hawespipe-blog – Page 2

October 6, 2018October 26, 2022

Uniforming United States Lines unlicensed crew

The United States Lines Archive at the American Merchant Marine Museum on the campus of the United States Merchant Marine Academy holds a trove of United States Lines official photographs from the 1930s and 1940s. Among them is a small collection illustrating the uniforms worn by the company’s unlicensed crew. This essay will describe the uniforms and the context for their wear, along with a discussion of their U.S. Navy analogues. In analyzing them, I will show how the uniforms have similarities with and differ from those worn in the U.S. Navy, and shed light on the ever-elusive subject of period merchant seamen uniforms.

During its heyday in the 1930s and up until the eve of the Second World War, United States Lines attempted to control the image of its seamen through the wear of standard uniforms. This move followed the lead of its European steamship company rivals where they placed their employees in uniforms similar to those of their national navies. Not surprising for the period, the garb United States Lines chose was not too dissimilar from that of the U.S. Navy. This move not only promoted a professional appearance among the ranks but also acted as a potent semaphore for ship passengers; wearing U.S. Navy-like uniforms with their relatively familiar visual cues enabled the passenger to quickly evaluate a crewmember’s place within the ship’s hierarchy. And, whereas welcome aboard booklets detailed the reefer and uniform insignia lexicon of licensed personnel, the intricacies of unlicensed crew – Ordinary and Able Bodied Seamen – uniforms remained unstated. The company assumed the passenger could understand the latter through memetics.

Sleeve Stripes, SS President Roosevelt, 1939. Col.: AMMM

At the turn of the last century, the U.S. Navy moved from a model of wooden ships and iron men to one of mechanized warfare. In turn, naval warfare became less an art than a process. Within this rubric, U.S. Navy leadership preserved the underpinnings of its rigid caste system and elaborated upon it the minute codification of an enlisted sailors’ place within the organization and their roles. This system reached its zenith in the pre-war Navy wherein the U.S. Navy organized the various trades of its sailors into specialty ratings – occupational categories with discrete tasks in which a sailor is proficient – and rate – seniority by virtue of knowledge mastery often gained by time in service. In 1905, the number of ratings numbered sixteen, and almost thirty by 1941. The rating and rate of an enlisted sailor found its way to their uniform sleeve through a series of patches. These patches had idiosyncratic, yet nautical symbols for the trade – such as a “closed clew iron” for Sailmaker’s mate or a “screw” for Boilermaker – and chevron hashes for rate. Chevrons were additive – the greater the number of chevrons marked a sailor with greater proficiency at their trade and responsibility than those without. For a fledgling sailor who did not rate a specialty, their occupation branch was specified by a colored strip on the sleeve seam of their dress and undress uniforms: white or blue (on winter or summer uniforms, respectively) for seamen, and red for fireman. Evocative names were colloquially given for a sailor’s place of work: a seaman aloft in the tops or with work centered on the fo’c’stle and quarterdeck, was “Of the Line”; artificers crafting parts in the ship’s workshop were “Below Decks”; and firemen stoking the boilers in the engine compartment were members of the “Black Gang.” The colors further reinforced the place of work: white for sails, and red for coal fires. That said, the U.S. Navy modified ratings and their identification over time. From 1833 to 1866, the rating badge was worn on the left or right sleeve as determined by tradition. Captain-of-the-Hold, Quartermaster, Quarter Gunner, Sailmaker’s Mate, and Ship’s Corporal had their rating badge on the left sleeve, whereas Boatswain’s Mate, Captain-of-the-Tops, Cook, and Gunner’s Mates wore their badges on the right. In 1866, only Petty Officers “Of the Line” or Deck ratings wore their badges on the right sleeve – e.g. Boatswain’s Mate, Captain-of-the-Tops and Fo’c’stle, Coxswain, Gunnersmates, Master-At-Arms, and Quartermasters – and all others including the relatively newly-created engine room ratings placed their badges on the left. Ships were divided into two watch sections, Port and Starboard; and these were divided into quarters. Throughout the 1800s, sailors wore short, gradated lengths of white or blue tape denoting their watch sections; tape on the left sleeve denoted Port watch and right for Starboard. With fleet mechanization in 1886, the watch tapes were abolished and regulations stated the rating badge worn on the sleeve now corresponded to the watch section of the wearer; thus sailors in the Port watch section wore their badge on the left sleeve, while the Starboard section wore their badges on the right regardless of rating. In 1913, this system was revised and Petty Officers “Of The Line” wore their badges on their right sleeve while all others wore their badges on their left sleeve. This system continued for the duration of the Second World War. By 1949, all rating badges went to the left sleeve. Thus altogether, patches, stripes, and chevrons acted as a sailor’s visual resúmé. By contrast, unlicensed merchant seamen – the ratings of the civil marine – were not so meticulously marked by seniority or overtly uniformed by trade.

USN Coxswain, 3rd Class patch (obv), 1940. Col.: IW.

USN Coxswain, 3rd Class patch (rev), 1940. Col.: IW.

Merchant ship crews did not have same caste strictures as their counterparts in the U.S. Navy; rather, they operated within a system bound by stratified roles. Seniority in shipboard position, license-status, and union affiliation divided seamen, not regulations. These factors, coupled with personal taste and tradition, influenced what a seaman would wear, but did not dictate a formal uniform as was the case for sailors in the U.S. Navy. When a seaman wore a uniform, it was at the mandate of the company that employed them or that of their union. During the interwar years, the military and civil maritime professions held a complementary relationship with each other in terms of uniforms. Both U.S. Navy officers and merchant marine licensed officers visited the same tailors and wore the same cut of uniform; the main difference between the two was what buttons and cap badges they chose from a tailor’s card. The same craft industry also manufactured articles of wear for both enlisted sailors and unlicensed seamen; dungarees and chambray shirts came from the same source.

In the years leading up to and during the Second World War, maritime workers unionized en masse and came to dictate the terms of their employment. Concurrent with the ascendency of maritime unions, uniforming of unlicensed seamen became a contentious topic. Militant unions resisted its members wearing a uniform, while others actively promoted its members to wear one. On one extreme, the National Maritime Union not only pushed for legislation against unlicensed crew to wear anything remotely looking like a uniform save a union pin; whereas the Masters, Mates, and Pilots Union went as far as to design and promote insignia evoking those of the U.S. Navy. Despite eschewing regimentation, members of the Sailors Union of the Pacific cultivated an image evocative of a uniform: black Frisco jeans, white derby hats, and Hickory shirts. The argument promoted by the Congress of Industrial Organizations’ and the National Maritime Union (NMU) was if a merchant seaman wore a uniform, the enemy might mistake them for a member of the military. The concern was if a seaman found themselves captured by a hostile force, the enemy would treat them like a combatant; as an aside, this was a pointless argument, since merchant seamen were captured just the same, placed in prisoner-of-war camps, and sometimes executed – regardless of union status, or uniform or not. However, it was the company and the master of the ship who had the final say in what a crewmember did or did not wear. Often, in the name of preserving shipboard harmony, a master would only prescribe uniforms for licensed members of the crew to instill a sense of authority over the unlicensed.

In the case of United States Lines, in the years before the Second World War, the company mandated uniforms. It is no surprise that unlicensed members of the ship’s crew looked quite similar to their enlisted U.S. Navy counterparts; the marked difference being a lack of rank and rate insignia. Similar uniforms were an economic measure where the company did not need to contract custom work to ship chandlers since U.S Navy uniform stock was always readily available among suppliers. The lack of distinctive insignia patches precluded the invention of an evolving array of ship-wide rates – which most unions shunned and were pointless in a civilian setting. The company limited formal insignia to licensed officers and members of the steward’s department. Hence, having no rating patch was marker enough of one’s status aboard.

1930s

The 1930s were the heyday of the United States maritime fashion. Both civilian and military mariners wore an array of non-interchangeable uniforms depending up the season and context of work. In an enlisted sailor’s seabag there were winter dress, undress, and work uniforms; these were mirrored where practical in summer, often with the uniform colors in negative. As headwear went, there was the flat hat, the “white cotton domed hat” or simply “white hat” (also known at the time as the “Bob Evans hat”), and knit wool caps. For heavier wear, there was the pea coat, wool jersey, or denim coat, and for rain, the oilskin slicker. The United States Lines unlicensed seaman, to some extent, wore virtually the same.

USL Winter Dress Uniform, 1930s

The U.S. Navy Service Dress Blue was a woolen uniform prescribed for Enlisted sailors under the rank of Chief Petty Officer for dress wear in temperate climates and during fall and winter. It was comprised of a flat hat, silk neckerchief, jumper, and trousers. All components were dark-blue except for the cap tally and the neckerchief both being black. The jumper’s cuffs had white tape as well as a back flap that had the same white piping along its border. The trousers had a 13-button broadfall front opening, a lace-up back to adjust for size, and flared trouser leg bottoms. On occasion, a white hat was worn in less formal settings.

