FORTITUD INENEWSLETTER OF THE MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PROGRAM

FALL 1986 NUMBER 2

CIVIL WAR ERA MARINES AT HARPERS FERRY AND THE BAYrLE OF BULL RUN. . . FAMED ARTIST JOHN GROTH

VIEWS BASIC SCHOOL ThAINING. . . WOMEN MARINES HISTORY PUBLISHED. . . A COMMANDANT'S FORGO1'-

TEN MEMOIR.. . ROBERT MOSKIN ON THE ThAIL OF THE PEKING GUARD. . . FLIGHT LINES: FD-i PHANTOM

VOLUME XVI

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution isunlimited.

PCN 10401220100

FORTITIJD INEMotto of the United States Marine Corps in the 1812 era.

Fall 1986

This quarterly newsletter of the Marine Corps historical program is publishedfor the Corps and for friends of Marine Corps history in accordance with Depart-ment of the Navy Publications and Printing Regulations NAVEXOS P-35. Individualsand institutions desiring Fortitudine on a complimentary regular basis are invitedto apply to: History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps(HDS-1), Washington, D.C. 20374-0580.

The Secretary of the Navy has determined that this publication is necessary inthe transaction of business required by law of the Department of the Navy. Fundsfor printing of this publication have been approved by the Navy Publications andPrinting Policy Committee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Director's Page: Marines at Manassas 3

Readers A/ways W'7te: Scholars Ponder Fort Fisher;Marine Scouts Remember 7

Acquisitions: Rare Japanese 'Type 44' Arisaka Donated to Museum 9

Historical Quiz: Women in the Marine Corps 10

Waterhouse Painting Traces Marines at Harpers Ferry 11

'Uses of Military History' Outlined by Seminar Speakers 14

Long-Awaited Women Marines History Now Available 15

Illness Complicated Writing of Gen Barnett's Memoir 16

Veteran Artist John Groth Captures The Basic School 17

Looking for the Legation Guard in Peking 20

As Others Saw Us: 15th Infantry Meets Butler's 3d Brigade, Tientsin 1927 . . 23

Academy Issues Call for Papers for 1987 History Symposium 27

Marine Band Replays Century-Old Role in N.Y. Harbor 28

Foundation Presents Heinl, Geiger Memorial Awards 29

Law Restricts Use of USMC Seal, Emblem 29

In Memoriam: Pacific War Engineer, Famed Marine Bandit Fighter Die .. . .30

Answers to Historical Quiz: Women in the Marine Corps 30

New Books: Corps History Bibliography, Sea War Paintings Offered 31

Special Care Given Quantico's Rare Books 31

World War I Crewman Hero Honored in BEQ Naming 32

Flight Lines: McDonnell FD-1 Phantom 33

Korean W"ar Chronology: September-December 1951 34

Historical Foundation Notes: New Directors' Electionsat Annual Meeting 36

THE COVER

This sketch made by the artist-in-residence of the Marine Corps Historical Center,Col Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR, was used in the development of the portraitof insurrectionist John Brown in Waterhouse's newest painting, dealing with Brown'scapture by Marines at the Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, federal arsenal in October1859. A description of those events by Registrar John H. McGarry III, and of stepstaken to assist Col Waterhouse in ensuring the painting's accuracy, begins on page 11.

Fortitudine is produced in the Publications Production Section of the History and Museums Divi-sion. The text for Fortitudine is set in 10-point and 8-point Gararnond typeface. Headlines are in 18-pointor 24-point Garamond. The newsletter is printed on 70-pound, matte-coated paper by offset lithography.

Volume XVI

HISTORYAND MUSEUMSDIVISION

No.2

Marine Corps Historical CenterBuilding 58, Washington Navy Yard

Washington, D.C. 20374-0580Telephone: (202) 433-3838, 433-3840, 433-3841

DIREC'IORBGen Edwin H. Simmons, USMC (Ret)

HIS'IDRICAL BRANCHCol James R. Williams, USMC

Deputy Director for History

Mr. Henry I. Shaw, Jr.Assistant Deputy Director for History

Chief Historian

Histories Section: Mr. Jack Shulimson; LtCol Gary D. Solis, USMC;LtCol Cyril V. Moyher, USMCR; Maj G. Ross Dunham, USMC; MojArthur F. Elzy, USMC; Maj Charles D. Melson, USMC; Mr. CharlesR. Smith; Dr. V. Keith Fleming, Jr.

Reference Section: Mr. DannyJ. Crawford; Mr. Robert V. Aquilina;Mrs. Ann A. Ferrante; Miss Lena M. Kaljot; Mrs. Regina Strother.

Oral History Section: Mr. Benis M. Frank; Mrs. Meredith Hartley

Archives: Mrs. Joyce E. Bonnert.

MUSEUMS BRANCHCol F. B. Nihart, USMC (Ret)Deputy Director for Museums

Mr. Charles A. WoodChief Curator

Artist.in.ResidenceCot Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR

Marine Barracks, Special Projects: Mr. Richard A. Long. Exhibits: Mr.Carl M. DeVere, Sr.; SSgt Michael V. Gaither, USMC; Mr. Benny LLenos, Sr. Art: Mr. John T. Dyer, Jr. Personal Papers: Mr. J. MichaelMiller. Registrar: Mr. John H. McGarry 111.

Museums Branch Activities, QuanticoLtCoi Rudy T Schwanda, USMC

Officer-in-Charge

Assistant Officer in Charge for Branch Activities: Mr. Kenneth L.Smith-Christmas. Assistant Officer in Charge for Museums Opera.tions: Capt Jerry W. Swepston, USMC.

Ordnance: Vacant. Restoration: Mr. Joseph E. Payton. Aeronautics:Mrs. Jody Y. Ullman. Exhibits: Mr. RonaldJ. Perkins. Uniforms: Mrs.Nancy F King. Security: SSgt Paul C. McKenna, USMC

SUPPORT BRANCHMaj Danny R. Smith, USMC

Head/Division Executive Officer

Administration: CWO2 J. C. Owens, USMC; Sgt Donald Jackson.USMC. Security: GySgt C. W. Viar, USMC. Library: Miss Evelyn A.Englander.

Publications Production: Mr. Robert E. Strudet. Production: Mrs.Catherine A. Kerns. Graphics: Mr. William S. Hill. Typesetting: CplJames W. Rodriguez II, USMC.

Editor, FortitudineMr. Robert E. Struder

Staff Photographer, FortitudineDr. V. Keith Fleming, Jr.

2

Director's Page

Marines at ManassasBGen Simmons

T wo members of the Marine CorpsHistorical Center, Kenneth L.

Smith-Christmas and John H. McGarryIII, shouldered muskets on 18 July 1986and marched out to the reenactmentmarking the 125th anniversary of the bat-tle the North called Bull Run and theSouth called First Manassas. In an almostliteral way Smith-Christmas and McGar-ry were following the route taken by theMarine Battalion when it marched outfrom Washington to take part in the realbattle in 1861.

An estimated 60,000 spectators turnedout to see the sham battle, billed as thelargest reenactment "ever staged onAmerican soil" and held on one of thehottest days of a very hot summer. Thatmade for realism; the records tell us thatthe day of the real battle was just as hot.If the real fighters found their wool uni-forms stifling, so did the sham warriors.Those watching saw the gorily realisticscene anachronistically marred by motorambulances rushing about. It would havebeen a nice touch if horse-drawn am-bulances could have taken care of the heatcasualties, of which there were many. TheFairfax County police put the number ofparticipants downed by the heat at 300.

There were 54 guns on the field in thisyear's reenactment, 28 for the North and24 for the South, about the same num-ber as were present in 1861. They thun-dered out 1,500 black powder charges,which, along with an estimated half-million musket charges, sent clouds ofwhite smoke drifting across the field.

Regrettably, there was no unit presentto represent the Marine Battalion. BothSmith-Christmas and McGarry are privatesin the 1st Maryland Regiment. Actually,there were two "1st Maryland" regimentsin the battle, one for each side. Smith-Christmas and McGarry are in the Con-federate one.

The National Park Service no longer al-lows reenactments on the real Civil Warbattlefield. This one was "fought" on a

150-acre parcel of land about five milesfrom the actual site. As an accommoda-tion to the participants and spectators, thereenactment was on a Sunday, 20 July1986. The actual battle was also fought ona Sunday, 21 July 1861, and, as with thereenactment, spectators had come fromWashingtonto picnic and watch the show.

T here had been a reenactment in1911 on the 50th anniversary of the

battle. In those easier, simpler times ittook portly President William Howard Taftfive-and-a-half hours to journey from theWhite House in his favorite automobile,a White Steamer, to Manassas. Hundredsof the original combatants were present,some of them testy enough to be ready torefight the battle. In 50 years the coun-tryside had changed very little, and theoldtimers were able to say, "I stood here."

