Post by Robert Braun on Mar 13, 2005 20:33:19 GMT -5
Mr. Banks... thanks for the additonal information. I also consulted some of my sources. Rene Chartrand only has a brief mention (one paragraph) in his Uniforms and Equipment of United States Forces in the War of 1812. In Frontier Illinois, author James E. Davis did a little better. He devoted a couple of paragraphs to the Ranger unit on pp. 135-6, and mentioned Samuel Whitesides-- future Black Haw War militia general-- and militia private!
Regarding the question of "militia' vs. "Regular," I might venture an assessment:
1. Souces agree that the "Rangers" were raised as the "17th United States Regiment" by an act of Congress, circa 1811. (This unit should not be confused with the 17th Regiment of U. S. Infantry, which served differently than the "Ranger" regiment);
2. They are officered by William Russell, a Revolutionary War officer, war hero, and a Regular Army colonel from Kentucky;
3. Pay was to be drawn from the Federal government;
4. The authorization to recruit and train aditional companies came from the Federal government, not the territory-- regardless of Gov. Ninian Edwards' desire for protection in the territory.
While the regiment raised and trained additional companies from the territory, it is clear to me that this authority came from the federal government, with the full cooperation of the Edwards' territorial government. In short-- the 17th Rgiment was and remained a Federal "Regular" regiment . It may have had territorial men in its ranks and had the full faith and confidence of Gov. Ninian Edwards, the regiment was beholded to the federal authorities as a Regular Regiment-- however tenuous that authoirity may have been in territorial Illinois... and however "irregularly" the companies of the regiment may have behaved and fought.
This situation is VERY similar to the raising of the U. S. Ranger battalion under Colonel Henry Dodge in 1832. While this battalion raised and trained many territorial and state men in its companies (who were armed, equipped and horsed on their "own hook") the authority and pay came from the Federal Government.
I submit that niether the 17th Regiment, nor the U. S. Rangers of 1832-2, were raised under the provisions of the Federal "Militia Act"... and as such cannot be considered "militia" under extant Federal law at the time.
Regards, Bob.
PS... I agree... it is time to start a different thread. Perhaps under "Open Discussion?"
r.
Regarding the question of "militia' vs. "Regular," I might venture an assessment:
1. Souces agree that the "Rangers" were raised as the "17th United States Regiment" by an act of Congress, circa 1811. (This unit should not be confused with the 17th Regiment of U. S. Infantry, which served differently than the "Ranger" regiment);
2. They are officered by William Russell, a Revolutionary War officer, war hero, and a Regular Army colonel from Kentucky;
3. Pay was to be drawn from the Federal government;
4. The authorization to recruit and train aditional companies came from the Federal government, not the territory-- regardless of Gov. Ninian Edwards' desire for protection in the territory.
While the regiment raised and trained additional companies from the territory, it is clear to me that this authority came from the federal government, with the full cooperation of the Edwards' territorial government. In short-- the 17th Rgiment was and remained a Federal "Regular" regiment . It may have had territorial men in its ranks and had the full faith and confidence of Gov. Ninian Edwards, the regiment was beholded to the federal authorities as a Regular Regiment-- however tenuous that authoirity may have been in territorial Illinois... and however "irregularly" the companies of the regiment may have behaved and fought.
This situation is VERY similar to the raising of the U. S. Ranger battalion under Colonel Henry Dodge in 1832. While this battalion raised and trained many territorial and state men in its companies (who were armed, equipped and horsed on their "own hook") the authority and pay came from the Federal Government.
I submit that niether the 17th Regiment, nor the U. S. Rangers of 1832-2, were raised under the provisions of the Federal "Militia Act"... and as such cannot be considered "militia" under extant Federal law at the time.
Regards, Bob.
PS... I agree... it is time to start a different thread. Perhaps under "Open Discussion?"
r.