Because Twitter limits the size of the tweet, one can't properly address some issues via that medium. Such is the case today regarding the birthday of the Marine Corps. I was unable to jump into the fray as I was on a drive to clear my head and wasn't looking at my phone. In fact, I was listening to Dan Rather's What Unites Us--but that's for another day.
So if I understand the situation properly, Task and Purpose's editor wrote a short piece pointing out the obvious: the day that today's Marines revere isn't exactly the day that they were founded. A flurry of tweets began and I got tagged in the middle. When I got back to a place where I could read the piece by Mr. Szoldra, I was pleasantly surprised to see he did his homework and what he reported was factually accurate.
Having read nearly every stitch of LtCol McClellan's papers, writings, personal correspondence and talked with his family, I have a pretty good inkling of what his intentions were when he proposed that Gen Lejeune change the date of the birthday celebration.
We all know that Lejeune was keen on making sure the Marine Corps was seen in a positive light--he was the master of public affairs. I believe then-Major McClellan's intentions were pure, and simple. One could not possibly have a United States Marine Corps without the Continental Marine Corps. The Continental Marine Corps gave birth to the United States Marine Corps, and thus McClellan sought to include the legacy of those earlier American Marines in the history of the US Marines.
One might think this a bit of a stretch; however, it is in keeping with the lineage and honors principles of Marine Corps units today. There are historical antecedents to units even though the direct linkage may not exist, or be seemingly weak.
For instance, the oldest squadron (note: oldest, non-flying squadron) in the Marine Corps today is Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 11, which dates back to 1 December 1921 when it was known as Flight "I", 2d Air Squadron. Now, one might look at that and say the two aren't related, but they are through a series of redesignations/reorganizations.
However, if one argues "what about units without direct links?!" Good question, take the current 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade. It has had slightly different designations in it's history and it has had many breaks in it's history, however, it is still the same unit. Thus is the case for the Continental and US Marines.
In the end, no organization has a clean history--clean meaning one that isn't full of "legends" and "lore" along with the truth. When I was paid to be a historian for the Corps, and I was asked about these inaccuracies directly, I told the truth. More than once I was met with a gaping mouth, surprised statements of "my drill instructor lied to me?" I often answered, "its only a lie if they know it's not true." I did my best to make sure the truth was there, but there is room enough in the history for the legends and lore, as long as you ensure the truth goes with them. See my previous post about the 4th Marines for an example of "lore." However, there is far more truth to the history of the Corps than there are falsehoods. There are plenty of "sea stories" that aren't true, but again, far more truth. One just has to look beyond the pretty pictures and "sexy" stories.
Today's American Marines (note the distinction) celebrate 10 November 1775 as the birth of the Corps. Yes, it is the date in which the Continental Marines were founded, and the date the US Marines adopted as their own. There are two dates, and it's true many don't realize the story behind how this happened. McClellan wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, rather ensure that the history of the Continental Marines was properly honored; Lejeune was trying to give his Corps deeper roots and thus more legitimacy with the American population.
But if you look, the US Navy has two dates as well!
If this thread of tweets manages to cause Marines to dig a little deeper into their history, then huzzah! Scratching the surface and being curious is a good thing.
