Perpetuating Civil War-era regiments in modern U.S. National Guard

This one's a doozy, and I don't know where to put it :)o), but anyway...

The idea was first proposed by Pyeknu94 in another thread, and the basic idea is that like the Canadian Army perpetuating CEF battalion names, all U.S. Army National Guard units would perpetuate names and history of Civil War-era regiments from that state. For example, Maine Army NG would get 20th Maine back, and Minnesota Army NG gets 1st Minnesota, and so on...

How feasible is this?

Marc A
 
The way it works is that contemporary units have the "lineage" of Civil War units. For example, the New York National Guard 69th Infantry Regiment perpetuates the "Fighting Sixty-Ninth" of the Civil War. During WWI it was designated 165th Infantry Regiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69th_Infantry_Regiment_(New_York)

Southern units tend to be more "local". Thus the WWII 116th Infantry Regiment (now 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team) of the Virginia National Guard takes lineage from the Stonewall Brigade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_Infantry_Regiment

Designations are another matter, though . . .
 
The way it works is that contemporary units have the "lineage" of Civil War units. For example, the New York National Guard 69th Infantry Regiment perpetuates the "Fighting Sixty-Ninth" of the Civil War. During WWI it was designated 165th Infantry Regiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69th_Infantry_Regiment_(New_York)

Southern units tend to be more "local". Thus the WWII 116th Infantry Regiment (now 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team) of the Virginia National Guard takes lineage from the Stonewall Brigade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_Infantry_Regiment

Designations are another matter, though . . .

I see... what I have in mind is an across-the-board policy on reviving Civil War regiments in the Army National Guard, designations and all.

Marc A
 
One problem is that significant numbers of western units have no plausible Civil War heritage.

The number of Civil War regiments and National Guard battallions/brigades don't match up either.

I like this idea, though.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Too many issues with Southern regiments to handle politically with slavery and segregation. Also, many regiments have long combat histories, how do you handle those? For example, one of my guard regiments fought in WW1, WW2, and Korea. Why abandon 3 wars worth of legacy for one war. What ever Arkansas regiment you replace with will have only one war worth of fighting.

Also, to be fair, the US Army is not really regimental based now. Battalions in same regiment can easily be in different states or even with some inactive. It is really just a pin that goes on the dress uniform. For example, my basic training BN was just a solo BN with the other two inactive. My first national guard unit did not even have a regiment commander. We were the infantry regiment in a Brigade, but the chain of command went company, BN, Brigade. Without any officers at the regimental level, why bother with the pin?
 
Having the volunteer system remain in place rather than bringing in the draft could make it easier to keep certain units in place from the Civil War through the 20th century. You'd probably end up with some very long combat histories for some units if you have action in the Civil War, Spanish-American War and WWI and WWII.
 
I think you'd need a POD of sorts coming out of the lessons learned in the Spanish-American War and the subsequent reorganisation of the state militias in the aftermath of the war which essentially created the National Guard system we have today, and also a change too in the way that the US fights (if it fights) the Great War.

At the least, you'd need the 1903 Militia Act to be at least a little different. Perhaps instead of blanket federalisation in response to the poor showing of the State Militias, there's instead a greater push at the state level to reform the militias, and the 1903 act basically simply sets aside funds for modernisation and standardisation, not subordinating all of those militias to the War Department in full in the subsequent acts over the course of the decade.

That said, if the US still gets involved in the World Wars...there's the problem I think that the sheer nature of those wars precludes the state militias remaining as anything but the modern National Guard in all but name, at least during those periods. Whether things would revert to 'normal' after those conflicts though might is another matter though.
 

Hoist40

Banned
How about just getting rid of the Spanish American War. The State Militias were for defending the State and the Nation when called up for federal duty not for imperial wars to gain colonies. No Spanish American War means no need for reorganization and creating the National Guard system
 
Top