# WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION



## pbi

(I searched this topic first, but didn't find much to prevent me from posting anyway...)

This topic has been touched on in these pages in the past, but I think it's worth raising again now. In two years or so, we will celebrate the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812, a shaping event in our evolution as a nation, and one that still arguably affects our view of ourselves and the US.  Even though we were not a country, nor even yet an autonomous dominion, and even though the British regular Army was the true "load-bearing organization" throughout the War, Canadians fought in almost every engagement in the northern theatre of the War. Our participation ranged from the marginal to the significant (with Chateaugai being perhaps our proudest moment as fighting Canadians). We fought as aboriginal warriors, as embodied militia, and as fencibles. The experience wasn't just military: Canadian civilians had their homes and villages burnt (Newark and York, for example). But, despite all this, to the best of my knowledge, as an Army we have never perpetuated an official recognition of this proud time in our history. Now, my understanding is that the Militia Act of 1856 prevented Militia units from officially tracing their  lineages (and thus any battle honours) back before the date of the Act. So, even though the Queen's York Rangers might say they are descended from Butler's or Rogers' Rangers, our regulations prevent this.

I think it's time we grew up a bit more as a country, and changed all this. As part of the events of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, we should make an official recognition of the fighting services of our ancestors. Obscure bureaucratic regulations dating from our colonial past should not be permitted to obstruct this goal. Laws are made by people: they can be amended by people, or struck down if they no longer serve a useful purpose.

I propose that we do the following:

-amend the Militia Act to allow designated representative units to officially carry devices commemorating the War of 1812;

-present the designated representative units with either: a battle honour for "The War of 1812" (to avoid the endless and impossible squabble over what company of colonial militia fought where), or a unit commendation (such as 2 PPCLI received for Medak), with the same title; and

-restrict the selection pool of potential representative units to those Reserve units located in the former theatres of operation: this would be the Erie, Niagara and Lake Ontario areas of Ontario, the Montreal-Quebec City area of PQ, and perhaps the Maritimes where appropriate. Don't attempt to "please everybody": it would clearly be representative not totally inclusive, although there need not be an arbitrary limit to the number of units designated.

Thoughts?


Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens

While commendable, I don't agree with this, primarily because the 19th Alberta Dragoons actually won the war singlehandedly, and therefore no other units are eligible.


----------



## Old Sweat

On the surface, it falls into the why not give it a try category? I have passed it on to a couple of friends who are respected historians of the war for comments on the pros, cons and bureaucratic hurdles. If printable, I will post their replies here.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> While commendable, I don't agree with this, primarily because the 19th Alberta Dragoons actually won the war singlehandedly, and therefore no other units are eligible.



The 19th Alberta Dragoons were the 1st Division cavalry squadron for the whole of WWI.  They fought and died as in any other unit.  I'm not sure that mocking them presents yourself in a light that you would want to show the world.

Yes I would like to see them revived as part of gaining some equity in the reserves for Northern Alberta.  Northern Alberta has a population similar to the Maritime Provinces at about 1.7 million but is 1/2 brigade compared to the 2 Maritime brigades, has armouries in 2 cities instead of 23, has 1/4 the total reserve units and subunits, and 1/11th the infantry and armour.  Successive Liberal governments took a big elephant dump on Alberta reserve units and I would like to see some rectification.  Silly me.

I apologize for the off-topic but can't ignore it.


----------



## Kat Stevens

EDITED- because I really don't have the patience to defend what was clearly meant as humour.


----------



## GGboy

As a reservist in a regiment that traces its lineage to just before the war and a confirmed War of 1812 nerd, I think this is a great idea. And likely do-able within the two-year timeframe before the 200th anniversary. And I`m not just saying that because of the upcoming 200th anniversary next year being celebrated by a certain senior reserve cavalry regiment ...
One suggestion: avoid involving DHH if at all possible. That would probably push the initiative back to the 300th anniversary of the war.  :


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims Butler's Rangers because they moved en masse to Canada and started the militia in the Niagara area which has continued more or less seamlessly until today.  Butler's Rangers fought in a least a dozen battles and are blamed for some massacres.  I would guess that most of the Loyalist regiments including remnants thereof disbanded in Canada, mainly the Maritimes after sailing from New York.

It is not unreasonable that The Lincoln and Welland Regiment perpetuate Butler's Rangers plus units called up for the War of 1812, the Rebellions of 1937, and the Fenian Raids.  It simply appears that there has never been a will to change the rules to include the older history nor does it appear likely to happen now.  The disinterest in unit history in the forces and among their political masters is legendary.  That said, work with whomever you can to try to get it done.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Since we are discussing this, then the Royal Newfoundland Regiment should be granted this honor too....

A Newfoundland regiment was first founded, to serve in the British Army, in 1795. It was disbanded and refounded several times under different names, including His Majesty's Royal Newfoundland Regiment of Foot, The Royal Newfoundland Veterans Companies and, The Royal Newfoundland Companies. The regiment dates its origin to 1795, when Major Thomas Skinner of the Royal Engineers stationed in St. John's at Fort Townshend, was ordered to raise a regiment.

The regiment was significantly involved in the War of 1812. Soldiers of the regiment fought aboard ships as marines in battles of the Great Lakes, as infantry in Michigan, and in the battle to defend York (Toronto). It was largely distributed throughout the zone as attached sub-units and not as a formed battalion. It was disbanded in 1816. A monument depicting a toy soldier of the 1813 Royal Newfoundland Regiment standing over a fallen American toy soldier was unveiled in Toronto in November 2008.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

My notes aren't on the computer I'm at but I think the Newfoundland regiment fought in 16 battles in the War of 1812.  Prior to that Newfoundland was invaded about 6 times by the French or Dutch and many battles were fought by the militia.  I say wrap it all up and tie it with a bow.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I would like to see a more defined proposal, since we all know how well such things as the plans for distribution for the Canada 125 and QGJ Medals were so well received.  I would challenge anyone here to draft possible terms of reference that give clear and supportable guidance to units on establishing and proving lineage and entitlement to make direct claims _for local heritage purposes_ - whether or not formal recognition follows.  The simple weight of long-lived oral narrative should not be taken as "proof."


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's not necessarily a good thing.



Is this like saying that a birthday party is not a good thing because eating cake can cause cholesterol overload in old age, breathing air can cause cancer, sleeping can cause insomnia.  There is no downside.  If a county militia was in a battle and there is an existing accepted county regiment, that's enough.  The geographic link is obvious and adequate.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The geographic link is obvious and adequate.



So what you're saying is that if I move into your house, your grandfather is now my grandfather?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's not necessarily a good thing.
> 
> I would like to see a more defined proposal, since we all know how well such things as the plans for distribution for the Canada 125 and QGJ Medals were so well received.  I would challenge anyone here to draft possible terms of reference that give clear and supportable guidance to units on establishing and proving lineage and entitlement to make direct claims _for local heritage purposes_ - whether or not formal recognition follows.  The simple weight of long-lived oral narrative should not be taken as "proof."




To me, this looks like a good definition of what he was trying to say in it being "not necessarily a good thing" .


----------



## pbi

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

I anticipated the concerns expressed by Mike and by the unnamed person in DHH: reasonable for the traditional handling of specific battle honours where unit lineage can be clearly established, but much too process-oriented to get this done in time. My thought is to approach this from a totally differentangle than the glacial, bureaucratic system for battle honours that we have traditionally been used to. I think there is hope here: since Afghanistan started the Forces (and by extension the country) seem to have broken out of that longstanding stingy, narrow-minded CF mentality that we should avoid recognizing anybody for anything, ever, unless layers of irrelevant staffs pick it to bits first.  Thankfully we've passed that hurdle: now let's try this one.

Start by publicly identifying the objective: to have, by the end of the commemorative period (let's say the year 2012) representative units officially recognized as bearers of an honour commemorating the service of Canadians in combat operations in the War of 1812. Make this clear so that bureaucratic foot dragging and proceduralism don't delay things.;

Specify that the recognition device will be either a generic battle honour for the War, or a GG Unit Commendation. (We will need an equivalent recognition device to recognize the First Nations warriors, such as those who fought under Tecumseh-they need to be included in this). Whether or not we've ever previously given a "generic battle honour for a war" or not is really irrelevant and shouldn't be allowed to hold things back.

State very clearly and from the get-go that this is not a "free-for-all" to make all Army Reserve units in the former northern theatre area feel good: it is a representative recognition, meant to publicly and permanently enshrine the memory of service, not glorify any particular existing unit or CO. RCA units already carry the omnibus honour "Ubique" in their motto, so I haven't given any further thought to Gunners. (Maybe they should be included to commemorate the militia batteries?) I could see designating a representative cavalry unit to commemorate the mounted militia, if that is appropriate. Units such as Signal Squadrons, Service Battalions and (I think) Engineers would not be in the running, as no such Canadian units existed at the time. (Newfoundland might bear special consideration, as one poster points out). The representative infantry units that come to mind are:

Niagara Frontier:

The Lincoln and Welland Regt (representing the Lincoln Militia)
Any designated infantry unit in Toronto (representing the York area Militia)



St Lawrence Frontier
A designated infantry unit in 33 CBG
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec

Maritime Canada
A designated infantry unit

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

Cheers


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Not the best source of information but....

Canadian units of the War of 1812


----------



## Old Sweat

There already is a precedent for a "campaign" honour, for example South Africa 1899-1900 and North West Canada 1885.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Perhaps _perpetuation_ rather than _lineage_ should be invoked again.


Edit for spelling


----------



## Michael OLeary

It would have to be through _perpetuation_ since we know that formal _lineage_ does not exist.  The requirement remains that the terms of reference and eligibility would need to be developed.


----------



## a_majoor

If I may;

Lets form a non profit organization or foundation to:

a  Research the claims
b. Make recommendations
c. If needed, set up awards ceremonies to recognize the deserving units (perhaps with a plaque they can bolt on the Armoury walls recognizing their contribution on behalf of the "National War of 1812 Bicentennial Foundation"

This has a few advantages I can think of:

1. We have a pool of talented and interested people within Army.ca who can do a lot of the work
2. An "Army of Davids" can work a lot faster and cover more ground than an army of bureaucrats
3. Collectively "we" can probably gather enough relevant information to sniff out BS claims ("Our unit perpetrates Barret's Privateers!"), research questionable claims and unearth lots of interesting tid bits that no one else will (especially since we can leverage both our internal Army.ca connections and "Six Degree of Separation" connections outside). Maybe professional historians could turn this into a good book.
4. By the time DND or the government gets organized it will be 2013 (especially if political events or elections disrupt the governing process)
5. If the government or DND declines to get involved or refuses to allow direct recognition of units via a medal, battle honour or other official mark of recognition, then organizing a ceremony and putting a plaque on the wall should not be too difficult.

I'm sure there are plenty of arguments pro and con, but if nothing gets started in the near future, then we will have to see if the Tricentennial committee will take up the challenge...


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If I may;
> 
> Lets form a non profit organization or foundation to:
> 
> a  Research the claims
> b. Make recommendations
> c. If needed, set up awards ceremonies to recognize the deserving units (perhaps with a plaque they can bolt on the Armoury walls recognizing their contribution on behalf of the "National War of 1812 Bicentennial Foundation"
> 
> This has a few advantages I can think of:
> 
> 1. We have a pool of talented and interested people within Army.ca who can do a lot of the work
> 2. An "Army of Davids" can work a lot faster and cover more ground than an army of bureaucrats
> 3. Collectively "we" can probably gather enough relevant information to sniff out BS claims ("Our unit perpetrates Barret's Privateers!"), research questionable claims and unearth lots of interesting tid bits that no one else will (especially since we can leverage both our internal Army.ca connections and "Six Degree of Separation" connections outside). Maybe professional historians could turn this into a good book.
> 4. By the time DND or the government gets organized it will be 2013 (especially if political events or elections disrupt the governing process)
> 5. If the government or DND declines to get involved or refuses to allow direct recognition of units via a medal, battle honour or other official mark of recognition, then organizing a ceremony and putting a plaque on the wall should not be too difficult.
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty of arguments pro and con, but if nothing gets started in the near future, then we will have to see if the Tricentennial committee will take up the challenge...





That looks like a rallying "Call to Arms".


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

pbi said:
			
		

> 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

pbi said:
			
		

> -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

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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

George Wallace said:
			
		

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





			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> 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

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> 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

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> 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

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 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

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## 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

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> 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

pbi said:
			
		

> 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

wheels031 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Danjanou

We should also define a list of actual engagements to be so honoured. Do we use just a generic War of 1812, and/or Niagara? Should we start or even end with the above noted quartet of British Battle Honours listed?

I have a list of "major" engagments of the war (Bn sized or larger) on my home PC and will try and post it hopefully tonight as a start point.

As we identify specific units we can begin matching them with the battles and eventually have our list(s).

While there will be more than one specific Battle Honour available to some units, perhaps a system where a maximum number may be emblazoned on the Colours/Guidons as for other conflicts could be considered.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I have a list of "major" engagments of the war (Bn sized or larger) on my home PC and will try and post it hopefully tonight as a start point.



You'll note in my comments above that I proposed specifically not tying commemoration only to battle actions, that avoids confusion with official battle honours and ensures that units which were not in action are also remembered.


----------



## Danjanou

Seen

So the idea of the generic "Niagara" Battle Honour or "War of 1812" then?

I have no problem recognizing units that may have served in the theatre without actually seeing action. Some units such as the Nova Scotia Fencibles saw no action but freed up other units on Garrison duty in the Atlantic so they could march to Upper or Lower Canada. When the New Brunswick Fencibles becmae the 104th Regiment of the Line, a new Fencible unit was raised in NB for Garrison duty. 

Other Units both Fencibles and Militia (Sedentary and the composite Bns of flank companies) saw extensive action esepcially in the earlier battles in the Detroit, Niagara and St Lawrence theatres. Should they not recive credit for this, even if it's just another Honour not emblazoned on their Colours (or in the case of some units emblazoned again).

We may also need to look at our Naval bretheren as botth the Provincial Marine on the Great Lakes and the  Privateers on the Atlantic coast played their part.


----------



## Michael OLeary

If there was a basis for battle honours I believe it would have been dealt with at the time, in accordance with the regulations in place then.  The Canadian government should not be expected to award formal honours of any type for actions that occurred before it existed.

That is why the proposal I presented above focuses on commemoration of all participating units.  It will be up to the designated commemorating units to ensure the various actions, whether those be on the field of battle, lines of communication, rear areas or otherwise, are identified and recognized appropriately.  An undue focus on battlefield activities undermines the concept of recognizing all participation as of equal importance to the final outcome.

And the role of naval units could be examined by the same process.


----------



## Michael OLeary

From Wikipedia:

Canadian units of the War of 1812


----------



## wheels031

Danjanou ... Perhaps you overlooked a tiny point in my message. Both the Compulsory Sedentary Militia (which are the ones that fought in the War of 1812) and the Voluntary Active Militia are both 'County-based', in the same Counties. Would this be the 'legal' end-run that you would be looking for ? Or is it a mute point ?

JN Heddle


----------



## Chanada

Most people miss the ref to the MILITIA ACT OF 1855...which is the  defined start of THE CANADIAN ARMY that exists today.  No unit is older than it and none has seniority that goes before it...although some units have tried to draw links back to some of the units that pre-date it. Hence the first Battle Honour is the Fenian Raids 1870...

The reference to South African Battle Honours above is also interesting. Infact it was done quite deliberately and the provision of the "South Africa" Honour to units of the Militia was based on how many soldiers they provided to the n or 35 I believe...and it took until 1932 to sort out the allocation....


-------------------------------------

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. ... 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’ 


JN Heddle
[/quote]


----------



## exspy

Michael,

I think your proposal has merit.  Grant a unit a 'privilege to commemorate' rather than a Battle Honour or a lineage descendency for the War of 1812.  I think you're also correct however, when you say that not everyone will welcome the proposal no matter how it is presented.  I can see a lot of regimental infighting for the awarding of the 'privileges'.  In this case I think the best solution will unfortunately be the one that angers the most people.

Cheers,
Dan.

Danjanou,

I served with John Heddle (wheels031) and know him to be not only pure of heart but an amatuer historian, just like the rest of us.  While he is new to the forum he is not new to the Canadian Army and its history.  I think you will each enjoy the other's views just as much as I've always enjoyed yours.  D.


----------



## Danjanou

Ah I need to forget even I have limits multi tasking and shouldn't be on here while covering two other missing persons stuff at workin addition to my own, I miss crap. :-[

That indead may be a possible legal end run. 

However we end up doing this, Micheal's way. or any other, or combination, we need to start moving forward a bit. We seem to keep moving around the same points without resolving them.  

Perhaps put this aside for a bit ad move onto the techincal nitty gritty of whom to and what should be awarded including a a bit of cyber chinese  parliament round table "so what" style discussions on who where and when.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok rather than cut and paste a list of all battles and skirmishes like I said, I thought it would be easier to put the site up (translation I have a family crisis to deal with at home and can’t play on the internet too much tonight)

http://www.warof1812.ca/

List of Battles Skirmishes etc 
http://www.warof1812.ca/1812events.htm

List of British/Canadian Regular/Fencible Regiments and battles they were present at.
http://www.warof1812.ca/charts/regts_na.htm

The wiki site is actually pretty accurate ( unless someone goes in and edits it to add the 19th Alberta Dragoons)


----------



## kratz

The idea of commemorating the War of 1812 is gaining traction if today's Speech from the Throne  (pg 21) is any indication.


----------



## wayne7150

Why not have the individual military units petition the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces they are located in to carry carry a "War of 1812" honor for service in that conflict and/or a more specific "Place Name 1812 (or other appropriate year) to commemorate service or battle of a more specific nature?
The honors could be awarded during ceremonies taking place in 2012.  In my opinion, this is  the surest and least expensive way for Canadian military units to get recognition for War of 1812 service.


----------



## kratz

I have not heard/seen anything new on the topic. Does anyone have an update?


----------



## 1812Honour

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Honour our 1812 Heroes is a group of concerned Canadians dedicated to:

a. Securing official recognition of the Canadian military units that fought in the War of 1812; and

b. Preserving the legacy of those units by the award of Battle Honours to units of the Canadian Forces that perpetuate them.

Our aim is to accomplish these objectives by18 June 2012, the commencement of the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812.

You can learn more about this cause from the attached fact sheet. Please visit our website at www.warof1812.ca/heroes  where there is an easy step means of offering your support by sending a message to the government. You can also join us on Facebook (where we also post cool maps and images) and Twitter.

Thank-you,


----------



## Danjanou

Welcome to Army.ca a search would have shown there is already a topic on this. 

Threads merged


STAFF


----------



## dapaterson

1812Honour said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gentlemen:
> 
> Honour our 1812 Heroes is a group of concerned Canadians dedicated to
> 
> a. Securing official recognition of the Canadian military units that fought in the War of 1812; and



Since Canada did not exist, Canadian military units by definition could not have participated.



> b. Preserving the legacy of those units by the award of Battle Honours to units of the Canadian Forces that perpetuate them.



And since Canada did not exist, Canada cannot grant battle honours.


----------



## the 48th regulator

1812Honour said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gentlemen:
> 
> Honour our 1812 Heroes is a group of concerned Canadians dedicated to:
> 
> a. Securing official recognition of the Canadian military units that fought in the War of 1812; and
> 
> b. Preserving the legacy of those units by the award of Battle Honours to units of the Canadian Forces that perpetuate them.
> 
> Our aim is to accomplish these objectives by18 June 2012, the commencement of the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812.
> 
> You can learn more about this cause from the attached fact sheet. Please visit our website at www.warof1812.ca/heroes  where there is an easy step means of offering your support by sending a message to the government. You can also join us on Facebook (where we also post cool maps and images) and Twitter.
> 
> Thank-you,



From the Data on your site, you list the 48th Highlanders.

The 48th Highlanders of Canada was founded in 1891.  They were not perpetuated from any other regiment, nor created from amalgamation.

How do you propose that a unit, created 79 years after the war of 1812, deserves battle honours from that war?  I think broad errors like this will not help you in any way to acheive your goal.

dileas

tess


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Since Canada did not exist, Canadian military units by definition could not have participated.
> 
> And since Canada did not exist, Canada cannot grant battle honours.



I disagree.  The Constitutional Act of 1791 created the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada.  I don't want to get into an argument over the exact point that "Canada" started to exist, but suffice it to say that for this conversation, Canada did exist in one form or another by 1812.  Regiments in the British Army at that point were generally locally raised and so identified themselves with their recruitment bases.  Thus any regiment that was raised in Upper or Lower Canada could rightly describe itself as "Canadian."  At least two regiments in today's Canadian Army claim lineage to units that fought in the War of 1812 (the Queen's York Rangers and the Canadian Grenadier Guards).  Les Voltigeurs de Quebec were apparently named after a Lower Canadian regiment that fought as well (i.e. there is a broken link).  

I would argue that Canada could today grant battle honours to existing Canadian units that fought in the War of 1812.  Whether they should or not, is another question...


----------



## The Bread Guy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> From the Data on your site, you list the 48th Highlanders.
> 
> The 48th Highlanders of Canada was founded in 1891.  They were not perpetuated from any other regiment, nor created from amalgamation.
> 
> How do you propose that a unit, created 79 years after the war of 1812, deserves battle honours from that war?


Along the same lines, the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment is also listed.  It started as an independent company of rifles in 1885 "from scratch" - no perpetuation, no amalgamations - 70 years after the end of the War of 1812.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I think broad errors like this will not help you in any way to achieve your goal.


Zackly.


----------



## vonGarvin

Pusser said:
			
		

> I would argue that Canada could today grant battle honours to existing Canadian units that fought in the War of 1812.  Whether they should or not, is another question...


I disagree.  The entity known as "Canada" in 1812 was one of many Crown Colonies in North America.  Though the colony of Canada became the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in 1867, it should not be confused with the country of Canada that we know of today.

Those forces fighting in 1812 were not fighting for "Canada", but rather for the Empire (aka "Great Britain").  If we were to give battle honours to units for fighting in 1812, then that could go back and give some to now-American units that fought for The Crown in the Seven Years' War.

The line has to be drawn at some time, and I think 01 July, 1867 is a pretty good line.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Hi,  

Four points.

CANADA

DND says the Canadian Forces began in 1855 so the comments about Canada not existing until after 1867 are unimportant to the discussion because Canadian Forces already trace its lineage before Confederation.  University courses of pre and post-Confederation Canada underline that point.  

As for the War of 1812, when the Americans invaded in Windsor to start the war, they issued a Proclamation that was addressed to "The Inhabitants of Canada" and went on to refer to the "Territory of Canada".  So the Americans knew what country they were invading in 1812.  I hope everyone now knows Canadians in 1812 were defending....well.....Canada.

UNIT LISTS

If DND allows perpetuation and the awarding of Battle Honours for the War of 1812, then each unit would have to make its case.  For example the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment occupies the same region were the Michigan Fencibles and others that were embodied and then participated in the capture of that part of the United States.  IF the regiment feels entitled to link with those 1812 units then they would have to make their case.   The benefit is by doing so, they incorporate and take ownership of the Canada's War of 1812 military tradition of success on Lake Superior and the junction of the lakes.  But that is up to the Regiment.