Manassas Battlefield Park, as we knowit today, was dedicated on 21 July 1936,

the 75th anniversary of the battle, and afew of the "originals" were there. Thescripting of the sham battle on that daywas done by Dr. Douglas Southall Free-man, the distinguished author of R. E. Leeand Lee's Lieutenants. The Confederateswere played by the U.S. Army's 16thBrigade and gray-uniformed ROTC units,and the North by the 1st Marine Brigadefrom Quantico. A good number offamiliar names were in the brigade, amongthem, 2dLt Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., a fu-ture Commandant, who as a native Florid-ian probably did not enjoy the role ofBluecoat. (See "Marines Remembered as'Damn Yankees'," Fortitudine, Fall 1977.)

A monster reenactment was held in1961, during the Civil War Centennial,and the weather was as hot and the crowdsabout as dense as they were in 1986.

In the early summer of 1861 newlypromoted BGen Irwin McDowell was

A column of Marines parades outside the walls of Marine Barracks, JVashington, D. C.,short/v after Bull Run, in an engraving which appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1861.

3

under immense pressure to march onRichmond. His army of 35,000 men,mostly undertrained short-term volun-teers, was the largest yet mustered inNorth America. Opposing him was hisWest Point.'38 classmate, BGen Pierre G.T Beauregard. Beauregard, hero of FortSumter, had his Army of the Potomac,23,000 equally green Southern troops, en-camped behind Bull Run near ManassasJunction, about 20 miles fromWashington.

The Secretary of the Navy sent Col-Comdt John Harris of the Marines thishandwritten order on 12 July:

Sir:

You will be pleased to detachfrom the Barracks four companiesof eighty men each, the wholeunder command of Major Rey-nolds, with the necessary officers,non-commissioned officers andmusicians, for service under Brig.General McDowell to whomMajor Reynolds will report.General McDowell will furnishthe Battalion with camp equi-page, provisions, etc.

I am respect'yYour obed. svt.,Gideon Welles

Maj John G. Reynolds had just comedown from the Boston Navy Yard to takecommand of Marine Barracks, Washing-ton. He was a veteran of the Florida Indi-an War, the Mexican War, and 37 years ofservice, a hard fighter now gone somewhatto seed. Col Harris may not have been toopleased with Reynolds' assignment. Justbefore Welles' written order reached him,he had received a letter written 11 Julyfrom lstLt Alan Ramsay, commanding theMarine detachment on board the U.S.Sloop Richmond, then at New York. Ram-say had heard that a Marine battalion wasto be formed to join Col Andrew Porter'sbrigade and asked to be one of the officersdetached for such duty.

Harris replied tartly, "I have noknowledge of such a battalion . . . thatis about to join the Army . . . if such anorder should be given I will command itmyself."

A fter the battle, Reynolds would feelconstrained to call to the Comman-

dant's attention that his battalion had

been "composed entirely of recruits, notone being in service over three weeks, andmany had hardly learned their facings

Of the three hundred and fiftyofficers and enlisted men under my com-mand, there were but two staff-officers,two captains, one first lieutenant, ninenon-commissioned officers, and two mu-sicians who were experienced from lengthof service."

The two "staff-officers" were Maj Wil-liam B. Slack, the quartermaster, and MajAugustus S. Nicholson, the adjutant andinspector. Both had brevets for bravery inthe Mexican War.

Brevet Maj Jacob Zeilin, another heroof the Mexican War and a futtire Com-mandant, was given command of Compa-ny A. He had two second lieutenants asjunior officers.

Company B was commanded by CaptJames H. Jones. Company B's lone secondlieutenant was Robert W. Huntington,who in 1898 as a lieutenant colonel wouldtake his battalion ashore at GuantanamoBay.

Company C was assigned to lstLt Ramsay, who thus got his wish. Also in Com-pany C was 2dLt R. E. Hitchcock. Hewould be killed.

Company D was given to William H.Cartter, who, with a date of rank of 1March 1861, was the senior second lieu-tenant in the battalion. The other five se-cond lieutenants all had dates of rank of5 June — less than five weeks service. Com-pany D's other officer, 2dLt W. H. Hale,would be wounded in the battle.

C artter jauntily wrote his mother inScottsville, New York on 14 July:

I am agoing to leave for the seatof the war (Richmond, Va.) whereI expect we will have a fight.Now I am well and expect to bea Captain or Seigneur [senior] 1stLieut before I [return]. I wantAunt Abby to have my wifepicked out. Now do not fret yourself about me, for all is for thebest what ever may happen.

In a postscript he told his mother that hehad sent a daguerretype and would likeone of his father.

Marching orders specified that the Ma-rines, in addition to their arms and ac-coutrements, would march with haversacks

4

with three days rations, canteens and cups,and blankets "in a roll with the end tiedand worn from the right shoulder to theleft side; a pair of stockings to be rolledup in the blanket." There were to be noknapsacks and no tents. Two wagons were"to come over for the camp kettles andmess pans and mess kits."

The battalion was "to start for the otherside in time to pass the Long Bridge by3:30 p.m. tomorrow—They will follow upthe Columbia Turnpike as far as the newFort and toll gate where they will receivefurther orders."

Accordingly, Reynolds and his Marines,armed for the most part with Model 1855rifled muskets and bayonets, left the Ma-rine Barracks at Eighth and I Streets,S.E., on l6July, reaching the Virginia sideof Long Bridge (at about the location oftoday's 14th Street Bridge) at 1530. Asthey marched along Columbia Turnpikepast the present site of Headquarters,U. S. Marine Corps, they were met by theassistant adjutant general from Porter's 1stBrigade, 2d Division, who assigned thema position in the line of march immedi-ately following Capt Charles Griffin's Bat-tery D, 5th US. Artillery. Porter also hadin his brigade three regiments of New Yorktroops and Maj George Sykes' battalion ofU.S. Army regulars.

McDowell moved his army southwest-ward in three columns to the ham-

let of Centreville. Bull Run, a fairly for-midable creek, could be crossed at severalpoints. At the very left of the Confeder-ate line was Stone Bridge, which carriedWarrenton Pike across the stream. Furtherto, the northwest was Sudley Ford, seem-ingly undefended. After probing the Con-federate lines, McDowell decided on adivision-size feint against Stone Bridgeand a wide-swinging march of two divi-sions to cross at Sudley Ford and thencome down on the Confederate left flank.He held a last council of war the night of20 July. By then it was known that BGenJoseph E. Johnston had joined Beauregardthat morning, with four brigades of theArmy of the Shenandoah, nearly 10,000more Confederates, on their way in rail-road cars from Winchester.

Leaders on both sides looked forward toa Napoleonic battle. McDowell plannedon a single decisive battle and then amarch on Richmond. Beauregard, whose

thinking was equally Napoleonic, plannedto move around McDowell's left flank andthen march on Washington. Neither sidegave enough thought to the lethality ofthe new percussion cap and rifled musket.

McDowell roused his troops at 0200,Sunday, 21 July. Tyler's division was sentmarching toward Stone Bridge. Hunter'sand Heintzelman's divisions moved alonga bad road through Virginia woods towardSudley Ford. Burnside's brigade led offHunter's division, followed by Porter'sbrigade which still included the MarineBattalion marching behind Griffin's bat-tery. After crossing Bull Run at SudleyFord, McDowell turned his column leftand started advancing along Sudley Roadtoward Manassas Junction.

It was an opening move that Frederickthe Great or Napoleon might have ap-

proved, except, as it later turned out, therewas not enough weight to it.

Stone Bridge was defended by half abrigade under Col Nathan Evans. By 0730,

Evans had divined that the attack at StoneBridge was only a feint and that the realthreat was coming at him from across Sud-ley Ford. Leaving four companies to guardthe bridge, Evans shifted the rest of hishalf-brigade to Matthew Hill, a mile southof Sudley Ford.

Evans was barely in position when Burn-side's brigade deployed to the left of Sud-ley Road and came at him. Porter's brigadecame up on Burnside's right. Griffin's bat-tery, followed by the Marines, found itsway through the woods to an open field.

Maj Roberdeau Wheat's battalion ofLouisiana Tigers charged down the slopeagainst the two Union brigades, takingfearful losses but gaining enough time forBee's and Bartow's brigades to reach Evanson the hill. This put a total of about 5,500Confederates on Matthew Hill. At about1030 the three brigades all charged downthe hill against Burnside and Porter.Griffin advanced his battery to within1,000 yards of a hidden Confederate bat-tery and silenced it.

