Talk:Executive Order 969

Effects
Confused... (what else is new, huh?)

If EO 969 "had the effect of removing marines from ships, as there were no more shipboard duties" and later Congress mandated that "8% of the enlisted men on battleships and armored cruisers should be marines", is that really reversing the order? Was there a set percentage of marines per each ship's crew compliment prior to EO 969? Were they limited to battleships and cruisers before as well or were they deployed as best needed across all ships regardless of type? Are we to infer sub-sections (1) thru (5) were reversed by Congress? The Act of Congress didn't reverse anything by statute - nothing to reverse, refine, amend etc. the provisions of EO 969 specifically (maybe it could have in it's effect I'll agree). This is what the FY 1910 Navy Appropriations bill had, the Proviso being the 8% stipulation
 * 35 Stat. 773, Public No. 308, (60th Congress, Sess. II, Chap. 255, March 3, 1909, H.R. 26394)
 * Pay of enlisted men, active list: Pay of noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates, as prescribed by law; and the number of enlisted men shall be exclusive of those undergoing imprisonment with sentence of dishonorable discharge from the service at expiration of such confinement, and for the expenses of clerks of the United States Marine Corps traveling under orders, and including additional compensation for enlisted men of the Marine Corps regularly detailed. as gun pointers, mess sergeants, cooks, messmen, signalmen, or holding good-conduct medals, pins, or bars, including interests on deposits by enlisted men, and the authorized travel allowance of discharged enlisted men and for prizes for excellence in gunnery exercise and target practice, both afloat and ashore, two million eight hundred and seventy-two thousand two hundred and seventy dollars:
 * Provided, That no part of the appropriations herein made for the Marine Corps shall be expended for the purposes for which said appropriations are made unless officers and enlisted men shall serve as heretofore on board all battle ships and armored cruisers, and also upon such other vessels of the navy as the President may direct, in detachments of not less than eight per centum of the strength of the enlisted men of the navy on said vessels.

The problem here is that the interpretation of events by the author of the Naval history book used to add add'l info is incomplete if not merely skewing the actual facts. What we found in the recorded Congressional hearing citing the EO text and now the Pub. Law mentioned by that same Naval historian that I located above is not open to subjective interpretation. Unfortunately, the author's prose doesn't jibe with what was passed by Congress nor does he adequetly expand on subsequent events to back up his interpretation of events... It's great to cross-reference stuff and I'm all for supporting WS works with citations but sometimes its best to just link the non-Governmental source in a "see related' and let the reader make their own judgement as to credibility or accuracy of that 3rd party's content rather than "leading" the reader to a pre-determined one.
 * Congress did not add a 'rider' (typically a section or similar sub-divsion that 'stands alone', nearly always unrelated to the subject or intent of the overall 'body' of a bill. A classic example of a true rider is the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act being one of the Titles in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010). I've never seen a rider slipped in that's language wasn't adding or amending language that's going to be codified when passed. This also not the case with the Appropriations bill and its 8% stipulation.
 * Congress instead simply inserted a provisio (the Provided, That... part) within a paragraph of a sub-section that made any funding regarding ALL Marine Corps. operations & related stuff dependent on meeting the 8% make-up on at LEAST cruisers and battle ships mandatory in order to get all those appropriations Congress outlined in the Act.
 * Unfortunately, the Provisio is worded such that it is only in effect for FY 1910 and must be added in every appropriations bill for the years thereafter or until made statutory in some other Act of Congress signed into law - otherwise the stipulations made in this case expire and no longer mandatory at the end of FY 1910.

I'm adding "1909" to the March dates in the Notes but will leave the header-notes line alone and hope you see this post George Orwell III (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * :-) I had seen in more than one reference that "Congress" reversed this. Historically, marines had always served aboard ships; they were the ship's guards and boarding parties, so their primary duties had always been aboard ships.  There apparently had been a movement to remove them from the ships, which by the testimony was the primary purpose of the executive order (there may have been additional duties added in the order which remained in force though).  The testimony of General Elliott, starting page 216 and going on for several pages, makes pretty clear that a primary motivation of the order was to remove the Marine Corps from the ships -- he reluctantly drew up the draft of the executive order the day before with that understanding (which is reprinted there), and under that authority there were then orders to remove Marines from ships.  The appropriations bill obviously (re-)added shipboard duties, and apparently Marines did in fact serve aboard ships for several decades thereafter, so at least that (clearly intended) aspect of this order was reversed.  The March 3/March 26 orders were part of the same battle of wills but otherwise unrelated to this order.
 * I would agree that we want to avoid interpretation too much, and I was a bit hesitant in putting in that detailed of notes -- but I did see multiple sources (do a Google Books search on "Executive Order 969") referring to this intent (and apparently there were also movements to absorb the Marines into the Army, which was probably the real point of contention). Still, the other parts of this order, which apparently largely expanded Marine Corps duties relative to their earlier functions and may have laid the groundwork for their current main duties, and should be at least as important as the shipboard question.  Another interpretation of events here (for a few pages).
 * So, I'll modify the wording some. However I have seen references (including that wiki page) which seems to indicate the executive order itself was issued on March 3, which was not the case, so I wanted to make clear that that was a separate order, in case anyone links here.  Both books I referenced used the term "rider" but change that if you think it is appropriate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to make waves. It kind of seems like its something more akin to being explained on Wikipedia than WS is all I was thinking. I could be wrong.
 * I just realized the Appropriations bill was signed by Teddy on the same day he issued the 1st Navy Order - what a tool George Orwell III (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops... editing at the same time. Yeah I'd change 'rider' for 'provision' or 'with a provision'


 * No, you were right -- should present facts only here, I think. But it was useful to supply some of the between-the-lines info for this one, i.e. the removal from ships, but I should have left out all of the interpretation of what it represented.  It was a fascinating political battle, just from the reading.  Roosevelt and some others were in favor of disbanding the Marine Corps altogether; it seems that this was seen by some as a first step towards that goal rather than a redefining vision, which caused a lot of the fight back.  (And one book does mention, that the modern duties of the Marines are pretty much in line with the executive order, sort of interesting.) And yes, nice touch to leave that other little order the same day he was forced to sign the bill putting them back on ships, and the day before he left office.  Politics pretty much stays the same I guess...