# The War of 1812 Merged Thread



## MAJOR_Baker

A couple of weeks ago I was watching the History Channel and they had a special on the War of 1812.  I was surprised because I never knew the following facts:

a. US Forces burned the Parliment Bldgs in York
b. Victorious British Forces after Burning much of Washington D.C. were struck by a hurricane and then a Tornado (killed more British Soldiers than engaging US Militia) during their march back to Northern Virgina.   The Hurricane put out the fires that the British soldiers started. 
c. One of the Bones of contention was the forced impressment of US Sailors into the British Navy.  The British recinded the practice 1 day before the British Government outlawed it.


----------



## Figure11

There is much about this conflict which is little known on both sides of the border. The best account of this sorry episode, in my opinion, is contained in "The Path of Destiny" by Thos. H. Raddall. Out of print for many years, it presents a very readable, yet detailed account of many of the major actions. The volume itself is part of a greater set of a history of Canada initially published back in the fifties.   If you can find it, what you read may surprise you.


----------



## Danjanou

Maj Baker

Here's a rather good beginners guide to the War of 1812 site with assorted links etc:

http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812.htm


----------



## Inch

We spent a few lectures on the War of 1812 in my HIE 202 course at RMC.  My favourite story as told by LCol Bashow, goes a little something like this.

I think it was Tecumseh, he was leading about 200-300 Indian warriors to fight the Americans at Fort Detroit. Keep in mind that the Americans were terrified of the Indians, mostly because of all the stories about scalping and such, you know how things get exaggerated. Well, Tecumseh knew this and had his men march past the fort, then sneak back around and march past again, they kept doing this all day. The whole time the Americans, all 2000 of them, are watching this thinking there was the biggest Indian army they had ever seen getting ready to attack and that they were in for a total slaughter when the Indians did attack.  Finally, the Fort commander said "to hell with this", or something to that effect,  and they surrendered the fort without a shot fired.

Cheers


----------



## 104thNBR

Also at Ft Detroit, Gen Brock had the Militia dress in red coats to make the Yanks think that he had regulars with him. I think he had a total of about 600 troops with him including Tecumseh and his warriors. 

This war was the real birth of both the US and of Canada (in my opinion) Even though the US lost the war (they still think they won) they won respect from the then super power England.  Canada gained a self awareness, it also cemented a bond between upper and lower Canada and the Maritime region that eventually brought them togeather as one country.

The US army was born during this war.  Windfield Scott who at the beginning of the war was a Capt of Arty rose to Gen.  His Brigade at Lundys lane stood toe to toe with British regulars and gave as good as they got, even though his brigade was shot up and had to with draw it showed that with Drill and discipline the British could be taken on.  Up to this point in the war most units were comanded by political offerers and training was almost Nil.  Scott changed that.  His Brigade was clothed in there gray fatigue dress because there reg Blue uniforms had not arrived.  that is way today cadets at west point are dressed in gray.

On a side note one of my ancestors on my fathers side served with the 104th New Brunswick reg during the War of 1812, and made the winter march from Fredericton to Kingston.


----------



## Bill Smy

Actually, the grey uniforms now worn by West Point cadets trace their history to the  Battle of Chippawa, not Lundy's Lane.

Another error in the history of this war creeps into Canadian nationalistic rants which state that "we" Canadians burnt the White House. There were no Canadian units on that expedition.


----------



## 104thNBR

You are right about Chippawa, what I should have added was that it was during this campain (invasion) Scott made his appearance with his Brigade.  Scott was at the battle of Queensten heights and was captured when the Militia refused to cross the river, siting that they did not have the right to invade an other country, but I believe that they where scared to death of the Natives.


----------



## pbi

The War of 1812 is certainly much more interesting than popular US attitudes would have one think. As far as I can determine, US consciousness (outside a limited circle of military history buffs) of the conflict is limited to the pointless battle of New Orleans. I have a suspicion that some aspects of the war may be somewhat embarassing to the US self-image and thus tend to be glossed over. It certainly was a less than stellar display (although there were some able US leaders).

The war, if studied in detail, also gives Canadians a kick in the ass on several accounts, as opposed to the "National Myth" propagated by Bishop Strachan. Anyboy care to speculate what some of these less well-known or glorious points might be? Cheers.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok why not PBI as long as we're going to have a grown up discussion on it as opposed to some military boards where this cross border topic quickly turns into a nationalistic dick.. er flag waving contest.

Myth 1: The so called Militia Myth that had us believing that brave Canadian farm boys dropped their axes and ploughs grabbed their muskets rallied to the colours and drove off the invading Yankee hordes with little help form the professional British regular garrisons.

Not to degenerate the role of the select and embodied militia in the conflict especially in Upper Canada at Detroit and Queenston, but after 1812 they were mostly used in a line of communications and support role, freeing up the British and Canadian regular units to do most of the "fighting. Notable exception being Chateauguay in Lower Canada where Salaberry's mixed force of Indians, Canadian Militia (mostly French Canadian from Lower Canada), and Fencibles beat back a much larger American force by themselves.

Many argue that this "Myth" perpetuated throughout the 19th Century and delayed the development of a professional Military in this country. Ironically the same war helped the US get rid of a similar "minute man" idea when they realised that they needed a larger trained well led regular standing army because the state militias and volunteers were for the most part not up to the job. Brig General Scott as noted earlier was one of the key proponents in this.

Myth 2: All Canadians repelled or were against the invasion. While areas settled by the UELs were strongly against the invading and at times occupying troops, this was not the case for all inhabitants of BNA especially in Upper Canada. While most of the population here were recent arrivals from the United States. Many were Loyalists true, but quite a substantial number had little of no political views and came for the land. As such this group were at best neutral during the conflict and at worst supported it secretly or openly. The Canadian unit that fought alongside the US forces in Niagara being the prime example.

Again ironically part of the planning for the War and invasion by US politicians counted on this factor. They overestimated of course presuming that the entire population would flock to them and return to the fold so to speak. Hence Jefferson's comment that "the Invasion of Canada would be a mere matter of marching."


----------



## QORvanweert

Danjanou said:
			
		

> The Canadian unit that fought alongside the US forces in Niagara being the prime example.



 Yes, I was wondering which unit this was?


----------



## Danjanou

Joseph Willcocks a former of the Upper Canada Assembly an rather verbal opponent of Brock there commanded a small mounted body of turncoats called the Canadian Volunteers that operated in the Niagara region in 1813 in areas that had been captured by US forces. (Newark etc). They confined themselves to scouting operations, small raids, including burning Loyalists farms. They were often engaged in skirmishes with the Bloody Boys a small guerrilla unit commanded by Fitzgibbon and the Provincial Dragoons commanded by Hamilton Merrit

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/brit_upcan.html

http://members.tripod.com/~war1812/newark.html


----------



## pbi

That's good Danjanou. That's the two big ones I had in mind. On the issue of the loyalty of recent arrivals from the US, I believe that the Southwestern part of Upper Canada, from London down toward Windsor, was a particularly disloyal area. On Willcocks, IIRC he or some of his Canadian Volunteers were hung at the Ancaster Assizes during the war.

I think the US finds Chateaugai particularly embarassing because their national mythology tells them that that was the sort of thing they did to the British, not the other way around. Blundering about in formation in the woods and getting shot at by folks hiding behind trees and playing tricks on you is supposed to happen to those dumb Redcoats. Cheers.


----------



## Danjanou

pbi said:
			
		

> On the issue of the loyalty of recent arrivals from the US, I believe that the Southwestern part of Upper Canada, from London down toward Windsor, was a particularly disloyal area.



Which would probably explain General Hull's rather arrogant proclamation when he first crossed over from Detroit in 1812



> I think the US finds Chateaugai particularly embarassing because their national mythology tells them that that was the sort of thing they did to the British, not the other way around. Blundering about in formation in the woods and getting shot at by folks hiding behind trees and playing tricks on you is supposed to happen to those dumb Redcoats. Cheers.



Yeah what's that old phrase about Karma or Payback coming back around.  ;D ;D


----------



## Jonny Boy

i was just wondering if it is true that the queens rangers or the york rangers were there when the white house was burned by the British.  i don't know if they were there at all but Simone told me that one of the 2 regiments were


----------



## pbi

I rather doubt it, although I stand to be corrected by some of our resident historians on this site. The burning of Washington did not, IIRC, involve any Canadian troops although this is a persistent Canadian myth. As far as I know, the troops were all British Army, Royal Marines and sailors landed on the Maryland coast by the Royal Navy. They marched inland, scattered the hasty US defense at the Battle of Bladensburg (rudely referred to by the British as the "Bladensburg Races" due the speed with which US troops buggered off), then got to work making a mess of Washington. They then marched back to the fleet and re-embarked. The operation was in reprisal for the burning of York by BGen Zebulon Pike's raiding force.

As far as the QYR being there: I think this is a confusion. The QYR have longed claimed descent from Butler's Rangers, but to the best of my knowledge that Loyalist unit fought in the American Revolution, not in the War of 1812 (I'm going out on a historical limb here-I could be quite wrong...) At any rate, Canadian Army units are not permitted to trace their lineage back beyond the Militia Act of 1855, so the QYR cannot officially claim to have been present at any battle of the War of 1812.

Historians????

Cheers


----------



## Navalsnpr

Here is what I know about the subject.

It was the west wing of the White House that was caught on fire and substained damage.

The Smithsonian has only one display pertaining to this event. It is an article in a frame located in a glass cabinet behind some other trinkets. It does appear that they don't like advertising this to anyone.

The White House has the following information on the event:

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/10/subs/images_archives/Journal4prelease.pdf


----------



## Jonny Boy

the QYR were not there at the burning of the white house. they hadn't been formed yet. there were however 2 separate regiments that were around there war the york ranger and the queens rangers. i know that the queens rangers and the york rangers were against the Americans in both the war of 1812 and the revolution. i am pretty sure that the queens rangers were formed in 1755 by Robert Rogers in New Hampshire. it was formed i believe  for the American revolution and was made up of all loyalists that were fighting for Britain. which makes them the oldest regiment in north america if i am not mistaken. dont take my word for it though.

i do get upset though when people think that the QYR have had anything to do with the American rangers. the two have nothing in common along with history.


http://www.army.dnd.ca/Queens_Own_York_Rangers/qy_rang/battle_e.htm


----------



## Danjanou

PBI you can come back in off your limb. 

As one of those resident historian types here, I'd say you got the gist of it, especially the rather amusing if insulting name the Brits gave the battle. 

The prepared dinner the Brits sat down to at the President's Mansion aka The Pink House (remember it didn't get the name White House until after it was torched, the white being the white wash used to cover the scorch marks) was supposed to be the "victory dinner" for the US troops after they "sent the invaders back to their ships."

As the Brits were the "victors" and as the US generals and political types were otherwise occupied that evening still "withdrawing in great haste" and as the dinner was already cooked why let it go to waste. They ate it prior to engaging in a little post meal arson.

The only "Canadian connection" with this campaign is that the fleet stopped in Halifax on the way back to Europe and the commander of the troops, General Ross, who was killed at Baltimore  isburied there.

The QYR while active in the American Revolution and afterwards in the settling of Upper Canada (Ontario) were disbanded lonhg before the War of 1812.

The only Canadian "light or rifle units" in that war were the Glengarry Light Infantry from Upper Canada, and the Voltiguer and Chasseur units raised in Lower Canada (Quebec).


----------



## a_majoor

Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.


----------



## JBP

> Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.



That is debatable. But I would say it's correct since I'm no expert. In our armoury there are 3 HUGE paintings of 1.) a Butler's ranger, 2.) WW1/2 soldier and finally 3, a modern day combat due. These are to signify the units change through time.

The Lincs+Winks have over 200yrs history...

Check this out:

Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.History of the Lincs + Winks.

Joe
Newbie to the Lincs+Winks


----------



## pbi

Danjanou: thanks for the flanking fire. I was about 60% sure I was right. IMHO the entire Washington episode is quite embarassing for the Americans (as is much of the entire war-perhaps the reason that the only battles they seem to retain in the collective memory are New Orleans (which was actually somewhat pointless as it was fought after a truce was declared) and the siege of Baltimore's fort which is recalled in their Anthem.




> there were however 2 separate regiments that were around there war the york ranger and the queens rangers. i know that the queens rangers and the york rangers were against the Americans in both the war of 1812 and the revolution



I'm going to challenge you: not out of meanness, but out of historical interest. What actions did these Ranger units particpate in during the War of 1812? I honestly don't recall hearing about them after the Revolutionary War



> The Lincs+Winks have over 200yrs history...



Unofficially they may-they probably can trace their roots to the Lincoln Militia that served under Brock and his successors on the Niagara front, but as I pointed out the Canadian Army does   not officially recognize unit lineage back beyond the act of 1855. That means that seniority cannot be calculated, battle honours cannot be carried, and units really don't "perpetuate" in the same way that they perpetuate CEF battalions, for example. Of course, in the hearts and minds of the True Believers, everything is possible. Cheers.

.


----------



## JBP

> Unofficially they may-they probably can trace their roots to the Lincoln Militia that served under Brock and his successors on the Niagara front, but as I pointed out the Canadian Army does  not officially recognize unit lineage back beyond the act of 1855. That means that seniority cannot be calculated, battle honours cannot be carried, and units really don't "perpetuate" in the same way that they perpetuate CEF battalions, for example. Of course, in the hearts and minds of the True Believers, everything is possible. Cheers.



Very interesting indeed. I hadn't known that, I suppose they wouldn't want to tell us that because there are pieces of "regimental" history all over our armoury. Also a giant banner commemorating over 200yrs service...211 actually because they celebrated that in 1994...  : I'm just a Pte recruit so I don't know what is legal or not but they sure take pride in it, or as you would say, are "True Believers"...

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## pbi

> Marched?   I think it was more like limped back, unfortunately not due to American troops, but more British soldiers were killed by lightning, gale force winds, and a tornado.....some type of Divine Vengance?   I'll let you decide



Ahhh--I see: perhaps this was the origin of "In God We Trust"?



> As for the War of 1812, I am not an expert, but I think it was not quite as lopsided as some loyalists would like to think



You are quite right: there were some hideous examples of military incompetence on both sides, and Prevost was not much of a match for his predecessor Brock. The point I was trying to make was that, as far as I can make out, the events of the war are largely forgotten by the American collective memory except for the two incidents I mentioned (and the origin of the West Point dress uniforms ). IIRC the fairly widely stated US objective was to take British North America by a "_mere matter of marching_", and there was never the serious intent, (nor more importantly the ability), on the part of the British to retake the US (they were heavily engaged with Napoleon at the time IIRC...),so I imagine it must have represented something of a frustration. Things like Michilimackinac, Queenston Heights, Ft Dearborn and Chateaugai, or the very unpatriotic stance of the northeastern border states, were probably rather embarassing, and so I expect are not well remembered. But then, I suppose most Americans don't think  about the war against Mexico much, either.

For us, on the other hand (as opposed to the British who have mostly forgotten about it) the war remains a source of pride, embroidered to a certain extent by a certain degree of mythology such as the story that "Canadians burnt the White House".



> Besides that, the US never had a large standing army as europe did and the europeans still coveted the entire continent.



"_The Europeans still coveted the entire continent_?" Really? What makes you say that?   "Manifest Destiny" is an American idea, IIRC, not a British one. IMHO the British no longer entertained such silly ideas, and certainly were in no position to do anything about it. The French? Even less likely: they basically abandoned North America (except for the Louisiana area) once they were defeated at Quebec. 

"..._a large standing army as europe did_..."? Doubtless the Royal Navy outclassed the US Navy in sheer size, but again the RN was heavily engaged with the French. The US Army, both Regular and State Militias, was IIRC considerably larger than the very small force of British and Canadian Regulars, Canadian militia and Indians that opposed them for most of the war.   One of the constant problems facing the British and Canadians was that they had only a very small force to cover a large frontier with the US, extending from upper Lake Huron to the Atlantic coast.

Cheers


----------



## Danjanou

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really do hate getting into these cross border pissing matches re the War of 1812 here or elsewhere with our southern cousins. They almost always turn out the same. A search of the site will show this has come up again and again ad nauseum.

PBI again you hit the x ring with your observations and yeah I am our resident SME on this particular little tete a tete. 

Major Sherwood once more you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one cuz. Hopefully someday we can rehash it over a beer or two.


----------



## GGboy

The best synopsis of the War of 1812 I've ever heard was from my 1st year Canadian History prof, towit:

"The War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the United States. The winner was Canada, the loser was Spain. Any questions?"

 ;D


----------



## Danjanou

S_Baker said:
			
		

> ...I would be more worried about the war of 2012 than something that happened almost 200 yrs ago.



You know something the rest of us don't?

Shortage of fresh water down there perhaps.

Not that it bothers me . According to my plans, by 2012 I intend to be retired and sipping umbrella drinks on some exotic third world beach on a full time basis. 8)


----------



## Bill Smy

I cannot claim to be the absolute expert on Butler's Rangers, the Queen's Rangers and the QYR, but here are some points:

Alan Woolley hosts my web page on Butler's Rangers. The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims descent, but pbi is correct that the CF does not recognize official lineage back before the passage of the Militia Act of 1855,which IMHO is sad.

http://www.iaw.on.ca/~awoolley/brang/brang/html

The QYR claims descent from Rogers Rangers (the Seven Years War) through the Queen's Rangers (1st Americans) during the American Revolution. John Graves Simcoe commanded the Queen's Rangers during the revolution and when he arrived in Upper Canada as Lieutenant Governor, he raised a unit of the same name. The QYR do not claim any connection to the Lincoln Militia.

The Directorate of History and Heritage at NDHQ asked me to provide comments on Battle Honours for the War of 1812, and I am told that the issue is under study.

Some of my points touched on perpetuation, rather than descent, just as many regiments today perpetuate CEF battalions, but do not claim descent, a need for a competent study on the order of battle of the Canadian militia (Upper and Lower Canada, the maritimes and Newfoundland) so that a credible list of current regiments can be developed to create the perpetuation, and the Battle Honours which should be considered.

I doubt that anything will happen in my life-time.

Many Canadians claim that the attack on Washington was in retaliation for the burning of York (now Toronto), but from my study of original documents, that event was never discussed, rather it was part of a strategic attempt to bring the war to an end.


----------



## Danjanou

Correct Bill re the burning/retaliation.

Much of what I've read suggests that the burning of Buffalo and Black Rock after raids to destroy supplies there were more realistic retaliations for the torching of public buildings in York and the wholesale burning of Newark ( Niagra on the lake). It makes more sense as some of the troops involved in those ops were Canadian.

Be nice to see War of 1812 Battle Honours someday. The RNFLDR and RNBR, would certainly have their share as would a few Quebec and Ontario Regiments that may claim lineage.


----------



## pbi

> Be nice to see War of 1812 Battle Honours someday. The RNFLDR and RNBR, would certainly have their share as would a few Quebec and Ontario Regiments that may claim lineage



I am with this 100%. The Act of 1855 was a law. Laws are written by men: they can be changed by men (and, dare I say it, most Canadians are unlikely to take to the streets over whether or not the Lincoln and Welland Regiment can carry "Queenston Heights" on its colours.) I believe that the War of 1812 is a very important part of our military heritage as well as a shaping influence on the way we perceive our relations with the US. (For better or for worse). The units that can demonstrate a reasonable claim to descent from the Canadian Fencibles, Volunteers, Embodied Militia and Sedentary Militia who fought in these engagements should be given the right to carry these honours.

Cheers


----------



## Love793

Start on the offence, end on the defence and with less territory than you started with, unless you play for the Detroit Lions, that's a loss. ;D


----------



## Bill Smy

This is an off-shoot from some of the discussion regarding the burning of the White House.

These are some thoughts on Battle Honours for the War of 1812. I know there are others out there with more expertise, so perhaps they can add some discussion or correct me where I'm wrong.

Historically Canada has followed the lead of the United Kingdom in determining which honours would be issued and the criteria to be met for their award. However, since the creation of the Order of Canada in 1972, Canada has determined to create its own set of distinctive Honours and Awards. Currently, this has not expanded beyond personal (including gallantry) awards and the grant of arms, but it is only a matter of time that awards such as military Battle Honours for the Canadian Forces will become distinctly Canadian.

The British issued five Battle Honours for the War of 1812: â Å“Detroitâ ?, â Å“Queenstownâ ? (note the spelling of Queenston), â Å“Miamiâ ?, â Å“Niagaraâ ?, and â Å“Bladensburgâ ?. Units of the Canadian militia were present at each of the engagements with the exception of Bladensburg, sometimes in greater numerical strength than British regulars. However, with the exception of the grant of â Å“Niagaraâ ? to the five regiments of Incorporated Militia, no award was made to the militia. The rationale of this decision has been lost in the passage of time, but in all probability, it was due to the British â Å“perspectiveâ ? of the war. Certainly it was not based solely on the â Å“regularâ ? aspect of the Incorporated Militia, for there were other Canadian units present in this theatre that were â Å“regularsâ ? which did not receive the honour.

The British issued a Military General Service Medal during the period 1793-1814. Conflicts world-wide during this period were recognized by the issuance of clasps or bars, the significance of which was highlighted by the Duke of Wellington who wrote that the issue of a bar was as important as the award of a Battle Honour. In fact, of the 29 bars issued to the medal, only three bars have not had a corresponding Battle Honour awarded. The three bars commemorating North American War of 1812 battles are: â Å“Fort Detroitâ ?, â Å“Chateauguayâ ?, and â Å“Chrystler's Farmâ ? (note the spelling). Chateauguay and Chrysler's Farm were two of the three for which no Battle Honour was issued.

With the current thrust to â Å“Canadianizeâ ? our honours system, I believe that, without recourse to British authorities, nor limitation by the original British criteria, Canada could issue Battle Honours for the War of 1812. If we did so, it would not be necessary to copy the honours awarded by the British, but those six battles are logical choices to begin the process of examination. There is precedence for issuing Canadian Battle Honours with the same name as those of the British, and it is readily found in the case of the First World War where Canada used the British list of honours, but set its own criteria for the awards.

If Canadian awards are deemed appropriate, there would have to be some thought as to the criteria to be used to determine their issue. Usually, there is some reference to numerical strength, but in this respect that rationale is really not appropriate. Militia units were not standard organizations, basically because they were drawn from very different population bases. What might seem to be an insignificant numerical strength at a battle might be a very large portion of the male population of the geographical area and reflect a more substantial effort than numbers alone might reflect.

There is British precedence in the issuing of Battle Honours long after the event. The first British honour was awarded in 1695, and years later an honour commemorating a battle in 1513 was awarded to the Corps of Gentleman at Arms. Thus, the late award of Battle Honours for the War of 1812 would not be unique in the history of such honours.

Additionally, the War Honour, â Å“The War of 1812â ? (similar to the honour â Å“The Great Warâ ? in World War I) should be included in any approved honours. This award would recognize units that by their very existence and presence contributed to the defence of the country.

Grants to Units

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in awarding Battle Honours for the War of 1812 is the continuing policy of not recognizing lineage of units of the Canadian Forces prior to the Militia Act of 1855. To set that policy aside for the purpose of awarding Battle Honours invites a host of other problems (i.e. Order of Precedence) which in turn creates controversy. There is a possible solution, however, in the process that was adopted in the awarding of Battle Honours earned by units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in World War 1 to units of the militia after the war. In that case, militia units that met certain criteria were deemed to be perpetuating the CEF battalions and entitled to the honours earned by the CEF battalion. That concept was expanded beyond CEF battalions which served in France to recognize the contribution of follow-on battalions which were broken up in the United Kingdom to provide reinforcements to the Canadian Corps in the field. Perpetuation, however, is not to be confused with descent.

Something of this nature could be developed for the award of 1812 Battle Honours. Central to that solution, however, would be the necessity of developing a comprehensive and accurate Order of Battle for the Canadian militia in Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the Maritimes for the period 1812-1814; time consuming but not impossible.

If that concept were adopted, current-day regiments (both regular and reserve) could be identified as perpetuating units. I would suggest, though, that a part of the process of awarding World War II honours be followed - the list of those honours was circulated, and units were invited to identify those to which they believed they were entitled. This would create a positive sense of participation and involvement by the Army. Of course, the final decision and approval would be at the national level where, it can be argued, there would be no bias in the decision.


----------



## pbi

Bill: Good post, and I am in enthusiastic agreement with you. A couple of points stand out:




> With the current thrust to â Å“Canadianizeâ ? our honours system, I believe that, without recourse to British authorities, nor limitation by the original British criteria, Canada could issue Battle Honours for the War of 1812. If we did so, it would not be necessary to copy the honours awarded by the British, but those six battles are logical choices to begin the process of examination. There is precedence for issuing Canadian Battle Honours with the same name as those of the British, and it is readily found in the case of the First World War where Canada used the British list of honours, but set its own criteria for the awards.