5

T he fighting continued for nearly twohours. The tide began to turn against

the Confederates when Sherman's brigade,followed by Keyes' brigade, came acrossStone Bridge against their right flank.With two divisions across Bull Run and athird one arriving, McDowell seemed tohave won the day. He himself was well for-ward, riding up and down, exhorting hismen and sending in regiments and brig-ades. The Confederates began to withdrawin considerable disorder to Henry HouseHill, south of the intersection of Warren-ton Pike and Sudley Road.

Johnston, although senior toBeauregard, had allowed Beauregard totake charge of the battle. However, at noonhe told Beauregard that the left must bereinforced and that he was going there.

By this time BGen ThomasJ. Jackson'sbrigade of five Virginia regiments hadcome onto the field and had taken up areverse slope position on Henry HouseHill. The remnants of Bee's near-shatteredbrigade came over the crest. BGen BarnardE. Bee pointed his sword at the Virginiabrigade and said something, not necessar-ily complimentary, to the effect that therestood Jackson "like a stone wall." Shortlythereafter Bee was shot out of his saddle.He died, it is said, cursing the immobileJackson for not moving up.

It was at about this point that Johnstonand Beauregard arrived at Henry

House Hill. With Jackson's brigade as ananchor, the Confederate line began to re-form. Beauregard stayed at the front as thebattle leader and Johnston moved a mileto the rear to funnel forward reinforce-ments. With the arrival of fresh troops,Beauregard managed to form a line run-ning down from Henry House Hill toRobinson House, the home of a freeNegro, near Stone Bridge.

McDowell had paused at WarrentonPike to reorganize. By 1400 he, was readyto renew the attack with something like11,000 Union troops. Through his chief ofartillery, Maj William F. Barry, McDowellordered Griffin's battery and Capt JamesB. Rickett's Battery I, 1st U.S. Artillery,moved up Sudley Road to a position fromwhich they could enfilade the Confeder-ate line. The 11th New York Fire Zouaves,in their red fire shirts and baggy bluepants, were sent up t support the bat-teries.

The Marines had been hard put to keep

W. STEPHEN HILL

up with Griffin's horse-drawn artillery inthe day's fighting and they now were ina state close to exhaustion. Reynolds rest-ed his men briefly and reported to Porter,who ordered the Marines forward to thesupport of Griffin's battery which hadpushed almost to the crest of the hill.Confederate sharpshooters, some of themin trees behind Jackson's brigade, werepicking off the gun crews. The Marines ad-vanced under heavy fire. Griffin was soondown to two guns. Ricketts to his left stillhad six guns. Shells from Ricketts' batterycrashed into the Henrys' white framehouse. The owner, the elderly widowJudith Henry, still present, was mortallywounded.

M cDowell, who stayed well forwardthroughout the battle, personally

ordered Reynolds to cover the 14th Brook-lyn Chasseurs who were coming onto lineto bolster the 11th Fire Zouaves who werebeing pummeled by Col J. E. B. Stuart's1st Virginia Cavalry.

Worse was to happen. A blue-clad regi-ment came marching out of the fringe ofwoods. Capt Griffin was told to hold hisfire, that it was a friendly regiment, butit was the Confederate 33d Virginia. Hav-ing gotten within 50 yards before beingfired upon, the 33d Virginia charged theguns and took them. Porter's New Yorkersrecaptured the guns in hand-to-handfighting. Then they were lost again.

The melee on the Henry House Hillcontinued for two confused hours. In all,McDowell sent five brigades against theConfederates in a series of successive at-tacks. At something before 1600 helaunched the last brigade he had west ofBull Run. It was not enough. The Confed-erates counterattacked and the Federalsgave way. In all of this, the Marines wereunable to hold their positions. Their linebroke three times by Reynolds' count, butreformed each time until the last.

W ith the day ending, the North-erners sullenly began to withdraw.

The withdrawal became a retreat and,picking up momentum, became a rout, inwhich the Marines, in Reynolds' words,"participated." A good number of thesightseers, some of them congressmen andtheir families, got caught up in thedebacle.

The forces that actually fought that day

were almost exactly equal in numbers.McDowell had crossed Bull Run with the1st, 2d, and 3d Divisions of the UnionArmy, totalling seven brigades —24 guns,896 officers, and 17,676 rank and file bythe adjutant general's later careful count.The preoccupied McDowell failed to usetwo brigades of the 1st Division and the4th and 5th Divisions which stayed inreserve. McDowell's losses for the day were460 killed, 1,124 wounded, and 1,312 cap-tured or missing.

Beauregard, in turn, used only half thestrength of his Army of the Potomac. Only17 of his 27 guns and 9,713 of his menwere actively engaged. Johnston's Army ofthe Shenandoah added something lessthan 9,000 more men for an official totalof 18,053 Confederates credited with be-ing in the battle. Confederate losses were387 killed, 1,582 wounded, and 13 cap-tured or missing.

Much worse battles were to come, butthis was the one that shook the con-

fident North and romantic South into arealization that battles were somethingmore than bright uniforms and banners.

A provost guard was posted to keep thebeaten Union Army on the Virginia sideof the Potomac. Reynolds collected someof his men at Arlington and found some70 more at the Virginia end of the LongBridge. The battalion's blanket rolls,dropped at the beginning of the battle,were lost. Reynolds served up hot coffeeto his weary and exhausted Marines andpersuaded the provost guard to allow himto march them back to the MarineBarracks.

A dejected 2dLt Cartter on what ap-pears to be 24 July (the date is not clear)wrote to his mother in run-together sen-tences:

6

I returned from Bull Run onthe 22nd and was so sick that Icould not write before this thereis no use of my telling you aboutthe fight for you have seen an ac-count of it by this time . . . . welost one Officer Lieut. Hitchcockand two wounded and 31 marinesand got licked awfully we got todo better than we did at BullRun or we will be Defeated at alltimes .

He asked if she had received hisdaguerretype.

Cartter didn't have the casualties quiteright. Altogether, one Marine lieu-

tenant (Hitchcock) and eight privates hadbeen killed; a major (Zeilin), a lieutenant(Hale), a corporal, and 16 privates hadbeen wounded; 16 more privates weremissing. Two days after the battle, on 23July, the battalion's morning reportshowed 309 officers and men present andfit for duty.

Cartter did not remain depressed forlong. On 27 July he again wrote hismother and, although his spelling andgrammar had not improved, his spirits hadrebounded:

I am well and enjoying myselfvery much I supose you got myletter dated from Willow SpringFarm we had some of the mostsevear Fights that ever was onrecord .

He went on to ask his mother to send himtwo dozen white shirts as he could not getgood white shirts in Washington even at25 dollars a dozen. He also told her thathe was about to go into the city to havehis ambrotype taken in full dress. Eli 775(1

Union artillery, with the Marine Battalion in support, fires upon Confederate forceson Henry House Hill, in a print from the. 1888 book, Drum-Beat of the Nation.

Readers Always li/rite

Scholars Ponder Fort Fisher; Marine Scouts RememberFISHER ATTACKERS' TIMING

Had I but known of. . . [BGen Sim-mons'] Hagerstown talk, I would havestriven to be there. It is always fascinatingto see how professionals handle and write["Fort Fisher: Amphibious Finale to theCivil War:' Fortitudine, Summer 1986] ofa topic dear — for obvious reasons — to theheart of this amateur. I thoroughly en-joyed . . . [the] presentation in a fractionof the words of my own, with no signifi-cant omissions.

Since my study 12 years ago, assortedscattered references keep materializingwhich variously bear on the point raisingmost questions. On 15 January 1865, whatof counter-accusations of early jump-off bythe Navy or tardy by the Army? If thebombardment stopped and the whistleswere tied down per orders reasonably closeto 3:00 p.m., how could anyone fail toknow zero hour had arrived? Jay Luvaassuggests that noise of gunfire repeatedlytook unpredictable courses. I consider thiseasy enough to accept for light fieldpiecesa few miles distant across rolling and/ortimbered country, but more difficult forheavy ordnance, the 15" as close as a halfmile over mostly open water. Surely navalforces could not attack while bombard-ment continued. How could army forcesfail to know the time had come to jumpoff?

I suggest another factor to consider.Somewhere I noticed artillerist criticisms,both of unmanageable, slow-firing outsizeguns along the north face, and also offailure to clear an adequate field of fire.If this was indeed a factor, Army and Navycould have jumped off at the sametime — in my opinion the most reasonableassumption under all circumstances. Navaland Marine forces, clearly without cover,may have attracted most availabledefenders. By the time Terry's troopsemerged from cover, ample defenders wereunable to return to positions along thenorth face to confront them. Still inadver-tent diversion, it is easier for me to explainand kinder to both forces than confusedtiming.

