U.S. Navy Technician

usn us technician

USN Technician hat badge & miniature device.
Cast brass; motto: U.S. TECHNICIAN.
1 screw, 1 non-rotating point.
37mm x 48mm (LxH).
manu: Officer’s Equipment Co. Madison, NJ.
mini device: 15mm x 19mm.
Circa 1950.

Joseph Tonelli’s book, Visor hats of the United States Armed Forces: 1930-1950 illustrates one of the most exquisite pieces of headgear worn by U.S. forces in the Second World War – that of the  U.S. Technician attached to the U.S. Navy. A passing glance could mistake it for something out of Fascist Italy: these hats have elaborate devices composed of a silver embroidered spread eagle. It faces dexter with a stylized wrench clutched in the left claw and an olive branch in the right. The lettering “U.S. TECHNICIAN” is centered on a brass or gold-plate device on the eagle’s chest. The hat’s chin-strap changed from gilt to black-braid by end of the war, and finally black leather. The last U.S. Technician hat Tonelli details on page 198 is from 1950 and presumably one in contemporary use.

With the onset of the Second World War, the technologies involved in weapon creation oftentimes surpassed the basic training of sailors, soldiers and their commanding officers. The technical advancements in aviation, computers, and RADAR required technical personnel of defense industry companies that created these new weapons of war to advise and train their military customers. The Navy, keen on maintaining hierarchical relationships and following Geneva Convention rules, and to insure the clear identification of non-combatants in its midst, drew up regulations for U.S. Navy Technician uniforms and devices. These regulations, for the most part, remain on the books and can be found buried in U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines uniform regulations. A survery of these regulations are as follows:

First public mention of the uniform was published by All Hands in October 1943:

New Insignia For Civilian Technicians

Civilian technicians, who may serve with the Navy, were authorized last month to wear a uniform similar to that worn by Naval officers, minus any insignia of rank or corps, or shoulder or sleeve marks. Caps with black chin strap and without cap device will be worn. Instead of Naval insignia, technicians will wear the insignia pictured herewith, on the left breast pocket of coat and shirt. (Details in N. D. Bul. [semimonthly], of 1 September 1943, R-1368.)

The insignia above was reproduced on uniform visor cap with a small gilt placard bearing the words “U.S. Technician” on the eagle’s chest (detail toward the end of the post). By 1950, the elaborate device was no longer and was replaced with a gilt placard. All Hands also relates the same:

Navy Civilian Technicians Will Wear Uniforms With Emblem on Left Breast

A new directive authorizes civilian technicians serving with the Navy to wear uniforms that, except for insignia, are the same as an officer’s outfit.

For the most part, the uniforms will be worn by expert field engineers and scientists sent to Navy ships and shore bases by commercial companies to iron out difficulties the Navy is having with their equipment, Their most noticeable insignia, an embroidered badge about three inches square which shows an eagle and the words “U. S. Technician,” will be worn on the left breast pocket of coats and khaki shirts. The uniform will be the same as a commissioned naval officer’s with the exception that no distinctive rank, corps device or other naval insignia will be worn. Plain buttons of the same size and color of naval officers’ uniforms will be worn on the coats. Here are the various insignia to watch for:

  • Cap insignia – Gilt badge one-and-a-half inches wide and one-and-seven-eighths inches high bearing the words “U.S. Technician,” worn on the band of the combination cap with a plain black strap and plain gilt buttons.
  • Breast insignia – An embroidered badge three-and-a-quarter inches square. An eagle is shown clutching a group of tools in one claw and an olive branch in the other. The design and the words “U.S. Technician” are white on blue coats and blue on other coats and khaki shirts, on a background the same color as the coat or shirt.
  • Collar insignia – Gilt pin five-eighths of an inch wide and threequarters of an inch high bearing the inscription “U.S. Technician,” for wear on both sides of the khaki shirt collar.
  • Garrison cap insignia – Same gilt pin as that worn on the collar. On the garrison cap it is worn on the left side only.

As announced in BuPers Circ. Ltr. 142-50 (NDR, 31 Aug 1950), the uniform will be of benefit in establishing the technician’s status in event of capture by an enemy, will provide ready identification as contractors’ representative at naval activities, and will assist area commanders and commanding officers in their control over them.

The wearing of this uniform is limited to individuals authorized and designated by the Chief of Naval Operations.

