- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
recceguy said:
I think that was my mistake. I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.
WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION
- Thread starter pbi
- Start date
I think that was my mistake. I am sorry you are running out of Axes to grind but I will not humour you with more.
- Reaction score
- 4,894
- Points
- 1,060
RHenderson said:
No axes to grind. Again, you're presuming to tell me what I think.
Just trying to figure out your part in all of this.
- Reaction score
- 22,307
- Points
- 1,090
One of the fundamental difficulties in a situation such as this is that Canada does not hold the military records for whatever events occured in 1812. That makes it difficult to prepare an adequate assessment.
Imagine, if you will, that it is the year 2212, and the People's Republic of New Brunswick is considering whether or not to grant the battle honour "Sweetwaters - 2012" to the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.
The military records from that period would continue to reside with the Government of Canada; the PRNB would be forced to rely on regimental anecdotes describing the glorious victory, which in fact was merely three troops getting liquoured up, standing on a street corner and screaming. The Canadian military files included the MP report and witness statements, but the PRNB relied only on the RNBR's unit history. (Of course, this situation is entirely hypothetical)
While not the same, there's a risk that Canada's current efforts to commemorate the War of 1812 may be overlooking facts and information available only in the British records.
Imagine, if you will, that it is the year 2212, and the People's Republic of New Brunswick is considering whether or not to grant the battle honour "Sweetwaters - 2012" to the Royal New Brunswick Regiment.
The military records from that period would continue to reside with the Government of Canada; the PRNB would be forced to rely on regimental anecdotes describing the glorious victory, which in fact was merely three troops getting liquoured up, standing on a street corner and screaming. The Canadian military files included the MP report and witness statements, but the PRNB relied only on the RNBR's unit history. (Of course, this situation is entirely hypothetical)
While not the same, there's a risk that Canada's current efforts to commemorate the War of 1812 may be overlooking facts and information available only in the British records.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
dapaterson said:
It is incredible how much documentation exists from the War of 1812. With regards to British documents specifically, Library and Archives Canada has been copying UK records for a century. Pension records, muster rolls, casualty returns, inspection returns, order books, monthly returns... all exist and are accessable. Document digitization has made future copying no longer necessary as a simple researcher can go direct to source virtually. More than that there are a number of database projects underway that is synthesizing tons of data. Official dispatches, orders, coorespondence, etc were often copied numerous times historically. If someone was court martialed, he needed a papertrail to cover his butt. So information gaps on the important docs are rare.
Last year I created a test claim for the Royal Newfoundland Regiment that argued for 1812 battle honours based on the system's historic criteria, military tradition and modern CF policy guidelines. It was formulated exclusively from primary source material.
http://www.warof1812.ca/RNR1812BattleHonours.pdf
The document was written in the middle of the process of figuring out how to implement 1812 perpetuation and should be viewed in such a way. It was also done from the outside looking in. According to some (on both sides of the Atlantic), it put an elephant in the room that could not be ignored.
- Reaction score
- 9,224
- Points
- 1,260
Mr Henderson,
Thank you for posting that - it was a very interesting read. The claim for the R Nfld R seems to be very strong indeed.
As well, you highlight the inconsistent history of awarding battle honours and the precedent of broken lineage. I still find some of the previous discussion to be a stretch, but the argument has merit with the points you have raised.
It would be fitting in 2015, when Afghanistan is done, to have units emblazon the Afghan honours and the 1812-1815 honours at the same time. The oldest and newest military history of Canada represented at one event.
Thank you for posting that - it was a very interesting read. The claim for the R Nfld R seems to be very strong indeed.
As well, you highlight the inconsistent history of awarding battle honours and the precedent of broken lineage. I still find some of the previous discussion to be a stretch, but the argument has merit with the points you have raised.
It would be fitting in 2015, when Afghanistan is done, to have units emblazon the Afghan honours and the 1812-1815 honours at the same time. The oldest and newest military history of Canada represented at one event.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
But then the 1812 veterans will feel slighted and marginalized at having to share the stage. This will not do.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Won't somebody please think of the 19th Alberta Dragoons in all this?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Infanteer said:
I whole-heartedly agree. Structurally I feel the CDS should establish an separate permanent Honours committee to address these issues and have DHH advise that entity, opposed to the other way around. Other commonwealth forces have this, whereas at NDHQ this committee is subservient to DHH and is formed and dissolved as required. Hence both accountability and transparency to units and the Canadian people suffers. Honours are about communicating gratitude to those who deserve it. Communication is a two-way street, hence the necessity of the two principles noted. This in no way challenges command and control. Frankly the two principles enhance it because it creates understanding. Understanding creates value to the honour. Value creates motivation to attain more.
