WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION

[pbi]

Happy New Year. Did we find out how to form a non-profit foundation yet?

While I am certainly no expert on the inner workings of DHH, the Militia Act, or many other things, I am pretty certain that we are in danger of losing the point if we drift into peripheral squabbles about the Fenian Raids or other things that are not directly related to the objective. Worrying about supposed second or third order effects might seem very conscientious but won't get us there.

Besides, I bet that this won't actually trigger an apocalypse, or the decline of all Canadian military values.


I think that an important point (as I see it) is that this would be different from traditional battle honours and unit lineages, in that we would not need to apply the same rigour of requirements.  Part of that rigour is, in my opinion, designed to ensure that units don't carry honours they have no entitlement to (ref: Queen's Own failed attempt to get Ridgeway added to their roll of honours) The intent here is more inclusive than exclusive. This recognition we're discussing here would be about ensuring that the serving Army carries tangible signs of commemoration of an important (I could say "existential" if I was sure what that word meant...) struggle in our country's history, in which Canadians fought in formed bodies. Because of this, I don't see that there is anything wrong with a process that appears more arbitrary and expeditious than what we've been used to.

A unit selected to carry the commemoration would not be able to say: "we fought at Lundy's Lane (or wherever...)". They would say: "we carry a commemoration of Canadian units who fought in the War of 1812 so that this important fight is remembered by the Army and thus by Canadians"

We probably need some input here from a historical authority, but I believe that there is merit in this idea.

Cheers

 

[dapaterson]

One must not overlook the big-P political aspects of this; highlighting conflict with our neighbour to the south by granting such battle honours may not play under certain governments, but would play remarkably well with others.

One other question:  Could the Government of Canada as currently constituted even grant such an honour?  As its legal existence in its current form can be definitively traced only to 1867, did they inherit the right to provide such recognition for actions prior to 1867?  Or would it require a petition to Westminster instead?

 

[Old Sweat]

If the recognition is structured as identifying the militia unit's regional link to the past, but is not identified as a battle or campaign honour as such, it probably could be done.

In the early eighties the graves of some American soldiers who died during the siege of Fort Erie were discovered during the building of a subdivision. The bodies were formally transferred from the CF to the US Army at a ceremony at Fort Erie. I believe the Lincoln and Welland Regiment provided the Canadian party. There was no rubbing noses or flaunting anti-Americanism at the ceremony that emphasized the ties between the two forces.

 

[pbi]

One must not overlook the big-P political aspects of this; highlighting conflict with our neighbour to the south by granting such battle honours may not play under certain governments, but would play remarkably well with others.]

I thought about this. Here are the results of that thinking, for better or worse:

-the United States, other than a few people with an interest in the history of the War, will not even pay attention to this. Sadly, without a big PR push, many Canadians might not, either;

-despite our extensive political, immigrant and economic relationships with China, Germany and Italy,  (and, most recently, Croatia) we do not hesitate in the slightest to award and celebrate battle honours gained against all of those countries. Admittedly the US has historically been a bigger player in our history than any of those countries, but the principle should still apply;

-the US Army has already beat us to the punch: a number of US Regiments carry battle streamers or other commemorations of actions in the War of 1812. They see nothing wrong with it: why should we?; and

-whether or not we honour Canadians for service in combat should never (in my opinion) depend on what other countries might think.

Maybe we should target some MPs and MPPs in our plan? The Speaker of the House is my MP. (Oops...)

Cheers

DJB

 

[dapaterson]

I'm not arguing against efforts to provide such recognition, just highlighting a factor to consider in the environmental assessment.

 

[Kat Stevens]

    One must not overlook the big-P political aspects of this; highlighting conflict with our neighbour to the south by granting such battle honours may not play under certain governments, but would play remarkably well with others.

I don't see why.  Every line regiment in the British Army has battle honours that were won fighting many of it's neighbours, some of whom the Brits later went and bailed out of the 20th century's Two Great Misunderstandings.

 

[a_majoor]

Sorry for the delay. Various personal issues came up (and it was the holidays as well), but most of what "we" need to know about founding a on profit foundation can be found on this link:

http://www.charityvillage.com/cv/guides/guide4.asp

Once everyone has digested the various issues identified,  the interested parties need to get together (virtually or in person), elect a board of directors, write a charter (more like a business plan stating what exactly you intend to do), register the foundation etc.