By the 1990s, the uniform regulation for U.S. Navy Technicians became quite specific, and they were mandated to only wear uniforms in forward combat areas and during travel to and from such areas outside of the continental United States (or, on any other occasion as deemed fit by the Chief of Naval Operations). This is to establish their official status as a non-combatant.

U.S. Navy OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5720.3D § 9 states thus:

Articles of Uniform. The articles of uniform shall be the same as those prescribed for a commissioned naval officer except that no distinctive rank, corps device, or other naval insignia shall be worn. Plain buttons of the same size and color prescribed for naval officer’s uniforms shall be worn on coats. Female technicians shall wear either the garrison cap or beret; combination hat is not authorized.

Breast Insignia. An embroidered badge 3¼ inches square, consisting of a spread eagle, facing dexter; the left claw of the eagle shall be shown clutching a group of tools and the right claw an olive branch; immediately underneath the eagle shall be the letters: U.S. TECHNICIAN. The background of the badge shall be the same color as the coat/jacket or shirt, with the design and lettering white on blue coats and blue on other coats/jackets and khaki shirts. The breast insignia shall be worn on the left breast pocket of coats and khaki shirts for male technicians. The breast insignia shall be worn above the left breast pocket flap of the jacket (Service Dress Blue), for female technicians.

Cap insignia for male technicians. A gilt badge 1¼ inches wide by 1-7/8 inches high bearing the inscription U.S. TECHNICIAN. Worn on the band of the combination cap with plain black chin strap and plain gilt buttons. Cap insignia for garrison cap (male and female technicians) and beret (female technicians). A gilt pin 5/8-inch wide by ¾-inch high bearing the inscription U.S. TECHNICIAN. Worn on the left side of the garrison cap 2 inches from the front edge and 1½ inches from the bottom edge of the cap when the garrison cap is prescribed for wear by naval officers. For female technicians, worn on the beret, aligned approximately above the left eye.

Collar insignia. A gilt pin 5/8-inch wide by ¾-inch high bearing the inscription U.S. TECHNICIAN. Worn on both sides of the collar of the khaki shirt with the center of the insignia 1 inch from the front edge and 1 inch below the upper edge of the collar for male technicians. Worn on the white shirt collar with the center of the insignia 2 inches from the fold line at top of collar and ¾-inch from the forward edge of collar, for female technicians.

The U.S. Marine Corps has similar directives, however without the “combination hat” and the stipulation that anyone wearing a Marine Corps uniform must abide by USMC grooming standards.

These directives are still in effect. In terms of the insignia that accompany this entry, they were manufactured prior to the Korean War – as evident by the lack of Institute of Heraldry (IOH) numbers and the wartime keeper screw bolt. In the past, GEMSCO and Officer’s Equipment Co. manufactured U.S. Technician insignia; Dondero is presently the only supplier of the collar insignia to the USMC – I am unsure about the hat badge and if it is even produced. I have yet to see these plain buttons.

References:
Marine Corps Order P12304.1, 25 October, 1993
Contractor Engineering and Technical Services Personnel Manual.

Marine Corps Order P1020.34G MCUB, 31 March 2003.
Paragraph 8005, Civilians Serving With Marine Corps Units.

Office of The Chief of Naval Operations OP-09B23T, 1 June, 1994
U.S. Department of Defense Form DOD-OPNAVINST-5720-3D, § 9.

Nicole A. Lavine. “Tactical Safety Specialist diffuse potential hazards” in Observation Post. Twentynine Palms, California: 26 January 2007, p. A5.

Joseph J. Tonelli.  Visor hats of the United States Armed Forces: 1930-1950.  Atglen, Pennsylvania:  Schiffer Publicartions, 2003.

U.S. Navy. All Hands October 1943, p. 69.

U.S. Navy. All Hands November 1950, p. 51.


USN Technician
Hat badge & miniature device; reverse, hallmark and screw post detail. 1950s.


USN Technician.
U.S. Navy officers’ hat with U.S. Technician insignia
manu: Berkshire, New York, NY.
Circa Early Second World War

This khaki covered hat would have been worn with the jacket as detailed below. The hat itself has an early wartime Berkshire logo, and is the standard U.S. Navy officer model; the owner would have had to privately purchase the embroidered insignia. The rich embroidery is worth mentioning; it is speculated that the work was done in Great Britain – however, these findings are inconclusive.

Do note the U.S. Navy side buttons holding the chin strap – which is of the same width as those found on standard U.S. Navy officer hat.