The U.S. Navy uniform was adorned with insignia indicating a sailor’s rating, rate, and department. White tape stripes on the sleeve cuffs denoted the pay grade for rated and un-rated sailors holding rank below Petty Officer. A sailor would be considered un-rated before attendance and graduation from specialty schools. No stripe would denote a trainee, one stripe an Apprentice Seaman and Seaman Third Class at Pay Grade 7, two stripes a Seaman Second Class at Pay Grade 6, and three stripes for a Seaman First Class at Pay Grade 5. Stripes around the sleeve opening would be worn prior to specialization. All seamen wore a distinguishing branch or department mark on the seam of the jumper – white for seamen “Of the Line” of the deck department and red for firemen of the engineering department.

At first glance, the United States Lines unlicensed seamen’s dress uniform appears as a facsimile of the U.S. Navy enlisted uniform. A closer look contradicts this impression. For United States Lines unlicensed seamen, there was no flat hat like their U.S. Navy counterparts; instead, they wore a white hat. They did wear the same square-knotted black silk neckerchief; however, this is the only actual similarity in dress uniforms. United States Lines unlicensed seamen had a distinct lack of tape on the cuffs and no distinguishing branch stripe. Moreover, the United States Lines unlicensed seamen wore the button-fly trousers; whereas U.S. Navy sailors wore 13-button broadfall trousers the lace-up backs. Concerning broadfall trousers, civilian mariners did not wear them; in fact, in the complement of wartime U.S. Maritime Service Training Organization-issued uniforms, button-fly trousers (and later zipper-fly trousers) were the rule. The use of U.S. Navy dress blouses for undress was not uncommon among other maritime organizations before the Second World War – cadets wore the same unadorned blouses at the various state-run nautical schools.

USL Winter Work Uniform, 1930s

Undress denoted a general duty working uniform made of wool for the enlisted sailor worn in temperate weather conditions. The “undress” designation indicated the uniform was not meant for dress wear rather for work above deck or in an office or classroom setting. Undress uniforms were worn with or without the neckerchief depending on the sailor’s job designation and the task at hand. An undress jumper was simplified in construction, not adorned with white piping, and had flared sleeve openings instead of buttoned cuffs. The trousers remained broadfall. The hat was the sailor’s white hat or black-dyed wool watch cap. In cold weather, the sailor was prescribed to wear a heavy, worsted-wool pea coat with a rating and rate badge on the sleeve; the buttons on the coat were adorned with an anchor and thirteen stars.

The U.S. Navy and United States Lines shared a basic configuration of work uniforms for use in the Winter: both had their enlisted sailors and unlicensed seamen in undress uniforms, pea coats, and black-dyed wool watch caps. Unlike the U.S. Navy, United States Lines unlicensed seamen did not wear white hats in the winter; and, United States Lines used the same jumper in both a dress and work setting, suggesting unlicensed crew in a work setting kept to a high standard of personal appearance or the company desired a light seaman’s seabag.

Some companies went as far as to change the buttons on crew uniforms with company livery; United States Lines did not follow this current for their unlicensed crew – their buttons were of plain hardened rubber or gutta-percha sap. Unlike the U.S. Navy pea coat, United States Lines buttons lacked the motif of stars ringing an anchor; this precedent was followed in later years by the War Shipping Administration when it uniformed trainees during the Second World War.

The 1930s United States Lines pea coat was of the same cut as that adopted by the War Shipping Administration, Training Organization during the Second World War.

Pea Coat. War Shipping Administration, Training Organization, 1940s. Col. IW.

USL Summer dress uniform, 1930s

Before the Second World War, U.S. Navy sailors wore a white uniform in the summer months and tropics. Instead of wearing the blue flat hat, they wore the white hat, and their dress jumpers were white except for the flap and cuffs – both remaining blue. The flap was detachable. The trousers were flared and were button fly without a lace-up back. Undress whites had an integral white flap and open cuffs. The undress white also had the sailor’s last name stenciled below the jumper’s neck opening.

The United States Lines Summer Dress uniform is same as the U.S. Navy Undress whites, except for the addition of a black silk neckerchief and lack of stencil.

Summer Work uniforms in United States Lines is exactly the same as the United States Lines Winter Dress uniform with the exception of the uniform lacking a neckerchief. This representation of a work uniform may be for a seaman in passenger spaces, and not doing deck work. These uniforms are a complete departure from U.S. Navy tradition and custom. I suspect this is captioned incorrectly and the actual above-decks work uniforms follow the U.S. model: whites without neckerchief.

USL Dungarees, 1930s

USL sailors securing deck awning at sea, 1930s. Col. AMMM. In.: *USL The Log*, Spring/Summer 1938

The U.S. Navy enlisted sailor wore dungarees below decks, out of the public eye or above decks doing particularly dirty work. In the mechanized Navy, sailors engaged in chipping, painting, shining, and scrubbing compartments all day, every day while in port or out at sea; thus dungarees were part and parcel of a sailor’s everyday rig. Less commonly Officers and on occasion Chief Petty Officers also wore dungarees if the work they were engaged in might soil their dress. During the 1930s, these uniforms were without insignia and the headwear for the enlisted sailor varied depending upon season: white hat for summer and fall, and knit wool cap for winter. Chief Petty Officers and officers wore their combination-style caps with dungarees if out of doors. Candid images from Archives and Ocean Ferry allude to the same with United States Lines seamen following the same; Able Seamen having the relative status to that of U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officers.

USL sailors painting stack, 1936. Col. AMMM.

In winter and fall, sailors wore work coats made of blue denim with two lower patch pockets and matching, flared trousers. These trousers were made of denim and had a white lace-up in the seat. Sailors could wear navy blue sweaters in cold weather. In warmer weather, a cotton blue chambray work shirt would be worn under the work coat. The United States Lines seaman deviated from the U.S. Navy model in terms of trousers. The trousers – although dungaree – were non-standard and of cut and style at the seaman’s prerogative. All shirts during the period were blue chambray with apparently thin metal buttons – matching those of period U.S. Navy shirts.

1940s

The U.S. Navy carried the same standards of uniform dress from the 1930s into the 1940s. Work clothes and dress uniforms remained the same, except the U.S. Navy began experimenting with rank insignia worn on collars and khaki uniforms. The United States Lines maintained its uniforms, although it appears it took cues in work clothes from the U.S. Navy. Among the unlicensed crew, there was still a lack of distinguishing insignia. The photographs in this section detail uniforms found on the SS America; this ship was in the United States Lines fleet relatively briefly – from 1939-1941 before requisition by the U.S. Navy and commissioned as the USS Wakefield.

USL Winter Work Uniform, 1940s

One of the most marked changes noted in United States Lines Winter Work Uniforms is the denim trousers. Instead of straight-legged trousers rolled at the cuff, the merchant seaman in the photograph is wearing flared-leg trousers with patch pockets. He is wearing a self-purchased leather belt; in terms of wear, he is not observing the how U.S. Navy sailors would wear the belt – buckle in line with the shirt and trouser openings – rather it is centered with the trouser pocket in a side-hitch. This was a practical measure; the buckle was not smooth like a U.S. Navy buckle and could become caught on rigging or other hazards on deck, or had the potential to damage white work. In the first photograph he wears a chambray shirt and knit wool cap, as would his contemporaries in the U.S. Navy.

In the second photograph, the dark blue or navy work shirt cut mirrored, period U.S. Navy-period worsted wool work shirts with 25 ligne black anchor-embossed buttons. This shirt’s use in the U.S. Navy has a convoluted use and is a marker for period uniforms. It was first written into regulation in 1917 as a pullover shirt with a rolled collar with three black buttons; it was redesigned in 1922 as a pullover shirt with a pointed collar, three black anchor rubber buttons, and without pockets. Uniform Regulations United States Navy, Change 5 – which was approved between 1924 and 1929 – not only changed the shirt to a button-up design as worn by the United States Lines seaman but also called for two patch pockets with flaps. At this time, Chief Petty Officers and Officers exclusively wore the shirt; it was, in effect an undress uniform shirt when a jacket and shirt and tie were impractical. This shirt “of conventional design” remained in stasis until May 1941 until new regulations dictated the removal of the right chest pocket and prescribed a four-in-hand tie to be worn with the shirt. Postwar, both pockets returned per regulations published in 1951; regulations in 1947 did not specific the existence or not have “patch pockets.” Wear of the shirt fell out of favor and was replaced with khaki shirts of various weights until it was revived in the Fleet in the 1970s. Despite the coming and going of the shirt outside of Vickery Gate, it remained a fixture at the United States Merchant Marine Academy with two patch pockets with flaps up until the 1980s; postwar, Kings Pointers wore with it a distinctive gray four-in-hand tie. There is no stated rationale for the omission of the pocket.