Monies need to be raised and it would be a really good idea to hire a full time Executive Director who would carry out the action plan the board of directors lays out. The ED would/should have the authority to hire or direct other people for the job, including fund raisers, media and PR staff, researchers, webmasters/site administrators etc.

From personal experience, this is really hard to do on a part time basis or on a shoestring, so lots of staff work needs to be done before launch.

Hope this helps

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks, Thuc, I knew this was coming. Unfortunately - and I am not running for cover - I will be more or less out of contact via this means from 13 January to 7 February and then during the period 10-20 February. In the meantime, I will read into the reference.

 

[pbi]

Thanks Thucydides. I will read in also. Not wanting to sound like a "deflector" since I raised this idea, but I wonder if a good route (maybe better route) might be to enlist some support such as politicians, noted historians or other figures. The objective being to exert pressure on the Govt (or possibly the GG) to award some tangible commemorative device?

Cheers

DJB

 

[rmc_wannabe]

    One must not overlook the big-P political aspects of this; highlighting conflict with our neighbour to the south by granting such battle honours may not play under certain governments, but would play remarkably well with others.

I don't see why.  Every line regiment in the British Army has battle honours that were won fighting many of it's neighbours, some of whom the Brits later went and bailed out of the 20th century's Two Great Misunderstandings.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/campaigns.html

Something tells me the Americans wouldn't get too offended. They have Campaign streamers for 1812 as per their Army Customs. They'd probably wonder why it took us so long to figure it out.

 

[a_majoor]

I understand the need for a pause while people consider how and if to create a foundation for this purpose. One good point to consider is if the foundation does exist then it could be the vehicle to pressure politicians to recognize the War of 1812 and the regiments who participated, and since the foundation would have done the heavy lifting (i.e. researched the claims, provided documentation, publicised the cause etc.) the political class will not be too adverse to stepping in to claim the glory.

Jean Chretien did just that by unveilling the Korean War memorial in Ottawa which vets had fought for and funded themselves over a period of many years, so if a ceremony to honour the Regiments for the War of 1812 happens on Parliament Hill in 2012, "we" will know how it happened.

 

[Danjanou]

Thanks Thucydides. I will read in also. Not wanting to sound like a "deflector" since I raised this idea, but I wonder if a good route (maybe better route) might be to enlist some support such as politicians, noted historians or other figures. The objective being to exert pressure on the Govt (or possibly the GG) to award some tangible commemorative device?

Cheers

DJB

Good points any suggestions come to mind?

We probably have one "noted historian" on board already, don't we Sweaty? 8)

 

[Old Sweat]

Unfortunately he knows next to squat of the details of the War of 1812, despite having grown up in the Niagara Peninsula. He has some friends who are very knowledgeable on the war and in fact have written a lot of books on the subject.

 

[a_majoor]

Of course our "noted historian" can certainly help select competent historians and researchers who *do* know a thing or to about the War of 1812.

I think we have one member of the board already!

 

[Remius]

Just a quick point of interest about battles honours prior to 1855 perpetuated by current serving units.  HMCS Carleton perpetuates Lake Champlain 1776 by virtue of them taking over the name from the british and thus having no unbroken service as Carleton.

Not sure if it brings anything to the conversation though.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/ol-lo/vol-tom-2/par1/carleton-eng.asp

 

[Old Sweat]

There is a not quite a precedent for perpetuating War of 1812 units. In 1858 the British received permission from the government of the united provinces of Canada to raise a regular infantry regiment in Canada. The unit was designated the 100th Royal Canadian Regiment of Foot and was given the battle honours of the old 100th Foot which had served on the Niagara frontier during the War of 1812 and had been disbanded in 1818. The rationale for this was that "the nucleus of the new regiment was found in the descendents of the old." George Stanley wrote in Canada's Soldiers, The Military History of an Unmilitary People, that "if this principle had been adopted in the case of militia regiments organized after 1855, many of our present-day Reserve Army regiments could claim honours for the War of 1812 and perhaps for the American Revolutionary War."