U.S. Navy Technician hat


USN Technician.
Breast cloth badge; obverse & reverse.
Circa 1950.

usn technician

As previously mentioned, a great majority of U.S. Navy Technicians worked in the field of RADAR & ASDIC (SONAR), computational devices and propulsion systems newly adopted by the U.S. Navy over the course of the Second World War and continued to do so after the close of hostilities.

However, researchers and collectors oftentimes come across “emergency rates” or other insignia worn by sailors during this period who worked with the same technologies. The lower rates were hand-picked as evidenced by special aptitude during seamen training. The others were directly recruited by the U.S. Navy based upon prior civilian experience or training – they often became Petty Officer First Class or Chief Petty Officer after having completed boot camp; at the time, these CPOs were derisively called “Slick Sleeve Chiefs” due to the lack of service hash-marks. Directly-inducted Warrant Officers and newly-minted junior officers out of V-7 training with specialized knowledge were placed into special trade and officer corps groups (former and later). However, U.S. Technicians were another class entirely, they “belonged” to their corporations, had no military training and were “lent” for the duration to train or advise the later, repair or install their equipment or simply to operate it.

A means to determine a wartime and post-war U.S. Technician patch is the lack of a border on the former.


USN Technician.
Breast cloth badge; obverse.
From the collection of David Collar.

Note: The eagle is clutching arrows as opposed to a wrench.

usn technician


USN Technician.
Khaki Coat
circa Second World War

Despite regulations stating otherwise, this belted khaki coat has U.S. Navy officer gold buttons. The main difference between this jacket and its naval and maritime counterparts is the fact that it lacks loops for shoulder boards. It was also an expediently tailored piece as it not only lacks an interior liner, but also interior pockets – this common to other period pieces. The buttons are removable for coat cleaning in ship’s laundry.

Note: The eagle is clutching a wrench (of sorts) and a hammer.


USAAF Technician.
Silver plate; motto: U.S. TECHNICIAN.
Silver plate; lettering: A.S.C..
device: 15mm x 19mm.
Reverse: non-rotating points.
manu: no hallmarks or silver content noted.
Circa Second World War through 1947 (n.b. ASC became AMC in Dec. 1947).
from the collection of Joe Weingarten.

Rarely seen, these silver collar devices were worn by civilian technicians attached to the U.S. Army Air Forces Air Service Command at installations such as Wright Field – from 1948, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. These technicians began working at Wright-Patterson from the Second World War through the Vietnam war when they were replaced by civilian civil service employees of the U.S. Air Force Material Command. They performed tasks much like their U.S. Navy counterparts; if such insignia is still worn or used, I am unaware.


Korean War Period, U.S.A.F. Technician shirt patch.

More on the USAAFASC activities at Wright-Patterson, may be found here.

U.S. Navy commissioned officer

U.S. Navy commissioned officer cap badge, pre-May 1941
Two piece construction; 65mm (l) x 55mm (h).
H & H (Hilborn & Hamburg) hallmark on eagle wing. Viking hallmark on the anchor.
Eagle and shield sterling (marked); anchor gold-filled (1/10 14K GF).
Circa pre-Second World War era; late 1930s.

Following the Revolutionary War and dissolution of the Articles of Confederation, the early American republic decidedly wished to break with the aristocratic traditions of old Europe – if not in practice, then in symbolic language. Crowns were removed from coinage, royal was dropped from place names, and liberty became the byword of the era. With the birth the Federal government, the American bald eagle emblazoned with a shield representative of the first thirteen states, and clutching arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other – not so subtle visual metaphors of both the defense and peace-providing nature of the young republic – cropped up on government seals and on military uniform buttons. Despite the desire to promote a democratic and egalitarian society, removing holdovers of rank titles and uniform clothing of a recent hierarchical and aristocratic past from the military proved exceedingly difficult – tradition dies hard, even when trying to supplant it with another (case and point: it was only after numerous bureaucratic and social changes wherein the naval rank of Admiral was finally allowed decades after independence).