Hear, hear. About time we got on with this. The sooner we have a stand-alone system, the better.



> If that concept were adopted, current-day regiments (both regular and reserve) could be identified as perpetuating units. I would suggest, though, that a part of the process of awarding World War II honours be followed - the list of those honours was circulated, and units were invited to identify those to which they believed they were entitled. This would create a positive sense of participation and involvement by the Army. Of course, the final decision and approval would be at the national level where, it can be argued, there would be no bias in the decision.



Good idea again. This was roughly what I was thinking. Further, I don't think it would be as complex as we might think. First of all, many of our Reserve units could not participate at all. Units based west of Ontario would be out of the running altogether. Units in Ontario located much north of Toronto would also be out. Artillery, Engineers, Signals and CSS are not in the running. There was very little cavalry involved except for a couple of dragoon outfits. That leaves mainly those Infantry units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes that can demonstrate a reasonable lineage, or who could be reasonably deemed the "perpetuators" of the 1812 units. Of those, most of the battle honours would probably go to Inf units located around SW Ontario, Niagara, Toronto and along the St. Lawrence. I think this could be done. The award of honours could take place on the sites of the battlefields, and would serve to strengthen the connection between the units and the history of the communities in those areas. I'm all for it.

Cheers


----------



## Danjanou

If this was to happen, be nice to have it in place to make the awards in 2012 the bicentennial.


----------



## Jonny Boy

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm going to challenge you: not out of meanness, but out of historical interest. What actions did these Ranger units particpate in during the War of 1812? I honestly don't recall hearing about them after the Revolutionary War





			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> The QYR while active in the American Revolution and afterwards in the settling of Upper Canada (Ontario) were disbanded lonhg before the War of 1812.




OK 1st thing in 1812 the york militia (which turned in to the york rangers later) was formed. they fought at the battle of queenstonhights. they were also one of Sir Isaak Brocks favorite group of soldiers. i am pretty sure they were with him in the charge that took his life. don't take my word for that though.

what we need to remember is that there were the queens rangers and the queens york rangers they did not become the queens york rangers untill 1936. 

the QY were active in the  American revelution. i am pretty sure that the regiment started for the 7 years war and been on and off since i believe the 2nd world war. it was made up of loyalists from New Hampshire. here are some of the campains that they participated in around the time of the American revolution and a little before.
 1755

    * Raised by Captain Robert Rogers in New Hampshire

 1756

    * Named "The Queen's Rangers"

 1757

    * Operations about Lake Champlain

 1758

    * Defense of Fort William Henry
    * Ticonderoga
    * Capture of Louisbourg
 1759

    * Plains of Abraham
    * Capture of Quebec
    * Ticonderoga and Crown Point
    * St. Francis

 1760

    * Ste. Foyle
    * Defense of Quebec
    * Capture of St. Jean and Chambly
    * Capture of Montreal
    * Surrender of Fort Detroit

 1763

    * Defense of Detroit

 1776

    * The Queen's Rangers raised by Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Rogers

 1777

    * New York
    * White Plains
    * Brandywine
    * Germantown

 1778

    * Philadelphia
    * Monmouth
    * Operations about New York

 1779

    * Granted the title "1st American Regiment"
    * Operations in New Jersey

 1780

    * Capture of Charleston
    * Springfield

 1781

    * Richmond
    * Petersburg
    * Forks of the James
    * Spencers Ordinary
    * Yorktown and the Escape of the Colours

also here is what they did during the war of 1812

1812

    * York Militia Raised
    * Queenston Heights

there whole military history is in the link i provided in my 2nd post. if you need it again it is right here
http://www.army.dnd.ca/Queens_Own_York_Rangers/qy_rang/battle_e.htm

i am not just a kid that thinks i know what i ma talking about i love history and i am always learning more things about it. i have been studying the qyr history for about 2 years now. now i know that they did not have anything to do with the burning of the white house. i always thought they did. 

-hutch


----------



## Michael OLeary

*The Regiments and Corps of the Canadian Army*
published by the Army Historical Section, 1964

pp 65



> The Quueen's York Rangers
> 
> *The Regiment originated on 14 Sep 1866*, when the 12th York Battalion of Infantry" was authorized to be formed from five independent companies. .......



There is a difference between the history of a Regiment of the Canadian Army, and the history of the militia and units raised in a locality. The history you are referring to that predates Sep 1866 is the latter. Please be clear whether you are discussing official lineages or local history.


----------



## Jungle

4 R22R (Chateauguay) is the descendant of the "Régiment de Chateauguay". It was named after the Battle of the Chateauguay, which happened in Oct 1813 near Allen's Corner, Qc. Now the Régt de Chateauguay was a descendant of the Voltigeurs, the Regt that Col Salaberry formed and commanded during the Battle. 4 R22R Members wear a small badge on their tunic in honour of that part of it's history.


----------



## Danjanou

If for some reason the powers to be said only one battle honour could be awarded for this war, my vote would be for "Chateauguay" Jungle. 

Certainly not the biggest by far, and really not much larger than a skirmish. But very crucial. Lost that one and we could have lost the whole thing, Montreal, Ville de Quebec captured. The Canadian provinces split in half and Upper Canada basically cut off and ripe for the picking.

Grossly outnumbered, we won by that great Canadian trait. We were sneaky little buggers, and we build damn good defensive positions.

BTW the "we" was deliberate, the only battle where no Brits were present. Canadian only, English and French, mostly the later, but just Canadians.


----------



## pbi

Yes: I like Chateauguay best of all. I am sure that our US friends will immediately dismiss it as insignificant, but be that as it may. 

I like it for two reasons. First, the one you mentioned. 

Second, to me it represents a fine "turning of the tables" on the US popular idea that their enemy were a bunch of redcoated, pipeclayed buffoons (ala the song "_Battle of New Orleans_") mere parade ground soldiers who understood nothing about fighting in North America and were no match for the good ol'red-blooded American boy using his native wits and marksmanship, firing from behind trees and fooling the silly Imperialists into a panicked defeat.

Chateauguay, IMHO, handsomely presents all of these things being done to the invader, by Canadians no less. It was asymmetric warfare when nobody had ever heard the word. The sooner we see it on somebody's colours, the better. We should name the new CMTC after de Salaberry. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

Danjanou said:
			
		

> If this was to happen, be nice to have it in place to make the awards in 2012 the bicentennial.



Even better. Cheers


----------



## JBP

> I prefer the battle of Yorktown (although a different war) where a bunch of colonial rabble along with a bunch of accordian carrying French (a metaphor) whipped a "superior" force.   But then hey, it depends on which side one was on, doesn't it?
> 
> However, I for one think it is time to fight the new battles, not worry about who did what to whom 200 yrs ago.  If one is basing their current ability on what their forebearers did almost 200 yrs ago, that might be a fatal mistake.



Such honorable intentions S_Baker. I commend you, now what would you be like without that true north strong and free blood flowing through your veins? 

Good point though, if we had half the military we did even the DAY we entered the second world war we'd be somethin!  > Seems things might be changing up around here with the new CDS though, although not everyone is sure it's for the better...

The new battles are much more complicated, with all those damn steel horses with round legs and screaming chariots flying around dropping "BOOM" on everyone!...   Us Canadians have to modernize and get with the modern times which has been apparent since the end of WW2...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Good point though, if we had half the military we did even the DAY we entered the second world war we'd be somethin!



Are you sure that's what you want to see:



> The Canadian Army ... was woefully lacking: in 1939, for example, the army had four anti-aircraft guns, five mortars, eighty-two Vickers machine guns, ten Bren guns, and two light tanks. Even trucks were in short supply. The Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength. - Granatstein/Morton, A Nation Forged in Fire, 1989


----------



## JBP

> Are you sure that's what you want to see:
> 
> 
> Quote
> The Canadian Army ... was woefully lacking: in 1939, for example, the army had four anti-aircraft guns, five mortars, eighty-two Vickers machine guns, ten Bren guns, and two light tanks. Even trucks were in short supply. The Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength. - Granatstein/Morton, A Nation Forged in Fire, 1989



Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.

I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.


----------



## pbi

> However, I for one think it is time to fight the new battles, not worry about who did what to whom 200 yrs ago.  If one is basing their current ability on what their forebearers did almost 200 yrs ago, that might be a fatal mistake.



Oh...come on now. Surely you don't deny us the right to enage in a bit of historical chit-chat, do you? Just because we bring up something nasty from the closet of history, is really only in keeping with the tone here, wouldn't you say? Nobody could trash us Canadians any harder than we Canadians trash ourselves, so we just assume everybody else has equally thick skin. As for basing our current ability on what our forefathers did 200 years ago, how would you account for the prevalence of Revolutionary War images and icons in the US (in particular the US military) today? The insignia of CJTF76 here in Afgh is a Minuteman.

Could it be that you guys are proud of what your forefathers did 200 years ago? Well-so are we on our side. Fair enough.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.
> 
> I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.



Don't mistake absolute numbers for Army quality.   The Canadian Army in 1939 was a sad, hastily constructed force suffering from years of neglect (as Mr O'Leary has pointed out) and McNaughton's bizarre peacetime experiments.   As well, professionalism was spotty and the Army was not at all prepared to execute operational level combat.   Read English's The Canadian Army in Normandy for a good analysis of the Army in the 30's and 40's.

As well, the "sucked even back then" part sounds like you're talking out of your lane again.  Today, despite resource and manning issues, we have a very professional force serviced by leadership (Officers, WO, and NCO's) who have a great deal of real world operational experience (at least this is what our Allies consistently say).   Despite lacking in some key equipment departments, the rest of it is usually top-notch.   You're in the Militia and you are equipped exactly like your Reg Force brethren (service rifle, equipment, etc) - do you know how uncommon that is?  I've seen our Army (both Reg and Res) next to the soldiers of other countries; don't be so keen to discredit your fellow soldiers and your Army.

As for the original topic, past Canadian battles, I've been reading a bit about the War of 1812 in the last little while - a battle history of Chateauguay in a past issue of the ADTB and a battle history of Queenstown in Fighting For Canada.   What really grabs my interest is the primary source material that recounts the ferocity and feared combat abilities of the Natives of North America.   Their way of fighting, based off of "the hunt" (stalking, infiltration, marksmanship, etc) was truly asymmetric and could be used to great effect at times - witness Norton's roundabout assault with a handful of Native warriors at Queenstown.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot    

I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?


----------



## x-grunt

Kirkpatrick said:
			
		

> If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot
> 
> I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?



Actually, he probably would not have appreciated being called American. Native people then and to a large extent even now, consider themselves sovereign nations. This is esp. true of the Six Nations Confederacy!

I'm Ojibwe, and a fiercely loyal Canadian but I still say I'm a "Native North American living in Canada" when crossing the border.

As for honouring Native warriors, more recognition is in order. But then I think we need to honour ALL our warriors more. Especially the modern ones, from the "NATO/peacekeeping era" who are largely ignored and unknown to the Canadian public.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

My apologies, I should have said that Tecumseh and his confederacy were located on the American side - I knew they considered themselves independent from the US, hence their alliance with the British with the hopes to gain their sovereignty.


----------



## a_majoor

Tecumseh's legacy is honoured here in 31 CBG with the "arrowhead" insignia as our brigade patch. Older versions from when this was known as "London District" even had a portrait of sorts, but that has fallen by the wayside.


----------



## JBP

> Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.
> 
> I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.
> 
> 
> Don't mistake absolute numbers for Army quality.   The Canadian Army in 1939 was a sad, hastily constructed force suffering from years of neglect (as Mr O'Leary has pointed out) and McNaughton's bizarre peacetime experiments.   As well, professionalism was spotty and the Army was not at all prepared to execute operational level combat.   Read English's The Canadian Army in Normandy for a good analysis of the Army in the 30's and 40's.
> 
> As well, the "sucked even back then" part sounds like you're talking out of your lane again.   Today, despite resource and manning issues, we have a very professional force serviced by leadership (Officers, WO, and NCO's) who have a great deal of real world operational experience (at least this is what our Allies consistently say).   Despite lacking in some key equipment departments, the rest of it is usually top-notch.   You're in the Militia and you are equipped exactly like your Reg Force brethren (service rifle, equipment, etc) - do you know how uncommon that is?   I've seen our Army (both Reg and Res) next to the soldiers of other countries; don't be so keen to discredit your fellow soldiers and your Army.
> 
> As for the original topic, past Canadian battles, I've been reading a bit about the War of 1812 in the last little while - a battle history of Chateauguay in a past issue of the ADTB and a battle history of Queenstown in Fighting For Canada.   What really grabs my interest is the primary source material that recounts the ferocity and feared combat abilities of the Natives of North America.   Their way of fighting, based off of "the hunt" (stalking, infiltration, marksmanship, etc) was truly asymmetric and could be used to great effect at times - witness Norton's roundabout assault with a handful of Native warriors at Queenstown.



I apologize, I shouldn't have generalized again. I meant our equipment/combat machines. I realize now more then ever our level of training is amazing. I was very pleased when our Pat Pltn 2i/c gave us a historical run through of his career in the CF and what he's done. He's an excellent example of what us new recruits need to try and live up to. Our Sgts+Officers alike are an amazing resource. 

First thing I noticed when we were issued kit was how MUCH kit. Couldn't believe it, most of my kit was new too! I was shocked and elated. Back on topic.

We need to remember our great Canadian heroes from the past! As the others have said, it may be a sore spot for some people, but we'll bash ourselves just as hard.

PS> Thanks for the reading suggestion Infateer.


----------



## Jonny Boy

Kirkpatrick said:
			
		

> If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot
> 
> I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?



i strongly belive that Tecumseh is not really reconized for what he did in the war of 1812. i have gone around to many people and asked if they know who he is and they have no idea. i have never asked someone and them say oh ya i know who he is. i is really sad. once Sur Issak Brock and Tecumseh were killed the native's way of life rapidly started to fall apart.


----------



## pbi

I think we   could do more still to honour Tecumseh and the contribution he and his warriors made to the War of 1812. Back in the late 90's when we were planning the new "super HQ" on the Downsview site (where LFCA and friends are now...) I had the idea that we should call it the "Tecumseh Building".   Besides the NavRes div and the 31 CBG badge, are there any other formal military commemorations of him?

Cheers


----------



## Love793

I'm not to sure that the 31 CBG badge is really a tribute to Tecumseh, but more of a recognition of the Natives and their histories in the 31 CBG area of responsibility.  The Navy does have a history of naming ships after Native tribes though, and Airforce does use alot of Native reference in the naming of Squadrons.


----------



## Danjanou

Possible War of 1812 Battle Honours that present Units that perpetuate â Å“Canadianâ ? units militia and/or Fencible ( Regular) that fought there may be entitled to ( in alphabetical order):

Beaver Dams
Chateauguay
Chippewa
Crysler's Farm,
Defence of Mackinac
Detroit
Fort Castine
Fort Erie
Fort George
Fort Meigs 
Fort Niagara
Fort Stephenson
Grand River
Lacolle Mill
Lake Erie
Lundy's Lane
Mackinac
Miami
Niagara
Ogdensburg
Patterson's Creek
Penobscot
Plattsburg
Prairie du Chien
Queenston Heights
Recapture of Fort George
River Raisin
Sacket's Harbour
Sandwich
Stoney Creek
Thames (Moravian Town)
York

Not including ones that â Å“Canadianâ ? units militia and/or Fencible ( Regular) were not engaged at:

Baltimore
Bladenburg, 
Capture of Washington 
Fort Bowyler
Georgia Coast
Mobile
New Orleans

Obviously from this list we would have to decide on say a half a dozen or so to be awarded. Perhaps combining some of the smaller engagements into one campaign honour such as "Niagara."


----------



## pbi

I think you are on to something here. The award of broad campaign honours, or even of  a "War of 1812" honour (similar to the "Korea" award carried by the RegF Inf Regts) might make it much easier to get this idea underway.

Cheers


----------



## Danjanou

Ideally the regiments eligible could be awarded all those entiltled but have a limit as to those that can be displayed on their Colours (as per WW1 &WWII) which would allow them to use say "Niagara"

Ok next step, what units would qualify?


----------



## pbi

Well, that could be bit tricky, dependng on our ability to establish lineage. Unless, of  course, we disregard lineage and say that the purpose is perpetuation for heritage purposes. In that case, I suggest:

Southwest Frontier:

Essex and Kent Scottish
4 RCR(London and Oxford)

Niagara Frontier
Lincoln and Welland Regiment
Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders/RHLI/Lorne Scots (one or more)
Toronto Scottish/RRegtC/QOR0fC/48Hghr (one or more)

St. Lawrence (Upper)
Hastings and Prince Edward Regt
PWOR
Brockville Rifles
SD&G Highrs

St Lawrence (Lower)
Voltigeurs
FMR/RMR/4R22er/RHC (one or more)
RduSag/5R22er

Atlantic Canada
RNBR
PLF
RNfldR
NSH

That is a very rough take on establishing a "field" for selection. Further work might have to be done to refine it, but I do not think that the final selection would look radically different. Cheers


----------



## Bill Smy

I've done a bit of work here, but I am sure that others can bring more expertise to the discussion:-

*"Detroit"*

Canadian militia present: 5 Lincolns; 1 & 2 Essex; 1, 2, 3 York; 1, 2 Norfolk; 1 Oxford.

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Essex and Kent Scottish; Windsor Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General Horse Guards; The RCR; 1st Hussars

*"Queenston"*

Canadian militia present: 1, 2.4, 5 Lincolns; 1, 2, 3 York

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General's Horse Guards.

*"Niagara"*

Canadian militia present: 1, 2,3,4, 5 Lincolns; Glengary Light Infantry; New Brunswick Fencibles; Newfoundland Regiment; 1, 2, 3 York; 1, 2, Norfolk, 1 Oxford, 1 Essex, Canadian Light Dragoons; Volunteer Incorporated Militia

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders; Royal New Brunswick Regiment; Royal Newfoundland Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General's Horse Guards; The RCR; Essex and Kent Scottish; The Windsor Regiment

*'Miami'*

Canadian militia present:   1, 2 Essex; 1 Kent

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: Essex and Kent Scottish; Windsor Regiment

*Proposed Battle Honours*

*'Chateaugay'*

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

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

*'Chrysler's Farm'*

Canadian militia present: 1 Stormont; 1 Dundas; Newfound Regiment; Voltigeurs

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: PWOR; SDG Highlanders; Brockville Rifles (althoug rifles do not carry BH); Royal Newfoundland Regiment

A theatre battle honour such as *War of 1812* should also be considered. That would enable units which did duty but were not involved in specific battles to claim the honour. Without a good Order of Battle, it is impossible to identify current units, but I would suspect the Nova Scotia Highlanders and others to qualify.


----------



## pbi

Yes-this is more scientific than my first cut. I wonder how we would go about getting this to happen? I definitely think it is worthwhile.

Cheers


----------



## GGboy

Much as I hate to quibble ... there was only one battalion of Incorporated Militia in the War of 1812 not 5 (that was the number raised during the 1837 rebellion) and it was awarded the Niagara battle honour in an almost unheard-of period of time, but still only a few months before it was disbanded in 1815.
For more info on the Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada, check out http://www.imuc.org a great site by a War of 1812 re-enactment group.

I think 1812 battle honours are a great idea, but we might want to be a bit careful about retroactively linking them to militia units that "participated" in actions like Lundy's Lane. The militia in 1812 was not a particularly military operation (the Inc. Militia of Upper Canada being the exception, along with the Glengarry Light Infantry and other fencible units, such as the Voltigeurs): they were basically civilians armed only occasionally with muskets and whose uniform consisted of a cockade on their hats or an armband. Accordingly, they were used largely as rear area troops during major battles (hauling ammo, retrieving wounded, etc.) and were considered by most generals of the period almost more trouble than they were worth since they were prone to either running in the opposite direction at the first sign of trouble and/or looting prisoners after the regulars had won the day. Not true of all militia units of course, but remember that the militia of 1812 was VERY different from that of 2005 ...


----------



## pbi

GGBoy: maybe he meant "Embodied Militia" not Incorporated Militia.

Anyway, my thought is that the end state is to have these honours carried by serving Canadian units. Therefore, if direct lineage cannot be demonstrated, we should go the "perpetuation" route, which IIRC does require the establishment of direct lineage in as rigorous a sense, but achieves the end state.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor

To get this going as a "real" project rather than an interesting discussion, perhaps the work of Bill Smy and others should be collected and forwarded to the Regimental Senates and Honourary Colonels of the suggested units. As well, links to local historical societies and other public opinion makers should be sought out. Planning for ceremonies to take place in 2012 really needs to start now.

This also has to be sold carefully to the affected units. Lincoln and Welland Regiment soldiers take it as gospel that they are decended from Butler's Rangers, which may be true in a historical sense, but not in an official manner as prescribed by the act of 1855. It would be very sad if the newer members of the listed units got revved up over the "new" battle honours only to have cold water thrown on the idea.

Overall, this seems to be a very good initiative, which could spawn a lot of positive side effects, such as a revival in interest in that period of Canadian history, and a closer bond between the reserve units and the local population.


----------



## GGboy

pbi said:
			
		

> GGBoy: maybe he meant "Embodied Militia" not Incorporated Militia.



Hmmm ... perhaps, but mixing up the 1812 Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada with the 1837 battalions is a common mistake even among historians.
Further the point about linking the 1812 militia to modern units, in 1812 the militia was organized on a county by county basis. So that would be one obvious geographical link to certain modern regiments. Some of the county militias were called out so often (usually in response to raids by the Yanks) that by 1814 they were actually pretty effective fighting units. The Norfolk militia and Lincoln militia battalions were good examples of this ... some of them even got to the point where they had actual uniforms for their officers


----------



## Gayson

QYRANG did not fight in the war of 1812 or burn down the white house as an actual formed body of York or Queens Rangers.

The Queens Rangers were disbanded in 1802.   In 1812 the York militia was formed to help defend Canada.   I believe the unit claims historicial significance to this because the York militia was formed at the same place where the Queens Rangers once existed so likely many members of the Queens Rangers served in the York militia (A regiment is defined by its soldiers IMO.

I'm pretty sure the York Militia was involved with the capture of Detroit and Queenston.   The White house, I am not sure. 

Later in the year 1837 this milita had undergone another reorganization and became known as the Queens Rangers.   This unit was the one that responded to Mackenzies rebellion. 

The Queens Rangers were then disbanded in 1848.

In 1866 the 12th York Infantry battalion was formed, which later was renamed "York Rangers".   This regiment fought in ww1 as Infantry soldiers.   Following ww1 the unit had 2 battalions which were seperated, one going to York, the other to Aurora.   The York battalion merged with the West Toronto Regiment to form the Queens Rangers.   Shortly after government cutbacks saw the amalgamation of the Queens and York Rangers to form the Queens York Rangers.   The 1st American part was givien by the King of England following ww1 to connect the current regiment with the old.   This title as well as various family connections throughout regimental history (The Jarvis family which Jarvis st is named after for example) is the reasoning behind the long history.

So, did the Queens York Rangers fight in the battle in 1813 when the white house was burned? No.  However some members of the York Militia who had fought at detroit and queenston were members of the Queens Rangers 10 years prior.

   
History is something that people interperete.   I haven't been in QY RANG for that long of the period and there are people in the Unit who know a LOT more about our history than me.   The above is just my interpretation of my units history (according to documentation I have read).


----------



## Bill Smy

J Gayson stated: "However this battle is a part of our history since the Regiment that did burn the white house was an ancestor to my unit made of men whom had served with the title "Queens Ranger" 10 years previously."

Since there were no Canadian units in the expedition, exactly what "ancestor to my unit" are you referiong to?


