Military uniforms tell a story. The bit and bobs that are scattered across them offer clues to their context and sometimes even political battles fought far from the crew compartment or barracks. American Merchant Marine uniforms in the inter-war period were work clothes.
I was bothered by a statement by a General Dalton of the United States Shipping Board’s testimony to U. S. Congress in December 1926:
He claimed more than 50% of officers aboard United States Lines (USL) ships were reservists in the U. S. Naval Reserve Force (USNRF) – in fact just about all. The reason I was bothered has to do with the fact that pretty much all officers aboard USL ships wore a cap badge with an eagle – older collectors of Merchant Marine insignia told me, the reason for the eagle is because the officers were WWI veterans, and to give them a nod, United States Shipping Board (USSB) gave them caps with eagles on them. The eagles were reminiscent of the eagle found on a U.S. Naval officer’s cap – a cap forbidden for reservists to wear while not in uniform. As assumptions go, this is a fair one to consider. Across the Atlantic, P&O did this to attract ex-Royal Navy officers and they said they did too. And, it follows fellows who joined USNRF invariably stayed in USNRF after the war and they wished to wear their caps or something similar – to mark themselves apart. That makes sense – sort of.
So, I decided to locate and consult primary documents to corroborate the General’s statement. I found he was grossly incorrect or misinformed or just plain conflating the truth. Using these documents, I created a spreadsheet of the officers on SS Leviathan‘s maiden cruise and cross-referenced them with USNRF lists to determine:
- Who had a commission in 1929 (if they were lieutenants in 1929, it would be safe to assume they were ensigns in 1923… they had two ranks to jump).
- Nationality.
Why the SS Leviathan? She was the flagship of the USL fleet – at the time she was the largest, most modern ship in the US merchant fleet (but, she was built by the Germans and captured when the US joined WWI) and she had the cream of the industry aboard. The licensed officers didn’t change too much on the SS Leviathan – many of whom were there on the maiden voyage mostly stuck around through the line’s acquisition by Paul W. Chapman in 1929 and on through Roosevelt/IMM acquisition in 1931/2. Nationality is important to consider since foreigners could not join USNRF; the complaint for many was that the American Merchant Marine was crowded with foreigners. In counting the foreigners, I could determine the true number of seamen who were eligible for enrollment in USNRF.
I discovered there were 78 people who might nominally be considered officers on the SS Leviathan‘s maiden voyage (per a news item lauding them). Of those 78; only 5 of them were not U.S. citizens. And, of the remaining 73, 9 held commissions in the USNRF in 1929. The number of reservists made up 12% of the officers.
In looking at USL passenger lists from other ships, USL did denote an officer’s enrollment in USNRF correctly – except potentially in one instance, Giles Steadman; the USNRF rolls from 1926 are unavailable. On those lists, invariably only the master of the ship held a commission in the USNRF/USNR during the decade spanning 1924-1934; among those listed on the lists, that would be 20% of merchant seamen were members of USNRF during the period cited by the General.
Beyond the inaccuracy of the General’s statement, it would also be safe to assume that there is no connection between the actual numbers of USNRF officers and the cap badges worn by officers aboard USSB-owned lines; the eagle on the cap badge may very well just be an indicator of nationality as does the corona navalis for the British Mercantile Navy of the same period.
The nuance of uniforms in the American Merchant Marine is different than that found in the military. Although they share the same clothes as sailors, merchant seaman did not relish in wearing badges and patches to show how they transited through shipboard hierarchy. These hierarchies were not hard and fast. So, using a cap mark oneself is counterintuitive in a merchant marine setting.
The General would not be correct even if he said all USL ships flew the Merchant Marine Naval Reserve Flag – during this period – the flag could be flown if the commanding officer of a vessel held a commission in USNRF and 50% of the officers aboard held commissions, or if the U. S. Navy felt the ship was worthy as a naval auxiliary. Membership in the USNRF was originally one to not be handed a white feather during the First World War, it later had a mixture of patriotism, a little cash, and subsidized courses. As for the officers in the USNRF, many did not pay much attention to Naval Regulations. If they had the U.S. Naval officer cap in their wardrobe, they wore it in the course of their daily work routine. Uniform standards were set by the master of the vessel – the demand may be that officers show up in a jacket in the saloon or there may have been a devil may care attitude altogether aboard. On USL ships, only crew members who faced passengers kept up appearances on passenger liners; otherwise, those in engine spaces would wear work clothes and caps without grommets. The later could not be bothered with buttons and badges – they had real work to do.
This is not to say Merchant seamen threw anything they wanted together on. On steamship lines that carried passengers, there was an assumption that the crew would have a smart appearance as one might find in a hotel – but they would be decked out in nautical uniforms. There is no bureaucratic fight on Merchant Marine uniforms of the 1920s and 1930s, and by 1929, only two USL ships ever earned the right to fly the Naval Reserve Flag by the end of 1920s by virtue of personnel count (the flag was given to ships with 50% of officers aboard holding USNRF commissions).
References
United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce. “Proposed Sale of Certain Ships by the United States Shipping Board
Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to S.Res. 294, Requesting the Shipping Board to Postpone Consummation of the Sale Or Charter of the ‘Leviathan’ and Certain Other Vessels Operated by the Board: December 13, 1926.” Washington, D. C. : GPO, 1936.
United States Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations.
“Navy Department Appropriation Bill for 1936: Hearing Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in Charge of Navy Department Appropriation Bill for 1936. Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session.” Washington, D.C. : G.P.O., 1935, p. 208.
United States Navy. Register of commissioned officers, cadets, midshipmen, and warrant officers of the United States Naval Reserve: January 1, 1929. Washington, D. C. : GPO, 1929.
United States Navy. Register of commissioned officers, cadets, midshipmen, and warrant officers of the United States Naval Reserve: January 1, 1930. Washington, D. C. : GPO, 1930, pp. 121-122.
United States Navy. Register of commissioned officers, cadets, midshipmen, and warrant officers of the United States Naval Reserve: January 1, 1931. Washington, D. C. : GPO, 1931, pp. 201-202.
United States National Archives and Records Administration. “Passenger and crew lists of vessels arriving at New York, 1897-1942” v. 7626-7628 Jul 20-23 1923 (NARA Series T715, Roll 3334).