The War of 1812 Merged Thread

[Danjanou]

3rd herd, possibly.

I was also thinking that it may have been a local name given to a Militia Company in addition to it's official number. Another example being Capt Robert Runcheys Coloured Company which I believe "officially" were a numbered line company in the eitehr the York or Lincoln Militias. Your idea however I think is more plausible on closer examination.

 

[Lineman052]

National Archives is where I started, However Regiments.org is a good site for many links.

 

[pbi]

Sorry Frankie didn't realize it was out of humour. In reality would Fox news notice?

We should pass out pre-confederation honours with the war on terror ones to dilute any US complaints.
The response to complaints being; 'What we shouldn't honour units fighting the war on terror?'

I'm not following you very closely.

Cheers

 

[Highland Laddie]

'Chateaugay'

Canadian militia present: 1, 2, 3 Select Embodied Militia; 2 Beauharnois; Les Chausseurs; Boucherville Militia; Voltigeurs; Canadian Fencibles; Militia Light Infantry Battalion

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim:   R22R; Les Voltigeurs de Quebec

The Canadian Grenadier Guards should also be on this list. They trace their origins back to before this period, and had people participate in this battle. The regiment's name changed in the period before WWI. If my memory serves me right, this battle might already be on the Reg't Colours. I'll have to check my old reg't colours poster at home. Cheers.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The Canadian Grenadier Guards should also be on this list. They trace their origins back to before this period, and had people participate in this battle. The regiment's name changed in the period before WWI. If my memory serves me right, this battle might already be on the Reg't Colours. I'll have to check my old reg't colours poster at home. Cheers.

Battle Honours of the Canadian Grenadier Guards
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/bathnrinf/05-cgg.htm

 

[Michael OLeary]

We must be careful to distinguish, among other aspects, between the history of locally raised armed bodies (under whatever organizational names) and the history of specific regiments of the Canadian Army. 

Some, who would claim earlier antecedents than those formally recognized by the CF, hinge their claims on local naming (i.e., to town , counties, etc) or simply the geographic locality of the unit raised, others relate tales of how the men of "that unit" then reformed a few years later to become "this unit", ergo ......

Be cautious with this type of argument. To place it in a modern context, if the 48th Highlanders were stood down, and most of the troops 'crossed the square' and enrolled in the QOR, would they automatically take the Highlanders' heritage and battle honours with them? I suspect you'd answer 'No, not unless there was a formal order of amalgamation of some sort." But, if only such formalization would satisfy today, why are some so eager to claim antecedents for their own regiments based on less specific connections?

Nothing says we should not recognize the heritage of our nation's formative years before Confederation, or the actions of bodies of troops raised throughout (then British controlled) Canada in order to defend their way of life and political views. But to do so does not require the reverse engineering of terms of reference in order to claim those honours for existing regiments.

 

[geo]

Another analogy would be with respect to one of my old units;

There was a Montreal Engineer Company raised in 1862. It supported the militia through the 1870s and 1880s before being disbanded in 1892. 
The Corp of Canadian Engineers was created in 1903 and engineers were once more in Montreal - with the esblishment of 4 Field Coy.

So, when the CME celebrated it's 100th in 2003 - did the Montreal Engineers rate celebrating their 131st or their 100th?.....

100th

 

[3rd Herd]

Danjanou, Geo and other interested parties.
I came across a very interesting report by Dr. J. Mackay Hitsman "Canadian Militia Prior to Confederation" Report No.6, Directorate of History, Canadian Forces Headquarters, June 30, 1966. We are luckily as the entire report is on line at http://www.forces.ca/dhh/downloads/cfhq/chfq006.PDF

While the report is 215 pages in length it does provide one of the best consice sources for militia history in the pre confederation time period. Covers both units from upper and lower Canada and several good chapters of the 1812 time frame. It should be read prior to any further posts as it clears up several erroneous posts in regard to regimental dates and histories. And supplements those few accuarte posts. But does not provide further information on our illusive Western Rangers.

