O'er every sea our flag is borne—in every clime our merchants trade, and American seamen are naturally inclined to prefer the merchant service, for the reasons that they are better paid and have more freedom— that they have to work harder to earn their wages, is no object with ambitious Yankee sailors, who look forward to the time when, with care and economy, they may secure a small competency to support themselves in old age, independent of the cold charity of a hospital. In no country of the world, perhaps, is this so general as in the United States. No seamen of Europe are as well-informed, shrewd and calculating as those of our own nation, and that is the great reason why we have difficulty in manning our naval vessels.
In looking over an English paper, the " United Service Gazette," of a recent date, I find that the following was the completion of guards of Royal Marines embarked on board Her Majesty's ships forming the experimental squadron:
Trafalgar, complement—1 Captain, 3 Lieutenants, 4 Sergeants, 4 Corporals, 2 Musicians, and 146 Privates. Total, 160.
St. Vincent, complement—1 Captain, 3 Lieutenants, 4 Sergeants, 4 Corporals, 2 Musicians, and 146 Privates. Total, 160.
Rodney, complement—1 Captain, 3 Lieutenants, 3 Sergeants, 3 Corporals, 2 Musicians, and 138 Privates. Total. 150.
At this ratio some nine or ten vessels were furnished with Marines, not one of which vessels carried a heavier battery or varied materially in size from the line-of-battle ship Ohio—which ship, during her last cruise in the Mediterranean, had a complement of 40 Marines.
" But," said an honorable Member of the House of Representatives, in a speech opposing the increase of the Corps"—Marines are not required in our Naval Service, as in that of Great Britain. Seamen are not pressed into our service, and therefore no Marines are necessary to shoot them down like dogs." This honorable gentleman had certainly lost the run of English history for the last past thirty years, or he must have known that at the expiration of England's big war with France, about 1816, the law of impressment was abrogated by the British Parliament; but instead of abolishing the Marine arm of the service, they have gone on steadily to increase it, up to this time.
Great Britain never employed Marines to shoot down seamen, but to maintain order, decorum and subordination, in her powerful Naval Service. British officers invariably speak of the Royal Marines as the most efficient arm of the service, and if they are thus viewed by officers of the experience of those of the Navy of England, why should our own small squad, comparatively, look upon them with indifference if not positive aversion. Now, if England, with a host of resources for fitting out and manning single ships, fleets and squadrons, with as good seamen as the world can produce, still prefers to employ about one-fifth of Marines in making up a crew for a naval vessel, why should our Government hesitate to test the experiment ?
One hundred and fifty Marines are not requisite on board a vessel of any nation, as sentinels merely, but the duties generally, throughout various departments in a large ship, are, with more accuracy, and greater alacrity, performed by Marines than seamen. In saying this, the peculiar occupations of the seamen are not included. I do not mean to insinuate that men uninitiated in the art of splicing, rigging strapping blocks, and a thousand other mechanical operations of sailor-craft, can perform such work even in a degree ; but if the Master-at-Arms, the Ship's Corporals, the Purser's Steward, Yeomans or Captains of the Afterguard require assistance, the Marines are the first called upon.
And if we do not require Marines in our Navy to shoot down seamen, yet are there contingencies which sometimes occur, wherein those guards have nipped in the bud sudden outbreaks which might have resulted in catastrophies endangering the loss of a ship, with the lives of all on board. Even the small guards sent on board our cruizers at present, have ever acted with. the utmost regard for the maintenance of the proper authority of the officers, if any hostile feeling should be displayed towards them by the ship's company. Many occasions might be instanced, yet it would be superfluous, perhaps, to do so ; but I have been too frequently assured that the awful tragedy on board the late Brig Somers would never have taken place if a Corporal's guard of Marines had been among her crew, to relieve the officers in that dreadful emergency, (as avowed by Com. McKenzie in his defence before the Court Martial.)
A man will have to serve at least five years at sea, if not longer, ere he can pass muster as an able seaman, which entitles him to the highest pay of $12 per month! Yet there are more able-bodied men that have been five years following the sea, who ship as ordinary seamen, at $10 per month, than for the full pay of seamen.
Now, there are many very good men, from twenty to thirty years of age, who would like to take a cruise in a Man-of-War, but, on being made acquainted with the above facts, they will not enter the service, as landsmen, to serve an apprenticeship with no fairer prospects in view.
Well, this latter class will cheerfully enlist as Marines, for well they know that, from the date of their enlistment, they are entitled to the full established pay of an Infantry Soldier, $7 per month, with rations, clothing, small stores, &c, included; which is nearly, if not quite, as good as the wages given an able seaman, who has nothing but his rations found him, and not unfrequently, his clothes cost him over $5 per month, which is the difference in the monthly wages of the soldier and sailor.
--
And now for some daily motivation...
No comments:
Post a Comment