Canada

[civilken]

Hi friends I can use some help I was listening to Pro. Blight of Yale the other night and he was talking about the British and that they had put solder in Canada to support the South if they begun to win . I have never head that before so if you know any thing please enlighten me thank you .

 

[unionblue]

Hi friends I can use some help I was listening to Pro. Blight of Yale the other night and he was talking about the British and that they had put solder in Canada to support the South if they begun to win . I have never head that before so if you know any thing please enlighten me thank you .

civilken,

You might want to check out the following websites.

Canada in the American Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_American_Civil_War

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/american-civil-war

http://pvtchurch.tripod.com

Enjoy,
Unionblue

 

[civilken]

civilken,

You might want to check out the following websites.

Canada in the American Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_American_Civil_War

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/american-civil-war

http://pvtchurch.tripod.com

Enjoy,
Unionblue

thank you

 

[civilken]

Thank you Unionblue that's why I will stay with this forum you guys are good and they like to help

 

[Dave Wilma]

Hi friends I can use some help I was listening to Pro. Blight of Yale the other night and he was talking about the British and that they had put solder in Canada to support the South if they begun to win . I have never head that before so if you know any thing please enlighten me thank you .

No. British troops were deployed to Canada after the Trent Affair when any perceived insult to the British flag was deemed a causus belli. Shipping several thousand troops to Canada was a way to calm the clamor for war at home and to signal British resolve. It was the policy of the British to stay out of the ACW, but to defend British interests. HM Government and Secretary of State Seward headed things off and Lincoln only wanted one war at a time.

Some British soldiers got so bored in Canada they went south and enlisted in one army or the other.

A great book about Britain and the ACW is World on Fire by Amanda Foreman.

 

[OpnCoronet]

No. British troops were deployed to Canada after the Trent Affair when any perceived insult to the British flag was deemed a causus belli. Shipping several thousand troops to Canada was a way to calm the clamor for war at home and to signal British resolve. It was the policy of the British to stay out of the ACW, but to defend British interests. HM Government and Secretary of State Seward headed things off and Lincoln only wanted one war at a time.
[/URL].

Very true, the troops were a Defense force for Canada, not directly as any active military support of the confederacy. After two previous experiences of getting bogged down in land operations on a Continent several time bigger than England itself, any military support would be Naval.
The troops served the dual purpose of showing to both nervous Canadians and bellicose Americans, England's willingness to defend Canada.

 

[civilken]

Hay Dave thank you for the help and the book

 

[Dave Wilma]

The troops served the dual purpose of showing to both nervous Canadians and bellicose Americans, England's willingness to defend Canada.

The bellicose Americans, read Northerners, were pretty noisy. Given the life and death struggle for the Union I would be curious what the profile of these "On to Montreal" types was. Republicans? Democrats? Were they left out of the profits from the war and westward expansion? I guess that's the point of a free press, print anything even if it is silly.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The bellicose Americans, read Northerners, were pretty noisy. Given the life and death struggle for the Union I would be curious what the profile of these "On to Montreal" types was. Republicans? Democrats? Were they left out of the profits from the war and westward expansion? I guess that's the point of a free press, print anything even if it is silly.

There was little or no unanimity for a premptive attack on Canada in the North. IMO it was almost purely a preemptive move by Parliament based on the past British experiences during two previous land wars with America.
It was a very real threat only IF war was to result, due to the failure of Diplomacy in settling the Trent Affair.
(certainly a consideration for John Bull to consul., If war broke out, Canada would be the only readily available target, for American retaliations, for British depredations on the Sea, i.e., most likely to result in a major land war, if Britain was determined to defend Canada)

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

A detachment of the British Army's Military Train leaving for Canada following the 'Trent Incident'

The British garrison in Canada more than tripled in 1862 to over 18,000 regular troops while the volunteer militia augmented to 25,000 men.

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/image-421-eng.asp?page_id=484

 

[ErnieMac]

Considering the Trent Affair and that one of ideas being discussed in the early days of the Lincoln administration was that the way to stop secession and reunite the country was to pick a fight with the British, I can't say I blame the British for stationing more troops in Canada.

 

[OpnCoronet]

There was a very real chance of war over the Trent Affair if both gov'ts had not reacted cooly and rationally to come to a reasonable conclusion, in spite of inflamed public opinion on both sides.
In the end cooler heads prevailed(surprisingly it was the political leaders), the bigger threat of war were the so-called Laird Rams. But, in either case, we might well have the spectacle of the U.S. losing one part of the Union(confederacy) and gain a bigger part(Canada).