USN Black Anchor Button (gutta-percha), 1930s. Col.: IW.

Summer Work Uniform, 1940s

The United States Lines seaman deviates completely from the dress of a U.S. Navy enlisted sailor in his Summer Work Uniform. In the above photograph, the merchant seaman is wearing the second model of the blue flannel shirt except it is constructed of bleached duck cloth; it has three black unadorned buttons and a deep collar placket. The trousers are of lighter material. The seaman is wearing a white sailor hat, which his contemporaries in the U.S. Navy would wear.

USL Dungaree Uniform, 1940s

USL SS America Work Uniform, 1940s. Col.: AMMM.

The U.S. Navy adopted the familiar blue chambray shirt and dungaree trousers in the 1930s. It was based on the common industrial wear of the time; with the noted exception of the trousers, being flared for easy use to roll up when swabbing deck or coming ashore from a launch. It was an all-season uniform that was prohibited to be worn off-ship or off-station. It was worn with a white hat when topside. When the shirt was first introduced, it was not worn with any insignia, patch or pin of any sort. This remained the case throughout the wars up until the 1950s. The United States Lines unlicensed seaman wears the same – having abandoned lace-up back dungaree trousers.

The white hat worn by the merchant seaman deserves some mention. In the war years, the U.S. Navy issued hats with the same design as the white hats, only made of dungaree-material, and War Shipping Administration trainees started to wear navy blue hats in 1943. The navy blue hats were exclusive to the Merchant Marine, and sailors in the submarine force often wore dungaree hats. This rule of thumb is useful in sailor versus seaman identification – especially when considering photos such as the one above.

It is easy to confuse uniforms worn by individuals in the U.S. Merchant Marine and U.S. Navy especially from the decade before the Second World War since the two groups dressed similarly. Just as the chambray shirt and dungaree trousers are found in both communities, so is the white hat and jumper with a flap – thus, errors in identification are partially due to benign misunderstandings arising from those in the maritime trades sharing similar clothing items. Not discussed in this essay is the further misunderstanding that the merchant seaman was a de jure member of the armed services. In reviewing photographs from the United State Lines Archive, I hopefully shed light on some of the subtle differences the untrained eye might pass over.

Many thanks are due to the following individuals for giving me access to materials at the United States Lines Archive and for giving me important hints on period garb:
Dr. Joshua Smith of the American Merchant Marine Museum, Mr. Robert Sturm, Curator at the United States Lines Archive, and Mr. Justin Broderick of uniform-reference.net

September 9, 2022September 9, 2022

War Shipping Administration Field Service

In a scant year after its creation, the War Shipping Administration (WSA) thought it wise to create another uniformed civil service organization under its jurisdiction. At the time, the other uniformed divisions within the War Shipping Administration were the Merchant Marine Cadet Corps and the Maritime Service. The new uniformed service would comprise members of the Field Service Branch; when the case was set before Congress in 1943, the WSA engaged about 450 individuals involved in the Field Service – they were colloquially known as “Shipping Inspectors.” Their tasks revolved around repair and conversion activities at the 80 major repair yards and 117 repair contractors; at any given time there were 600 WSA-controlled vessels in drydock, repair, or conversion. Tasks performed by the Field Service involved:

The Field Service Branch also served as “eyes, ears, and legs for the resident auditor, enabling them to better approve charges made for time and material and to know that such time and material [was spent on vessels under question].” WSA recruited heavily among ex-Navy and Army men, who looked favorably upon donning a uniform. Such uniforms, it was argued, would give them an air of authority – and not be viewed as plainclothes spies as asserts a comment at the 1 October 1943 Hearing; the same hearing also mentions union rejection of uniforming agents of the WSA, as a uniform would create “certain attitudes” on the part of the Shipping Inspector, which would inevitably result in a shipyard riot. Instead it was floated that the Shipping Inspector wear a large badge – the WSA thought ill of this.

WSA did a trial of uniforming its Field Service with good review, as related by Mr. J. L. Murphy, Chairman of Price Adjustment Board, War Shipping Administration on a 1 October 1943 Hearing:

These uniforms, though, were purchased at the employee’s expense without reimbursement by the WSA – at the time the Comptroller General ruled no agency of the government could procure uniforms on the part of its employees. Further, in northern shipyards, a garrison cap was prescribed, and all men were to war puttees to protect them from getting their trouser cuffs in machinery while down in a ship’s holds. The Senate Hearing provided the following on additional articles to be worn:

The argument for a uniformed service – civilian and voluntary organized in a military fashion and following the model of the USMS – met with Congressional approval without much fanfare or debate on 5 June 1944:

Afterward, the subject was dropped, and a uniformed WSA Field Service did not reach fruition.

This did not stop members of the Field Service from wearing their khakis and placing insignia on combination caps and pith helmets. They also wore a repurposed Maritime Eagle with “Ships for Victory” inscribed upon it (it was once an award). Below find an example of their cap badge and Maritime Eagle.

References

United States Congress House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Report of the War Shipping Administration on House Joint Resolution 182. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943. N.B. Penned 15 November 1943 by E. S. Land.

United States Congress House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. War Shipping Field Service: hearings before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Seventy-Eighth Congress, first session, on Oct. 1, 5, 1943. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943.

United States Congress House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. War Shipping Field Service: Hearings Before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 78th Congress, 1st Session, on House Joint Resolution 182, a Joint Resolution to Create the War Shipping Field Service, November 18 and 19, 1943. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943.

United States War Shipping Administration. U.S. Merchant Marine at War. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944.

February 7, 2010September 9, 2022

War Shipping Administration Ship Pilot

War Shipping Administration

War Shipping Administration Ship Pilot cap badge
Two piece construction; 60mm (l) x 55mm (h).
No hallmarks.
Eagle and shield gold-filled; anchors gold-filled.
Circa Second World War era; 1943-45.

Logistics and control of the supply chain is a perennial thorn in the side of military planners. In the interwar period, the U.S.’s sea-borne commerce was handled by a handful of independent shipping companies and corporations. With the clouds of war looming over Europe, and with the country gripped by the Depression, the federal government created the United States Maritime Commission (USMC) so as to provide stimulus to and a regulatory framework for United States maritime commerce; this was welcomed by industrialists as a protectionist measure. Of its many roles, the USMC was responsible for the training of men for service in the United States Merchant Marine, overseeing ship construction and the militarization of the U.S.-flag fleet in the event of war.

After Pearl Harbor and in the early days of 1942, by executive order, President Roosevelt created the War Shipping Administration (WSA). In one stroke, the WSA seized all U.S.-flag merchant ships for wartime duty. Among other responsibilities, the fleet chartering functions of the USMC were transferred to the new agency; by mid-war, the WSA owned and operated or chartered 80% of all sea-going merchant vessels in the U.S., with the rest being owned or chartered by the U.S. Army and Navy. An estimated 90% of all military and essential cargo was carried in WSA ships; the Administration’s responsibilities extended to all aspects and phases of shipping. This agency worked closely with Merchant Marine unions, operators, the U.S. Army and Navy as well as with the British Ministry of War Transport to ensure logistical control of the maritime supply lines. Despite service in-fighting and other institutional setbacks, the WSA did fulfil its role in maintaining ever-important seaborne logistics control.

The National Archives provides the following timeline and other pertinent information:

Administrative History

Established: In the Office for Emergency Management by EO 9054, February 7, 1942, under authority of the First War Powers Act (55 Stat. 838), December 18, 1941.

Predecessor Agencies:

* Division of Emergency Shipping, Office of the General Director of Shipping
* U.S. Maritime Administration (Feb. 1941-Feb. 1942)

Functions: Acquired and operated U.S. ocean vessels except those of the armed services and the Office of Defense Transportation; trained merchant crews; and coordinated utilization of U.S. shipping.

Abolished: September 1, 1946, by the Naval Appropriations Act (60 Stat. 501), July 8, 1946.

Successor Agencies: U.S. Maritime Administration.

And regarding seized functions, HyperWar provides the following text culled from a WSA memorandum penned by Adm E. S. Land:

Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, the United States Maritime Commission was established as an independent agency to direct and control all phases of overseas shipping and shipbuilding. It became apparent immediately when this Nation entered the war that a special agency to deal with the operational problems peculiar to war was necessary to supplement the Maritime Commission. That need brought about the creation of the War Shipping Administration on February 7, 1942, which took over from the Maritime Commission virtually all of the Commission’s major statutory functions with the exception of shipbuilding. Thus WSA became the Government’s ship operating agency and the Maritime Commission its shipbuilding agency.