----------



## Jonny Boy

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> QYRANG did not fight in the war of 1812 or burn down the white house as an actual formed body of York or Queens Rangers.
> 
> The Queens Rangers were disbanded in 1802.   In 1812 the York militia was formed to help defend Canada.   I believe the unit claims historicial significance to this because the York militia was formed at the same place where the Queens Rangers once existed so likely many members of the Queens Rangers served in the York militia (A regiment is defined by its soldiers IMO.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the York Militia was involved with the capture of Detroit and Queenston.   The White house, I am not sure.
> 
> Later in the year 1837 this milita had undergone another reorganization and became known as the Queens Rangers.   This unit was the one that responded to Mackenzies rebellion.
> 
> The Queens Rangers were then disbanded in 1848.
> 
> In 1866 the 12th York Infantry battalion was formed, which later was renamed "York Rangers".   This regiment fought in ww1 as Infantry soldiers.   Following ww1 the unit had 2 battalions which were seperated, one going to York, the other to Aurora.   The York battalion merged with the West Toronto Regiment to form the Queens Rangers.   Shortly after government cutbacks saw the amalgamation of the Queens and York Rangers to form the Queens York Rangers.   The 1st American part was givien by the King of England following ww1 to connect the current regiment with the old.   This title as well as various family connections throughout regimental history (The Jarvis family which Jarvis st is named after for example) is the reasoning behind the long history.
> 
> So, did the Queens York Rangers fight in the battle in 1813 when the white house was burned? No.   However this battle is a part of our history since the Regiment that did burn the white house was an ancestor to my unit made of men whom had served with the title "Queens Ranger" 10 years previously.
> 
> History is something that people interperete.   I haven't been in QY RANG for that long of the period and there are people in the Unit who know a LOT more about our history than me.   The above is just my interpretation of my units history (according to documentation I have read).




the york militia is the same as the york rangers. they did fight in queenstonhights. the queens york rangers did not become the QYR untill the 1930's. there were 2 different regiments the queens rangers and the york militia. they are both part of the qyr history.   

also the title 1st american regiment was not given following WW1 it was given to the queens rangers in 1779.

you should go to your regiments official website and look under history than klick on   battle honours and campains.

i am a a cadet in the 337 QYR in toronto. i have been in it for about 3 years and i am always studying the history of the york rangers and the queens rangers.


----------



## GGboy

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> the york militia is the same as the york rangers. they did fight in queenstonhights.


Sorry cadet, but the York Militia (aka York Volunteers and a few other names) are NOT the same as the York Rangers, let alone the QYR. The York Militia was formed circa 1810 when the threat from south of the border was becoming obvious and was very much an ad hoc militia unit. It did send several companies to fight at Queenston, and at Detroit in 1812 but its most important contribution to the 1812-14 war was in the units that were "spun off" from it, including Button's Troop (distant ancestor of the GGHG) which was later amalgamated with other militia cavalry to form the Niagara Lt. Dragoons and the Inc. Militia of Upper Canada, arguably Canada's first "regular" infantry battalion. 
The York Militia saw limited action after 1812, primarily during the two American raids on York in the spring of 1813.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

pbi said:
			
		

> They marched inland, scattered the hasty US defense at the Battle of Bladensburg (rudely referred to by the British as the "Bladensburg Races" due the speed with which US troops buggered off), then got to work making a mess of Washington.



While the British forces did prevail at Bladensburg and Washington was subsequently burnt, I must point out that not all the US forces simply "buggered off" as part of the 'Bladensburg Races'.

A force of some 400 Marines and sailors led by Commodore Joshua Barney staunchly held their section of the line while the British pressed.  It was not until the rest of the US line had retreated that the Marines began a rear guard action that resulted in saving the US forces from a complete rout.  Commodore Barney was captured during the battle and later paroled by the British due to his bravery shown.

When the British arrived in Washington they burnt every building in the town with the exception of one:  The home of the Marine Corps' Commandant.  No official reason has ever been found as to why this building was spared, but it is widely believed that it was due to the bravery exhibited by the Marines at Bladensburg.


----------



## Gayson

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> J Gayson stated: "However this battle is a part of our history since the Regiment that did burn the white house was an ancestor to my unit made of men whom had served with the title "Queens Ranger" 10 years previously."
> 
> Since there were no Canadian units in the expedition, exactly what "ancestor to my unit" are you referiong to?



I said that the York militia was an ancestor.   In the 3rd line of my post I said that I was unsure wether the York militia fought in that expedition or not.

[EDIT] Oops, my mistake, I got some key battles mixed up in that paragraph  :'(

Hutch

Hutch, you are mistaken.   The Queens Rangers that fought in the American Revolution did get the title 1st American, however that regiment was disbanded at the end of the war.   

The York Rangers were given the title 1st American by the king following ww1 to connect the past with the present.   

This is not mentioned on the website, which is why I think you are mistaken (You must have done a LOT of research   : ).

If you want to learn more about my units history I suggest you either buy the book, get a copy of the History package given out on the QL4/DP2 course or ask some troops in the unit.


----------



## GGboy

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> When the British arrived in Washington they burnt every building in the town with the exception of one:   The home of the Marine Corps' Commandant.   No official reason has ever been found as to why this building was spared, but it is widely believed that it was due to the bravery exhibited by the Marines at Bladensburg.


You're quite right about Capt. Barney's brave stand at Bladenburg, but you're mistaken about the extent of the burning of Washington. The British were quite punctilious about burning only public buildings in the U.S. capital, although that included a lot of real estate. The exception was buildings from which snipers occasionally took pot-shots at the British, which were systematically razed to the ground.
There's an excellent description of the action at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm
The British behaviour was in marked contrast to the Americans' in York in 1813 (practically the whole burg burned and/or looted) and on the Niagara Peninsula in 1814 (entire towns or villages reduced to rubble).


----------



## Matt_Fisher

What must be realized though, is that at that point in time Washington, D.C. was not nearly the city that York was.  Pretty much every building and house in the city were connected with the government in some way, so as a result, the destruction was still a widespread sack, not so much a sparing of the majority of the city.  When the British left to continue the campaign north to Baltimore, Washington for the most part lay as a smoking ruin.


----------



## GGboy

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> When the British left to continue the campaign north to Baltimore, Washington for the most part lay as a smoking ruin.


You say that as if it were a negative thing  ;D
Tell you what: given most Canadians' feelings about Toronto and many Americans' feelings about Washington let's make a deal. We'll burn Washington again if you promise to burn down Toronto ...


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

GGBoy, Button's Troop did not become Infantry. After several different units the troop amalgamated with Dennison's troop to become the Governor General's Body Guard.


----------



## Jonny Boy

Hutch

Hutch, you are mistaken.  The Queens Rangers that fought in the American Revolution did get the title 1st American, however that regiment was disbanded at the end of the war.  

The York Rangers were given the title 1st American by the king following ww1 to connect the past with the present.  

This is not mentioned on the website, which is why I think you are mistaken (You must have done a LOT of research  : ).

If you want to learn more about my units history I suggest you either buy the book, get a copy of the History package given out on the QL4/DP2 course or ask some troops in the unit.



that makes not sense though. the york rangers were not 1st american. they wernt even an american regiment. they were formed in york. i am not saying that they didnt get the title of 1st american i am just saying they wernt accually the 1st american regiment th QY were.

i will admit that i have done a lot of reserch but boy i got confused a lot. it is always switching between the york ranger and the queens rangers. i have ben putting it all togeather over the past couple of years and it is noe making more sense. this whole board has sorted so much out for me thanx everyone. 

oh and i would love to get the book. the gig green one right?   i was at the funeral of the major that wrote that book. i think he was the first CO of 337


----------



## Michael OLeary

Try these pages at Regiments.org to help build an understanding of the QYRang's lineage (unoffciial and official) through the units of the pre-Confederation militia and the Non Permanent Active Militia after Confederation:

The York Rangers
http://regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/volmil/on-inf/012york.htm

The Queen's Rangers (1st American Regiment)
http://regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/volmil/on-inf/012qrang.htm

The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (M.G.)
http://regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/volmil/on-inf/936qyran.htm


----------



## Gayson

Hutch.  the American tag was added to 5 regiments, not because of where they were formed but because they fought for the British in the American Revolution.  The Queens Rangers were given the title as the 1st of the 5 American Regiments due to their excellent service during the revolution.

The York Rangers were given this title following ww1.  I think you are confused because the York Rangers of this time were made of 2 battalions, 1 which was placed in in Toronto and merged with the West Toronto Regiment to form the Queens Rangers.  The York Rangers stayed in Aurora.  These 2 battalions formed the regiment The Queens York Rangers.

You are confusing the newer Queens Rangers which were spun of the York Rangers with the original Queens Rangers.

Once the Queens and York Rangers became the Queens York Rangers, the king gave the unit the honor of 1st American, conecting the past with the present.


----------



## pbi

> What must be realized though, is that at that point in time Washington, D.C. was not nearly the city that York was



Then it must have been pretty miniscule! York was a village when it was captured.

Cheers


----------



## Jonny Boy

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Hutch.   the American tag was added to 5 regiments, not because of where they were formed but because they fought for the British in the American Revolution.   The Queens Rangers were given the title as the 1st of the 5 American Regiments due to their excellent service during the revolution.
> 
> The York Rangers were given this title following ww1.   I think you are confused because the York Rangers of this time were made of 2 battalions, 1 which was placed in in Toronto and merged with the West Toronto Regiment to form the Queens Rangers.   The York Rangers stayed in Aurora.   These 2 battalions formed the regiment The Queens York Rangers.
> 
> You are confusing the newer Queens Rangers which were spun of the York Rangers with the original Queens Rangers.
> 
> Once the Queens and York Rangers became the Queens York Rangers, the king gave the unit the honor of 1st American, conecting the past with the present.




J. Gayson-

ok thats cool didnt knw that. i guess i still have some reserch to do on the regement still . so thank you 
that is very interesting. i always thought that the only reiment that got the title of 1st american regiment was the queens rangers.


----------



## Gayson

Qyrang was the only one that got 1st american.  The others got 2nd, 3rd american and so forth.


----------



## Jonny Boy

oh ok that makes a lot more sense. i thought you were saying that they all got the title 1st american. well glad we got that all sorted out


----------



## Lineman052

Great topic, it will be a large undertaking just to research each Regiment in Ontario and Quebec and to check the Linages is massive.  However I have done some of this linage work, for example The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment Linage goes back to pre-1812.  Some Regts in Belleville for instance have disappeared like the 34th Bty early 1930's to 1954 that was part of the 9th Anti Air Arty Regt (M) and the Argyl Light Infantry 1920-1954.  The Hastings and Prince Edward Regt (HASTY PEES) was formed from the 16th Prince Edward Regt (1800-1920) original name The Regt of Prince Edward (Sedentry Militia) and the 49th Regiment Hastings Rifles(1804-1920) original name The Regt of Hastings (Sedentry Militia) all absorded in 1920.  The Hasty Pees absorbed the Argyl Light Infantry/34th Bty/Midland Regt(Northumberland and Durham) 1920-1954 with linages from The Northumberland Regt (1866-1920) and The Durham Regt (1793-1920) which was part of the Sedentry Militia/50th Hvy Anti Air Arty Regt.  It is Known that at 50+ members of the Regt of Prince Edward and 70+ members of the Regt of Hastings fought in the 1812-1814 War as companies.


----------



## edadian

Google brought me to this site when I searched for the Canadian Light Dragoons. I am interested in 1812 honours being given to current units but why stop there? Why not grant honours for the all the wars Canadians have fought back to our beginnings as an identifiable people. People have called themselves Canadians since the about 1630s and have been fighting since then.

As for the lineage debate I think those units that show direct lineage should get specific honours and those who are raised in the same geographical area should just get the general war with dates honour.

So who should we choose to lead this charge?


----------



## Slim

Hi Bill

I must be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about any military action prior to the Boer War. I did however find your post to be really interesting and am now going off to see what  I can learn from the E-net.

Just an aside...I am a collector of things military and was in the Queenston heights area several years ago. I went to the monument and then to Fort George and tried to find some sort of quality souvenir to take hoe for the shelf. ( I have a 1/12 scale brass cannon from Springfield Armoury!) alas nothing was to be had!

I wish that we as a country would take better care of our own heritage!

Cheers all and once again, great post!  

Slim


----------



## alan_li_13

Is it possible that we do not give battle honours for battles that happened before the forming of this country, i.e Confederation? I think this could be an argument used by whoever is against it. But if anyone has examples of any Regiments that have battle honours from before, then I think that argument becomes useless.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Battle Honours have been awarded to regiments based on the guidelines that were in use at the time. By the First World War, these were fairly specific as to how a unit might qualify for a battle honour. To retroactively grant honours for past events without meeting the relevant requirements starts to invalidate the process as a whole. To do so across the point of Confederation and the institution of units as regiments of the Dominion of Canada would be presumptuous and would require some official form of validation of lineage across that point if time. Although some regiments claim such lineage, it is a liberal interpretation melding a regiment's history with the history of militias raised in a locality. One does not necessarily beget the other.

You can find some further reading, including the relevant sections of Army Orders for the two World Wars and Korea here: http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm

See also this description of the Battle Honour system by (now) Major John Grodzinski's, who is currently a lecturer at the Royal Military College Faculty of History: http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/grod_btlhnrs.htm


----------



## pbi

Then perhaps Mike what we need is either to change those regulations to let us do this, or to find a way of carrying the honours on the colours but not as "honours" subject to the current regulations. Battle streamers come to mind.

How much of a Pandora's box would we really be opening, if we did change the regulations to permit the perpetuation of pre-Militia Act units and their associated honours? Most of the current units in Canada would probably not be involved (certainly no Regular units, and only a limited number of Res Inf and Cavalry units--none west of Ontario, and not even the ones in Northern Ontario). We would be looking at the American Revolution (possibly), the War of 1812 (certainly), and possibly the Rebellions (if we want to include them. IMHO much of the research for the War of 1812 has been done as to establishing what Canadian units were there. There would have to be some arbitrariness involved in awarding of honours, but based on good research IMHO this would be acceptable. It seems a great loss to me that honours from a war as seminal in forming our national history and image as the War of 1812 was are not carried as part of our military heritage in the form of battle honours to be venerated.

Cheers.


----------



## alan_li_13

I have read in a historical account of the Queen's York Rangers that battle honours for the American Revolution were not given out because it was a defeat in the general sense.


----------



## Canadian Volunteer

You'd do well to further investigate Willcocks. Although he ended his days as a traitor to Canada, he seemed to try to insinuate himself with the powerful. And, I might add, he was charged by Brock himself with ensuring the loyalty of the (IIRC) Grand River native nations. And apparently he fought at Queenston Heights (on the Canadian/British side). Also present at this battle was Col. Runchey's Corps of Coloured Men, the first Canadian black troops.


----------



## Bill Smy

Robert Runchy was a Captain in the Lincoln Militia, not a Colonel.


----------



## Old Ranger

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> Another error in the history of this war creeps into Canadian nationalistic rants which state that "we" Canadians burnt the White House. There were no Canadian units on that expedition.



What about Rodger's Rangers?


----------



## Zartan

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> Another error in the history of this war creeps into Canadian nationalistic rants which state that "we" Canadians burnt the White House. There were no Canadian units on that expedition.



True, however, it being a British Army, there were undoubtedly a number of Canadian born soldiers in the ranks. Also, occassionally the Americans themselves are given "credit" for starting some of the fires in Washington. However, I stick with the side that says the British did it.



			
				Old Ranger said:
			
		

> What about Rodger's Rangers?


Roger's Rangers were disbanded roughly 30 years before the war began. Their descendants participated, rather.

Pierre Burton's volumes on the War of 1812 and the books by Don Graves are excellent resources when studying the War of 1812. Fair, interesting, and gripping and above all, educational.


----------



## jmacleod

A great deal of the history of the War of 1812 is focused on Nova Scotia, and the Ports of Halifax
(Royal Navy Dockyard) Liverpool and Shelburne (Privateers). Author Thomas Raddall was an engineer
at Bowaters, and a prolific writer and author. "His Majesty's Yankees" set in the Revoluntary War
is excellent. Much information in the Cambridge Library RA Park, Halifax Fortress Museum and the
RCN Museum Admiralty House, Halifax NS. War of 1812 started essentially at sea when RN ships
seized American (and Canadian) shipping, looking for crews (the shipborne press gang). Privateers
from Liverpool NS thought they could secure prizes if they appeared to support RN activities, but
RN looked upon them as a source of crews as well, and if possible often seized their ships. Last
of the NS Privateers did indeed creep out of Halifax but it was the RN they avoided. The battle
off Halifax between HMS "Shannon" and the USS "Chesapeake" is the stuff of legend, all recorded
in great detail in the facilities noted, in Halifax NS. Author Raddall resided in Liverpool NS, but was
a native of the UK. MacLeod


----------



## Danjanou

jmacleod said:
			
		

> A great deal of the history of the War of 1812 is focused on Nova Scotia, and the Ports of Halifax
> (Royal Navy Dockyard) Liverpool and Shelburne (Privateers).....



Really news to me. 

I must have failed both Geography and History in higher reading and writing school. I didn't know Detroit, Mackinac, Miami, River Raisin, Thames, Fort Meigs, Fort Stephenson, Lake Erie, Georgian Bay, Fort Erie, Lundy's Lane, Patterson's Creek, Chippewa, Queenston Heights, Fort George, Fort Niagara, , Blackrock, Buffalo, Fort Niagara, Stoney Creek, Beaver Dams,Burlington, York, Crysler's Farm, Salmon River, Chateauguay, Lacolle Mills, Sacketts Harbour, Oswego, Plattsburg,  Chesapeake, Bladenburg, capture of Washington, Baltimore, New Orleans, Fort Bower, Mobiloe, and the Gerogia Coast were all in Nova Scotia?  :


----------



## jmacleod

War of 1812 started at sea. The United States Navy decided to defend their shipping and attacked
the Royal Navy - consequently the British, who had a garrison in North America, throughout what
is now the Atlantic region, Quebec and Ontario, were faced with a US invasion, focused on Upper
and Lower Canada, that is why there were so many battles in what is now Ontario. British with the
world's most powerful Navy, and a long established fighting Army, invaded the US, occupied NY for
a while and burned Washington DC. All in the history books. It has always seemed to me that the
war ended when both sides ran out of money - in any event, General Andrew Jackson defended
Louisiana - New Orleans and became a national hero and President. Many of the US POW's of the 
War of 1812 were incarcerated in prisons and prison ships in Halifax NS - US Army recognized this
with a special dedication ceremony last year to honor hundreds who died there. It was on the CBC,
how could anyone have missed it. MacLeod


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Many of the US POW's of the War of 1812 were incarcerated in prisons and prison ships in Halifax NS - US Army recognized this
> with a special dedication ceremony last year to honor hundreds who died there. It was on the CBC, how could anyone have missed it. MacLeod



IIRC it was an AIr National Guard unit (from Alabama or Tennesse)not the US Army that did the dedication ceremony back in 2000-2001 I though.


----------



## Wils21

This is a little off topic but I figured I'd throw it in the mix.  Many members of my family are buried at the Drummond Hill Cemetary.The Rysdale's, Pew's, and the Lundy's.  This is the site of the battle of Lundy's Lane.  Now if anyone has visited the site you will notice strange rings around the trees about 7 or 8 feet up the trunk.  Does anyone know what these may be from?  I was thinking it might have been rope to prvent canons from rolling down the slope.


----------



## jmacleod

You could be right, I did'nt see the ceremony, but it may be on an Air Guard Site. It was a
substantial event. While I respond to this a little information about "Rogers Rangers" -
Rogers and his Rangers fought in the Seven Years War, and came from New England. 
They raided Huron and Abinackie as well as French villages in what is now NB and Quebec.
Author Kenneth Roberts wrote an excellent book about Rogers Rangers in his "Northwest
Passage" - around 1937-1939. In any event part of the book was made into a first class film
which starred Spencer Tracy as Rogers - the battle and raid sequences in the film are very
well done. The Seven Years War changed the direction of French-British North America, but
little is taught in schools these days - Canadian (pre Canadian) history is certainly not dull. Macleod


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> It was on the CBC,how could anyone have missed it. MacLeod





> You could be right, I did'nt see the ceremony



Hmmmmm anyone else see anything wrong with the above?  :


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm anyone else see anything wrong with the above?   :



I guess you didn't "get" the sarcastic reference to CBC.  Funny, since you seem so keen on using sarcasm yourself.    Lighten up.  It was a joke.


----------



## jmacleod

Thank you Michael, it was a little joke - there is a lot about the War of 1812 available - it is known
as the "The War That Nobody Won" - but historians relalized that this is the War the shaped and
created Canada. When the late Stan Rogers sang about the "last of the privateers" he was actually
referring to the Johnathan Eddy Privateers that sailed from Liverpool NS - the Royal Navy policy in
all waters they sailed in was "if you spoke English, you were British" so they would press into RN
service and entire ship's company, and sell the ship. No Nova Scotia master in his right mind would
consider taking on a RN Frigate like HMS Shannon. So if you were from Boston or New York, the
RN despite that fact that you were "American" would press you into service because of your English
language - they kept the seaman they pressed into line by flogging - remember they had been fighting
Napoleon for some time, and needed seamen. The RN motto of the period "straight at em" sums
up the great fignting spirt of the Royal Navy. MacLeod


----------



## Danjanou

With the exception of some US sources that continue to suggest the whole war was fought over the issue of what or what was not done to US sailors, citizens, ships, and/or maritime trade by the RN, most of the sources I'm familiar with suggest that this was not the underlying cause of the war.

In fact this and the trade issues were being resolved by diplomatically means, and in fact if memory serves me had actually been resolved prior to the commencement of hostilities. The delay in communications meant that the despatches reached North America too late, similar to what would happen at the end of the war and the resulting battles of New Orleans and Fort Bower/Mobile.

The true reason for the war was US expansionism. A faction of the US Congress, the aptly named "warhawks", mainly from the western and southern states saw the British territories in North America, or at least two of them, Upper and Lower Canada, as ripe for the taking. I don't beleive thay had any ambitions at the time for the more established and populous Atlantic Provinces. Sometimes the world does not revolve around Nova Scotia.

On the surface it appeared a perfect plan. The British were engaged in a literal life and death struggle against Napoleon both militarily and economically and therefore would not be able to mount much of an effort against the US. The populations of both the provinces they intended to seize were in theory either at least benevolently neutral or outright hostile to the British (The "conquered" Quebecois and the recent influx of land hungry US citizens to Upper Canada). 

Sadly as they were to discover this was not the case. They also failed to consider the impact of the Native Indian forces who also played a major contribution both tactically and strategically in the first year of the war.

The main focus of the conflict was the land incursions into these two provinces and the supporting naval engagements on the Great Lakes in 1812-13. Later the conflict would expand to include naval operations off the eastern seaboard of the US, limited (but very successful if largely unknown) land operations into Maine and of course the well known punitive expeditions launched by British forces directly from Europe into the Chesapeake Region and the Southern US.

Macleod I considered letting this one alone. After all a review of the majority of your posts here suggests that the world as we know it consists of your (and your mysterious associates) opinion and that's it. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong end of story.

However one of the unwritten rules of the site is "stay within your arcs" and unfortunately I think once again you've strayed from them. 

Mind what do I know. I'm only a lowly ex-grunt with an edumucation from Newfoundland. I'm sure you'll now respond with "facts" showing that you (and your associates of course) if not actual participants in the War of 1812 were at least witnesses to it.


----------



## Zartan

Danjanou said:
			
		

> limited (but very successful if largely unknown) land operations into Maine



Yes, they conquered the whole northern half of Maine, and I once heard that the inhabitants swore allegiance to King George while under occupation.

Interestingly, the war nearly destroyed the United States in a variety of ways. The New England states, which had not only unprovided militia for the war effort, but also freely traded with the British throughout the hostilities, had been seriously contemplating separation. Also, the financial cost of the war effectively bankrupted the United States. If the cutbacks to our Canadian Forces in the '90s were bad, get this: the Americans were unable to field a single unit of Dragoons for nearly twenty years due to the cost of the war.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan

Wow, I just learnt so much more on the war then what I thought I knew. 
Can someone answer this...is it true that the British/Canadian(militia) units that fought at the various battles were almost always out numbered by invading American Forces?
I didn't think the cost of a war back then would be so great.


----------



## jmacleod

I gave a small but significant insight into the War of 1812 from the perspective of a Nova Scotian
who is very familier with the naval aspects of the War from the City of Halifax HRM, and access into
many books and articles, plus discussions over the years related to the characteristcs of the War
(the War That Nobody Won). I am not that familier with "trade disputes" between Great Britain
and it's fomer colony, but I know that President James Madison was not partial to negotiations
and many American's including Thomas Jefferson advocated the invasion of Canada, as well
as detesting the arrogant British of the period. Royal Navy based in Halifax were also protecting 
commercial shipping of the period whose cargos were slaves destined for North America. What I
have posted is that the War of 1812 started at sea, an historic fact, well documented, when
the United States became incensed at the habit of British naval vessels arbitrarily siezing their
ships and in many cases, entire crews. Authors Francis Parkman, Historian details this, Author
Thomas Raddall of Liverpool was very aware of this as well as historians at Dalhousie University
and the staff of the Citadel Fortress Museum Halifax HRM - a friend in Halifax has a Ph.D. in History
from Queens University, Kingston ON, is another source of facts about the War, often discussed
by the Wellington Society Halifax - a group of former military, academics, businessmen and women
who meet over a dinner on occasion to discuss such history in detail. Because of the profound lack
of appropriate Canadian history in the schools in Canada today, much of the colorful and interesting
real story of this country is being gradually lost. The war at sea during the War of 1812 most certainly
does relate to Nova Scotia, home of the Royal Naval Fleet Atlantic; the RN Battle Ensigns and memorial
placques in various Halifax churches, many built before 1812 attest to that. MacLeod


----------



## George Wallace

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States (1801-1809).