Did Ben Butler's self-indicting cor-respondence capture . . [Gen Simmons']attention as time approached for Weitzelto become his son-in-law? Dick Sommerssent me to it. Butler wrote in part, "I amafraid you have been annoyed lest I mightpossibly think that your advice at Ft Fish-er was not such as I ought to have actedupon. Let me assure you that I have neverat any moment, amid all the delightfulobloquy which is pouring upon me,doubted the military sagacity of the ad-vice you gave, or the propriety of my ac-tion under it." Weitzel replied in part,

you never showed me the letter ofinstructions from Gen Grant to you. I

knew nothing of it until I saw it in thepapers." Butler replied, ". . . why GenGrant's instructions to me were not shownto you. I shew you his instructions whenwe made the demonstration against theRebel lines on the 27th of October last andthen gave you my orders. I found you em-barrassed between the two, and so themovement was not as successful as I couldhave wished."

Edwin OlmsteadMount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania

EDITOR'S NOTE: "Amateur" EdwinOlmstead is widely considered to be theoutstanding authority on 19th centuryAmerican iron guns. His letter raises someintriguing questions, the answers to whichwe may find as we continue our researchfor Col Waterhouse rpainting of the land-ing at Fort Fisher

THE PROTOTYPE EXPERIENCE

Thanks for the interesting treatment ofthe Fort Fisher operations, and for illus-tration of the angle assault by those navalpeople, abjured to "take the fort on therun, in a seamanlike manner." Even DavidPorter should have known that runninguphill in ankle-deep sand takes longer.

The illustration reminds me of anhypothesis advanced by my late colleague,Robert W. Daly. He used to explain,vigorously, that Confederate defendersemployed a small, rapid-fire brass piece

7

(mounted on wheels). I think he had itfiring either musket balls or rifled bullets.In any case, the fire was rapid enough andpersisted long enough to give pause to anymember of the Marshal Saxe school(charge with fixed bayonets because thebeaten zone of infantry fire can't stop de-termined men). If Fighting Bob Evansqualified as a "determined man," his reac-tion to fire from that part of the fort im-plies something very special indeed.

[BGen Simmons']. . . paper remindedme that over a period of years several mid-shipmen wrote good Fort Fisher papers. Itis my recollection that in about 1969 (giveor take a couple of years) Ralph Donnellyand someone from the Museum wentthrough our horde of outstanding papers;selecting several for your Archives. I'mpretty sure there were Fort Fisher papersin the group. Since alert midshipmen hada knack for improving upon work of theirpredecessors, and made a point of an-notating bibliography, any of those papersstill extant might interest a researcher intoprototype amphibious experience.

Reading the most recent Fortitudinereminded me of how far it has developedduring its brief life . . . . [Editor's Note:The following is excerpted from a secondletter received from the writer.] Belatedreading of the Spring 1986 Fortitudinebrought me to your description ["Acqui-sitions"] of the brown-linen uniform-coatrecently acquired at the Museum. Read-ing about it took me back to my prepara-tion for 1951 [Marine Corps] Gazettearticles about preliminaries to the FMF,and more specifically the GuantanamoBattalion.

Preparations for its departure includedthe authorization, design, procurement,manufacture, and distribution of a brandnew, "tropical" uniform. As I remember,the Commandant's annual reportdescribes its manufacture at Philadelphia;including the name of the master tailor,and details of cutting out the uniforms (Ithink nine at a time).

During the fall of 1952, I talked atlength with General Holcomb at St.Mary's City. He told me that the sametailor was so particular about officers' field

shirts that he proportioned each breastpocket to the size of the potential wearer.The General said that the tailor's practicedisturbed Earl Ellis' search for a stan-dardized shirt-pocket notebook (JimBoot's shirt pocket would accommodate amuch larger book than that of the smallestofficer).

I'm sure you know all these things, butrepeating them takes me back to more ac-tive days.

William H. RussellGwynedd, Pennsylvania

EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer It professoremeritus of the US. Naval Academy, acontributor of important research in Ma-rine Corps history, and a longtime sup-porter of the Marine Corps HistoricalProgram.

SCOUTS AND 'HORSEPOWER'

With regard to the article on page 14of Fortitudine ["Marine Scout Car Addedto World War II Exhibit," Summer 1986]by Anthony Wayne Tommell, 1.was a pla-toon leader in the Second Scout Compa-ny and I remember Col Driscoll well.When I knew him, however, it was SgtDriscoll and he was in charge of all com-munications within the Scout Company.He was an outstandingly proficient com-municator and I can say that I never meta Marine who was more proficient.

We did have an insignia in the SecondScout Company which was a decal placedon the windshields of all our vehicles, andit was in the form of a circle perhaps threeto four inches in circumference and itdepicted the head of an Indian with hisright hand, fingers closed, placed over hiseyes as if to shield off the sun as he gazedintently into the distance . . . . CaptRobert L. Holderness, who was the com-manding officer of the Second ScoutCompany when we arrived in NewZealand in October of 1942, had persuad-ed members of Walt Disney's staff inHollywood to design and provide us with.these Indian-head decals, and I am surethat Col Driscoll will remember them.

In his last sentence, the author states,"By late 1943 most, if not all, Scout Com-panies had replaced their scout cars withjeeps." I would say that in early 1943 ourscout cars were replaced with jeeps atCamp Titahi Bay in New Zealand, butmore importantly we spent most of our

time after the scout cars were taken fromus training in rubber boats and when theSecond Scout Company participated inthe Tarawa operation in November 1943,the vehicles used exclusively were rubberboats, which we had become very profi-cient in using due to intensive training inNew Zealand.

I can remember well riding in a scoutcar along the beach at Titahi Bay at lowtide when the scout car became stuck insoft sand suddenly and unexpectedly en-countered. I remember well "sweatingblood" as the tide began to come in andour efforts to extricate the scout car cameto naught. Just as hopelessness settled ina Marine gunner named "Horsepower"Murray, a great character, showed up onthe scene with two tanks and saved the dayand the scout car (and me, too) by usingwhat he called "Texas traction" to rescuethe scout car in the nick of time.

The tanks he had to work with in NewZealand he referred to as "Army hand-me-downs" and all hands knew what hemeant, from the battalion commander,LtCol Swenceski, on down, and no onedared to push "Horsepower" too far withcomplaints, because the feeling was thatif "Horsepower" ever departed throughtransfer request or otherwise, those easilyoffended relics would simply lay down, rollover and die.

He was extremely talented, a "one-in-a-million" mechanic, and he knew it andany Marine who knew anything aboutmechanical contrivances knew it and heknew they knew it and he "gloried" in therespect that his incredible talent thrustupon him.

J. Fred HaleyOakland, California

RECALLING THE 1ST SCOUTThe Summer 1986 issue of Fortitudine

contained an article by Anthony W. Tom-mell on Marine scout cars, scout compa-nies, etc. I read the article withconsiderable interest, since I served in the1st Scout Company during most of thetime that it existed.

I joined the 1st Scout Company in May1941 in Quantico, Virginia as a secondlieutenant. The company commander wasCapt [Henry W.] Buse, who sometimelater during the Vietnam War as a lieu-tenant general, was Chief of the Staff ofthe Marine Corps and CommandingGeneral of FMFPac. Until 2dLtjohn (Tex)

8

Gillispie and I joined the 1st Scout Com-pany on the same day in 1941, it had fiveplatoons and only three platoon leaders.One platoon consisted of five very smalltanks, each named for one of the five Di-onne quintuplets. There were three scoutcar platoons of five scout cars each. Thefifth platoon was the motorcycle platoonconsisting of 21 Harley Davidson motor-cycles. The motorcycles were equippedwith side cars which we often disengaged.Every man in the platoon was armed witha Thompson submachine gun.

Shortly after I joined the company, CaptBuse assigned me to be platoon leader ofthe motorcycle platoon (Tex Gillispie gota scout car platoon), a job I retained forslightly over one year. In fact, I took thatplatoon overseas with the rest of the 1stMarine Division when we sailed from SanFrancisco to New Zealand in May 1942 on-board the M.S. Kungsholm. However,shortly before we left our base in NewRiver, North Carolina, bound for SanFrancisco on the first leg of our journeyto Guadalcanal (via New Zealand) wetraded our motorcycles for 21 jeeps.

The primary mission of the motorcycleplatoon (and the rest of the 1st ScoutCompany) was road net reconnaissance.Since there was no road net to reconnoi-ter on Guadalcanal or the other jungle is-lands of the South Pacific, the 1st ScoutCompany was removed from the 1st TankBattalion and dismounted. It became theDivision Reconnaissance Company (onfoot). However, by that time I was the ex-ecutive officer of one of the tank compa-nies of the 1st Tank Battalion andremained mounted (in tanks) until I wenton inactive duty four years later in thesummer of 1946.

In between I commanded Company C,4th Tank Battalion during the assaults onKwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima.

