Captain Stephen W Quackenbush USMC 1869 - 1896

[MarCorp67]

One of the other things that makes this set of emblems unique, other than the fact that they have fouled anchors, is that Cuba is depicted on the emblems which is rare on officer emblems of this era. Darrell and I have had an ongoing discussion about the reason why officer emblems don't have Cuba on them and enlisted emblems do. Lore has it that the reason is that there were no Marine officers in Cuba during the SWA and as such that is why Cuba is missing. Recently I ran accross the below response to a question that was asked in 2006 on one of the Web sites where you can ask a question and get a response which seems to answer the question and I thought I would share it with the forum and see what all of you think. Read the bottom response first then the top response last.

 

Ronnie

 

Question

Why does the enlisted EGA have Cuba on it and the officer EGA does not?

 

 

Answer

Hello again,

 

I got a response from the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation. It turns out to be a much simpler answer than I thought:

 

According to the Marine Corps Museums Division, the difference in the enlisted and officers' emblems is due to how they were manufactured. Originally, the enlisted emblem with Cuba was a more straight-forward stamped mold while the officer's emblem was a ornate, jeweled emblem. Cuba was such a tiny piece that it would not stay secured to the jeweled officers' emblem so it was left off. It has been that way since.

 

John

 

 

 

Hello Karon,

 

This is due to the fact that enlisted Marines gave their lives in Havanna Harbor, and Officers did not (there weren't any aboard the Main, only Naval Officers). At least, that's how it was explained to me. It's not in any of the Marine Corps History that is taught to us, but many of the older "salty" Marines when I was a young PFC explained it that way. I suspect that whatever the course of actual events, enlisted Marines fought and died in Cuba, and Officers did not. Since this is such an outstanding question, I'm going to contact the Marine Corps Historical Society and ask them. When I get a concrete answer, I'll post a followup to this answer. Thanks.

 

Gunny Pierce

[jeb137]

Very Cool Pieces of information there. I appreciate this being posted.

 

Just as much as I appreciate Darrells help trying to teach me "Marine".

 

I'm old, I'm slow and sometimes very hard to teach. But still tyring to learn and with all the experts here, I am learning. :-)

 

Jon B

Newaygo MI

[bobgee]

One of the other things that makes this set of emblems unique, other than the fact that they have fouled anchors, is that Cuba is depicted on the emblems which is rare on officer emblems of this era. Darrell and I have had an ongoing discussion about the reason why officer emblems don't have Cuba on them and enlisted emblems do. Lore has it that the reason is that there were no Marine officers in Cuba during the SWA and as such that is why Cuba is missing. Recently I ran accross the below response to a question that was asked in 2006 on one of the Web sites where you can ask a question and get a response which seems to answer the question and I thought I would share it with the forum and see what all of you think. Read the bottom response first then the top response last.

 

Ronnie

 

Question

Why does the enlisted EGA have Cuba on it and the officer EGA does not?

Answer

Hello again,

 

I got a response from the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation. It turns out to be a much simpler answer than I thought:

 

According to the Marine Corps Museums Division, the difference in the enlisted and officers' emblems is due to how they were manufactured. Originally, the enlisted emblem with Cuba was a more straight-forward stamped mold while the officer's emblem was a ornate, jeweled emblem. Cuba was such a tiny piece that it would not stay secured to the jeweled officers' emblem so it was left off. It has been that way since.

 

John

Hello Karon,

 

This is due to the fact that enlisted Marines gave their lives in Havanna Harbor, and Officers did not (there weren't any aboard the Main, only Naval Officers). At least, that's how it was explained to me. It's not in any of the Marine Corps History that is taught to us, but many of the older "salty" Marines when I was a young PFC explained it that way. I suspect that whatever the course of actual events, enlisted Marines fought and died in Cuba, and Officers did not. Since this is such an outstanding question, I'm going to contact the Marine Corps Historical Society and ask them. When I get a concrete answer, I'll post a followup to this answer. Thanks.

 

Gunny Pierce

 

Hi Ronnie - Lore is often Myth. Stories evolve over time and many folks come to believe them as fact.

 

I had never seriously considered the absence of the island of "Cuba" on the Marine officer's emblem but do not believe it was for the reason stated. There were certainly Officers of Marines ashore in Cuba in 1898 - no less than 21 in Huntington's 1st Battalion of Marines, including 11 Brevetted for gallantry. Of course many more were in combat in the waters around Cuba as officers in the Marine Guard of the larger ships, Armored Cruisers and Battleships,

 

I personally believe that the differences between the EM emblem and the Officer emblem are due simply to the construction technique enployed to make each type.