It is important to remember that the WSA owned, operated and chartered sea-going vessels. The personnel manning these ships could be of several classes:

Mariners, licensed or unlicensed, union or non-union.
U.S. Maritime Service trained.
“Old salts”, or mariners not federally but state trained.
Civil service, civilian mariners.
Maritime shipping company employees.

But, WSA did not man a majority of vessels under its jurisdiction – this was done, by and large by unions. Yet, the WSA did contract out personnel to pilot and sometime deliver ships. The cap badge illustrated belonged to an employee of the WSA that worked aboard WSA vessels prior to delivery to a shipping line. A bit of high-level maritime culture is required to understand how this cap badge fits into the small constellation of sea-service and federal maritime insignia…

Since the WSA was not a uniformed service (but did have a uniformed component: the United States Maritime Service), some individuals employed by the WSA proper could and did procure uniforms and insignia at their discretion – such as the illustrated cap badge. By comparison, those mariners who went to the various state maritime schools or the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, during the war, would be inducted into the U.S. Merchant Marine as an active or a reserve officer – those individuals had the privilege of wearing U.S. Maritime Service insignia – as they still do today. However, in the early days of the war, not all officers aboard ship were graduates of said schools and would wear uniforms in the fashion of the day depending upon their status: mate, engineering officer, master, &c. (along the lines of U.S. Coast Guard licensed positions). If in the employ of a company, they would wear the company’s insignia. Or they could wear whatever struck their fancy and within reason.

WSA officer cap badges (cap devices), usually looked very similar to the U.S. Navy cap badges, albeit with “a twist” of being completely in gold plate.

These cap badges are few and far between given the relatively small number of WSA ship officers. This cap badge came from ship’s pilot working in a shipyard. These individuals turned the newly-built ships over to crews comprising of freshly-minted officers from United States Maritime Service (USMS) schools or existing shipping company crew members. The latter usually kept their existing insignia or defaced USMS insignia with a company flag – as illustrated in previous entries.

War Shipping Administration ship pilot
Cap badge, obverse.
This is ostensibly composed of components from the officer cap badges of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Public Health Service (anchors and eagle-shield, respectively). One might proffer a claim of incongruity by calling attention to the fact that the eagle is without the tell-tale “cow lick” on its crown which many use to “date” some U.S.N. commissioned officer cap badges. However, through careful examination of the toning patterns of the badge itself, the overall patina is consistent with sterling and gold-plated badges from the 1940s; and this die variation was very much in use at mid-war by Vanguard. And, since the WSA was without uniform regulations, these badges were more than likely purchased by an officer eager to adorn his cap with something distinctive.

War Shipping Administration ship pilot
Cap badge, reverse.
Note the absence of any hallmarks of any sort; the eagle of the usual Vanguard variety and anchors of Viking in design.

War Shipping Administration ship pilot
Cap badge, reverse bolt detail.
The slight lozenge-shaped brass keeper bolt is of a contemporary issue.

August 2, 2022September 9, 2022

Kings Point Bandsman

In searching through the National Archives, a friend forwarded me a curious set of images that originated from a file on United States Maritime Service uniforms. It brought up a couple of questions: Where are these from? And, who wore this uniform?

The first question has an easy answer. The moniker in the specifications – “Maritime Academy” strikes out the uniform as being at any of the other United States Maritime Service-run schools; they were called “training stations” or “schools” during the war. Before Kings Point became known as the Merchant Marine Academy, it was sometimes referred to as the United States Maritime Academy in internal publications through 1943 – this places the uniform’s wear at the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point.

The second question is a little harder to pin down, but all evidence points to a professional bandsman. Like the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis and the United States Maritime Service training stations, the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point had a professional band; the years of its operation are unclear. There is evidence that the Academy had a professional band recruited from local New York City swing bands in 1942. Confusing matters, the Academy also had a band formed by cadet-midshipmen in 1944 – a Regimental “Dance Band.” This band was to alternate performances at Regimental dances with the Academy band. The Dance band eventually became today’s Regimental band.

Could this be a uniform for a bandsman in the professional United States Merchant Marine Academy’s professional band or the cadet-midshipman Dance band? I would suggest, a professional bandsman; perhaps a band leader.

The illustrated uniform does not follow the pattern worn by other United States Maritime Service bandsmen, they wore fairly drab six-button coats without loops and lace. Also, in looking at the notions, the uniform buttons are of Cadet Corps-type, or star-anchor-star – pointing to the uniform as belonging to Kings Point. It is worth mentioning that instructors and the United States Maritime Service Ship’s Service men at Kings Point did not wear these buttons with their uniforms – theirs were the USMS-type. The cap badge is also of the cadet-midshipman type worn until 1944. It follows that bandsmen were not members of the United States Maritime Service but contracted musicians – they are absent from Midships and period Kings Point faculty rosters, except Lt. (jg) James F. Nilan (USMS) as the director in 1942. If we ignore the organizational incongruities and taken together, the cap badge and deck gun date the uniform between 1942 and 1944, and the location definitively is Kings Point. In terms of whether or not the Regimental Dance band wore the uniform (comprised of solely cadet-midshipmen), in 1944 we see both the Dance and Jazz Band wearing a variation of the USNA short coat – which was later donned by the entire Regiment – in 1944. Thus, could this be a professional bandsman uniform from 1942 through whenever the Academy band was disbanded.

In a rare photograph from March 1943, as seen below, there is a complement of bandsmen leading a parade of cadet-midshipmen from the Pass Christian Merchant Marine Cader Corps Basic School on Red Cross Day in Louis, Mississippi. The bandsmen are wearing the uniform coat, replete with sleeve braid (albeit muted) and collar insignia as seen in the first photograph; however, differing from the cadet-midshipmen following them and the first photograph, is the fact that their caps have black patent-leather chinstraps. This difference in cap construction, suggests the first photograph details a band leader. It is worth mentioning that the course of study at the Basic School was only a few months in duration, which would mean forming a cadet band would be impractical; thus, the bandsmen are most probably professional musicians.

Bay Street, Louis, Mississippi, Red Cross Day Parade, 22 March 1943.

In taking a careful look at the collar devices of the bandsmen as well as the badge on the sleeve of the choir leader from the Kings Point, 1943 image (on right), it appears that all devices were adopted from the wartime United States Navy band. The image on the right alludes to another, not documented, uniform configuration which mirrors that of midshipmen, but without cadet-midshipman insignia; interestingly. these bandsmen do not wear caps with black chinstraps.

from United States Navy Uniform Regulations, 1941.

Whatever the uniform below represents, it is unlike any other seen at Kings Point. We would only see some form of fancy dress later at Academy when the Regimental band was under Captain Kenneth Force; he introduced pomp in the 1970s. I have not seen any photographs proving or disproving that this specific uniform was in use – perhaps this is the proof. Perhaps.

February 1, 2019September 1, 2022

A mysterious old photograph

Last week a photograph originally in Mr. Bob Lind’s “Neighbors” column in the Fargo, North Dakota newspaper, The Forum, appeared in an online group about the Merchant Marine of the Second World War. The question in both places was, does anyone recognize the group? No one offered anything definitive.

Neighbors ran this photo last year. Kimberly Paulson-Schulman, formerly of Fargo and now of Burbank, Calif., found it in a resale shop in Burbank, saw it was framed in Fargo and sent it to Neighbors, hoping someone could identify the people in it and tell of the occasion on which it was taken.

There was some speculation about the time period based on the uniform of the U.S. Army officer in the second row from the front (sixth from the left).

The ship is definitely a merchant/cargo ship (see the king posts and cargo booms in the background), […]

The time frame is probably late WWII or immediately post-war, or perhaps the Korean War, by the looks of the Army officer’s uniform.

Perhaps.

For the student of Merchant Marine insignia, what is striking about the photograph is how it captures a period of flux in terms of United States Maritime Service (USMS) uniform insignia. Unlike the seemingly timeless look of the wartime U.S. Navy gob, the USMS tinkered with its uniforms and insignia to promote uniformity and to cultivate a distinctive visual culture of identification and rank. Fortunately, the pastiche of insignia aids in dating photographs such as this one.

Within the photograph above, a majority of the individuals are merchant seamen with the exception of the Royal Navy Chief Petty Officers flanking the last row, and the U.S. naval officer to the left of the second row and U.S. Army officer on the far right of the same. Each of them gives an example of the array of uniforms and insignia at the time.

Third Row

The Royal Navy Chief Petty Officers flanking both sides of the row wear the standard Royal Navy doeskin coat – a medium weight wool fabric which is usually softer and less densely napped than the melton worn by U.S. Navy. Since there does not appear to be any insignia on their lapels, they could possibly be wearing a Class I, Number I dress uniform. The cap badges are distinctly not those of a Royal Navy Officer. For the duration of the Second World War, the design and cut of the RN CPO uniform remained unchanged.