I often wonder what happened toour old motorcycles. Though I can honest-ly say I never had as much fun as the yearI had the motorcycle platoon, I am sureglad we didn't take motorcycles into com-bat. Tanks were much better!

Speaking of tanks, the five "quin-tuplets" of the 1st Scout Company did noraccompany us overseas. Most had been putout of action before that; but that isanother story.

Col Robert M. Neiman, USMCR (Ret)Van Nuys, California

Acquisitions

Rare Japanese 'Type 44' Arisaka Donated to Museum

T he closing years of the nineteenthcentury saw every major nation of

the world scrambling to develop a newlong arm for its military forces. Innovationsproduced by the Mauser and Mannlicherweapons designers in Germany pointedthe way to a bolt-action, clip-loaded, car-tridge weapon.

The Japanese were no exceptions fromthe search for a perfect firearm. In 1897they adopted the Arisaka rifle which,though modified many times, would re-main the standard infantry weapon for Im-perial forces until the end of World WarII. Named for Col Nariake Arisaka, Su-perintendent of the Tokyo Arsenal, wholed the development team, it was similarin design to the German CommissionRifle.

The Type 38, adopted in 1905 andhence known synonymously as the M1905,was the principal model used in WorldWar II. Its 6.5mm cartridge and noisy boltaction are all too familiar to veterans ofthe Pacific war.

A restricted study was completed in De-cember 1943 by the Military Intelligence

by John H. McGarry HIMarine Corps Museum Registrar

Division of the U.S. War Department.Devoted to an in-depth review ofJapaneseinfantry weapons, it is generally com-plimentary in its assessment of theweapons encountered by Americans in theGuadalcanal, New Guinea, New Georgia,and Aleutian campaigns.

T he Arisaka was a lightweight weaponwith a medium-level muzzle veloci-

ty and practically no muzzle flash. Thesefactors were an advantage in the close-up

jungle fighting of the Pacific islands. Thelack of muzzle flash was particularly help-ful to Japanese snipers, who became a seri-ous problem for the advancing Marines.

The weapon was found to be not as ac-curate as the highly acclaimed 1903Springfield. Picking up an Arisaka, a Ma-rine would be shocked to find that the rearsight has no provision for adjusting wind-age. The front sight was a crude, barley-corn type.

The biggest disadvantage of the Arisa-

Type 44 cavalry carbine presented by GySgt CarlR. Lobb is distinguished by its 15-inch-long folding bayonet, which locks into an inletted groove in the forearm of the stock.Commonly calleda "Kiju" by the Japanese, the 38.5-inch weapon was convenient tocarry and, without a metal bolt cover was quieter in operation than other models.

Japanese infantrymen wade ashore on Corregidor Philippine Is-lands, in this 1942 photograph from a capturedpublication. Theyare armed with either Type 38 or Type 99 Arisaka rifles, named

for the superintendent of the Tokyo Arsenal who led the develop-ment team in the final years of the last century. Type 38 wasthe princzpalJapanese rifle model in use during World War II.

9

ka series of weapons was in the cartridgedesign. The 6.5mm round weighed 138grains, with a pointed lead bullet and anickel steel jacket. Firing this load, theweapon had an effective range of 400-500yards, with a maximum range of 4,000yards.

F ollowing their experiences in China,the Japanese realized the need for de-

velopmentofa cartridge with more stop-ping power. A 7.7mm was tested andplaced in production in 1939. This car-tidge was the equivalent of the British 303in power. The weapon firing the new car-tridge was designated the Type 99. Otherthan firing a larger cartridge, the newweapon was basically the same in designas the Type 38 (M1905).

The Type 99 was to experience problemsas it was discovered that the hotter car-tridge increased recoil. This was a seriousproblem for the small-in-stature Japaneseinfantryman. Because of this, and limit-ed production, the Type 38 remained inuse.

Along with the adoption of the Type 38rifle in 1905, theJapanese adopted a Type

38 carbine. Except for its shorter length,it was identical in design to the riflemodel.

A unique variant in the Arisaka ser-ies was adopted in 1911, and was

designated the Type 44 carbine. It was verysimilar in design to previous and latermodels, but with some interesting differ-ences. It was primarily intended for use bymounted troops.

Recently, GySgt Carl R. Lobb, USMC(Ret), donated an example of the Type 44carbine to the Museum. Due to its rarity,it is considered a major addition to ourcollection of captured enemy weapons.

The Type 44 is a minimal 38.5 incheslong, certainly a convenient length for acavalry carbine. Like other models, it fea-tures a five-round, box magazine for the6.5mm round. The front sight is an ad-justable leaf type, with adjustments up to200 meters.

The Type 44 lacks the stamped metalbolt cover found in most other Arisakamodels. This bolt cover was to protect themechanism from dust and mud, but

10

proved very noisy in use due to theamount of play in the fitting. The elimi-nation of the cover makes the Type 44quieter to carry and operate. It may placethe user in danger of flashback by leak-ing gas around the bolt, as the Arisaka ser-ies was notorious for poor headspacing.

As in other Arisaka models, the stockis made in two pieces. The lower portionof the rear of the stock is dovetailed andglued to the upper section, This was donein an apparent move to conserve lumberresources.

p ossibly the most interesting feature ofthis rare model is the folding bayo-

net. Unfolded, the bayonet extends 15inches in an irregular triangular shape.Folding by means of a locking mechanismjust below the muzzle, the blade rolls backand locks into an inletted groove in theforearm of the stock.

The Type 44 was commonly called the"Kiju" by the Japanese. Under any name,it is but one example from a vast andvaried arsenal of weapons that Marinesfaced in fighting their way across thePacific. D1775L]

Historical Quiz

Women in the Marine Corpsby Lena M. Kaijot

Identify by name the following women:

Reference Historian

1. Legend claims she served as a Marine aboard the USS Con-stitution throughout the War of 1812, disguised as a man.

2. Considered the first woman Marine, she was sworn intothe Marine Corps Reserve on 13 August 1918, for clerical dutyat Headquarters Marine Corps.

6. She is currently the only woman general officer in theMarine Corps, and is serving as the Director, Manpower Plansand Policy Division, Headquarters Marine Corps.

3. She was the first Director of the Marine Corps Women'sReserve, from the time it was activated, 13 February 1943, to7 December 1945, when she resigned her commission.

7. She is the author of the History and Museums Divisionpublication, A Histoty of the Women Marines, 1946-19 77,

which follows earlier official histories of women Marines inWorld War I and World War II.

4. She served as the second Director of the Women's Reserve,from December 1945 toJune 1946, and later returned to ac-tive duty in 1948, when she was assigned as the first Directorof Women Marines.

8. She was appointed the first Sergeant Major of WomenMarines in January 1960.

5. She was the first female general officer in the history ofthe Marine Corps, promoted to the rank of brigadier generalon 11 May 1978, and, as a colonel, was the last officer to serveas Director of Women Marines.

9. This is the nickname for the statue of a woman Marine,the first statue honoring women who served in the U.S. ArmedForces, which was dedicated in New Orleans on 10 Novem-ber 1943, the first year that the Corps accepted women inWorld War II.

10. This former women's national golf champion served asan officer in the Marine Corps for two years during WorldWar II.

(Answers on page 30)

Waterhouse Painting Traces Marines at Harpers Ferry

T he United States Marine Corpsis proud of its reputation as "the first

to fight." This slogan was adopted duringWorld War I and was widely used onrecruiting posters of the period, but theMarine Corps historian knows that the ac-colade was earned long before the adventof trench warfare and marauding airplaneson the fields of France.

The summer of 1859 was a hot andtroubled time for the citizens of the Unit-ed States; violence was about to erupt ascivil war built at the instigation of a num-ber of political agitators. One suchprovocateur was John Brown, known tosome as "Ossawattomie" from his violentactivities in Bloody Kansas.

Brown developed an elaborate plan toseize the federal armory at Harpers Ferry,West Virginia, and use the captured

by John H. McGariy HIMarine Corps Museum Registrar

weapons for a slave uprising. Operatingwith a band of like-minded followers, heentered the town on Sunday night, 16 Oc-tober. Brown and his men quicklybreached the armory grounds, and takinghostages, gained control of the industrialcomplex by morning.

A train of the Baltimore and Ohioline was temporarily delayed while

passing through the town, but was soonon its way to tell the tale of the uprising.Local militia forces gathered in the townover the next 48 hours, but had little ef-fect upon the invaders other than to sealoff any escape routes, in effect bottling upBrown and his men in the armorygrounds.

Word of the trouble reached Washing-ton by the next day, and Secretary of War

John B. Floyd was in a quandary as to howto organize a quick response. The nearestArmy troops were at Fortress Monroe, andnot expected to arrive for days. Secretaryof the Navy Isaac Toucey offered a solu-tion. A force could be quickly assembledfrom the Marine Barracks in Washingtonand, by train, could arrive at Harpers Fer-ry within hours.

