WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION

[Dennis Ruhl]

Very interesting comments (especially about the 19th Dragoons...)

Exactly how we honour the First Nations effort needs some more thought, but it needs to be part of the whole thing.

Award a battle honour to His Majesty's Native Troops or more specifically His Majesty's Mohawk Troops etc. and let it sit as there are no units to perpetuate it.  And no, they can't have one for Oka.

 

[pbi]

I think Thucydides has a good idea here: I'm also afraid that if left in the hands of NDHQ and the  MND office, it may be swept aside by other things. Still, support for the military is definitely at the highest point I've seen in 35 years of wearing a uniform, so striking while the iron is hot might be the best course of action. Perhaps it will pressure ("shame") the federal govt into action in time for the bicentennial.

Mike O'Leary has rightly raised the issue of eligibility: a potential squabbling point and source of hissy fits. My first cut at suggested criteria would be:


-Reserve units only: including Regular units would be too much of a stretch, even for me;

-First Nations recipient organizations to be agreed upon in consultation with Mohawk leadership (assuming they are interested...)

-the unit HQ must currently be located in one of the counties that constituted the Erie, Niagara, St Lawrence or Atlantic frontiers;

-there must be a credible and reasonable historical linkage between the existing unit and a unit which served in the Canadian theatre."Credible and reasonable" needs more work but I suggest that the existence of primary documents substantiating the case for perpetuation would be the gold standard. The unit list provided by Nfld Sapper looks very comprehensive and might be a good start point. The minimum requirement would be that the unit is the sole Reserve unit in the county in question (OntR in Durham, SD&G in those counties, etc);

-the unit's current type will not be a barrier to perpetuating a historical unit of a different type (ie: 56 Fd RCA perpetuating Merrit's Troop of Dragoons) if the historical connection above could be demonstrated; and

-the current unit leadership and senate are willing to cooperate with research efforts (there would need to be a number of concurrent local efforts across the provinces if this is to be done in time).

We might want to ask one or two leading Cdn mil historians for advice and adjudication. A well-known "champion" or "door opener" might be useful too. Dominion Institute?

How do you go about forming a non-profit foundation?

Cheers

(And Merry Christmas!)

 

[George Wallace]

-Reserve units only: including Regular units would be too much of a stretch, even for me;

I don't see any stretch here.  Some Reg Force units have lineages back to the 1700s. 

 

[Old Sweat]

I don't see any stretch here.  Some Reg Force units have lineages back to the 1700s.

Please provide an example.

 

[George Wallace]

The Artillery can trace back to garrisons in Quebec and Kingston.

The RCR and RCD originated in the Infantry School Corps and the Cavalry School Corps respectively. 

The RCD, whose home station was la Citadelle in Quebec, can trace back through the Cavalry School Corps to the Queen's Own Hussars, derived from the Quebec Volunteer Cavalry who perpetuated Bell's Cavalry who may have had lines back into the volunteer cavalry from the days of Montcalm.  They also drew from the Governor-General's Body Guard who perpetuated 1st and 2nd Troops of Volunteer Cavalry of the Count of York. 

Many of the RCD officers were drawn from the QOCH, as well as GGBG and the Montreal Militia Cavalry.  The first CO, LCol Turnbull, was from the QOCH and this has lead some historians to link back to Bell's Cavalry raised in 1812, perpetuating earlier Quebec volunteer units.

With a British garrison in Quebec since 1759, there is room for many of the Regiments to claim lineages back to Volunteer Cavalry, Volunteer Infantry and Volunteer Artillery units, even back into the French Regime.

 

[George Wallace]

I know that the RCD, RCR and perhaps the RCHA may be a little bit of a stretch, but no different than this "project".

 

[Old Sweat]

I don't think that dog will hunt, George.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT setting up a foundation, I will get back to you all after Christmas.  Maybe interested parties can take this to PM.

Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[exspy]

I know that the RCD, RCR and perhaps the RCHA may be a little bit of a stretch...

I don't think that dog will hunt, George.

I'm with Old Sweat on this one.  If an officer of the RCR re-badges to command a battalion of the PPCLI, the PPCLI does not, as a regiment, perpetuate the RCR.  Units are not granted a right of perpetuity simply by virtue of where their personnel were derived.  If that were true then 3 PPCLI would perpetuate the QOR, 2 RCR the RHC and 3 RCR the Canadian Guards, which none of them do.

Regular Canadian forces only go back to, as far as I'm aware, 1871.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[George Wallace]

True, but who perpetuated the Queens Own Hussars/Quebec Volunteer Cavalry?  As seen in numerous cases, Line Units have taken on the Colours and Standards of Disbanded Units.  The CAR perpetuated the FSSF and 1st Can Para Bn, is one example.  Did not CSOR not take on the Battle Honours of these units, well after the Disbandment of the CAR?  What exactly are the rules on perpetuating a Unit's history?

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

There are a couple complications with regular force units.  The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) and Oxford Rifles were merged into the Royal Canadian Regiment in the 1950s without asking me.  While these units would gladly accept War of 1812 battle honours, I suspect the RCR would think it was not part of their history because clearly it is not.  Also Le Regiment de Chateauguay is now the 4e Btn, Royal 22e Regiment (Chateauguay). 
While Le Regiment de Chateauguay might desire having battle honours Chateauguay and War of 1812, again I would suspect the Vandoos would consider it outside their history.  Regular force units have clear beginnings and ends.  Reserve units often have a less direct history. 

To arouse interest in miltary history or anything military among politicians is tough.  I've tried it and have been politely brushed off.  Engage some higher profile people and there might be room for success.

 

[Michael OLeary]

There are a couple complications with regular force units.  The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) and Oxford Rifles were merged into the Royal Canadian Regiment in the 1950s without asking me.  While these units would gladly accept War of 1812 battle honours, I suspect the RCR would think it was not part of their history because clearly it is not. 

Dennis, your continued unwillingness to understand regimental histories makes your contributions to these discussions unhelpful.  The RCR is quite aware of its history including the perpetuation of  The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) and The Oxford Rifles.

The Royal Canadian Regiment - Perpetuated Units

The RCR - Regimental Timeline (1.1 Mb graphic)

Please leave your suspicions out of the discussion and do not presume to know what regiments would or would not do.

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

True, but who perpetuated the Queens Own Hussars/Quebec Volunteer Cavalry?  As seen in numerous cases, Line Units have taken on the Colours and Standards of Disbanded Units.  The CAR perpetuated the FSSF and 1st Can Para Bn, is one example.  Did not CSOR not take on the Battle Honours of these units, well after the Disbandment of the CAR?  What exactly are the rules on perpetuating a Unit's history?

from the DHH http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/ol-lo/vol-tom-3/par1/index-eng.asp

Perpetuation guidelines, developed by the post-First World War Battle Honours Committee and the Army Historical Section, are still followed today:

a. where a connection can be established, whether generic, territorial or titular, it is desirable that units now existing or to be raised in future should perpetuate military units of the past in Canada;
b. where a connection is established between an active unit and a defunct or disbanded unit, no limits should be set to the time elapsed between the disbanding of the former unit and the raising of the present unit;
c. where only a territorial connection is established and where two or more active units now recruit within that territory, perpetuation should be offered to active units in order of date of raising. Only in exceptional cases may dual perpetuations be warranted; and
d. it is policy to perpetuate the memory of predecessor units but there shall be no other effect upon the lineage or precedence of any perpetuating unit.


The perpetuation rules were designed to find the most suitable match for disbanded units with units on the current order of battle. This provided a strong family link and 'local' meeting point for former soldiers of the perpetuated unit and avoided unnecessary conflicts amongst units who wished to perpetuate the same unit.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Dennis, your continued unwillingness to understand regimental histories makes your contributions to these discussions unhelpful.  The RCR is quite aware of its history including the perpetuation of  The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) and The Oxford Rifles.

