WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION

[Robert Henderson]

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

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

1. Canadian Government

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

2.Connecting Dots

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

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

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

Educating Units.

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

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

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

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

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

Are we left with this?:

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

 

[Pusser]

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

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

 

[bridges]

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

:nod:    Exactly. 

 

[Blackadder1916]

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

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

 

[Robert Henderson]

Numerous? 

A majority. 

 

[Robert Henderson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

 

[Old Sweat]

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[Robert Henderson]

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

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

Notes on previous post:

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

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

Thought so.

 

[aesop081]

Thought so.

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

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

 

[Danjanou]

What kind of peaches were they? ;D

 

[Haggis]

What kind of peaches were they? ;D

Old, very old peaches.

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

 

[Robert Henderson]

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

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

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

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

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

 

[Danjanou]

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Michael,

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

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

 

[quadrapiper]

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

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