If you change the 006 in the url to 007 you will get the report on the militia in Nova Scotia,New Brunswick and PEI for the same time frame. Playing with this 00 coding will also lead you to some intresting reports on:

002: Canadain American defence relations 1867-1914
003:Material in the Department of External Affairs related to Peace keeping Operations (1965)
004: canada and Peace Keeping Operations, or the history of why we are in A stan today
005: the Princess Ships 1940-1945 and the Greek Civil war
008: Peacekeeping in the Congo
009: Lebanon 1958(UNOGIL)
012: Covers West New Guinea(West Irian)
013 Yemen-UNYOM
014: Canada's First Military Attache
015: Attempts to Intergrate Canada's Armed Forces before 1945(Nov1967)


Happy reading

Edit spelling, sorry

 

[3rd Herd]

it was the United States of America that won the war of 1812. , just thought I would set everyone straight.

No 1812 considered a draw by all countiries involved, how ever you did win the Pig War and get the states of Oregon and Washington to keep.

 

[Slim]

......oh, by the way, not withstanding all of the help from Canadian United Empire Loyalists, it was the United States of America that won the war of 1812. , just thought I would set everyone straight.

NNNNOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo............................... :crybaby:

Wait a sec...I'm sure we burnt down the white house at some point...? Not sure as I wasn't on hand personaly you understand, but still... ^-^

 

[geo]

Ouch.... using the Notwithstanding clause!!!!!
not warranted.

WRT burning washington.... didn't "they" burn Toronto?

 

[Slim]

Ouch.... using the Notwithstanding clause!!!!!
not warranted.

WRT burning washington.... didn't "they" burn Toronto?

Yes, they burnt Toronto (York actually)

They should come back and do it a second time! > With particular emphasis on certain parts of the city!

 

[Michael OLeary]

Would you guys give up the "Who won the War of 1812" debate. In almost 2 centuries no-one's won that argument, and I'm sure we already have a couple threads around here that were locked over that.       
___________________________________________________________

A few more thoughts on battle honours:

I wonder how much of this debate is spurred by subconscious desires to be able to claim “the most” or “earlier” battle honours than others?

There is certainly nothing stopping any unit from unofficially acknowledging the actions of units raised in their local area as part of efforts to increase the profesional knowledge of unit personnel and others about the military history of Canada before and after Confederation. But, while you contemplate that thought, why focus solely on those regiments of 1812, why not also openly and clearly acknowledge the separate and varied contributions of:

a. your earliest local regiments,

b. any other local units that were raised and disbanded, perhaps without marching anywhere, because the men who joined them had the same intentions to act if needed,

c. all of the documented regiments that have been absorbed through amalgamations (start at Regiments.org for an idea of which units these may include - http://regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/lists/cargxref.htm), or disbanded through the various reorganizations of the Militia,

d. the perpetuated regiments of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Overseas units of the First World War were established in a completely separate organization from the existing Militia. Initially, associations to particular numbered battalions were coincidental by geography, and later affiliations by name and even cap badge similarities were used to assist recruiting, but still did not at that time establish a formal connection. First World War battle honours are held by existing reserve Regiments today as a result of the Otter Commission, which examined and identified connections that led to the assignment of First World War battle honours to those units of the Militia as the CEF units were demobilized and disbanded. Without that formal declaration of a connection, the existing units would have had no claim to those battle honours. And yet, many serving soldiers do not know the detailed history of how their regiment came to possess the battle honours they have now.

These connections to long-gone units through a sense of community through locality of origin can be heralded without the need for formal government acknowledgement, or the attenuation of conditions for award of battle honours that have been consistent since the First World War.  Local unit recognition could be an excellent unit public relations initiative and a means to generate local interest in the unit and the value it assigns to its “footprint on the community.”

And for your further reading pleasure:

Canadian Army Battle Honours - http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm

 

[Zartan]

Your ideas are solid. Perhaps we could simply have a ceremonial standard bearer, with a standard inscribed with the past battles engaged in by local formations long deceased, for each city. No modern association with a militia battalion, but a sort of public representation for the deeds of the community as a whole.