A keen difference between U.S. Navy and Royal Navy caps are both the names used for the caps and the chin straps on them. The U.S. Navy calls them combination caps and the Royal Navy, peaked caps. British chin straps are all democratically black leather, whereas the U.S. Navy uses gold braid in varying widths for officers, warrant officers, and midshipmen. U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officers use black patent leather chin straps. In the United States, the gold braid is reminiscent of the officer cap band of gold bullion worn in the decade between 1852 and 1862; up until 1869 officers wore a leather chin strap when regulations replaced it with a gold cap cord. The cord attained its current flat strap in after the Spanish-American War in 1904.

The two American merchant seamen second and third from the right, are both wearing the cap badge used by the USMS training cadre and Merchant Marine licensed officers who joined the USMS of their own volition. Licensed officers usually joined after the completion of upgrade courses at one of the few USMS officer schools or upon petition. The USMS did not advertise itself in trade publications, rather was learned of by “word of mouth.” The former seaman appears to be a licensed officer onboard a cargo vessel by virtue of the fact his cap is without a crown stiffener; mates and ABs often wore their caps without stiffeners as a practical measure on “working boats” – they needed to poke their heads into cramped spaces. The cap badge design was worn from Summer 1942 and as late as March 1943; by September 1943, these cap badges were abolished by U.S. War Shipping Administration. In their place came the familiar stamped-metal USMS officer cap badge. The seaman on the left has the USMS rank of ensign; however, he may also be wearing company-provided shoulder boards indicating him as a junior mate (probably a third mate).

The Army Transport Service (ATS) officer – fourth from left – is wearing an older embroidered ATS cap badge in use early in Second World War and up until August 1945. For most of the war, the U.S. Army’s fleet was divided into three divisions: ATS, Harbor Boat Service (HBS), and Inter-Island Service; each with minute gradations of insignia. This individual is an Engineer, Mate, or a Pilot in HBS as is evident by his black patent-leather chinstrap.

The merchant seamen fifth and sixth from the left are wearing the aforementioned USMS cap badge. The former is distinctly wearing the shoulder boards of a second mate in industry. The latter is wearing the shoulder boards of a USMS Lieutenant (Junior Grade); his boards appear to have the rope-ringed shield device of the USMS.

Second row

The merchant seaman in the first position in the second row is wearing a USMS cap badge. His khaki coat lacks shoulder boards. If it is lacking the loops for shoulder boards, it would be of the same cut as a Chief Petty officer or a U.S. Army officer; however, he is not wearing insignia of any kind. Often, junior stewards also wore the same cut of coat.

The U.S. Navy ensign – second from left – is wearing the post-May 1941 stamped-metal U.S. naval officer cap badge. As a design note, prior to 1941, officer cap badges were primarily embroidered. On his collar are ensign bars; U.S. naval officers were authorized to wear pin-on rank devices on khaki starting in May 1941. His shoulder boards indicate the same.

The merchant seaman third from the left and the individual forth from the left both wearing Maritime Service insignia at a crossroads. On the left, the seaman is wearing the cap badge of either a USMS training cadre or an individual who enrolled as an officer in the USMS; his shoulder boards are of an older style current from 1939 through 1943. His shoulder boards indicate he is a commander in the USMS; note USMS rank and shipboard position were sometimes not synchronous – for instance: a master of a ship might wear four stripes as part of maritime tradition, but tonnage of the ship would determine his appointed USMS rank – below a cut-off, and they may be appointed as a commander. Interestingly enough, his cap’s visor is without embellishment – something he rates as a commander.

The individual to the right is wearing the cap badge of a District Instructor as established in January 1942. In March 1943, it became the cap device of all USMS officers. If his shoulder boards were fully visible, having a USMS shield encircled by a cable, an anchor in a wreath, or U.S. Maritime Commission shield would determine his organization. His shoulder boards indicate he is a captain or master. Of interest is the central device of his cap badge; it is a U.S. Maritime Commission shield, it originally indicated the wearer is responsible for individuals enrolled in the U.S. Maritime Commission Cadet Corps or is a Cadet Officer within the same. On his visor are “scrambled eggs” or “chicken guts” (as the saying goes) – a decorative device reserved those who hold the rank of commander and above (e.g. commander, captain, commodore or admiral). He’s probably the “old man.”

The seaman fifth from the left is wearing a USMS cap badge current 1942 through March 1943. His shoulder boards indicate his rank as a captain – USMS or otherwise. Of interest is his cap’s visor – it is unadorned. He may be a Chief Engineer or a surgeon; both could wear captain boards, but not being in a command role, often did not wear “scrambled eggs.” This was a tradition often followed aboard merchant ships of the period; in 1944, USMS regulations explicitly illustrated and captioned commander and above as those who could wear “scrambled eggs.”

Around this time, there was a culture shift in the industry. On the eve of the Second World War (and I would argue the sentiment may be the roots of Zombo culture at Kings point), within the maritime community, there were those who took the rank and role of their station seriously; they would wear the lace, the buttons, and the uniform to keep the appearance of authority. Whereas there were others who saw the trappings of the military and pomp as a hindrance to doing work. In the latter group would be the radicalized seamen who survived the bloody union clashes of the 1930s or simply those who saw value in work itself. If this were the case, he might be the “old man” and the previous fellow a surgeon who’s just thrilled to be in uniform.

Last in the row is a U.S. Army infantry captain replete with a marksman badge and several ribbons. A comment in the article which accompanies the photograph states most succinctly:

My dad (may he rest in peace) was a WWII and Korean War Army officer and he wore that uniform back then — green brown (called olive drab) jacket and light khaki trousers that he derisively referred to as ‘pinks.’

First Row

The USMS officer first from the left is wearing the same USMS cap badge as his peers. Of interest is his wearing shoulder boards of the USMS circa March 1943. He may be a newly-minted deck officer straight from a USMS Officer school. His rank is ensign.

The USMS officer third from the right is wearing USMS “Administrative officer” purser shoulder boards; these staff corps shoulder boards first appeared in March 1943, with the design later abolished in 1944.

The Cadet-midshipmen – second and fourth from left – are both wearing cap badges that came out in 1939 and abolished in July 1944; but their shoulder boards are circa January 1942 and are those of a fourth-class cadet-midshipman. The individual on the left is a cadet in the Deck program, and the individual on the right is on the Engine program. Among the merchant seamen, the design of their shoulder boards – down to the securing bodkin – has remained relatively unchanged in design up through the Vietnam War era.

The context of the photograph revolves around the presence of the cadet-midshipmen. I suspect this photograph was probably taken aboard a troop ship prior to them shipping out. The clue to this is cadet-midshipmen invariably shipped-out in pairs: one in the Deck program and the other in the Engine program. If they were visiting a ship, they would probably be section-mates of the same program. The junior U.S. Navy officer may be leading a U.S. Navy Armed Guard unit and the U.S. Army officer may be a passenger aboard the ship. The Royal Navy Chief Petty officers are incongruous and might be passengers. Aboard Army Transport Service ships; uniform standards were fairly lax through the war – until they were not (probably in response to crews in the photograph, the Seattle Port of Embarkation published a suggestion for mariners to follow).

The season is invariably early Spring. Everyone is wearing working khaki coats, and some are wearing white socks – white cotton socks. If it were cold, the socks would be black, and the officers in the back would wear something a bit heavier than an overcoat. If the cadets were doing a regular training regimen, this photograph would have been taken just after the end of their preliminary training – if we go on the shoulder board design hints.

I would wager the photograph was taken in March or April 1943 given the overlap in the insignia worn by all the merchant seamen and evidence of the transitional insignia that lasted at most a year.

Curiously enough, the same photo recently reappeared with its back displayed. It looks like my hunches were correct. The photograph was taken in April 1943. My analysis was spot-on, except for the 1st Asst.; I thought him a steward – this was by virtue of his lack of insignia!

April 11, 2022August 16, 2022

Mementos and trauma

Unlike today’s freighters where a crew can be aboard for several soul-crushing months at a time without seeing a port, freighters in the 1940s and 1950s made frequent port calls – either for replenishment of stores or cargo transfers. Port calls for a ship’s crew meant a jaunt around the port district or visits to places further afield. Sometimes, a merchant seaman might go to a seedy bookshop and purchase a racy postcard and magazine or two, or maybe see a show. Despite popular conceptions of them having libertine sensibilities, most seamen did not have a penchant for hard liquor and frequenting jiggle joints. For the most part, merchant seamen operated under the mores of their era and their appetites by today’s standards would be considered tame – yet context is important. And so, from time to time, when families sift through mementos of their merchant mariner relatives, strange risque photocards and the odd cheesecake snapshot may appear. These may be of friends or lovers of the moment. And other times, a photograph may appear and instantly becomes the site of trauma.