----------



## jmacleod

American Military History, Army Historical Series, Office of the Chief of Military History, United States
Army, Chapter 6 "The War of 1812" - "Origins of the War"  " The immediate origins of the war were
seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy, and rapid
expansion of the American frontier. The British outrages at sea took two distinct forms. One was
the seizure and forced sale of merchant ships and their cargoes for allegedly violating the British
blockade of Europe. Although France had declared a counterblockade of the British Isles, and had
seized American ships, England was the chief offender because its Navy had greater command of
the seas. The second, more insulting, type of outrage was the capture of men from American vessels
for forced service in the Royal Navy. The pretaxt for impressment was the search for deserters, who
the British claimed, had taken employment on American vessels. When a British naval vessel in June
1807 attacked and disabled the USS Chesapeake and impressed several members of the crew, President
Jefferson clamped an embargo on America trade. If Jefferson had chosen to go to war with England'
he would have had considerable support" This history text was used in the history curriculum of the
US Military Academy West Point (American History I and II) perhaps it still is. What the textbook states
is historic fact, well known in many academic circles in the US and Canada. MacLeod


----------



## DG-41

If you get a chance, it is well worth it to walk the ground at Lundy's Lane, Queenston Heights, and Ft George. It can be done in a single day if you are at Niagra Falls.

It's kinda funny how many times "There's no way anybody can attack us from down there" shows up in Canadian military history. 

DG


----------



## Danjanou

Ok lets see if I can draw you a picture here?



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> With the exception of some US sources that continue to suggest the whole war was fought over the issue of what or what was not done to US sailors, citizens, ships, and/or maritime trade by the RN, most of the sources I'm familiar with suggest that this was not the underlying cause of the war.





			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> American Military History, Army Historical Series, Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army, Chapter 6 "The War of 1812" - "Origins of the War"  " The immediate origins of the war were seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy....... What the textbook states is historic fact, well known in many academic circles in the US and Canada. MacLeod



Seen? 

I could quote show you other sources that suggest that the root cause of the war was US expansionism. Guess what they're also historic facts. Following your logic because someone with the appropriate alphabet after their name (and yes BTW I have said alphabet after mine) wrote it down it is defacto "historic fact."  In theory that means that in some distance future this little pissing contest might also be considere "historic fact" by someone. Now that is both a scary and depressing thought this early in th morning.



			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> Because of the profound lack of appropriate Canadian history in the schools in Canada today, much of the colorful and interesting real story of this country is being gradually lost.



On this point I will agree with you.


----------



## Danjanou

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Wow, I just learnt so much more on the war then what I thought I knew.
> Can someone answer this...is it true that the British/Canadian(militia) units that fought at the various battles were almost always out numbered by invading American Forces?



Dan, for the most part yes, which is why they were on the defensive for the first year of the war. It also makes some of the victories even more surprising. Check out the numbers on each side for Detroit, Chryslers Farm and/or Chateauguay. A case of quality both in regards to the leadershiop and the troops themsleves over quantity.

Ironically in later battles such as Plattsburg, and New Orleans the British had the superior numbers. In both cases negated by incompetent and/or timid leadership.


----------



## Jonny Boy

i was just wondering, What was M/Gen Brock's favorite regiment. in a couple of books i have read (not big fancy books so it could be wrong) that he loved the york volunteers or something like that. i think they were one of the regiments that were at queenston heights when he was shot. i was also wondering was this the same regiment that later became the queens york rangers? i would really like to know because i just visited queenston heights and i want to go back again to see fort George (there was a fire so it had to close before i could go in). i would also like to go back there with some more knowledge about the battles that took place around there.


----------



## Bill Smy

I am cetain that your local library or university library will have a good selection of books on the war (Brock University lists 548 titles), but here are a few relating to Brock and Niagara:--

The Death of Isaac Brock by Pierre Berton
A Very Interesting Affair: The Battle of Queenston Heights by Robert Malcomson
Burying General Brock by Robert Malcomson
Finding Brock's Monument: A Report of the Find on Queenston Heights by Christopher Cooper
Isaac Brock: Larger than Life by Ven Begamudre
The Burning of Niagara: A Tragic Event During the War of 1812 by Carl Friesen
The Burning of Fort George by Ernest Cruikshank
The Green Tiger: James FitzGibbon, a Hero of the War of 1812 by Enid Mallory
Niagara 1814: America Invades Canada by Richard Barbuto
A Fair Experiment: The Niagara Campaign of 1814 by Richard Barbuto

And if you're going to travel about the peninsula you might want to plan your trip by using Colin Duquemin's, The Driver's Guide to the Niagara Battlefileds in the War of 1812


----------



## Lineman052

I believe this topic has crashed?  However, I have found some interesting reading in Regt Histories as well as documents found in County records (if you can find them in National Archives) that can place linages of Modern Day Regt's to 1812 Companies.

I beg to differ with one contributor on the Linages, Most Counties if not all actually sent Platoons to Company size members to battles in different parts of North America, One such Company came from western Canada.

It is to bad we do not have more Canadians interested in this time period, as our Canadian Identity started rooting itself then and was made a solid foundation at Vimy Ridge.


----------



## 3rd Herd

​Life in the Colonial Militia

The feats of bravery and endurance of Canadian militiamen have become the stuff of legends. In the eyes of their enemies, the Canadians possessed superhuman abilities. They were capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers in the dead of winter, their knowledge of the terrain equaled that of their native allies, and they crack shots with the flintlock muskets.

They were also noted for their cunning and cruelty. In the early years of settlement they often attacked their enemies in the night, sometimes burning their captives in their homes, and spared neither women nor children. Although the cruelty of boarder raids abated considerably in the eighteenth century, the Canadian Militia remained widely respected and feared.

The French authorities made every effort to keep their militia in top fighting condition. After 1669 every Canadian male between the ages of sixteen and sixty capable of bearing arms was subject to conscription and monthly military training. In 1752, when Governor Ange de Menneville Duquesne discovered the militia not up to scratch, he ordered weekly exercises and required each solider to have a rifle, full powder horn and at least twenty bullets. Militiamen wore civilian clothes and were thus spared the expense of buying a uniform. The young men who cut their teeth on the grueling fur trade expeditions into the pays d’en haut clearly had the advantage over their farm based cousins in the militia, but most men in the colony were accustomed to hunting and new the basic of wilderness survival. 

Few men, it seems tired to shirk their military responsibilities and many men aspired to the social and political rewards that went with the unpaid position of a militia captain. The old feudal emphasis on military loyalties coupled with the desperate attempt to save their homelands meant that almost all male colonists were willing to serve.

Following the conquest of 1760, British commanders and traditions dulled the Canadian military enthusiasm for military exploits, but during the French regime the Canadian militia was the best fighting force on the continent.

Chartrand Rene’, ‘Death Walks on Snowshoes’, Horizon Canada, pp.260-274


----------



## Zartan

Lineman052 said:
			
		

> I beg to differ with one contributor on the Linages, Most Counties if not all actually sent Platoons to Company size members to battles in different parts of North America, One such Company came from western Canada.



In the War of 1812? Do you mean the Michigan Fencibles?


----------



## Chimo

I hate to rain on the parade but I must ask this question...How can a country that didn't exist until 1867 (Canada) present Battle Honours to Regiments that no longer exist? 

The argument of lineage of Regiments is shaky at best. I have long suffered through explanations of how a light Infantry Battalions Parachute Company has lineage to the 1 st Special Service Force. The definition of lineage would be the key. If a direct and well researched link could be made, that fact would remain that Canada did not exist.


----------



## geo

Chimo said:
			
		

> I hate to rain on the parade but I must ask this question...How can a country that didn't exist until 1867 (Canada) present Battle Honours to Regiments that no longer exist?


Chimo!
Canada had confederation in 1867 but it certainly existed before that date
The country was a Colony of Great Britain but it was a country nevertheless.

Arguments can be found to link Canada's birthdate with the Treaty of Paris? The dissapearance of New France into British North America (where Canada is specificaly identified) http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/TRAITPAR.HTM  OR 
Arguments can be found to link Canada's birthdate with July 1st 1776 when the Americans formally split from British North America


----------



## 3rd Herd

Grade Nine Social Studies:
Canada- from Jacques Cartier's second voyage. "according to Taignoagny and his brother, bore the euponious name of Kanada(meaning village)
Costain Thomas B. The White and the Gold, The French Regime in Canada

next Canadains is from the term Canadiens, those born in Canada primarly Quebec. Britsh subjects born in "Canada" considered themselves Britsh.

Lastly as to the miltia service and battle honors:
                       HONOR TO THE MILITIAMEN OF 1759

        On the 13th of September 1759, barely an hour after the battle of the
                   Plains of Abraham, on this spot regrouped around a
              bakery, 200 militiamen Canadiens and Acadians confronted,
                      of their own initiative and as a diversion,
                              800 soldiers of Wolfe's army.

  They gave their lives, after a fierce fight, which permitted what was  left   of the French army to  cross the bridge straddling the St.Charles and to reach their camp safely.

       One year later, in 1760, French troops won the battle of Sainte-Foy.

                                           15th of August 1997


----------



## Chimo

Canada was in fact, called several names. However it was not the Dominion of Canada until the confederation came into being 01 July 1867. To which Regiment should we award the Battle Honour of the Plains of Abraham?  

I will withhold any further comments and let you continue your fun.


----------



## Zartan

Chimo said:
			
		

> I hate to rain on the parade but I must ask this question...How can a country that didn't exist until 1867 (Canada) present Battle Honours to Regiments that no longer exist?



One could consider the "honoured" regiments as perpetuating the forces that fought in the war. Good examples would be of the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles, and the 104th New Brunswick Regiment (which was a regular unit of the British Army), which could easily be represented by the modern Royal Newfoundland Regiment and Royal New Brunswick Regiment. The RNF was raised and representative of the colony of Newfoundland, and disbanded in 1816. The Newfoundland Regiment, raised almost a hundred years later, was raised in and representative of Newfoundland, and it was disbanded again after WW1.


----------



## Pearson

A little humour on the subject.....

Just imagine the reaction to a formal ceremony on the battle sites of our friends at FOX like Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Rielly...... 

"Canada Celebrates US Defeat!!!"
Ann--- "Canada has made it a a point to rub our noses in a battle that took place almost 200 years ago.... we should roll over and show them who would win a current war"

Bill-- "You're of course right Ann, those ignorant seal eaters to the north, would not be able to get their dog sleds to the border fast enough, to repell our tanks and troops. Let's do it"

George Bush---- "Canada has dogs...??? cool."

Just think of the affect it will have on tourism...US - Canada relations, lets just stick to being polite, quiet neighbours and not make waves for fear of the wrath of Fox News...... good thing "Cross Fire" is off the air or Tucker Carlson and his little bow tie would have a field day with this.
 :



Almost worth the


----------



## edadian

Frankie does that mean we should remove the ones from the world wars to appease the Germans, or the Korean war to appease the North Korean and Chinese. It sounds like you only want to honour those who fought along side the US which makes all honours less valuable.

Besides the Pentagon is not going to invade us because Fox news says so, only the Senate can declare war.


----------



## geo

(or the Pres on a bad day)


----------



## Zartan

edadian said:
			
		

> Frankie does that mean we should remove the ones from the world wars to appease the Germans, or the Korean war to appease the North Korean and Chinese. It sounds like you only want to honour those who fought along side the US which makes all honours less valuable.
> 
> Besides the Pentagon is not going to invade us because Fox news says so, only the Senate can declare war.





			
				Frankie said:
			
		

> A little humour on the subject.....



He's only joking...
Besides, it'll be a cold day in hell before an American admits defeat about the War of 1812 (I'm not being anti-American, by the way - they are just certain that they won. That's all I mean).

Just out of curiosity though, do the Queen's Own Rifles have an honour for the Battle of Ridgeway?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Zartan said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity though, do the Queen's Own Rifles have an honour for the Battle of Ridgeway?



No:

http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/bathnrinf/06-qor.htm


----------



## Pearson

edadian said:
			
		

> Frankie does that mean we should remove the ones from the world wars to appease the Germans, or the Korean war to appease the North Korean and Chinese.



Never said that.....never meant that



			
				edadian said:
			
		

> It sounds like you only want to honour those who fought along side the US which makes all honours less valuable.



see above..



			
				edadian said:
			
		

> Besides the Pentagon is not going to invade us because Fox news says so, only the Senate can declare war.



I guess my sources have misinformed me about the power of Fox News...........

Next time I try to inject a little humour on a subject, I will make a note of opening the thread with a line like ..I don't know...maybe.. " A little humour on the subject....." and end it with  :

Humour break over....and now back to your regularly scheduled topic

 :brickwall:


----------



## Danjanou

Zartan said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity though, do the Queen's Own Rifles have an honour for the Battle of Ridgeway?



Were they there (on the battlefield) long enough to qualify for one?  ;D


----------



## pbi

My argument for awarding some form of honour (battle honour, GG's Commendation, etc) acknowledges the fact that Canada was not even an autonomous Dominion in 1812. Understood. I say that is not an obstacle to the idea of commemorating what is an important part of our heritage, both military and national. The War of 1812 exerted a huge, long-lasting influence on the political development of this country (one might argue that it still affects our view of the US...). It was also the first time that there was "national" resistance: i.e. in both Upper and Lower Canada. (The resistance to the US foray under Benedict Arnold during their revolution was confined to Lower Canada.) The battles occurred, and Canadian soldiers fought in them. The Militia Infantry and Artillery units currently based in the affected counties are, IMHO, ideally suited to carry these honours, in whatever form they may take. I think that perhaps we are letting an age-encrusted process get in the way of doing something useful. Just because "we've never done that before" doesn't mean we shouldn't at least consider it.

The idea that we might offend the US by assigning such honours is really already neutralized by the fact that we would only be matching honours assigned to US regiments years ago, and still honoured IIRC. (Yes-the US Army has a Regimental System and has had one for years...). If they can honour their side of the fight, we can do no less. We might also be inflating the degree of attention that US media actually pays to such things in Canada. And, as has been pointed out, apart from the shelling of Baltimore and the Battle of New Orleans, IMHO most Americans have little desire to think about the War of 1812, especially not the operations on the Northern Frontier, some of which were less than stellar for their forces.

Finally, I would like to know more about this 1812 unit from Western Canada: where was it raised and how did it get to the theatre of operations? Are you sure you don't mean "Canada West" (which was not the same as what we call "Western Canada" today)?

Cheers


----------



## edadian

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

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


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

I really think we should award battle honors to Canadian regiments who fought for this country before the confederation, even if  Canada was only a colony at that time. They fought against Americans, so what? If these soldiers wouldn't have given their lives, we would all be Yankees and Canada would not exist. We should start from the 1775 invasion of Canada by the USA. It was the first time that French-Canadians and British (including a small number of Anglo-Canadians) troops fought together against an enemy.


----------



## Zartan

pbi said:
			
		

> Finally, I would like to know more about this 1812 unit from Western Canada: where was it raised and how did it get to the theatre of operations? Are you sure you don't mean "Canada West" (which was not the same as what we call "Western Canada" today)?



I haven't heard of any companies raised in Western Canada, though the British engaged in a few Naval operations off the Pacific North-west. I figure he meant the Michigan Fencibles, a battalion composed of traders and explorers that fought around the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan.


			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> Were they there (on the battlefield) long enough to qualify for one?  ;D


Ha!! ;D
Seriously though, whichever battalion perpetuates the 60th Missiquoi battalion could get an honour for Eccles Hill, 1870 (I think that was the year) - another Fenian attack repulsed without loss (to Canada, Fenians lost quite a few). Just a large scale skirmish, though.


----------



## Pearson

edadian said:
			
		

> Sorry Frankie didn't realize it was out of humour.



No worries Ed.



			
				edadian said:
			
		

> In reality would Fox news notice?



Without a doubt. Fox and MSNBC would love to get a hold of a story like this. I would not be surprised to see a reference to this thread on the "O'Reilly Factor".

There have been some strangely offensive but entertaining comments coming from some of the talking heads as seen here.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36660.0.html

anyhow.. back on topic


----------



## geo

pbi
Tend to agree with you - if a sizeable enough unit can be identified as having participated AND can be traced to an existing formation, then they should be presented with those battle honours....

Look at it this way, there are many US Regiments that trace their ancestry to the Colonial wars & the Civil War. They carry honours for fighting the Brits/Canadians AND for fighting their own brothers (Confederates)... so what are they going to do? get upset at us?.... what for?


----------



## 3rd Herd

Accoring to Captain J.R. Grodzinski, CD in his article 'THE SYSTEM OF BATTLE HONOURS IN THE CANADIAN ARMY' 
...the oldest Canadian battle honour commemorates the Second Fenian Raid of 1870. The Regimental Colour for the 50th Battalion Huntingdon Borderers, presented by His Royal Highness Prince Arthur in 1920, bore the words "Trout River" commemorating an action that occurred on 24 May 1870. The Victoria Rifles of Canada received the battle honour "Eccles Hill" on 5 December 1879, commemorating an action from 25 May 1870. Both of these regiments have since been disbanded.

The first major award of battle honours to the Canadian Militia was for the North-West Campaign of 1885. These award were made over a period 42 years and sparked much debate between the Militia Department and the War Office in England over the criteria and precedence by which awards were made. The final list of honours included: "North-West Canada 1885", "Batoche", "Saskatchewan", and "Fish Creek". The first honour from this campaign, "Batoche", was granted to the 10th Battalion, Royal Grenadiers on 2 May 1888. On 1 May 1899, The Royal Canadian Regiment received the honour "Saskatchewan"; in 1911, the 90th Winnipeg Rifles received the honours "Batoche" and "Fish Creek". Additional awards came in 1919, and in 1929 a large award of several of these distinctions went to 13 regiments including The Halifax Rifles ("North-West Canada 1885) and The Princess Louise Fusiliers ("North-West Canada 1885). The last honours for the campaign were granted to The Royal Grenadiers in 1930.

Source:members.tripod.com/RegimentalRogue/ battlehonours/grod_btlhnrs.htm

Chimo, I nominate the following:

Milice de la Sainte-Vierge created at Montreal, 27 January 1663
Côte Saint-Michel Militia Company, 1755


----------



## Zartan

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> The Halifax Rifles ("North-West Canada 1885)



See, you don't have to stay long on the battlefield to win an honour, Danjanou! The Halifax Rifles didn't even fire a shot. It is interesting, that at the time, they held the all time record for the longest overland distance crossed by a military formation, and when they finally made it to the NWT, all they did was play baseball.


----------



## Danjanou

Zartan said:
			
		

> See, you don't have to stay long on the battlefield to win an honour, Danjanou! The Halifax Rifles didn't even fire a shot. It is interesting, that at the time, they held the all time record for the longest overland distance crossed by a military formation, and when they finally made it to the NWT, all they did was play baseball.



I wonder how many casualties that baseball game caused? After crossing most of the continent I may be a tad peed off.  ;D

Good to see this topic has been reborn. As we initialy noted if this was to happen their has to be a lot of work done at the ground level.


----------



## 3rd Herd

If we accept Jacques Cartier's naming of Canada on his second voyage then the original order for the formation of milita in Canada is defined by the following:

On April 3, 1669,Louis XIV  ordered Courcelles, who was governor at the time, to "divide" his subjects in Canada into companies "with regard for their proximity, and, after having divided them in this way, to select captains, lieutenants and ensigns to command them ... to issue orders that they assemble once a month to practise handling arms."  Care should be taken, he added, that these men "always be well armed and always have the powder, lead and fuses necessary to use their arms when needed."

Archives nationales de France, Colonies,CI IA, Vol. 125, f. 32. Paris, April 3, 1669. Louis XIV to Courcelles.


----------



## Lineman052

No, they where the Western Rangers (Indians & Settlers), they took to Battle at Fort Meigs Seige 1813, Chippawa (Street's Creek) Upper Canada, 5 Jul 1814.  The Michigan Fencibles fought in the Defence of Mackinac, Fort Michilimackinac and at Prairie au Chien 1814.

Our government would have to raise this Battle Honour question as an item to be discussed in the Commons. FAT CHANCE  

The Incorporated Militia Battalion of Upper Canada comprised 10 companies of volunteers from Sedentary Militia units in Upper Canada and was formed for full-time service for war's duration starting 1813.  This Battalion fought at York (Arty Det), Fort George 1813 (May), Fort Niagara New York 1813 ( 19 Dec), Buffalo & Black Rock New York 1813 (29-30 Dec), Madrid New York 1814 ( 6 Feb), Lundy's Lane 1814 (25 Jul), Fort Erie Siege 1814, Niagara 1814,   BATTLE HONOURS AWARDED - NIAGARA

Also the British Regt 104th Regt of Foot (New Brunswick Regt) was recruited soley in New Brunswick and disbanded in Montreal 1817.  Fought at Sacketts Harbour, Lundy's Lane, Fort Erie, Niagara,     BATTLE HONOURS AWARDED - NIAGARA

British Awarded Battle Honours North America 1812-1815 -  Detroit, Queenstown (aka: Queenston), Miami, Niagara and Bladensburg.   

73 notible actions took place in which Canadians where involved in as British Subjects

As for the Campaign Medal there was 6 Clasps awarded as - Detroit [Michigan] awarded 1816 clasp: "Fort Detroit", Queenstown(aka: Queenston) awarded 1816 (clasp is unofficial), Fort George [Upper Canada] (clasp is unofficial), Stoney Creek [Upper Canada] (clasp is unofficial), Chateaugay [Lower Canada] (clasp unoffical) , Crystler's Farm [Upper Canada] clasp: "Chrystler's Farm"


----------



## Zartan

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> If we accept Jacques Cartier's naming of Canada on his second voyage then the original order for the formation of milita in Canada is defined by the following:
> 
> On April 3, 1669,Louis XIV  ordered Courcelles, who was governor at the time, to "divide" his subjects in Canada into companies "with regard for their proximity, and, after having divided them in this way, to select captains, lieutenants and ensigns to command them ... to issue orders that they assemble once a month to practise handling arms."  Care should be taken, he added, that these men "always be well armed and always have the powder, lead and fuses necessary to use their arms when needed."
> 
> Archives nationales de France, Colonies,CI IA, Vol. 125, f. 32. Paris, April 3, 1669. Louis XIV to Courcelles.



Simply for the sake of trivia, the unofficial uniforms for the Militia of New France were the toques and sashes worn by the soldiers. If the colour of the items was blue, you were from Montreal; White, from Trois Rivieres; Red for Quebec City.

Back on topic, the Western Rangers? I've never once heard of them (as may have been evident). Do you know of any good resources on them? I'm intrigued.


----------



## Danjanou

Zartan said:
			
		

> Back on topic, the Western Rangers? I've never once heard of them (as may have been evident). Do you know of any good resources on them? I'm intrigued.



Me too. I can't find any mention of them in the order of battle listed here which cover almost all of the Regular and Fencible Units

http://www.warof1812.ca/charts/regts_na.htm


----------



## 3rd Herd

Danjanou,
could the Western Rangers you are looking for be "Cadwell's Western Rangers" also some more scaps from our wondeful archival system.

"Sheaffe was able to endorse the formation of new corps as another obvious means for bolstering the province’s defences. He welcomed the suggestion initiated by Procter and promoted by Colonel William Caldwell* to form a corps of rangers similar to Butler’s Rangers in the American Revolutionary War. In February, Sheaffe supported Caldwell’s proposals before Prevost. The Western Rangers, also known as Caldwell’s Rangers, was formed in March and part of the credit may belong to Sheaffe."

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=38304
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=36905&query=Colonel%20AND%20William%20AND%20Caldwell

I am suggesting this as 1812 was the start year for Lord Selkirks Red River Coloney, the rest of the west was still Rupperts Land having said that.

Corps of Canadian Voyageurs

For obvious reasons it was advantageous to the British and the North West Company to secure Fort Mackinac. In July 1812 a force consisting of 180 Voyageurs, 300 Indians, and 45 regulars of the 10th Royal Veteran Battalion stationed at St. Josephs Island departed for Fort Mackinac. On July 18th, the American fort was captured.

In October 1812 William McGillivray was given the rank of Lt. Colonel and instructed to arm a company of voyageurs made up of North West Company engagees. Officers of this newly armed corps came from the Scottish gentlemen partners and clerks of the NW Company.

During the War of 1812 McGillivray obtained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Corps of Canadian Voyageurs, which was formed in October 1812 and disbanded in March of the following year.

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=37136&query=William%20AND%20McGillivray


----------



## geo

Corps oc Canadian Voyageurs were employed in the Sudan
in the Relief of Khartoum.


