What category should I use for a Canadian (not British) soldier who fought in the War of 1812 on soils now Canadian?

Question

Several profiles on my tree are of residents of areas now in Canada who acted in "Canadian" units in defense of their own. I had used "Category: War of 1812 Veterans" but now I see that we are requested not to add personal profiles to that category. Where do they go? British designations seem all wrong for them.

Comments

Judith,

We do have a sub project on the War of 1812...I posted a link to the associated google group https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wikitree_war_of_1812/gzzEpdJp-xU if you would like to join see:  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:War_of_1812

Answer 1

As I understand the war of 1812 project's categorization scheme, and what makes sense to me personally, is that the person belongs to a regiment or unit and the category should therefore be along the lines of: [[Category: Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada, War of 1812]] (albeit, in this example 'War of 1812' is particularly redundant as the unit only existed during that conflict... but I digress)

Units can then be sub-categories of: 1) the battles that they participated in, 2) the 'nationality' of their formation, 3) the geographic location where they were raised, 4) any later (or modern-day) units that perpetuate that unit's lineage. For example the (Volunteer) Incorporated Artillery Company of 1812 is perpetuated by today's 7th Toronto Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery; the war of 1812's 8th Battalion, Select Embodied Militia is perpetuated by the 12e Régiment Blindé du Canada. (See: http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/1812-btlhnrs.htm)

While the battle honours for these long ago actions are only recently awarded, the units that were awarded them are "descended" through the innumerable reorganizations, divisions and amalgamations, disbandments and reconstitutions, to the original units of 1812.

Comments

I'd like some collaboration and input on the categories I set up for the 2nd and 3rd regiments of Lincoln militia under the category of Upper Canada. Once that is right, I have lots more to add.

---

Thanks Rob; but, Terri and Phillip are developing categorization as outlined at http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:War_of_1812 .

So many over-lapping categories are found through-out WT that a little planning and collaboration with the categorization project would have prevented.  The War of 1812 is a rather new project and has only been in planning and implementation for a couple of months.  Anyone whom would like to assist is encouraged to join the privately shared google group as noted on the project page shown above.

Answer 2

British designations may seem wrong, but the people of Upper Canada were legally British at the time (although there must be some ambiguity over that status applying to First Nation peoples).

The Canadian confederation was not put together until 1867, long after the war in question. The armed forces in Upper Canada were under British rather than Canadian command.

Comments

Failure of the British to acknowledge Colonial contributions to their own defense does not seem to let those presently interested in the history of those colonies and their people off the hook. The loss of the only seemingly appropriate category for such veterans does indeed prompt action.

---

Hello Judith

I am not sure that I understand your comment. As an Englishman and an historian I fully acknowledge the role played in a great many conflicts by the armed forces of the various parts of the former Empire. Most British people do in my experience, and we celebrate that fact each year with the contributions of those countries to our collective memorial events.

The answer I gave was in relation to the WikiTree policy of relating the people in profiles to contemporaneous countries. The people of Upper Canada in 1812 were legally British and the armed forces were commanded through the British Military Command system. These are statements of historical fact, that I believe need to be considered when applying categories. After 1867 the Province of Canada, along with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - which had hitherto been separate British colonies - were united as a separate kingdom entitled The Dominion of Canada. There were still some aspects of the constitution of Canada, including the ability to wage war,  which continued to be retained by London until 1930, but to all intents and purposes from 1867 the people of Canada were entirely Canadian.

As I say, my answer was a simple statement of historical fact. I am unsure what hook anyone is on, or which 'seemingly appropriate category' has been lost.

---

On the contrary the majority of residents in Upper Canada were not British but lived under British rule. Established by the Constitutional Act of 1791, Upper Canada inherited the same rules as Lower Canada for determining its voters. Yet these rules were not applied in quite the same way because Upper Canada, a colony founded specifically for the Loyalists, inherited common law rather than French civil law. Thus, from the outset, women were excluded from the electorate. Also excluded were members of certain religious sects, such as the Quakers (members of the Society of Friends, who were relatively numerous in Upper Canada), Mennonites, Moravians and Tunkers, as their faiths forbade them from taking an oath.Of all the eligibility criteria, however, the one concerning the definition of a British subject posed the most serious problem. It even started a kind of family quarrel among immigrants from the United States that would last several decades.In fact led to Rebellion of 1837. On June 18, 1812, the president of the United States declared war on England. The population of Upper Canada was by then close to 94,000. Eighty percent of the population was of American origin, but less than a quarter of them were of Loyalist descent. So as you can see Upper Canada's  British population was a minority.

---

John,

Your argument that Canadians were 'legally British' until 1867 is factually incorrect - there was no such thing as a "Canadian Citizen" until 1910. The Immigration Act of that year created the status of Canadian Citizen, but even then it was still just a subset of "British Subject". Canadian citizenship was not officially independent from being "British" until 1947 with the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Correcting this error, your argument is then that there were no Canadian regiments that served in the Boer War, World War I, or World War II.