The photograph below was produced by an ex-Merchant Marine man by the name of David C. Tucker. He snapped photographs for local media in Baltimore, Maryland primarily of the waterfront; with his output being of ships and shipping. However, he apparently also traded in fetish images – a trio have surfaced of a semi-nude without context from 1947; this series, in particular, features a young woman holding the props of a majorette. During the mid-1940s through the 1950s, majorettes were a theme of pin-up artists with images gracing calendars and invariably a trope of burlesque performers. From a composition standpoint, Mr. Tucker has the majorette character not engaging the gaze of the viewer, which would imply licentiousness. As opposed to a demure look to the side which would convey that the majorette is a coquette, and thus inviting the male gaze, Mr. Tucker’s majorette is posed looking away from the viewer; this gives the image an almost voyeuristic quality. Albeit, the sheer fabric of the costume suggests the voyeur’s imagination has penetrated the layers of clothing and rambles freely over the almost naked form of the object of their gaze. This photograph could have been a promotional copy for a burlesque dancer, however, the envelope suggests it was sold for fetish purposes since it lacks the performer’s name.

This specific image was once in the collection of an ex-Merchant Mariner whose adult child discovered it while cleaning out her father’s belongings after his death. The other two images in the series were destroyed due to water damage. The destroyed images comprised one image of the majorette character with the baton pressed against her breasts, and another without a baton; both in the same pose as the one presented.

The discovery of the photographs was disturbing for the daughter as she was a majorette in junior and senior high school – the period when this photograph was procured by her father. Although I did not press the finder of the image, she stated that after finding it, many questions she had about her father fell into place and the unease she felt growing up – that she, in her youth banished as the markers of paranoid thought – came rushing back. Along with these photographs were others of her and her friends as majorettes. She mentioned how he looked at her when she was a young woman and made passes at her teenage friends.

She told me her father was a war veteran and he was quiet about what he experienced out at sea; he once and only once spoke of a buddy whose body was ripped apart by shrapnel and how others who were washed off deck and burned alive in flaming oil slicks while his convoy was attacked. He must have been traumatized, I said. “He took it out on ma and me.” She told me she could not tell me what he did, but it was all very wrong in retrospect, “A father does not do what he did to his daughter.”

The photograph and the narrative that accompany it affected me deeply for several years – especially since the daughter passed away and her surviving family knows nothing of their grandfather, his war service, or much of who he was. The story and the revelation brought to the fore the veritable code of silence that has pervaded the lives of those who lived through the trauma of the war and domestic abuse; the daughter linked what her mother said about how her father changed from an optimistic man to a sullen one when he returned. If he had treatment, if he talked, perhaps things that had happened would not have, I posited. The photograph, easily overlooked as a racy pin-up, when put in the context of the abuse it represented to the daughter, had me look at it as a perverse memento by a damaged man.

In no way do I wish to besmirch the good deeds and sacrifices done by the few for the many by presenting this story; I am, though, left asking how we have so quickly forgotten the horrors merchant seamen underwent and how some “cracked” by the weight of their pain. Some lost themselves in drink, others by womanizing, and others to abusing those who loved and trusted them. If this fellow had access to psychiatric care as offered to service members who returned from the war, would his pain have manifested itself in abuse? This is a question that may never have an answer.

June 6, 2022June 8, 2022

congressional gold medal for merchant mariners of world war ii

Earlier this week the Congressional Gold Medal for World War II Merchant Mariners arrived in my mailbox. I was tapped to participate in the Design Committee in mid-2020; it was the greatest of honors to be involved in the committee to help guide the designers in crafting the medal – and even more an honor to assist in the celebration of America’s unsung heroes of the Second World War after all these years. Indeed, Merchant Mariners were belatedly given veteran’s status in 1988; however, their recognition took place at the Capitol, underlying the key role they played in winning the war.

In terms of the design itself, we on the Committee had been going back and forth over various designs without actually having any trial strikes or maquettes – holding the final result in my hand was pretty neat. I should mention, that the figures are a broad representation of a ship’s crew. I am really glad the Lundeberg Stetson was included – it is a nod to the unions; since, without their tacit cooperation, we would not have had anyone running the ships through the gauntlet. I had lots to say about the importance of the unions and officer’s cap and coat in our meetings – I am glad my suggestions were followed-up upon.

Apply for or purchase a Congressional Gold Medal Duplicate

A duplicate medal may be applied for or purchased; all medals available to veterans, their families, or the general public are struck in matte bronze. It is important to note Congressional Gold Medals awarded to groups are not an individual honor, group members do not receive their own gold medal – rather, a bronze medal. There is no limit to the number of medals an individual may purchase.

Application

The Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020 authorizes the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to award duplicates of the medal to individuals who, between December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, were members of the United States Merchant Marine, or other related services – namely the Army Transport Service (ATS) or Navy Transport Service (NTS). If a qualified individual is no longer available to receive their medal, MARAD is authorized to issue a smaller duplicate of the medal to the next of kin.

To request a medal, MARAD asks that veterans or their family members or survivors submit (follow the bolded links for example documents – in the event you don’t know what you’re looking for):

Mariner’s Full Name
A copy of the Merchant Mariner’s DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty” with continuation sheet if provided (the DD Form 214 is required to verify Merchant Marine service on vessels during World War II – see the information below on how to file the DD-214);
A summary, if available, of World War II sailing history to include the theater(s) of operation and ports of discharge; and
Department of Commerce Continuous Discharge Book number, United States Coast Guard “Z Number,” or United States Maritime Service (USMS) number if available.

Inquires, along with the required documents, can be emailed to Katrina McRae at the Office of Sealift Support: katrina.mcrae@dot.gov

N.B.: I suspect the “duplicate” as noted above to be the 3-inch medal, and the “smaller duplicate” to be the 1.5-inch medal. The image above is of the 3-inch medal.

Purchase

The medal may be purchased from the United States Mint. The orders are dispatched from the US Mint’s fulfillment center in Memphis, Tennessee; depending upon the destination address, medals may be received anywhere from four to fourteen days after processing if using standard shipping.

The US Mint offers the medal in two sizes: 1.5-inches or 3-inches in diameter. Although the mintage of either medal has not been published, using numbers from previous years (2017-2020), the US Mint struck an average of 3,780 3-inch medals, and 2,560 1.5-inch medals. Once all stocks are depleted, medals are not re-struck. The price (as of this writing) for each is $20.00 and $160.00, respectively.

Please find the US Mint’s catalog page below:
https://catalog.usmint.gov/merchant-mariners-of-world-war-ii-bronze-medal-MASTER_MLMMW.html

Veteran Status & DD-214

Merchant Mariners of the Second World War may gain veteran’s status if they both prove their wartime service and if they hold an Honorable Discharge. Just like their uniformed peers, a discharge other than honorable invalidates a mariner from receiving veteran’s benefits – including receiving a duplicate of the Congressional Gold Medal. The key to this status is having a DD-214.

The DD-214 holds all pertinent information regarding a Merchant Mariner’s wartime service, including their positions aboard ships, vessels sailed, training stations attended, any decorations awarded, as well as the type of discharge they may hold. Unless they were kicked out of the industry or banned from War Shipping Administration ships – or did not skip out of training – most mariners served honorably.

The DD-214 may be obtained by filling out the “DD Form 2168, Application for Discharge of Member or Survivor of Member, April 2010;” requisite paperwork is available from the United States Coast Guard:
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/records_request/dd_2168.pdf

As a note, for families of deceased veterans, the DD-214 allows for them to petition the United States Maritime Administration for replacement or missing wartime decorations awarded to their kin as well as a duplicate Congressional Gold Medal.

☆ ☆ ☆

The American Merchant Marine Veterans (AMMV) has also provided a comprehensive guide – this should be consulted first:
https://ianewatts.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ammv-mm-wwii-dd214-apply.pdf

The US Coast Guard published a short Frequently Asked Questions document regarding the application process as well as information on what to provide in applying for a deceased relative. The document is here:
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/faq/WWII_veteran_faq.pdf

Many thanks are due to Sheila Sova of AMMV regarding the DD-214 application process.

April 14, 2022April 15, 2022

Two garrison caps

At its outset, the United States Merchant Marine Academy’s predecessor, the United States Maritime Commission Cadet Corps bucked the prevalent sartorial trend and uniformed its members in the garb of a ship’s officer, eschewing the popular eight-button coat of the maritime cadet or midshipman. This ethos of non-conformity continued through the Second World War – culminating in the Kings Point cadet-midshipman jazz band taking the round coat of their Annapolis peers and eventually extending its wear to the Regiment. Headwear was no exception.