----------



## Danjanou

3rd herd, possibly. 

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


----------



## Lineman052

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


----------



## pbi

edadian said:
			
		

> Sorry Frankie didn't realize it was out of humour. In reality would Fox news notice?
> 
> We should pass out pre-confederation honours with the war on terror ones to dilute any US complaints.
> The response to complaints being; 'What we shouldn't honour units fighting the war on terror?'



I'm not following you very closely.

Cheers


----------



## Highland Laddie

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> *'Chateaugay'*
> 
> Canadian militia present: 1, 2, 3 Select Embodied Militia; 2 Beauharnois; Les Chausseurs; Boucherville Militia; Voltigeurs; Canadian Fencibles; Militia Light Infantry Battalion
> 
> Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim:   R22R; Les Voltigeurs de Quebec



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


----------



## Michael OLeary

Highland Laddie said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Michael OLeary

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

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

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

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


----------



## geo

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

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

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

100th


----------



## 3rd Herd

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

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

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

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


Happy reading

Edit spelling, sorry


----------



## 3rd Herd

S_Baker said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Slim

S_Baker said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## geo

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

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


----------



## Slim

geo said:
			
		

> Ouch.... using the Notwithstanding clause!!!!!
> not warranted.
> 
> WRT burning washington.... didn't "they" burn Toronto?



Yes, they burnt Toronto (York actually)

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


----------



## Michael OLeary

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

A few more thoughts on battle honours:

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

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

a.	your earliest local regiments,

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

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

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

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

And for your further reading pleasure: 

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


----------



## Zartan

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


----------



## Bill Smy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time flies: only six years left.

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

Bill


----------



## warrickdll

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

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

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

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





			
				Bill Smy said:
			
		

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



That mindset probably isn't particular to the bureaucracy.


----------



## George Wallace

Iterator said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

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



The South African War and Paardeberg:

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

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

G.O. 291
1905

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

G.O. 60
1933

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

Nope, no effect on Canadian Military history at all.


----------



## warrickdll

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What are you getting on about here?



Topic: 
War of 1812 Battle Honours.

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The South African War and Paardeberg:
> 
> First despatch of troops overseas by a Canadian goverment.
> A unit raised from across the country, the majority being Militiamen or raw recruits on enlistment for active service.
> Participation in a major action of the Boer War.
> 
> Overall, South African Battle Honours are held, directly or through perpetuation by contribution of troops by:
> 
> ............
> 
> Nope, no effect on Canadian Military history at all.




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

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

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


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

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



Then perhaps you should not have started your discussion by criticising those that have been awarded, it only undermines the credibility of any argument to expand recognition to previously unrecognized actions (to call them "unrecognized Canadian battle honours" is at this point a misnomer).


----------



## George Wallace

Iterator said:
			
		

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



Your posting style is very upsetting and I had to read your post several times.

You seem to put little importance in the existing history of Canada, promoting your agenda.  Sorry, but we have a very strong history, and it does include expeditions outside of our borders.  You tend to trivialize their importance with your statements.

You and Mr Smy are fixated on Battle Honours for Regiments that no longer have any lineages, or predate the formation of 'Canadian' Regiments.  They aren't perpetuated in the histories of current Regiments, because the History of Canada's fighting Forces starts with the creation of Canada as a Sovereign Nation in 1867.  Those Battle Honours and Colours from prior to that date have been 'retired' and placed in places of honour (as is tradition for the retiring of Colours) to 'rot on their staffs'.  The same thing will happen to any current Regiment that is Disbanded with no other Regiment to 'perpetuate' their history.

Perhaps you should do some research into the Traditions and Customs of the CF, Directorate of History and Heritage directions in regards to Regimental Colours, Guidons, etc.   You may find some of that research a lot more enlightening and correct many of the misconceptions you currently have.


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then perhaps you should not have started your discussion by criticising those that have been awarded



I agree. If I had started off with something like: 

Alongside perpetuated honours such as those for the Battle of Paardeburg should also be those from battles fought in the Wars prior to Confederation - battles in wars, which had great influence on the course of Canadian history.

There is the possibility that if I had written it in this way I could have avoided the responses, or at least toned them down. I'm leery at saying this for certain though.




> Then perhaps you should not have started your discussion by criticizing those that have been awarded, it only undermines the credibility of any argument to expand recognition to previously unrecognized actions



Agreed. Unnecessary ranting or hyperbole will diminish the credibility of the argument. However, some have decided to conduct arguments by first attempting to diminish their general credibility and therefore avoiding the actual discussion points. Good tactics if your only purpose is to win arguments - but it makes for poor discourse.



> unrecognized actions (to call them "unrecognized Canadian battle honours" is at this point a misnomer).



I will see your misnomer and raise you an - "unrecognized actions" would be idiomatic to many.


----------



## warrickdll

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your posting style is very upsetting and I had to read your post several times.
> 
> You seem to put little importance in the existing history of Canada, promoting your agenda.  Sorry, but we have a very strong history, and it does include expeditions outside of our borders.  You tend to trivialize their importance with your statements.
> 
> You and Mr Smy are fixated on Battle Honours for Regiments that no longer have any lineages, or predate the formation of 'Canadian' Regiments.  They aren't perpetuated in the histories of current Regiments, because the History of Canada's fighting Forces starts with the creation of Canada as a Sovereign Nation in 1867.  Those Battle Honours and Colours from prior to that date have been 'retired' and placed in places of honour (as is tradition for the retiring of Colours) to 'rot on their staffs'.  The same thing will happen to any current Regiment that is Disbanded with no other Regiment to 'perpetuate' their history.
> 
> Perhaps you should do some research into the Traditions and Customs of the CF, Directorate of History and Heritage directions in regards to Regimental Colours, Guidons, etc.   You may find some of that research a lot more enlightening and correct many of the misconceptions you currently have.




First off, even where a few viewpoints coincide, it is probably best to respond to Mr Smy directly - I wouldn't want my opinions to taint his endeavour. 

Secondly, I am actively attempting to not upset anyone.

Onwards...

You misunderstand my difference of opinion as stemming from ignorance on the topic.

I understand you are of the opinion that the current use and rules regarding battle honours are as they should be, or you at least seem unwilling to change them. 

I, on the other hand would put forward the following:
	- Regimental lineage should be more dynamic
	- Canadian military history predates confederation and therefore so should the regimental lineage
	- I am not troubled by honorary lineage where direct lineages cannot be established


As for the part about trivializing… well, what has been said has been said. I am sensing that there is not a shortage of items we can disagree upon.


----------



## Bill Smy

Hey, guys. Didn't mean to start a  :rage: p*** contest.

I note Mr Wallace's statement, "...because the History of Canada's fighting Forces starts with the creation of Canada as a Sovereign Nation in 1867. ". I may be wrong, but I think as far as lineage is concerned, it begins with the Militia Act of 1855, and that nothing is officially recognized before that.

Thanks for your comments. They'll be helpful as I develop the proposal.


----------



## luggage70

I was wondering if there was a roll call for the Newfoundland Fencibles 1803 - 1814? I have come across an 1816 roll call of this unit being discharged. I've also came across a roll call of the Newfoundland Regiment 1782 but I think it may have disbanded either 1795 or 1802.


----------



## qyrang

Amazing!!! we are the only corp in Canada with 1st American...that's incredible. If I'm wrong please correct me or PM me.


----------



## Bill Smy

The Queen's Rangers started out as a Loyalist unit on the Provincial Establishment. I'm not quite sure when the British re-organized their land forces in North America, but I think it was 1781. In that re-organization five Provincial Corps were placed on the American Establishment (a regular army establishment), and although they kept their former designations, they were numbered 1 to 5.

By the end of the Revolution the Rangers were recruiting extensively in the UK, and the number of American-born members shrank accordingly.

The date of the reorganization plays an important part in the dating of the historic Regimental Colours that the QYR own. They came out of Simcoe's estate in England. The title 1st American appears on the regimental device, so they cannot pre-date the re-organization. Some state, however, that they date to Simcoe's tenure as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, 1791-1802.


----------



## Bill Smy

To expand and correct my previous post:-

Three Provincial Corps were placed on the American Establishment in May 1779:-

Queen's Rangers - 1st American Regiment
Volunteers of Ireland - 2nd American Regiment
New York Volunteers - 3rd American Regiment

Two Provincial Corps were placed on the American Establishment in March 1781:-

King's American Regiment - 4th American Regiment
British Legion - 5th American Regiment


----------



## Red 6

Wait a minute! The Bristish sacked Washington? That's it.... we need to invade London :threat:


----------



## Danjanou

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Wait a minute! The Bristish sacked Washington? That's it.... we need to invade London :threat:



You did....oh you mean London England, that London............well nevermind :-[


----------



## Red 6

London, England of course. Ya'll up north are on our sides, right?


----------



## Danjanou

Red 6 said:
			
		

> London, England of course. Ya'll up north are on our sides, right?



Yup we're on you Southeners side, we plumb almost got them Yankees surrounded now ;D


----------



## Red 6

Well, that's good to hear. Anyway, with all that snow up north, we couldn't start fires, right? (Not that we would since ya'll are on our side...)


----------



## TCBF

"Anyway, with all that snow up north, we couldn't start fires, right?"

- Best place to start fires - they keep you warm, and they mostly don't go anywhere (in the winter -that is).

 ;D


----------



## Red 6

Oh yeah, right. What was I thinkin' about?  Fires...Winter...Snow


----------



## ExSarge

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Anyway, with all that snow up north, we couldn't start fires, right?"
> 
> - Best place to start fires - they keep you warm, and they mostly don't go anywhere (in the winter -that is).
> 
> ;D



We are allowed to start fires?  I really got to start reading the memo's!


----------



## Echo9

One item to add:  apparently, the King's Regiment (in Liverpool/ Manchester) still has mementos from the sack of Washington in their regimental museum.  This includes a collection that I'm sure the smithsonian would want to get- Dolly Madison's china.


This shouldn't be surprising, as the Kings have a reputation for being light fingered- the joke goes: Ali Baba only had forty thieves, the CO of the King's has 800!


----------



## Red 6

That's a good one, Echo9! ;D


----------



## Bill Smy

For Immediate Release
Sunday, July 23, 2006

CRAITOR CALLS FOR RED RIBBON COMMISION to CELEBRATE 1812 WAR BICENTENNIAL

Wants Feds and Provincial Govts to reclaim Lundy's Lane battlefield as a
Bicentennial Gift to the nation

Niagara Falls - Niagara Falls MPP, Kim Craitor, called on the province to
establish a Red Ribbon Commission to bring sharper focus to the efforts to
celebrate the Bicentennial of the War of 1812-14. "If we are to capitalize
on the opportunity and realize the tourist benefits of this significant
event, our current efforts need to be knocked up a notch," he said before a
receptive crowd in attendance at celebrations celebrating 194th anniversary
of the Battle of Lundy's Lane. 

The Battle of Lundy's Lane is the bloodiest battle ever fought in Canada and
apart from the siege at Fort Erie for all intent and purposes marked the end
of the battle for Niagara.

Craitor mentioned that earlier this year that Gord West, Chair of the City
of Niagara Falls Board of Museums brought to his attention that we are fast
approaching the Bi-centennial of the War of 1812-14.

"The Americans," he said "look on this war as a crucial test for their
constitution and their newly established democratic government while Canada
should see this epoch as a defining moment in our nation building process
that was to culminate some 50 years later in a great country called Canada.
We need to recognize, educate and celebrate these facts."

Craitor continued, "The Americans recognize the importance of this war and
are proposing the establishment of a Bicentennial Commission and have
introduced legislation in the Congress we need to do really focus or the war
on the Canadian frontier will be a sideshow."

Niagara played a pivotal role in this war with the battles of Stoney Creek,
Queenston Heights, Chippawa, Beaverdams, the occupation of Fort George and
Lundy's Lane not to mention the forging of some of our provincial heroes
such as Laura Secord and Sir Isaac Brock. 

The war itself played out all over North America and it seems to Craitor, it
is not too early for us to begin to plan to make this historic bi-centennial
anniversary a Bi-National Celebration of great import!

Craitor will be writing Jim Bradley and the Ontario Marketing Tourist Board
to propose that a special Red Ribbon Bi-National (Canada) Committee of
interested parties (in Niagara, South West and Eastern Ontario) be asked to
develop an action plan to educate our young and old alike and at the same
time to bring the world to our battlefields.

He also hopes that in the process action can be stimulated on the part of
the Provincial and Federal governments to leave a bi-centennial gift to
Canada - to reclaim this Lundy's Lane battlefield site as Canada's most
significant battlefield and to develop the attraction on par with Gettysburg
in the US.

Craitor said "Perhaps it would be helpful if we could define a vision and
develop a master plan for this sacred ground that would make our case and
give our request more visibility - a new battle plan for Lundy's Lane, sort
of speak. 

It is now or never to make the arguments to bring to this site the stature
it deserves."

To that end he has written the Minister of Culture supporting the request of
the City of Niagara Falls about seeking funds to acquire the adjacent school
property.

-30-

For More Information Contact:

Ron Planche 905-357-0681


Ron Planche
Executive Assistant to 
Kim Craitor, MPP 
Parliamentary Assistant (Corrections)
Ministry of Community Safety and Corrections

Phone: (905)357-0681
Queen's Park (416)325-0790
Mobile: (905) 401-5699
Home: (905) 357-0809
Email: rplanche@liberal.ola.org 
Email2 ronplanche@cogeco.ca


----------



## ExSarge

This is a worthy project that deserves support. Although it was my impression that the exact site of the battle has been lost. I stand to be corrected on this by our experts, but I'm sure I read in one of Donald Graves works that battle site is in dispute.


----------



## Remius

ExSarge said:
			
		

> This is a worthy project that deserves support. Although it was my impression that the exact site of the battle has been lost. I stand to be corrected on this by our experts, but I'm sure I read in one of Donald Graves works that battle site is in dispute.



+1 to that.

I did a battlefield tour of the war of 1812 and 14-15.  Amazing stuff.  Plus if you haven't seen the Brock monument  you have missed something for sure.  Too bad Tecumseh  (despite his contribution) has only a plaque to his name.

Some people think our history is boring.  I say they just haven't looked at it properly  .


----------



## ChristianMN

My family came to Canada in 1806 at the request of Lord Selkirk. My understanding is that we came to fight against the Americans. I'm wondering whether or not there is a list of Canadian militia that fought in the war. So far I have been unable to find anything related to my families participation in my own family records which date to the early 1600's. These records are extremely accurate in almost every way, but there have been almost a dozen branches of my name since our landing. If anyone could point me in a direction, any direction, that would be extremely appreciated.


----------



## bily052

Here is the official gov't web site.  I do not know if it goes back as far as you want but well worth the try.  
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/war-military/index-e.html

Good luck

Billy


----------



## niner domestic

One of the mods was kind enough to post a very good resource list at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42325.0.html


----------



## Michael OLeary

*British Forces in Canada until 1871*. "British military and naval records up to and including the First World War are in the custody of the National Archives in England, formerly known as the Public Record Office (PRO), in the War Office and Admiralty series. Library and Archives Canada has acquired copies of some of those records relating to regiments that served in Canada."
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/genealogie/022-909.002-e.html


----------



## Bill Smy

"My family came to Canada in 1806 at the request of Lord Selkirk. My understanding is that we came to fight against the Americans. I'm wondering whether or not there is a list of Canadian militia that fought in the war. So far I have been unable to find anything related to my families participation in my own family records which date to the early 1600's. These records are extremely accurate in almost every way, but there have been almost a dozen branches of my name since our landing. If anyone could point me in a direction, any direction, that would be extremely appreciated."

The problem with responding to this post is that it's too vague. What part of British North America? The reference to Lord Selkirk would lead me in the direction of Manitoba, but there were no militia units in Manitoba in 1812, and I know of no battles, campaigns, etc, that far west.

What are the possible family names in the 1812 period?


----------



## pbi

The Selkirk settlement wasn't founded until 1812, so if your folks came over in 1806 they probably didn't go to the Selkirk Red River Settlement right away. There were no military operations of the War of 1812 in Manitoba, so they probably weren't brought to fight the Americans. However, Selkirk did have a fight on his hands with the Northwest Company (it eventually culminated in the Seven Oaks Masssacre where 22 settlers were killed) and he did ask the colonial administration for troops at the end of the War, to defend thte settlement against NWC and their Indian allies. He got a few volunteers from some British  and British-hired regiments that  were finishing their service, (notably the Swiss Des Meurons Regt, after whom Desmeurons Avenue in Winnipeg is named). Maybe your family were in that group of soldiers? Try Manitoba Heritage or this site: http://www.iaw.on.ca/~jsek/selkirk.htm.

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Herd

There was also the "Fur Trade War"

Hudson's Bay Company faced fierce competition from the North West Company in Rupert's Land and in general, North America. Both companies wanted to control the fur trade. As a result, a bitter rivalry developed. By the 1800s the two sides were at war with each other.This war resulted in both groups having settlers in Rupert's Land prior to the Selkirk settlement.There is a very good reference on the early settlers of Manitobia, I believe it is called "Who's Who" and is by date and era.

Forts:
Fort Maurepas (1734 - 1763), (Fort Alexander)
This French fort was located just across the Winnipeg River, also on the Fort Alexander Indian Reserve. It had burned down in 1747, was rebuilt in 1748, and burned down again in 1763.
Fort Gibraltar 1804 - 1821), Winnipeg A North West Co. post. First located here was the French Fort Rouge (1737 - 1804).
Fort Bas-de-la-Rivière  (1792 - 1821), Fort Alexander A North West Co. post, also known as Winnipeg House

As for personal or family records an excellent site is Vital Statistics http://web2.gov.mb.ca/cca/vital/Query.php
You can access birth records, marriages and etc from this time period. My ancestors arrivied in Manitoba somewhere in the 1750's as part of the North West Company settleing in both the today Winnipeg area prior to the Selkirk settlement by 50 odd years and also in the Portage La Praire area. They got naming rights to some of the geographical physical features.


----------



## BernDawg

Contact Mr Carstead at the Forces of Lord Selkirk site. (link above) If there is anyone in Canada that has the info you seek it's him.  I've been involved with this org in the past and they take the history of it pretty seriously.  If you are a direct descendant I'm sure he will be quite pleased to make your acquaintance. 
Good Luck
Bern


----------



## Zartan

ChristianMN,

During the 19th Century, Lord Selkirk thought it was a wise idea to populate British North America with Gaelic speaking Highlanders. His reasoning was that with a different language and a fierce population than the United States, the remaining colonies would be better protected from American cultural or military imperialism. He founded the Red River colony and brought hundreds of Kildonan Scots to the colony, but they were devastated at the Battle of Seven Oaks, and never assumed a large role in the colony (overshadowed by the Metis, and later, other European settlers)


----------



## pbi

> During the 19th Century, Lord Selkirk thought it was a wise idea to populate British North America with Gaelic speaking Highlanders. His reasoning was that with a different language and a fierce population than the United States, the remaining colonies would be better protected from American cultural or military imperialism.



From what I can make out from several on-line sources (including Encyclopedia Britannica) Selkirk's real aim was to relieve the suffering of Scots  and Irish "crofters"(small holding peasants)  who had been kicked off their lands in Scotland  and Ireland  by changes in property ownership laws. He wanted to find a place with lots of cheap land where he could settle these people (and make some money out them, as well). He established settlements in Eastern Canada first, then he decided to try the Red River area. The Northwest Company (which employed large numbers of Metis) resisted because they didn't want any competition in "their" area of Canada, so Selkirk and a partner bought shares in HBC in order to secure some of the land grant along the River. There was very little US presence in the Northwest then, so I'm not sure the settlement was a response to any US threat. Military operations of the War of 1812 pretty well left the Northwest alone: I think the seizure of the US fort at Michilimakinac was the most westerly operation. I can't find any mention of a US threat in any of the stuff I have looked at so far. Do you have a source for that?



> but they were devastated at the Battle of Seven Oaks



Actually it seems that the original settlement was already in decline by 1815. Seven Oaks happened in 1816, and it was really a chance encounter, not a premeditated attempt to stamp out the Scots.  The NWC Metis were on their to a spot further down the Red when Semple's men met them. The loss of 20-25 men (including Governor Semple) was pretty bad, but I'm not sure that it devastated the Red River colony. It actually led to the merger of HBC and NWC, whuch probably contributed to strengthening the colonial presence in the Northwest.



> and never assumed a large role in the colony


IIRC, the Scots and Irish settlers formed a big part of the early settlement pattern and along with the English, were the dominant cultural group in the area until well into the 20th century. The "other Europeans" didn't really start to arrive until after the CPR was built.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

I'll second pbi's observations.  The Kildonan Scots were very much part of the Manitoba scene as were the Hudson's Bay Orkneymen from the North and, mingling with the French, Norwesters from Montreal.  



> (Thomas Douglas, Fifth Earl of Selkirk)
> Thomas Douglas, commonly referred to as Lord Selkirk, was the founder of the Red River Settlement, known today as Winnipeg. Lord Selkirk was born in 1773 and was educated as a lawyer. He realized that many Scottish peasants, or 'Crofters', were loosing their homes because land owners found it more profitable to raise sheep on their land, rather than rent it to tenants. Unlike most other wealthy noblemen, he took an interest in them and felt that he could help them. He decided to settle the poor people in British North America to improve the situation in the British Isles as well as life for these peasants. To acquire the land needed to colonize in B.N.A. (British North America), Lord Selkirk bought enough shares from the Hudson's Bay Company. In doing that, he was granted 160 000 square miles of land called Assiniboia. He sent poor Irish and Highland Scots from the British Isles to B.N.A. to start colonizing the Red River Valley.
> The colony was under constant attack from the hostile North West Company and their Metis allies. Eventually, the Nor'Westers were successful in destroying Fort Douglas and driving the Selkirk settlers out of the colony. In order to regain control of his colony, Lord Selkirk hired 100 disbanded Swiss soldiers. They captured Fort William, the North West Company headquarters, hen proceeded to Assiniboia to restore the settlement.
> Meanwhile, the Nor' Westers issued a warrant for his arrest. Lord Selkirk was fined 2000 pounds for his actions at Fort William. Disillusioned and in poor health, Lord Selkirk returned to France where, in 1820, he died. His settlement had a huge impact on our area.
> Polson, John Henderson, John Pritchard, Munroe, Angus McKay, and Neil Campbell Schools were all named for Selkirk settlers.


http://timelinks.merlin.mb.ca/ourcommunity/Famous/Lord_Selkir.htm

There is also this:  800 Selkirk Settlers from Skye to Belfast, PEI in 1803
http://www.islandregister.com/skye/skye2003.html

And this, that makes reference to an 1804 colony at Baldoon, Upper Canada.
http://www.lordselkirk.ca/settlers.html

And finally this, that references the arrival of the "Spencer" at PEI in 1806 with settlers from Colonsay, an island in the Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland.
http://www.islandregister.com/colonsay_selkirk.html

If there is a military connection it is likely with one of the Fencible Regiments raised in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick around this time.  The New Brunswick Fencibles were converted to Regulars in 1810 and joined the line as 104th Regiment of Foot (The New Brunswick Regiment).  It was very active during the war of 1812 soldiering as far away as Upper Canada.
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_290.asp?page_id=360
http://www.warof1812.ca/104th.htm
http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/104-810.htm#bh


----------



## Zartan

pbi said:
			
		

> From what I can make out from several on-line sources (including Encyclopedia Britannica) Selkirk's real aim was to relieve the suffering of Scots  and Irish "crofters"(small holding peasants)  who had been kicked off their lands in Scotland  and Ireland  by changes in property ownership laws. He wanted to find a place with lots of cheap land where he could settle these people (and make some money out them, as well). He established settlements in Eastern Canada first, then he decided to try the Red River area. The Northwest Company (which employed large numbers of Metis) resisted because they didn't want any competition in "their" area of Canada, so Selkirk and a partner bought shares in HBC in order to secure some of the land grant along the River. There was very little US presence in the Northwest then, so I'm not sure the settlement was a response to any US threat. Military operations of the War of 1812 pretty well left the Northwest alone: I think the seizure of the US fort at Michilimakinac was the most westerly operation. I can't find any mention of a US threat in any of the stuff I have looked at so far. Do you have a source for that?



You are correct - those were the motivations for Selkirk to act. However, in order to get allies among the government to assist him, his reasoning (as previously mentioned), was a means of getting it. Certainly there would be no American operations anywhere near the Red River - I believe Prairie du Chien was the furthest west the war went (with the exception of the seizing of Fort Astoria on the Pacific Coast from American fur traders).

I do have sources, however at the moment I do not have them privy, and furthermore, I warn that you may find them inaccessible (as they may require University enrollment to access).