 

[Bill Smy]

It's been a year since my first post here suggesting Battle Honours for the War of 1812. Quite rightly, a number of you have identified the hurdles that would have to be overcome in order to bring this suggestion to a successful conclusion, but I believe they are not insurmountable.

The major hurdle is the mindset of the bureaucracy at NDHQ. The same type of mindset that confronted me in 1989 when I suggested that the government erect a statue of Queen Elizabeth II on Parliament Hill. The solution was to sidestep that bureaucracy, and to that end, I wrote to every MP, Senator, Provincial Premier, a diverse selection of municipalities across Canada, and a wide range of private and public organizations. I set out my proposal and asked that they supoport the plan and write the Speaker of the House of Commons (who controls what is placed on the Hill) indicating that support. They did so in such overwhelming numbers that my MP was able to get unanimous support for a Private Member's Bill. Her Majesty unveiled the statue on 30 June 1992, the year of the 40th anniversary of her succession.

I propose to do the same with the Battle Honours proposal. In the coming year I will mount the same sort of campaign.

The basic premises would be the importance to Canadian identity to recognize the significance of the war in the evolution from colony to nation;  the role of Canadians in the conflict; the rationale of Battle Honours; and the concept of perpetuation rather than lineage (similar to the perpetuation of the accomplishments of the Canadian Expeditionary Force of World War I).

I believe that there would be significant support to ensure success. Of course, organizations that immediately come to mind to ask for suspport include CDA, the various Corps and Branch associations, the Council of Honorary Colonels, etc. But I need a wider base to reflect Canadian, not just military agreement. To that end, I solicit any suggestions of organizations or individuals to write to.

If any of you wish to join me in this endeavour, please write.

Time flies: only six years left.

Please respond to my email address rather than posts on this discussion board: bill_smy@yahoo.com

Bill

 

[warrickdll]

Paardeburg Day, having come and gone, gives this a bit more perspective. What is more important: an RCR battle, which plays no role in Canadian history, or a Canadian battle that has no current regimental history? It seems as though we are currently using a system that was created by, and for, the Brits but does not really work in a Canadian context. Keep what’s good, and fix what’s not.

Others have pointed out that the review should go as far back as practical – and I would say that would take us as far as the written history will allow us – about 500 years or so.

There is no point limiting ourselves to just the local militias formed. The regiments of the British, French, and Loyalists should be included where it can be shown that after service (or due to service) the soldiers then converted into colonists in what is now Canada (in this context though only the North American campaigns would be included).

Though I definitely wouldn't discourage anyone from emailing you with their support.

The major hurdle is the mindset of the bureaucracy at NDHQ.

That mindset probably isn't particular to the bureaucracy.

 

[George Wallace]

Paardeburg Day, having come and gone, gives this a bit more perspective. What is more important: an RCR battle, which plays no role in Canadian history, or a Canadian battle that has no current regimental history? It seems as though we are currently using a system that was created by, and for, the Brits but does not really work in a Canadian context. Keep what’s good, and fix what’s not.

What are you getting on about here?  Are you insinuating that this battle, or any battle fought on foreign shores, plays no role in Canadian History?  I guess the Battle of the Atlantic plays no part in Canadian History either.  Are you just surfing the site Trolling or what?  I think you are FTFOTL.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Paardeburg Day, having come and gone, gives this a bit more perspective. What is more important: an RCR battle, which plays no role in Canadian history, or a Canadian battle that has no current regimental history? It seems as though we are currently using a system that was created by, and for, the Brits but does not really work in a Canadian context. Keep what’s good, and fix what’s not.

The South African War and Paardeberg:

First despatch of troops overseas by a Canadian goverment.
A unit raised from across the country, the majority being Militiamen or raw recruits on enlistment for active service.
Participation in a major action of the Boer War.