Garrison caps were first called “aviation caps” in Cadet Corps regulations; for good reason, they were the primary headgear worn by aviators; for some reason, Naval aviators did not have the tradition of wearing “crushers” like their Army Air Corps contemporaries (although sub sailors did). These caps first appeared in Cadet Corps sea bags in Summer 1941 and came in khaki with blue piping – piping was a notably a U.S. Army innovation; the color of the cord translated to the Corps a soldier belonged. Thus in a maritime setting, the Cadet Corps adopted this novel headgear before midshipmen at Annapolis or New London, or cadets at Fort Schuyler.

In terms of insignia on Cadet Corps garrison caps, the United States Maritime Commission (USMC) pin was worn on the left side from 1939 to 1942 with a blank blouse; at some point in 1942 it was replaced with Cadet Corps Shield and the piping was deleted from the cap. The anchor appeared on the blank curtain (triangle of folded cloth at the front) in June 1943. The shield remained until November 1943; after this date, the Merchant Marine service emblem replaced both the anchor and shield. It should be noted that the reason why there was no anchor device on the blouse between some point in 1942 and mid-1943, was because no anchor device existed at the time – only in 1943 did U.S. Navy officers begin wearing miniature devices on garrison caps.

White garrison caps first appeared in January 1941 in U.S. Navy sea bags; at the time, they were only worn with tropical uniforms (short sleeve shirts and shorts). As the Navy began building up shore installations in the Pacific, officers found their usual visor cap and sometimes pith helmets impractical (if not visually silly). The Navy looked to the U.S. Army for inspiration where garrison caps were the rule for “informal formal” wear. Clotheshorses that they were, since Naval officers needed something to wear with their tropical uniforms as they did with their service uniforms Stateside, voila: white garrison cap.

Maritime Commission Cadets on parade, Summer 1943

In Summer 1943, the recently-formed Merchant Marine Academy and its Basic Schools issued white service uniforms to its cadet-midshipmen along with a white garrison cap. The cap appears to have been first issued to members of the Cadet Corps at Cadet Basic School in Pass Christian, Mississippi; and curiously, it was seen on the parade ground in combination with the white service uniform – the military discipline of day (to which the Cadet Corps subscribed) forebade the public to ever see a service member in a garrison cap since it was considered undress; it was a gaffe on the order of a gentleman being seen in shirt sleeves in public. By Spring 1944, the white garrison cap was a memory.

In 1974, the United States Merchant Marine Academy removed a unique piece of headwear from midshipman seabags after twenty-eight years of use: a denim garrison cap. This cap was a unique uniform item only used at Kings Point and not at anywhere else among the sea services; the other state maritime or federal academies issued their inmates in white hats (Plebes wore a blue-rimmed hat at USNA) and eventually command ball caps.

This garrison hat was issued from November 1946 through at most Spring 1974. The denim garrison cap supplanted khaki garrison caps that were previously worn with dungarees and chambray work shirts; its first appearance is noted in a photograph of a new thermodynamics laboratory. The change from khaki to denim makes sense as grease strains are extremely difficult to clean from khaki; and khaki garrison caps were worn for inspection and for “official, unofficial functions” and as such stains would reflect poorly on the wearer. Luckily, dungarees were work clothes and not subject to the rigors of inspection, except shirts were expected to be bloused. It was worn by Engineer midshipmen in shop and laboratory spaces, and by midshipmen assigned to maintenance activities in the dormitories (e.g. swabbing the deck). As for insignia, extant photographs show it featured both the midshipman anchor and Merchant Marine Service emblem, and without the anchor (like this example); this is due to the fact that cadets in their preliminary phase of training – their first couple of weeks at the Basic Schools – were not full members of Cadet Corps, and were in a preliminary state. Once they survived the first two weeks, they rated an anchor pin on their caps and hats. The disappearance of the Service Emblem occurred in the late 1950s, with the anchor remaining its only adornment.

In later years, the dungaree uniform, which came in both long and short-sleeve versions, was supplanted by the boiler suit. This uniform was an integral pair of trousers and a shirt in dark blue. It was a popular article of wear in civilian machine shops and was de rigueur in U.S. Navy hull repair and engineering spaces. From 1973-1975, there were two years of un-uniformity in Kings Point’s working uniforms and allied headwear.

Last sighting of denim garrison cap, Midships 1973 & 1975

In Fall 1974, the denim cap was removed as an item of wear for the class of ’76 and replaced with a command ball cap after nearly thirty years of official wear. Kings Pointers afterward wore caps like those worn at Annapolis – and no longer was a distinctive visual emblem of the Cadet Corps. Prior to full abolishment of the denim cap, degrading Kings Point’s distinctive look was the retirement of dungarees; apparently, the Superintendent’s wife thought midshipmen wearing the dungaree uniform made them look like “hippies” (it must have been the flared pant legs of their Seafarer dungaree trousers). Their uniforms were summarily replaced with polyester boiler suits in 1973. The switch over was not complete across all classes as upperclassmen still wore their dungarees (see the image above). By the end of the 1970s, Kings Point willfully shed most of its idiosyncratic uniform components and adopted a marked Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps appearance – the denim garrison cap was the third uniform item, after the Zombo shoulder boards and hippie dungarees in a long line of abandonments.

Command ball caps at Annapolis and Kings Point, Fall 974

Special thanks are due to Thomas F. McCaffery, USMMA ’76.

November 18, 2019April 14, 2022

Nuclear Ship Savannah

The following collection of insignia details an interesting career arc of a licensed engineer in the American Merchant Marine. It also illustrates a transformative period of the American Merchant Marine from its zenith in the 1940s through its struggle for relevance in the Cold War.

[T]he person that owned this collection graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point as an engineering officer. Then worked for United Fruit Company and the American Export Lines. Both companies used the B.M.O. (Brotherhood of Marine Officers) – this union represented both Deck and Engine Officers and it was easy for officers of United Fruit to change to American Export Lines.
Mr. Chet Robbins of N.S. Savannah Association, personal communication.

As an officer in the employ of latter, the owner ended up on the NS Savannah as a nuclear engineer with American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, F.A.S.T. (First Atomic Ship Transport); after a sea-going career that began during the Second World War, there is evidence of work with General Dynamics and support for the creation of the American Merchant Marine Museum. Unfortunately, I do not know the full provenance – perhaps someone may know the contours of the career and individual.

NS Savannah significance

As part of the “Atoms for Peace” program as promoted by the Eisenhower Administration at the height of the Cold War, NS Savannah was a demonstration vessel to illustrate the technical feasibility of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. She was not expected to be commercially competitive, rather was designed to be a set-piece: she was to be visually impressive with a look more akin to a luxury yacht than a bulk cargo vessel. Her design called for thirty air-conditioned staterooms (each with an individual bathroom), a dining facility for one hundred passengers, a lounge that could double as a movie theater, a veranda, a swimming pool, and a library. Even the often utilitarian cargo handling equipment was designed along the lines of the era’s Atomic Age aesthetics. As a demonstration vessel, by many accounts, the ship was a success. She performed well at sea, her safety record was impressive, and since a nuclear reactor powered her, her gleaming white paint was never smudged by oil or diesel exhaust smoke.

Yet, no amount of positive design could paper-over NS Savannah‘s impracticalities. Her cargo space was limited to 8,500 tons of freight in 652,000 cubic feet – which was a fraction of the space her competitors could accommodate. And, despite her modern appearance, she was still a creature of her times – cargo-handling was done by longshoremen. Her streamlined hull made loading the forward holds laborious, which became a significant disadvantage as ports embraced automation. Her crew was a third larger than comparable oil-fired ships and received special training in addition to that required for conventional maritime licenses. Although she was initially chartered by States Marine in 1963, from 1965 to 1971, the Maritime Administration leased NS Savannah to American Export Isbrandtsen Lines for revenue cargo service. This change was due to a labor dispute which erupted over pay scales. NS Savannah‘s engineering officers had been allotted extra pay in compensation for their extensive additional nuclear training. The deck officers, however, cited the tradition where they received higher pay than engineering officers. A labor arbitrator ruled in favor of the higher pay for the deck officers, in keeping with the traditional pay scale, despite the lower training requirements of the deck officers. The pay issue continued plagued States Maritime’s crew, resulting in it dismissal and the Maritime Administration canceling its contract with States Marine Lines and selecting American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines as the new ship operator. The resulting need to train a new crew interrupted NS Savannah‘s demonstration schedule for nearly a year.

Although the change in operators alleviated the immediate labor problem, the failure to resolve this dispute would forever cloud the feasibility of nuclear merchant ships. Many feared that abandoning the
Masters, Mates, and pilots (M.M.& P.) and the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA) trade unions merely deferred the necessary resolution of this conflict. After all, these two unions represented deck and engineering officers on a majority of all other U.S.-flag operated ships.

