Talk:United States Revenue Cutter Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First USCG commandant?[edit]

The USCG's own FAQ says this "1905-1911 Captain Worth G. Ross, USRCS, Captain-Commandant (the office of Captain-Commandant was first created in 1908 and Ross therefore is the 'first' officer to hold that office and the title of 'Captain-Commandant.')" I think the article should be changed, thoughts? --Awiseman 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree in principle, but the office goes back even further. It looks like the USCG traces the lineage of Commandant back to Capt Shepard of the Revenue Cutter Service in 1898.[1] This is confirmed at the site of current Commandant Allen [2] citing him as the 23rd commandant. This numerical listing makes sense if one starts counting at Capt Shepard in 1898. I have updated the Commandant of the Coast Guard article to reflect this. I am going to remove the entire sentence referring to Commodore Bertholf from the Coast Guard section as it seems to be a bit superfluous anyway.--G1076 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for War of 1812 statement[edit]

I really haven't got time to go through the whole process but I did run across the needed citation and thought that I would append it here for someone with the Wiki-know-how to add the citation.

"The Jefferson (Captain William Ham) enjoyed a number of successes. She made the first seizure of a British merchantman by capturing the brig Patriot in June 1812."

Irving H. King., "The Coast Guard Under Sail: The U.S. Revenue Cutter Service 1789-1865," (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. 1989.) p 54

Thanks, John 11 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.43.155 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

Should include image and explanation of the "Revenue Ensign"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Categories?[edit]

The primary points of interest in this page relate to early USCG history, but would it be appropriate to add this page to the categories "taxation in the United States" and "revenue services"? Daruete (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was a clear consensus against to using the law enforcement agency infobox. BilCat (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to recent change infobox from military unit infobox to LEA infobox. the rationale are as follows:

  • IMO, military unit infobox is only to be used for unit that dedicated to be used in military or warfare.
  • US Revenue Cutter Service was started as customs enforcement agency (law enforcement agency), although eventually gain military nature (as mentioned on the lead section). So it's primary role is to ensure revenue from tariffs on imports.
  • It was placed under Dept of Treasury, not Dept of Navy and only transferred to Navy in the event of war
  • It's involvement in war initially are related to their role as customs enforcement agency (per history section, early mission and quasi-war), although on later conflict they are more involved in warfare.
  • Therefore, it's role on military/defense was only on case-by-case basis. And not dedicated force for military .
  • LEA infobox have more parameter that can be applies to the subject such as |superseding= and |constitution1=. those paramater are absent in military unit infobox

Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the RCS was still a military force, and for a time the only naval military force of the U.S. which department it was is irrespective of military status. Furthermore, aside from your edit, there is no wide scale consensus on changing military unit boxes to LE boxes, so that consensus will have to be established here for this page. We will also loose vital parameters such as battles. Garuda28 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My stance on the issue of the U.S. Coast Guard AND its predecessor, the U.S. Revenue Marine Service is summed up by Title 14, Section 1, United States Code:
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.
The Coast Guard is utilized as one of the armed services in the defense of the United States on a 24/7/365 basis. It has a military organizational structure and a military rank structure. Its personnel are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It works with the other Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of the United States. While the Revenue Marine Service was not covered by Title 14, its duties were mostly the same as the Coast Guard. The Revenue Marine Service had a military organizational structure, military ranks, military assignments, and served alongside the United States Army and United States Navy in the defense of the United States in most of the wars that occurred while it existed. There is no denying that it also had law enforcement duties, just like the Coast Guard has today. Much of the missions that both entities performed are law enforcement related, however, both entities trained daily in defense related activities and stood ready at a moments notice to defend United States interests around the world. The Coast Guard is both a law enforcement agency and a military service unique in the list of coast guards of the nations of the world. Most coast guards are law enforcement agencies of the country they represent. The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the few coast guards that do have full military responsibilities. The Revenue Marine Service was not just another customs service. For these reasons the infobox edit that Ckfasdf made should be reverted in my opinion. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuprum17:,@Garuda28: US Coast Guard or Revenue Cutter are armed force branch (no disagreement on that point). And as both of you mentioned, US coast guard is in unique situation compare to other coast guards as it's both "armed force" and "law enforcement" agency. So, US coast guard is qualify to use military unit infobox.
However such situation is not entirely unique compare to other military unit/branch, gendarmerie and military police are also both "armed force" and "law enforcement" as they separate military branch tasked in law enforcement of civilian and military population. It's just happen that LEA infobox can accommodate military unit that have law enforcement role, and even have specific parameter them.
Regarding |battles= parameter in military unit infobox, LEA infobox have |activity1name= parameter which is similar/work on the same way as |battles=. So, there will be no issue on this point.
Garuda28 once asked me on WP:MILHIST discussion, what's the criteria to use military unit infobox or LEA infobox. IMO, the criteria to decide which infobox to be used is based on it's unit role.
If that unit predominantly role/mission is on combat then we should use military unit infobox (for example mission statement of US Navy is The Dept of Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterence through sustained naval presense, so it make sense to use military unit infobox).
If that unit predominantly on law enforcement, then we should use LEA infobox (in case of USCG, first 3 duties of 7 primary duties as mentioned on US Code 14 USC 102 are related to law enforcement and 1 duty related to defense. So, without disregard USCG's duty on defense, it's duties is predominantly on law enforcement. I hope my arguments is clear enough. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Revenue Cutter Service and the current Coast Guard were created specifically to be a military force first, and their forces are trained as such. This military designation grants them access and the use of military grade artillery including anti-armored vehicle and anti-aircraft weapons. The Coast Guard also employees missile defense systems on their ships. The Legend-class cutters were partially designed off of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and are designed to handle deep sea military operations and is armed with the same Bofors 57 mm artillery gun as the Freedom-class and Independence-class littoral combat ship. No standard law enforcement agency has direct access to these types of weapons. Neovu79 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neovu79: Revenue cutter was initially created as customs enforcement agency and eventually gain military nature (this was mentioned on lead section of the article). And the issue is about which infobox to be used, Not about I'm arguing whether USCG is armed force branch or not. As I said above "US Coast Guard or Revenue Cutter are armed force branch (no disagreement on that point)". And, Garuda28 and Cuprum17 acknowledge that USCG and it's predecessor are also law enforcement agency. So, kindly please read my arguments above and comment on that.
Regarding possession of heavy armaments, I don't think that can be criteria to decide whether using military unit infobox or LEA infobox. Since China Coast Guard (a civilian maritime law enforcement agency) also employ heavy armaments such as 76mm PJ-26 naval gun and 30mm CIWS on their cutters (as seen here). Ckfasdf (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckfasdf: I have read your comments and I tend to disagree and as to the China Coast Guard is in the middle of transitioning into a military operations as seen here and here, and is under the control of the Central Military Commission. Neovu79 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neovu79: On heavy armaments topics, my points is " the possession of such heavy armaments in coast guard (as law enforcement agency) is not entirely uncommon in other countries coast guard". China Coast Guard is just one example, another example of coast guard that have naval guns on their boats are Japan Coast Guard, Korea Coast Guard, Indian Coast Guard, Taiwan Coast Guard and Russian Coast Guard.
I understand that the three of you argument essence's is military first, meanwhile my argument essence is role should come first. However, let's compare how our arguments applies to other page such as Coast Guard Investigative Service. If using your argument then that page should be using military unit infobox as it is division of military unit. But, if following my argument, then LEA infobox is the proper infobox to be used for that page since even though it is division of military unit, it role is mainly on law enforcement. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally comparable, as the CGIS is a pure investigative agency, akin to Air Force OSI, the FBI, or Secret Service, rather than the Coast Guard. CGIS is actually a clear cut case of when the LE agency template was intended to be used. Some of these pages that mix both are a judgment, and a consensus, call.Garuda28 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See... on that case even you agree to refer to its role than the fact it was military unit.