Canada is unique militarily because our armies often mobilize and disband based on a threat.   Look at the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.  They started in the 1795 and disband in 1802.  In 1803 they restarted and existed until 1816 and were disbanded again.    Royal Newfoundland Regiment of the 20th Century feel in their hearts and souls they began in 1795 but according to DND they did not exist until the 20th century.  So they claim it unofficially.  When a unit is driven to have to unofficially claim their lineage before 1855, there is something broken in the system.  Hundreds of brave Newfoundlanders were killed, wounded or rotted in truly awful prison camps in the U.S. because they were defending Ontario from invasion. The  RNR is listed for "Detroit" on the background document of Honour our 1812 Heroes, a battle honour they did not receive.  Why didn't they get it?  Because they were disbanded before it was issued.  Do they deserve it?  IMO Absolutely.

*However the lists are a distraction.* * The fundamental question is should the Canadian Forces honour Canadian soldiers that fought in 1812 by perpetuation and battle honours.   My answer is YES.*

OTHER NATIONAL TRADITIONS

France's military recognizes the services and honours all its previous units, even the ones that fought under the royal banner.  They understand that the building blocks of national military tradition go beyond political dates of unification/revolution.  In 1990 East and West Germany became one.   Will the Germans officially recognize their military traditions only back to 1990?   See how ridiculious it sounds.    The date of 1855 is even more comical.     

EDITORIAL 

I just wrote an Editorial on the subject that lays it all out and I encourage you to read it.  

It is at: http://www.warof1812.ca

This piece gets to the core of this issue along with poking fun at the 1855 date.  Considering the emails I am getting from across the country, if anyone thinks this is only an internal DND matter, think again.  Average Canadians are getting involved.  Other government departments are getting involved.  Museums, universities, and historians are getting involved.   These "fools" think Canada actually had Armed Forces fighting foreign invaders in 1812.  Go figure.  

I hope this helps the discussion.

Robert


----------



## Michael OLeary

Official lineages and the concept of perpetuation are poorly enough understood already. Trying to build a case that coincidences of localization should also be used as a sole basis for "perpetuation" only serves to further muddy the waters.

There is nothing wrong with any unit stepping up to recognize and honour the actions of units that were formed within their own communities, counties and provinces. But to do so does not require inventing pseudo-official connections of purported lineage that do not exist. We do not need to invent history to honour it.

Just because I grew up in your neighborhood doesn't make me an heir to your grandfather's fortune.


----------



## Robert Henderson

One of the problems here is Canada has "lost" battle honours.   Even after 1855 like Trout River and Eccles Hill.  In the UK they amalgamate in a way that battle honours are not lost.  We have not.  In 1816 battle honours were lost that were legitimately bestowed upon Canadian units.  To me an army losing its battle honours is worse than a regiment losing its colours on the battlefield.   The latter does not come without spilt blood while the former is the result of neglect and apathy.

Lets say in five years a new government comes to power and a lot of units like the RCR are disbanded.   Another government comes along and a new RCR is embodied.    Technically the new RCR has no claim on the old RCR's deeds.  Everyone would laugh and perpetuation would quickly be accepted.   How about if it takes, 10 years? 20 years?  How about if the new RCR has a slightly different name, it is made up of the same officers and men?

More to the point, I would like to call your attention to the Queen's York Rangers.  They unofficially claim they perpetuate the Queen's Rangers of the 1790s (Ontario's first military unit as Upper Canada).  They also stake claim to the War of 1812 because  disbanded Queen's Rangers (disbanded in 1802) fought to defend Canada, particularly York.  That is a territorial claim.

Interestingly enough what they do not realize is the LT COL of the Queen's Rangers helped form the Canadian Fencibles in 1803 (unit at Cryler's Farm, Chateauguay, Lacolle (1814)).   The unit even wore old 1802 Queen's Ranger uniforms that were in stores before their redcoats were made.   Today the Canadian Fencibles are ironically recreated just across the field from Fort York Armouries at Fort York.  

In the centre of the Queen's York Ranger Guidon is the old Queen Ranger badge used both in the American Revolution and the 1790s.  This looks like a complete violation of the rules of perpetuation.  So who is going to go to Toronto with scissors and cut it out?  Maybe it should happen at their special Battle of Brandywine Dinner commemorating the QRs brave service in the American Revolution?  This is all contrary to perpetuation regulations.  

This reminds me of the 1790s business of not allowing Catholics into the British Army.  Tens of thousands of catholic recruits had to lie during the oath of attestation.  The system had institutionalized purgeory.  Telling half your troops to lie doesn't exact establish a moral high ground for the army.   This was not lost on military scholars at the time and the Catholic rules was finally dumped.  See the similarities?  Regiments like the RNR and QYR feel their regimental tradition extends back before 1855 and they unoffically claim it, contrary the perpetuation regs.  

Sincerely.  There have been "muddy waters" before with the sorting out the WWI Battalions, and there were people then who argued strictly along the British battle honour blueprint.  Thankfully stronger hearts won out.   Canada's military traditions should mirror its military history.  Canada's military history is unique.   It is not a carbon copy of Great Britain, France, nor the United States.   A unique, transparent, and quantifiable solution needs to be developed drawing upon both the traditions of founding nations, AND our evolution as a country.  Canadians unique relationship with the land should be a point for discussion.

Right now rules are simply being made up without consultation. No commission. No imput. No accountability.  No transparency.  A handful of people in HQ play god and cherry pick history to justify their dogma.   If this issue is not buried (again) and a transparent process is embrace,  I hope everyone will feel free to express their opinions.   There is common ground to be found.     

That is why I support Honour our 1812 Heroes.  http://www.warof1812.ca/heroes/


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Right now rules are simply being made up without consultation. No commission. No imput. No accountability.  No transparency.  A handful of people in HQ play god and cherry pick history to justify their dogma.   If this issue is not buried (again) and a transparent process is embrace,  I hope everyone will feel free to express their opinions.   There is common ground to be found.



So, you want us to support your efforts to cherry pick history to fit your dogma?

(Not that you've made a coherent case for your accusations in the first place.)


----------



## Michael OLeary

Further to my last, could you explain why this is an unacceptable solution:

_"There is nothing wrong with any unit stepping up to recognize and honour the actions of units that were formed within their own communities, counties and provinces. But to do so does not require inventing pseudo-official connections of purported lineage that do not exist."_

Why, in your mind, does the official award of honours to existing units have to be part of this plan?


----------



## Loachman

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Lets say in five years a new government comes to power and a lot of units like the RCR are disbanded.   Another government comes along and a new RCR is embodied.    Technically the new RCR has no claim on the old RCR's deeds.  Everyone would laugh and perpetuation would quickly be accepted.   How about if it takes, 10 years? 20 years?  How about if the new RCR has a slightly different name, it is made up of the same officers and men?



This happens to flying squadrons and ships all of the time.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Loachman said:
			
		

> This happens to flying squadrons and ships all of the time.



That would be based on long standing traditions of perpetuation though unit (i.e., ship) names as adopted from the RN.

For RHenderson:

For army units it's a different case. The perpetuation of honours within units of the Canadian Army is based on the concept of perpetuation created in the closing days of the First World War, before which there was no precedent.  One other small detail that would have to be addressed is this:  



> Perpetuation is a unique Canadian system developed after the First World War to provide a formal means of preserving military operational honours and heritage for succeeding generations. It is government policy that disbanded units, which have gained an honour and/or distinction in the field, be perpetuated to preserve their memory. Disbanded units which have not gained an honour or distinction in the field shall not be perpetuated. Units perpetuated by disbanded units which are not eligible for perpetuation may, subject to the concurrence of the disbanded units' authorized or officially recognized association(s), be perpetuated by an extant unit.



Source: A-AD-200-000/AG-000, The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces 

We should note that perpetuation of foregoing units of the Canadian Army based on role has also been done _within the regulations for perpetuation_. That is how CSOR perpetuates the 1st SFF (but not, because of another part of the regulations, the Airborne Regiment).

Which leads to the question: what 1812 unit honours are to be perpetuated. If none were awarded then, are we to invent those as well?

By all means, we should remember and honour the units that participated in the War of 1812, we just don't need to rewrite the history of unit lineages and honours to do that.


----------



## Robert Henderson

You are right.  I did not articulate a detailed defence of the position of Honour Our 1812 Heroes.  Quite correct.  I posted instead to ask the question: Doesn't this need to be addressed through a clear and transparent process?   The defence of the group's position is the 21 page backgrounder of their website. It attempts to address some of your questions and it is admittedly written by smarter people than I....  

The initial 1812 commemorative plans for DND was to have Canadian Forces wear Wal-mart greeter pins for the War of 1812, which they could pitch in the garbage can after.  Along with Walmart greeter pins, they wanted units to troop goofy little scouting camp colours on special occasions.   These are the ideas that are coming from the guardians of Military traditions at DND!   Comical to the point of offensive to the memories of Canadian soldiers from 1812.   Next thing you know troops will be practicing foot drill... "Regiment by Companies Form 1.8.1.2." 

Obviously you believe the Canadian Forces began in 1855.  Fine.  That is your opinion.  

Lastly you made no points about the Queen's York Rangers and Royal Newfoundland Regiment mentioned in my last posts.  However from your posts it is clear you feel they are wrong.  Too bad.  I think they are right and will work to support them, and other corps wishing the same.   That means changing the regulations.  Remember the regulations were changed after WWI because of WWI.   Now the regulations need to be changed, in my opinion, to right a wrong and accommodate the War of 1812.  

However, so there are no hard feelings, I would like compliment you on your article on WWI RCR badges.  When I was recreating the WW1 RCR badge for the Reenacting Display group and the RCR museum, your research was quite helpful.  Thank you.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Since you have an Irish last name and I am of Scotch-Irish origin, it is no wonder we are both fighting.  It is tradition.  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> ... Wal-mart greeter pins...
> ... goofy little scouting camp colours...
> ... Comical to the point of offensive



Using mockery and insults to not add to the debate.

I have a copy of the 21-page backgrounder, it was sent to me by a good friend whose specialty is War of 1812 research.

My own motivation is to try and understand both the argument being set forth and why any other options are not worthy of consideration. To me, this has began to read like a "situated estimate" where, once the commander has decided on a plan, any information or queries which might cast doubt on its absolute acceptance are to be dismissed or disregarded.

I reiterate, we can remember and honour the units that participated in the War of 1812 without inventing history.

And thank you for your remarks on my website, I'm glad you found the information posted there to be helpful.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Obviously you believe the Canadian Forces was magically born in 1855.  Fine.  That is your opinion.  As well you clearly share the opinion of one or two other people in DND that 1812 Canadian soldiers should be honoured in a nontraditional way.   Again that is your opinion.  Maybe your friends with those trying to maintain these regulations, or you are NDP and were pissed when the Prime Minister suggested this lineage. I don't know your motivation.



Magically born in 1855?

Listen buddy, I have no idea who you are or what your grasp of either:

a) Canadian History or
b) Regulations concerning the awarding honours;

but chosing between believing you and Mr O'Leary is really no choice- Mr O'Leary has been doing this stuff for most of his adult life.  If he says it cannot/should not be done, I believe him.

Just for argument sake, let's say you talk a gullible Government into issuing Battle Honours to Regiments that really did not exist in anything like their current form for something that happen before the BNA Act was signed.  Why stop there?  Surely, there are also Revolutionary War Battle Honours also to be issued.  But why stop there?  Surely the Mohawks, Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, etc also deserve battle honours for any number of wars that they fighting amongst each other, dating back to antiquity.  

Just because you really, really, really want something to happen, doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> The initial 1812 commemorative plans for DND was to have Canadian Forces wear Wal-mart greeter pins for the War of 1812, which they could pitch in the garbage can after.



Is this the sort of pin you are referring to?

Veterans Affairs Minister Delighted with Canadian Forces' Show of Support for the Year of the Veteran


----------



## Robert Henderson

Michael.   

You are not going to like this.    Globe and Mail article quoted a Minister saying the Canadian government will "honour military regiments that “perpetuate the identities of War of 1812 militia units.”"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-tread-carefully-in-war-of-1812-commemorations/article2099541/

I guess some other Canadians feel the Canadian Forces began before 1855.  Sorry.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Well, as far as I am aware, the Ministry of Heritage doesn't dictate the awarding of honours to units in the Canadian Forces. How the Ministry of Heritage chooses to promote the War of 1812 and the way in which the Canadian Forces is involves may be two very different things. The latter can certainly include participation in commemorative events without inferring the adoption of individual unit honours or lineage.

It will be interesting to see how this develops, especially if its primary momentum is emotional and not based on an understanding of historical fact regarding unit lineages and traditions of honours and perpetuation.


----------



## the 48th regulator

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Michael.
> 
> You are not going to like this.    Globe and Mail article quoted a Minister saying the Canadian government will "honour military regiments that “perpetuate the identities of War of 1812 militia units.”"
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-tread-carefully-in-war-of-1812-commemorations/article2099541/
> 
> I guess some other Canadians feel the Canadian Forces began before 1855.  Sorry.



This Canadian didn't, in that article....



> Mr. Granatstein forecasts that the sparks will fly across the border as 2012 approaches. He expects Americans to claim during their observances that they won the war – and Canadians to reminisce about “how we … fought off the evil Americans.”
> 
> The historian considers the War of 1812 to have ended in a draw and *says that Canadians have exaggerated the role their predecessors played in taking up arms to fend off U.S. invaders.*
> 
> *Much of the work was done by British troops, he said, but over time “the role of the British was swept aside and the role of the locals was given predominance.”*


----------



## Michael OLeary

Additionally, this comment in the article and the following remark of the Minister's:



> Ottawa’s messaging, though, is carefully crafted to steer Canadians away from chauvinistic jingoism or triumphalism at having repelled the Americans in the long-ago war.
> 
> “This is not meant to be antagonistic. This is not in any way meant to upset or put a sour taste in anybody’s mouth,” federal Heritage Minister James Moore said of 1812 commemorations.



do not appear to support this objective, listed in your aforementioned 21-page backgrounder:



> c) to have Canada award the Battle Honours for Detroit, Queenston, Miami and Niagara to units of the modern Canadian Forces that can claim to perpetuate the War of 1812 units listed in Appendix B;


----------



## Robert Henderson

Mr O'Leary,

"Using mockery and insults to not add to the debate."

I absolutely did not mean to mock nor insult (though a reference to the Her Majesty's Official Opposition should not be considered an insult).   Unfortunately tone and emotion is quite difficult to reproduce in such postings.  Much is indeed lost with non-verbal being 70-80% of communication. 

Next time you are in Ottawa I will quite happily apologize in person with an ale.

The effort of the group is an attempt to piece Canadian military tradition back together, not invent it.  Still I am disappointed you felt I wished to offend you, therefore I will withdraw from the discussion and filter out any perceived offence.


----------



## The Bread Guy

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Globe and Mail article quoted a Minister saying the Canadian government will "honour military regiments that “perpetuate the identities of War of 1812 militia units.”"
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-tread-carefully-in-war-of-1812-commemorations/article2099541/


To be fair, since it's not attributed to anybody by name, the quote you mention _appears_ to be based on the Conservatives' last platform document, promising this - highlights mine:


> .... We will lead the country in commemorating "The War of 1812:  The Fight for Canada".  We will:
> 
> designate October 2012 as a month of commemoration of the heroes and key battles of the war;
> sponsor hundreds of events and re-enactments across the country;
> honour the contributions of First Nations to the Canadian victory;
> *recognize and honour current Canadian regiments which perpetuate the identities of War of 1812 militia units;*
> invest in the restoration of monuments and historic sites connected to the war;
> ensure a proper interment of the remains of those who fell in the Battle of Stoney Creek; and
> 
> establish a new national War of 1812 monument, to be located in the National Capital Region ....


"recognize and honour" =/= "award battle honours to"
I know little about this, but so far, I'm more comfortable w/Michael O'L's approach - here's something worth looking over again from earlier in the thread re:  how this could be approached:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91200/post-908800.html#msg908800


----------



## Lowlander

Ok this is kinda of off topic but this is how my regiment (The Lorne Scots) trace ourselves to 1812.

The Lorne Scots were amalgamated in 1936 form The Lorne Rifles (Scottish) and The Peel and Duffrein Regiment.

Both of these Regiments were formed in Sept 1866 form the amalgamation of various Militia companies in the area formed between 1856 and 1866.

These companies came form the Peel and Halton Militia's formed in 1851 and 1853 when Peel and Halton broke off of York County.

Before this they were part of the York Militia back to its fomation in 1793.

During the war of 1812 the present day area of Peel, Dufferin, and Halton a part of the Second Regiment of York Militia who were present at battles such as Detriot and Queenston Heights.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lowlander said:
			
		

> Ok this is kinda of off topic but this is how my regiment (The Lorne Scots) trace ourselves to 1812.



There are many units with oral narratives that depart from the official interpretation of lineage.

From "The Regiments and Corps of the Canadian Army", prepared by the Army Historical Section, 1964:



> [The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment)] originated on 14 Sep 1866 when the 36th "Peel Battalion of Infantry" was authorized to be formed from eight independent companies. In incorporates the following regiments.
> 
> The Peel and Dufferin Regiment was authorized on 14 Sep 1866 ....
> 
> The Lorne Rifles (Scottish) was authorized on 23 Sep 1866 ...



There is certainly nothing wrong with promoting connections to local units or independent companies that existed prior to the official establishment of a unit. But those connections are not the official lineage.

Edit to add; from your unit's website:



> On 14 September 1866 the 36th Peel Battalion was authorized and on 28 September the 20th Halton Battalion of Infantry was formed. These two regiments, some 70 years later, were to be reorganized to form The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment). The first Scottish connection was made on 27 September 1879 when the Halton Rifles were reviewed by His Excellency The Marquis of Lorne and permission was received in 1881 to redesignate the 20th Halton Rifles as the 20th Halton Battalion Lorne Rifles. In addition, the wearing of tartan trews and the diced Glengarry were authorized and a Pipe Band was formed.


----------



## Lowlander

There is a diffrence between what officially happened and what actully happened.  But I get your point, I dont know why the goverment came out ad said that no Regiment was permitted to trace thier history past 1855.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lowlander said:
			
		

> There is a diffrence between what officially happened and what actully happened.



No, there's a difference between the official history and the version of history people want to invent using flexible semantics and a willingness to overlook the facts.


----------



## Old Sweat

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No, there's a difference between the official history and the version of history people want to invent using flexible semantics and a willingness to overlook the facts.



And in that vein, the following oped piece is reproduced from the National Post website under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

Celebrate Canada’s first military heroes

National Post  Aug 1, 2011 – 10:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 29, 2011 5:08 PM ET 

By Robert Smol

Just how important should Canada be to the Canadian army?

The answer should be obvious, except perhaps when one considers the War of 1812. Over a dozen current Canadian army reserve regiments found their origin as permanent colonial regiments or militia units organized to protect Canada during the U.S invasions of 1812-14.

Sadly, while battle honours (the right to list a battle or campaign on a military unit’s flags and official signage) were produced by the British Crown to recognize service during the War of 1812, the post-Confederation Canadian government refused to allow any of its own military regiments to carry such honours. Many Canadian units have battle honours stemming from the Riel Rebellion, the Boer War, the two World Wars and Korea, but no Canadian unit recognizes the sacrifices of our ancestors from before Confederation. Only British units are allowed to celebrate the feats of heroism that kept Canada from being annexed by the United States.

While it may seem like a minor issue, battle honours are a point of pride for Canadian army regiments. They are the most important symbol of a unit’s history, and the sacrifices that it has made in the service of its country. It honours not only the unit itself, but all the soldiers who died while fighting as part of it. Regimental battle honours inscribed on the regiment’s colours (flag) are treated with near religious reverence by members of a unit, and are proudly flown when on parade.

Granted, we cannot deny the historical fact that it was the British army that did most of the fighting during the U.S invasions of 1812-14. Their Canadian battle honours are well deserved, and something that British army units remain rightly proud of to this day.

But that does not mean that Canadians stood aside. In the years leading up to the war, the British government authorized the formation of several permanent army regiments in Canada. Regiments such as the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, the Voltigeurs canadiens and the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot, among others, served on the front lines and saw action during most of the war’s bloody battles. There were also of thousands of militia soldiers, members of local units who would arm themselves and join with the larger, regular units when there was fighting in their area. Hundreds of these militia soldiers and permanent volunteers were killed or badly wounded during the war.

These men served their king and country with honour, and created military units that later became part of the proud Canadian military that we have today. It is only appropriate that those Canadian units that can trace their origin back to the War of 1812 should be able to list the battles of that war as part of their regiment’s proud tradition. It’s true that these battles predate Confederation itself, but so do many other parts of our history, including many that are openly embraced and celebrated by Canadians as a part of our rich heritage. There is no reason that Canada’s military history should be any different.

National Post

Robert Smol is a Toronto-based writer and teacher. He served for more than two decades in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Bill Smy

I’ve been following this discussion and believe many of the points, while interesting, are off the point.

I think that everyone will agree the concept and rules of the grant of Battle Honours were developed in response to a perceived need. In the same way the 1855 rule, perpetuation, and the Canadian rules surrounding the grant of Battle Honours were all made in response to perceived needs. All were man-made, and all can be changed, or even discarded. In fact, the current regulations regarding the grant of Battle Honours have evolved numerous times over time.

I also think that everyone would agree that in any decision making, the process should go from concept to detail. To do otherwise leads to Michael O’Leary’s valid point that the arguments begin “to read like a ‘situated estimate’ where, once, the commander has decided on a plan…..”.

In my opinion, listing present-day units of the CF and the honours to which they are entitled, distract from resolution of the concept of a “perceived need”. The first issue to be decided is whether there is a need to issue War of 1812 Battle Honours. If it is decided that there is a need, the details of which honours should be recognized, the rules for the allocation, and the method of award follow. To do otherwise is “putting the cart before the horse”.

Arguments surrounding what has happened in the past are also distracting. Remember that those decisions were made in response to a need, and the policies, rules and regulations that followed were developed in order to satisfy the need. They were man-made, and as such were subject to modification.

So the core of this discussion should be to answer the question, “Should Canada authorize the grant of War of 1812 Battle Honours to current units of the Canadian Forces?”

If the answer is “Yes” it follows that the government has the authority to develop the policies surrounding the grant, without stumbling through past precedence.

Bill


----------



## Michael OLeary

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> So the core of this discussion should be to answer the question, “Should Canada authorize the grant of War of 1812 Battle Honours to current units of the Canadian Forces?”
> 
> If the answer is “Yes” it follows that the government has the authority to develop the policies surrounding the grant, without stumbling through past precedence.



Skipping over all discussion of past precedents and history is ignoring both cart and horse and cherry picking a result out of a wagon load of possibilities. Setting those aside because they may not support the desired result is the definition of seeking the "situated estimate." I would suggest the core questions are:

1.  Are there units of the War of 1812 that might be deserving of honours - based on the rules and conditions of award for that period?

2. If there are awards which might be considered - what units might have carried them after 1812 - and which, if any, would have realistically been transferred to units of the Canadian Militia when they were created in the 1860s and after?

3. If they would not have been transferred, what is the best way to acknowledge those honours within the existing historical and heritage framework?

4. Finally, if we reach that point with results to manage, what role might DND and the CF have?

As soon as you start with suggesting that the only worthy outcome is the award of battle honours to current units, or that anything "less" is unacceptable, you have already poisoned the discussion.


----------



## dapaterson

Perhaps it is time for some "outside the box" thinkiong.

I propose a simple three step plan to solve this problem.


(1) Get a list of all units which claim to perpetuate units which participated in the war of 1812.