The Canadian link was short lived and the 100th soon became an Irish Regiment. It was disbanded circa 1922.

I wonder if there is too long a gap in time compared to the 44 years between the end of the War of 1812 and the raising of the new 100th Foot. However this gives us a starting point.

 

[wheels031]

The problem with Canadian Units obtaining Battle Honours for the War of 1812 or even the American Revolutionary War, are ones of legality and political. King George III would not grant any Battle Honours for the American Revolutionary War because his Army lost to the American Colonists and Battle Honours for the War of 1812 have been awarded to British Regiments. In fact, one UK Regiment (41st Foot, now part of the Royal Welsh) was awarded 4 Battle Honours; DETROIT; QUEENSTOWN; MIAMI and NIAGARA.
No Canadian Unit can claim ancestry from any British-Canadian Unit, as all those Units were either disbanded within a few years after the end of War of 1812 or they had reverted back to the Sedentary Militia.
The compulsory Sedentary Militia (which was County-based) was replaced by a ‘paid’ Active Militia (of Volunteers, also County-based) on 01 Jul 1855 when the MILITIA ACT, 1855 was proclaimed into law. Subsequently, the Sedentary Militia was re-styled “Non-Service Militia” (1864); “Reserve Militia” (1869); last enrolled in 1873 and finally abolished in 1950. No Units that I am aware of, were transferred to the new ‘Active Militia’, hence no lineal descent to any Unit in the new ‘Active Militia’
The new ‘Active Militia” was first formed, from Volunteers into Company-sized Units (1855) and then into Battalions (1859). This has been the back-up to the Regular Force ever since.
Individual members of the Sedentary Militia may have Volunteered for the Active Militia, but this does not imply continuation of any Sedentary Militia Units in the Active Militia.

JN Heddle

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The problem with Canadian Units obtaining Battle Honours for the War of 1812 or even the American Revolutionary War, are ones of legality and political. King George III would not grant any Battle Honours for the American Revolutionary War because his Army lost to the American Colonists and Battle Honours for the War of 1812 have been awarded to British Regiments. In fact, one UK Regiment (41st Foot, now part of the Royal Welsh) was awarded 4 Battle Honours; DETROIT; QUEENSTOWN; MIAMI and NIAGARA.
No Canadian Unit can claim ancestry from any British-Canadian Unit, as all those Units were either disbanded within a few years after the end of War of 1812 or they had reverted back to the Sedentary Militia.
The compulsory Sedentary Militia (which was County-based) was replaced by a ‘paid’ Active Militia (of Volunteers, also County-based) on 01 Jul 1855 when the MILITIA ACT, 1855 was proclaimed into law. Subsequently, the Sedentary Militia was re-styled “Non-Service Militia” (1864); “Reserve Militia” (1869); last enrolled in 1873 and finally abolished in 1950. No Units that I am aware of, were transferred to the new ‘Active Militia’, hence no lineal descent to any Unit in the new ‘Active Militia’

Individual members of the Sedentary Militia may have Volunteered for the Active Militia, but this does not imply continuation of any Sedentary Militia Units in the Active Militia.

JN Heddle

Strict legalities can be overcome by changing the law.  We are not British and revising Canadian law might better reflect our historical realities.  There is simply no practical reason for current units that are part of a community not to reflect the past military deeds of that community.

Strict lineage has been ignored in the past and can be ignored again.  The battle honours carried by many regiments for South Africa and WWI were not earned directly and, as stated elsewhere, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment perpetuates the regiment of WWI by decree not continuous lineage.

The new ‘Active Militia” was first formed, from Volunteers into Company-sized Units (1855) and then into Battalions (1859). This has been the back-up to the Regular Force ever since.

The purpose of the regular force until the 1950s was to train the militia.  The Korean force was organized by the Regular Force but the first Cold War troops were militia.  The continuing manpower demands of the Cold War led to the need for a standing army which is still in place.

 

[Danjanou]

Wheels 031 and your point is?