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Actually it seems that the original settlement was already in decline by 1815. Seven Oaks happened in 1816, and it was really a chance encounter, not a premeditated attempt to stamp out the Scots.  The NWC Metis were on their to a spot further down the Red when Semple's men met them. The loss of 20-25 men (including Governor Semple) was pretty bad, but I'm not sure that it devastated the Red River colony. It actually led to the merger of HBC and NWC, whuch probably contributed to strengthening the colonial presence in the Northwest.
> IIRC, the Scots and Irish settlers formed a big part of the early settlement pattern and along with the English, were the dominant cultural group in the area until well into the 20th century. The "other Europeans" didn't really start to arrive until after the CPR was built.



You can easily say that Seven Oaks was the straw that broke the camel's back. 20 killed, out of a population of about 100, is pure devastation. Many would leave, but by Confederation, the Red River Colony had only over 10 000 settlers, only several hundred of which were descended from Selkirk's efforts (specified in demographics as Kildonan Scots). French-speaking Metis made up over 1/2 of the population - I'll have to check, if you like for the composition of the remaining populace.


----------



## pbi

> However, in order to get allies among the government to assist him, his reasoning (as previously mentioned), was a means of getting it.



This could quite possibly have been one of his arguments, but it doesn't seem to have survived very well in available open sources.(Of course, that doesn't mean it's wrong)  As well, I'm not sure that "the Government" had much direct influence in what happened in the Northwest in those days: IMHO most meaningful control was in the hands of either the NWC or the HBC.



> do have sources, however at the moment I do not have them privy, and furthermore, I warn that you may find them inaccessible (as they may require University enrollment to access).



OK-no need to put the info on line. Can you name the source document?: I can probably get it through the College library here.



> You can easily say that Seven Oaks was the straw that broke the camel's back. 20 killed, out of a population of about 100, is pure devastation



True enough, but it didn't stop the flow of British settlers into the area, nor did it wipe out the influence of the Scots in the Valley area: the communities of Selkirk, East Selkirk, Kildonan, North Kildonan, West Kildonan and St. Andrew's all testify to the lasting influence in the Winnipeg area. It is probably safe to say that the original group didn't fare well, but the flow of the Anglos had already begun. The railway (much later) brought the Eastern Europeans.

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Herd

PBI,
you are correct as 'Ruperts Land' was under the control of HBC through their initial charter under Charles I I. The NWC was attempting to break this 'royal' monopoly and the Fur Trade war resulted. In addition to the Seven Oaks there was also the Pemmican Rebellion. Pemmican a staple food source for trippers, traders, travellers came from one major tribal group.  Who ever controlled the pemmican also controlled access. As for the original group most did quite well and to most extents were successful such as 3M for example, tape, sand paper etc came out of this area, Ducks Unlimited. Most though lost it all in the dirty thirties.


----------



## Zartan

pbi, I'm going to have to get back to you with the precise document, but if I remember correctly, it was likely one of the articles (on Red River), in the latest edition of "Readings in Canadian History" (pre-1867)... or at least it'll have some of my sources! I'll try to look it up for certain on Friday or so... got another 2200 words to write for tomorrow!


----------



## pbi

OK. Standing by...

Cheers


----------



## tomahawk6

Hadnt really thought about it until I read this article today. The war began because the US could no longer abide the enforced impressment of US sailors. Then there was the war between France and GB wich saw a blockade of French ports which hurt southern US trade. In 1810 the RN fired on the USS Chesapeake which almost started a war. In the end I think the fact that GB gained no territory and the Battle of New Orleans saw a US victory [after the war was officially over] in american eyes was a victory considering the power of GB at the time.

http://www.canada.com:80/components/print.aspx?id=900d840b-5f36-4dca-a875-b4cce5df2e62



> BACK STORY
> 
> The War Of 1812: A Primer
> 
> Who started the 1812 war? The United States declared war on Britain in June of 1812. As part of the British Empire, Upper Canada was brought into the conflict.
> 
> Why? Americans were angry that Britain, in its war with France under Napoleon Bonaparte, had threatened U.S. sailors and trading channels. Was that all? According to the Oxford Companion to Canadian History, there was also tension about the violation of treaties with First Nations. The Americans claimed that Natives at trading posts around the Great Lakes were conspiring against them.
> 
> How far did the conflict stretch? Uprisings stretched from Florida to the Upper Great Lakes.
> 
> How did it end? By 1814, New England began to voice opposition to the war as American forces were faced with a lack of secure sources of supplies, the Oxford Companion says. Peace negotiations began in August, 1814, after Britain began to devote more time and effort to the American campaign.
> 
> Who won? The failure by either side to win a decisive victory led to a peace treaty signed at Ghent, Belgium, in December, 1814, which restored the status quo. However, the slow communications of the day meant a bloody clash at New Orleans was fought after the war ended. How did the Americans feel? "Two years war and no conquest? The little province of Upper Canada holds out two years against the whole force of democracy? This is very grating," according to Nathan Ford, a local official in New York State.
> 
> Katie Rook, National Post


----------



## sneezy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Hadnt really thought about it until I read this article today. The war began because the US could no longer abide the enforced impressment of US sailors. Then there was the war between France and GB wich saw a blockade of French ports which hurt southern US trade. In 1810 the RN fired on the USS Chesapeake which almost started a war. *In the end I think the fact that GB gained no territory and the Battle of New Orleans saw a US victory [after the war was officially over] in american eyes was a victory considering the power of GB at the time.*
> http://www.canada.com:80/components/print.aspx?id=900d840b-5f36-4dca-a875-b4cce5df2e62



In the end I think the fact that GB sacked and burned Washington saw a GB victory (with almost no opposition) in Canadian eyes was a victory. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Every time I've heard this topic argued/ discussed, it's been fought to a draw, just like that war was.


----------



## Danjanou

Oh no please not this one again :


----------



## Haggis

T6:

What I find interesting is that having visited two of the US Army's biggest museums (Armour in Ft Knox and Infantry in Ft Benning) I recall seeing absoultely no mention of the War of 1812 at etiher.  Surprising, really, when one considers that most conflicts of that age were fought by cavalry and infantry.


----------



## sneezy

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Oh no please not this one again :



That's the point I was trying to make. It's an exercise in futility.


----------



## ExSarge

When I was in Panama, back in the mid 70’s, I was assigned to 3/5th Inf. The 5th traced its linage back to the war of 1812 and carried a number of battle honours for the Niagara campaigns. I must say I was a little conflicted as I have an ancestor who served in the 8th (Kings Regiment) in some of the same engagements.


----------



## tomahawk6

GB stopped pressing US sailors. I dont see where the US made a serious attempt to capture Canada. It looked more like a raid than anything else. There were elements during the revolution that wanted to capture Canada but it didnt happen. I think the colonies were just glad to be rid of GB rather than demand GB giving up Canada. The benefit to the US was that GB recognized the US claim to Louisina which the US had purchased for $15m in 1803.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok for those insistent and to paraphrase a fellow DS here “search”

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/20165.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60597.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47874.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47874.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62717.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26131.0.html


----------



## Haggis

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> GB stopped pressing US sailors. I dont see where the US made a serious attempt to capture Canada. It looked more like a raid than anything else. There were elements during the revolution that wanted to capture Canada but it didnt happen. I think the colonies were just glad to be rid of GB rather than demand GB giving up Canada. The benefit to the US was that GB recognized the US claim to Louisina which the US had purchased for $15m in 1803.



Several raids, actually.  In one American raid, at the Battle of Crysler's Farm (just west of Cornwall, Ontario) a force of some 4000 American troops were routed and forced to retreat by a combined force of 800 British Regulars and Canadian Militia.

Ask a Canadian and it was a defeat.  Ask an American and it was a withdrawal.  Ask me and I'll tell you that, after 195 years, I don't really care who won.

We're allies now.  It was in all the papers.   ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont care either, I was just surprised at how seriously Canadians take the War of 1812. ;D
However, there is an interesting whatif. The British strategy was to strike into the US in three places. Louisiana,New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River to sever NE from the union and Chesapeake Bay as a diversion and then wring territorial concessions from the US. If this strategy had been successful the US might have failed as a country or it would have meant another war. Alot of interesting possibilities.


----------



## Danjanou

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont care either, I was just surprised at how seriously Canadians take the War of 1812. ;D



Almost as serious as some of your countrymen below the Mason/Dixon line take another little fracas almost as old.  8)


----------



## tabernac

I'm surprised as to how much American's downplay it..... But as Haggis said, its in the past, and were allies now.


----------



## Haggis

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I was just surprised at how seriously Canadians take the War of 1812. ;D




We take it seriously because it annoyed us.  The Battle of Ogdensburg happened during winter. So does hockey.  Your "war" interrupted the hockey so we dropped our gloves, attacked across the ice and burned Ogdensburg.

How would you Americans like it if we staged a raid during a NASCAR Nextel Cup race?


----------



## foo32

I suspect the war of 1812 gets little mention in the USA out of sheer jealously.  With each passing generation, more and more Americans fantasise about burning down the White House, but the poor sods will just never get the chance. ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

Whats even more galling is that our allies the Brits wont return the goods they stole from the White House. 8)


----------



## Thorvald

Actually this topic never gets too far with anyone that knows the history of York (Toronto).  The Yanks burned the York government buildings in April of 1813 as well and stole our Mace (and captured the entire town).  The white house was burned in August of 1814, so it was simply a matter of tit-for-tat...  

The mace has an interesting history though:

"The mace vanished from the Parliament Buildings and turned up later in a the military museum in Annapolis, Maryland. President Franklin Roosevelt returned it 121 years later on the occasion of Toronto's centennial birthday in 1934. Today it hangs on the wall of Fort York."

Good synopsis here:
THE CAPTURE OF YORK
http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/1812/18124.html

------

Even more interesting is the finding of a wreck off the coast of Nova Scotia that supposedly has some of the white house plunder:

"Interesting article appeared in Military History, April 2007, page 10, titled British Claim ownership of sunken, stolen, War of 1812 relics found off Nova Scotia. "An ownership debate about valuables looted from Washington, DC, by loyalist troops during the War of 1812 has pitted the British against the Americans once again. Last fall divers from U.S. based Sovereign Exploration Associates finished a reconnaissance of a double shipwreck site off the Nova Scotia coast uncovering artifacts that include White House china, silverware, Capitol relics and coinage from the U.S. Treasury. One of the vessels is believed to be the British frigate HMS Fantome, which sank while leading a convoy back to Halifax after the 1814 sacking of Washington. Following the discovery the British High Commission claimed ownership of the warship and its contents under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Based on that British claim the provincial government of Nova Scotia rejected a recovery permit application filed by the salvage company. The site will remain off-limits until the Americans and the British can come to terms. (Dueling pistols, anyone?)""

Any of Madison's China still there?  ;D


----------



## TN2IC

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Whats even more galling is that our allies the Brits wont return the goods they stole from the White House. 8)



I wonder "what if" the US piped up on that issue to the UK. I wonder how that would play out.  


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## tomahawk6

Should have been a quid pro quo Lend Lease for White House china [I think it was]. ;D


----------



## geo

If I remember right, the UK just finished paying it's WW2 war debt (in past 20 months).


----------



## Foxhound

How does that old chestnut go?  “History is written by the victors.”  I guess it depends on who you think won….

Article link

The War of 1812 revisited
Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Thursday, September 27, 2007 

As early preparations for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 get underway in Canada and the United States, organizers in Canada have run into an unexpected hitch: Their American counterparts seem to think they won.

The historical disconnect between American and Canadian interpretations of the war, during which tens of thousands of American troops invaded Canada - then still a British colony - and were repulsed by the outnumbered defenders, has left Canadian organizers of the bicentennial events shaking their heads in bemusement at their American colleagues' staunch insistence that the war was a victory for the then-young United States.

Sandra Shaul, the city administrator in charge of the bicentennial projects, said she was a little surprised to hear her counterparts on the U.S. side of the border discuss their view of the War of 1812 and see some of the plaques and presentations at historic sites such as Fort Niagara, in Lewiston, N.Y. or Sackets Harbor, N.Y., the base for the two attacks on Toronto in 1813.

"The Americans, well, they feel they won the war," Ms. Shaul says, choosing her words carefully. "They have their perspective and we have ours. It's a question of emphasis: They emphasize their version of the story ... and of course we emphasize ours."

Connie Barone, the site manager of Sackets Harbor state historical park in northern New York, sounds pretty unequivocal about the outcome of the three-year war: "Certainly we won. Because if we hadn't, we'd be using loonies and toonies instead of dollar bills, wouldn't we?"

…more on link

Perspectives, eh?


----------



## Red 6

foo32 said:
			
		

> I suspect the war of 1812 gets little mention in the USA out of sheer jealously.  With each passing generation, more and more Americans fantasise about burning down the White House, but the poor sods will just never get the chance. ;D



Whoa now, Red Rider! We don't want to burn the White House down. The gummint wouls just raise taxes to fix it up again!  ;D ;D Ya'll are just jealous anyway becaue we got the better viewpoinbt at Niagara Falls.  :cheers: Can't we all just be friends.


----------



## ExSarge

> Ya'll are just jealous anyway becaue we got the better viewpoint



What do-ya- mean better view point? We have a southern exposure; any realtor would tell you that, a southern exposure is the preferred option!

Anyway you wouldn’t even have a White House if it wasn’t for the Brit’s getting the “Presidential Mansion” all covered with soot (trust that damn Brits to mess up a simple pillage and burn!)


----------



## Red 6

Alright, I'll give in on the southern exposure thing.....


----------



## Franko

...and of course yet another 1812 thread is spiraling down the drain.       :

Locked with usual caveats.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Mac E

They have a pretty warped perspective if you ask me. They invaded us with a hell of a lot more troops, around 36,000 regulars I believe, and we started out with 5,000 Regulars. (Though our force did rise a lot during the war). We inflicted more casualties, we won more battles against all odds; Brock when he captured Fort Detroit, or even more amazing the battle Chateauguay where we had 400 militia and 170 Natives and we defeated 4,000 American regulars. Of course we suffered our defeats too, but WE were invaded and we REPELLED them. The reason they aren't using loonies is because they invaded us, I hope thats not their only argument.  We did burn their White House, so they could see that as us invading, but that was for the burning of York. I do believe that the British stopped pressing American sailors into the Navy and doing all that, so they won and achieved their goals in that respect, but Canada won by repelling an invading force while being outnumbered. Anyway, I just dislike the Americans saying they won.  ( Do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm prone to doing that, I'm just going off the top of my head here)


----------



## a_majoor

As one historical wag pointed out, the War of 1812 is a favorite because EVERYONE won!


----------



## HistoryFreak

I meant to say we won, but too give their point of view aswell.


----------



## Michael OLeary

*War of 1812 observance preparation shows gap*
 U. S. way behind   Canada in funding

By Thomas J. Prohaska
NEWS NIAGARA REPORTER
Published: April 10, 2010, 12:30 am



> Canadian government agencies and foundations are pouring money into plans and projects for the bicentennial of the War of 1812.
> 
> Americans, not so much. So far the funding tally for the bicentennial commemoration stands: Canada, $19.5 million; U. S., $5,000.
> 
> The $5,000, so far the only donation from the American side, was approved last week by the Niagara County Legislature.
> 
> No money for the bicentennial was included in this year’s Erie County budget, and funding requests are supposed to be submitted by this fall, according to Grant
> 
> Loomis, spokesman for Erie County Executive Chris Collins.
> 
> “As a general rule, Erie County doesn’t fund individual events. We fund cultural organizations after a review process. The amount is generally about $5 million, and there’s heavy competition for those dollars,” Loomis said.
> 
> Gov. David A. Paterson vetoed a bill last summer that would have created a state commission for the War of 1812, similar to one that helped with the 250th anniversary observance of the French and Indian War.
> 
> No dollar amount was attached to the bill, but based on the French and Indian precedent, it probably would have brought in about $500,000, said Thomas E. Schofield, a Youngstown resident who serves as vice president of the Niagara Bicentennial of the War of 1812 Legacy Council Corp.
> 
> “It was vetoed because [Paterson] thought the state lacked the resources,” Schofield said.
> 
> “We’ve been working so far with funding from the Canadian side, and New York needs to catch up,” Schofield told the Legislature.
> 
> Much of the Canadian funding is for large projects, said Vincent Del Buono, a Niagara-on- the-Lake, Ont., legal analyst who serves as Legacy Council president.
> 
> The Ontario and Canadian governments have earmarked $3.4 million each for a makeover of the Niagara Falls, Ont., Historical Museum.
> 
> Also, Parks Canada has lined up $6 million for improvements at Fort George, on the Niagara River just south of Niagara- on-the-Lake, along with an additional $500,000 for new signs on the Niagara River Parkway.
> 
> Del Buono said the Fort George work will include a new visitor center and repairs to the log palisades around the fort.
> 
> Canadian federal and provincial governments also put in $4.87 million for a visitor center at Old Fort Erie, across the river from Buffalo.
> 
> The Legacy Council’s Web site, www.discover1812.com , and the first edition of a bicentennial map were funded through a $200,000 appropriation from the Regional Municipality of Niagara, $165,000 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation and $150,000 from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism. Canadian Heritage and Parks Canada supplied $45,000 for a seminar in Hamilton, Ont., April 23-24 on the role of the arts in the bicentennial. Del Buono remains optimistic that American funds will eventually flow.
> 
> “New York State’s struggles will not continue forever,” he said. “The level of volunteer involvement and grass-roots interest on the American side is impressive.”


----------



## pbi

My impression is that the War of 1812 has never really been much on the radar in the US. Except for the Battle of New Orleans (fought after the peace agreement was signed), and the bombardment of Fort McHenry at Baltimore (Oh, say, can you see...etc), I think most American folks without a keen interest in military history would be hard pressed to name a single battle. I don't think it has ever really been seen in the US as an epic tale of national survival against great odds, the way it has been handed down in our national heritage. Any serious analysis of the forces involved would suggest that the idea of  an Imperial plot to restore the US to the Empire was nonsense: the British forces were also somewhat occupied with Napoleon at the time. It doesn't stack up very well next to the Revolutionary War as a great narrative.

Not to mention that the War of 1812 featured some of America's least impressive military performances, and unsettling aspects such as the resistance of the northern New England states to the entire idea of the war.

Having said that, I'm not too sure what answer I would get if I asked 100 Canadians to name a battle from the War of 1812.....

Cheers


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Probably something about burning down the White House   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Other than Johnny Horton's song, I don't think the US is even aware that anything happened.

Of course this is all Obama's fault 8)
Can't have anyone think the Battle of New Orleans was anything but a Bush\ FEMA fiasco.


----------



## OpieRWestmrR

Oh, I dunno. It depends what you want to commemorate. As far as Maryland is concerned the fun doesn't start for another four years. Have a look at this link.

http://mddailyrecord.com/maryland-business/2010/02/04/war-of-1812-bicentennial-means-moo-lah-for-baltimore/

That's just one of many pieces that popped up when I googled 'funding commemoration Baltimore 1814'. The point of this link is it highlights the tourism opportunity Maryland wants to grasp. There will be commemoration aplenty.

The funding figures in the newspaper story above are presented as national totals when they're not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Comment Columnists / Christina Blizzard
Liberals balk at 1812 salute: Blizzard

Memorial for men who died in one of the most important battles in Canada’s history dismissed by Grits

By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD, Toronto Sun

Last Updated: September 23, 2010 10:36pm

Mention the War of 1812 and I had to scratch around in my brain to remember my high school history class.

I went to school in the U.K., so that era was generally taught through the prism of the Napoleonic Wars.
The most important feature of the War of 1812 that I could recall was that its biggest battle — New Orleans — was actually fought after the peace treaty had been signed in Ghent in 1814.
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MPP Paul Miller brought the war to the floor of the Legislature this week.

The Battle of Stoney Creek was fought June 6, 1813.
Casualty reports suggest 23 British soldiers were killed and 17 Americans died.
While the British lost more men, the battle is considered to have been a victory that saved Canada from becoming part of the U.S.

The Americans were pushed back to the Niagara River — and were never able to make further inroads in Canada.
In 1998 and 1999, an archeological restoration project at Battlefield Park revealed military artefacts and almost 800 human bone fragments.
As the soil erodes, those human remains have moved closer to the surface.

It was also discovered that the battlefield and burial site actually extended further — into private property. When that land went up for sale, Hamilton council bought it, with the help of private money.
Miller wants the remains of those long-dead soldiers — believed to be British, American and First Nations — to be re-interred in a more dignified and appropriate way.

When he raised the issue in the Legislature in May, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised “to look into it.”
In June, Miller wrote to Tourism and Culture Minister Michael Chan requesting $200,000 for a cemetery and memorial.
Chan’s response appears confused. He said there’s no money to purchase the land — when the land has already been purchased. It’s the cemetery that’s at issue.

When Miller raised the issue in the House on Wednesday, Chan talked about how the government has allocated money to celebrate the bicentennial of the war in 2012.
“I would encourage the city of Hamilton to engage the western corridor bicentennial alliance to come up with a proposal so that we can, come 2012, celebrate 1812 in Stoney Creek.”

Miller says Stoney Creek will have to compete with other bicentennial projects for what would amount to about $50,000 — which wouldn’t even pay for the machinery they’d need for the re-interment.
“This bogus argument that he used to deny the funding is absolutely atrocious,” Miller said.

He’s quite right. This is disgusting.
The names and faces of those who died in that historic battle may be long forgotten, but it’s shameful for this government to allow their sacrifice to die with them.

A civilized country honours its war dead
A civilized country gives a decent final resting place to enemy combatants who die on its soil — especially when those old foes are now our friends.
It’s shocking they won’t do so.

This is the government that gave $1 million to a cricket club, yet they don’t have enough money to give a decent burial to soldiers who died in one of the pivotal nation-building battles of this country.
Chan needs to rethink his answer and make a new overture to the people of Stoney Creek.

Hey, he could call it the 1812 overture.

christina.blizzard@sunmedia.ca Twitter: @ChrizBlizz


----------



## Chilme

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I saw it and thought many would be entertained by it.  "The First Invasion" is a highly Americanized account of the War of 1812, where they are portrayed and they are portrayed as the innocent victims and underdog nation.  I'll leave it at that and let you draw your own opinions from there.

http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/12/first-invasion-war-of-1812.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Reviving thread to show Canada's new total investment, via the _National Post_/Postmedia News - I look forward to the puppet version w/southeast Asian tunes....


> The Conservative government is planning a $100-million national celebration to mark the bicentennial of the War of 1812 next year.
> 
> It is understood that the current plans for the commemoration include re-enactments of famous battles, the repair of monuments and plaques, a new visitor centre at Fort York in Toronto, a documentary, a national essay-writing competition and a dedicated website. Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary for Canadian Heritage, confirmed the government is keen to make the bicentennial a major event. He said the Prime Minister and Heritage Minister James Moore are intent on making sure the significance of the anniversary isn't missed.
> 
> "It is going to be something that will unite Canadians and foster a greater understanding of our history," he said. "The country's borders were established by the outcome of the war. It was a big moment in our history and a lot of Canadians don't know a lot about it."
> 
> The Conservatives are currently engaged in negotiating a perimeter security deal with the United States but Mr. Del Mastro said he did not think the Americans would be upset by events that celebrate the burning of the White House and the Capitol building, after a British raid in 1814.
> 
> "There will be celebrations on both sides of the border and American groups will come to Canada to celebrate the partnership that has evolved since then," he said. In fact, many of the events will celebrate 200 years of peaceful co-existence with a former adversary. "These were events that forged our future and made us able to continue as a separate nation," said Sandra Shaul, project manager for the City of Toronto's bicentennial commemorations.
> 
> One of the challenges identified by some event organizers is how to interest recent immigrants to Canada. Ms. Shaul said one proposal is to tell the story of 1812 using puppets accompanied by south-east Asian music.
> 
> "We have to help people understand this story through their own stories. We will have re-enactments done accurately but we also have to answer the question: Why should I care? What does it mean to me? I have a very diverse audience and I have to find an entry point to the story," she said ....


----------



## TN2IC

I'm just starting to read a book call "1812: War with America" by Jon Latimer.  I admit, I'm more of a WW2 History buff. But I felt the need to educate myself more on our friends to the south. Since my fellow workers here, like to thump their chest over this conflict.

And this book, to be honest, I can't put it down. It is a very intresting, and informative. 


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## ModlrMike

> Ms. Shaul said one proposal is to tell the story of 1812 using puppets accompanied by south-east Asian music.



You've got to be frikkin' kidding me!


----------



## mariomike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I look forward to the puppet version w/southeast Asian tunes....