(2) Assemble them in Winnipeg on New Year's Eve, 2011.

(3) On New Year's Day 2012, using our newly-acquired C-17s and C130Js, airlift them in to South Dakota to invade and take control, then assign them all the battle Honour "2012 - South Dakota - to make you stop whining about 1812"


----------



## Lowlander

Even if it is not rewarded as a normal battle honour carried on the colours, there are other ways to wear a battle honour, such as Hackles wore by such units, or the oak leaves worn on shoulder titles by some units, or the leopard skins worn by bass drummers.  The honour could be something as simple as a 1812 badge put in one of the corners of the colours and/or worn on DEU.  Or they could go with a symbol of an eagle held in chains with 1812 written under it but I'm guessing that most likely wont get approved.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The question I have from reading this thread is that I wonder if this whole thing is about honouring those past, or about massaging our modern-day egos?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lowlander said:
			
		

> Even if it is not rewarded as a normal battle honour carried on the colours, there are other ways to wear a battle honour, such as Hackles wore by such units, or the oak leaves worn on shoulder titles by some units, or the leopard skins worn by bass drummers.  The honour could be something as simple as a 1812 badge put in one of the corners of the colours and/or worn on DEU.  Or they could go with a symbol of an eagle held in chains with 1812 written under it but I'm guessing that most likely wont get approved.



You are talking about Honorary Distinctions, which should not be viewed as way to sidestep the conditions of award for battle honours to try and achieve a similar result:

A-AD-200-000/AG-000, The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces 



> All battle honours, or "honorary distinctions" as they were formerly called, are considered equal. The term "honorary distinction" is now applied only to those few badges or other devices specifically awarded as special marks to honour operational activity or experience, such as significantly reinforcing another unit for war.


----------



## Jungle

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The question I have from reading this thread is that I wonder if this whole thing is about honouring those past, or about massaging our modern-day egos?



I agree; some units want the battle honour approved because it will be a historical event 200 years in the making that they will be able to brag about, while others are against the approval because their unit has no chance of getting it. And if they don't get it, why should others be honoured ?? I'm betting a lot of ResF COs are watching this debate very closely, hoping it happens on their watch and that they can turn this into a big parade and ceremonial event.  :

But, why weren't battle honours awarded at the end of the conflict ? Nobody will be able to stand on parade and say "I was there", or knows anybody who was there; so what is the point ??

Like Bruce says, I think this is more about the egos of a few then about honouring the past.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is time for some "outside the box" thinkiong.
> 
> I propose a simple three step plan to solve this problem.
> 
> 
> (1) Get a list of all units which claim to perpetuate units which participated in the war of 1812.
> 
> (2) Assemble them in Winnipeg on New Year's Eve, 2011.
> 
> (3) On New Year's Day 2012, using our newly-acquired C-17s and C130Js, airlift them in to South Dakota to invade and take control, then assign them all the battle Honour "2012 - South Dakota - to make you stop whining about 1812"



I like it. Can we have TV lead it and I will be the ISM (Invasion Sergeant Major).

Besides, I live near 17 Wing and its a short drive for me to get to the airhead.


----------



## vonGarvin

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I like it. Can we have TV lead it and I will be the ISM (Invasion Sergeant Major).
> 
> Besides, I live near 17 Wing and its a short drive for me to get to the airhead.


I'd like to do it; however, all "honours" given afterwards would be posthumous, I'm afraid!


----------



## Michael OLeary

A few more thoughts on this discussion:

*War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents*

1. 	The Emotional Argument



> The bicentennial anniversary of the War of 1812 will begin on 18 June 2012, two centuries to the  day after the United States declared war on Great Britain and her colonies. In the thirty months of  conflict that followed, American military forces invaded or attacked Britain's North American  possessions no fewer than thirteen times. By the time a peace treaty was signed on 24 December  1814, hundreds of Canadian soldiers -- and their aboriginal warrior allies -- had been killed or  wounded defending their homeland and families.
> 
> Unfortunately their valour and sacrifice has largely been forgotten.
> 
> - Honour our 1812 Heroes Backgrounder



Notably at a time when public sensitivity to honouring soldiers is at a height, starting a discussion by pointing out the “killed and wounded” and proclaiming them “forgotten” is playing directly on the emotions of those who might find agreement easier than calling into question the intent of the project. For any who might question any part of the proposal, it them sets them up to be challenged that they are not supporting of the sacrifice of soldiers, and presents this as a means to sidestep the discussion of actual events and entitlements.


2.     Proclaiming that the Award of Battle Honours as the Program's Objective



> b) the awarding of a theatre Battle Honour, "DEFENCE OF CANADA, 1812-1815" to the modern Canadian military units listed in Appendix A which can claim to perpetuate units of the War of 1812;
> 
> c) to have Canada award the Battle Honours for Detroit, Queenston, Miami and Niagara to units of the modern Canadian Forces that can claim to perpetuate the War of 1812 units listed in Appendix B;
> 
> d) to have Canada award two new Battle Honours for Crysler's Farm and Chateauguay to the modern Canadian military units that can claim to perpetutate the War of 1812 units listed in Appendix B” and, ...
> 
> - Honour our 1812 Heroes Backgrounder



By doing so, the program organizers are not “seeking recognition of the Canadian Militia's role in the War of 1812”, they are, in fact, specifically seeking “the award of Battle Honours.” This approach invites, or in fact, requires the involvement of official consideration in the context of the award of Battle Honours. 

This goal also immediately situates the estimate, and fails to acknowledge that due process may find that an alternative solution could have merit or provide a more fitting acknowledgement without challenging the historic precedents for honours and awards. 

To put it in a comparative context, why should Canada award Battle Honours to a lengthy list of units who, through the sole connection of being raised in the same locations as War of 1812 units, when at the same time detailed analysis will be given to the suggestion of awards for Afghanistan. Would not both proposals be worthy of the same degree of consideration to ensure they are equally deserving of honours?


3. 	Avoiding Historical Precedents.

First and foremost, any entitlements for recognition should be measured in terms of the conditions for honours and awards in place at the time of the acts in question. If they can be shown to have been earned then, under the terms by which the soldiers were fighting on those battlefields, then there would be no need for qualifiers which may be seen as lessening the requirements for those honours. Ignoring the applicable conditions for awards of battle honours calls into question the validity of any suggested honours in relation to those which were awarded at the time. 



			
				Bill Smy said:
			
		

> I’ve been following this discussion and believe many of the points, while interesting, are off the point.
> 
> I think that everyone will agree the concept and rules of the grant of Battle Honours were developed in response to a perceived need. In the same way the 1855 rule, perpetuation, and the Canadian rules surrounding the grant of Battle Honours were all made in response to perceived needs. All were man-made, and all can be changed, or even discarded. In fact, the current regulations regarding the grant of Battle Honours have evolved numerous times over time.
> 
> I also think that everyone would agree that in any decision making, the process should go from concept to detail. To do otherwise leads to Michael O’Leary’s valid point that the arguments begin “to read like a ‘situated estimate’ where, once, the commander has decided on a plan…..”.
> 
> In my opinion, listing present-day units of the CF and the honours to which they are entitled, distract from resolution of the concept of a “perceived need”. The first issue to be decided is whether there is a need to issue War of 1812 Battle Honours. If it is decided that there is a need, the details of which honours should be recognized, the rules for the allocation, and the method of award follow. To do otherwise is “putting the cart before the horse”.
> 
> Arguments surrounding what has happened in the past are also distracting. Remember that those decisions were made in response to a need, and the policies, rules and regulations that followed were developed in order to satisfy the need. They were man-made, and as such were subject to modification.



Suggesting that the conditions for honours and awards are flexible and therefore can simply be set aside is to promote the idea that we can just ignore what we have expected soldiers and their regiments to achieve in past conflicts to be worthy of battle honours.  Are their deeds so cheaply viewed that we can just stretch, or cast aside, any conditions merely to envelop those we want to see awarded?

Yes, the conditions for awards for battle honours have changed over the past few centuries, those applied within the British Army and those employed by Canadian military forces. Those conditions, however, flexible they might have been, existed in their own time and the appropriate guidance for considering the War of 1812 should start with the conditions for award at that time. If it can be shown that any unit was deserving under those terms and an honour not awarded, then a case can certainly be made to revisit the terms of the award.


4.      Everyone gets a trophy

The Honour our 1812 Heroes Backgrounder lists 59 suggested battle honours in its Appendix B.

These include:

a.	Eleven awards of “Detroit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.

b.	Ten awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.

c. 	Four awards of “Miamit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.

d. 	Three awards of “Fort Niagara”, a battle where three British Army regiments were so honoured.

e.	Sixteen awards of “Lundy's Lane”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.

f.	Five awards of “Fort Eire”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.

g.	Seven awards of “Chateauguay”, a battle where no British Army regiment was so honoured.

h.	Four awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.

_Source for confirmation of British Army battle honours: “Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies”, by Anthony Baker, pub. by Ian Allan Ltd., 1986._

Having selected only those actions of the War of 1812 for their proposal, the War of 1812 recognition project suggests that the Canadians should have been awarded 59 battle honours in comparison to the 23 awards to British regiments for those same actions.  The breadth of this suggestion, coupled with a noticeable lack of any discussion of the actual roles played by the participating units suggests that the intent is to award attendance rather than any specific degree of participation in a battle or contribution to its success. If the proponents of this project are not willing to start with a proof of deserved recognition and then progress to how that might best be done, it only serves to undermine the value of any single award.


5. The Value of Process

The proponents of this proposal want to see the Canadian Militia units of the War of 1812 recognized, That is an honourable objective. Unfortunately, they have already decided that the acceptable solution is the award of battle honours – not specifically just in the name of those units which were there – but to existing units of the Canadian Forces. 

This raises a number of questions that they wish any potential supporters to sidestep and dismiss with them:

a.	Why were honours not awarded at the time?

b.	What honours should have been awarded using the conditions for award at the time? (Should not an award of “DETROIT” to the “1st Middlesex Regiment” be provably as equally deserved as the one to 41st (Welsh) Regiment of Foot?)

c. 	How can units of the Canadian Militia in the War of 1812 be connected to existing unit when no precedent for perpetuation exists? (Inventing such connections it simply to create the connection ignores the historical foundations of the Canadian Army.)

d. 	If the accepted connections are based on localization; why does that have to be interpreted as lineage perpetuation?

e.	Why is the only acceptable proposal battle honours to existing units and not a localized (and even formally tasked) responsibility to honour the heritage of locally raised units of the pre-Confederation era?

All of these issues, and more, can be addressed through an independent analysis with an intent to confirm a basis for honours, identify deserving units, and to recommend methods by which Canada (through the Department of Heritage, DND, local governments, etc.) can participate in suitable recognition. This may or may not lead to the proposal that battle honours be awarded in the name of War of 1812 units – which does not automatically mean they transfer to existing units. That, in itself, is a very different issue requiring its own analysis and consideration by the appropriate authorities.


6. 	If You Ain't With Us

One other issue that seems to be raising its head is the inference that this is an all or nothing proposal, and that any who fail to support it wholeheartedly are enemies of the good. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposal to award battle honours to existing units for pre-Confederation Militia participation in the War of 1812 has so many layers of complexity that only through willing ignorance can blind support be offered. There are many who are deeply proud of Canada's military history. Equally, many of those proud supporters are equally uninterested in the finer details, and are willing to join the parade when it's proclaimed to be “supporting the troops” and “honouring heroes” because they belief that the foundation has been laid by those who call for support.

But what happens when the questions are not directed at the core suggestion (recognition of Canadian Militia in the War of 1812), but do question the method being proposed and how it was developed? The critical  error here is the predetermination of how that recognition should be made and an assumption that everyone should simply agree with the plan.

The suggestion that anyone questioning the method is automatically against the heart of the proposal poisons the discussion and undermines any hope for debate by which a process can be developed that will satisfy all or most parties.  Unfortunately, there is one main reason why some avoid discussion of process - it is because they may be afraid that a process built on historical example and precedent (because if we cannot respect our history in proposing changes to the way we view it, how can we expect anyone to respect the results) may not lead to their established end goals.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nicely put Michael.

I fail to see how just one large celebration of those who were brave enough to answer the call back then is not enough.
Why does it need to be about the modern-day us?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I like it. Can we have TV lead it and I will be the ISM (Invasion Sergeant Major).
> 
> Besides, I live near 17 Wing and its a short drive for me to get to the airhead.



Need a Signaller?  >


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Need a Signaller?  >



Why of course!

I hereby, with the power of the ISM, dub the the IS - Invasion Signaller.

I need an IPA - Invasion PA and of course and IPAO - Invasion PAO. Any volunteers?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Why of course!
> 
> I hereby, with the power of the ISM, dub the the IS - Invasion Signaller.
> 
> I need an *IPA* - Invasion PA and of course and IPAO - Invasion PAO. Any volunteers?


I thought you were looking for India Pale Ale.....


----------



## Infanteer

Excellent post Michael, especially the bit on the total number of awards proposed (almost double the British).

I have no doubt that the proponents of this have good intentions, but their lack of understanding of the system and intent behind battle honours is quite obvious; Michael O'Leary's post layed that fact bare for all to see.

I concur with Bruce that we have a little pomp and ceremony for the event.  Let's let DHH focus on Afghanistan, where there is a real case for Battle Honours that has to be worked out, and not bother them with this stuff.


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I thought you were looking for India Pale Ale.....



Only after we've secured Pierre.  Then we're getting the good stuff:


----------



## Michael OLeary

A few more thoughts on this discussion:

War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents

7.   Refuse Debate.

A quick Google search for "Honour our 1812 Heroes" will show that they have a website, and are also active in facebook, twitter and yahoo. None of these, however, notably not the website, offer any invitation to engage in debate or discussion. The only option they desire is for members of the public to blindly accept their position and support it through an automated e-mail to the Minister of National Defence. In case anyone wishes to use that e-mail to offer a different opinion to the Minister, the e-mail also includes the proponents of the site as an additional addressee (but you have to notice that on the e-mail, the webpage doesn't say it will).

It is still possible, however, to click the link, change to subject to something like _"I am concerned - War of 1812 Battle Honours"_ and amend the text to offer concerns about the method being proposed. One could also send a link to this thread, one of the few places on the net where this subject has actually been discussed or debated at all.


----------



## Sythen

Good a place as any for this..

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/10/20111011-161024.html



> OTTAWA -- The Conservative government will spend $28 million over the next four years commemorating the bicentennial anniversary of the War of 1812.
> Earlier this year, media reports suggested the feds were prepared to spend upwards of $100 million on the commemorations, a figure the government repeatedly denied.
> 
> On Tuesday, the government announced its $28-million plan to remember the battle between Britain and the U.S. for land that would later become part of Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More on the "battle honour" issue....


> It's been almost 200 years since the War of 1812 broke out, but the smoke hasn't cleared yet in a fight over whether present-day Canadian military regiments should be awarded official "battle honours" recognizing their links to Canadian defence units that took part in the historic conflict.
> 
> A group including historians and retired military personnel is lobbying the Canadian government to end decades of official resistance and finally bestow the symbolic honours as part of the country's War of 1812 bicentennial commemorations, a $28-million program of fort refurbishments, battle re-enactments and monument-building announced Tuesday by Heritage Minister James Moore.
> 
> If the petitioners get their way, a number of current military units — including the Cameron Highlanders, Black Watch of Canada and the Lincoln and Welland Regiment — would be entitled to embroider battle names such as Queenston Heights, Chateauguay and Crysler's Farm on their regimental flags or "colours" ....


Postmedia News, 12 Oct 11

Here's the wording being used by Ottawa from the official announcement:


> .... Over the next four years, the Government will invest to increase Canadians' awareness of this defining moment in our history. This will include support for .... *celebrating and honouring the links that many of our current militia regiments in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada have to the War of 1812* ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from the "recognize 'em all" folks, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> One might think that the important victory at Crysler’s Farm and its counterpart at Châteauguay might have been marked by the award of Battle Honours to the military units that fought at these engagements.
> 
> Unfortunately this is not so.
> 
> Inexplicably the Department of National Defence refuses to recognize Canadian military heritage prior to the year 1855. Since the 1920s DND has refused all attempts by modern units to obtain Battle Honours won by their predecessors before that date.
> 
> Britain and the United States have granted Battle Honours or Battle Streamers respectively to units that fought in the War of 1812 but Canada refuses despite the recently stated wish of the federal government to honour “the links that many of our current militia regiments ... have to the War of 1812.” The best that DND will offer in the way of commemorating the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers during the War of 1812 is a “commemorative banner” to be issued to militia units and lapel pins for members of the Canadian Forces. What this banner looks like nobody will say, but it apparently resembles those “OPEN” flags one often sees flying on the front of some stores.
> 
> To correct this situation, a group of historians and retired military personnel have mobilized. “Honour our 1812 Heroes” has the goal of securing Battle Honours for the modern Canadian regiments that perpetuate those units that served in 1812-1815. This would include the Brockville Rifles and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders of Cornwall whose predecessors fought at Crysler’s Farm.
> 
> The group’s website — http:/www.warof1812.ca/heroes — contains the historical background and permits one to send an email to Peter MacKay, the Minister of National Defence, asking him to correct this historic wrong. The HOH group’s slogan is: “They Fought for You, Will You Fight for Them?”
> 
> Interested readers are asked to help this group by June 18, 2012, the official start of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 by writing to Mackay or advising their MP of their support for the group’s objectives.
> 
> Remembrance Day should be about commemorating the valour and sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in all wars throughout our history and not just those of more recent date. — D.E. Graves


_Ottawa Citizen_, 9 Nov 11


----------



## q_1966

An interesting read, including a mention of the War of 1812.
http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2003/09/canadas-battle-honours/


----------



## Michael OLeary

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> An interesting read, including a mention of the War of 1812.
> http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2003/09/canadas-battle-honours/



It's nice to see he clearly makes the point that there is no lineage connection (with regard to the one specific honour he mention):



> Units of the Canadian Militia fought in most of these actions. One of them, the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, was awarded Niagara, the first ever for a Canadian unit. Unfortunately, as no existing unit traces its lineage to the Glengarrys, no serving regiment carries this honour.



There was an interesting series of articles in Legion magazine by Boileau on battle honours. The articles did, however, have one consistent problem that can only serve to propagate the confusion over lineage and where battle honours held by current units gained them. Each article had an information box listing "Units Awarded" the battle honour - these lists did not, unfortunately, specific that they were listing current holding (i.e., perpetuating) units, and not the names of the CEF units on the battlefield being described in the accompanying articles.


----------



## Michael OLeary

With regard to the War of 1812, I've been made aware that DND is working on a recognition system that will link existing units to War of 1812 units solely on the basis of geographical coincidence. Units will be given the choice of accepting the connection. It is not battle honours.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Can it be presumed that these 'recognitions' (?) are going to be exclusive to the Militia Primary Reserve?


----------



## Pusser

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Can it be presumed that these 'recognitions' (?) are going to be exclusive to the Militia Primary Reserve?



And what Regular Force units claim lineage back that far?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> And what Regular Force units claim lineage back that far?



None, and neither does any Reserve regiment do so with a legitimate official claim. Any such claim is only supportable as an unofficial connection on the basis of terrain, which is the basis for the proposed recognition system.

Honours and distinctions are normally carried by Regiments, and not subdivided among battalions of regiments. To isolate individual battalions would also require the same approach be taken with Primary Reserve regiments that have more than one battalion. How this new system of recognition will be promulgated remains to be seen.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Mr. O'Leary, I can think of one Regiment that "could" claim lineage and that would be the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Mr. O'Leary, I can think of one Regiment that "could" claim lineage and that would be the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.



Pffft; you`re the babies of this nation. Back up 5 steps!!


----------



## Michael OLeary

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Mr. O'Leary, I can think of one Regiment that "could" claim lineage and that would be the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.



Claiming lineage and proving it in accordance with official requirements for lineage are two different things.  Just because any regiment has been claiming connections and convincing generations of its soldiers of their right to do so does not make it officially recognizable.

Official Lineages
Volume 3, Part 2: Infantry Regiments
THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND REGIMENT




> This Reserve Force regiment originated on 24 October 1949 and incorporates the following regiments





> CAO 110-3, Supp Issue No. 152/49. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment cannot establish its identity with earlier units since there is no unbroken existence. It may, however, claim to inherit the traditions of early regiments which were units of the British Army, although raised in Newfoundland. A Newfoundland Regiment of Fencible Infantry was formed in 1795 and disbanded in 1802. In 1803, a new unit, the Newfoundland Fencible Infantry was formed. In 1806 it became the Royal Newfoundland Fencible Infantry and served with distinction through the War of 1812. It was disbanded in 1816.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Claiming lineage and proving it in accordance with official requirements for lineage are two different things.  Just because any regiment has been claiming connections and convincing generations of its soldiers of their right to do so does not make it officially recognizable.
> 
> Official Lineages
> Volume 3, Part 2: Infantry Regiments
> THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND REGIMENT



Seen.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Units of the Canadian Militia fought in most of these actions. One of them, the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, was awarded Niagara, the first ever for a Canadian unit. Unfortunately, as no existing unit traces its lineage to the Glengarrys, no serving regiment carries this honour.



Stormont Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders?



> After the surrender at Yorktown, veterans of the King's Royal Regiment of New York and the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants), were given land on the north bank of the Saint Lawrence River so they could defend Upper Canada from the new enemy to the south. In 1804, veterans of the Glengarry Fencibles, a Highland regiment that served in Europe with the British Army, settled just north of the American Revolutionary War veterans. The first militia unit west of Montreal was organized at Cornwall in 1787 under the command of Major John Macdonnell, late of the K.R.R.N.Y. During the War of 1812, the area militia and the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles helped the British Army fight off the Americans. Only breaks in unit continuity in the pre-Confederation period deny the Regiment the "Niagara" battle honour and the status of oldest anglophone militia regiment in Canada.[1]



But



> Claiming lineage and proving it in accordance with official requirements for lineage are two different things.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Stormont Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders?



Official Lineages
Volume 3, Part 2: Infantry Regiments
STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY HIGHLANDERS



> This Reserve Force regiment originated in Cornwall, Ontario on 3 July 1868, when the '59th "Stormont and Glengarry Battalion of Infantry"' was authorized to be formed.





> MGO 3 Jul 68. Formed from six independent rifle and infantry companies authorized on the following dates: 'No. 1 Company' (1st Volunteer Militia Rifle Company at Cornwall, 22 January 1862), 'No. 2 Company' ((2nd) Volunteer Militia Rifle Company at Cornwall, 31 January 1862), 'No. 3 Company' (Volunteer Militia Company of Infantry at Cornwall, 14 November 1862), 'No. 4 Company' (Infantry Company at Lancaster, 6 July 1866), 'No. 5 Company' (Infantry Company at Williamstown, 6 July 1866), and 'No. 6 Company' (Infantry Company at Dickinson's Landing, 20 July 1866)


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks Michael.

Would the 59th Battalion have drawn men weapons and equipment from the Glengarry Fencibles?