Please leave your suspicions out of the discussion and do not presume to know what regiments would or would not do.

I understand that regiments and their histories have been created somewhat  freely with the flick of a Bic.  I simply believe that The Glengarry Light Infantry of 1812 has more in common with The Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Highlanders of today than does The RCR have with The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) absent the stroke of a pen.  The history is there, it is simply a matter of finding someone wearing enough real brass or political brass to champion the cause. 

Yes I do understand that perpetuations are just perpetuations and do not involve rewriting of the history of the surviving unit.  Perhaps you should be preaching that to the 70 odd infantry and armoured regiments out there that do exactly that pretty well all the time and good for them.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Yes Dennis, we should rewrite all of Canada's military history to suit your personal preferences and biases.

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Somewhat relevant and from "Royal" honourific discussion

There is No Battle Honour for the 1866 Fenian Raids despite some bigger honours being given out - see Royal Regiment of Canada -
Carry through the proposals for War of 1812 Battle Honours and then what are you going to do with the Fenian Raids? - How the heck do you handle the Battle of Ridgeway?

 

[Old Sweat]

I posted the following on the Royal Title thread in response to essentially the same question re the Fenian Raids (really mini-invasions) and especially a battle honour for Ridgeway:

"Re the Fenian Raids and especially the Battle of Ridgeway, the DHH Battle Honour files contain lengthy correspondence from the 1920s between the Queen's Own Rifles and various aurthorities over the award of a battle honour for Ridgeway. The regiment tried all sorts of approaches, all of which were shot down, including claiming - if you can believe it - that the QOR broke and ran because they were smarter and more in tune with the situation than any regular unit which would have suffered heavy casualties by standing its ground and fighting. This apprarently merited official recognition. Finally an exasperated officialdom sent the regiment what only could be called the second half of the "F... you! Long nasty letter to follow" school of correspondence.

In contrast the Victoria Rifles of Canada from Montreal was awarded the battle honour "Eccles Hill" for its participation in operations south of Montral."

As for the Royal Regiment of Canada, according to the lineage in The Regiments and Corps of the Canadian Army published in 1964, the unit was organized on 14 Mar 1862 as "The 10th Battalion Volunteer Militia Rifles, Canada" and was redesignated as "The 10th Battalion Volunteer (Militia) Infantry, Canada" on 21 Nov 1862 and the "10th or 'Royal Regiment of Toronto Volunteers' " on 10 Apr 1863. Thus its Royal title predates the Fenian Invasions by more than three years.

 

[Michael OLeary]

See also The System of Battle Honours in the Canadian Army, by Captain (now Major) J.R. Grodzinski, CD

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

...

As for the Royal Regiment of Canada, according to the lineage in The Regiments and Corps of the Canadian Army published in 1964, the unit was organized on 14 Mar 1862 as "The 10th Battalion Volunteer Militia Rifles, Canada" and was redesignated as "The 10th Battalion Volunteer (Militia) Infantry, Canada" on 21 Nov 1862 and the "10th or 'Royal Regiment of Toronto Volunteers' " on 10 Apr 1863. Thus its Royal title predates the Fenian Invasions by more than three years.

Thanks for that I was going by what was on the RRC's website which read like the Royal honourific was granted after 1866.

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks for that I was going by what was on the RRC's website which read like the Royal honourific was granted after 1866.

No problem. There always has been a bit of rivalry between the QOR and the RRC dating back to the earliest days; the website may have taken a not too subtle dig at the "Quickest Outta Ridgeway."

Now, if we could get back to PBI's proposal. Thuc is addressing part of it. How about some of you smart young (or nor so young) AOC types have a go at a mission analysis and even a bit of battle procedure to get it done in time for the 200th anniversary?