The Navy, in particular, was (and still is) an organization requiring strict discipline and order in its ranks. Reticence to ape European traditions spurred the U.S. Navy to create its own socially relevant native American symbols of rank and hierarchy. Nevertheless, it fell in line with the prevailing tradition of leaves and lace. One of the more curious phenomena illustrating this is the permutations that U.S. Navy officer’s cap badge has gone through over time; these also offer insight as to contemporary concerns of the U.S. Navy establishment and can be used to date items to a specific time period. Early on, the cap device denoted rank or rate through color and arrangement of woven images of live oak leaves, acorns, olive branches and other devices such as old-English letters. These show that in the period immediately preceding the Civil War, concern revolved around an officer’s job aboard ship: Navy uniform regulations outlined differences in line or specialties of officers, e.g. engineers, surgeons, chaplains or deck. With the close of the Civil War, Federalism was the rule in the governance of the United States, and the strength of the Union was represented even more so than before on naval insignia. The elaborate differences once found on commissioned officers headgear gave way to an elegant and uniform means of identification: an eagle-anchor device worn on a uniform cap centered above the visor. This device served as a potent visual statement of how officers were in the service of the government, and not merely members of a ship – those indicators found themselves on the sleeve and epaulets. Plates in the 1869 regulations illustrated a gaunt republican eagle facing the wearer’s left and surmounting a large United States shield in silver with embroidered gold anchors underneath. A definitive statement on the device’s construction was published in 1889; afterward, it went through small manufacturer design changes until the publication of the Uniform Regulations of May 31, 1941. Previously, as stated before, the eagle faced to the left whereas the new regulations stated that the eagle face right. A memorandum from the Director of Naval History to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe of 13 December 1963 states that:

The shift of the eagle’s aspect to right-facing from left-facing is logical from the perspective of heraldic tradition, since the right side (dexter) is the honor side of the shield and the left side (sinister) indicates dishonor or illegitimacy.

I am sure the original configuration was nothing that serious. It was most probably due to a manufacturer creating a product, it selling at the right price and the design continuing to be used without anyone thinking about the possible sinister repercussions or undertones. I imagine the subject was brought up at a garden party and later memos were typed and decisions were made…

The stamped metal eagle accompanying this entry is from the period immediately preceding the entry of the United States into the Second World War; it is also during this period that Hilborn-Hamburger began hallmarking insignia with the distinctive H-H in a stylized eagle-star device, and also when Viking began producing anchors for officers’ insignia. Unlike other times of earlier uniform change, personnel of Navy during mid-twentieth century quickly adopted insignia as dictated by new regulations and few sailors found themselves contrary to regulation. This eagle was not worn during the war; it found its way into a cigar box and was secreted away for decades. Although, regarding the expedient change of insignia… apparently flag officers were exempt or just very slow to change as seen in these LIFE snippets from 1941 and 1942:


Adm. King is detailed on 24 November 1941 (p 92).


J. Auld is curious about the cap badge on 15 December 1941 (pg 2).




Adm. Leahy apparently hasn’t updated his wardrobe by 28 September 1941 (cover).

Some design notes: this cap badge is convex and has two screw posts; one small, behind the eagle’s breast, and another, larger holding the shield and anchors together. Toward mid-war, the former screw all but disappeared and was replaced by two pins near the wing tips – as can be discerned here. This eagle’s body is similar in design to the U.S. Army Transportation Corps – Water Division cap badge which appeared in 1944. The aforementioned eagle was almost exclusively manufactured by Gemsco. This anchor design continued to be employed until the Korean War by jewelers and private-purchase insignia houses.

References:
James C. Tily, The Uniforms of the United States Navy.
Cranbury, NJ: Thomas Yoseloff, 1964.

United States Navy, United States Navy Uniform Regulations 1941. United States Government Printing Office: Washington D.C., 1941


U.S. Navy commissioned officer.
Cap badge, obverse.


U.S. Navy commissioned officer.
Cap badge, reverse.


U.S. Navy commissioned officer.
Cap badge, reverse detail.
Some details of note are the notches on the shield for the flush placement of the anchor stock and chain, and the presence of the convex washer. Later varieties lack notches, and the anchors are placed behind the eagle-shield device; at times slightly bending the anchors. The washer has also changed through time and has become flat – which it is at present.


U.S. Navy commissioned officer.
Cap badge, reverse hallmark detail.
Note the H-H hallmark on the reverse of the right wing and Sterling on the left. The Viking hallmark is on the left anchor stock; in later designs, Viking placed hallmarks on the anchor shank and sometimes on the arms. I have yet to determine an adequate chronology for Viking hallmark placement.

American-Hawaiian Steamship Company

American-Hawaiian SS Co. hat badge. 

Faint H & H (Hilborn & Hamburg) hallmark on eagle wing.
Gemsco hallmark on flag.
Eagle and shield sterling plate over copper; wreath brass/gold-plate.
Second World War era. badge: 60mm x 65mm flag: 25mm x 22mm


As follows is an essay on the history of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. Collecting the data on this specific company is somewhat responsible for the prolonged hiatus in blog postings. I hope that the history behind the badge warrants the absence of images. More images will follow in a couple of weeks… I’m going on vacation for a spell.

American-Hawaiian Steamship Company (A-H SS Co.), 1899-1956.

The story of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company mirrors the fates of several large steamship houses in the United States: scramble for capital, a flowering of activity, failed business models, take-over by a large conglomerate, and final dissolution. A-H SS Co. is unique in the fact that at one point it had the largest U.S.-flag merchant fleet and then dwindled to nothing.

A-H SS Co. was engaged in intercoastal (U.S. Atlantic-to-U.S. Pacific coast) and foreign trade – although, as it name implied, it originally provided the majority of the steamship freight service between the mainland United States and the Hawaiian Islands. After the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States on 7 July 1898, George S. Dearborn, who owned a fleet of sailing vessels, decided to establish a modern steamship service between New York and Hawaii. In order to finance this venture, he sold his fleet of sailing ships and raised additional capital from investors – notably his brother-in-law, Lewis Henry Lapham. Almost a year later, on 7 March 1899, Dearborn organized the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. Dearborn served as president of the company, with Captain William D. Burnham as general manager – Dearborn was president until his death in 1920; Burnham held his appointed post until 1914.

Immediately after incorporation, A-H SS Co. ordered new steamships from the local New York and New Jersey shipyards, with Dearborn securing contracts to bring sugar to the U.S. mainland from the Big Five (the main business conglomerates in the islands). Service was to begin in 1900, however, A-H SS Co. found its ships requisitioned by the U.S. Navy for emergency duty to counter the Boxer Rebellion in China. Only in January 1901 did the promised service begin. For the next 14 years, under the protective umbrella of U.S. cabotage laws, the relationship that A-H had forged with the Big Five proved mutually beneficial and was the source of prosperity to the company’s U.S.-flag ships.

Of the of several innovations A-H SS Co. ushered into the steamship trade, starting with their first voyage, A-H SS Co. steamships used the Straits of Magellan rather than the longer route followed by sailing vessels around Cape Horn. A problem that faced steamships in the long voyage from New York to Hawaii was the logistic problem of coaling. Although Chile was a natural stop-off point for re-supply, Chilean coal was of low quality and quickly exhausted. This very problem vexed the great powers of the period, and colonial history is rife with seemingly far-flung islands annexed for the very purpose of servicing navies. A-H SS Co. did not have the luxury of arms, therefore resorted to innovation. Alternatively, A-H SS Co. supported the efforts of Valdemar Frederick Lassoe, its chief engineer, to develop an oil burner for the company’s steamships. The oil burner was first fitted in the S.S. Nebraskan, which completed its first voyage from the Pacific to New York in 1904; the results so impressed the U.S. Navy that it launched a program to convert warships from coal to oil.

In January 1907 A-H SS Co. took advantage of the opening of the Tehuantepec Railroad across Mexico to divide its ships into two fleets: one operated on the Pacific Ocean, while the other fleet handled the cargo on the Atlantic between New York and Tehuantepec. This arrangement lasted until 1914, when revolutionary turmoil in Mexico shut down the Tehuantepec Railroad; while the opening of the Panama Canal on 15 August 1914 provided an economic alternative. However, landslides closed the Panama Canal between 13 September 1915 and 15 April 1916, thus forcing A-H SS Co. to use the Straits of Magellan one last time – albeit under oil power.

The company’s heyday was in this early period. With its offices at 8 Bridge Street Maritime Building in New York, A-H SS Co. steamers sailed from the renovated Pier 56, Bush Terminal, South Brooklyn, every six days laden with freight for Pacific Coast Ports and the Hawaiian Islands. Through bills of lading, cargo was accepted for Puerto Mexico and all points along the Tehuantepec National Railway, Vera Cruz & Isthmus Railway, Pan-American Railway, and ports along the west coast of Mexico and Central America. From Hawaii and San Francisco, steamers left for New York every twelve days. The company used San Francisco and Puget Sound as a way station for freight destined for Vera Cruz and New York. Commerce was good.