----------



## Michael OLeary

According to the now-defunct site Regiments.org, the origins of the 59th Battalion were as follows:



> 1868.07.03 59th Stormont and Glengarry Battalion of Infantry formed with HQ at Cornwall, Ont., by regimentation of four independent companies in Stormont and Glengarry counties (and four new coys raised); unofficially claims to perpetuate The King's Royal Regiment of New York (1776-1784), The Glengarry Fencibles (1783-1864), Royal Highland Emigrants, The Glengarry Fencibles [Scotland] (1794-1802), Upper Canada Militia, The Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles (1812-1816), and The Royal Canadian Regiment of Volunteer Foot (1794-1802)
> 
> No. 1 Company at Cornwall, raised 22 Jan. 1862 as 1st Cornwall Rifle Coy
> No. 2 Company at Cornwall, raised 31 Jan. 1862 as 2nd Cornwall Rifle Coy; moved 1 May 1907 to Morrisburg
> No. 3 Company at Cornwall, raised 14 Nov. 1862 as Cornwall Infantry Coy; moved 15 June 1888 to Alexandria
> No. 4 Company at Lancaster, raised 1866; moved 22 June 1883 to Township of Finch
> No. 5 Company at Williamstown, raised 1868; disbanded 1871?; replaced 1 Mar. 1872 by No. 5 Coy at Farran's Point, transferred from 56th Battalion; moved 1 June 1910 to Osnabruck Centre
> No. 6 Company at Dickinson's Landing (mounted infantry), raised 1868; moved 24 July 1868 to Lunenburg; moved 1 Oct. 1898 to Williamstown
> No. 7 Company at Dungevan, raised 21 Aug. 1868 (mounted infantry); moved 30 Dec 1875 to Athol; moved 22 Jan. 1883 to Township of Roxborough; moved 1 Mar. 1904 to Lancaster
> No. 8 Company at South Finch (Vernon), transferred 1 Mar. 1880 from independent status (formerly in 43rd Battalion); disbanded 7 May 1880; new No. 8 Coy raised 1 Oct. 1899 at Maxville



If any men, weapons or equipment survived from the Glengarry Fencibles, that may have been in the specific companies with coincident recruiting areas. Note, however that some of the independent companies that were absorbed into the new 59th Stormont and Glengarry Battalion of Infantry also have dates of existence that begin before the Fencibles officially ceased to exist. Only a detailed review of pay records would confirm the existence of men on more than one unit roll over the period of change.


----------



## Pusser

What about the Queen's York Rangers?  They claim to have been originally spawned from Roger's Rangers (as do the US Army Rangers - that's irony).  According to their cap badge's registry with the Canadian Heraldic Authority (http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project-pic.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=426&ProjectElementID=1479), the fact that it says "1st Americans" is in deference to a Loyalist regiment formed during the Revolution.  If they cannot claim their lineage back that far, then why can they have that cap badge?   It seems to imply some form of official recognition.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> If they cannot claim their lineage back that far, then why can they have that cap badge?   It seems to imply some form of official recognition.



If regimental choices of badges, dress and naming was enough to "prove" lineages, then I would have expected someone to show up with the supporting paperwork some time in the past 100+ years. 

Official Lineages
Volume 3, Part 1: Armour, Artillery and Field Engineer Regiments - ARMOUR REGIMENTS
THE QUEEN'S YORK RANGERS (1ST AMERICAN REGIMENT) (RCAC) 



> This Reserve Force regiment originated on 14 September 1866 and incorporates the following regiments.


----------



## uptheglens

Pusser said:
			
		

> What about the Queen's York Rangers?  They claim to have been originally spawned from Roger's Rangers (as do the US Army Rangers - that's irony).  According to their cap badge's registry with the Canadian Heraldic Authority (http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project-pic.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=426&ProjectElementID=1479), the fact that it says "1st Americans" is in deference to a Loyalist regiment formed during the Revolution.  If they cannot claim their lineage back that far, then why can they have that cap badge?   It seems to imply some form of official recognition.



By the same token, then the SD&G Highlanders shouldn't have "Glengarry Fencibles" on their cap badge either.


----------



## Michael OLeary

uptheglens said:
			
		

> By the same token, then the SD&G Highlanders shouldn't have "Glengarry Fencibles" on their cap badge either.



it's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't"; each regiment bears the iconography it chose, but the icons, and the stories used to justify them, don't affect the regiments' official lineage.


----------



## Haggis

uptheglens said:
			
		

> By the same token, then the SD&G Highlanders shouldn't have "Glengarry Fencibles" on their cap badge either.





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> it's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't"; each regiment bears the iconography it chose, but the icons, and the stories used to justify them, don't affect the regiments' official lineage.



Surely, at the time that the badge was approved for wear, the iconography of the badge was verified and the entitlement to bear such iconongraphy validated?  It's a tenuous connection, but still a connection.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Haggis said:
			
		

> Surely, at the time that the badge was approved for wear, the iconography of the badge was verified and the entitlement to bear such iconongraphy validated?  It's a tenuous connection, but still a connection.



Verified by who? Against what standard? The same Militia Department that let regiments choose to "brand" themselves in imitiation of various British Army regiments? The more you start to dig into the origins of such affectations, the more you start to realize that they were, probably more often than not, simply the preference of the Colonel of the day.

Yes, it's a connection - but it's not official lineage.  And that is the critical point. I am certainly not suggesting that any Regiment shouldn't maintain a connection to the units that were formed in the same geographical area as a connection to their predecessors, but respecting and honouring those connections are not the same as having an official lineage including them. We should also keep in mind that recognizing those connections based on geography isn't limited just to the War of 1812 units that form the underlying basis of this thread.


----------



## Pusser

All this goes to show that the naval practice of attaching battle honours to a name makes much more sense.  :nod: This is why a building in Toronto carries the honour for taking Louisburg in 1758.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from a news release today - highlights mine:


> .... The Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force are planning to participate in several dozen community-led events over the course of the summer of 2012 through to 2015, which marks the anniversary of the final battle of the War. The majority of the activities and events will be in 2012, and most activities will take place in the Niagara-Great Lakes corridor region. Other Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces-related initiatives include:
> 
> *the presentation of a War of 1812 Commemorative Banner, approved by Queen Elizabeth II, to CF units, formations and establishments whose heritage embraces service in the War of 1812 as well as First Nations and Métis communities*. Aboriginal warriors fought alongside British and Canadian soldiers and sailors in all theatres of the war and were the deciding factor in many battles. The identification of First Nations and Métis recipients is principally the work of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada;
> participation by Royal Canadian Navy ships in 18 visits to ports in Canada and the U.S. throughout the Great Lakes, as well as in five U.S. Navy signature events in the Great Lakes and along the East coast during the summer of 2012;
> *participation in several Colonial Sailor Program re-enactment events during 2012-2015*, including “tall ships” used for sail training and historical demonstrations, fitted with appropriate ensigns and colours, with crews in historical dress. This program is conducted by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and will be supported by Parks Canada;
> *a War of 1812 commemorative pin to be worn by all Canadian Forces members*; and
> the examination of other ways to formally recognize and honour the British and Canadian units whose heritage embraces service in the War of 1812.
> (....)



More from the Backgrounder:


> The commemoration of the War of 1812 will provide Canadians across the country with a unique opportunity to participate in national and local initiatives to highlight this defining moment in our history. Over the next four years, the Government of Canada will invest in a series of activities that will highlight the importance of the War of 1812 and its impact on the Canada we know today.
> 
> As part of the Government of Canada’s program to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF) have developed several 1812-themed initiatives.  Some of these initiatives will include:
> 
> Recognizing the War of 1812 heritage embraced by some CF units and the contribution made by First Nations and Métis allies to the War of 1812;
> Supporting several Colonial Sailor Program re-enactment events during 2012-2015;
> Promoting the tradition of the citizen soldier in Canada and commemorating the contributions made by regular and militia soldiers, provincial marine, and First Nations and Métis allies who participated in the War of 1812;
> Supporting the deployment of a Royal Canadian Naval ships to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes throughout the 2012-2015 commemorative period;
> Participating in a number of the United States Navy’s bicentennial commemoration efforts at select locations in the Great Lakes, East and West Coasts;
> Contributing to the War of 1812 bicentennial celebrations by conducting aircraft flypasts at selected events; and
> Participating in select, high-profile events (including re-enactments of the Battles of Stoney Creek and Queenston Heights), at which Regular and Reserve units raised in British North America made exemplary contributions to the overall end state of the War.
> 
> DND/CF War of 1812 Events and Initiatives
> 
> Commemorative Banners
> 
> The Department of National Defence has created the Canadian Forces War of 1812 Commemorative Banner. This Banner will be presented to CF units, formations, and establishments whose heritage embraces service in the defence of Canada during 1812-1815. The Commemorative Banner will also be available through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to those First Nations and Métis communities wanting to recognize and commemorate the contribution of First Nations and Métis allies to the defence of Canada during this same period. Once presented, the Banner may be carried, flown, or displayed throughout the 2012-2015 commemorative period. Thereafter, it may be paraded on anniversaries of events of the War of 1812 that specific units, formations, and establishments consider important to their own heritage.  The Commemorative Banner will be unveiled in the coming months.
> 
> The War Of 1812 Commemorative Pin
> 
> Canadian Heritage will be issuing a “War of 1812 Commemorative Pin” as part of the Government of Canada’s commemoration efforts. As per CF Dress Instructions, military members will be authorized to wear the pin for the duration of the commemorative period.
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy’s Colonial Sailor Program
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy will participate in community re-enactment events.  This program is designed to raise public awareness about the maritime aspects of the colonial period through the re-enactment of historical events with actors in period costume, using period vessels.  The Colonial Sailor Program is reflective of the Provincial Marine, the Canadian-manned force which provided naval services to the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada up to the War of 1812, and which formed the basis for continuing “naval militias” through the 19th Century.  The Provincial Marine was the first indigenous naval force manned by Canadians. It and its successor naval militia formations perpetuated citizen involvement in Canada’s naval defence until the passage of the Naval Service Act in 1910 established a formal Canadian navy.
> 
> The War Of 1812 Commemorative Pin
> 
> Port visits will be conducted over the next four years by Royal Canadian Navy and United States Navy vessels to Great Lakes ports, in conjunction with bicentennial events to commemorate either War of 1812 naval battles or commemorations of events at nearby battlefields.
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy’s Colonial Sailor Program
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy will play a role in the various U.S. Signature events planned by the U.S. Navy on the East Coast including “Fleet Week.”
> 
> Canadian Army Activities
> 
> The Canadian Army’s contribution to the War of 1812 Commemorative initiative will be broken down into four main themes:
> 
> Unit commemorations;
> Aboriginal commemorations and recognition;
> Performances; and
> Participation and/or presence.
> 
> The performances will include drill and colour party displays. Performances will take place at events including the Battle of York/Freedom of the City (Toronto) on the bicentennial of that battle on April 27, 2013.
> 
> The Canadian Army will participate and/or perform at the following main events, throughout 2012, 2013 and 2014:
> 
> Commemoration of the declaration of war (Toronto, ON on June 1, 2012);
> the Battle of Stoney Creek (June 6, 2012);
> the Battle of Queenston Heights (October 14, 2012);
> the Battle of York (April 27-28, 2013);
> the Battle/capture of Fort George (by the USA) (May 27, 2013);
> the Battle of Chateauguay (October 7, 2013); and
> the Battle of Lundy’s Lane (July 25, 2014).
> 
> Plans for participation in these events, as well as the remaining 30-plus others currently in the planning stages, will be promulgated by the participating units/formations in the coming months or years.


----------



## Loachman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> a War of 1812 commemorative pin to be worn by all Canadian Forces members;



Mandatory?

Another reason to avoid wearing a uniform that I despise.


----------



## Journeyman

I can only hope that the pin looks like the Warrior Badge, and that they can pay for all of this crap out of the monies saved in upcoming budget slashing.   :

Seriously. Are lobotomies -- or spinectomies -- involved with NDHQ postings, such that _no one_ can tell the Good Idea Faeries, "look, this is a stupid idea"?


----------



## Danjanou

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can only hope that the pin looks like the Warrior Badge, and that they can pay for all of this crap out of the monies saved in upcoming budget slashing.   :
> 
> Seriously. Are lobotomies -- or spinectomies -- involved with NDHQ postings, such that _no one_ can tell the Good Idea Faeries, "look, this is a stupid idea"?



Apparently so or someone just found a whole warehouse full of unissued Warrior Badges. :


----------



## Journeyman

Peacekeeping medal, QDJM, 1812 Pin..... Pretty soon the Frontiersmen will be mocking us.   :not-again:


----------



## Danjanou

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Peacekeeping medal, QDJM, 1812 Pin..... Pretty soon the Frontiersmen will be mocking us.   :not-again:



Rejected your CT to the LOF Gryphen Para Squadron did they? 8)


----------



## Journeyman

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Rejected your CT to the LOF Gryphen Para Squadron did they? 8)


Yes, they said with all this NDHQ-bling, I looked too.....you know, Elton John'esq


----------



## wheels031

AJFitzpatrick



> [shadow=red,left]Can it be presumed that these 'recognitions' (?) are going to be exclusive to the Militia Primary Reserve? [/shadow]



The answer is no. The Regular Force will be affected as well as the Primary Reserve Units. 
For example I cite that RCR and the R 22e R (both of which had amalgamated with Reserve Units in the 1950s), as well as the 12e RBC, which was a Reserve Unit that was elevated to the Regular Force on 06 May 1968. 
The Reserve Components of all three Regiments are domiciled in the same counties as War of 1812 Units that fought in the War of War 1812 and in which action took place. 

Bear in mind what Michael O'leary said, that this in no way disignates claims of lineage. All Units that fought in the War of 1812 were later disbanded. The earliest present day Units can not trace a solid line lineage passed 1855 --- unless and until a competant authority (eg MND; DHH) says so, and I doubt that this will happen.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Seriously. Are lobotomies -- or spinectomies -- involved with NDHQ postings, such that _no one_ can tell the Good Idea Faeries, "look, this is a stupid idea"?


Maybe someone (or some) did, unsuccessfully?


----------



## wheels031

The following reply may be of interest to everyone regarding this thread : 

_There is no doubt that numerous Canadian units served extensively and bravely during the War of 1812. British authorities thought it appropriate, for example, to award the battle honour "Niagara" to the Battalion of Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada. The matter of current Canadian Forces' units perpetuating Canadian units that served during the War of 1812 falls under the guidance of the Canadian Forces Battle Honours Committee.

Please be aware that much of the battle honour focus at this time is directed at the upcoming necessity to review the campaign currently underway in Afghanistan with respect to potential battle honour awards. The submission of historic battle honour awards for consideration by the Canadian Forces Battle Honours Committee is always a possibility, but there is no means by which to be specific about when those deliberations will take place of what the results may be.

Thank you for your time,

Ken Reynolds, PhD 
Assistant Canadian Forces Heritage Officer / Officier adjoint du patrimoine des Forces canadiennes 
Directorate of History and Heritage (DHH 6-2) / Direction - Histoire et patrimoine (DHP 6-2) 
Chief of Military Personnel (CMP) / Chef du personnel militaire (CPM) 
National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) / Quartier général de la Défense nationale (QGDN)_
vaya con Dios

John


----------



## Bill Smy

It would appear that there has been a change in thinking at DHH regarding perpetuation and Battle Honours.

From the programme issued at the Military Muster held in Toronto before Prince Charles on 22 May 2012:

“The five snare drums are commemorative items created to visually represent the awards made to historic Canadian militia units for their service during the War of 1812 and the recent perpetuation of more than one hundred of these units by twenty-nine currently-serving units of the Canadian Army.  Three of the drums represent regions and provinces – Atlantic, Quebec, and Ontario – and depict the names of the perpetuating units and their Honorary Distinction.  The fourth drum depicts the names of the four Canadian Army regiments which jointly perpetuate the wartime Battalion of Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada and their inherited battle honour “NIAGARA’ as well as the War of 1812 Honourary Distinction DEFENCE OF CANADA – 1812-1815 – DÉFENCE DU CANADA.

The fifth drum depicts the names of the six Fencible regiments of the British Army raised in British North America which saw service during the War of 1812.  Soldiers from The Halifax Rifles and The Royal Newfoundland Regiment are on parade today to reflect the service of the Fencible Regiments raised in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.”

Nova Scotia
84th Independent Field Artillery, RCA
1st Battalion, The Nova Scotia Highlanders
The West Nova Scotia Regiment
New Brunswick
3rd Field Artillery Regiment, RCA
8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s)
The Royal New Brunswick Regiment

Quebec
2nd Field Artillery Regiment, RCA
12e Régiment blindé du Canada
The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada
The Canadian Grenadier Guards
Les Fusilliers du St-Laurent
Les Fusilliers Mont-Royal
Le Regiment de la Chaudiere
Royal 22e Regiment
The Royal Canadian Hussars (Montreal)
The Sherbrooke Hussars
Les Voltiguerus de Québec

Ontario
7th Toronto Regiment, RCA31 Combat Engineer Regiment (The Elgin’s)
56th Field Artillery Regiment, RCAThe Brockville Rifles
The Essex and Kent Scottish
The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment
The Lincoln and Welland Regiment
The Princess of Wale’s Own Regiment
The Queen’s York Rangers, (1st American Regiment), RCAC
The Royal Canadian Regiment
The Royal Hamiliton Light Infantry
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders


Regiments linked to War of 1812 Fencible Units recruited in North America

Regiment
The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
The Halifax Rifles, RCAC
The Royal New Brunswick Regiment
Royal 22e Regiment
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders"


From the Prime Minister's web page ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=20165.0;last_msg=1144494)

"In commemoration of the War of 1812, the four Canadian Army regiments with links to the Battalion of Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada, which played a major role in the Battle of Lundy’s Lane, will now perpetuate the Battle Honour NIAGARA, originally granted to the Militia after the War of 1812. These Canadian Army regiments are the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, the Queen’s York Rangers, the Brockville Rifles and the Princess of Wales Own Regiment."


----------



## QORvanweert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1202412--long-lost-regimental-colour-from-war-of-1812-to-rise-again

"A New Brunswick regimental colour that flew proudly over what was possibly Canada’s first handpicked army during the War of 1812 is being restored.

The six-foot-square colour survived a 1,100-kilometre trek during the winter of 1813 from Fredericton to Kingston to help defend Canada from American invaders and several battles during the two-year war. The restoration is expected to cost thousands of dollars.

“The 104th Regiment of Foot was raised by Col. Martin Hunter, a British officer,” Gary Hughes, a curator of history and technology at the New Brunswick Museum, told the Toronto Star Tuesday.

“In my mind, I think this was a Canadian regiment before there was a Canada … it was the only Canadian raised regiment to ascend to the line at that point,” Hughes said.

About 600 men started out from Fredericton in mid-February, 1813, and 52 days later they arrived in Kingston in mid-April, having lost just one soldier. Not long after arriving they participated in an amphibious raid on Sackets Harbor, New York, across Lake Ontario from Kingston.

“It was almost a victory and should have been but for a rather cautious commander (Sir George Prevost). He could have taken Sackets, but he ordered a retreat while the Americans were beginning to burn their emplacements,” Hughes said.

About 200 more soldiers from the regiment arrived by boat later in the spring of 1813.

The regiment acquitted itself well in other major battles, including the 1814 campaigns of Lundy’s Lane and Fort Erie. After the war was over, the regiment, which by then only had about 250 soldiers left, was disbanded.

When Hunter returned to Scotland, he took the colour with him and it remained there until 1939 when a descendent, Jessie Louisa Hunter, donated it to the New Brunswick Museum in Saint John where it was mounted in a glass case. But it suffered the ravages of time and was finally packed away in the 1970s.

An unnamed benefactor has agreed to pay for the restoration in Nova Scotia. The restored colour will be hung once again in the museum as part of a larger display to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the war.

XXXA flag that was marched by the 104th Regiment of Foot from Fredericton to Kingston, Ontario during the War of 1812 is being restored for an exhibit about the war, being held at the New Brunswick Museum next year.

The regiment consisted of men from the Maritime provinces and what was then Upper and Lower Canada.

“It's kind of almost like a Canadian regiment before there was a Canada,” said Gary Hughes, a curator of history and technology at the museum.

The regiment is in the history books for making the epic 1,100-kilometre trek during the winter of 1813 to help defend Canada from American invaders.

“It was a march that was conducted with the aid of snowshoes and toboggans,” said Hughes.

Historian Donald Graves edited the memoirs of Lt. John Le Couteur, who kept a journal throughout the 52-day trek between February and April, when temperatures dropped as low as -27C.

“You learn from the journals that it was a very difficult thing — going through snow waist-high, 800 men and their supplies, dragging their food on toboggans,” he said.

The regiment’s colour — a six-by-six foot silk banner and military symbol — is being refurbished in Halifax, thanks to an unknown donor.

The New Brunswick Museum's exhibit is slated to begin in December 2012, or January 2013, before the 200th anniversary of the historic march, and remain on display until the late fall of 2013.

The restored flag will be on permanent display at Saint John's Market Square following the museum's exhibition."

Photo at link.


----------



## Northern Ranger

Saw the 1812 Pin today,    made in China on the back troops are really impressed :facepalm:


----------



## aesop081

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Saw the 1812 Pin today,    made in China on the back troops are really impressed :facepalm:



Could be worse, it could have said "Made in the USA"

 >


----------



## Gunner98

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Saw the 1812 Pin today,    made in China on the back troops are really impressed :facepalm:



Started wearing this lovely pin today - what a statement it makes - really, seriously - 3 years - it won't last that long.  http://lookoutnewspaper.com/minister-mackay-introduces-war-of-1812-pins/


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced that Canadian Army regiments that perpetuate the history and heritage of War of 1812 units that defended our country during that conflict will be awarded a battle honour for the victory at the Battle of Detroit. Minister MacKay, joined by Ted Opitz, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre, made the announcement at Fort York National Historic Site as part of the Government’s efforts to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 .... The battle of Detroit was a pivotal event for the people of York and for the Militia units that they raised. Upon his return to York (Toronto) after the battle of Detroit, Major-General Isaac Brock, their commander at Detroit, publicly expressed his admiration for the militia units from York that had served in the battle. In his report on the battle he went on to note that the service of the militia units would never be forgotten.
> 
> As part of the commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, the federal Government committed to honouring the memory of all who served during the war. As a result, *seven modern day Canadian Army regiments that perpetuate the War of 1812 units that fought at the battle of Detroit will receive the Battle Honour “DETROIT”. *  The first six of these regiments are:
> 
> •56th Field Artillery Regiment (RCA), Brantford, Ont.;
> •The Essex and Kent Scottish, Windsor, Ont.;
> •The Lincoln and Welland Regiment, St. Catharines, Ont.;
> •The Queen’s York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC), Toronto, Ont.;
> •The Royal Canadian Regiment, Petawawa, Ont.; and
> •The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth Regiment), Hamilton, Ont.
> 
> In addition to these units, *the Royal Newfoundland Regiment stationed in St. John’s, N.L., will also receive the Battle Honour “DETROIT” in memory of the Newfoundlanders who, as members of the British Royal Newfoundland Fencible Infantry, were present at the Battle of Detroit *  ....


DND Info-machine, 15 Aug 12

"Process of Perpetuation" backgrounder here, and backgrounder on the Battle of Detroit here - screen captures also attached in case links don't work.


----------



## je suis prest

I note that one of the regiments receiving the battle honour is an artillery regiment.  Is anyone aware of any other artillery units that perpetuate an infantry or cavalry unit and carry battle honours in addition to "Ubique"?  In the absence of colours, where will they display the honour?


----------



## Old Sweat

Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.


----------



## fraserdw

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.



3rd Field has a regimental colour, awarded in the 1790s and still part of the regiment today.


----------



## Webgear

Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?

I am not aware of any connection between the two?