By 1300, Marine Lt Israel Greenereceived orders to assemble the 86 Marinesof his Navy Yard detachment and prepareto move. Lt Greene, a 12-year veteran ofthe Corps, began his preparations, includ-ing issue of ammunition. Fearing unneces-sary bloodshed at the hands of such ayoung officer, the Commandant orderedMaj William Russell, Paymaster of the Ma-rine Corps, to accompany Greene and as-sist him as necessary. With the men

John Brown, regaining consciousness after a head wound inflictedby Marine Lt Israel Greene, appears at bottom right of Col

Charles H UVaterhouse 's rendition of Brown capture at the fed-eral armory at Harpers Fery, JVest Virginia, in October 1859.

11

formed, the detachment boarded thewestbound train at 1530.

Q verall command of the operationwas given to a well-known Army

officer, a brevet colonel, Roben E. Lee. or-dered to the War Department from hishome in Arlington, Go! Lee did not havetime to change into his uniform, and ar-rived in civilian attire. Army lstLt JamesEwell Brown, Stuart, in Washington on sixmonths' leave, volunteered to serve as ColLee's aide. Later known simply by his ini-tials, J. E. B. Stuart borrowed a uniformand sword from the War Department withthe insignia of his service in the cavalry.Leaving by a separate train, Lee and Stu-art soon caught up with the Marinesspeeding towards Harpers Ferry.

The federal troops arrived in the latehours of the 17th, and the officers met toassess the situation. A dramatic plan wasdeveloped, and the force was disposed toawait the first light of day.

Col Lee was faced with a delicate deci-sion as to who should make up the attack-ing party. Because the militia was the firstto arrive, the job of storming the armory'sfire engine house was offered to them. Theofficers of the Maryland and Virginiamilitias declined, arguing that the "merce-

naries" should have the honor. Lt Greeneprepared a storming party of 12 Marines,with a reserve of 12 nearby.

Brown had barricaded himself in theengine house. Its stout brick walls provid-ed an excellent defense for his men andtheir hostages. At about 0700, Lt Stuart

approached the wooden doors of the en-gine house. He requested the surrender ofthe conspirators, and was denied. Stuartturned, and with a wave of his plumed felthat, signalled the beginning of the attack.Ti Greene and his men rushed the largecentral door armed with sledge hammers.The hammers proved useless in forcing theheavy door, so the reserve party picked upa ladder lying nearby and battered a holelarge enough to crawl through. Lt Greenewas the first to stoop and pass through thehole. He was followed by Maj Russell, whowas armed only with a rattan cane. Thenext Marine through the door, Pvt LukeQuinn, was mortally wounded in theabdomen.

T he smoky interior of the building wasa melee of firing conspirators, cring-

ing hostages, and the wounded of bothsides crying out in pain. Lt Greene was in-terrupted by a hostage who knew him, ColLewis Washington of the Virginia StateMilitia. Col Washington shouted, "Hello,Greene! This is Ossawattomie!" and hepointed to a figure kneeling while reload-ing his weapon. Greene turned and struckBrown upon the head with his sword, im-mediately followed by a thrust to the chest.Brown fell unconscious, and Greene dis-covered that his sword blade had bentdouble. Another of Brown's men wasbayoneted to death on the floor. Withinmoments, the fighting was over. Brown

Sharp eyes wi//find this trio from a preliminary sketch in the Harpers Ferry painting.

Museum Registrar McGarry, with rifle, anda park ranger donnedperiod clothing andstruck poses to assist Col IVaterho use in preparing sketches such as that above.

12

and the wounded were carried outside,and the hostages, some leaping in joy,were released. The insurrection was over.

H owever short-lived the operation,history has proved it an important

event in the annals of Marine Corps serv-ice to the nation. The Marine CorpsHistorical Center decided that for com-memorating the action an excellent devicewould be an addition to the Historical ArtSeries of paintings produced by its artist-in-residence, Col Charles H. Waterhouse,USMCR.

To assist Col Waterhouse in developingideas for the painting and to verify the ac-curacy of its detail, I was assigned asresearch project officer and began alengthy period of study. The Harpers Fer-ry raid left a vast number of unofficial ac-counts and official records, many of whichare conflicting. There are also a numberof contemporary illustrations by news cor-respondents. After six months of sifting,reading, and sorting, documentation foran accurate recreation of the event was as-sembled and presented to the artist.

The research discovered a number offacts concerning the incident which werenew to us. An example involves the typeof sword carried by Lt Greene. Contem-porary drawings show a Marine officer car-rying a "Mameluke" model. As Greenewas the only Marine officer armed with asword, the blade that bent double almost

certainly was a Model 1826 Mameluke.This and many other points of researchhave allowed interesting details to be in-corporated into the painting.

A great deal of information concerningthe participants was obtained, Of partic-ular interest was Marine Pvt Quinn, whomight be said to be the first militarycasualty of the Civil War. Pvt Quinn wasburied in a cemetery near Harpers Ferry.In 1927 the grave was accidentally unco-

•vered and remnants of the uniform weresent to the Corps' Commandant, John A.Lejeune. A swatch of the fabric is still tobe found in the National Archives, andthis was examined as part of the research.

T he exact time and locale of the paint-ing was arrived at after discussion in

the Center's Historical Art Research Com-mittee. A decision was taken to show theconclusion of the action, as Brown and theothers were brought from the building; atthis moment, all of the central figures ofthe account could be shown gathered inone place.

As the artist began to develop concep-tual sketches, an on-site visit was made tothe Harpers Ferry National Historic Site.The engine house stands near its originallocation. The building was removed fromthe armory grounds for the 1892 ChicagoExposition and returned only after manyyears. Its mistaken reconstruction was

based on a contemporary photograph,which reversed the image, so that when itwas reerected the building was raised back-wards. Keeping this in mind, the artistproduced his initial sketches.

T o aid the artist in rendering the rangeof military figures in the painting,

members of the National Park Service staffand I posed in reproductions of periodcostumes and uniforms. Col .Waterhousephotographed us, and incorporated theseprints and sketches into his growing col-lection of source material.

The second half of last year was devot-ed to the final painting. As it progressed,the artist and the project officer consideredthousands of small details. The finalpainting is the culmination of hundredsof hours of research on uniforms, weapons,portraits, insignia, architectural features,and even weather.

To the right of the building can be seenthe officers, Lee (in civilian clothes), Stu-art (in plumed hat), Greene (with bentsword), and Russell. With them is ColWashington, conspicuous with his whitegloves. Ever the gentleman, Washingtonhad refused to leave the engine house un-til his gloves had been put on.

The lower right-hand corner showsBrown, regaining consciousness and suffer-ing a head wound from Greene's blow.Even though dazed, he is under heavyguard.

T he central figure is Pvt Quinn. Shotin the abdomen, he is about to die.

An Irish Catholic, Quinn has requested apriest, and Father Costello, who happenedto be in town on that eventful day, willsoon administer the last rites.

To the left is a crowd of civilians strain-ing to see the action. Immediately follow-ing the capture of Brown, the areaswarmed with spectators, and the Marineswho did not take part in the attack wereordered to hold them back.

From the center door are led the re-mainder of Brown's conspirators. At thesame time, their hostages are rushing outto freedom.

Included in the pictorial account aresome small dogs of the kind frequentlyseen in Col Waterhouse's work. It wasfound that one belonged to Col Washing-ton, and one to Ossawattomie himself.Contemporary accounts prove both to havebeen there. E1775E1

Among source materials provided to Col lVaterhouse for reference was this contem-porary view of the storming of the Harpers Ferry engine house. Marines battered thewooden doors andpassed inside to capture Brown. The 1859 print's artist is unknown.

13

'Uses of Military History' Outlined by Seminar Speakers

'' he Uses of Military History" wasthe theme of the 198 5-1986 ser-

ies of Professional Development Seminarssponsored jointly by the History andMuseums Division and the Marine CorpsHistorical Foundation, and held in themultipurpose room of the Marine CorpsHistorical Center in the Washington NavyYard.

Kicking off the series in October 1985was the presentation by BGen William A.Stoift, USA, the recently appointed ArmyChief of Military History. A former profes-sor of history and social sciences at the U.S.Military Academy, West Point, he alsoserved tours on the faculty of the Com-mand and General Staff College, FortLeavenworth, Kansas, where he was Direc-tor of the Combat Studies Institute for fiveyears. His topic was "Military History andLeadership Development."

T he next speaker was internationallyrenowned military, historian and

author Col Trevor N. Dupuy, USA (Ret),who, together with his father, has pub-lished numerous works in the field. ColDupuy spoke on "Military History—TheEssence of Military Science."

In March, the speaker was Col James S.Toth, USMC, a member of the IndustrialCollege of the Armed Forces faculty. His

Trevor N. Dupuy

by Benis M. FrankHead, Oral History Section

Christopher Jehn

illustrated presentation, "Canak-kale/Gallipoli Revisited" was based onresearch he has done both in the UnitedStates and Turkey, where he had thecooperation of the national government.Col Toth also had the benefit of findingand using Gen Gerald C. Thomas' long-lost Marine Corps Schools "Gallipoli" lec-ture notes.

The following month, April, Dr. J.Kenneth McDonald, chief historian of theCentral Intelligence Agency and a formerMarine, spoke on "Questioning History:The Use and Abuse of Official Historians."It was a particularly provoking subjectsince it caused the professional historians

J. Kenneth McDonald

in the audience to stand off from theirprofession and to take an objective viewof it and the projects in which they cur-rently are involved.

In May, Mr. Christopher Jehn, who isVice President, Marine Corps Programs,Center for Naval Analyses, discussed "TheUse of History in Operational Analysis,"and the role military history— particularlyMarine Corps history—plays in the vari-ous projects CNA has underway for theMarine Corps.

T he final seminar of the year featuredColJamesJ. Coolican, director of the

Marine Corps Doctrine Center at the Ma-rine Corps Development and EducationCommand in Quantico. His topic, "TheDevelopment of Doctrine for the MarineCorps" engendered considerable discus-sion from the audience both following hispresentation and during a luncheon af-terwards.

Individuals in the Washington, D.C.area interested in attending future semi-nars can be placed on a mailing list for an-nouncements either by writing to theseminar coordinator, Benis M. Frank, Ma-rine Corps Historical Center, Building 58,Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C20374-0580, or by calling him at433-3838/40/41. Li1775L1

James]. Coolican

14

Long-Awaited Women Marines History Now Available

G o! Mary V. Stremlow's A History ofthe IVomen Marines, 1946-19 77 has

been published by the History and Muse-ums Division; the first copies of the hard-and soft-bound editions were received atthe Marine Corps Historical Center inmid-August.

The high level of interest in this histo-ry has never waned since its inception in1976 when then-LtCol Stremlow of theMarine Corps Reserve was called to activeduty with a charge to complete in oneyear's time a draft manuscript covering theeventful history of women in the MarineCorps from the end of World War 11 to theimminent disbandment of the last wom-en Marine units. As it happened, 1977 sawnot only the dissolution of the last women-only commands but also the end of theoffice of Director of Women Marines.

The last Director, Col Margaret A.Brewer, USMC, soon to become the Corps'first woman general officer as Director ofPublic Affairs, was the person mostresponsible for the history being written.She correctly reasoned that the phasingout of women's units marked both the endof an era for women in the Corps and theonset of a period of assimilation whichwould make women Marines' history in-creasingly harder to trace.

In October 1976, when Col Stremlowreported on board as a member of the

Histories Section, she was undertaking atask, writing for publication, she had nevertried before. However, her track record asan officer for meeting and mastering newchallenges was outstanding. Her "can-do"attitude was equally engaging to all whoworked with her. She interviewed dozensof active, retired, and former Marines;wrote letters asking for comments, sugges-tions, and information to more than 300individuals; and solicited informationwidely through Marine Corps-affiliated or-ganizations and periodicals.

The body of records she had to workwith, mostly the files of the office of theDirector of Women Marines, was neitherextensive nor complete. In short, she hadto do a classic historical research effort anddo it within a time frame, one year, that

by Henry I. Shaw, Jr.Chief Historian

many veteran historical writers thoughtwould only be long enough to produce ashort monograph, similiar to those alreadywritten on women Marines in World WarI and World War II.

Col Stremlow was fortunate to have aresearch assistant for her last half-year onactive duty, MSgt Laura J. Dennis,USMCR, who, in Col Stremlow's words,did "the painstaking research that result-ed in the publication of much morematerial than would have been otherwisepossible." Most of MSgt Dennis' work wasdone as an unpaid volunteer while she wasstill a member of the active Reserve, buteven after her retirement in 1978, shehelped shepherd the manuscript throughits comment edition and its later produc-tion phases. MSgt Dennis even today,when she shares Col Stremlow's good feel-ing in having finally seen the women Ma-rines history in print, continues to workat the Historical Center as a volunteerpublicist for the Marine Corps Museum.

T he draft history was given a broad cir-culation, soliciting comments from

interested Marines, including formerCommandants, all Directors of WomenMarines, and many other officers, as wellas former enlisted women with extensiveCorps experience. The ratio of return ofthese comments was excellent, and onecommon trend held throughout: Therewas virtually no argument with the storyas it was presented, either in fact or in-terpretation. There were, however, a num-ber of interesting personal highlightsrelated that added measurably to ColStremlow's subsequent revision of thedraft. A side effect of the wide circulationof the draft and announcement of the his-tory's existence was the high interest ofwomen Marines, past and present, in itspublication. It is safe to say that, as it wasreadied for production, the Director andChief Historian had more inquiries on thisvolume's status than any other in their col-lective experience.

Also unique in their experience andthat of other History and Museums Divi-sion veterans is the more than casual in-terest shown in the history by those who

15

helped process it for publication. Remarkslike "it is the most interesting history we'vepublished" and "I really enjoyed readingit" were not unusual.

W hat Col Stremlow has managed todo is write a people-oriented his-

tory that never loses sight of the fact thatthe path to assimilation of women into themainstream Marine Corps experience wasseldom smooth, often had its humorousaspects (only in retrospect, sometimes),and always was maddeningly slow to thewomen affected.

In manuscript form, the history washelpful to dozens of writers over the pastseveral years as a resource tool. Most com-petent researchers investigating the histo-ry of women in the Armed Forces in thepast 30 years have found their way to ColStremlow's draft in its various stages andprofited considerably by their reading.

The book, in its soft-bound version, willbe distributed to all Marine Corps unitsthis year. This edition is also available forpublic sale through the Superintendent ofDocuments for $14.00, Order No.008-046-00115 -4.

The limited edition of hard-bound co-pies will be distributed to libraries andother institutions and to those who com-mented on the draft. L]1775[I]

MSgt LatraJ. Dennis, USMGR (Ret,), as-sisted Col Stremlow with "painstakingresearch," and later helped by shepherd-ing the manuscrij't through to print.

Illness Complicated Writing of Gen Barnett's Memoirby LtCol Merrill L. Bartlett, USMC (Ret)

C olonel Robert D. Heini, Jr. in-troduced me to the papers of Maj-

Gen George Barnett in 1977. At the time,I was researching and writing the historyof the mess night tradition in the MarineCorps, and Col Heini recalled somethingin Gen Barnett's personal papers about at-tending such an affair while serving in thecruiser San Francisco in the years beforethe Spanish-American War.

With the assistance of Charles A. Wood(then the curator of personal papers at theMCHC), I found the brief mention of GenBarnett's participation in a Navy messnight in his unpublished autobiography,"Soldier and Sailor Too." The originaltyped copy is found in his personal papers,while bound copies are in the stacks of thelibrary at the MCHC and in NimitzLibrary at the U.S. Naval Academy. Read-ing the first few chapters of the memoirleading up to the passage relating to at-tendance at a mess night, I wondered whysuch a readable and lucid memoir of aformer CMC had never been publishedand decided to take the matter into myown hands.

The following year, I applied andreceived a grant from the Naval AcademyResearch Grant Council (NARC) whichprovided a small stipend to pay for travelexpenses out of the area and for pho-tocopying; more importantly, by receivingthe grant, I was released from teachingand administrative duties at the NavalAcademy for the summer of 1979, thus al-lowing me to spend the time necessary togo over the autobiography. Through thehot and humid summer, I poured over thework line by line, checked the accuracy ofGen Barnett's memory (by his own admis-sion, he kept no notes or diary), and an-notated a photocopy of the original withadditional information obtained at theMCHC, Navy Historical Center, Library ofCongress, and National Archives.

At the completion of my research, I had

The author taught history at the US.Naval Academy, 1977-1982. In 1980, hewas the first winner of the Marine CorpsHistorical Foundation's Hem/Award Hisbiography of LtGen John A. Lejeune hasbeen accepted for publication by theNaval Institute Press.

to admit that the work—even with exten-sive annotation — remained uneven. Whilethe beginning chapters are rich with theexperiences of a young Marine Corpsofficer clearly enjoying his career, andfilled with a sparkling sense of humor andzest for life, the last chapters containingmaterial on his commandancy are flat andempty. As Gen Barnett writes of his lifefrom 1914, the vivid detail seems to bemissing, and mostly he discusses MarineCorps preparedness during the war and hissubsequent ouster by Secretary of the NavyJosephus Daniels. Finally, the memoirends rather than concludes with Gen Bar-nett recalling his final years of active dutyin command of the Department of the Pa-cific in San Francisco.