I can understand your argument, but all U.S. military forces have a role as law enforcement as part of their operational mission is some form, hence, multi-mission and continual mission evolution. Neovu79 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also something to be said for standardizing all of the info boxes among the armed services as well, keeping a consistent format. Garuda28 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was my intention. That's why I come up with criteria on which infobox to be used in case the agency/unit is both "armed forces" and "law enforcement agency".
- Firstly, we need to look up task/mission/role/duties of the agency/unit on any official documents/website.
- If it was predominantly role/mission is on combat/defense then we should use military unit infobox
- If it was predominantly on law enforcement, then we should use LEA infobox
In case of USCG, first 3 duties of 7 primary duties as mentioned on US Code 14 USC 102 are related to law enforcement and 1 duty related to defense. So, without disregard USCG's duty on defense, it's duties is predominantly on law enforcement. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why mess with something that isn't broke. The military infobox serves its purpose just fine. The Revenue Cutter Service and its successor service, the Coast Guard have ships that are armed with guns that no other domestic law enforcement agency has. Why do you suppose that is? The Coast Guard backstops the Navy in time of war, the Revenue Service did the same in its time. Just because the Coast Guard has law enforcement duties doesn't mean it isn't equipped to go to war. There are currently Coast Guard Reserve units today that are doing port security duties in conjunction with the Navy in the Mideast. These units don't enforce the law, they are ready to defend naval operations in the Gulf. That is their sole mission. These Reserve units take turns at a year at a time serving with the Navy and have had a presence in the Middle East since Desert Storm. The Reserve units take turns doing a one year tour and have for over 30 years. The Coast Guard also has several cutters operating with the Navy in the Middle East. They don't do law enforcement. They have defense responsibilities keeping merchant shipping safe from attack from Iranian forces. The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. Title 14, Section 1, USC.
We don't "need" to fix anything. Nothing is broke and a new format for an infobox is unnecessary and only serves to confuse. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox itself is not broken, it's just this infobox is overly used on WP, esp. on LEA agency (some of them is not even a military unit and the rest is actually military unit that perform law enforcement duty) and WP happens to have dedicated infobox for LEA that can be used for military unit/civilian agency that perform law enforcement (it even have dedicated parameter for that). So I come up with the criteria as I mentioned above. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14 U.S.C. § 101 The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. Our point is, what you're trying to do is, justify placing a military service into a broader category (law enforcement). Every single branch of the military has a duty and responsibility to enforce the law, whether U.S. or International Law. So what I'm saying is that the Army is a law enforcement entity. The Navy is a law enforcement entity. The Marine Corps is a law enforcement entity, etc. Military and law enforcement are not mutually exclusive. The defining difference is that a military force has the capability to project power. Neovu79 (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the article: Title 14 USC, section 2 authorizes the Coast Guard to enforce U.S. federal laws. This authority is further defined in 14 U.S.C. § 89, which gives law enforcement powers to all Coast Guard commissioned officers, warrant officers, and petty officers. Unlike the other branches of the United States Armed Forces, which are prevented from acting in a law enforcement capacity by 18 U.S.C. § 1385, the Posse Comitatus Act, and Department of Defense policy, the Coast Guard is exempt from and not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. So, the other branch of the United States Armed Forces are not law enforcement agency, only some unit that specialized in policing/investigating on armed forces.
Refer to definition on WP. Military is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare, meanwhile Law enforcement is any system by which some members of government act in an organized manner to enforce the law. USCG is both military branch and law enforcement agency. And, WP have dedicated page for USCG missions -> Missions of the United States Coast Guard, from that page we can see which mission that's more dominant. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment There is a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act as the National Gaurd is a joint reserve military component to the Army (Army National Guard) and the Air Force (Air National Guard) that may be called up by their respective state governor or by the President. Their primary duties are to state law enforcement when activated by a state governor under Title 32 and to military operations when activated by the President under Title 10. Over 50% of U.S. Northern Command's operating forces is comprised of the National Guard. Recently, there has been issues with riots in several states that required the National Guard to be called up to control. Neovu79 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your arguments have not swayed my position in the slightest. My position still stands, and I'm pretty sure I've made my arguments very clear, as to forming a clear consensus with my peers, so I won't keep trying to convince you until I'm blue in the face, but you're more than welcome to keep trying. Neovu79 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though USCG military mission budget is only around 6% of total USCG budget, compare USCG to law enforcement mission budget which takes almost 40% of total USCG budget? (source). Ckfasdf (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this with the utmost respect to you as a major Wikipedia contributor, but FOX 52 is correct. You're beating at a WP:DEADHORSE here, so I am not going to respond to this new question as we would still be going around in circles. I'm asking you to drop this as the general consensus is not in your favor. Neovu79 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur 100%, it's over. - FOX 52 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, despite a certain real degree of overlap. Qwirkle (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comment, perhaps you may like to join the discussion above. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's not enough compelling data to warrant a change. I'd also like to point out that the prevailing consensus is to keep things intact, no point in beating a dead horse. Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What data do you need anyway? The issue is consistency, you don't have problem to use role to decide which infobox to use on CGIS (Coast Guard Division and military unit, law enforcement agency as stated on US Code), but refuse to use same criteria on USCG page. If the consensus is to keep such inconsistencies, it can't be helped then. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rank insignia[edit]

Links to resources to create USRCS rank insignia, and pinging @Skjoldbro: in case they are interested in creating any of them: 

. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Revenue_Cutter_Service&oldid=1204477779"