----------



## fraserdw

Webgear said:
			
		

> Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?
> 
> I am not aware of any connection between the two?



It's like MP seats for Alberta, you have to give seats to Quebec first! >


----------



## The Bread Guy

And if Postmedia News has it right, there's more to follow - highlights mine:





> After more than a year of fierce, back-channel debates among historians and government officials, Canadian military regiments with links to 200-year-old units that fought in the War of 1812 have finally begun receiving so-called “battle honours” that formally recognize Canadian soldiers’ contributions in at least five major engagements from the war.
> 
> While Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced this week that several Canadian regiments will now be recognized for “perpetuating” the 19th-century units that fought in the Battle of Detroit — a key August 1812 victory led by British commander Sir Isaac Brock and allied aboriginal warrior Tecumseh — *Postmedia News has learned that similar honours will soon be bestowed to other present-day military units for the Battle of Queenston Heights, the Battle of Chateauguay and the Battle of Crysler’s Farm* ....


----------



## Michael OLeary

Webgear said:
			
		

> Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?
> 
> I am not aware of any connection between the two?



It's quite simple really. They have the same connection that the other regiments receiving these honours have to the militia units of the War of 1812 .... they currently recruit in the same communities.

The RCR was amalgamated with The Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) in the 1950s. These two Militia Regiments formed the Reserve battalion of the RCR, and the unit continues to recruit soldiers in Oxford and Middlesex counties. Honours are not carried by individual battalions, they are carried by regiments, therefore, to accept the honour offered by the Government, The RCR (as a Regiment) accepted it.

There are no current units with direct lineage extending to the War of 1812, the connection for perpetuation of each of these War of 1812 honours is geographic.


----------



## Infanteer

Are we going to start giving Battle Honours for aboriginal warfare that occured in the geographic area prior to the arrival of European settlers?

I wish they'd put the same amout of energy into recognizing the Battle Honours from Afghanistan - British units were stitching on Op TELIC soon after the first few years in Iraq....


----------



## Webgear

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It's quite simple really. They have the same connection that the other regiments receiving these honours have to the militia units of the War of 1812 .... they currently recruit in the same communities.
> 
> The RCR was amalgamated with The Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) in the 1950s. These two Militia Regiments formed the Reserve battalion of the RCR, and the unit continues to recruit soldiers in Oxford and Middlesex counties. Honours are not carried by individual battalions, they are carried by regiments, therefore, to accept the honour offered by the Government, The RCR (as a Regiment) accepted it.
> 
> There are no current units with direct lineage extending to the War of 1812, the connection for perpetuation of each of these War of 1812 honours is geographic.



Thank you for the information, I was not aware of the Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers connection to the RCR.


----------



## bick

Infanteer,

Totally agree.  Instead of trying to establish some loose connection with the militia of 1812, lets recognize the soldiers of today.  While we're young people.


----------



## 4Feathers

The War of 1812 was pretty much a stalemate, although the Americans will say otherwise as will our Government. The only loser was the 1st Nations peoples of north America, whom the British abandoned their treaties with after the was over as they were not needed anymore. Napolean was defeated in Europe, things were good for the British again. No need for 1st Nations allies in North America. It was dark period for the first nations peoples after the was over, and now we get to wear a cheaply made in China pin to commemorate it.  I hope this whole thing gets reviewed and cancelled so we can take them off and throw them away quietly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I had a whole big rant ready to post.

I'll summarize by saying this whole initiative is wrong in so many ways.

At least IMHO. I suppose the receiveing Units will feel otherwise though.

It was easy to swallow the idea of a banner saying '1812' from a colour or guidon, but a 'Battle Honour' actually awarded, presented and sewn on?

It just cheapens the whole idea of what we already have.


----------



## Robert Henderson

4Feathers said:
			
		

> The War of 1812 was pretty much a stalemate, although the Americans will say otherwise as will our Government. The only loser was the 1st Nations peoples of north America, whom the British abandoned their treaties with after the was over as they were not needed anymore. Napolean was defeated in Europe, things were good for the British again. No need for 1st Nations allies in North America. It was dark period for the first nations peoples after the was over, and now we get to wear a cheaply made in China pin to commemorate it.  I hope this whole thing gets reviewed and cancelled so we can take them off and throw them away quietly.



Well if the United States failed in its invasion of Iraq, would that have been called a stalemate?  1812 took invasion off the list as an option for dealing with the northern border of the United States.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.



Yes, but...

Certain units perpetuate other units.  Thus, 42 Fd Regt RCA perpetuates the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish.  This causes some consternation (to say the least).

Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.


----------



## bridges

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.



 :    Nice.


----------



## Old Sweat

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, but...
> 
> Certain units perpetuate other units.  Thus, 42 Fd Regt RCA perpetuates the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish.  This causes some consternation (to say the least).
> 
> Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.



There are a number of artillery regiments which were converted from infantry at various times in the past, and some, such as the Brockville Rifles, later returned to the fold. I have a list of ones that changed in the 1936 reorganization, but I am not at home. The list was quite extensive. This does not mean, however, that these gunner regiments have any colours or battle honours from their former lives on an official basis, but may well legitimately retain the linkage through their museum and/or messes.


----------



## dapaterson

bridges said:
			
		

> :    Nice.



Given that the one giving the order was a sgt from The RCR, I cleaned up his language for posting purposes...


----------



## Robert Henderson

recceguy said:
			
		

> It was easy to swallow the idea of a banner saying '1812' from a colour or guidon, but a 'Battle Honour' actually awarded, presented and sewn on?
> 
> It just cheapens the whole idea of what we already have.



War of 1812 perpetuation was established in the Canadian Forces in May with units taking on the history and heritage of 1812 counterpart as determined by the CPS with advice from DHH.  Units were given the option to decline.  By this act, the next logical step was to assess each 1812 unit's service in that conflict and whether their conduct was meritious enough as to deserve a battle honour.  This can be done by the application of CF Honours policy and Military tradition.

Let's take a look at "Detroit".   The case of "Detroit" being worthy enough as a Battle Honour was established through the, admittedly informal, British process of 1816.   However even then, the official dispatches from the officer in command played a central role in determining units deserving the honour.  In this case Isaac Brock identifies both the Canadian militia and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (it's title in 1812 correspondence) as conducting themselves with valour.    Brock went even further as to say that he could not have been successful without the Canadian Militia.  Indeed he establishes a 'covenant' with the Canadian militia by promising they would "never be forgotten."

The Capture of Detroit itself, is a recognized event of national significance to Canada (1923).   This establishes a tradition of "public recognition" on behalf of Canadians.  In CFP200 the policy clearly states battle honours are a "public recognition" of valour.  The policy establishes two elements that are important in this case.  1. Only one battle honour from a conflict can be awarded to unit with only a sub-unit present.  2. However the awarding of battle honours for each conflict tends to demand them to be tailored to the uniqueness of the particular war.  The War of 1812 was a war of sub-units.  It was about doing more with less, and acting almost always in a numerical disadvantage.  From the awarding of 'Niagara' and 'Detroit', it appears the sub-unit restriction has been wisely removed.

So the question you ask, does Detroit cheapen other honours?  Based on these and many other measures, it does not.  The case is on firm ground and "Detroit" in my opinion, enhances existing CF honours.  In talking with friends in the units receiving the emblazoned honour, they are beaming with pride.

I hope this helps.  
  
Robert

P.S. The CDS from the advice of DHH awarded perpetuation of the Norfolk Militia to the 56th Fd Arty Regt RCA.  Strange but not without precedent (infantry unit perpetuated by arty).  It is also important to note they also perpetuate the Car Brigade (artillery) who were also at Detroit.  Notice the Car Brigade are not named for the "DETROIT" Battle Honour.  'Ubique' is thus respected.


----------



## dapaterson

Robert:  I'll repesctfully disagree.  "Canada" did not exist as a nation in 1812.  Therefore, Canada should not be granting battle honours for battles fought prior to her existence.  We start down a slippery slope with this precedent.  What's next - recognizing the Regiment de Saguenay for battles in the 1600s?

Thus "Detroit" as a battle honour does cheapen other honours, as it is being granted by an entity that did not exist at the time of the battle.  Should the UK choose to issue honours, that would be legitimate (and, let's face it, a 200 year delay is a bureaucratic ideal   ).  A nation that did not exist granting honours, not so much.

However, that argument has already been beaten into the ground here; no need for us to rehash it...


----------



## Robert Henderson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Robert:  I'll repesctfully disagree.  "Canada" did not exist as a nation in 1812.  Therefore, Canada should not be granting battle honours for battles fought prior to her existence.  We start down a slippery slope with this precedent.  What's next - recognizing the Regiment de Saguenay for battles in the 1600s?
> 
> Thus "Detroit" as a battle honour does cheapen other honours, as it is being granted by an entity that did not exist at the time of the battle.  Should the UK choose to issue honours, that would be legitimate (and, let's face it, a 200 year delay is a bureaucratic ideal   ).  A nation that did not exist granting honours, not so much.
> 
> However, that argument has already been beaten into the ground here; no need for us to rehash it...



Thank you for raising some good points.  

First.   Did the nation of Canada, or more simply Canadians exist in 1812?   The country of Canada was created in 1867.  However scholars of nationhood have rejected defining nation as a constitutional entity.  Nation is a a people.  For example was France created in 1958 with the latest republic?  Interestingly, their military perpetuate all French units even those under the royalty before 1789.

So did Canadians call themselves Canadian and see themselves as Canadian.  If you look on the roll of the HMS Victory you find a number of sailors of various nationalities including (English) names making their nationality down as "Canadian".  A Canadian militiaman wrote a song on the Detroit campaign.  What was its title "Come all ye Bold Canadians."  John Ogden, a New Brunswick UEL wrote a poem on Queeston Heights where he refers to the fighting "on OUR Canadian Shores."  I could go on forever with such evidence but you get the point.    Still you may deny these facts and internationally-accepted definitions of Nation.  That is your call.

Your second point is the awarding of battle honours by a entity, 200 years late, that did not exist at the time of the valour.  One word TANGIER. The United Kingdom awarded Tangier 217 years after the fact.   The United Kingdom did not exist.  England did.  There are so many Battle Honour "oddities" in the Commonwealth that the War of 1812 Battle Honour decision looks quite bland.   GIBRALTAR to the Royal Marines is one of the most bizarre.  The Royal Marines have not lineage or perpetuatation of the units there (other regiments maintain claim that lineage).  They received it just because of regiments there were serving as marine units. 

Sadly heritage is not black and white but different shades of grey.  In working through the world of honour one must look to precedence in commonwealth miltiary tradition and use policy tools at hand.   However more important is the spirit behind those two elements.  That is how precedence is establish after all.  Rest assured "DETROIT" is built on solid rock my good friend.


----------



## Infanteer

RHenderson said:
			
		

> So the question you ask, does Detroit cheapen other honours?  Based on these and many other measures, it does not.  The case is on firm ground and "Detroit" in my opinion, enhances existing CF honours.  In talking with friends in the units receiving the emblazoned honour, they are beaming with pride.



No qualms with Battle Honours predating Confederation; it is stretching the idea of perpetuation as far as it can go that bothers me.  What's next, American Revolutionary Battle Honours for units near historic native nations that raided for the British?

Oh well, I imagine similar teeth-gnashing occurred when they were giving out the CEF's First World War battle honours....


----------



## Old Sweat

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh well, I imagine similar teeth-gnashing occurred when they were giving out the CEF's First World War battle honours....



Indeed it did, and it took years to resolve with claims and counter-claims and appeals and rebuttals and... And once the Great War was out of the way, somehow the issue of Boer War battle honours came up and, in my opinion, some rather dubious claims were accepted. 

Back on track. Sorry for the sidetrack.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's really too bad that the government can't seem to place as much import on the timely passage and presentation of modern day awards and honours, battle and otherwise, as they can in trying to perpetuate such tenuous examples as the 1812 ones. Perhaps they are trying to establish the 200 year mark as a standard :


----------



## Robert Henderson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Indeed it did, and it took years to resolve with claims and counter-claims and appeals and rebuttals and... And once the Great War was out of the way, somehow the issue of Boer War battle honours came up and, in my opinion, some rather dubious claims were accepted.
> 
> Back on track. Sorry for the sidetrack.



Good points and inter-connected.  For example, reading the correspondence of the creation of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in 1951 and its perpetuation of WWI RNR with its honours I see the same struggles that occur in such matters.  RNR was a condition for Newfoundland joining confederation and therefore a political decision.  The way CF HQ phased their letters with MOD in London to get perpetuation approved, they didn't appear to be happy.   The important point is that the RNR decision in 1951 and the War of 1812 decision now was far from being a political whim.   I am sure there will be truck loads of documents concerning the matter that will come unlocked in 50 years.


----------



## Robert Henderson

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's really too bad that the government can't seem to place as much import on the timely passage and presentation of modern day awards and honours, battle and otherwise, as they can in trying to perpetuate such tenuous examples as the 1812 ones. Perhaps they are trying to establish the 200 year mark as a standard :



Contrary to popular opinion, Governments have never liked entering the realm of the CDS because of concern it may diminish the CDS's control over CF.  That said, I would not presume the Government is absent in trying to honour more recent valour in a timely manner.    However, if you think it is a matter of elected officials waving a magical wand, you are mistaken.


----------



## Danjanou

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Good points and inter-connected.  For example, reading the correspondence of the creation of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in 1951 and its perpetuation of WWI RNR with its honours I see the same struggles that occur in such matters.  RNR was a condition for Newfoundland joining confederation and therefore a political decision.  The way CF HQ phased their letters with MOD in London to get perpetuation approved, they didn't appear to be happy.   The important point is that the RNR decision in 1951 and the War of 1812 decision now was far from being a political whim.   I am sure there will be truck loads of documents concerning the matter that will come unlocked in 50 years.



FYI  The abbreviation for the Regiment is RNFLDR , the  RNR is the  Royal Naval Reserve, we're a wee bit touchy about that. Section 44 of the 1948 Newfoundland  Act  notes that the Regiment and other militia units will be maintained.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/nfa.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular opinion, Governments have never liked entering the realm of the CDS because of concern it may diminish the CDS's control over CF.  That said, I would not presume the Government is absent in trying to honour more recent valour in a timely manner.    However, if you think it is a matter of elected officials waving a magical wand, you are mistaken.



Now your going to try and convince me that this whole 1812 thing has no government input, direction or purpose? All the CDS and the CF's doing?

Please. I was born at night, but not last night baby.

As to recognising valour. Research how long it took to staff and present decorations in WWII and what they are now. People can't even get a CD out of Ottawa in a timely manner.

Enough sidetrack though.

I'm not convinced, nor will be.


----------



## aesop081

RHenderson said:
			
		

> However, if you think it is a matter of elected officials waving a magical wand, you are mistaken.



No. They are not mistaken. 

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=12437


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now your going to try and convince me that this whole 1812 thing has no government input, direction or purpose? All the CDS and the CF's doing?
> 
> Please. I was born at night, but not last night baby.
> 
> As to recognising valour. Research how long it took to staff and present decorations and what they are now. People can't even get a CD out of Ottawa in a timely manner.
> 
> Enough sidetrack though.
> 
> I'm not convinced, nor will be.




At the risk of continuing the sidetrack ...

I think you are 99% correct. First off, if this was a DND/CF initiative we you they would still be arguing about it in 2022!

What we are seeing here is a (largely) politically driven _branding_ initiative ~ something that has slight but aggressive public support, like this, for example, negligible opposition and costs next to nothing - even for the silly, plastic pins. It started from outside government, never had significant military support (or input, as far as I have heard (at the bar of the Army Officers' Mess)) and was picked up by the PMO (not PCO) as a "neat idea."

But, it is, essentially, harmless - battle honours were never, I think as systematic as many of our members would like to think. Like others here I am more concerned about the bureaucratic molasses through which 21st century honour and awards for serving sailors, soldiers and air force members must swim (upstream) before being awarded.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The RCR INVADES DETROIT!!!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

If we really want to get all patriotic and celebrate a war we need to start wearing and selling these T-Shirts!


----------



## 4Feathers

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Well if the United States failed in its invasion of Iraq, would that have been called a stalemate?  1812 took invasion off the list as an option for dealing with the northern border of the United States.



I invite you to read the history of the war if you have not already. The Americans repelled the British Forces several times, and won historic battles including the Battle of New Orleans, where the American National Anthem originated "the rockets red glare". My point is, that the only loser in the war was the 1st Nations Peoples, who were abandoned by the British Forces and subsequently began a very quick decline as a society. The peace after the war was politically motivated, not one made from a decisive military victory. I wear my pin as ordered, but can't wait for the day someone makes the decision to throw them away. The pin is a joke on a uniform that otherwise has only worn medals and recognition from things that I am proud I earned.


----------



## Edward Campbell

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I invite you to read the history of the war if you have not already. The Americans repelled the British Forces several times, and won historic battles including the Battle of Waterloo, where the American National Anthem originated "the rockets red glare". My point is, that the only loser in the war was the 1st Nations Peoples, who were abandoned by the British Forces and subsequently began a very quick decline as a society. The peace after the war was politically motivated, not one made from a decisive military victory. I wear my pin as ordered, but can't wait for the day someone makes the decision to throw them away. The pin is a joke on a uniform that otherwise has only worn medals and recognition from things that I am proud I earned.




Uhmmm ... Waterloo? Really?


----------



## Old Sweat

4Feathers said:
			
		

> The Americans  . . . won historic battles including the Battle of Waterloo, where the American National Anthem originated "the rockets red glare".



Tell us you're joking, please.  :facepalm:


----------



## 4Feathers

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Tell us you're joking, please.  :facepalm:



Not joking, just tired and made an error, good pick up.
In the United States, victories at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 and in the Battle of Baltimore of 1814 (which inspired the lyrics of the United States national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner") produced a sense of euphoria over a "second war of independence" against Britain. Peace brought an "Era of Good Feelings" in which partisan animosity nearly vanished.


----------



## jeffb

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I invite you to read the history of the war if you have not already. The Americans repelled the British Forces several times, and won historic battles including the Battle of Waterloo, where the American National Anthem originated "the rockets red glare".



The anthem was penned during the British naval bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbour. The Battle of Waterloo took place 8 months later in Belgum with the French on one side and a combined Allied army comprised largely of the British and the Prussian Army. 

I have studied the war quite extensively and in an ironic sort of way there is actually quite a strong link between the defeat of Napoleon (although much earlier in 1814) and the end of the War of 1812. Ultimately, it was the defeat of Napolean which freed up the Royal Navy to conduct a close blockade on the US. In addition, the US' economy had been propped up by beef and other food sales to Wellington's Army in the Peninsula. Not only was the Royal Navy freed up for this task, the British Army no longer needed American food stuffs. As the American economy tanked in mid to late 1814, the cries for peace grew very loud. The land battles in 1812, 1813 and 1814 were critical to set the conditions but they were not the ultimate cause for the end of the war. 

As for your argument that no one won, that is one of the big narratives in the historiography of the war. The reasons for this narrative are long (see John Lattimer's book 1812 if you really care) but it ultimately falls short. Bottom line, the US tried to annex British North America. British Regulars and the Royal Navy, with some minor augmentation from units raised from BNA and natives, prevented this annexation. Impressment was still British policy in 1814 and the US economy was in shambles. On the US side the only real winners were the few generals who used the war to propel them to the Presidency. (Jackson for example)


----------



## Journeyman

4Feathers said:
			
		

> .... and made an error...


Several errors. 

Having backtracked on the Americans' winning Waterloo and the US national anthem making reference to New Orleans, you're willing to let stand your belief that the British of 1815 are responsible for the current aboriginal situation?

As for the uniform only bearing medals and recognition from _things earned_, does that include poppies, "Warrior Badges" for doing a PT test, brigade patches....?


----------



## Robert Henderson

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Not joking, just tired and made an error, good pick up.
> In the United States, victories at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 and in the Battle of Baltimore of 1814 (which inspired the lyrics of the United States national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner") produced a sense of euphoria over a "second war of independence" against Britain. Peace brought an "Era of Good Feelings" in which partisan animosity nearly vanished.



How many Canadians fought at Baltimore and New Orleans?  Zero.  Unfortunately you are completely missing the point that you must measure success or failure by operational objectives.   Wartime objective of the United States was the taking of Canada.  Period.  Soooo how did they do?  'A failure worse than Vietnam' is how Roosevelt's son, described the War of 1812, based on the said perimeters.  In context of this discussion, that is what we are talking about: The Military Role of Canadians in the War of 1812.        

The 1814 campaign in the United States by the British was the result of a change in British wartime objectives.  To the spring of 1814, Britain had a defensive posture against the United States.  With the fall of Paris and Napoleon's abdication, Britain switched to territorial gain.  Baltimore and New Orleans was the result.  This has nothing to do with 1812 Canadian Unit recognitiion.


----------



## Robert Henderson

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now your going to try and convince me that this whole 1812 thing has no government input, direction or purpose? All the CDS and the CF's doing?
> 
> Please. I was born at night, but not last night baby.
> 
> As to recognising valour. Research how long it took to staff and present decorations in WWII and what they are now. People can't even get a CD out of Ottawa in a timely manner.
> 
> Enough sidetrack though.
> 
> I'm not convinced, nor will be.



There are two separate things here.  1. Political/Government direction and 2. the day-to-day workings of the Canadian Forces.  1812 Perpetuation was an election promise (in successful party's election platform) and was included in the speech from the throne.  That is Government policy direction. How Government policy is implemented is then figured out.  If necessary, the MND or Cabinet (Governor in Council) can order the CDS under the National Defence Act.  1812 perpetuation is government policy.  It does not effect unit percedence. 

Everything else you mention, from medals and new Battle Honours for recent wars is NDHQ's delivery on existing policy.   If NDHQ ignores its own policy then the Government can try to hold them accountable.  You are pissed at program delivery, not a change in policy direction.  Government dislikes getting into program delivery: the CDS's realm.  That is what I meant.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RHenderson said:
			
		

> There are two separate things here.  1. Political/Government direction and 2. the day-to-day workings of the Canadian Forces.  1812 Perpetuation was an election promise (in successful party's election platform) and was included in the speech from the throne.  That is Government policy direction. How Government policy is implemented is then figured out.  If necessary, the MND or Cabinet (Governor in Council) can order the CDS under the National Defence Act.  1812 perpetuation is government policy.  It does not effect unit percedence.
> 
> Everything else you mention, from medals and new Battle Honours for recent wars is NDHQ's delivery on existing policy.   If NDHQ ignores its own policy then the Government can try to hold them accountable.  You are pissed at program delivery, not a change in policy direction.  Government dislikes getting into program delivery: the CDS's realm.  That is what I meant.



I'm not pissed at the program delivery. Please don't presume to know what I think.

So what is your involvement in all this? 

If you're involved, how much and what is the extent of your input?

Are you one of the people that conceived of these 'perpetuations' and researched what units should be involved?

Did you, or your group, pushed to have the unit associations recognised and Battle Honours awarded?

What is this group, if there is one?

What is your official capacity?

I guess what I want to know is how partisan you are to this whole process.

Humour me.


----------



## Robert Henderson

recceguy said:
			
		

> Humour me.



I think that was my mistake.  I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RHenderson said:
			
		

> I think that was my mistake.  I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.



No axes to grind. Again, you're presuming to tell me what I think.

Just trying to figure out your part in all of this.


----------



## dapaterson

One of the fundamental difficulties in a situation such as this is that Canada does not hold the military records for whatever events occured in 1812.  That makes it difficult to prepare an adequate assessment.


