Talk:Vermont National Guard

List of Generals

List needs to be pared down to "just a list." bios belong in separate articles. Watch copyvio. Somebody got this from someplace. Details relating to Guard need to be placed into History. Article is about organization not people! Student7 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

pre-Civil War prep

The bios suggest that pre-CW prep was useful/organized, etc. Instead, there are lots of reliable sources that suggest it was anything but. There were just a handful of people available at the start of the war. They had mustered once a year on the village green, shooting rifles in the air. They were really untrained and unequipped. Anything that suggests otherwise is fictional. No one person's fault. The case throughout the country, including the South. Governor Fairbanks realized this at the outset of the War, deliberately stepping down after a one year term, and presumably dying of the stress! Student7 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason for Improvement

(Deleted by author. Have discussed with other party and am satisfied that we are now in agreement on how best to proceed.)

Vttor (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

See my contributor's talk page

For a response to the comments above.

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly take issue with Student7's characterization

Erastus Fairbanks stepped down as Governor after a one-year term for several reasons. One was to return to his business interests. One was that he had previously served as Governor, and like several other previous Governors, Lieutenant Governors and other officials, he had been asked to return to government service temporarily to deal with the Civil War crisis.

Another reason was that he had served a previous one-year term as Governor -- October, 1852 to October, 1853. This was the era when Vermont's Republican party first imposed the "Mountain Rule", which limited Governors to two one-year terms. When the term was changed to two years, the Mountain Rule limited Governors to one two-year term.

Because Fairbanks had served once before, serving a one-year term the second time was in line with the Mountain Rule.

The militia certainly did take some steps to prepare in advance of the Civil War. New units were organized, and equipped, often at the organizer's expense. Peter T. Washburn did exactly that in Woodstock, and his volunteer militia company was later incorporated into the first Vermont regiment organized for Civil War service. Manuals for tactics and drill and ceremony were updated and re-published. Units met more frequently than just the annual muster days, which by the mid 1800s had turned into parties rather than military training.

Like-minded individuals met to discuss and plan ways to improve militia organization and readiness. Among the examples I can think of, in the 1850s Vermont Adjutant General Frederic Williams Hopkins had meetings or symposiums at Norwich University where others interested in improving the militia met and organized. Individuals like Professor Alonzo Jackman at Norwich were appointed to high commands in the Vermont militia. Jackman was one of the few individuals who had experience with large units, because he had served as a drillmaster with both the New Hampshire and Vermont militias.

The militia was certainly not completely ready or completely effective at the start of the Civil War. But it's accurate to say that several individuals with foresight took steps to improve the militia in advance of the war they saw coming.

Billmckern (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even I wasn't around then! I relied on a secondary source which regarded Fairbanks, from my part of the country, and towards whom I tend to be "biased", which suggested that he was totally spooked by a very large war looming over which he would be responsible (in his mind anyway) for many deaths. Two year terms didn't start until 1870 according to my source. I agree the "mountain rule" was in affect. A listing of governors will show that is was not always meticulously followed. I did not figure out Fairbanks motives. I just copied what was on a document someplace. Definitely not pov in my case. Does something need to be done? Student7 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm positive that I'm right about Hopkins, Washburn and others taking steps to improve the militia before the Civil War, with mixed success. I'll find the sources for those details.

I'll try to find some references on Erastus Fairbanks and his second term as Governor so you and I can nail that down with more precision.

Billmckern (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be right.

I've been in a (Vermont) "study group" on the Civil War for about seven years. I've had the general impression that Vermont's pre-war posture was extremely lame and naive, which was identical in most respects to every other Northern state. The North just couldn't see it coming. The South, being more cohesive and fanatical, did have some idea of what they wanted to do. Though not being able to follow up on the First Battle of Bull Run, probably cost them the war.

Part of the problem was Lincoln who did not want to say, "Okay, North, get ready, we're going to have to fight the South." No real leadership, which, in retrospect, was the way he chose to play it politically. Who's to say that his non-belligerence was wrong? Not I! Student7 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess what? I was at a CW Study Group last night with a "General Stannard" re-enactor, who claimed (as a colonel) to prepare for oncoming war by identifying bunches of militia by companies into a "brigade" that could be summoned in case of war in 1858! And indeed, he did request activation when Lincoln promulgated his first call to arms. Sorry, no citation! The reenactor had a bio of Stannard, which could be pov, for all I know. Student7 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Stannard had definitely been a regimental commander in the pre-Civil war effort to reenergize the militia.

Here's a citation: The Union Army, page 253

I know that Peter Washburn was drilling a volunteer militia company in Woodstock in the late 1850s.

Citation: Vermont in the Civil War, page 29

When I created the Wikipedia page for Horace Henry Baxter, Vermont's Adjutant General at the start of the war, I found that he became AG largely based on his experience as commander of a volunteer company in Rutland in the late 1850s. After Baxter became AG he was succeeded as company commander by William Y. W. Ripley, who received the Medal of Honor while with the 1st United States Sharpshooters.

Citation: Centennial Celebration of the Organization of Rutland County, Vt., page 27

I think it's safe to say that in Vermont at least, there were some individuals who tried to recruit and train the militia in advance of the Civil War.

As for Fairbanks, I think you could be right. At a minimum, I believe the question of whether he could have run for another one-year term in 1861 is an open one.

I found a passage in Sam Hand's story about the Mountain Rule. It contains a footnote which seems to indicate that when Fairbanks served from 1860 to 1861, it was understood that this was a "make up" for the second consecutive one-year term he had not received after his first term in the early 1850s, and that he would not run again in 1861.

Citation: Mountain Rule Revisited, page 150

On the other hand, I also found two references in Hand's book about the Vermont Republican Party. One indicates that Fairbanks himself chose not to run again in 1861. To me, that means that he did have the option of running again if he wanted. But the other makes it seem as though when he ran in 1860, it was understood that he would not run in 1861.

Citation: The Star That Set: The Vermont Republican Party, 1854-1974, page 17, 53

This last reference states explicitly that Fairbanks could have run in 1861, and chose not to:

Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, page 678

I don't generally go for "on the one hand, on the other hand" resolutions to questions, but in the case of Fairbanks and the 1861 election, I think it might be appropriate.

Billmckern (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The mobile 124th

I was told that numbers "mean something" when applied to the Army or reserves. But my link to the (Florida) 124th was rm. What do numbers, then, mean? Student7 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The legacy of the 124th Regiment (Regional Training Institute) in Vermont is derived from the 124th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion, a Vermont National Guard unit of the 1950s and 1960s. The 124th AA Battalion derived its lineage from the WW II-era 124th Coast Artillery Battalion. See Armor-Cavalry Regiments: Army National Guard Lineage.

Billmckern (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How does this fit within the U.S. Army Regimental System. Must be outside of it, right? Student7 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. It's outside the Army's regimental system because the current 124th Regiment (Regional Training Institute), the Vermont Army National Guard unit, is part of the institutional Army as a schoolhouse, rather than an operational combat arms unit.

Billmckern (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vermont National Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=BT&Dato=20120803&Kategori=NEWS02&Lopenr=208030803&Ref=PH
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120925125735/http://www.history.army.mil/ARNG/NG-VT.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/ARNG/NG-VT.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vt.ang.af.mil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)