Are you asking me? I already stated I hadn’t found anything on this in the regular histories of the USMC. Still, I think it’s common knowledge how badly 18th-century seamen were treated. Charles Dana’s Two Years Before the Mast is a well-known firsthand document of this from the 1830s. He was a lawyer who fought to get laws enacted for the humane treatment of sailors. Here’s another cite—from James Joyce—
Just to give a hint of the perspective of the author of raygirvan’s cite:
The numbers your cite, mangeorge, gives seem high. What is their source? Also, you indicate you were there; what is your personal experience of fragging/
And a P.S. hijack: WTF is “working class” anyway? I work, am I of the working class?
Yes, a lit artillery shell. The Braxton Bragg spoken of was a Confederate General in our Civil War. The '46 referred to was 1846 when Bragg was still a US Army officer. The first exploding shells for artillery were just hollow cannon balls containing lead shot and filled with powder to explode and scatter the shot. A fuze that burned at a known rate was lit and then the gun was fired. At first they were only used in mortars so that part of the shell with the fuze installed stuck out and was available for lighting off the fuze. Exteme accuracy wasn’t all that critical as long as the shell exploded and scattered fragments in the vicinity of enemy troops.
So a “lit artillery shell” makes sense after all.
This from Britannica
“Shrapnel projectiles contained small shot or spherical bullets, usually of lead, along with an explosive charge to scatter the shot as well as fragments of the shell casing. A time fuze set off the explosive charge in the latter part of the shell’s flight, while it was near opposing troops.”
Gotcha, thanks DS.
There are traditions of “seagoing soldiers” going back to the Greek navies of the fifth century B.C.E., and the Romans (who were never a really good maritime power) employed similar troops to fight their sea battles (relying on the corvus–a spiked boarding ramp, named “crow”–to get their troops aboard the opposing ships rather than fighting with rams and arrows).
The British first organized a regiment of marines in 1664 and the Dutch immediately responded with their own marines in 1665. While imressment may have been an issue, the primary motivation was to have troops aboard the ships who were specifically trained for battle with small arms, boarding, and landing parties, beyond the skills associated with seamanship.
Similarly, when the Continental Congress authorized the creation of two battalions of marines, it stated the intention to have landing forces with the fleet.
While discipline was brutal on ships of the time and marines may have been used to enforce it (I’ll have to go dig up my copy of Melville’s White Jacket), the marines were subject to the same discipline and I tend to doubt that they were created simply as an officers’ bodyguard.
I remember reading that in Civil War days, the Marines were mostly used to guard warships while they were in port. This is why didn’t do any fighting; they were basically just security guards.
While sending marines into the rigging to fire down on the crew of an enemy ship began to fade out as ships acquired armor and lost rigging at the advent of steam power, marines continued to be used as landing parties. They saw less action than might be expected during the Civil War, itself, because of the nature of the conflict (although they appeared in a couple of surprising places), but following the Civil War, they became the primary agent of U.S. imperial expansion throughout Central America and the Pacific.
I don’t think anyone would doubt the slant of the paper cited by raygirvan. 
I didn’t give any numbers. In fact I said, above;
“Some. Not as many as myth would have it.”
Personal experience? Sure, also from above;
“Maybe. I got out (USN, amphibious) in early '68, and my contact was with Marines.”
Just before the practice became popular, it seems. There was talk, though.
Oh. Do you work for a boss, and draw a wage? If so, then yes.