FrontierFolk.net

WD Bennett · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: 1812 Mounted Rangers

Has anyone done any research on 1812 "US Regt. of Mounted Rangers" or also called "17th United States Regiment"?

here is a link that I discovered if anyone is interested.
http://mymilitaryhistorypages.bravehost.com/RangerHistory.htm
_________________
Christian Outdoor Leadership Training

Pathfinder Adventures

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

The 17th Regiment and the rangers were two entirely different organizations. The 17th Regiment was a regular army infantry unit raised initially in Kentucky.

Here's a little bit about the rangers:

"Ohio contributed two companies of mounted rangers to the six companies Congress authorized to defend the frontiers of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Louisiana. Under the command of Captain James Menary, a former brigadier general in the Ohio militia, and Captain William Perry, these companies, officially part of the regular army, but retaining their citizen soldier distinction, were intended to serve as scouts, couriers, and, when necessary, conduct offensive probing operations. Harrison had a low opinion of these rangers. “The conduct of Menary’s Company of Rangers has been such as to destroy all confidence in it… Both the companies raised in this state are entirely worthless because the officers are deficient in every quality which is necessary for their stations. Perry is a fool, a Coward and a Drunkard, Menary a poor old imbecile Creature … The Companies have been uniformly recruited amongst their friends and neighbors and it is the principal object of their officers to screen them from duty.” Brigadier General Tupper echoed Harrison’s assessment. “It is well known that their scouting has been but a Mockery during this season”, he wrote Meigs. Harrison dismissed Menary’s company in March 1813. As a temporary measure, the general employed friendly Indians to scout the frontier until May 1813 when Captain John Hopkins’ company took over the patrolling duties. Captain Samuel McCormick’s company of rangers replaced William Perry’s company in August, 1813."

Hope this helps.

Jim
_________________
Jim

WD Bennett · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:34 am Post subject:

James

from what I read, the article said not to confuse the "17th Infantry Regiment" with the "17th United States Regiment"????
_________________
Christian Outdoor Leadership Training

Pathfinder Adventures

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. What does he use as a source? Unit designations always included the branch of service to prevent just this type of confusion: 1st Rifle Regiment, 1st Light Dragoons, 1st Artillery, etc. You can imagine what it'd be like if the War Department sent out a shipment of uniforms marked only 1st Regiment, intending it go to the dragoons and it ended up with the rifles. Anyway, I'm looking at the Army Register for 1813 (American State Papers, Military Affairs, Volume 1, page 404, available on-line) and it lists only the 17th Regiment Infantry. So, I guess my question is: 17th United States Regiment of What? I think I'd note what he says, but not put a whole lot of credence into it.

Hope this helps,

Jim
_________________
Jim

ILYankee5 · Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 63 Location: Southern Illinois

I too would be quite interested in finding what "sources" name the Ranger Regiments as the 17th Regiment.

Maybe I can help a bit too. I belong to an Illinois Company of the US Rangers. Several years ago (ca 1970's) a gentleman wrote a book about the Illinois Territory and the illusive Ranger units called "Lost Glory." In the book the author writes

Pg. 411 Lost Glory

"An act of Congress authorized the enlistment of ten companies of mounted Rangers, to be styled the 17th Regiment of which Col. William Russell of Kentucky was given command, and over each of which companies a captain was elected by the men. Four of those companies, recruited from Illinois, were assigned to the defense of Illinois, towit: The companies of Capt. William B. Whiteside, Capt. Samuel Whiteside, Capt. James B. Moore, and Capt. Jacob Short. Four of them were assigned to Indiana and two to Missouri." (Indian Affairs, American State Papers; Annals of the West pages 729-731; Davidson and Stuve, Hist. of IL p. 249; Moses Illinois Vol, 1,p. 247.

Then down a little farther in the text, the author says:
"To say that the Rangers were known as the 17th Regiment is in the opinion of the author, a misnomer. It was probably intended to eventually be such but simply never came to pass. The gross neglect of the government in the early part of the war took its toll on the United States Rangers in the form of no equipment and no pay. Their actual status to history is very elusive. Captain Jacob Short is listed in the Military Dictionary as "Capt. Illinois Rangers, August 1812; Captain U.S. Rangers Aug. 1813"

Mr. Bennett, I believe the info on the site that you found actually came from another gentleman in our group that spoke to the author of that site either via internet or via phone. The info which was given in MY opinion was vastly incorrect.

I hope this has helped some...or confused more to stir up more research and discussion.

Looking forward to reading responses.
_________________
Seth Graves

I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks.

