Rationale for the Lineage of the Canadian Army

[peter monahan]

Service Pub

On a marginally related note: what is the rationale for dating the formation of the Canadian Army/Armed forces from 1855? Was there a particular event or a piece of legislation which makes that date significant?

I ask because of my interest in the War of 1812 - wrong forum, I know. With the bi-centennialof that conflict fast approaching, some people have advanced the suggestion that Canadian units be allowed to display battle honours from the War, as do both British and American units. Oneof the sticking points - among many - seems to be the Department of National Defence's position that our forces cannot be traced back to any date before 1855.

Any suggestions/info. wouldbe much appreciated. Sorry for intruding this off topic post.

Peter Monahan

[edstorey]

Take it up with the Department of National Defence, or their sub-unit Directorate of History and heritage or with your local member or Parliament, or send a letter or e-mail to the Minister of National Defence. Those are the people to talk with and who can give you the answers, not enthusiasts on a military badge forum.

[DavidS]

Originally Posted by peter monahan

Service Pub

On a marginally related note: what is the rationale for dating the formation of the Canadian Army/Armed forces from 1855? Was there a particular event or a piece of legislation which makes that date significant?...

Any suggestions/info. wouldbe much appreciated. Sorry for intruding this off topic post.

Peter Monahan

Peter:

This is from The Concise Lineages of the Canadian Army, C.H. Stewart, & I think answers your questions. Copies of this book are still floating around out there, so you might want to track one down, it's a great resource:

After the War of 1812 the militia fell into a state of lethargy... . This became known as The Sedentary Militia being in fact nothing more than a paper force... .

The Militia Act of 1855 maintained and improved the Sedentary Militia but at the same time set up a new force termed simply "volunteers". This force was to be at all times properly armed, it was to carry out regular training and most important it was to be paid. This force was termed The Active Militia as opposed to Sedentary... .

As for Ed, ignore him, he's just unhappy that Curmudgeons 'R Us is closed today

[edstorey]

Why bother writing or asking the people who can perhaps give an authorative answer to the question, instead take some tongue in cheek advice from the forum and get your answer from and out of date publication. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of researching and consulting references but if you are serious in getting an answer to your question about a significant event in Canadian history and why things are done the way they are, then go to the people who you either elected into government or pay through your tax dollars to provide you with the answer. It takes the same amount of time to e-mail them as it did for you to post your question.

[DavidS]

Originally Posted by edstorey

Why bother writing or asking the people who can perhaps give an authorative answer to the question, instead take some tongue in cheek advice from the forum and get your answer from and out of date publication. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of researching and consulting references but if you are serious in getting an answer to your question about a significant event in Canadian history and why things are done the way they are, then go to the people who you either elected into government or pay through your tax dollars to provide you with the answer. It takes the same amount of time to e-mail them as it did for you to post your question.

The moderators may as well get the fire extinguishers ready, 'cause here we go again.

Ed:

There was nothing "tongue in cheek" about my answer to Peter. I thought I gave him a clear, concise and accurate answer and pointed him at the Act responsible. Anything you take as un-"authorative" out of that information is beyond me. Furthermore, I'm a bit insulted personally by the dismissive inference in that statement.

Am I to take it you somehow disagree with the reason the formation of the Canadian Army is dated from 1885 is the passing of the Militia Act of 1885 (regardless of whether or not you consider Concise Lineages "out of date")?

I'm also confused by the idea that you are "all in favour of researching and consulting references" but somehow that isn't "serious in getting an answer". You think maybe Clive Law or Ken Joyce might find that a bit unsettling, knowing now that, according to you, all that work they put into their research and books isn't really serious?

I really have to question why you repeatedly need to spend more time on this forum (and others I have fled from) posting your chip-on-the-shoulder, hostile and sometimes bewilderingly insulting answers to simple questions from folks -- usually newcomers -- who may or may not want to spend the same time researching something in the depth you would find personally necessary, than either just sharing some of your information or butting out if that idea is so repellent? Maybe not everyone is as "serious" about getting an answer as you want them to be. So what? Maybe try my grandmother's approach when that 'why post an answer when I can just be surly' urge moves you: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

[Bill A]

Peter's original question and the topic is very relevant to collecting badges and insignia. Various pieces of legislation, both prior to and after 1855 have had significant impact on the dress and insignia that was and is worn by the Canadian militia / reserves and the permanent forces. The organization and structure of the army in Canada is intricately wound into the decisions to have unit identification, formation signs, rank badges and skill at arms or trades badges. There is a benefit to a wider discussion of the topic.
In answer to the posts about the purpose and methods of research, having the question aired in a place like the Forum can elicit discussion and point the enquirer in the direction that may provide more information. From this point of view, learning how to research and the directions and methods to pursue may not interest all members, but has a value in educating those on the Forum who are researching or may have a question at some point.

[servicepub]

Peter,
For whatever reason, the passing of the Militia Act in 1855 has been set as the birth of the Canadian Army that we know now. Despite this date a number of regiments can trace their history to prior to 1855, with the Governor General's Horse Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards as two.
Don Graves, a well-known Canadian historian of the War of 1812 is trying to gain support for an inititive that would see Battle Honours for War if 1812 battles, awarded to regiments that still exist or to those regiments that can be shown to be the perpetuators.
I disagree with Ed's statement not to take it up on this forum as many of the collectors who post here have interests beyond 'just' badges. I, for one, have a wide interest in all aspects of the Canadian Army - as does Ed.

Clive

[peter monahan]

David and Clive

Thank you for your informative answers and your thoughts on this topic.

I was aware that Don Graves - a real gent and a superb historian - was spearheading this initiative but I hadn't really done my homework as to the reasons behind the Cdn. Government's reasoning. 'The Militia Act (1855)' is a clear and concise answer.

Ed

I am certainly capable of writing my elected reps. and our the civil serpents to whose salaries my taxes contribute on the topic of granting battle honours for the War of 1812 to Canadian Army units. I may even do so.

My question, was about that topic only in the broadest sense. Clive mentioned the year 1855 as the birth year of the Canadian Army in the course of something he was saying and I simply asked 'Why 1855?' I'm sorry if that annoyed you.

Yr Most Ob'dt servant, sir

Peter

[sapper 83]

One of the other reason for the militia act of 1855 was the crimea war and the britsh regulars were leaving canada , and the threat from the united states.

[Bill A]

Now, this week we have had the "Royal" designation re-instated for the airforce and navy, with Land Force Command being renamed the Canadian Army. Media reports indicate that new insignia will be part of the change.

[mconrad]

Keep in mind this is concerning the ARMY birthday. The 1855 Militia Act established a "Military Department" for Canada. Maybe someone analyzed this to be the oldest overarching agency for military affairs, and/or the original incarnation of successor organizations.

That a particular militia unit was in existence earlier does not mean that a Canadian ARMY existed. Indeed, I wonder how the Canadian Grenadier Guards would take it if the military authorities decreed that the Grenadiers' birthday was now the Army's--honored or robbed?

[regimentalrogue]

Originally Posted by mconrad

That a particular militia unit was in existence earlier does not mean that a Canadian ARMY existed. Indeed, I wonder how the Canadian Grenadier Guards would take it if the military authorities decreed that the Grenadiers' birthday was now the Army's--honored or robbed?

According to The Regiment's and Corps of the Canadian Army (1964), the Canadian Grenadier Guards date from the organization of the First (Prince of Wales's) Regiment of Volunteer Rifles of Canadian Militia on 17 Nov 1859 from nine independent Companies.