They are lucky to have a place for a puppet show. There was a battle between Metro and the City over the future of Fort York.
Metro wanted to build an on-ramp from Bathurst St. to the Gardiner west-bound, directly over Fort York. 
There was also a proposal to link Highway 400 to the Gardiner to meet in the vicinity of Fort York. They considered re-locating the fort to the waterfront.
However, the fort was not moved, the Bathurst on-ramp was canceled, as was the Highway 400 interchange at Fort York. 
Re-routing the expressway around the fort caused a six degree curve.

During the War of 1812, Fort York actually sat on the shore of Lake Ontario. Before all the landfill. 

Fort York is now a National Historic Site, and houses Canada's largest collection of original War of 1812 period buildings.


----------



## Pusser

Perhaps the lack of funding from the American side is because they don't like to talk about wars they didn't win?   ;D


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I was watching CTV news ( Canada AM )  and  the ticker tape news always running during the news cast and this question came to mind. War of 1812  has to be the strangest war ever fought, both sides in the war are claiming victory. Who won the war? Who lost? I know in Canadian History classes I was taught we won the war and tossed out the invaders out of what is now Canada.  Not sure what is taught in US history  classes about the war. We Canadians do not say  much about the war  near the border where battles took place not to offend the American tourists that  visit the area. 

One American historian claims Canada won the war.  See The National Post story: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/27/canada-won-the-war-of-1812-u-s-historian-admits/

Just curious what  do you  think , who won the war?


----------



## Old Sweat

There are conflicting versions, however one that I read (and I will have to dig out the source) concluded that both Canada and the United States won in that the former was henceforth left alone to develop under the British Crown while the latter was accepted as an independent state by the British. The British perhaps broke more or less even, although they had to support the Canadian colonies, they also grewr to cooperate with the Americans. The group that lost, and lost miserably, where the native peoples, especially in the territories claimed by the US. It had been British policy to support the development of an "Indian" territory in the northwest, that is the upper Great Lakes states running down towards the Mississippi. This was dropped and American settlement moved in and forced the aboriginals out of their homeland with no compensation.

I am not sure the War of 1812 was the strangest war ever. While researching something else I came across a reference to the border war between Peru and Ecuador in July 1941, which included the use of airborne forces by the Peruvians. In other words, Peru was the third country after Germany and the UK to conduct an operational parachute assault. Who'da thunk?


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe the War of Jenkins Ear was weirder.


----------



## RangerRay

Or the Pig War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War


----------



## Pusser

The Aroostook or Lumberjack's War might also be considered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

I have visions of large bearded men going at each other with axe handles in the woods....

As for the War of 1812, in simple terms, the Americans often base their "victory" on the Battle of New Orleans, which was a rout against the British (though not as Johnny Horton described it).  However, that battle actually took place after the treaty ending the war had been signed.  I personally subscribe to the theory that Canada/the Empire won simply because one of the main stated aims of the Americans was to remove all British influence in North America, in which they utterly failed.


----------



## RangerRay

I think the Yanks also believed they won because the Brits stopped press-ganging American sailors at sea into the RN after the war, which was one reason why they invaded.


----------



## Old Sweat

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I think the Yanks also believed they won because the Brits stopped press-ganging American sailors at sea into the RN after the war, which was one reason why they invaded.



The British had actually ended the practice in mid-1812, but word did not reach the Americans until after war had been declared.


----------



## jeffb

If you define win as who achieved their aims, then I can't see how the US won the War of 1812. In order to understand the war you have to understand that in 1812 the Napoleonic wars were raging. The British had pretty much total control of the sea but British trade was subjected to Napoleon's Continental system- a land based economic blockade of the Britain. Their armies were tied down in Spain and Portugal fighting the Peninsular War- a sideshow of the Napoleonic War really. Napoleon's Grand Armee invaded Russia in 1812. In essence, in 1812, the war was not going well for Britain. Prussia was still an ally of France and the Sixth Coalition, the alliance that ultimately defeated Napoleon, had not yet been formed. The British public was not very happy about the war. 1812 was an election year and also saw the assassination of the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. Incidentally, he was the only PM assassinated in British history although his assassination was not related to the war per se. In an effort to stem the tide of British sailors jumping ships, the British Navy adopted a policy of stopping any merchant ships in an effort to find deserters. Needless to say, the American's were somewhat unhappy with this and this as an excuse to get back at England. 

British North America was almost undefended at the time given the events elsewhere in the world. To the US, 1812 seemed like the perfect time to gobble up the top half of the continent through "a mere matter of marching". So, there goal was to conquer British North America. 

The British government's goal was to defend Canada in total if possible but if not, to at least hold on to Canada from Quebec City eastward. 

In essence, it is hard to see how this war could be considered a win for the US. When faced with overwhelming odds on paper, the small British garrison, augmented by Native allies and some militia, managed to take advantage of what would be almost comical, if they weren't so tragic, invasion attempts by the US until British reinforcements arrived later in the war. At the close of the war the British forces had capture Detroit, parts of upstate New York and burned the White House while sacking Washington, DC. Their only partly successful invasion attempt occurred in the Niagara campaign and the raiding of York but these were quickly repulsed.


----------



## jeffb

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Or the Pig War...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War



I didn't know about this one. Interesting, that the commanding officer on the ground for the US was then Capt George Pickett made famous (infamous) several years later in the misnamed Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.


----------



## The Bread Guy

La guerra del fútbol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War


----------



## Old Sweat

jeffb said:
			
		

> If you define win as who achieved their aims, then I can't see how the US won the War of 1812. In order to understand the war you have to understand that in 1812 the Napoleonic wars were raging. The British had pretty much total control of the sea but British trade was subjected to Napoleon's Continental system- a land based economic blockade of the Britain. Their armies were tied down in Spain and Portugal fighting the Peninsular War- a sideshow of the Napoleonic War really. Napoleon's Grand Armee invaded Russia in 1812. In essence, in 1812, the war was not going well for Britain. Prussia was still an ally of France and the Sixth Coalition, the alliance that ultimately defeated Napoleon, had not yet been formed. The British public was not very happy about the war. 1812 was an election year and also saw the assassination of the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. Incidentally, he was the only PM assassinated in British history although his assassination was not related to the war per se. In an effort to stem the tide of British sailors jumping ships, the British Navy adopted a policy of stopping any merchant ships in an effort to find deserters. Needless to say, the American's were somewhat unhappy with this and this as an excuse to get back at England.
> 
> British North America was almost undefended at the time given the events elsewhere in the world. To the US, 1812 seemed like the perfect time to gobble up the top half of the continent through "a mere matter of marching". So, there goal was to conquer British North America.
> 
> The British government's goal was to defend Canada in total if possible but if not, to at least hold on to Canada from Quebec City eastward.
> 
> In essence, it is hard to see how this war could be considered a win for the US. When faced with overwhelming odds on paper, the small British garrison, augmented by Native allies and some militia, managed to take advantage of what would be almost comical, if they weren't so tragic, invasion attempts by the US until British reinforcements arrived later in the war. At the close of the war the British forces had capture Detroit, parts of upstate New York and burned the White House while sacking Washington, DC. Their only partly successful invasion attempt occurred in the Niagara campaign and the raiding of York but these were quickly repulsed.



However the British ceased their support of the native Americans in the northwest and left them to the tender mercies of the Americans. Do not forget that the US Army in 1814 was a vastly different organization from the mob that began the war and was able to fight the British on an equal footing. See the fighting in the Niagara Peninsula that year for an example. One could argue they gave as good as they got at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane and the siege of Fort Erie. They also repulsed an invasion attempt on Lake Champlain in mid 1814 at Plattsburgh. The British realized the "divorce" was final and accepted the status quo. Frankly the United States could not have been conquered and held by the available forces even if all Wellington's Army that could have been spared from watching France had crossed the Atlantic, so its independence was secured.


----------



## jeffb

OS, I don't disagree with any of the points you mention here but making the War of 1812 into the American Revolution redux because England no longer challenged their independence is not really the point. The stated goal of the war was to stop the practice of pressing American sailors into British service, a practice that you pointed out ended before the start of the war and the annexation of BNA. They failed on the second attempt. It was never a British goal to launch an invasion on the US for the purposes of conquering the country. Most British actions were aimed at bringing the conflict to a conclusion and returning to the pre war borders (as evidenced by the peace treaty). The British had no appetite, nor did they have the military power, to conquer the US. 

I completely agree with you about your assessment of the US Army late war. Further proof of this can be found at the Battle of New Orleans. The problem they had was that there was a whole of bunch of British 1st line troops that had been freed up in Europe and could be made available in BNA. Had the US and the England decided to continue the war into 1816 and beyond, I suspect there would have been a strategic stalemate marked by raids of ever increasing side. 

In the final balance, who's national interest was better served at the end of the war? America's by demonstrating that it was not able to successfully complete what should have been a fairly easy conquest, albeit gaining recognition after the fact, or England's in securing one of it's more important colonies from future invasion?


----------



## Old Sweat

In our best gunner style, we are debating nuances of the same side of the issue. We used to call it having a gunnery discussion. 

Certainly Canada's place in the Empire was assured, even if the Brits may later gladly have given us away as atoo expensive drain. If you look at it from various parts of the US, you might also have different perceptives. New England and the Atlantic coast suffered from the war, as did parts of New York. However the belt along the St Lawrence prospered trading with the enemy. The South, including the new Louisiana territory, probably was really not bothered too much, except for sea trade and, of course, the 1815 invasion culminating in the battle of New Orleans. Middle America - the home of the tidal wave of Scotch Irish expanding into the Appalachians and the northwest - really came out ahead, given the freer hand they had after the British abandoned the Indians. At worst, the Americans did not lose too badly on the battlefield and they did achieve their long term strategic objective, even if they may not have realized it at the time.


----------



## Maxadia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ety2FEHQgwM

 ;D


----------



## Danjanou

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> La guerra del fútbol
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War



Even shorter and more lopsided

Anglo Zanzibar War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War


----------



## Zartan

My American-educated cousin, Dan, always held that "we" won the War of 1812. When asked who he meant, it was the Americans of course. Old Sweat raises good points about the defeat  of the Native Americans. They were the true losers from the conflict, and their defeat does give the Americans some claim to a victory (of sorts). However, in addressing the matter of whether the Americans met any of their war aims from the start of the war, the answer is of course, absolutely not. Seizing upon the victories of 1814 (Chippewa, Baltimore, Lake Champlain), and of course, New Orleans, the Americans have since been able to recast the war as a "Second war of Independence." A completely ridiculous notion, but after all, history is not always written by the victors. It is written by whoever cares, and care the British certainly did not.

I believe I read this on this site once long ago, and I think it encapsulates the war rather accurately: "The War of 1812 was a war between Great Britain and the United States. The winner was Canada and the loser was Spain. Any questions?"


----------



## jeffb

You are absolutely right that the winner of the war was Canada. Despite the fact that Canada didn't exist at the time, the result of the war was the security of our border. Yes, there was some serious talk of an invasion after the US Civil War and there were the Fenian Raids but by and large, this war set the stage for the great relationship we have with our southern neighbors today. The Rush-Bagot Agreement signed shortly after the war is a prime example of this. Basically, it turned the Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain, into a demilitarized by severely limiting the construction and deployment of warships. The naval race on the Great Lakes was one of the central themes in the War of 1812 and was something that neither side wanted to repeat again.


----------



## jeffb

On a slightly related note, with all of the bicentennial reenactments that will be taking place over the next few years, is anyone aware of any reenactors who will be playing the parts of the Royal Artillery or the Royal Marine Artillery? I did a search online and all I found were infantry formations.


----------



## Old Sweat

Now you have done it. You have got me going on the Fenians, a moistly forgotten and under-rated threat that was taken very, very seriously at the time. While the US government did sort of turn a blind eye to their goings on, when push came to shove the Federal authorities got a grip on them pretty quickly. It is too bad that the incompetence of the British and Canadian authorities in 1866 allowed them to claim the only victory for the Irish independence movement between 1798 and circa 1922 at the two battles on 2 June 1866 at Ridgeway and then Fort Erie.

I was born in Fort Erie and grew up in Ridgeway, so my fixation may have a reason. My ancestors did hurry to the Ridgeway battlefield to, as they claimed, aid the wounded. I annoy my relatives by claiming they really were robbing the dead.

And the author of what used to be our unoffical national anthem, _The Maple Leaf Forever_, which included the lines "At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane, Our Brave Fathers Side by Side, For something, something and Loved Ones Dear, Bravely Fought and Nobly Died," was a veteran of Ridgeway.

Sorry for the sidetrack.


----------



## vonGarvin

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am not sure the War of 1812 was the strangest war ever. While researching something else I came across a reference to the border war between Peru and Ecuador in July 1941, which included the use of airborne forces by the Peruvians. In other words, Peru was the third country after Germany and the UK to conduct an operational parachute assault. Who'da thunk?


I know that the Germans used airborne forces in Belgium and Holland in 1940, and then in Crete in 1941, but when did the UK conduct an operational parachute assault prior to Julyh 1941?

(I could google it, but what fun would that be?)


----------



## jeffb

To my knowledge the first British airborne OP in the second world war was OP Bieting or something like that. It was a small scale raid on a radar post near Le Harve in France led by Major John Frost, a name that is best known for his role in OP MARKET GARDEN 2 years later. I don't think the Japanese executed any either until 1942.


----------



## larry Strong

Operation Colossus. No. 11 Special Air Service Battalion. Feb 1941. 

A small force of thirty eight men – seven officers and thirty one other ranks as well as three Italian speaking interpreters, jumped to attack a  fresh water aqueduct near Calitri in southern Italy.


----------



## larry Strong

jeffb said:
			
		

> To my knowledge the first British airborne OP in the second world war was OP Bieting or something like that. It was a small scale raid on a radar post near Le Harve in France led by Major John Frost, a name that is best known for his role in OP MARKET GARDEN 2 years later. I don't think the Japanese executed any either until 1942.



Operation Biting or the Bruneval Raid was in Feb 1942

My source for both answers is British Airborne Troops, 1940-45 which is a Macdonald illustrated war study


----------



## Danjanou

I can't remember details but didn't the Soviets carry out some small scale airborne operatiosn in the Winter War against Finland 1939-40, and again during Barbarossa in 1941


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> La guerra del fútbol
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War



Damn; that's the one that sprung to my mind immediately too ...


----------



## Maxadia

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I can't remember details but didn't the Soviets carry out some small scale airborne operatiosn in the Winter War against Finland 1939-40, and again during Barbarossa in 1941



Over 320,000 killed....small, considering WW2 was going on at the time.

Look up Simo Hayha if you haven't.....he was VERY good at his job.


----------



## cupper

I keep trying to educate the ignorant masses down here that Canada won the War of 1812, but they seem to not to want to be re-educated. ;D

Seriously though, most of the historians I've read cannot really agree as to which side actually won, and are more likely as not to call it a draw. The British, and more specifically Canada were victorious in keeping US expansionist policies from coming to fruition, beating back the invading US troops in the first half of the war. However the US was victorious in defeating British troops invading US soil.

The only thing that historians do agree on is that the biggest loser at the end of the war was the native peoples. British indifference and US policies of western expansion resulted in the displacement of the natives from their lands and forced ever further west and onto marginal lands where they could barely survive.


----------



## Danjanou

RDJP said:
			
		

> Over 320,000 killed....small, considering WW2 was going on at the time.
> 
> Look up Simo Hayha if you haven't.....he was VERY good at his job.



I think taht was total Soviet casualties. 'm not sure ( no where near my library) but the Airborne drops would have been Bn or Regiment sized at best. I don't think the Red Army ever had enough planes to doa Div drop and all their Airborne Divs fought as regular infantry.

Well aware of who Simo Hayha was. 8)


----------



## Old Sweat

With all the attention being paid to the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, we should not forget that there were other campaigns and battles along the Niagara frontier in the French and Indian Wars and the rebellions/insurrections in Upper Canada in the 1830s. However, the campaign that is largely forgotten and which can be argued cemented confederation in 1867 was the Fenian Invasions of 1866. There were actually three, however the most serious resulted in what is known as the Battle of Ridgeway. This was actually two battles, both on 2 June 1866: the first took place a short distance north of the tiny village of Ridgeway between a strong force of what was titled The Irish Republican Army made up of Civil War veterans and an ad hoc force of ill-trained and poorly equipped Canadian militia; the second was fought in the border town of Fort Erie between the same Fenians who had fought at Ridgeway and a small party of militia. Both resulted in stunning Fenian victories, in fact these were the only victories achieved by the Irish indepencen movement between 1798 and crica 1922.

A conference on the Battle of Ridgeway will be held on 2 June 2012 in the village itself. Among the events will be a conference featuring four speakers, two for each side. The Fenians have yet to be selected (or at least I don't know their names) while the British and Canadian side will be represented by Peter Vronsky, who has written the most complete account of the campaign and its aftermath ever produced, and myself. Toot! Toot! That is my horn as Dr Vronsky acknowledges that prior to his book appearing, my short study "Prepare for Cavalry" in _Fighting For Canada: Seven Battles, 1758 - 1945_ was one of the only two accurate accounts of the battle to appear since the late 19th century.

Further information may be found here:  www.ridgewayreads.com


----------



## jeffb

OS that sounds fascinating and if I'm not engaged with work, I'll be there!


----------



## Danjanou

OS I think I'm in Nova Scotia that week, but if not will certainly come out and heckle you again. I'll bring the single malt. 8)


----------



## Old Sweat

It would be a pleasure to see you folks there. Ridgeway is my home town and I used to hike and ride my bike, and later hunt rabbits, on the battlefield. What is interesting is that the ground where the battle took place is a naturally strong defensive position, and the Fenian defence was planned accordingly. I don't think the Canadian commander - who was an auctioneer by trade - even attempted to make an estimate.


----------



## Danjanou

Sunday the 3rd is the RCL St John of Norway D-Day Church Parade and Memorial Serivce here in Toronto, and as we both know the Parade Commander and he's an insufferable prick  retired CSM  type, the logistics may be hard to do, but I'll see.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Sunday the 3rd is the RCL St John of Norway D-Day Church Parade and Memorial Serivce here in Toronto, and as we both know the Parade Commander and he's an insufferable prick  retired CSM  type, the logistics may be hard to do, but I'll see.




What better reason to be in Fort Erie/Ridgeway? Dont too many cooks CSMs spoil the broth parade?


----------



## Old Sweat

I have a query about telegraph procedure. I know how it works and assume there also was an office procedure for sending, receiving, acknowledging and logging messages. (In early 1959 I was a student on a Signaller RCA Group 1 course and we took message centre procedure, but that was a very long time ago.) I also know that the time on a telegram is the time of transmission, or perhaps acceptance and logging in the sending station. The time that the addressee receives it could be quite a bit later, and that depends on all sorts of things.

Does anybody have any knowledge of or can point me to a source on mid-Nineteenth Century telegraph communications?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It would be a pleasure to see you folks there. Ridgeway is my home town and I used to hike and ride my bike, and later hunt rabbits, on the battlefield. What is interesting is that the ground where the battle took place is a naturally strong defensive position, and the Fenian defence was planned accordingly. I don't think the Canadian commander - who was an auctioneer by trade - even attempted to make an estimate.


I suppose as the Fenian's were combat veterans that put the odds highly stacked in their favour as well against "Dad's Army".


----------



## Old Sweat

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I suppose as the Fenian's were combat veterans that put the odds highly stacked in their favour as well against "Dad's Army".



The Fenians were indeed combat veterans and also had done some preparations. There is all sorts of evidence that they had an intelligence organization in place and were intercepting and reading the British/Canadian telegraph messages. Don't get me going on the incompetence of our side's planning and staff work. No logistics, hell, not even packs to carry non-existant rations; no maps; no recce of the area; no staff; and no thinking that had worked down to the unit level about what to do in the case of an invasion.


----------



## Bill Smy

Considerable activity among Fenians in the United States in March of 1866 caused the Governor General to place some 14,000 Canadian militiamen on Active Service. This mobilization helped formulate plans to defend both Canada East and Canada West. During the call-out Canadian militia were posted at Port Colborne from 10 March through to 21 April. Units garrisoning the village were the Welland Canal Field Battery, and the rifle companies of Collingwood, Cobourg, Columbus, and Whitby.

You would think that call-out would have identified the logistical necessities required in future operations. But no!

When the QOR began to entrain at Port Dalhousie for Port Colborne, serious problems began to emerge. Believing sufficient provisions would be available at Port Colborne none had been brought from Toronto. When informed that the village, (fewer than 1,000 inhabitants) would not be able to sustain the large number of troop, it was proposed to stop the train at St Cathaibes and take on stores there. But there were no commissariat arrangements to do so.

To add to the problem, there were no cooking utensils and the men had no haversacks, knapsacks or field equipment such as entrenching tools. The regimental physician accompanied the unit, but he had no mobile hospital or staff. More importantly, only 5 rounds of ammunition per man had been issued at Toronto.

The troops arriving at Port Colborne from Hamilton and the Grand River area were no better prepared. Few men had ammunition, there was no food but some of the men were able to obtain some red herring and crackers, there was inadequate accommodation so the men slept on the railway cars. 

None of the units had horses or wagons for the transport of equipment or supplies.

I wonder what "Lessons Learned" emerged from the March/April call-out?


----------



## Old Sweat

The horror stories of poor planning and lousy staff work could fill a volume in itself. The plan as transmitted to Toronto was for a composite unit formed from the city's militia to proceed to the frontier. Instead Lieutenant Colonel J Stoughton Dennis, the Brigade Major at Toronto, called out the QOR and usurped command from the CO to lead the unit himself. That meant, of course, that he was not available at the HQ for planning and coordination. Based on his subsequent performance, that may not have been a bad thing. If he knew anything about making an estimate, he did a good job of concealing it. His plan to launch a premature attack on the Fenians led to both Ridgeway and the subsequent defeat of the Welland Canal Field Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, both fighting as infantry, at Fort Erie. Not only that, but the destruction of the force landed at Fort Erie removed the means of preventing the Fenian return to US territory and self-manufactured glory.

As for ammunition, the 13th Battalion did bring extra ammunition and this helped make up the deficiencies in the other units. The unit's CO, Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Booker, took command at the ad hoc brigade at Port Colborne by reasons of seniority. He found himself in command of a brigade without a staff, and with no training above the unit level. I won't get too much further into it, other than to remark his life was ruined before noon on 2 June. The wretched Dennis, whom I described in my study of the campaign, as "energetic, persuasive and bone-headed," managed to escape censure to go on to bigger and worse things. He was appointed to conduct the survey of the Red River settlement and played a major part in provoking the Metis 1870 uprising.

I am not sure if the lessons learned from the campaign really endured as nearly 20 years later in the NW Rebellion, militiamen still had to provide their own boots and underclothing!


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The horror stories of poor planning and lousy staff work could fill a volume in itself. The plan as transmitted...was for a composite unit.... That meant, of course, that [the commander] was not available at the HQ for planning and coordination. Based on his subsequent performance, that may not have been a bad thing. If he knew anything about making an estimate, he did a good job of concealing it. His plan to launch a premature attack...led to...the subsequent defeat...
> 
> ...The wretched [commander], whom I described in my study of the campaign, as "energetic, persuasive and bone-headed," managed to escape censure to go on to bigger and worse things.
> 
> ...I am not sure if the lessons learned from the campaign really endured... [soldiers] still had to provide their own boots and underclothing!



Now, are we talking Fenian raids or Canada in Afghanistan?


----------



## Danjanou

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Now, are we talking Fenian raids or Canada in Afghanistan?



 :rofl:


----------



## Old Sweat

The following piece from the Toronto Star provides an accurate overview of the battle that was fought a few kilometres north of Ridgeway on 2 June 1866. The author's comments re the rigged inquiries are germane. I have read the record of the one that has never been published which was into the conduct of Lieutenant Colonel J Stoughton Dennis at Fort Erie later on the same day. It includes such gems as the testimony of some troops that, as they were engaging the advancing Fenians, they heard one of their officers yell "Where the hell are you going?" and saw Dennis, who was the senior officer present, hunched over and running to the rear. In spite of this, he escaped censure.

The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

The last invasion and Canada’s forgotten first casualties

Published On Sat Mar 24 2012

Peter Vronsky

Earlier this month, the Americans dedicated a new memorial on the shores of the Niagara River commemorating one of the last invasions of Canada to be launched from U.S. territory. 

The Fenian invasion of 1866 monument marks the point from where approximately 1,000 Irish-American Fenian insurgents invaded the Fort Erie area intending to take Canada hostage in a campaign to force the British out of Ireland. The Fenian invasion culminated on June 2, 1866, with Canada’s first modern battle, the Battle of Ridgeway, our first fought in the age of telegraph and steam railroads.

Ridgeway was the first battle fought exclusively by Canadian soldiers and led entirely by Canadian officers — no British troops participated in the combat — and it was the last battle fought against foreign invaders in what would become Ontario. 