Imagine, if you will, that it is the year 2212, and the People's Republic of New Brunswick is considering whether or not to grant the battle honour "Sweetwaters - 2012" to the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.

The military records from that period would continue to reside with the Government of Canada; the PRNB would be forced to rely on regimental anecdotes describing the glorious victory, which in fact was merely three troops getting liquoured up, standing on a street corner and screaming.  The Canadian military files included the MP report and witness statements, but the PRNB relied only on the RNBR's unit history.  (Of course, this situation is entirely hypothetical)


While not the same, there's a risk that Canada's current efforts to commemorate the War of 1812 may be overlooking facts and information available only in the British records.


----------



## Robert Henderson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One of the fundamental difficulties in a situation such as this is that Canada does not hold the military records for whatever events occured in 1812.  That makes it difficult to prepare an adequate assessment.
> 
> 
> Imagine, if you will, that it is the year 2212, and the People's Republic of New Brunswick is considering whether or not to grant the battle honour "Sweetwaters - 2012" to the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.
> 
> The military records from that period would continue to reside with the Government of Canada; the PRNB would be forced to rely on regimental anecdotes describing the glorious victory, which in fact was merely three troops getting liquoured up, standing on a street corner and screaming.  The Canadian military files included the MP report and witness statements, but the PRNB relied only on the RNBR's unit history.  (Of course, this situation is entirely hypothetical)
> 
> 
> While not the same, there's a risk that Canada's current efforts to commemorate the War of 1812 may be overlooking facts and information available only in the British records.




It is incredible how much documentation exists from the War of 1812.  With regards to British documents specifically, Library and Archives Canada has been copying UK records for a century.   Pension records, muster rolls, casualty returns, inspection returns, order books, monthly returns... all exist and are accessable.  Document digitization has made future copying no longer necessary as a simple researcher can go direct to source virtually.  More than that there are a number of database projects underway that is synthesizing tons of data.  Official dispatches, orders, coorespondence, etc were often copied numerous times historically.  If someone was court martialed, he needed a papertrail to cover his butt.  So information gaps on the important docs are rare.  

Last year I created a test claim for the Royal Newfoundland Regiment that argued for 1812 battle honours based on the system's historic criteria, military tradition and modern CF policy guidelines.  It was formulated exclusively from primary source material.  

http://www.warof1812.ca/RNR1812BattleHonours.pdf

The document was written in the middle of the process of figuring out how to implement 1812 perpetuation and should be viewed in such a way.  It was also done from the outside looking in.  According to some (on both sides of the Atlantic), it put an elephant in the room that could not be ignored.


----------



## Infanteer

Mr Henderson,

Thank you for posting that - it was a very interesting read.  The claim for the R Nfld R seems to be very strong indeed.

As well, you highlight the inconsistent history of awarding battle honours and the precedent of broken lineage.  I still find some of the previous discussion to be a stretch, but the argument has merit with the points you have raised.

It would be fitting in 2015, when Afghanistan is done, to have units emblazon the Afghan honours and the 1812-1815 honours at the same time.  The oldest and newest military history of Canada represented at one event.


----------



## Kat Stevens

But then the 1812 veterans will feel slighted and marginalized at having to share the stage.  This will not do.


----------



## Danjanou

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But then the 1812 veterans will feel slighted and marginalized at having to share the stage.  This will not do.



Naah recceguy and George Wallace ain't petty people, they'll share. 8)


----------



## Kat Stevens

Won't somebody please think of the 19th Alberta Dragoons in all this?


----------



## Infanteer

Three separate zingers - well done!


----------



## Danjanou

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Three separate zingers - well done!



Thank you we're here all week..... try the fish


It was recently awarded a 200 year old battle honour


----------



## Robert Henderson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It would be fitting in 2015, when Afghanistan is done, to have units emblazon the Afghan honours and the 1812-1815 honours at the same time.  The oldest and newest military history of Canada represented at one event.



I whole-heartedly agree.  Structurally I feel the CDS should establish an separate permanent Honours committee to address these issues and have DHH advise that entity, opposed to the other way around.   Other commonwealth forces have this, whereas at NDHQ this committee is subservient to DHH and is formed and dissolved as required.  Hence both *accountability* and *transparency* to units and the Canadian people suffers.  Honours are about communicating gratitude to those who deserve it.   Communication is a two-way street, hence the necessity of the two principles noted.   This in no way challenges command and control.  Frankly the two principles enhance it because it creates understanding.  Understanding creates value to the honour.  Value creates motivation to attain more.

1812 is about paying a Canadian "honour deficit" and showing a grateful nation will remember.  Honour deficit?   Through Canadian public donations during the war, gold and silver medals were made for Canadian militia (Ontario) - called the Upper Canada Preserved Medal.  A long story short, they were never awarded and were melted down to pay for another public expediture in the 1840s.  Can you imagine that happening today?  Britain expressed its thanks to the Canadian militia through General Service Medal of 1847 (but only for certain battles).   Canadians did not (neither through their pre-1867 provinicial parliaments nor a NGO).   

It is big picture stuff and to me is as much about Afghanistan as it is about 1812.  Like recceguy said, let's just not wait 200 years to address more recent operations.  I think what gets forgotten in parts of NDHQ is speed actually matters: both with discipline and honour - if you wish to maximize the C2 benefits.


----------



## bridges

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Structurally I feel the CDS should establish an separate permanent Honours committee to address these issues and have DHH advise that entity, opposed to the other way around.



How do you know that that's not how it's happening now?


----------



## Robert Henderson

bridges said:
			
		

> How do you know that that's not how it's happening now?



About three years ago I asked.   Before politely being told to pissed off, a DHH staffer said there was no Permanent CF BH Committee and is called together by the CDS upon recommendation of DHH to deal with specific 'issues' like KOSOVO.  This meant to me, that you have to lobby or push for them to activate a process.  Supposedly Afghanistan will be handled like WW2 with a Battles Nomenclature Committee that identifies the Battle Honours and after this the CF BH Committee is called together by the CDS to identify which unit gets what Battle Honour.  

When the Royal Newfoundland Regiment tried to claim NIAGARA back in 2001/2 and again in 2008, it was handled by the CDS on the advise of DHH.  No Committee reviewed their claim.  There was no process beyond DHH going into their black box, and making sawing and hammering noises, then answering 'NO'.
I saw the corrspondence.   It was just "Sorry. We can't find anything to support your claim."   Accountability? Transparency?  Where was the "no and here is exactly why your unit does not qualify" response?   And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of numerous Newfoundland Senators and MPs.   Again no committee heard the claim.


----------



## dapaterson

CFP 200.  Chapter 3.  Section 4.


----------



## bridges

Who would you have on the permanent committee?


----------



## Michael OLeary

bridges said:
			
		

> Who would you have on the permanent committee?



And what work would it do between wars?


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> It is incredible how much documentation exists from the War of 1812.



And yet, no-one has yet pushed forth the individual unit justifications  for these 1812 honours. Most readily available references only speak of the "Canadian Militia" at any action as a single collective grouping.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And yet, no-one has yet pushed forth the individual unit justifications  for these 1812 honours. Most readily available references only speak of the "Canadian Militia" at any action as a single collective grouping.



My talking about a permenant honours/awards/merit committee is a distraction in this thread.  I am sorry. I believe an independent committee should judge the merits of a claim to show to units the process is transperant.  It builds trust.  I don't mean to be hard on DHH.  That is not my intent as there are many very talented and thoughtful individuals like Ken Reynolds.  I am suggesting that a different way of doing things be explored.   Because many units do not have the historical research expertise in-house, DHH should help by providing (impartially) information that is pertainent to the claim, opposed to only prosecuting AND judging it (like the Royal Newfoundland Regiment claim in 2002)

Your question shows public communication is really poor.    DHH researched the list of units deserving 'Detroit'.  DHH handled all correspondence with units on the honour.  DHH handled the Niagara battle honour decision in May.  DHH selected the units that perpetuate 1812 corps.   The latter decision(s) was made (I believe) back in December yet the first communication on how each perpetuation was (possibly) made was provided this month.  If a unit wishes to make a claim for 1812 perpetuation, they can (ex. the Governor General's Horse Guards and Button's Troop of the York Militia)... but no one seems to be aware of this.  Another example is SD&G Highlanders and the Incorporated Militia.  Over a 1/3 of the regiment was raised from SD&G but four other CF units perpetuate it.  Why?  There may be a very valid reason but why?  Why not post the list of 1812 perpetuations on DHH's site? Why not tell units if they feel they have a valid 1812 perpetuation claim they should submit it and here is how?  

I have shown you the unit justification I prepared for the RNfldR.  What DHH's justification was I have no idea.


----------



## bridges

RHenderson said:
			
		

> About three years ago I asked.   Before politely being told to pissed off, a DHH staffer said there was no Permanent CF BH Committee and is called together by the CDS upon recommendation of DHH to deal with specific 'issues' like KOSOVO.  This meant to me, that you have to lobby or push for them to activate a process.  Supposedly Afghanistan will be handled like WW2 with a Battles Nomenclature Committee that identifies the Battle Honours and after this the CF BH Committee is called together by the CDS to identify which unit gets what Battle Honour.
> 
> When the Royal Newfoundland Regiment tried to claim NIAGARA back in 2001/2 and again in 2008, it was handled by the CDS on the advise of DHH.  No Committee reviewed their claim.  There was no process beyond DHH going into their black box, and making sawing and hammering noises, then answering 'NO'.
> I saw the corrspondence.   It was just "Sorry. We can't find anything to support your claim."   Accountability? Transparency?  Where was the "no and here is exactly why your unit does not qualify" response?   And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of numerous Newfoundland Senators and MPs.   Again no committee heard the claim.



While all this might be true, the perceived SOP from three or four years ago may or may not accurately describe how this series of War of 1812 battle honours has come about - or under whose direction.  I have a feeling there's more to this than meets the eye.       

Hopefully there will be some official announcements soon and some of this can start to be cleared up.


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Your question shows public communication is really poor.



Including the communications from the very vocal groups that promoted this plan to politicians rather than the military, the ones who build a platform based on emotions response ("Honour our Heroes") rather than putting forth the details of individual unit actions - upon which battle honours are normally founded - to support their claims. All anyone here is looking for is a presentation of logic. 

Claims for battle honours to War of 1812 units? - OK
Issued by the Canadian Government?  - Well, there was no equivalent Canadian Government at the time, but of the present one chooses to honour 1812, so be it.
Connecting the dots to current units? - There's the issue. To what degree do we rewrite history to justify these ... or do we actually admit the only connection is that the current units now recruit in the same cities and counties. 

The unspoken question is the one from the leaders in each of these recipient units. And what they want to know is how to explain, in some detail, the actions of the individual perpetuated units of Canadian Militia, without lamely falling back on cursory descriptions of what "the Militia troops" did, en masse, at some of these actions. And now that it's been pushed past the political level to the CF, you say it's DHH's job to clean up the mess foisted upon the CF and try to make sense of it all. How very 1984.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Claims for battle honours to War of 1812 units? - OK
> Issued by the Canadian Government?  - Well, there was no equivalent Canadian Government at the time, but of the present one chooses to honour 1812, so be it.
> Connecting the dots to current units? - There's the issue. To what degree do we rewrite history to justify these ... or do we actually admit the only connection is that the current units now recruit in the same cities and counties.
> 
> The unspoken question is the one from the leaders in each of these recipient units. And what they want to know is how to explain, in some detail, the actions of the individual perpetuated units of Canadian Militia, without lamely falling back on cursory descriptions of what "the Militia troops" did, en masse, at some of these actions. And now that it's been pushed past the political level to the CF, you say it's DHH's job to clean up the mess foisted upon the CF and try to make sense of it all. How very 1984.



1. Canadian Government

We can go around in circles sometimes with this stuff.  "Tangier" was awarded by the United Kingdom for a action pre-dating the union and 220 year after the fact.  The Canadian Government has done the same.  Royal assent is the common thread.   The Provinces had legislative bodies creating Canadian units prior to 1867.  As you know, the 1855 Militia act was from the united province of Canada carried over into confederation.  It did not appear out of thin air.  The 1855 act was preceded by militia acts all the way back to 1791 for Ontario (Canada West/Upper Canada). 

2.Connecting Dots

Joining the dots is a completely different topic and I would be delighted if DHH took a leadership role in defining this.  But perpetuation is perpetuation and lineage is lineage.  One establishes precedence, the other does not.   

1812 perpetuation is government policy.  Policy is implemented by the bureaucracy (DHH).  That is how it works.  DHH can figure it out by themselves or call in inter-departmental and outside stakeholders/experts.  So far they have chosen to Fly Solo.   I offered pro bono to help but no takers at DHH. 

1812 perpetuation decisions by DHH seem to be a jungle juice of reasoning.  Some factors appear to be: 1.Regiments that unofficially claimed to perpetuate historical units (ex. RNBR, QYR); regiments with lineage to the county units (ex. 4/RCR = Oxford); the place where 1812 units were recruited geographically (22e Regt = Canadian Fencible Regiment); and the place where 1812 units were embodied (ex. PWOR = Incorp. Militia, Halifax Rifles=Nova Scotia Fencibles).
There are some choices I wonder about, but handling future perpetuation claims may them clean up.

Educating Units.

Education of unit COs is exactly what I am talking about re: communicating.  An important point is COs were given a choice to accept or refuse 1812 perpetuation.  If a unit refused, the offer went to another unit.  I believe all accepted.

The ONLY reason I am posting here is to offer what I have learned to create a little more understanding.  I am thankful for the kind email messages from your forum members about the Royal Newfoundland Regiment 1812 claim I shared.   It underlines your point of the need for more info and how relieved people are when there is some logic and evidence on the table.


----------



## Michael OLeary

RHenderson said:
			
		

> The ONLY reason I am posting here is to offer what I have learned to create a little more understanding.  I am thankful for the kind email messages from your forum members about the Royal Newfoundland Regiment 1812 claim I shared.   It underlines your point of the need for more info and how relieved people are when there is some logic and evidence on the table.



You keep talking around the same points without offering concrete replies to the questions or concern by the serving soldiers here on how these honours relate to individual unit entitlements. If it was all simple and obvious, these questions wouldn't arise. Declaring the responsibility to now be in DHH's hands after the fact is a poor solution and only emphasizes how this whole affair was carried on an emotive basis rather than a historical one build upon the detailed actions of each perpetuated unit of Militia. Sadly, the core "logic and evidence" in some cases appears to come down to "because in 2012 the Government decided it would be so." At least for the CEF perpetuations there was debate, there were mechanisms whereby competing claims could be assessed and chosen between, and there were the participants (from the CEF and the Militia) supporting the claims they made. If the Army is to carry these honours, fine, we still have a reasonable expectation to see the basis for each awarded honour so that briefing regimental soldiers on these honours can be executed with substance.

So, what did the Regiment of Oxford do at Detroit? How was this distinct from the actions of the Regiment of Middlesex such that each regiment was entitled to the battle honour?

I suspect you don't have that information, but if you've been following this whole subject that closely for all this time, as I assume you have to be such an ardent supporter, isn't it reasonable to assume you have at least crossed paths with some of that data if your circle of correspondents had it in any form? 

Or are we, the end holders of these Honours within our Regiments, to be left in the dark to create it now that the political goal has been achieved?

Are we left with this?:



> *Bombardment – Crossing the River – Capturing Detroit:* Brock’s first demand for Detroit’s surrender, which reached Hull about one o’clock on August 15th was refused.  As a result Detroit was bombarded from the Canadian shore and also from river by the General Hunter and the Queen Charlotte.  The firing began around four o’clock, and lasted until well after dark. Brock ordered his troops to attack Detroit.“The troops were to be ready to embark from McKee’s, just below Sandwich, at three o’clock the next morning.  Matthew Elliott and his native warriors were to cross during the night, landing on the east shore of the River Rouge...”  *Once across the river, at the front of the regulars and militia “were the 41st Regiment, followed by the Lincoln Militia, the York Militia, and finally the other militia units… They encountered no resistance from the Americans...  Instead truce negotiations went on and then a white flag was advanced from the American battery in the road...”* (Douglas, Uppermost Canada)


----------



## Pusser

RHenderson said:
			
		

> And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of numerous Newfoundland Senators and MPs.



I don't consider this a ringing or credible endorsement.  Politicians tend to react to the folks who scream the loudest.  Many don't bother to educate themselves on all sides of an issue and make a truly informed decision.


----------



## bridges

Pusser said:
			
		

> Politicians tend to react to the folks who scream the loudest.  Many don't bother to educate themselves on all sides of an issue and make a truly informed decision.



 :nod:    Exactly.


----------



## Blackadder1916

RHenderson said:
			
		

> . . . . . And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of *numerous* Newfoundland Senators and MPs.  . . . .



Numerous?  Seeing as there is only a baker's dozen (and that's counting all, sober or not, and showing up), how many is numerous?  Unanimous . . . that's quantifiable.  A majority . . . that too, but numerous . . . really.  When all could probably fit into a mini-bus, is use of that term warranted?  And Pusser's observation is spot on; however as you were speaking about the "Newfoundland" regiment it would not take much screaming from voters to stir moribund political behinds to rise in support.  The Royal Newfoundland Regiment (and it's history, real or manufactured) is perhaps unique in the relationship it has to the people of the province (there may be some slight similarity in the Van Doos).  Its service (and in particular its sacrifice on one specific day) during the Great War is one of the major defining moments in Newfoundland history and shaped its subsequent development.  While it may not be the only reason, it is likely (IMO) that was the primary motivation behind including the requirement to maintain "a Newfoundland Regiment" in the Canadian constitution.  After making it (the perpetuation of a regiment's history) a condition to Canada joining Newfoundland, it is only a small step to look further for other history.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Numerous?



A majority.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You keep talking around the same points without offering concrete replies to the questions or concern by the serving soldiers here on how these honours relate to individual unit entitlements. If it was all simple and obvious, these questions wouldn't arise. Declaring the responsibility to now be in DHH's hands after the fact is a poor solution and only emphasizes how this whole affair was carried on an emotive basis rather than a historical one build upon the detailed actions of each perpetuated unit of Militia. Sadly, the core "logic and evidence" in some cases appears to come down to "because in 2012 the Government decided it would be so." At least for the CEF perpetuations there was debate, there were mechanisms whereby competing claims could be assessed and chosen between, and there were the participants (from the CEF and the Militia) supporting the claims they made. If the Army is to carry these honours, fine, we still have a reasonable expectation to see the basis for each awarded honour so that briefing regimental soldiers on these honours can be executed with substance.
> 
> So, what did the Regiment of Oxford do at Detroit? How was this distinct from the actions of the Regiment of Middlesex such that each regiment was entitled to the battle honour?
> 
> I suspect you don't have that information, but if you've been following this whole subject that closely for all this time, as I assume you have to be such an ardent supporter, isn't it reasonable to assume you have at least crossed paths with some of that data if your circle of correspondents had it in any form?
> 
> Or are we, the end holders of these Honours within our Regiments, to be left in the dark to create it now that the political goal has been achieved?



Fact.  I have shown exactly how and why one unit, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, deserved DETROIT (that information you suspect I don't have????).
Fact.  The *exact* numbers (and almost every name) of each and every Canadian unit that served at DETROIT is known and in what capacity.
Fact.  The participation of all the said Canadian units made the difference between success and failure as stated by the officer in command (Brock).
Fact.  *DHH decided what units got DETROIT * but have not shared _how_ they came to their conclusions.  Soooo _please _ ask me again what process, logic and evidence was used.  Answer is the same ... [clearing throat] ... I don't know what they did.   They do.  I don't. 

This discussion has turned into game where the last word has been pre-determined to be "we really know nothing, therefore the 1812 is bad".   Come on.   'numerous' vs. 'majority'?  Holy 'not seeing the forest for the trees' Batman.

If I told you which of the three brigades the Essex Militia (the 1st brigade with the Kent and 50 of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment) were placed, you would respond, not good enough.  If I can't tell you if, for example, Pte Antoine Bertrand had his brother Jean Baptiste as his file partner that day, I suspect I would hear the same conclusion: "not enough information"  

I wish I knew if Sgt Adam Yeger of the Oxford Militia filled his haversack with peaches, like some in the York Militia, while the unit travelled with Brock from Port Dover to the Detroit theatre of war.  But I don't, so obviously this is _clear_ proof of a lack of logic and evidence.  Who cares this same Sgt stood in line with his detachment of the Oxford Militia before the walls of Detroit in the 2nd Brigade (which consisted also of the York, Lincoln, & Norfolk Militias along 50 men of the 41st Regiment) under the command of Major Chambers of the 41st Foot.   Yes. They stood right beside the men of the 41st Foot.   The 41st got a battle honour, yet the Oxford militiamen, whose boots were almost touching those of the valiant 41st, did not.   They shared the same risks when they crossed the river and played an *equal* role in the greatest game of chicken in Canadian history.  It was also a detachment of this same Brigade (made up only of the York Militia and 41st) that was given the honour to accept the formal surrender of Detroit.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Now you're just playing reductio ad absurdum. If you don't have any specific information or sources on the War of 1812 units in question, just say that. We are well past the rhetoric stage, the Government decisions have been made. If you wish to be seen as a credible contributor in this topic, then provide guidance to credible sources that offer the details people seek on individual perpetuated units, because the role now thrust upon those interested in the history of their modern regiments is to be able to show what the specific perpetuated units did. If you can't offer that, then I guess the value of your continuing in the current tone is moot.


----------



## Old Sweat

I suspected something like this might occur. The War of 1812 is documented extensively in Library and Archives Canada and numerous other sites in Canada and abroad. One need only consult the authenticated orders of battle in books on, for example, Queenston Heights or Cryslers Farm or Lundy's Lane to realize that the numbers and very often the names of the individuals involved on both sides are known. There are many works by excellent historians like my friends Donald E and Dianne Graves that have put campaigns, battles and day to day life under the microscope. These people can see the forest and enumerate the trees at the same time.

On the other hand, Mister Henderson, our forum is plagued from time to time with people with odd theories or schemes such as the resurrection of militia units that were removed from the order of battle decades ago or who offer insanely complicated solutions to issues both real and imagined. Thus, as a group we tend to view things such as battle honours for battles long past with a "show me" attitude.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and not to be rude to my historian friend Old Sweat but also don't discount those of us who don't give a rat's ass about 200 years ago but instead are concerned with 200 years in the future.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Now you're just playing reductio ad absurdum. If you don't have any specific information or sources on the War of 1812 units in question, just say that. We are well past the rhetoric stage, the Government decisions have been made. If you wish to be seen as a credible contributor in this topic, then provide guidance to credible sources that offer the details people seek on individual perpetuated units, because the role now thrust upon those interested in the history of their modern regiments is to be able to show what the specific perpetuated units did. If you can't offer that, then I guess the value of your continuing in the current tone is moot.



It is ok to say: "I am unfamiliar with this time period.  Can you help me?"  

Notes on previous post:

Royal Newfoundland Regiment: http://www.warof1812.ca/RNR1812BattleHonours.pdf
Brigade Composition - District General Order, Headquarters, Fort Amherstburg, August 14, 1812
Names of Militiamen who served- Military General Service Medals Lists, 1847;  Militia Muster Rolls - LAC RG 9 ; Prize list of those entitled for money who served at the Capture of Detroit - Royal Chelsea Hospital
Composition of Honour guard receiving surrender - US General Hull Court Martial evidence
Opinion of Officer Commanding Operation - General Order, Headquarters, Detroit, August 16, 1812
;D Peaches in Haversacks - William McCay Diary, LAC MG24, G10
Just in case you need a Canadian Militiaman to sing what he did in the Detroit Campaign to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9HD01V704

Are footnotes a new requirement for everyone posting on Army.ca or just me?