Plainly, being 'legally British' is not a satisfactory division for whether or not a formation should be considered "Canadian".
How about we divide the line at who the soldier's pledge allegiance to? Canadian soldier's to-this-day pledge allegiance on their enrollment to "Her Majesty in Right of Canada, her heirs and successors, &c." - that's no help.

Your statement also suggests we distinguish what is a Canadian Regiment rather than a British Regiment by who commands it. By this logic a British unit serving under the Command of an American Headquarters as part of a multi-national mission, Afghanistan for example, is an American unit. No, simply incorrect. Yes, the overall campaign was commanded by the British higher command - they had the experienced Generals and Staff Officers to prosecute a war, and being the 'ruling power' had both an interest and obligation in taking the leading role - but that does not mean the units they directed were not Canadian.

Since you 'drew the line' on being British at the Constitution of 1867, why would we not instead draw the line at the Constitutional Act (1791) which established Upper and Lower Canada, and provided for the establishment of the legislative assemblies? These legislative bodies were admittedly pretty toothless since the executive council *could* veto pretty much anything they decided, but at least it's something.

These legislative bodies did authorize, raise, and pay for military units that did not fall under the jurisdiction of The Crown (although in the field they were commanded by British higher-ups). One of these units was The Voltiguers of Quebec who were a 'regular' unit (Professional soldiers - full-time, trained, and equipped) not militia and established under the authority of the legislative assembly Province of Lower Canada.

The Upper Canadian legislators eventually established the Volunteer Battalion of Incorporated Militia. The inclusion of 'militia' in this unit's name is perhaps a little misleading and requires clarification - they were full-time soldiers but unlike 'true' regulars their service was only for the duration of the war. Throughout the war they lived in Garrison, they drilled and paraded when they were not on campaign, they did everything a regular army unit would do - by contrast 'true' militia units were usually mustered as needed for a specific battle or campaign and would typically spend only a few days or possibly a few weeks 'soldiering' before returning to their homes. (had to keep costs down, right?)

So here are at least two units not under the jurisdiction of The Crown. The units were not British Forces but 'Canadian' (or more precisely Upper Canadian and Lower Canadian) paid by the taxes of the people that lived in those provinces not by the Crown.

 

As an aside, the British Parliament technically retained control over the Canadian Constitution until 1949, not 1930 as you gave above. London 'handed over the reins' in the British North America Act (No. 2), 1949 when it allowed Canada to make changes to it's own constitution. As an aside to the aside, The Sovereign or their representative (The Governor-General) still to-this-day must sign a Canadian declaration of war.  

---

Rob

I accept the thrust of what you say, except that my point about 'legally' British, comes with the fact that before the 1867 administrative changes there had been no recognition of Canada as a separate entity under British law. Except where legislation made at Westminster specified an exemption (as it may still do for say Scotland, Northern Ireland or even Wales), then that piece of legislation applied equally to the colonists in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else in the Empire at that time.

The implementation of the changes introduced in 1867 recognized the autonomy of the devolved government of Canada, in the same way as the devolved government of Scotland is recognized today. It was granted a wide range of devolved responsibilities which it no longer needed to refer to Westminster. The exceptions to that include, notably,  the ability to declare war.

I writing from memory and I accept the date of 1930 was inaccurate, but it was close enough for the argument - the Statute of Westminster. 1931, an Act of the British Parliament established the self-governing rights of the Dominions of the British Empire from the parliament or government of the UK at Westminster. The most important consequence of that Act came in 1939. Unlike in 1914 when the King's proclamation of War against Germany took the UK and the entire Empire into the conflict, the Statute of Westminster had the effect of making such a proclamation impossible in 1939, and each of the Dominions then had to decide for themselves.

I accept what you say that the Governor-General was, in fact, the constitutional decision-maker, but that is just notional. The Sovereign, or the Governors-General acting on behalf of the Sovereign, are bounded by laws dating back to 1689, to take the advice of the Government. Before 1931 for matters of foreign relations and war, this rested solely with the Westminster government of the UK, after 11 December 1931, it rested with each individual dominion government.

As far as Canada was concerned the provinces within the confederation still had a say in the constitutional changes and far from it being finally resolved in the 1940s it was not until 1982 that the constitution of Canada was finally held entirely in the hands of Canadian parliaments. That does not alter the fact that it was in 1867 that they were recognized as a separate entity with a confederation Government with devolved powers that in effect recognized that the people of Canada were no longer British but were Canadian. The Balfour declaration in 1926 and the subsequent Imperial Conferences thrashed this all out to arrive at the Statute of 1931.

It may be that the declaration, which was apparently seen by the US as the decline and fall of the Empire, prompted the actions in 1930 within the US. President Hoover ordered the drawing up of military plans for the effective invasion of Canada and the occupation of other parts of the British Empire on or close to the North American continent. These plans were updated throughout the 1930s, through FDRs term and were not finally abandoned until the outbreak of the Second World War. These plans were released from their previously secret status just a few years ago.

---

The mere fact of not being British when they settled in Canada, they would have been subject to the law there, and if they settled, they would, in effect, have become British by that act. In the same way that a settler there now would become Canadian if they were to take permanent residence. This is not a statement about ethnicity or place of birth, but the about the legal status of an individual in terms of their state and national identity at a particular time.

Many people who are not apparently indigenous are referred to, often in a pejorative manner, as something relating to their national or religious origins - that is simply the phenomena known in geographical circles as 'othering'. It is something that occurs in all human societies and is as old as the hills.

---

Allow me to take a different tack:

Major John Richardson, K.S.F. writing about the War of 1812, incorporating his own experiences, entitles his 1842 publication:
"Operations of the Right Division of the Army of Upper Canada During the American War of 1812".

Within this work, published 25 years before Confederation, we find numerous places where it is quite clear that the Canadian soldiers were distinguished from British ones, and that the Canadians (both Upper and Lower) had a recognizable national identity even if it was not formally recognized in law.

From his own narrative:
"...than that which records the gallant deeds performed by the Fathers, fighting side by side with the troops of England in defence of their invaded firesides:" (comment: side-by-side infers they were distinct parts of a whole)

Now to be fair his sentiment could reflect a change that occured in the three intervening decades, possibly stemming from the 1820's when the two provinces of Canada were united. Thankfully Richardson transcribes a number of contemporaneous documents, Alexander Clark Casselman when re-publishing Richardson's work in 1902 adds a few more such records, and we also have a large body of official correspondences collated and transcribed by Ernest Cruickshank to draw upon. Among these sources we find:

25 Feb 1812 - Major-General Sir Isaac Brock:
"I had every reason to expect the almost unanimous support of the two branches of the Legislature to every measure Government thought necessary to recommend, but after a short trial found myself egregiously mistaken in my calculations.
The many doubtful characters in the militia made me very anxious to introduce the oath of aligenation [sic] into the bill. There were twenty members present when this highly important measure was lost by the casting voice of the chairman." (Comment: This suggests to me that Militias of the two Canadas may not have even given allegiance (aligenation) to the Crown - if so I would be hard pressed to consider them 'British'.)

17 July 1812 - Captain Charles Roberts, 10th Royal Veterans writes:
"By the exertions of the Canadians one of the guns was brought up to a height commanding the garrison, and ready to act"

22 July 1812 - Major General Sir Isaac Brock's proclamation, issued by Capt. J.B. Glegg, A.D.C. refers to the people of Upper Canada as "Canadian Subjects"

Undated (the events related suggest a date of August 1812) - Major Dalliba, an officer within the 4th U.S. Regiment:
"The courtine was lined with British regular troops... The flank of the courtine, on the enemy's right, and American left was lined with Canadian Militia and Indians, commanded by Walk-in-the Water and Marpot."

9 Aug 1812 - Brigadier-General Hull, Commander of the Army of the Northwest:
"From all the information, a large Indian and Canadian Force may be expected from Mackinack"

10 September 1812 - Colonel Lewis Cass, 3rd Ohio volunteers:
"They had 29 platoons, 12 in a platoon, of men dressed in uniform. Many of these were evidently Canadian Militia."

15 July 1814 - Lieutenant-Colonel Tucker (unit of origin unstated but I believe from other reading he was of the 8th (King's) Regiment):
"The Canadian Militia harrassed the enemy in a very manly and spirited style. They merit my most favorable opinion"

 

I think between these snippets it is quite clear that the British Commanders distinguished Canadian units from British ones. The fact that the Americans made the same distinctions between the British and Canadian troops they faced suggest to me that this is not a case or 'othering'.

---

Nice Rob

Answer 3

Seeing as Upper Canada was part of the British Colonies the residents there do come under British rule but at the same time most of them at this time had relocated from America and were referred to as American by the British at this time. These are volunteers in the local militias who along with First Nations and Fencible units backed up the 1,600 regular British forces in Upper Canada. They in most cases were not British Nationalities but American, German, French Huguenots Metis and  second or third generation Canadians so called because thy lived and were born in the Canadas. Militias in most cases were not required to fight on foreign soil therefore would only fight in North America So categories to define them should be included somehow.

Answer 4

Hi Judith,

As the "Veterans" category became so large and ambiguous smaller categories are slowly evolving.  If you would like to add profiles to those whom fought for Canada, a free space and wikisortable table will be found at  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Canada_in_the_War_of_1812.  

The War of 1812 is actually a sub-project of Roll of Honor and several free spaces have been created.  Assistance is always appreciated!

Comments

Thanks, David. I have a few profiles to add as well. Judith, I see that Thomas Cummings is already on the table. No doubt our ancestors in Upper Canada will overlap here too!

---

Please explain the wikisortable table and how to use it. Is it something I can add to? edit? I see "unknown" where I know the missing info.

---

Hi Judith,

The wikisortable table is similar to any table in that it contains cells. The advantage is that each column may be sorted with the little  button at the top. In the edit view you will see each row starts with a pipe "|" a name (linked) in the first cell of the row and then a double pipe "||' branch is in the next cell and etc. 

Explanation shown at : http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Editing_Tips#Tables

You are welcome to add info...  After you add perhaps click the "preview button" prior to saving.  If you are uncomfortable editing tables, you can always leave info on the bulletin board and someone will add it for you.  

Everyday, I learn something new and it is fantastic when collaboration adds to the efforts!