It was also an unmitigated disaster when untested Canadian troops from Hamilton and Toronto, including two rifle companies of University of Toronto student volunteers, came up against battle-hardened Irish American Civil War veterans of the Fenian “Irish Republican Army” (IRA) — the first known use of that term.

After U.S. navy gunboats cut off Fenian supply lines across the Niagara River and as Canadian and British forces began to close in, the invaders withdrew to their base in Buffalo on June 3. Many on both sides of the border credit the Fenians with cementing Canadian nationhood. These include New York State Senator Timothy Kennedy, who led the campaign to raise the monument in Buffalo’s Tow Path Park, the Niagara riverside launching point for the incursion.

“The Fenian invasion has a unique place in Buffalo’s history,” he said. “The Fenian Brotherhood, battle-hardened American veterans, first fought to keep our nation united and strong in the Civil War. Then, by launching this invasion, they significantly contributed to the national independence of Canada and eventually Ireland. The Fenian invasion demonstrated that freedom and democracy are forces that no amount of oppression can stop. Even outnumbered and outgunned, the Fenians valiantly battled the British Crown forces. They played a pivotal role in Canada’s independence, and they helped inspire Irish freedom.”

While Americans celebrated the invasion of Canada and their role in the “national independence of Canada,” most Canadians have never heard of the Battle of Ridgeway, in which the first modern Canadian soldiers were killed: nine riflemen from one of Canada’s oldest continually serving military units, Toronto’s Queen’s Own Rifles Regiment (QOR). Three of the dead were U of T students plucked from their final exams and thrown into combat the next day.

Canada’s pre-Confederation local military defence was the responsibility of the colonial minister of militia and attorney general, John A. Macdonald, and the subsequent debacle threatened his confederation plans and his ambition to lead the future Dominion of Canada’s first government. 

A cabal of politicians and prominent upper class volunteer militia officers conspired to cover up the disaster through a series of military boards of inquiry. They were so successful that to this day the transcripts of the testimony in one of the inquiries have never been published, while the Battle of Ridgeway, despite being so critical in Canada’s Confederation history, is the battle that most Canadians have never heard of. Ridgeway is not commemorated, its casualties are not recognized in our National Books of Remembrance and their gravestones (scattered across southern Ontario and in Toronto) do not have National War Grave status and are uncared for by the government. A private effort by veterans of the Queen’s Own Rifles recently restored the nine abandoned gravestones that had nearly vanished in the winds and rains of the last 146 years.

The same can be said for the battlefield in the village of Ridgeway near Fort Erie. It is vanishing as housing developments threaten to swallow up the unmarked historic site. Bob Dunk, president of the Queen’s Own Rifles Association of Canada, laments, “In the United States, every site of even the smallest skirmish in the Revolutionary War or Civil War is sacred ground, cared for and protected by the National Park Service as historic national sites. Yet the ground of Ridgeway, on which Canada’s first soldiers died, except for a tiny cairn and plaque in a small far and out-of-the-way corner, are forgotten and ignored.”

Yet there is hope that Canadians will come to restore the memory of our first casualties. While plaques in the Moss Park Armoury at Queen and Jarvis Streets in Toronto where the QOR is currently stationed commemorate soldiers from the regiment who fell in every conflict Canada fought in from South Africa to Korea (75 QOR recently served in Afghanistan without casualties), only this year will a plaque finally be unveiled in memory of the “Ridgeway Nine” — the first to fall for Canada — during the scheduled royal visit in May by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, who is currently the honourary commanding officer of the regiment.

Despite the focus on the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this year is appropriate for remembering the Battle at Ridgeway and the “last invasion” of Canada. June 2 falls on a Saturday this year, as did the battle in 1866. The town of Ridgeway, as part of its Ridgeway Reads literary festival, will be host to a conference of historians and the unveiling a new painting depicting the battle. And the QOR Association has petitioned Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley to help lobby Ottawa for official recognition of the “Ridgeway Nine.”


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is the Wiki page dealing with the  Battle of Ridgeway. 

A more patriotic version of the battle can be found  here.


----------



## Old Sweat

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Here is the Wiki page dealing with the  Battle of Ridgeway.
> 
> A more patriotic version of the battle can be found  here.



I fear the "more patriotic version" applies considerable artistic licence. The wikipedia narrative is closer to what I feel is the truth based on extensive research. 

One of the documents which is rarely quoted is the investigation into the events at Ridgeway ordered by the militia authorities in Toronto and submitted on 30 June 1866. The investigating officer walked the battlefield and interviewed participants.  In the report it is clear that the climax of the battle came as the Canadian skirmishers had advanced to the Bertie Road which runs east-west about 1.5 km north of and roughly parallel to the Garrison Road, which was the first Canadian position. He wrote

_ This would seem to have been the condition of affairs when the enemy made an advance - our line was thrown into confusion - a cry of cavalry coming tended to increase it - square was formed on the road where [shown on a sketch map] and while in square one man was killed. The column had barely been reformed, the officer commanding seeing no cavalry and being aware of the increased risk from his formation, when the running back of the troops on the right followed by the enemy close upon them emparted the panic to those on the road and they also broke and ran._

It should be understood that in the original Fenian plan, the invasion of the Niagara Peninsula was a diversion to draw off British and Canadian troops from other landing in what is now SW Ontario and the area south of Montreal. When these did not occur, the Fenians who had returned to Fort Erie were evacuated by barge back towards Buffalo. As they entered Americans waters they were intercepted by an American vessel and arrested.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

“The Fenian Brotherhood, battle-hardened American veterans, first fought to keep our nation united and strong in the Civil War" Except for those fighting for the Confederates ... 

"Then, by launching this invasion, they significantly contributed to the national independence of Canada and eventually Ireland"

Sorry, W.L. Mackenzie, L. J. Papineau, Vimy Ridge and the Statute of Westminster had more to do with it. 

" The Fenian invasion demonstrated that freedom and democracy are forces that no amount of oppression can stop."
Lincoln you are not ... 

 Even outnumbered and outgunned, the Fenians valiantly battled the British Crown forces. " 
Except they weren't British 

They played a pivotal role in Canada’s independence, and they helped inspire Irish freedom.”
Guy doesn't know Canadian or Irish history ...

'Senator Peter Kennedy" Is this guy related to those Kennedys ? would explain a lot ...

Yes, I am miffed ...


----------



## Bill Smy

I've just finished reading Peter Vronsky's book, "Ridgeway: The American Invasujion and the 1866 Battle That Made Canada". It's the best account and analysis of the battle that I've come across.

There are a few minor errrors 17, the 13th Bn is today The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, (RHLI), not the Hamilton Light Infantry Regiment, and in 1866 Port Dalhousie was at the mouth of the Welland Canal, not near it, p 60.

As an old Linc & Welld R soldier, I was disappointed that he did not point out that No 2 Company of the 19th Battalion covered the retreat to Port Colborne. Under Captain Hugh James it had arrived in Port Colborne too late to join Booker's force when it set off for Ridgeway, but on hearing:

"...that the Fenians had reached Ridgeway, the men were ordered to that place. As no cars were available, they had to be conveyed thither on an engine and tender of the Grand Trunk Railway (B&LH Railwyay). Arriving too late to take part in the fight, they had nevertheless the honor of forming the rear guard to the Queen's Own Rifles on their way back to Port Colborne, that regiment having run short of ammunition" (John H. Thompson, pub. Jubilee History of Thorold Township...)

Vronsky mentions Gunners John Bradley and John Harbison, both of Port Colborne and the Welland Canal Battery.

John Bradley's wound was so severe it was necessary to amputate his leg leaving him disabled for life. He was given employment as ferryman rowing a scow across the canal at the foot of Sugarloaf Street. The County of Welland granted him “as some compensation for the loss which you have sustained by reason of the wound received…” $85 and 100 acres of land, being the south half of Lot 23 in the 3rd Concession of Wainfleet. He lived on Welland Street in the village. A Militia medical board deemed him “Unfit for [military] service, greatly impairs usual occupation”. He was awarded a pension of 30 cents a day beginning on 2 June 1866, with a total pension for one year of $109.50 and a gratuity of $50.00. Dr. Neff, his doctor, was paid $23.00.

For “his loyalty and devotion to the interests of his country and as some compensation for the loss which he sustained by reason of the bodily injury resulting from the wound heretofore mentioned”, John Harbison was granted by the County of Welland Lot 26 on the west side of Fares Street. The Militia medical board deemed his injury to equate to 9 month's loss wages, or $216.51

All in all, though, I recommend Vronsky's book.


----------



## Old Sweat

I share your opinion of Pter's book. When he and I met last year at old Fort Erie, he remarked that he had done nothing but study the campaign for three years and the results of his diligence were apparent.


----------



## Old Sweat

Here is the notification on the conference from its website:



BATTLE OF RIDGEWAY AND THE 1866 AMERICAN FENIAN RAID ON CANADA: A CONFERENCE 

Saturday, June 2, 2012  –  1:00 PM to 4:00 PM - (followed by reception 7:00 PM)

1st annual Ridgeway Reads Literary Festival   
The Sanctuary - Centre for the Arts
 209 Ridge Road 
Ridgeway, Ontario 
L0S 1N0


Canada’s first modern battle was fought on June 2, 1866 near the village of Ridgeway during the Fenian Raid on Canada. One thousand Irish American Fenian insurgents, mostly veterans of the recent American Civil War, invaded across the Niagara River at Fort Erie, Ontario, from Buffalo, New York. The objective was to take Canada hostage in a bid to expel the British monarchy from Ireland and establish an independent Irish republic. The Irish insurgents crossing at Fort Erie were the vanguard of a planned 20,000-strong Fenian army preparing to invade along numerous points of the US-Canadian border.

As the Fenian force at Fort Erie threatened to take the nearby strategic Welland Canal, 841 Canadian militia troops fought approximately 700-800 Fenians on Limestone Ridge in Canada’s first battle fought in the modern age of telegraph, steam engines and the rifled barrel, the first fought exclusively by Canadian troops and led entirely by Canadian officers and the last battle fought against foreign invaders in what would become Ontario. It was also an unmitigated disaster of such proportions that the history of the Battle of Ridgeway was covered up so thoroughly that few Canadian today have heard of it.

What happened at Ridgeway, how and why it was covered up, who were the Fenians, why did the Irish invade Canada in 1866, and did the United States secretly back the invasion, are some of the subjects of the conference which will commemorate the battle on its 146th anniversary on June 2, 2012, on a Saturday exactly as it fell in 1866.

The Sanctuary Centre for the Arts - 209 Ridge Road - L0S 1N0 - June 2, 2012 
Presented by the First Annual Ridgeway Reads Literary Festival




For more on the 1866 Battle of Ridgeway, the Fenians, and Ridgeway festival events and ticketing details visit:

www.ridgewaybattle.ca             www.fenians.org            www.ridgewayreads.com

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

 CONFERENCE SPEAKERS

Robert Kearns (Moderator) is the President and Founder of Kearns Insurance Corporation and Kearns Investment Corporation and has been continually involved in the commemoration of Irish and Canadian history. Originally from Dublin, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Archaeology and Greek and Roman Civilizations from University College Dublin, before immigrating to Canada in 1979. As the Chairman and Founder of Ireland Park Foundation, he articulates his vision of creating full recognition for the Irish community and their history in Canada. He also serves as Chairman of the campaign for Celtic Studies at St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto and Director of the Halifax Aircraft Association, a ten year project with Canadian veterans to restore a second world war Halifax bomber to commemorate the ten thousand Canadians who failed to return from their service in bomber command. More recently he has undertaken the cause for official recognition of the “Ridgeway Nine”—modern Canada’s forgotten first servicemen killed in action on June 2, 1866.

William Jenkins is an associate professor of geography and a member of the graduate programs in geography and history at York University. His published work initially focused on social and economic transformations in nineteenth- and twentieth-century rural Ireland and has more recently concentrated on the lives and allegiances of Irish immigrants and their descendants in urban North America. His work has appeared in the Journal of Historical Geography, Immigrants and Minorities and the Journal of Urban History, among other scholarly outlets. His book, Between Raid and Rebellion: the Irish in Buffalo and Toronto, 1867-1916 will be published by McGill-Queen's University Press in the fall of 2012.

Brian Reid was born in Fort Erie and grew up in Ridgeway. He joined the Canadian Army in 1957 as a gunner and was commissioned in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery in 1961. During his career he served in a variety of regimental, staff and liaison appointments in Canada, the United States and Europe. His final appointment before he retired in 1994 was in the Director General Military Plans and Operations division in National Defence Headquarters. His published works include RCHA - Right of the Line (co-author,) Our Little Army in the Field: The Canadians in South Africa, 1899-1902, No Holding Back: Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944 and Named By The Enemy: A History of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles as well as studies in Fighting for Canada: Seven Battles, 1758-1945 and More Fighting for Canada: Five Battles, 1760-1944. When not in Snowbird mode, he and his wife Patricia live in Kemptville, Ontario.

Peter Vronsky is the author of the recently published Ridgeway: The American Fenian Invasion and the 1866 Battle That Made Canada, (Penguin Books), the first book published in over one hundred years on the forgotten Battle of Ridgeway. He is a documentary filmmaker and the author of two bestselling true crime history books on the psychopathology and culture of serial homicide from the Roman Empire to the Washington beltway. Ridgeway is based on his recent Ph.d. dissertation at University of Toronto in the history of espionage and international relations in Civil War-era Canada. He is a sessional professor at Ryerson University History Department where he teaches courses in 19th and 20th century new military history and international relations and is currently writing a new biography of the Dulles brothers based on recently declassified (2004) CIA files.

David A. Wilson is a historian of Irish political traditions throughout the Atlantic world is the author of the two volume Thomas D'Arcy McGee Volume 1: Passion, Reason, and Politics 1825-57 and Volume 2: The Extreme Moderate, 1857-1868. (Queen's McGill University Press) His books include Paine and Cobbett: The Transatlantic Connection; Peter Porcupine in America: Pamphlets on Republicanism and Revolution; Ireland, a Bicycle and a Tin Whistle; United Irishmen, United States: Immigrant Radicals in the Early Republic; The History of the Future; Ulster Presbyterians in the Atlantic World; and The Orange Order in Canada. He is currently working on a book on Canadian Fenianism. He is coordinator of the Celtic Studies Program and a professor in the Department of History at the University of Toronto.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, is proud to unveil the commemorative War of 1812 medal for the 44 First Nation and Métis communities with a heritage linked to the War of 1812.
> 
> “Today I am pleased to unveil this medal as part of the commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812,” said Minister Duncan. “Carrying forward the medal tradition to the present day gives us an opportunity to honour and recognize the contributions of Aboriginal people to our military history.”
> Reverse
> 
> At the end of the War of 1812, military banners and medals were presented to Aboriginal groups who had fought alongside British forces. While the banners were generally awarded by the British Army, ‘King George medals’ were issued by the government as symbolic acts of gratitude and recognition to the Crown’s Aboriginal allies. In order to strengthen the recognition of Aboriginal efforts, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has developed commemorative War of 1812 medals ....


News release, 22 May 12

Images of medal faces attached


----------



## Bill Smy

It would appear that there has been a chnge 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, RCA
31 Combat Engineer Regiment (The Elgin’s)
56th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA
The 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."


----------



## Old Sweat

What does"perpetuate" mean? Does that mean "Niagara" will be emblazoned on colours, or what? 

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Bill, will I get a chance to meet you at Ridgeway next Saturday?


----------



## cupper

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What does"perpetuate" mean?



I believe that they are using the meaning of "continuing uninterrupted", in other words having direct lineage back to the original units that fought in the battle.


----------



## Bill Smy

ldSweat:--

Sorry, I will not be able to attend. I hope they ph a "Peoceedings"

Bill

Cupper

I'm not sure that DHH uses that definition, but I don't know.


bill


----------



## cupper

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> Cupper
> 
> I'm not sure that DHH uses that definition, but I don't know.
> 
> 
> bill



You could very well be right. I was just making a WAG, throwing in my :2c:

I wasn't sure that the other definition "to continue indefinitely or forever" fit the situation.


----------



## Michael OLeary

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



> *PERPETUATION*
> 
> 15.      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.
> 
> 16.      Perpetuation is a public declaration of a family inheritance from a distinguished Canadian ancestor, and entitles the perpetuating unit to the honours of its predecessor. Thus, although few Canadian regiments were mobilized as such for overseas service in the First World War, most have battle honours earned in the war.



Note the description speaks of preserving honours, but does not mention the granting of "lineage." One question based on this definition is who, on behalf of the 1812 units, was the "disbanded units' authorized or officially recognized association(s)"?

This is the same sort of politically driven initiative that "restored" the name of Cape Breton Highlanders but tidily ignored the fact of their amalgamation, leaving them as the _de facto_ 2NSH(CB) under new trappings. Once the politicians start to drive the DHH bus for DND, all former precedents apparently go out the window.


----------



## Old Sweat

I will be leaving home in a few hours to head down to Ridgeway for the conference on the 1866 Fenian Invasion of the Niagara Peninsula. If anyone can make it, there will be a walk over the battlefield at 0900 on 2 June followed by the dedication of a mural at the RCL in Ridgeway at 1200 and a conference/discussion in the arts centre 1300-1600. The event may or may not be well attended, however the Irish Ambassador apparently will be there. (The four of us who are speaking/moderating are planning to go drinking if no one shows up.)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Have fun.  I'll be in Baltimore for Fleet Week mid Jun.  I believe we'll be berthed near Ft McHenry of the Star Spangled Banner fame.  Not sure if they want us to do a re-enactment.   >


----------



## tomahawk6

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Have fun.  I'll be in Baltimore for Fleet Week mid Jun.  I believe we'll be berthed near Ft McHenry of the Star Spangled Banner fame.  Not sure if they want us to do a re-enactment.   >



Sure why not.Bombard a fort but cannot capture it.The limitations of naval power circa 1812. 
The reason Americans feel they won the war was the defeat of the British Army at New Orleans.It doesnt matter that the war had been over prior to the battale being fought. ;D


----------



## cupper

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sure why not.Bombard a fort but cannot capture it.The limitations of naval power circa 1812.
> The reason Americans feel they won the war was the defeat of the British Army at New Orleans.It doesnt matter that the war had been over prior to the battale being fought. ;D



Typical Americans. Cheat to win. ;D


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Have fun.  I'll be in Baltimore for Fleet Week mid Jun.  I believe we'll be berthed near Ft McHenry of the Star Spangled Banner fame.  Not sure if they want us to do a re-enactment.   >



If you need some suggestions for sites to see / where to go in the DC area, let me know.


----------



## Pusser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Have fun.  I'll be in Baltimore for Fleet Week mid Jun.  I believe we'll be berthed near Ft McHenry of the Star Spangled Banner fame.  Not sure if they want us to do a re-enactment.   >



Cool fun fact:  a descendant (can't remember if he was a son, grandson, nephew etc) of Francis Scott Key (poet who penned the "Star Spangled Banner") was a Southern Sympathizer and was imprisoned at Ft McHenry during the US Civil War.


----------



## Old Sweat

Pusser said:
			
		

> Cool fun fact:  a descendant (can't remember if he was a son, grandson, nephew etc) of Francis Scott Key (poet who penned the "Star Spangled Banner") was a Southern Sympathizer and was imprisoned at Ft McHenry during the US Civil War.



And in the conspiracy theory of the week, Alastain Sweeny, the author of _Fire Along the Frontier: Great Battles of the War of 1812_, has an oped piece in today's Ottawa Citizen speculatng that Sir George Prevost, the British commander in Canada, may have attempted to lose the war. It is, at least to me, a classic example how one can combine a train of circumstantial evidence with a combination of ineptitude and native stupidity on Prevost's part into evidence of treachery and treason.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Part+Canada+almost+threw/6833464/story.html

Edit to add. A friend of mine and one of the real expert historians on the war has pointed out that:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the War of 1812 officially started 100 years less 63 days before the Titanic was sunk.  If  you divide 63 by 12, the number of months in the calender, you get 12.6.  12 June was the birthday of Lt Charles Taylor, USN,  leader of Flight 19 which disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle on 5 December, 48 months less two days from the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Furthermore, I just realized that the piece was published on 25 June, 2012 which is the 136th anniversary of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. George Armstrong Custer's home town was Monroe, Michigan and James Monroe was the president who took the US into the war. It's all a fiendishly clever plot.


----------



## Haggis

Old Sweat, that was absolutely BRILLIANT!


----------



## Old Sweat

And of course, I faked myself out. Madison was the president who took the US to war, not Monroe. But that only reinforces the premise that the plot was skillfully hidden. The clue was that their names both begin with the 13th letter of the alphabet, and there were 13 colonies in the original United States. The signals are there if you only know where to look.

Hint: after you receive your degree in art history, playing video games and surfing the net while living in your parents' basement helps prepare you to ferret out the real secrets of life.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Genius.  Pure genius.

Well done, Old Sweat!


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Hint: after you receive your degree in art history, playing video games and surfing the net while living in your parents' basement helps prepare you to ferret out the real secrets of life.



Either that or become an artillery officer...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wanted:  someone to design a War of 1812 monument for Ottawa - from the MERX posting:





> …. The War of 1812 was a seminal event in the making of our great country. The 200th anniversary (2012-2014) is being commemorated through the organization and delivery of initiatives and events across Canada, including the creation of a national monument in Canada’s Capital. This monument will be unveiled on Parliament Hill in Ottawa towards the end of the commemorations in 2014.  This monument will be a national tribute to recognize the courage and bravery of those who served during the War of 1812 and who successfully defended their land in the fight for Canada. It will help Canadians learn about this defining moment in our history.  The National Capital Commission (NCC), in partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH), is inviting professional artists to submit their Qualifications and examples of prior work as part of the first stage of a two-phase competition ….


A bit more in the bid information package here.

Meanwhile, this from CP, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act_ .....


> The Harper government wants to commemorate the War of 1812 in stone and has asked artists interested in designing a national monument to step forward with their qualifications.
> 
> The bids will be considered even as the Canadian military struggles to get recognition for the war in Afghanistan and to find a home for the emotionally charged battlefield cenotaph that once sat at Kandahar Airfield.
> 
> The National Capital Commission and Heritage Canada issued the call for artists and say the 1812 monument will be placed on Parliament Hill.
> 
> The government hopes to have the structure designed and built by the end of 2014, capping off two years of celebrations marking the 200th anniversary of the war.
> 
> At the same time, efforts to get national recognition for the war in Afghanistan have stalled.
> 
> Defence sources say an effort to have the dates of the conflict carved into the National War Memorial in Ottawa have been blocked by Veterans Affairs Canada, which argued internally that recognizing Afghanistan would open the door to petitions from ex-Cold War soldiers and peacekeepers.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In the midst of a slew of federal government announcements, we have this:


> Gord Brown, Member of Parliament for Leeds–Grenville, on behalf of the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment and Minister responsible for Parks Canada, today announced the designation of War of 1812 Shipwrecks as a National Historic Site of Canada. The War of 1812-1814 between Great Britain and the United States of America led to a much-needed expansion of the “Provincial Marine” naval base, established in Kingston, Ontario, in 1789, continuing to make this area a crucial location in all wartime tactics and strategy.
> 
> In the years following the war, many ships eventually became unusable and a decision was made to close the shipyard in 1834. The navy needed to dispose of the vessels and while some were auctioned and sold for scrap, others were deliberately sunk in Deadman Bay, clear of the shipping channel. The wrecks of HMS Prince Regent, HMS Princess Charlotte and HMS St. Lawrence and the collection of objects from them attest to the presence and importance of the British fleet based in Kingston and Royal Navy’s shipbuilding program during the War of 1812.
> 
> As our country nears its 150th birthday in 2017, the Government of Canada invites Canadians to learn more about the major events that have shaped their country’s history. Canada’s national historic designations enable us to experience our rich history and heritage in a special way and play a big part in the celebration of Canada 150 ....


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In the midst of a slew of federal government announcements, we have this:



Will they also be subsidizing scuba training for Canadians wishing to visit their new park?  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Will they also be subsidizing scuba training for Canadians wishing to visit their new park?  ;D



Submarines, man, Submarines.  Finally a rationale for the Vics......


----------



## Old Sweat

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Will they also be subsidizing scuba training for Canadians wishing to visit their new park?  ;D



There is quite a local industry supporting Scuba diving on shipwrecks in the upper St Lawrence and the east end of Lake Ontario.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> There is quite a local industry supporting Scuba diving on shipwrecks in the upper St Lawrence and the east end of Lake Ontario.



Well, if they want a submerged park with a 'Wreck' theme, then they should sink this stupid statue there as well  :nod:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mother-canada-project-managers-seek-more-public-funding-1.3146988

And then drop this abortion on top of the whole shebang

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-victims-of-communism-memorial-in-ottawa-a-looming-disaster/article22730797/


----------