The positioning of the company in the Hawaiian trade could not have been more secure, yet when the First World War began in 1914, Dearborn gradually succumbed to the temptation of chartering out most of his fleet in order to profit from the record-high freight rates in the North Atlantic. In 1916 A-H SS Co. announced that it would suspend handling the sugar crop of the Islands; not surprisingly the Big Five and the Territorial Government of Hawaii felt betrayed. As a reprisal, the Big Five vowed that A-H SS Co. would never be able to return. Henceforth, the Matson Navigation Company, enjoying the full support of the Big Five, emerged as the principal ocean carrier of the Islands. Once the wartime profits evaporated, A-H SS Co. realized it had foolishly abandoned long-term stability for the sake of short-term gains – the company did keep its original name, in the hope of returning one day to Hawaii, but more as a reminder of the prosperous days when it had been the largest U.S.-flag merchant fleet.

In 1920, after the government returned the vessels requisitioned during the war, A-H SS Co. decided to dedicate its fleet in intercoastal trade, mainly between New York and California. After Dearborn died on 28 May 1920, W. Averell Harriman became the principal stockholder of the company and assigned the management of the company to his United American Lines; all of this he affected in April 1920. The attempted merger proved more complex than expected, and soon Harriman realized that the financially troubled A-H SS Co. required its own separate organization, and to that end, he appointed Cary W. Cook as its president on 20 March 1923. As a condition for accepting the job, Cook had specified that the company’s headquarters be moved from New York City to San Francisco – not only because this was where he lived, but also because he felt the future of the company was in the Pacific. Cook put A-H SS Co. back on solid footing and also began the negotiations with the Grace Line – which was keen to sell its six vessels on the unprofitable intercoastal service. The purchase of the ships was concluded in June 1925 by Roger D. Lapham – who succeeded Cook as president that same month. The intercoastal route sailed every five days. As a further step to consolidate A-H SS Co.’s position as the leading intercoastal carrier, Lapham acquired one of its competitors, the Williams Line, in early 1929.

Unfortunately, the intercoastal trade was proving to be rather unstable and subject to sharp rate wars, so Lapham correctly concluded that the company needed to enter into other trade routes. His most important move was the creation of the Oceanic & Oriental Navigation Company in 1928 to take over a line of U.S. Shipping Board vessels (USSB); A-H SS Co. and Matson each had a 50% stake in the venture, with Matson managing the government ships on the Australia/New Zealand route, and A-H SS Co. managing those sailing to China, Indochina, Japan, and the Philippines. When the Great Depression struck, A-H SS Co. was in an especially difficult state as the intercoastal trade so closely reflected the collapse of the American economy; Lapham considered a merger with the Dollar Line in 1930, but the negotiators failed to find a satisfactory arrangement. Ever the opportunist, in 1936, did Lapham purchase four steamers from the Dollar Line for A-H SS Co. as Dollar was desperately trying to remain solvent and not slip into bankruptcy.

In 1942, the U.S. government requisitioned the ships of A-H SS Co. and of all other lines for the duration of the Second World War. The company received a War Shipping Pennant in 1944 with four stars – “4 Star Companies” were assigned anywhere from 75-100 vessels of Victory Fleet during the Second World War. Once the war was over, the company did not want the surviving ships back, which in any case were overage, and instead preferred to bareboat charter government vessels for the intercoastal trade and for service to the Far East, at least until the post-war shipping situation became clearer. After the war, these cast-off ships ended up as troopships for the MSTS or found service in the U.S. Navy. Despite not wishing to have its assets returned, A-H SS Co. did engage in litigation to recoup perceived losses at the hands of the U.S. Government. A particularly visible case was of the Alaskan, the Federal Courts upheld the Government’s payment to A-H SS Co., claiming the A-H SS Co. was attempting to profit from war.

With the ascension of Roger Lapham’s son, Lewis A. Lapham – who became the president of the company in 1947 – the company’s headquarters moved back to New York City from San Francisco; this was the younger Lapham’s first action as company president. The company was wisely keeping its options open, but the Korean War panicked A-H SS Co. into buying six surplus ships on the mistaken assumption that high freight rates would continue indefinitely (obviously lessons were not learned from previous of the same sort). The ships had barely been brought when the intercoastal service took a downward plunge, and with each voyage piling up losses, the company had no choice but to suspend the intercoastal service in March 1953. For all intents and purposes, A-H SS Co. was no longer sailing.