Thought so.


----------



## aesop081

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Thought so.



I don't know very much about the time perid being discussed, nor is it an area of interst for me.

What i do know is that you had better get over yourself very quickly.


----------



## Danjanou

What kind of peaches were they? ;D


----------



## Haggis

Danjanou said:
			
		

> What kind of peaches were they? ;D



Old, very old peaches.

That conclusion, my friend, is the result of deductive reasoning.


----------



## Robert Henderson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Mister Henderson, our forum is plagued from time to time with people with odd theories or schemes such as the resurrection of militia units that were removed from the order of battle decades ago or who offer insanely complicated solutions to issues both real and imagined. Thus, as a group we tend to view things such as battle honours for battles long past with a "show me" attitude.



Thanks Old Sweat.  I do appreciate the history lesson on where posters are coming from and be more patient.  Sorry to all if I have offended anyone with my comments... except Danjanou.  

Danjanou.  What kind of peaches?  Here is the one alternative version of what really happened ;D:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cs8G_mY8jE   The Government is ordering it to be the RCR's regimental march in honour of Detroit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RHenderson said:
			
		

> Thanks Old Sweat.  I do appreciate the history lesson on where posters are coming from and be more patient.  Sorry to all if I have offended anyone with my comments... except Danjanou.
> 
> Danjanou.  What kind of peaches?  Here is the one alternative version of what really happened ;D:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cs8G_mY8jE   The Government is ordering it to be the RCR's regimental march in honour of Detroit.




What, and recind their time honoured favourite?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWjeITmDmmo


----------



## Danjanou

Damn youtube is blocked at work. Ah well I'll check it out tonight.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Well, I guess we've reached the end of useful exchange if we are reduced to taking cheap shots at regiments. Old Sweat, thank you for your suggestion that the most likely option will be primary source research through Library and Archives Canada for any of the affected regiments. It is unfortunate that some of this more detailed groundwork has not been made readily available by the various advocates of War of 1812 awards before this time, assuming that some of them have done the work to back up their proposals for so many new honours.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Michael,

Just some levity. I have all the respect in the world for your Regiment.

I did lose interest though when I couldn't get an answer on how this all got started and what part of it Mr Henderson and his group played in the initial approach to the government, if in fact, at all.


----------



## quadrapiper

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Well, I guess we've reached the end of useful exchange if we are reduced to taking cheap shots at regiments. Old Sweat, thank you for your suggestion that the most likely option will be primary source research through Library and Archives Canada for any of the affected regiments. It is unfortunate that some of this more detailed groundwork has not been made readily available by the various advocates of War of 1812 awards before this time, assuming that some of them have done the work to back up their proposals for so many new honours.


On a tangent, in this age of no defined front line, might it be time to revise just who gets battle honours? It would appear that all of HMC Ships are eligible - why not some similar allowance for traditionally noncombatant Army units that find themselves in a situation where a combatant unit would receive an honour?


----------



## Michael OLeary

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> On a tangent, in this age of no defined front line, might it be time to revise just who gets battle honours? It would appear that all of HMC Ships are eligible - why not some similar allowance for traditionally noncombatant Army units that find themselves in a situation where a combatant unit would receive an honour?



That suggestion is better as the start of a separate thread. It could be a worthy examination of many factors, such as the modern battlefield, the way we generate and deploy forces in the modern world and the nature of combat today.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That suggestion is better as the start of a separate thread. It could be a worthy examination of many factors, such as the modern battlefield, the way we generate and deploy forces in the modern world and the nature of combat today.



or a continuation

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27435.50.html


----------



## wheels031

Why should the Army wholeheartedly embrace the Battle Honours, the War of 1812,  awarded to present-day Regiments by political mandate ? How are these Battle Honours going to be explained to present-day soldiers ? 
These are good and valid questions. I do not have any answers that will satisfy all soldiers of their merits, but I will try and give an explanation. 

Since all of our original traditions have come down to us from the British Army, that has to be our start point. 
In 1881 a Committee under the Presidency of Gen Sir Archibald Alison, 2nd Bt, was appointed to look into the matter of granting Battle Honours, belatedly. Up to this time, Battle Honours had only been awarded for battles during the turbulent years between 1793 and 1815. Some Regiments, with over some 100 years of good and loyal service, still  had no Battle Honours on their Colours, even after the massive amalgamations of 1881. Alison’s committee came to the conclusion that, _“the names of such victories only should be retained as either, by themselves or by their results have left a mark in history which render their names familiar, not only to the British Army, but also to every educated gentleman”_. 
Again, in 1910, another committee, under the able Presidency of the Adjutant-General, had adjudicated what Alison’s Committee had decided on. The Regiments of the Army owe a deep debt of gratitude to the labour exerted by this Committee, although it was an incomplete job. Their task was by no means a light one. This committee was guided by two main principles in their selection of Battle Honours. One, _“that no distinction should be granted unless the Regimental Headquarters was present in the engagement”. Two, that Honours should only be conferred on Regiments with “a continuous history from the date of the action. A break in the direct genealogical succession would invalidate the claim”_. 
Despite these two qualifiers, Battle Honours Committees, have continued to give ‘lip service’ to the award of Battle Honours. They seemed to want to grant Honours … not in a greedy grab for Honours … but according to the circumstances prevailing at the time and place. Many Battle Honours awarded subsequently by these two Committees, when studied, do not meet the criteria as set down, but instead were awarded mostly according to results gained by what was achieved.
reference : Norman, CB, ‘Battle Honours of the British Army’, Chap XXVII, pgs 433-436; John Murray, 
                   Albemarle Street, W, London, 1911.

Now what do we as Canadians say ? This may (or may not) clear the ‘mud away’, so to speak. The Politicians have decreed and now the Army has to find a way to justify the award of 200 year old Battle Honours to our Regimental Soldiers, that have no direct lineal connection to them, only through ‘perpetuation’, as in the World War I Battle Honours. A lot of Militia Regiments are affected by these Battle Honours, as well as one regular Regiment … The Royal Canadian Regiment, which in 1958 gained a Reserve Battalion (the present 4th) (this time through amalgamation, 1954 was just an affiliation),which had been awarded ‘perpetuated’ Battle Honours for the First World War. 
We explain these Battle Honours the same way as we did the Reserve Battalion’s Battle Honours (YPRES 1915, ’17; GRAVENSTAFEL; ST JULIEN; FESTUBERT 1915; etc) when they were added to the Regiment’s list of Battle Honours. Only members, who are serving or have served, in the Regular 1st; 2nd and 3rd Battalions can tell how successful we were. 
My educated guess (for what it is worth) is that the battle honours during the WAR of 1812, will be awarded under the same terms as NORTH-WEST CANADA 1885, SOUTH AFRICA 1899-1900, WORLD WAR I; WORLD WAR II and KOREA 1951-1953 … this is all in accordance with the above 1881; 1910 British Committees (and all intervening Committees since) for the award of Battle Honours. 
During the War of 1812, the British Army in Upper Canada (no more than 1,200 men, mostly in HM 1st Bn, 41st Foot9) and the British Administration of the British North American Colonies, were willing to ‘right off’ the western part of Upper Canada, west of Burlington, in order to save the rest of Canada. There were few British troops there, mostly in scattered garrisons. He most westerly were at Fort Malden (Amherstburg), on the Detroit River and Fort St Joseph, (69 km north-east of Michilimackinac), at the confluence of Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron, and maybe the odd roving patrol to see to the training of the Militia, as well as to show the flag. 
Unlike Lower Canada, which been settled by the French and saw additional settlers arrive as United Empire Loyalists, after the American Revolutionary War, Upper Canada was a split Colony. The Niagara Peninsula and all of Upper Canada east of Burlington was heavily settled by United Empire Loyalists. West of Burlington, some 4/5th of the population were immigrants from the United States, whose motivation was ‘free land’ in exchange for swearing the Royal Oath to the King. They understood what the Militia was organized for and grudgingly accepted it. Mainly because the land was rich and plentiful. 
Upon the declaration of war these ex-American settlers were thrown into a quandary. Stay with the King, accommodate the invading US Army, stay neutral as long as far as possible or wholeheartedly join in on the American conquest.  Each person made their own decision. Some of these same people now were sworn, as members of the Militia, to defend this land. Some did, some did not. This made recruiting by the British Army very tricky and dangerous. It is a wonder that so many militiamen answered their duty according to their Royal Oath of Allegiance. 
It is with this background, the present day Army, will make the proper connections for perpetuation and award of battle honours. 
When Gen Hull invaded and captured Sandwich (really all he did was occupy it), he was stopped by the few soldiers of the 1st Bn, 41st Foot (garrisoned at Fort Malden) at the River Canard. Maj Gen Brock gathered up some 260 York Militiamen, and set sail for Fort Malden. He stopped at Fort George and collected some members of the Lincoln Militia, stopped at Long Point and picked up 40 soldiers of the 1/41st Foot and members of the Norfolk and Oxford Militias and stopped at Port Talbot and collected members of the Middlesex Militia. Arriving at Fort Malden, he was joined by the Essex and Kent Militias. When operations began in earnest to capture Detroit, Brock had a small force consisting of the following : 
          30 gunners, Royal Artillery 
          250 men, 1st Bn, 41st Foot (the bulk were at Fort George (HQs), York, Queenstown, Chippewa and Fort Erie)
          50 men Royal Newfoundland Fencibles Regiment
          400 Militiamen of York, Lincoln, Norfolk, Oxford, Middlesex, Essex and Kent
          600 Indians
         For a total of 1,330 all ranks. 
Maj Gen Brock dressed his Militiamen in British Regular Army Red Coats to visibly boost his numbers of Regukars to the Americans, as well as explaining that he can not control Tecumseh’s Indians once the walls of Fort Detroit are breached. Brig Gen Hull, fearing the result of an Indian incursion, surrendered to Maj Gen Brock some 2,500 soldiers. 
This result was huge. All of the Michigan Territory was surrendered to the Crown, and at the cost of only a few casualties. So yes, you would be correct in thinking this was a minor skirmish. 
However, the awarding of battle honours must be weighed in comparison to what was attained, with what one has. The Regiment of Oxford’s part (and in fact all units that took part, including 1st/41st Foot) was very small, when compared to the gigantic battles raging in Spain and Russia at the same time. But you must consider what was wagered and what could have been lost, but was won, when awarding battle honours. The 41s Foot was awarded the battle honour ‘DETROIT’ in 1847. They did nothing different than the Militia did. The only difference was that as many Militiamen as possible were dressed in Red Coats, to imitate Regular troops. 
In essence Maj Gen Brock wagered all of western Upper Canada, and won all of the Michigan Territory.

For a comparison as to what gets a Battle Honour and what does not, I would suggest, the Action of Givenchy on 15 Jun 1915 (in which Capt Frederick William Campbell earned his Victoria Cross). By World War I standards this was a minor trench raid in support of a British assault on their left, but the casualties suffered were in the hundreds of killed and wounded. Only the 1st Battalion, CEF attacked into the German front lines, supported by the rest of the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade. 
Casualties 1st Bn, CEF, 15 Jun 1915 : 20 (12 killed and 8 wounded) out of 23 Officers (27 Officers on 30 May 19150 and 346 (68 killed and 278 wounded) out of ??? Other Ranks (808 Other Ranks on 30 May 1915) killed, wounded and missing11. 

When weighed in the balance against the capture of Detroit, HM 41st Foot was awarded the Battle Honour ‘DETROIT’ (which was emblazoned on the Regimental Colour) but GIVENCHY was not even considered for a Battle Honour. 

To my way of thinking, the Army only has to look at what has happened in the past, and move forward and embrace these Battle Honours. The Royal Canadian Regiment has already accepted ‘perpetuated’ Battle Honours and has experience with this. After all, when ‘perpetuation’ is designated and the affected Regiments accept these ‘perpetuations’, any Battle Honours, belatedly awarded to a ‘perpetuated’ Regiment, belong to the entire Regiment. . 

*References* 
       1 - Stanley, George FG, ‘The War of 1812 : Land Operations’, Chap 4, pg 105.
       2 - Richard, John, ‘Richard’s War of 1812’. Notes and Life are edited by Alexander Clark Casselman, Coles 
            Pub Co Ltd, Toronto, Ont, 1974 (originally in 1902 by Historical Pub Co, Toronto, Ont) 
       3 - Stanley, George FG; The War of 1812, Land Operations. Canadian War Museum Historical Publication N0 
            18, 1983, MacMillan of Canada in co-operation with National Museum of Man, National Museums of 
            Canada, Chap  pg 4 106. 
       4 - Canada in the Great War, Vol 1, Military History of Canada; various authors; 1917. [ this reflects data up to 
            page 145, only ]
       5 - Auchinleck, Gilbert; A History of the War (1812-13-14); Arms & Armour Press in Assoc with Pendragon 
            Press; 1972; 85368-088-4.
       6 - The Annals of the War; JM Harper;
       7 - Cruikshank, EA; ‘Record of the Services of Canadian Regiments in the War of 1812, Part XI, The Militia of 
            Norfolk, Oxford and Middlesex”; Transactions of the Canadian Military Institute, 1907, Selected Papers, No 
           15 (Toronto, 1908), 47. 
       8 - Ermatinger, CO; ‘The Talbot Regime, or, The First Half Century of the Talbot Settlement’ (St Thomas, Ont,   
            1904), 50
       9 - Yaworsky, Jim. The Invalids in Action: The Battle of Portsmouth, 1783. October 28, 2003, Website of   
            Forty-First Regiment of Foot Military Living History Group, www.fortyfirst.org. 
     10 - Hitsman, J. MacKay. The Incredible War of 1812. Toronto, Robin Bass Studio. Updated by Donald E. 
            Graves, 1999, p.32.
     11 - The breakdown of Officer casualties of 12 killed out of 23 engaged and the total of Other Ranks casualties of 
            346, are according to Sir Max Aitken’s, “Canada in Flanders”, (1916), Chap VII, page 140. Also cited in a 
            “Toronto Star” newspaper article, dated 25 Jun 1915 from a Canadian Associated Press cable.  
            The “Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War, Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-
            1919”, by  Col GWL Nicholson, CD, Chap IV, page 107, cites the losses of the 1st Canadian Infantry 
            Battalion, CEF as, 20 Officers and 366 Other Ranks .
            The breakdown of the Other Ranks, killed, wounded and total engaged are my own, based on percentage of 
            figures given in Appendix 851 and Chap XIX, page 492 and 496 of Col A. F. Duguid’s, (1938), “Canadian 
            Forces in the Great War”, Vol 1, Part 1, as well as in.
            Wounded, includes those who were admitted to hospital, as well as those who later died of their wounds. 
            Those soldiers who were treated for wounds and returned to duty are not included in these totals.

vaya con Dios


----------



## Bill Smy

HRH The Countess of Wessex, Colonel-in-Chief of The Lincoln and Welland Regiment, will present new colours to her Regiment during the morning of Saturday, 18 September, at Queenston Heights.

The War of 1812 Battle Honour "Niagara" is emblazoned on the new Regimental Colour, and the Regiment is proud to be the first to carry a War of 1812 Battle Honour. Unfortunately, the Colour was manufacured and the plans for its presentation were made before the announcement of the grant of the BH "Detroit".

The Regimental will also carry First World War Battle Honours previously granted but just recently authourized for emblazonment.


----------



## Bill Smy

The Governor General has approved Battle Honours which may be emblazoned on Regimental Colours. The Honours and the Regiments to which they have been granted are:

 a) “ DETROIT ” (already announced August 15, 2012; Battle fought, August 15-16, 1812)

Royal Newfoundland Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment
Essex and Kent Scottish
Lincoln and Welland Regiment 
Queen’s York Rangers
Royal Canadian Regiment
Royal Hamilton Light Infantry

b) “ NIAGARA ” (already announced May 22, 2012 to regiments perpetuating the Incorporated Militia Battalion of Upper Canada)

Lincoln and Welland Regiment
Queen’s York Rangers
Brockville Rifles – Brockville , Ontario
Princess of Wales Own Regiment – Kingston , Ontario

and for the campaign on the Niagara peninsula that included the Battle of Lundy’s Lane; December 1813 – September 1814

Royal New Brunswick Regiment - Fredericton , New Brunswick
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders
56th Field Artillery Regiment
Essex and Kent Scottish
Royal Canadian Regiment – Petawawa , Ontario
Royal Hamilton Light Infantry 
c) “QUEENSTON” (Battle fought, October 13, 1812)

56th Field Artillery Regiment – Brantford , Ontario
Lincoln and Welland Regiment – St. Catharines , Ontario 
Queen’s York Rangers – Toronto , Ontario 
Royal Hamilton Light Infantry – Hamilton , Ontario

d) “ MAUMEE ” (Battle fought May 5, 1813 in northwest Ohio)
Royal Newfoundland Regiment – St. John’s , NL
Essex Kent Scottish – Windsor , Ontario

e) CHATEAUGUAY (Battle fought October 26, 1813)
Royal 22e Regiment – Quebec City
The Black Watch – Montreal , Quebec 
Canadian Grenadier Guards – Montreal , Quebec
Les Fusiliers du St. Laurent – Rimouski, Quebec
Le Regiment de la Chaudiere – Levis, Quebec
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec – Quebec City

f) CRYSLER’S FARM (Battle fought November 11, 1813)
 Royal 22e Regiment
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders – Cornwall , Ontario

g) “DEFENCE OF CANADA/DEFENSE DU CANADA, 1812- 15” (emblazoned “Theatre honour”, awarded for regiments perpetuating 1812 units that participated in any successful engagement in the defence of Canada; this theatre honour can be placed on the regimental colours)

Goes to all Units mentioned above, plus: 
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal – Montreal, Quebec
The Sherbrooke Hussars – Sherbrooke , Quebec (unit affiliated directly with Battle of Lacolle Mills)
Brockville Rifles – Brockville , Ontario
Princess of Wales Own Regiment – Kingston , Ontario

h) Unemblazoned Distinction “DEFENCE OF CANADA/DEFENSE DU CANADA, 1812- 15” (already announced, May 22, 2012; unemblazoned distinction, awarded to regiments perpetuating any 1812 unit; this distinction cannot be placed on regimental colours but can be placed on other regimental instruments, such as drums, colour sergeant sash, etc.)

Goes to all units mentioned above, plus: 

84th Independent Field Battery – Yarmouth , Nova Scotia
1st Battalion, Nova Scotia Highlanders – Truro , Nova Scotia
West Nova Scotia Regiment – Aldershot , Nova Scotia
3rd Field Artillery Regiment – St. John , New Brunswick
8th Canadian Hussars – Moncton , New Brunswick
2nd Field Artillery Regiment – Montreal , Quebec
12 Regiment blinde de Canada – Trois Rivieres, Quebec
Royal Canadian Hussars – Montreal Quebec
7th Toronto Regiment – Toronto , Ontario
The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment – Cobourg, Ontario
31 Combat Engineer Regiment – St. Thomas , Ontario


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> The Governor General has approved Battle Honours which may be emblazoned on Regimental Colours ....


And here's the official news releases, from the PM's office during a visit to Quebec ....





> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today paid tribute to military regiments who successfully defended Canada during the War of 1812 by announcing that battle honours will be awarded to select regiments with ties to units who won decisive battles in the war.
> 
> “Canada’s victory in the War of 1812 was a pivotal point in the development of our great country,” said Prime Minister Harper. “During that war, the French, English and Aboriginal peoples took up arms together to achieve a common objective, to resist the American invasion. The ties our ancestors forged laid the foundations of a truly pan-Canadian identity and made our Confederation possible, a country of great diversity with two national languages.”
> 
> In commemoration of the War of 1812, the Prime Minister announced the awarding of  Battle Honours that will commemorate the contribution of regiments who participated in successful engagements in the defence of Canada during the War of 1812.
> 
> While in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix, The Prime Minister announced that first, the Theatre Honour  “DEFENCE OF CANADA – 1812-1815 – DÉFENSE DU CANADA”, will be awarded to current regiments of the Canadian Army in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada that perpetuate or commemorate 1812 units that participated in a successful engagement against an armed enemy during the war.
> 
> In keeping with Canada’s policy of military perpetuation adopted after the First World War, this honour will be able to be placed on the Colours of the regiment to honour the soldiers who are  key part of Canadian history. This honour, which recognizes the deeds and sacrifices made by these soldiers, will allow the current unit to act as the safe-keeper of their heritage.
> 
> To further recognize the participation of units in battles that were particularly pivotal for the defence of Canada, those regiments linked to six decisive engagements of the War of 1812 will also be able to place these very specific, new Canadianbattle honours on their regimental colours. These battles are:  Niagara, Queenston, Maumee, Châteauguay and Crysler’s Farm and, as previously announced, Detroit.
> 
> The regiments of the Canadian Army that are being recognized through these honours are:
> 
> •The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC);
> •The Sherbrooke Hussars;
> •The Royal Canadian Hussars (Montreal);
> •56th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA;
> •The Royal Canadian Regiment;
> •Royal 22e Régiment;
> •The Canadian Grenadier Guards;
> •The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada;
> •Les Voltigeurs de Québec;
> •The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth Regiment);
> •The Princess of Wales Own Regiment;
> •The Lincoln and Welland Regiment;
> •The Brockville Rifles;
> •The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders;
> •Les Fusiliers du St-Laurent;
> •Le Régiment de la Chaudière;
> •Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal;
> •1st Battalion, The Royal New Brunswick Regiment;
> •The North Shore (New Brunswick) Regiment;
> •The Essex and Kent Scottish;
> •The Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
> On the occasion of the dedication of the monument to Major General Sir Isaac Brock at Queenston Heights in 1853, William Hamilton Merritt, who had served as a young militia Lieutenant at that battle, requested of his audience that the importance of that sacrifice not be lost on the rising generation.
> 
> It is in that same spirit that the Government of Canada has honoured regiments of the Canadian Army that are linked to the War of 1812. These proud regiments will now carry on this illustrious history with pride and dedication for the generations to come.