Overall, South African Battle Honours are held, directly or through perpetuation by contribution of troops by:

G.O. 291
1905

Royal Canadian Dragoons "South Africa, 1900. "
The Royal Canadian Regiment "South Africa, 1899, 1900. Paardeburg. (sic)"

G.O. 60
1933

The Governor General's Body Guard  "South Africa, 1900."
The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards "South Africa, 1900."
1st Hussars "South Africa, 1900."
12th Manitoba Dragoons "South Africa, 1900."
17th Duke of York's Royal Canadian Hussars "South Africa, 1900."
The Governor General's Foot Guards "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Canadian Grenadier Guards "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Halifax Rifles "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Victoria Rifles of Canada "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Black Watch (R.H.) of Canada "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Royal Rifles of Canada "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Royal Grenadiers "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry "South Africa, 1900."
The Princess of Wales' Own Regiment "South Africa, 1900."
The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) "South Africa, 1899.1900."
The Middlesex Light Infantry "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Princess Louise Fusiliers "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The York Regiment "South Africa, 1900."
The Cumberland Highlanders "South Africa. 1899-1900."
The Saint John Fusiliers "South Africa, 1899-1900, 1902"
The Prince Edward Island Highlanders "South Africa, 1900."
The Ottawa Highlanders "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The Winnipeg Rifles "South Africa, 1899-1900."
48th Highlanders of Canada "South Africa, 1899-1900."
The British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own Rifles) "South Africa, 1899-1900."

Nope, no effect on Canadian Military history at all. 

 

[warrickdll]

What are you getting on about here?

Topic:
War of 1812 Battle Honours.

Point of topic:
The lack of support for perpetuating Canadian War of 1812 Battle Honours.

Point being made on the one hand:
Regiments and Dominion government putting the effort in to ensure Battle Honours from the South African War were given the recognition they deserve.

And on the other:
The War of 1812 was (in my opinion) extremely influential in the progression of Canada as a nation, whereas the Battle of Paardeburg (in my opinion) did not.

Conclusion put forward:
The set of rules currently used to assign or perpetuate Battle Honours does not work to Canada’s advantage.

Summation:
While, of course, the current Battle Honours should continue as the source of pride they have always been, attention should be given to recognize the earlier battles fought by Canadians.

Are you insinuating that this battle, or any battle fought on foreign shores, plays no role in Canadian History?

Yes, I clearly insinuated that the Battle of Paardeburg plays no role in Canadian History. And I’ll grant you some leeway in how someone could interpret “role in Canadian History”. If you feel it does – start a topic on the Role of the Battle of Paardeburg in Canadian History – if you feel I have missed it then perhaps others have too.

or any battle fought on foreign shores, plays no role in Canadian History?

Clearly I did not write that and, if you made your point about Paardeburg, why would you bother writing this statement as if I did.

I guess the Battle of the Atlantic plays no part in Canadian History either.

Again, if you felt that what I stated about Paardeburg was so reprehensible, why try to intentionally make matters worse.

Are you just surfing the site Trolling or what?  I think you are FTFOTL.

Listen, I don’t mind that you disagree with what I’ve posted, but take the time to write a rebuttal of some substance. I’m positive my post was not a troll.

I try this approach:
If I find a post personally upsetting, I read it twice. There is always the possibility that I have not understood it correctly.

 

[warrickdll]

The South African War and Paardeberg:

First despatch of troops overseas by a Canadian goverment.
A unit raised from across the country, the majority being Militiamen or raw recruits on enlistment for active service.
Participation in a major action of the Boer War.

Overall, South African Battle Honours are held, directly or through perpetuation by contribution of troops by:

............

Nope, no effect on Canadian Military history at all. 

Providing some Canadian military history information concerning the South African War is one thing, but doing the same for the Battle of Paardeburg’s specific influence on Canadian history would be another.
You seem to be taking my specific – Paardeburg / Canadian history - statement and then applying it to your own – South African War / Canadian military history – statement.

I do appreciate how your post does show how the government was willing to grant the South African War battle honours to units long after the war had ended.

Discussions on the Battle of Paardeburg or the South African War can be interesting, at the moment though (on this thread) I am interested in unrecognized Canadian battle honours.