The question of what to do with the idle fleet vexed the stockholders, who reached the conclusion that the hope left was to shift to a foreign flag of convenience. Because the company had exclusively operated under the U.S. flag, the stockholders decided to bring in as an investor the billionaire Daniel Ludwig, whose experience with foreign-flag operations was renowned. Ludwig decided to use the company for his own plans, and in 1955, after a bitter takeover battle, he gained full control and sold off the ships and most of the assets of A-H SS Co., whose steamship career ended at this point.

Ludwig, however, for purposes of tax advantages, kept A-H SS Co. as a paper company and involved it in real estate ventures. For the next ten years the company became embroiled in sundry schemes: first to build Roll-On/Roll-Off vessels, then container ships, and finally nuclear-powered vessels. By 1968 the last of these schemes had failed, and Ludwig proceeded to liquidate A-H SS Co. as a first step toward making an extremely lucrative deal with Sea-Land.

Principal Executives
George S. Dearborn : 1899-1920
William D. Burnham : 1899-1914
Cary W. Cook : 1923-1925
Roger D. Lapham: 1925-1944
John E. Cushing : 1938-1947
Edward P. Farley : 1944-1955
Lewis A. Lapham : 1947-1953

House Flag:
The A-H SS Co. house flag first appeared in publications in 1926; the flag was simply the white initials A-H on a blue field. After the takeover, the flag was never flown again as American-Hawaiian Steamship Company became a paper company; and in the 1970s, nevermore.

Note:
In 1937 A-H SS Co. issued a double-spread page outlining its corporate history complete with ship purchases and an executive summary.

History of American-Hawaiian Steamship Company by periods 1899 to 1936 inclusive

References:
Thomas C. Cochran and Ray Ginger, “The American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, 1899-1919,” Business History Review (Boston: The President and Fellows of Harvard College) 28 (December 1954): 342-365

Rene De La Pedraja, Rise and Decline of U.S. Merchant Shipping in the Twentieth Century (Twayne’s Evolution of Modern Business Series). New York: Twayne, 1992.

Penton Publishers, Blue Book of American Shipping (17th Ed.). New York, New York: Penton Publishers, 1913. pp. 315, 324.

New York Times, 26 November 1948, 28 February 1953.

Pacific Marine Review, November 1926.

Jerry Shields, The Invisible Billionaire: Daniel Ludwig. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986.

War Shipping Administration, PR 2029. 24 September 1944.

F. J. N. Wedge, Brown’s Flags and Funnels. Brown, Son & Ferguson: Glasgow, 1926.

Lloyd’s, Lloyd’s House Flags and Funnels. Lloyds: London, 1912.
Facsimile edition available here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lloyds-house-flags-and-funnels-1912/8504627

U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, Merchant Marine House Flags and Stack Insignia: H.O. Pub. No. 100, Washington D.C., 1961. Facsimile edition available here:
https://amzn.to/3HroQFw

Legal cases:
American-Hawaiian Steamship Co. v. the United States. the Alaskan
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. – 191 F.2d 26
Argued May 8, 1951. Decided August 13, 1951

Marvyn Gould, Executor of the Estate of J. Donald Rogasner, et al., Appellants in No. 75-1338. v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Company et al., Cross-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. – 535 F.2d 761
Argued Oct. 3, 1975. Decided April 8, 1976

Links:
U.S. First Day Cover Cachet Display Catalog: American-Hawaiian Steamship Company Corner Card FDC’s

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

USL Winter Dress Uniform, 1930s. Col.: AMMM.

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

USL Sailor, 1930s. Col.: AMMM.

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.

USL Sailor, 1930s. Col.: AMMM.

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.

WSA Pea Coat button, 1940s. Col. IW. 

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

USL Summer Dress Uniform, 1930s. Col. AMMM.

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.

USL Sailor, 1930s. Col.: AMMM.

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.

USL AB seamen, 1938. 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.

Ocean Ferry, April 1937. Col.: AMMM. 
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

USL Winter Work Uniform, 1940s. Col.: AMMM.

USL Winter Work Uniform, 1940s. Col.: AMMM.

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

USL Summer Work Uniform, 1940s. Col.: AMMM.

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

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.

War Shipping Administration Ship Pilot

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.
War Shipping Administration

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?

U. S. Maritime Academy band 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.

Polaris, 1942

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.

Regimental Dance band, 1944.

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.

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.


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!

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.

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):

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.