The Greatest of All Leathernecks: John Archer Lejeune and the Making of the Modern Marine Corps by Joseph Arthur Simon (review)

Annette Amerman

Marine Corps History, Volume 6, Number 2, Winter 2020, pp. 109-110 (Review)

Published by Marine Corps University Press

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/796384/summary

[ Access provided at 24 Sep 2021 21:18 GMT with no institutional affiliation ]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. WINTER 2020 109

Annette Amerman

The Greatest of All Leathernecks: John Archer Lejeune and the Making of the Modern Marine Corps. By Joseph Arthur Simon. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2019. Pp. 360. $44.95 cloth and e-book.)

With the publication of Joseph Arthur Simon’s The as Clifton B. Cates, Lemuel C. Shepherd, Gerald C. Greatest of all Leathernecks: John Archer Lejeune and the Thomas, and Alexander A. Vandegrift. However, for Making of the Modern Marine Corps one might be inclined as much research as Simon conducted, it does not ap- to think that the case for Lejeune’s impact on the U.S. pear that he reviewed the personal papers of Smedley Marine Corps was well-ploughed territory for histori- D. Butler or (held in the Archives ans. Such was the case for this reviewer at the outset; of the Marine Corps History Division at Quantico, however, not at the finish. Simon, a higher education ), two very prominent Marines in Lejeune’s administrator seemingly with no previously published career. The oversight of Butler’s and Holcomb’s pa- historical work to his credit, opens by stating his rea- pers comes back to haunt the author when he fails to soning for this latest biography of Lejeune: “Thus far, explore the professional relationship between each of a comprehensive biography of this exceptional figure the Marines. Holcomb and Lejeune’s relationship in in the history of the corps has not been published” (p. the former’s years as Assistant Commandant (chap- xi). One can be forgiven for retorting with the fact ter 5) and their service together in in World that Merrill L. Bartlett published his own biography War I (chapter 6) are both left unexplored. These of Lejeune (Lejeune: A Marine’s Life, 1867–1942) in 1996, omissions mildly weaken the final pages of chapter 10, which covered the salient facts of the former Comman- where the author attempts to demonstrate the level dant’s life. Even Bartlett, however, “does not adequately of impact Lejeune had on Holcomb’s commandancy cover Lejeune’s years as commandant and underplays (1936–43). Butler and Lejeune’s relationship is also not the importance of his hard work, vision, and persever- fully explored or discussed, leaving the inexperienced ance that demonstrate his key influence in the develop- reader left without a clear understanding of the level ment of amphibious doctrine” (p. 275n1). of friendship and professional rivalry that existed be- Simon’s biography is of standard form and style, tween the two. The Butler papers alone are a treasure written in chronological order and covering the trove of correspondence between the two Marines events of the Marine’s life based on extensive research that could have added value and understanding to this into Lejeune’s personal papers; his family, friends, and work, providing needed context to their relationship. fellow Marines; and the official records of the Marine Despite all this, these omissions are minor distrac- Corps, Navy, and Army across numerous repositories. tions from the overall work. While the biography was published in 2019, Simon had While Simon covers Lejeune’s ascendency to actually conducted extensive research more than 50 the commandancy in chapter 7, he does not delve years ago, at a time when he could and did correspond far enough into the backroom deals, late-night din- not only with Lejeune’s family but also with Marines ner (council of war) parties, and political intrigue of prominence who personally knew Lejeune, such that swirled around the ouster of 12th Commandant Major and the final appoint- ment of Lejeune as 13th Commandant. Additionally, Annette Amerman worked 19 years with Marine Corps History Divi- sion and is now a historian within the Department of Defense. She con- Simon neglects the fact that Lejeune’s confirmation as tinues to research and write about Marines. the top Marine languished, from summer of 1920 un- 110 MARINE CORPS HISTORY VOL. 6, NO. 2 til summer of 1921, as the presidential administration of Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and his health changed hands. Bartlett’s biography of Lejeune during issues, Lejeune remained engaged and often corre- this period outshines Simon’s. sponded directly with members of Congress on Ma- However, it is the timing of the publication that rine Corps matters. Simon also documents Butler’s is most apt. With the recent redirection of roles and attempts to disparage 16th Commandant Major Gen- missions for the Marine Corps under General David H. eral John Henry Russell Jr. in the eyes of Congress, Berger as Commandant, many of the events depicted prompted by Senator Hugo L. Black (D-AL), during in chapters 8, 9, and 10 should sound very familiar to testimony to the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs today’s Marines. Lejeune, like Berger today, inherited regarding his performance at Veracruz, Mexico, when a Marine Corps rebounding from years of service with the issue of merit promotions was being debated, an the Army, years of slow divergence from the Navy, a issue with which Butler disagreed immensely. Due strained budget, and multiple additional missions im- to poor health, Lejeune could not appear before the posed on it. Despite the successes in France, Lejeune’s committee to refute Butler’s assertions as Russell re- Corps was still saddled with missions of expeditionary quested of him, but Lejeune engaged in an exchange duty in far-flung locales such as Nicaragua and . with Senator Black. Lejeune remained a staunch sup- The small wars duty distracted from Lejeune’s desire porter of Russell, who supported many of the same to more closely align with the Navy and perform ser- reforms that Lejeune was unable to accomplish during vice with the fleet. Chapter 9’s coverage of Lejeune’s his own commandancy. modification of the advanced base force concept into This biography of Lejeune comes at a time of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Force, the shift away great organizational reflection on the roles, missions, from Army doctrine to amphibious warfare in edu- and structure of the Marine Corps. It would be a cation and practical experience, and his reorganiza- valuable tool for many within Headquarters Marine tion of Headquarters Marine Corps to meet the new Corps, serving as a reminder that history can be cycli- requirements is timely and relevant to today’s Corps. cal and that events of the past can often be helpful Simon deftly condenses vast amounts of information in shaping the future. While Simon’s work seems to and events into three chapters that could easily be ex- duplicate the efforts of authors before him, it is actu- panded into a stand-alone book. ally an excellent complement to these earlier works As indicated earlier, Simon’s failure to establish by providing a more complete picture of who Lejeune the close professional relationships between Lejeune was and all that he accomplished in his nearly 40-year and Butler, Holcomb, and others leaves chapter 10 a career. Simon captures the post– Marine little flat. That said, the author does make a good case Corps well and provides the details of Lejeune’s ef- for a lasting Lejeune legacy in this concluding chap- forts to refocus the Corps toward greater symbiosis ter, particularly with regard to Lejeune’s continued with the Navy and amphibious warfare, while redi- engagement with Congress on behalf of the Corps recting the Corps’ roles and mission away from Army after retirement on topics such as merit promotions methods of warfare. for officers. Despite a full-time job as superintendent •1775•