1812 is about paying a Canadian "honour deficit" and showing a grateful nation will remember. Honour deficit? Through Canadian public donations during the war, gold and silver medals were made for Canadian militia (Ontario) - called the Upper Canada Preserved Medal. A long story short, they were never awarded and were melted down to pay for another public expediture in the 1840s. Can you imagine that happening today? Britain expressed its thanks to the Canadian militia through General Service Medal of 1847 (but only for certain battles). Canadians did not (neither through their pre-1867 provinicial parliaments nor a NGO).
It is big picture stuff and to me is as much about Afghanistan as it is about 1812. Like recceguy said, let's just not wait 200 years to address more recent operations. I think what gets forgotten in parts of NDHQ is speed actually matters: both with discipline and honour - if you wish to maximize the C2 benefits.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
bridges said:
About three years ago I asked. Before politely being told to pissed off, a DHH staffer said there was no Permanent CF BH Committee and is called together by the CDS upon recommendation of DHH to deal with specific 'issues' like KOSOVO. This meant to me, that you have to lobby or push for them to activate a process. Supposedly Afghanistan will be handled like WW2 with a Battles Nomenclature Committee that identifies the Battle Honours and after this the CF BH Committee is called together by the CDS to identify which unit gets what Battle Honour.
When the Royal Newfoundland Regiment tried to claim NIAGARA back in 2001/2 and again in 2008, it was handled by the CDS on the advise of DHH. No Committee reviewed their claim. There was no process beyond DHH going into their black box, and making sawing and hammering noises, then answering 'NO'.
I saw the corrspondence. It was just "Sorry. We can't find anything to support your claim." Accountability? Transparency? Where was the "no and here is exactly why your unit does not qualify" response? And this push by the regiment's advisory counsel came with the active support of numerous Newfoundland Senators and MPs. Again no committee heard the claim.
- Reaction score
- 22,307
- Points
- 1,090
CFP 200. Chapter 3. Section 4.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
bridges said:
And what work would it do between wars?
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
RHenderson said:
And yet, no-one has yet pushed forth the individual unit justifications for these 1812 honours. Most readily available references only speak of the "Canadian Militia" at any action as a single collective grouping.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Michael O'Leary said:
My talking about a permenant honours/awards/merit committee is a distraction in this thread. I am sorry. I believe an independent committee should judge the merits of a claim to show to units the process is transperant. It builds trust. I don't mean to be hard on DHH. That is not my intent as there are many very talented and thoughtful individuals like Ken Reynolds. I am suggesting that a different way of doing things be explored. Because many units do not have the historical research expertise in-house, DHH should help by providing (impartially) information that is pertainent to the claim, opposed to only prosecuting AND judging it (like the Royal Newfoundland Regiment claim in 2002)
Your question shows public communication is really poor. DHH researched the list of units deserving 'Detroit'. DHH handled all correspondence with units on the honour. DHH handled the Niagara battle honour decision in May. DHH selected the units that perpetuate 1812 corps. The latter decision(s) was made (I believe) back in December yet the first communication on how each perpetuation was (possibly) made was provided this month. If a unit wishes to make a claim for 1812 perpetuation, they can (ex. the Governor General's Horse Guards and Button's Troop of the York Militia)... but no one seems to be aware of this. Another example is SD&G Highlanders and the Incorporated Militia. Over a 1/3 of the regiment was raised from SD&G but four other CF units perpetuate it. Why? There may be a very valid reason but why? Why not post the list of 1812 perpetuations on DHH's site? Why not tell units if they feel they have a valid 1812 perpetuation claim they should submit it and here is how?
I have shown you the unit justification I prepared for the RNfldR. What DHH's justification was I have no idea.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
RHenderson said:
While all this might be true, the perceived SOP from three or four years ago may or may not accurately describe how this series of War of 1812 battle honours has come about - or under whose direction. I have a feeling there's more to this than meets the eye.
Hopefully there will be some official announcements soon and some of this can start to be cleared up.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
RHenderson said:
Including the communications from the very vocal groups that promoted this plan to politicians rather than the military, the ones who build a platform based on emotions response ("Honour our Heroes") rather than putting forth the details of individual unit actions - upon which battle honours are normally founded - to support their claims. All anyone here is looking for is a presentation of logic.
Claims for battle honours to War of 1812 units? - OK
Issued by the Canadian Government? - Well, there was no equivalent Canadian Government at the time, but of the present one chooses to honour 1812, so be it.
Connecting the dots to current units? - There's the issue. To what degree do we rewrite history to justify these ... or do we actually admit the only connection is that the current units now recruit in the same cities and counties.
The unspoken question is the one from the leaders in each of these recipient units. And what they want to know is how to explain, in some detail, the actions of the individual perpetuated units of Canadian Militia, without lamely falling back on cursory descriptions of what "the Militia troops" did, en masse, at some of these actions. And now that it's been pushed past the political level to the CF, you say it's DHH's job to clean up the mess foisted upon the CF and try to make sense of it all. How very 1984.
Similar threads