N othing in Gen Barnett's papers (orin Mrs. Barnett's personal papers—

privately held at Wakefield Manor, Hunt-ly, Virginia) reveals when he wrote the au-tobiography or the circumstancessurrounding its preparation; however, a bitof historical detective work with a few as-sumptions may provide an explanation.

In the first of the chapters recalling hisdays as a naval cadet in Annapolis(1877-81), Gen Barnett mentions that hisnephew enrolled at the Academy "lastyear." Turning to the Register of Alumni(which contains the name of every navalcadet, cadet engineer, or midshipman en-rolled since 1845 whether he or she gradu-ated or not), I looked up "Barnett," andother family names; however, none of thenames would fit the scenario. Then, it oc-curred to me that perhaps Gen Barnettreferred to a nephew of Mrs. Barnett. In

MajGenComdt George Barnett

16

"Soldier and Sailor Too," Gen Barnettnotes that Mrs. Barnett's sister had mar-ried a Navy officer named "Mustin." So,back to the alumni directory.

This time, I found a listing among theClass of 1932—VAdm Lloyd MontagueMustin. Voila! "Montague" was Mrs. Bar-nett's maiden name. The directory con-tained an address for Adm Mustin and hewas only too glad to chat with me. He was,in fact, the "nephew" mentioned in "Sold-ier and Sailor Too:' and recalled Gen Bar-nett and visiting "Eighth and Eye." Thus,Gen Barnett's autobiography was proba-bly begun in 1929 since Adm Mustin cameto the Academy in 1928. When theMCHC allowed me access to Gen Barnett'sOfficer Qualification Record (OQR), thepieces of the puzzle came together.

In his OQR, I found Gen Barnett'sdeath certificate which revealed that in

1929, he suffered a debilitating stroke.From that point on, he was in and out ofthe National Naval Medical Center untildying in 1930. Thus, I suggest that GenBarnett began his autobiography beforebecoming ill, and that the rich detail ofthe early chapters was written while he washealthy and lucid. The last chapters prob-ably were prepared after his illness andwith the assistance of Mrs. Barnett. Thestyle of writing and similarity of this por-tion of "Soldier and Sailor Too" beatsremarkable likeness to portions of Mrs.Barnett's autobiography, "Command Per-formances." Moreover, the themes of theselast chapters are heavy with dialogue per-taining to Gen Barnett's problems withSecretary Daniels exacerbated by Con-gressman Thomas S. Butler and his in-defatigable son, Smedley D. Butler. Fromthe time of Gen Barnett's ouster as the12th CMC in 1920 until her death in 1959,Mrs. Barnett carried on a campaign to re-move the stain of removal from her hus-band's name. Occasionally taking legalaction against those who penned memoirswhich contained critical commentaryabout Gen Barnett, Mrs. Barnett evenwent so far as to accuse LtGen John A.Lejeune of passive complicity in the plotwhich killed her husband! To the end ofher days, Smedley Butler could only be"Smelly Butler." D1775E1

Veteran Artist John Groth Captures The Basic School

A rtist John Groth, in 1966 the firstto volunteer and be selected for the

Marine Corps' new Combat Art Programand eventually to go to South Vietnam,20 years later is also the first to be award-ed a Marine Corps Historical Foundationgrant to cover current Marine activities. Hiswork will deal with Marine officer train-ing at The Basic School at Quantico. [ColEdward M. Condra III, USMC (Ret), is thesecond to receive a MCHF grant; Col Con-dra will cover a NATO exercise in Europethis fall.]

In January 1967, when Groth went toVietnam, the Marine Corps paid for histransportation, a small sum covering perdiem, and some of his art supplies. Thecurrent MCI-IF grant allows the artist topurchase his own art materials and pay forhis own lodging, food, and transportation.Neither route will have been a money-making one for the acclaimed artist.

My assignment to accompany Groth —called the dean of combat artists by manyof his contemporaries—at Quantico inMay 1986 was, from my point of view, akinto the idea of going into spring trainingwith Ty Cobb or golfing 18 holes with BenHogan.

G roth carried a large, trunklikecivilian suitcase with all he thought

he might need. We both agreed each tripis different from the last and thought-to-be-needed items are lugged around, tak-ing up valuable space and never beingused, while something of extreme valueis always, inevitably, left behind.

On his shoulder, much like a Britishmusette bag, was a worn, faded, grayish-colored, canvas Danish schoolbag, expand-able to hold sketch pads, inks, tobacco,and pipes by means of zippered sides. Theoriginal blue-gray color showed when thebag was opened. One of Groth's ArtLeague students recommended its pur-chase for his Vietnam trip in 1967. Ernest

Sketches by John Groth derived from hisvisits to the various ranges and trainingareas of The Basic School serve as illustra-tions for this article, courtesy of the artist.

by Maj John T Dyer USMCR (Ret)Historical Center Curator of Art

Hemingway autbgraphed a musette bagfor Groth during World War II when bothwere war correspondents in Europe. Afteryears of use and many campaigns, theHemingway bag just wore out and Groththrew it away. Now, he wishes he still hadit. Groth painted the cover and inside il-lustrations for the June 1986 issue ofSports Afield, featuring the up-until-thenunpublished Hemingway letters aboutfishing and hunting.

Groth's hats are as legendary as his

17

pipes. At Quantico he sported a tan, cot-ton, short-brimmed field hat with a metaltrout badge attached to the buckled sweat-band; a Greek fisherman's cap; and a Brit-ish Harris tweed sportscar cap. DuringWorld War II, Groth modified an Armyofficer's cap with a "50-mission crush" byremoving the grommet and attaching acorrespondent's insignia. I've never seen aphoto of him in a GI-issue "pot," andwonder if he avoided George Patton andjust never wore one. I did see him try on

-'4-y

the new-issue Kelvar helmet when hefamiliarized himself with the equipmentat The Basic School. Groth muses, "theequipment changes, the geographybut the faces, they're the same ones I saw20 and 40 years ago."

Before we reached The Basic Schooland received a welcome from its

Commanding Officer, Col Peter Rowe,Groth asked me to pull to the side of thehilly road to observe Marine lieutenantsemerging from the underbrush on a landnavigation exercise. He made mental notesas they sighted compasses and orientedmaps, recollections evident in the accom-panying drawings made expressly for For-titudine.

He had ideas for paintings after lessthan five minutes' exposure to the area.

Circumstances allowed our visit at whatThe Basic School staff thought an inop-portune time because one class had justgraduated, another was to process in in thefollowing week, and everything of impres-sive visual impact—they worried—hadhappened the week before or would hap-pen the next week. That this concern wasneedless was proven as our official escort,Maj Doug Workman, showed us an im-pressive itinerary of activity at the obsta-cle, confidence, and endurance courses;bayonet and pugil stick drill; the pistoland rifle ranges; a night-defense exercise;and SPIE (Surveillance Patrol Insert andExtraction) missions involving combat-gear-laden Marines and helicopters.

tieman as he walks to the stage, handlinga small-bowled, ogee-stemmed pipe withshreds of tobacco theatening clothing,rugs, and upholstery somehow remainingprecariously balanced on the pipebowl'srim.

Groth's honesty and humility are dis-arming and engaging. The usual postureof his audiences is leaning forward in theirseats or stance, eyes on the man who drawspictures in the air with his hands todescribe something more clearly. Grothconcentrates on the humor at timespresent in the toughest of combat situ-ations.

"In combat I'm not the point man andthere's usually a wall I can get behind ora hole I can get into. My job was to getthe story, the feel of the situation, thenget out and back to report it in drawingsand in words. I'm no hero," says the vete-ran of seven or nine wars and conflicts ofthe past 45 years. (Of their World War IIassignments, Ernest Hemingway said, "IfJohn had made his drawings from anycloser up front, he would have had to sitin the Kraut's lap.")

G roth equates warfare with sports —with war as the ultimate sport—and

reflects on the relative danger to himselfas sports illustrator or war correspondent.He feels he had one of his closest shaveswhile covering the Scottish Games in Scot-land for Sports Illustrated magazine. He

The spring weather was unseasonablyraw and most field work required wel-comed jackets and sweaters provided byMaj Workman and a space heater for ourBOQ rooms ingeniously scrounged by ourassigned driver, LCp1 Grady.

An informal address to the staff byGroth was to wind up the visit.

G roth has a way with an audience. Heseems to enjoy telling stories of his

many experiences. An air of anticipationgreets the white-haired, mustached gen-

18