As a result of her design handicaps, training requirements, and additional crew members, NS Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration decommissioned her in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In a note of historical parallel, the ship’s ill-augered namesake, the SS Savannah, which in 1819 became the first steam-powered ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean, was also a commercial failure despite it being an innovation in marine propulsion technology.

Note: above text is spindled from a Chatham County Georgia Historical handout on NS Savannah.

Below are the items in chronological order. All may be seen viewed together on the Collection page: NS Savannah ex-crew.

Nuclear Reactor Control Room mock-up at Kings Point. Note the flag.

1940s Kings Point

The collection begins with a Kings Point “4.” These items were worn on athletic uniforms; the USNR badge is circa 1942-1945; finely woven and pin cushion style badges replaced these generally flat woven examples immediately following the close of the Second World War.

1940s United Fruit

The two following cap badges show a progression of responsibility within the United Fruit fleet. Senior officer wore cap badges with anchors and small flags above; this innovation was an innovation begun in the United States Merchant fleet by United States Lines under the management of Internation Merchantile Marine; hierarchical badges were largely abandoned by the end of the 1940s in favor of command positions being denoted by felt-covered visors with embroidered oak leaf clusters.

The insignia from United Fruit also shows a steady progression of responsibility. The shoulder boards illustrate promotion from 3rd to 2nd Engineer, and the insigne (for further details please see the collection page) shows the wearer as belonging to the Engineering department. United Fruit insignia is a bit confusing as at first glance it appears to look like United States Merchant Marine cadet-midshipman insignia as USMMA insignia has program identifiers ringed in bullion rope; this insignia lasted at least through the 1950s as it was current during the Korean War.

1960s American Export Lines

American Export Lines cap badge features the outline of the globe. This cap badge was worn for a short duration since American Export Lines did a corporate livery change in 1962 and was later absorbed by Isbrantsen Lines in 1964. It was in this last year when it was probably briefly worn while the NSS Savannah was under Isbrantsen’s ownership of the ship and F.A.S.T. lacked shipboard insignia of its own.

1960s First Atomic Ship Transport

Rounding out the collection are items from when the original owner worked aboard the NS Savannah as a junior engineer. These would have come with American Export-Isbrantsen award of the contract to operate the NS Savannah in May 1963 through the subsidiary First Atomic Ship Transport (F.A.S.T.); this contract lasted until 1971, at the end of which the ship was taken out of service. By 1972, the ship was mothballed.

Of particular note are the cap badge and the shoulder boards. The construction of the cap badge points to manufacture or fitting in the United Kingdom or an English-influenced tailor since the stitching pattern of the band has band seams fore as opposed to American aft. This cap badge is that of F.A.S.T. and was worn from at least 1964 onward (see images below). Although the American Merchant Marine industry closely followed United States Navy insignia patterns after the Second World War, the US Navy had no specialized identification for nuclear engineers despite a great many reactor operators in the fleet; thus the shoulder boards are unique to the NS Savannah. There is evidence that the deck officers first wore shoulder boards with an atomic orbital model superimposed over anchors beginning with the maiden voyage of the NS Savannah in January 1962 while she was under contract with States Marine Lines.

SHIP ORGANIZATION, 1962-1965, Organization chart — NS *Savannah* ship organization, 1962-1965

As of this writing, I do not know the significance of the blazer badge’s Latin motto nor what the tie tack represents. “Arduus Ad Altatus” (lit.: “Striving to Dance”) could be an allusion to getting atoms to dance in the reactor; and the tie tack could be styling representation of the ship’s reactor.

Captain Gaston H. DeGroote, January 1962.

Note above the shoulder boards worn by Captain DeGroote with his States Marine Lines cap badge, and the F.A.S.T cap badge worn by Captain McMichael along with the specialized deck shoulder boards. Images of Captain McMichael are from the Port Agent of Dublin, Irish Shipping Ltd. newsletter Signal; the article on the port demonstration is here.

Many thanks are due to Mr. Chet Robbins of N.S. Savannah Association for offering a synopsis of the original owner’s possible career and identification of the F.A.S.T. items.

References

Chatham County – Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission (2005). Regular Meeting, Thursday 20 January 2005 Handout “Historical Document.” Chatham, Georgia.

Irish Shipping, Limited. “Nuclear Ship ‘Savannah’ in Dublin.” Signal, Volume 2, No.4, August 1964. pp. 2-3, 8-12.

NS Savannah Chief Engineer shoulder board

Late-1960s F.A.S.T. shoulder board of the Chief Engineer.

April 10, 2022April 14, 2022

Samizdat

In 1972 the Soviet Union and Europe suffered a drought that resulted in catastrophic crop failures. Although the Soviet Union was perenially plagued with periodic droughts and crop failure, 1972 was significant since the main crop affected was wheat – a dietary mainstay for both people and livestock. This failure brought about talks between the United States and the Soviet Union that culminated in the grain agreement of 1975 between the two countries; the United States pledged to send 8 million tons of wheat a year to the Soviet Union. This agreement was significant for the Unites States shipping industry as it came on the heels of the United States-Soviet Maritime Agreement of 1972. The earlier deal called for one-third of the U.S.-Soviet trade to be carried in U.S.-flag vessels, one-third in Soviet-flag vessels, and one-third in third flag vessels – the latter enabled United States’ allies to benefit from the trade agreement. In addition, part of the 1972 agreement was the opening of 40 United States and the reciprocal opening of 40 Soviet ports to trade. As a result, the Soviet grain trade offered a steep increase in American ships visiting Soviet ports.

“The [1972] accord, described by the Administration as “an indispensable first step” toward a contemplated vast increase in Soviet-American commercial relations, also provides for the unloading and loading of Soviet merchant vessels in East Coast and Gulf Coast ports for the first time since 1963. New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are among the United States ports in which American union leaders have agreed to handle Soviet vessels under the over-all accord.”

Of those ports opened to the West was Petrograd, today’s St. Petersburg. Due to both accords, Petrograd saw both the import of grain and a collateral clandestine trade in foreign media grow. Soviet merchant sailor sea bags increasingly contained magazines, newspapers, records, and pornography; they imported these materials at their peril: the Soviet state followed a stringent policy of censorship and ban on materials deemed subversive to the Communist Party, the State, and society. In spite (or despite) the threat of imprisonment or worse, the trade of forbidden items flourished in Petrograd and other large urban areas. Media was often translated and copied via various means and entered the underground economy in forbidden texts; these materials had the blanket term samizdat (самиздат). This was a coy play on the word Gosizdat (Госиздат):

“[Which] is a telescoping of Gosudarstvennoye Izdatelstvo, the name of the monopoly‐wielding State Publishing House. The same part of the new word means “self.” The whole samizdat—translates as: “We publish ourselves”—that is, not the state, but we, the people.”

The means of samizdat production could be by the author of the media or by a reader – and thus not sanctioned, and being forbidden, it circulated outside of official distribution channels. All media in the Soviet Union was censored and sold under license by the State; samizdat, not so – it circulated under the noses of the authorities. In early periods, samizdat came in typewritten, photographic, or longhand forms; by the end of the Soviet era, some were produced via primitive computer word processing applications. Examples of samizdat comprise of smuggled books may be found where their pages were photographed and cut to size and stapled or sewn together and glued into a cover of another book; still, others were created with photostats placed between plain cardboard wrappers, or simply stapled-together manuscripts. An underlying ethos of samizdat was that the production of these materials meant resistance to state repression, and to resist was a means to live.

In the late-1970s, when the Soviet Union opened itself ever so carefully to the West in a time of need, did an American merchant seaman acquire the small collection of photographs below for a carton of cigarettes and smuggle them out of Petrograd to the United States. The collection features a series of four photographs and a single photograph. I am unsure if the four and the one are connected; the latter is a single photograph of a woman posing like a Greek statue; the remaining four photographs offer some sort of erotic social satire – as explained to me, they employ universal characters of the Soviet period used in dirty or satirical stories: a militiaman, a market trader from the Caucasus, a street tough, and a bodybuilder. Each hunts for a woman’s body and attempts to possess her; in the end, she chooses the bodybuilder, to the chagrin of all.

Samizdat often seen by Westerners involves forbidden literature such as the political tract “Memoirs of a Bolshevik-Leninist” or hand-made books; photographs such as this collection are rarely commented upon. Nevertheless, despite the harsh cultural repression at play in the Soviet Union, the images represent resistance and the need to poke fun at authority.

This was quite the trade for a carton of cigarettes. My lingering question is what was the context that led to the trade.

References

“Moscow Accepts Sea Freight Rise; Signs U.S. Accord.” New York Times, October 15, 1972, Page 1

Jean S. Gerard. “The U.S.-Soviet Maritime Agreement: A New Plan for Bilateral Cooperation.” Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1977.

George Saunders (Editor), Marilyn Vogt (Translator). Samizdat: Voices of the Soviet Opposition. Pathfinder, 1974.