S. Navy for fifty years celebrated "Navy Day" on 27 October, as proposed in 1922 by the New York Navy League, in honor of President Theodore Roosevelt's birthday. The Navy had no officially recognized birthday until 1972, when Admiral Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations, with the advice of Vice Admiral Edwin B. Hooper, Director of Naval History, authorized observance of 13 October as Navy Birthday.

55 posted on 11/08/2002 8:08:36 AM PST by opbuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur; Scuttlebutt; MudPuppy; Teacup; g'nad; COB1; RaceBannon; *USMC
"The Navy still came first."

Of course - the Marines needed taxi drivers to get us to the action around the world!
Didn't have planes in those days..:))

60 posted on 11/08/2002 8:39:57 AM PST by LadyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson