MOUNTED RANGERS

[Larry Koschkee]

President Andrew Jackson saw General Henry Atkinson bogged down in Illinois and Michigan Territory in pursuit of Black Hawk and ordered General Winfield Scott to replace Atkinson.

Scott raised Nathan Boone's Missouri Rangers and I believe a unit from Indiana to help bring the BHW to a conclusion. The Rangers were in route to meet up with Scott when the Battle of Bad Axe, for all practical purposes, brought the war to a close. They did not participate in the fray.

Questions:

1) It is clear Scott, specifically and the Regular Army in general, had a general disdain for the militia volunteers. Also, it is clear that Scott had confidence in Mounted Ranger units. Why didn't General Atkinson call up the Mounted Rangers early on in the BHW? Would he not have the same authority as Scott to do so?

2) Can we speculate that the BHW would have had ended sooner if the Rangers were at the heels of Black Hawk early on?

[Robert Braun]

I am not clear on the basis for General Scott's "confidence" in Nathan Boone's ranger company. There is evidence that Boone's company did good service during the War of 1812, but outside of assitance in building forts and whatnot during that conflict, I am not sure what this force would have brought to the table that would have been "better' or "different"-- other than the good name of Boone.

I am wondering if the force Boone commanded in 1832 was the same force he commanded a generation before. One might think not. Also, I doubt that such a force had much more in the way of experience than most other "militia" companies raised during the 1832 conflict.

Further, by the end of July, 1832, Dodge's squadron and General Henry's brigade had already been hardened by difficult campaigning and recent combat (albiet small, but combat notwithstanding). Boone's company would have certainly been a fresh addition to Atkinson's army.

Regarding the "authority" to call up other companies of mounted rangers-- I suspect that Atkinson, as a department commander may well have been empowered to request such companies from the states and territories. My guess is that Scott wanted to do things his way, and that he was interested in using levees in which HE has experience/confidence.

Regards, Bob

[Larry Koschkee]

A well reasoned response, Bob.

If the level of experience between the Militia and Rangers was similiar, can we determine a underlying factor that Scott preferred? Was it possibly a dotted line connecting the Rangers to federal authorities versus state and local authorities?

In analyzing Militia units versus Ranger units can one safely say the Rangers were a federal hybrid, something I would label Federal "Irregulars?"

[Robert Braun]

larrykoschkee said:

A well reasoned response, Bob.

If the level of experience between the Militia and Rangers was similiar, can we determine a underlying factor that Scott preferred? Was it possibly a dotted line connecting the Rangers to federal authorities versus state and local authorities?

In analyzing Militia units versus Ranger units can one safely say the Rangers were a federal hybrid, something I would label Federal "Irregulars?"

I think that perhaps the connectivity had something to do with Scott and CONTROL. The new Mounted Ranger Batalion was a Federal levee, and as such, there was not an issue of state control, or the need to deal with purpetual "rollover" with 30 day enlistments.

Federal "irregulars" is a fair label for the BMR. They has the leadership, but certainly neither the training nor the equipage needed for sustained military operations. In short, the BMR was a "cheap" (read "inexpensive") solution to its lack of cavalry on the frontier.

I think Congress recognized the value of a Federal horse unit on the frontier, coupled with better training and equipment. Hence, Congress finally put some $$ to the project by raising the U. S. Dragoons in 1833.

Best, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Bob said: "I think Congress recognized the value of a Federal horse unit on the frontier, coupled with better training and equipment."

One could quickly pose the question - why did it take Congress so long? After all, the successful use of light cavalry has been demonstrated for centuries in Europe and Asia. The answer may be rooted in the make up of the geographical landscape. - Forests and forest density.

The use of the horse by North American Indians is well documented. Images of the plains and a vast horse culture immediately come to mind. However we must take into account the following; the relationship of the horse and the presence of pedominate forested areas is, the more the region was forested the less use or reliance on the horse in warfare by the Native Americans.

The Indian tribes of the eastern one-third of the United States used the horse primarily as a beast of burden, therefore the mobility of the Indians in conflict with the U.S. Military was basically the same as the U.S. Army foot soldier. The Indians could be routed and removed with the foot soldier. Not until the military confronted the Indians in a more open landscape, which translated to more horses among the tribes, did the the military experience dificulties.

The annals of history do not recognize the BHW as a noteworthy war in American History but I do think it represents a sea-change in how the military looked at conducting military operations on this continent. Colonel Henry Dodge and the United States Mounted Rangers, a prototype of U.S. Calvary, was a significant change in U.S. military history and helped reinforce America's manfiest destiny.

[Robert Braun]

Larry asked "why did it take Congress so long?" Avoiding my usual quips about politicians, I will cut right to the chase scene: money.

Congress junked the cavalry system that worked so well through "Mr. Madison's War" because of IMHO basic frugality. It was an expense the government felt it could not bear once the War of 1812 concluded.

The BHW brought into sharp RE-focus the value of the cavalry for ranging mission, long range reconnaissance, and the fundamental necessity of a mounted force to deal with a mounted opponant. Accordingly, Larry's comments...

"The annals of history do not recognize the BHW as a noteworthy war in American History but I do think it represents a sea-change in how the military looked at conducting military operations on this continent. Colonel Henry Dodge and the United States Mounted Rangers, a prototype of U.S. Cavalry, was a significant change in U.S. military history and helped reinforce America's manfiest destiny."

... are 100% correct, in my opinion.

Best,

Bob.