 

The "Official" USMC pub, "The Eagle, Globe And Anchor - 1868 - 1968" by Col. John A. Driscoll USMCR Ret published in 1971 has a detailed description on Page 5 of what the board convened on 13 November 1868 for the pupose of deciding, and reporting upon the various devices of Cap ornaments proposed for the Marine Corps reported and recommended to the Commandant, in part as follows:

 

"For Commissioned Officers: a frosted silver hemisphere struck from solid plate with chased parallels and continent of North and South America of gold plate; to be surmounted by a spread eagle cut from solid silver and securely fastened by means of a tang of silver soldered on the inner side of the hemisphere." It goes on to describe the foul anchor worked in gold bullion upon which the Eagle and Globe will rest. It further states that:

 

"For Enlisted men, same as for Officers except that the whole be struck from plate brass 1/16th inch thick."

 

Early Officer's emblems were clearly Jeweler-made hence likely causing differences in interpretation of regs. I believe the "gold plate" mentioned for the continents of N. and S. America was not 'gold plate' as we undrestand it today, i.e a veneer of gold on silver or brass but at rather an actual layer of thin gold shaped and applied to the "frosted silver hemisphere". This technique would require additional work to add Cuba and any other islands.

 

A year later, Driscoll goes on to report, "As a step toward standardization the new ornament replaced the bugle with "M" on the officer's epaulette on 20 November 1869 when the following order was published by the Adjutant and Inspector's Office" (in part) "By direction of the Navy Department, there will be substituted for the Silver Bugle worn by officers of the Marine Corps on the Epaulette, an ornament of the same design as that at present worn by Officers on the fatique cap, except that the anchor be of plain silver, and the ornament be of the following dimensions: (omitted). This, IMHO describes the first Officer EGA.

 

The report goes on to state that "Deviations from regulations having been observed in the cap ornament, as also in the size, shape, and style of gold cord of the shoulder knots worn by many officers, attention is called to the importance of uniformity; and Commanding Officers will require strict compliance with the patterns and designs prescribed for the Corps". 150 years plus later collectors and historians are still trying to understand "varieties!"

 

What I read here is that in Nov 1868, the new design of the Eagle, Globe and Anchor was approved with a jeweler-made Globe and Anchor upon a Foul Anchor in gold bullion for Officers and an all brass-struck emblem of the same design for enlisted men.

 

In 1869, the Eagle, Globe and anchor for the Officer's Epaulette was approved in the same design EXCEPT all in silver. Enter Lieutenant Quackenbush into the USMC. I date his Epaulettes to his Commissioning in 1869. And a jeweler's attention to detail has applied the island of Cuba on his badges.These emblems later evolved through various regulations for wear on the collars and epaulettes of Marine Officers.

 

I think the formulation of the Western Hemisphere and the simple depiction of the continents of N. and S. America without any attendant islands was just easier to do. Quackenbush's Epaulettes were among the first so his has Cuba.

 

On page 23 of Driscoll's work is picture of the EGA with a Foul Anchor on an Epaulette (right) very similar to Lt. Quackenbush's and labeled as 1892 - 1904. Doesn't look like Cuba is on them. I think those dates are incorrect and it is much a earlier insignia.

 

My 2-Cents! Semper Fi........Bobgee

[teufelhunde.ret]

My 2-Cents! Semper Fi........Bobgee

 

Well we sure got our monies worth! I agree with your observations. I asked Ronnie to confirm the measurements that were prescribed on Appendix B of Driscoll's work and he has confirmed the emblems shown here to in fact match the dimensions outlined here:

 

 

Three items of interest remain: 1) Why is there no reference to a fouled anchor for this design? 2) The presence of Cuba still remains a mystery? 3) Why did Driscoll use this earlier period emblem as reference to 1892-04?

 

It becomes quite clear now, the unfouled emblem shown here was indeed the correct emblem for the 1892-1904 epaulette. An oversight, the absence of any emblems or photo's to work with? Sure would like to know... s/f Darrell

 

[bobgee]

Darrell - Re: the Foul Anchor on Quackenbush's epaulette emblems, note that the 1869 order states that the emblem will be the same as the approved 1868 hat ornament, which incorporated a foul bullion gold anchor, EXCEPT that the epaulette emblem will all be in silver, thus the conversion incorporated the foul anchor in the new emblem.

 

Somewhere between 1869 and perhaps 1892, a decision was apparently made to UN-FOUL the epaulette and fatigue coat emblems for officers.

 

Regarding the absence of Cuba on Officer's Emblems I'll stand by my theory as stated above until something better comes along. I think it just a matter of jeweler - construction. Officer's emblems almost always have had applied continents, even today, and incorporating "Cuba" makes that a more complicated process. The stamped construction of Enlisted emblems are just much easier to include the details -----such as "Cuba".

 

Semper Fi--------Bob