.... and from the Minister of National Defence during a visit to Toronto:





> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today highlighted that numerous Canadian Forces units will be awarded perpetuation of historical units that fought in the War of 1812 and, therefore, inherit  Battle Honours for  engagements that were of critical importance for the defence of Canada during the War. The announcement was made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on September 14, 2012.
> 
> “Our Government is committed to support our men and women in uniform and to commemorate Canada’s military heritage,” said Minister MacKay. “I am pleased to be here to honour those regiments and soldiers whose decisive actions throughout the War of 1812 protected Canada and allowed our country to emerge as a free and independent nation within North America.”
> 
> As part of the commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, the federal Government committed to honouring the memory of all who served during the war. To recognize the gallantry of thousands of early Canadians who fought to defend their homeland during the war,  current Canadian Army regiments that perpetuate War of 1812 units that fought in six key engagements and campaigns that were pivotal to the defence of Canada will be awarded the following Battle Honours: ‘DETROIT’, ‘QUEENSTON’, ‘MAUMEE,’ ‘NIAGARA,’ ‘CHÂTEAUGUAY,’ and ‘CRYSLER’S FARM.’
> 
> Furthermore, His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, has recently authorized the creation of an emblazonable Theatre Honour and a non-emlazonable Honorary Distinction, both entitled “DEFENCE OF CANADA – 1812-1815 – DÉFENSE DU CANADA”. These new unit honours will also be awarded to historical Canadian  units that participated in a successful engagement in the defence of Canada.  These units will, in turn, be perpetuated by current serving Canadian Army units and will therefore be able to place this Theatre Honour on their regimental colours.
> 
> Personnel from the Queen’s York Rangers (1st American Regiment), and 7 Toronto Regiment (Royal Canadian Artillery) were present today to accept these honours, representing Ontario units that perpetuate the historical units that fought in the War of 1812.  The historic ties these units share with their communities are only strengthened by this recognition.
> 
> “The War of 1812 helped to develop Canada’s military forces, and the same spirit of sacrifice and sense of duty of our military forebearers are valued in today's soldiers,” said Brigadier-General Julian Chapman, Deputy Commander of Land Force Central Area. “As we move forward, and continue to fulfill our mission to defend Canada, and North America, and to contribute to international peace and security, we carry those lessons and traditions with us.”
> 
> The War of 1812 was instrumental in the development of Canada’s military history and established the basis of the Canada we know today – an independent and free country with  a constitutional monarchy and  its own parliamentary system. The Government of Canada and the Canadian Forces are proud to commemorate the achievements of those early Canadian soldiers and sailors who fought in the War of 1812.
> 
> The 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 is an opportunity for all Canadians to take pride in our history and to pay tribute to our founders, defining historical moments, and the heroes who fought for Canada.



More on exactly who gets what on the colours here in the CF's Backgrounder.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I decided to add this link since it looks at the actual participation of named units of militia at the battle of Detroit, based on the Prize Money List for the action.

Battle Honours; DETROIT (16 August 1812)

The 302 men of the British 41st Regiment won a single battle honour, the 774 men of the Canadian Militia have been awarded eleven (now perpetuated by six regiments (five infantry and one artillery). 


Edit: corrected eight to eleven separate awards (three of which were combined with other in the field)


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

and the 8 honours awarded  to regiments in this list doesn't even include the Newfoundlanders  (who I see did get the honour according to the announcement of honours  list, was about to get all annoyed) or the Provincial Marine Department get nothing at all (apparently) despite contributing ~10% of the total force of "men".


----------



## Danjanou

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I decided to add this link since it looks at the actual participation of named units of militia at the battle of Detroit, based on the Prize Money List for the action.
> 
> Battle Honours; DETROIT (16 August 1812)
> 
> The 302 men of the British 41st Regiment won a single battle honour, the 774 men of the Canadian Militia have been awarded eight (now perpetuated by six regiments (five infantry and one artillery).



Not sure I follow your logic here. The Canadian Militia units were also awarded a single battle honour for this action DETROIT. Yes more than one unit was awarded it, eight, now six units were awarded it which makes sense as more than one unit was present and took part in the battle. The wording in your post makes it sound like eight separate battle honours were created for this one action. Incidentally the 41st Regiment were awarded a total of four Battles Honours for their service in North America from 1812-14, Detroit, Queenstown, Miami, and Niagara


----------



## Michael OLeary

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Not sure I follow your logic here. The Canadian Militia units were also awarded a single battle honour for this action DETROIT. Yes more than one unit was awarded it, eight, now six units were awarded it which makes sense as more than one unit was present and took part in the battle. The wording in your post makes it sound like eight separate battle honours were created for this one action. Incidentally the 41st Regiment were awarded a total of four Battles Honours for their service in North America from 1812-14, Detroit, Queenstown, Miami, and Niagara



Eleven units of the Canadian Militia of the War of 1812 were selected to be awarded the battle honour DETROIT. This unfortunately was done without the consideration for actual unit actions and levels of participation that we see in use for all previously existing battle honour awards. The published "Prize Money List" shows the number of personnel from each identified unit that were actually considered to be involved in the actions that led to the surrender of Detroit. As a result of these awards being driven by lists of units present rather than any more detailed examination, the result is a wide variance in the levels of participation, from the 540 soldiers of the three Regiments of Militia that are now perpetuated by the Essex and Kent Scottish, down to the 14 men from the two Regiments now perpetuated by The Royal Canadian Regiment. One of the two Regiments of Militia leading to the latter perpetuation was represented by a single officer listed on the Prize Money List, but by the way in which these awards were developed, he alone was enough for the award of a battle honour to a Regiment of Militia.


----------



## wheels031

To give some sort of substance as to what happened to the actual Militia Units that participated in the War of 1812, the following is what I have found out about the evolution of the Canadian Reserve Force (ex-Militia), since its formation in 1669 :

*First Canadian Militia Order, 03 Apr 166*9 : King Louis XVI of France ordered Governor Courcelles of New France, to divided his Canadian subjects into Companies, select Captains, Lieutenants and Ensigns to command, and ordered that they assemble once per month to practice the handling of Arms. He also ordered that these same men be always armed and provided with powder, lead and fuses as needed for their arms. This was the official birth of the Canadian Militia1 & 2.

*1763* : Upon the ceding of Canada by France to Britain, the British kept, intact,  the French obligation to serve in the Militia.

*Militia Ordinance of Canada, 1777* : re-instituted the French Act of 1669 and formalized it into law. In 1791 it was extended to Upper Canada when it was severed from Lower Canada. This Ordnance required the Militia to meet on four Sundays (June & July) per year. It was these Units that were called out for  the War of 18123.

*Militia General Order No. 1 of 05 Nov 1846* (for the United Provinces of Lower & Upper Canada)
Issued by Colonel Plomer Young, Adjutant General, provided for an "active" quota up to 30,000 to be selected by voluntary enlistment from the Sedentary Militia, or by ballot if this quota was unfulfilled In summary, I believe this to mean that from 1846 to 1855 the "active" militia existed alongside the Sedentary Militia but units were only of company size, and it was only after passage of a new Act in 1855 that battalions came into existence.

*Militia Act of 19 May 1855* (effective as of 01 Jul 1855): divided the Militia of the Province of Canada into : 
     1 - The existing Sedentary Militia (consisting of all males, between 18 and 60 years, to be compulsory organized into Infantry 
          Regiments (a total of 57), Battalions (a total of 334) and an unknown number of Companies), and
     2 - A new Active (or Voluntary) Militia (consisting of Cavalry Troops, Field Artillery Batteries, Foot Artillery Companies, 
          Infantry/Rifle Companies, Engineer Companies, as well as Volunteer Marine Companies). 
Since the new Active (Voluntary) Militia was voluntary was armed, uniform and paid for training, all at Government expense, whereas the Sedentary Militia was compulsory and only received I days pay for the yearly Militia Muster, if they showed up. 
This is the time when the Active Militia started to assume a superiority over the Sedentary Militia. 

*Militia General Order of 16 Aug 1855* : mandated that each Volunteer, for the new Active Militia, had to sign a paper which obligated him to serve for five years, upon joining his chosen Active Militia Unit. 

*1864* : The Sedentary Militia is designated as the Non-Service Militia. 

*Militia Act of 1868* : the Non-Service Militia (originally the Sedentary Militia) was still compulsorily enrolled but re-designated as the  Reserve Militia. They numbered some 618,000 militiamen in 1869. The Active Militia had definitely taken a priority over the Sedentary Militia. 

*Formation of the Regular Force, 20 Oct 1871* : ‘A’ (at Kingston, Ont) and ‘B’ (Quebec City, Quebec) Garrison Artillery Batteries are formed to act as Schools of Gunnery. The Regular Force was later identified as the Permanent Active Militia and the Active Militia was later identified as the Non-Permanent Active Militia. 

*1873* : The Reserve Militia (originally the Sedentary Militia) is enrolled for the last time. 

*Militia Act of 1904* : the Reserve Militia was still existent (as a means to call a ‘levee-en-mass’ in case of conflict), but no longer formally organized.  

*1906* : upon the withdrawal of the last British Units in garrison in Canada the Department of Militia and Defence is formed to administrate the Permanent Active Militia (PAM) and the Non-Permanent Active Militia (NPAM). 
  
*04 May 1910* : The Naval Service of Canada is formed. 

*30 Jan 1911* : The Naval Service of Canada (now designated as the Royal Canadian Navy) is transferred as a component of the Department of Marine and Fisheries which was re-designated as the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Naval Service. 

*Act of Parliament of 06 Jun 1919* : The Air Board is created. 

*1921* : the Royal Canadian Navy is transferred from the Department of Marine Fisheries and the Naval Services, and joined to the Department of Militia and Defence under the title of the Department of Militia and Defence and the Naval Service. 

*National Defence Act of 01 Jan 1923* : The Department of Militia and the Defence, with the Department of the Naval Services and the Air Board are merged into the Department of National Defence. 

*King’s Regulations and Orders for 1939* : the Reserve Militia was maintained for ‘levee-en-mass’ purposes, but entirely disappeared during war-time legislation regarding the organization of the Canadian Army. 

*1950* : The Reserve Militia is officially abolished. 

*Unification of 01 Feb 1968* : The term "Canadian Forces" only came into formal usage by the Canadian military upon the unification of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force (at first the term was ‘Canadian Armed Forces’, but after the 1980s the term was shortened to ‘Canadian Forces’ for official purposes). 

NOTES
     1 - AC (Archives nationales de France, Colonies), CI IA, Vol. 125, f. 32. Paris, April 3, 1669. Louis XIV to Courcelles.
     2 - CANADIAN MILITARY HERITAGE Vol 1 (1000-1754) [ http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/index-eng.asp ]
     3 - PRO, Colonial Office 42, Vol. 36, John Burgoyne to Lord Germain, Quebec, May 14, 1777

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## Rocky Mountains

wheels031 said:
			
		

> *King’s Regulations and Orders for 1939* : the Reserve Militia was maintained for ‘levee-en-mass’ purposes, but entirely disappeared during war-time legislation regarding the organization of the Canadian Army.
> 
> *1950* : The Reserve Militia is officially abolished.
> 
> 
> 
> vaya con Dios
> John



Understanding that "MILITIA" was a term for both the reserves and the regular army known as the non-permanent militia and permanent militia respectively.  While the terminology changed, nothing else did.


----------



## wheels031

> Understanding that "MILITIA" was a term for both the reserves and the regular army known as the non-permanent militia and permanent militia respectively.  While the terminology changed, nothing else did.



Rocky Mountains, you are correct in that the Militia was divided between the PAM (Regular) and NPAM (Reserve). However, you had better study the evolution of the 'original' militia, described in my last post. The Reserve Militia (which is the term that was used for the Sedentary Militia), contained all the Militia that fought in the War of 1812. The term PAM and NPAM only came into existence on 20 Oct 1871 and these two terms disappeared during war-time (WW II) legislation regarding the organization of the Canadian Army. 

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## Michael OLeary

wheels031 said:
			
		

> To give some sort of substance as to what happened to the actual Militia Units that participated in the War of 1812, the following is what I have found out about the evolution of the Canadian Reserve Force (ex-Militia), since its formation in 1669 :



The "actual Militia Units that participated in the War of 1812" existed between 1812 and 1815, e.g, "1st Regiment of Essex Militia (1812-15)". That point is very clearly identified in perpetuated honours published by the Government. Any attempt to link these to some sort of ongoing lineage is incorrect. You are getting nowhere by trying to bury this discussion in unnecessary and unrelated information.


----------



## wheels031

> The "actual Militia Units that participated in the War of 1812" existed between 1812 and 1815, e.g, "1st Regiment of Essex Militia (1812-15)". That point is very clearly identified in perpetuated honours published by the Government. Any attempt to link these to some sort of ongoing lineage is incorrect. You are getting nowhere by trying to bury this discussion in unnecessary and unrelated information.



What part of my post (Reply #250), did you not understand ? Maybe you should investigate the source documents and contents, as they are are not of my making. 

The Militia of 1812-1815 and the Sedentary Militia (officially abolished in 1950) of the same time period, are one and the same. If you have evidence to the contrary, of Reply #250, would you  please present it, in order that we may all be correctly informed. 

The information is relevant to the discussion. If you say it is not, please explain yourself. 

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## SeaKingTacco

op:

Here we go again...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> op:
> 
> Here we go again...




Yup, pass the popcorn SKT.....


----------



## OldSolduer

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yup, pass the popcorn SKT.....



Ditto and down the rabbit hole we go.


----------



## Michael OLeary

wheels031 said:
			
		

> What part of my post (Reply #250), did you not understand ? Maybe you should investigate the source documents and contents, as they are are not of my making.
> 
> The Militia of 1812-1815 and the Sedentary Militia (officially abolished in 1950) of the same time period, are one and the same. If you have evidence to the contrary, of Reply #250, would you  please present it, in order that we may all be correctly informed.
> 
> The information is relevant to the discussion. If you say it is not, please explain yourself.
> 
> vaya con Dios
> John



John, the source documents may not be of your making, but your interpretation of them certainly is.

I believe I was quite clear when I pointed out that the perpetuated units of the War of 1812 were those that existed solely between 1812 and 1815. I even directed you to the online source document for that. Battle Honours for the War of 1812 were created by the Canadian Government in 2012, and the right of perpetuation was granted to modern regiments based on their presence in the same communities from which the War of 1812 units were raised. There is no issue of lineage continuity such as you continue to try to proclaim.

You can beat your drum here, or on The RCR Forum, all you want; having others give up in frustration does not mean you are correct.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

I suspect most battle honours granted in the Canadian Army ignore Mr. O'Leary's rules.  Many of those granted for 1885 and almost all for South Africa and WWI were not directly earned by the unit claiming them.  Every mobilization in Canadian history is unique and carrying Mr. O'Leary's line of reasoning, only the RCR and PPCLI would have WWI battle honours which I'm sure is okay with him, but hardly practical.


----------



## George Wallace

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I suspect most battle honours granted in the Canadian Army ignore Mr. O'Leary's rules.  Many of those granted for 1885 and almost all for South Africa and WWI were not directly earned by the unit claiming them.  Every mobilization in Canadian history is unique and carrying Mr. O'Leary's line of reasoning, only the RCR and PPCLI would have WWI battle honours which I'm sure is okay with him, but hardly practical.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many Units who have rightfully earned their Battle Honours for NW Canada, battles during the Boer War, and WW I.  The Royal Canadian Dragoons have Battle Honours for NW Canada.  Both The RCD and The RCR, also served in the Yukon Field Force.  Both sent members over to serve in Siberia.  Both The RCD and The Lord Strathcona Horse (RC) have Battle Honours for South Africa, along with The RCR.  The PPCLI were not even raised until 1914, so their participation in both NW Canada and the Boer War would not have been possible. 

Although many of the units in the First World War were "numbered" units, they were perpetuated by current units of the CAF.  If you look at all Canadian units, you will find that they do have numbers somewhere in their historical backgrounds.  Being familiar with the Prince Edward Island Regiment, an example would be that their number in the order of Armour Regiments is 17 as depicted on their hatbadge by the "XVII".   

Back to the RCD; they have earned all the following Battle Honours under the name of The Royal Canadian Dragoons, no matter what other name they may have originally been sent into battle under:
North West Canada 1885, South Africa 1900, Festubert 1915, Somme 1916 '18, Bazentin, Pozières, Flers-Courcelette, Cambrai 1917 '18, St. Quentin, Amiens, Hindenburg Line, St. Quentin Canal, Beaurevoir, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1915–18, Liri Valley, Gothic Line, Lamone Crossing, Misano Ridge, Sant' Angelo-in-Salute, Fosso Vecchio, Italy 1944–45, Groningen, Bad Zwischenahn, North-West Europe 1945


----------



## Old Sweat

Further to what George posted, please substantiate your statement re battle honours granted for 1885.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I suspect most battle honours granted in the Canadian Army ignore Mr. O'Leary's rules.  Many of those granted for 1885 and almost all for South Africa and WWI were not directly earned by the unit claiming them.  Every mobilization in Canadian history is unique and carrying Mr. O'Leary's line of reasoning, only the RCR and PPCLI would have WWI battle honours which I'm sure is okay with him, but hardly practical.



Well done Rocky Mountains at putting all kinds of words into my mouth, and all completely wrong.

What rules do you think I am applying? I have not yet questioned any rules for the allocation of Battle Honours that have been documented, and have all those that I have available posted on my own website. 

I have not questioned the award of 1812 Battle Honours, they were granted by the Canadian Government in 2012 to existing units of the Canadian Army in perpetuation of War of 1812 units (with no reference to the intervening period, 1815-2012, other than to establish which current unit is in the same recruiting locality).

I have not questioned Perpetuation. In fact I have spent quite some effort on illuminating this poorly understood concept. In particular, I have examined the Battle Honours of each extant Armour and Infantry regiment to show how their lists of Battle Honours evolved to their current state. I have, in fact, been quite prolific in explaining this within the context of my own Regiment:


How Many Battle Honours?
1915: The Beaches of Bermuda and the Battlefields of Belgium
Great War Battle Honours Revisited; 25 or 49?
Battle Honours; Geographical and Chronological Limits

The underlying question in this discussion is what effort has been made to differentiate the mass of "Canadian Militia" at War of 1812 actions to show the roles taken by each Regiment of Militia to earn their Battle Honour. I would welcome those details, if you have them available. 

Perhaps I have missed something in the little work I have done on Canadian Battle Honours. Please share your research with us.

By the way, you can also see the awards of Battle Honours for 1885 on my website at these links:


Units of the Permanent Force
Units of the Non-Permanent Active Militia


----------



## wheels031

> Being familiar with the Prince Edward Island Regiment, an example would be that their number in the order of Armour Regiments is 17 as depicted on their hatbadge by the "XVII".



George Wallace, your example (in the quote above) does not hold ‘water’, at this time. 
The Prince Edward Island Regiment is an _amalgamated Regiment, formed in 1946_, from 2 former Infantry Regiments, 1 former Cavalry Regiment and 1 former Artillery Regiment. 
The Cavalry Regiment was the 36th, and last Cavalry Regiment, formed by Canada, in 1914. 
The present Regiment was formed by these four Regiments in 1946. 
The Number 17 comes from The Prince Edward Island Light Horse (the ex 36th Prince Edward Island Light Horse), who were converted to Armour in 1941 as the 17th (Reserve) Armoured Regiment. 
The Regiment’s cap-badge simply displays the number *17*, because that was their original number on the Roll of Canadian Armoured Regiments in 1941, when they were transferred to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps. 
In 1964, their seniority, on the Armoured Roll was 13th. In 2013 their seniority is now 9th, on the Reserve List. 

Just *what is the point that you are making* here, as it relates to this thread ?  Am i missing something ? or are you not explaining yourself, as to be understood , properly ?

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## wheels031

George Wallace, what you said has some sense, but it is not true in all cases. Take the example of the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), their original number was 7th in the Infantry Roll, but this number had nothing to do with seniority. Their original numbered (and seniority) was to be 23rd, but a Quebec Regiment, numbered 7th was disbanded  The Government of the day did not want to leave a blank spot of the list of Infantry Regiments, so the Cdn Fus were numbered as 7th, on their date of origin. Yes, the Cdn Fus did indeed have a number 7 on their cap-badge. But I will grant you, that in most cases what you said about numbers on cap-badges is usually true, but not always. 
You have to investigate the Regiment's lineage to understand what their number stands for. 

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## wheels031

> I believe I was quite clear when I pointed out that the perpetuated units of the War of 1812 were those that existed solely between 1812 and 1815. I even directed you to the online source document for that.



Thank you for pointing this out, I found it very helpful, but your conclusion is _not entirely correct_. 
Would you be referring to; _‘The War of 1812 Canadian Awards Sorted by Current Units (BG 12.052 - September 25, 2012)’_, under the column titled; _‘Canadian Historic Unit Perpetuated or British Historic Unit being Commemorated_ ? 
I will grant you that some of the Sedentary Militia Units ‘called-out’ during the war were war-raised; as in; “8th Battalion, Select Embodied Militia”; “1st Lotbinière Division”; “Battalion of Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada”; etc. These were Units that were formed from members of the Sedentary Militia Units, either volunteers or (to use a modern term) draftees. 

On your web page of Canadian Battle Honours; War of 1812; I noticed that you added the dates in brackets, as in (1812-1815) after every Sedentary Militia Unit that was ‘called-out’ for active duty during the war. However, you failed to add these same bracketed dates after every war-raised Unit. Possibly this is the Government’s err that you followed. 

If so, this is a _comprehensive, but mixed, list of both ‘war-raised’ and ‘Sedentary Militia’ Units_. You will have to search the various histories of these Units to understand what I mean by this. 
As for any (Sedentary) Militia Units that fought in the War of 1812, about _two-thirds of those listed were war-raised Units_, during the war and speedily disbanded in 1815. But, about _one-third of these Units, were Units of the Sedentary Militia, who were ‘called-out’_, from time to time, during the war, and _‘stood -down’ in 1815_, but, they continued to be in existence, until they were officially abolished in 1950. 

Again, I stress and maintain that due to their abolishment (effectively in 1904 and officially in 1950) _there was no lineage after 1950_, to any unit raised after 1855 (the present Regular and Reserve Army. 
What the Government ‘manufactured’ in 2012, was the ‘perpetuations’ (using coincidence of geography) of most of these Units, to Units that exist to-day, and, as you well know, *perpetuation never  involves ‘lineage’.* 

Michael, I believe that we have both misunderstood each other, as well as, misunderstood the published material and source documents. The dates of Reply #250 are (as you admitted) real dates and the comments, have not been interpreted to enhance my case, but are the various authors, comments. 



> There is no issue of lineage continuity such as you continue to try to proclaim.



Reply #250 clearly states, that the Sedentary Militia, which fought in the War of 1812, was _officially abolished in 1950_. I’ve known that, since day one, and I never said anything to the contrary, nor even proclaimed it as fact. There is _no unit of the Sedentary Militia that has a lineage to the present Regular or Reserve Army of to-day_. 



> ……. having others give up in frustration does not mean you are correct.



No, _I do not want to win anything, especially by default_. All I am after is the truth of the matter and this seems to be sadly lacking in many areas. I could be wrong in some or all of my conclusions, but please, do not say that I am wrong without verifiable proof. Please point out where I went astray and why I am in error. 

Thank you, Michael, for all the help you have been, to me and all others, on this thread. 

vaya con Dios
John


----------



## Michael OLeary

wheels031 said:
			
		

> On your web page of Canadian Battle Honours; War of 1812; I noticed that you added the dates in brackets, as in (1812-1815) after every Sedentary Militia Unit that was ‘called-out’ for active duty during the war. However, you failed to add these same bracketed dates after every war-raised Unit. Possibly this is the Government’s err that you followed.



I would suggest that the reason for this distinction is that the war-raised units were afterwards disbanded and did not need limiting dates in order to establish that the perpetuated period is limited to the years of the War of 1812. The purpose, I suspect, is to hold the perpetuation to the elements of each unit that were engaged, and to intentionally avoid the likelihood of people trying to extend that perpetuation to the count regiments over longer periods.


----------



## wheels031

> I would suggest that the reason for this distinction is that the war-raised units were afterwards disbanded and did not need limiting dates in order to establish that the perpetuated period is limited to the years of the War of 1812. The purpose, I suspect, is to hold the perpetuation to the elements of each unit that were engaged, and to intentionally avoid the likelihood of people trying to extend that perpetuation to the count regiments over longer periods.



This idea never occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for your thoughts. 

vaya con Dios
John


----------