The preceeding 5 pages already covered this in some detail. The objective of the exercise is to find a legal viable way around this obstacle and others.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Since no one else has taken a stab at it:

Unit Recognition: War of 1812

While it is commendable that Canadians and Canadian regiments want to recognize and commemorate the actions of their forebears in the War of 1812, the manner in doing so must be developed with careful respect of precedent, but without rewriting either historical facts or existing traditions of formal recognition. Recognition must also be developed without abandoning existing award systems, and not simply by ignoring nearly two centuries of developed process to reinstate a perceived simpler system of a bygone era (which, notably, did not award any such honours by the standards of the day).  It is, perhaps, more important to accept what such commemoration is not, rather than to attempt to equate it to existing systems of honours and awards.

To begin with, what would be the purpose?  I would suggest that this is twofold.  Firstly, it would serve to establish and maintain a more formalized connection between existing Canadian regiments and those units of the War of 1812 that were raised in the provinces that became Canada. Secondly, to ensure that during any commemorative events, there are regiments ready to represent their memory and their actions without confusion as to which units should be requested (or tasked) to provide such representation.  Let us not forget that with any such assignment of historical representation comes the responsibility to actually stand up and do it when needed.

While we can take some principals of application from the systems of battle honours and perpetuation, it is important to realize that commemoration of War of 1812 units would be neither of these.  That, perhaps, will be the most difficult aspect to get all participants to understand.  Just because a unit may be designated to commemorate a unit of the War of 1812 at Queenston Heights should never then lead to questions of a battle honour or other formal recognition.  Similarly, it must be clear that this is, in no manner, a declaration that formal lineages exists to those units.

As a final introductory point, it is accepted that no plan will please all stakeholders.

So, where to begin …

To determine eligibility of units it is necessary to expand on the fact that a system to commemorate units of the War of 1812 is not equivalent to receipt of battle honours.  To attempt to declare an equivalency to battle honours would require detailed analysis of roles, actions and battlefield contributions. This would eliminate some units from further consideration.  If the purpose is to be commemorative, then it needs to be equitable and recognize each participating unit.

Similarly, it is not perpetuation.  The system of perpetuation was developed after the First World War specifically to provide for the continuation of battle honours.  Units without battle honours are not perpetuated, and that condition remains in effect today.

The first step towards War of 1812 commemoration, therefore, is to develop a list of the participating units  -- as they were organized on the ground at the time.  It is necessary to begin here to avoid the inevitable conflicts with unit oral traditions of participation.

Once that list is developed, the originating regiments need to be established for any ad hoc units; this could be based upon the parent regiment of the commanding officers, or the originating regiments of the largest components of troops.  Confirming these units can establish the geographic points of origin to determine the most appropriate current unit to commemorate each unit of 1812.  (The use of geographic areas within which units were raised calls into one of the guiding principles used to determine perpetuation of units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1919.)

Taking a page from the system of perpetuation, it is suggested that only a single modern regiment should commemorate each unit of the War of 1812.  This avoids potential for conflict of overlapping responsibilities to represent units or attempts of participating elements to “pull rank” or to declare superiority based on current order of precedence.  In isolated instances where multiple units wish to make a case to claim the privilege of commemorating a War of 1812 unit and it is found to have merit by an appropriate committee, then a carefully developed agreement to share the privilege between them must be developed.

The result should be a fairly simple list of units of the War of 1812, and opposite those unit names would be the names of the modern regiments assigned to commemorate them.

The language by which units describe such a connection to units of the War of 1812 must also be carefully developed: it is not lineage, it is not perpetuation, it should be described as “having the privilege to commemorate the actions of _____ in the War of 1812.”  To fail in developing a clear understanding of the nature of the connection, and its modern origins, would be to set the conditions for an even greater potential for confusion over claims of lineage than may exist today.

The poor record we have across the army in understanding such things as regimental perpetuation, amalgamations, battle honours and all the other things people might like to label historical minutiae, there remains great potential for confusion when misinterpretation and simplification slips into how this might be explained to serving members and to all Canadians.  This potential for confusion needs to be prepared for in order to avoid further confusion of the historical record by the populist, and often inaccurate, oral narrative.

As a final point it is proposed that no specific devices or other physical items be taken into formal use.  This, again, reduces conflicting perceptions of the system of commemoration with other formal honours systems.