-Daniel Boone

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

I wonder if, at some point, something got lost in translation. William Russell was the colonel of the 7th Infantry Regiment, a pre-war regular unit raised in Kentucky. In October 1812, Russell led a combined force of regulars, Illinois militia, and rangers against a Kickapoo village on Lake Peoria. It's possible (I suppose) that in local lore, 7 became 17 and the regiment of infantry became a regiment of rangers.
_________________
Jim

ILYankee5 · Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 63 Location: Southern Illinois

I just don't think they had enough men to volunteer to form a "Regiment" is all. I think they intended on it, but it never took place. I have seen in a few readings, that a "detachment of Rangers were dispatched." Meaning?? My guess a platoon size group. Now the naming...just because there was a 17th Regiment of Infantry doesn't mean their couldnt have been the 17th Regiment of Rangers or Dragoons or....whatever. I have seen this group referred to as (and the list begins):
US Mtd Rangers
US VOL Rangers
US Rangers
Corps of Rangers

I currently belong to the Illinois War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission and we are raising a company of "US Volunteer Rangers."
_________________
Seth Graves

I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks.

-Daniel Boone

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

This is a useful reference for all things military in 1812: An Act Establishing Rules and Articles for the Government of the Armies of the United States with the Regulations of the War Department. It's available on Google Books and includes, among other things, the acts authorizing the creation of six companies of rangers in December 1811 and an additional company in July 1812.
_________________
Jim

ILYankee5 · Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 63 Location: Southern Illinois

I have on file an act of Congress that allows the President to call into service no more than 6 companies serving on foot or mounted. And it is dated January 2, 1812.
[/img]
_________________
Seth Graves

I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks.

-Daniel Boone

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

Same one. The difference in dates is between when Congress authorized the rangers and the President ordered them into existence. What's interesting, though, is why they even authorized them in the first place. If the rangers were not mounted, they were light infantry - just like the Rifle Regiment. If the rangers were mounted, they were light dragoons. Why have such a duplication of roles and missions? I suspect that Congress authorized the ranger companies because it was too hard to recruit "light" soldiers for 5 years and it'd be cheaper: no uniforms, no regimental command structure, etc. That's why the rangers' length of service was for one year. I 'spect there's a tie in, too, to the later addition of a second dragoon regiment and the addition of three more rifle regiments.
_________________
Jim

DaveB · Prolific Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1585

Plus neither company was mounted. Both were engaged as blockhouse garrisons along the NW Army's line of march toward the Maumee Rapids. These units were a full-on disaster & absolutely were not the 17th anything in the Ohio Militia or Federal unit structures. Those officers were cashiered & their men weren't even transferred into the existing Federal units being raised or fielded, which is about as huge an insult as you can deliver.

The Mounted Rifle Regiment raised under Johnson did great service. Most of the Ohio Militia units who actually served in a scouting capacity were termed "Spies & Guides". Capt. ______ Hamilton of Warren County (sorry 6 states away from my notes) served independently in this capacity & his company served under his Lieutenant.

Most of the actual "scouting" "rangeresque" stuff done in the NW along the Maumee/Detroit frontier was actually done by "Frenchmen" who were American residents of Michigan Territory, such a Peter Navarre.

I've got lots of anecdotal stuff on that which comes from The Diary of Captain Daniel Cushing.

Have fun!
Dave
_________________
"I was chomped on by a bear, and he was a bad bear, but that doesn't speak of all bears."

-Tim Scott, the guy who got ate by a bear

Ex Libris Baby!

ILYankee5 · Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 63 Location: Southern Illinois

DaveB · Prolific Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1585

The Ohio raised rangers were the ones I was referring to. Manary's specifically.

Have fun!
Dave
_________________
"I was chomped on by a bear, and he was a bad bear, but that doesn't speak of all bears."

-Tim Scott, the guy who got ate by a bear

Ex Libris Baby!

ILYankee5 · Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 63 Location: Southern Illinois

Ok, I have on record of William Whitesides commission being accepted or granted (however you see it) by the War of Dept dated as march of 1812...but I haven't found anywhere of Capt. Samuel Whiteside, Capt. James B. Moore, and Capt. Jacob Short's acceptance and appointments as Federal Officers. Does anyone have this and the dates?
_________________
Seth Graves

I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks.

-Daniel Boone

James Brenner · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 23 Location: Northern Virginia

Heitman's Register of Army Officers (Google Books) lists all three:

Samuel Whiteside. Illinois. Captain, mounted rifle volunteers, August to November, 1812. Captain, rangers, 1 August 1813. Honorably discharged 30 July 1814. Brigadier General, Illinois Volunteers, 26 April to 30 June 1832.

James B. Moore. Illinois. Captain, rangers, 1 August 1813. Honorably discharged 15 June 1815.

Jacob Short. Illinois. Captain Illinois rangers, August 1812. Captain U.S. rangers, 1 August 1813. Honorably discharged, 15 June 1815.

I hope this helps.
_________________
Jim