I am concerned that a populist colloquial dismissal of evident truths pertains additionally to my compiled research deducements from across these last thirty years or more of research.

I fear that a statement of any definitive RANGER having a bipartisan origin in ideations these days would be falsely seen as my personal conjecture relative to two facts.

First: the USS Maine and the invasion of Cuba by the pre Air Force Navy and Army force known as the “Rough Riders” was the onset of a Spanish American War era of both “Amphibious Warfare” advancements, and also of United States Special Forces in the contect of our Navy’s rengineering of the fleet from wood hull sail to coal fired steel hull ships. All of this then being contextual to landings and to moving the Army onshore in local seas in the context of the Monroe Doctrine.

Secondly, it seems evident that the assignment of responsibility to the USFS for the continental extirpation of the red and grey wolf across the entire lower 48 would have been accompanied by Army Ranger Engineering. Because, as was the case with the Lewis and Clark expedition, the continent was being explored and searched through systematically as well as randomly. Organized Government and private prospecting for timber, water, minerals and farmland was a priority, and also central to he era’s purpose was he completion of the first survey of our continent and its contents for the application of the the federalization’s systematics; which had been asserted as the plan circa the 1862 legislative Acts of the Union during our Civil conflict.

Thus, correlated to both Rough Rider Special Forces and Mountain wilderness reconnoiters of timber, water, minerals and metals; “Ranger” has always been and also remains now a term used by our USFS, and additionslly by our US Army.

The difficulty seems to be in overcoming a false media induced perception of bicameral angst and antagonism which has been its own consideration amidst the USA politic since Thomas Jefferson penned a definition of our bicammeral legislature.

So, the question for our USA’s USFS and Army is: why is there a bicameral schism induction of rivalry pertaining to our land use paradigmatics and politic? And, can all the Rangers please be friends?

Unfortunately, tracking down and defining a Ranger can be difficult, contentious, and partisan to some.

So, I postulate a distinct Ranger specific continuum be recognized pertaining to correlations between USFS and US Army men during the pre radio and pre WWI timeframe herein.

Circa 1900: the 1860’s Union Civil Campaign, then the Union Indian Campaign, and then the Union Era Spanish campaign had mobilized domestically and subsequently globally against the South, Native Americans, and then Spain (and her world territories in the carribean and phillipines in particular)

[NOTE: October 1, 1905, Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the USFS, transferred our USFS from our USDOI to our USDA.]

In conclusion: pertaining to Ranger action and to USFS and Army Ranger activities in this regard; the extirpation of the red and grey wolf, the pre Federal Union Army Indian Campaign’s Indian removal on the Northern plains, and to the expansive reconoiter of exploitable timber, water, mineral and farmland of the Louisiana Purchase at the time os the third unuion campaign against spain…

Similultaneously conducive to the commencement of the scientific surveying of the Central, Mountain and Pacific Zones which the frontier was then migrating across, and during the age of a transition from meets and bounds to rectangular coordinate system of demarcating lands and their resources…

Rangers lead the way for our Nation’s Federalized, bipartisan, and systematic quantification of raw natural resources present in Sea, Air and Land scenarios which have been deemed requisitely to be prospective, cultivated and otherwise exploited via extraction and harvest functions throughout our USA and around the world… for the “Greatest Good”.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply