British build up for war

[wilber6150]

Hi list,
Just wondering if anyone can point me in the direction for source material on the British preperation for war with the US during this time period.. I've heard accounts that they had amassed thousands of troops in Canada but can't find any documentation for it.. If anyone has any leads on where to research this please let me know....
Thanks and Merry Christmas..

[Craig L Barry]

December 21, 1861 edition of the ILN (Illustrated News of London) there is an article titled "Reinforcements for Canada". The article reads in part:

"In consequence of the possibility of a rupture between this country and the Federal States of North America the war authorities exerted themselves with extraordinary vigour to send reinforcements promptly to Canada…Another order for 25,000 more rifles were duly packed and conveyed on barges to the Government depot at Woolwich. The gun makers at the east end of London are working day and night to execute large numbers of rifles and each contractor has to supply a certain number daily which are tested at the (London) proof house and then sent to the Tower for exportation".

There are a couple key points here. First and foremost, British government contracts were still being completed in December, 1861, according to the article, by London area private gun-making concerns.In case anybody still thinks the entire output of the London gun-makers went to the Confederacy during the Civil War, here is some good evidence to the contrary. More importantly, these arms were being made to arm the Crown in defense of the realm. It appears the Crown found it necessary to employ private contractors for their own military needs even while the government owned Royal Small Arms Factory was fully operational. I also find it interesting that the Crown was concerned enough about Federal intentions towards the British colony of Canada that they would send 25,000 troops to guard their border with the USA. That fact offers a different perspective of the relationship between John Bull and Uncle Sam during the US Civil War.

[RJSamp]

December 21, 1861 edition of the ILN (Illustrated News of London) there is an article titled "Reinforcements for Canada". The article reads in part:

"In consequence of the possibility of a rupture between this country and the Federal States of North America the war authorities exerted themselves with extraordinary vigour to send reinforcements promptly to Canada…Another order for 25,000 more rifles were duly packed and conveyed on barges to the Government depot at Woolwich. The gun makers at the east end of London are working day and night to execute large numbers of rifles and each contractor has to supply a certain number daily which are tested at the (London) proof house and then sent to the Tower for exportation".

There are a couple key points here. First and foremost, British government contracts were still being completed in December, 1861, according to the article, by London area private gun-making concerns.In case anybody still thinks the entire output of the London gun-makers went to the Confederacy during the Civil War, here is some good evidence to the contrary. More importantly, these arms were being made to arm the Crown in defense of the realm. It appears the Crown found it necessary to employ private contractors for their own military needs even while the government owned Royal Small Arms Factory was fully operational. I also find it interesting that the Crown was concerned enough about Federal intentions towards the British colony of Canada that they would send 25,000 troops to guard their border with the USA. That fact offers a different perspective of the relationship between John Bull and Uncle Sam during the US Civil War.

I didn't read where they were sending 25,000 troops......the quote is for sending 25,000 more rifles and an unknown quantity of reinforcements (heck it could have been 100,000 troops) with extraordinary viggah.......

this on the cusp of when 50,000 Canadians would join the US Federal Army.....

[Southern Cal]

I don't have the sources at hand, but British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, and his Foreign Secretary, Lord Russel, were quite ready to go to war with the U.S. over the Trent affair. The London Times was stridently pro-secession, and the British government tended to turn a blind eye towards British shipyards building warships for the Confederacy.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

[Craig L Barry]

Fair enough, I read that into it, but weren't the 25,000 Enfields for issuance to their troops? What would 25,000 unarmed British troops be doing in Canada in 1861? Obviously if the War Dept is sending arms to Canada the Enfields are for issuance to troops in Canada. Either way, the point is that there is period evidence of a British military build-up in Canada as early as 1861.

[ScottWashburn]

As I recall, the total number of Redcoats sent to Canada was about 20,000. I don't know how many might have already been there, nor how many local militia were available. All-in-all, it wasn't a terribly formidable force compared to the size the US army quickly grew to and considering the length of the border it had to guard. I've also read that quite a few of those redcoats deserted, crossed the border into the US, and joined the several new US regular regiments being raised in the border region. The 5-year enlistment in the US army looked a lot better than the 23-year term in the British :)

[Pvt Peck]

I've always been interested in how stressful it must have been for Licoln & his cabinet facing armed rebellion at home, a hostile Britan on one side and an imperial minded France expanding in Mexico to the south! One thing that I have heard, and got the feeling of is that the CS cause became unpopular with the English working class due to the slavery issue, and more so once alternate sources of raw material for the textile mills became available. I'm not sure the general populace would have supported a long term, full scale war with the Federal States. Considering how mis-handled the Crimea was and the popular outcry regarding the suffuring of British troops, there might have been some grumbling about actually going to war with the US. Want to see how close we came pre-Civil War read up on the Pig War in Washington teritory!

Edward Parrott

[Bushwhacker Bo]

Another rift developes between the Crown and the Confederacy when the south attempted economic sanctions by holding back cotton from England. Unfortunately, English speculators already had an over-stock in their warehouses,and other textile producers in the middle east, so it hurt thier relationship and probably contributed to Europeans not joining in the fight in the end.

Bo

[Southern Cal]

Here's an interesting article with a lot of more interesting numbers. Thanks for this post, I've learned a lot I didn't know before.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/h582/2001/trent.htm

[Pvt Peck]

Excellent article! Thanks for posting.

Edward Parrott

[wilber6150]

Lawrence,
as usual ,a fantastic post.... It made for great reading while recovering from unwrapping presents.... :)
Merry Christmas

[Craig L Barry]

Agree, a great question that generated interesting an interesting stream of information. The internet forum at its finest.

[Pvt Peck]

Just as an expansion on the subject of a possible conflict with a foreign power, I believe we came much closer to an actual all out war with France over Mexico than we did with Britain for the Trent affair. Of course cooler heads kept us out of an armed conflict with France during the rebellion, BUT as soon as the Confederate States had been defeated.... well read the following and see what you think. This is a link to: The Political Science Quarterly volume Eleventh, page 30, The French in Mexico and The MOnroe Doctrine by Frederic Bancroft

http://books.google.com/books?id=uFJEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36&dq=political+science+quarterly+france+mexico#PPA30 ,M1

Edward Parrott

[wilber6150]

I'd have to go back and check my books, but I thought I read somewhere that towards the end of the war, the President sent a large number of troops (I think it was around 50,000, if memory serves me) down to the border with Mexico in order to wave the "big stick"..

This reminds me of a saying that I read somewhere of Civil War troops, that Southern Infantry and Union artillary together could beat any army in the world..

[Pvt Peck]

Sheridan was near the border chomping for a fight I believe though I'm not sure of the actual troop numbers. I will need to look into that but I have heard it was about a full army corps. There is some great stuff to be found by searching Google books regarding the Mexico affair, in both post war assesments & wartime comments on it.

I will have to do a more in depth search on the Trent affair, though I did not find much on Canada and British fears of a war with America. I did run across a lot regarding a rebellion in Canada in the 1830's where the British were VERY concerned about American interference from across the border. I can see this really adding to the British mind set that the Americans still had their eye on Canada.

Edward Parrott

[tompritchett]

I did run across a lot regarding a rebellion in Canada in the 1830's where the British were VERY concerned about American interference from across the border.

Interestingly enough during the latter part of the 20th Century, Quebec was making noises of seceding from Canada and the U.S. became a major player in that crisis according to my friends in Canada at the time. First, the U.S. reminded Quebec that all her treaties were with Canada and not with the Province, especially those involving unrestricted transit along the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes Seaway. Second, the Indian tribes in Northern Quebec, who own their land on which much of the hydroelectric power of Quebec is located, also reminded Quebec that their treaties were also with Canada and not with the Province and they would not secede with Quebec and that all contracts involving the hydroelectric power for Quebec would automatically be invalidated and would have to be renegotiated, if the Indians even so desired (apparently, the Indians may have had some problems with some of the attitudes of the leaders of the secessionist movement). Lastly, apparently, several, if not all, of the provinces east of Quebec indicated that if Quebec left, they would immediately apply for admittance into the United States rather than be part of a nation geographically split by a less than friendly nation. Of course, that would make the U.S.'s point about treaties over the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes seaway even more applicable. Needless to say, for all of the above reasons, and probably others that I am not aware of, the voters of Quebec voted on the issue and decided to remain as a province of Canada.

[Craig L Barry]

Off the subject I know, but as far as Quebec..."that fire went out but the coals are still hot." If you know what I mean...

[tompritchett]

If you know what I mean...

Yes. I can also remember when Quebec tried to force all the other provinces to have all road signs in both English and French. Sometimes, I have to wonder who would take the prize for the most arrogance, the French and Quebec secessionists versus the Southern firebrands that thought they could wipe the Union with one hand behind their back AND force Europe to give the Confederacy full diplomatic recognition plus full military support by withholding cotton shipments until European economies starting collapsing.

[flattop32355]

(apparently, the Indians may have had some problems with some of the attitudes of the leaders of the secessionist movement).

Having dealt with some Quebecois' opinions (which also tend to include comments on USA arrogance) on independence from Canada, I find the above humorous, telling, and quite accurate.

[Southern Cal]

I've heard at least one French resident joke a little sarcastically that the Qubecois are more French than the French themselves.

Fire Eaters versus the Qubecois...

I found it interesting that the list of southern "movers and shakers" appointed to important posts in the CSA contains very few radical secessionists. These Confederate movers and shakers set up a practical government as soon as possible after secession, and quickly moved away from any provisional revolutionary government where the radicals could prove disruptive and divisive. Most of the radicals were politely sidelined, marginalized, or pigeon-holed. While the influential southern politicians were "revolutionary" in the sense of wanting to leave the USA, they remained very conservative (arguably reactionary) in practice, distrusting the "northern" style of "mobocracy" and establising an almost parliamentary style legislative branch that held it's sessions away from public view, set up a single term for their President, and had certain constitutional provisions that could never be changed through any legislative process.

Too bad the Canadian government can't give one of the famous old buildings in Montreal over to the minority radical Quebecois and let them use it like the "Frenchman" on the parapet of the castle in "Monty Python's Holy Grail", slinging insults at the "English" and otherwise being ignored.

I asked one of my German friends what had happened to mellow out the stridently radical "Green Party" that once caused so much trouble. He told me: "they became politicians".

[tompritchett]

I found it interesting that the list of southern "movers and shakers" appointed to important posts in the CSA contains very few radical secessionists.

I believe that the exception to that rule was in South Carolina. And guess in which state the spark was light that started the actual shooting war.

[flattop32355]

I asked one of my German friends what had happened to mellow out the stridently radical "Green Party" that once caused so much trouble. He told me: "they became politicians".

More than one firebrand who had a bee up his/her arse on some issue that led him/her to run for elected office has discovered, much to his/her disillusionment, that what he/she swore to correct in a certain way could not be done as promised, only to be branded a "traitor" by those who were still outside of the actual governing body and process.

Serving in government as an elected official is much like spending an extended time in a foreign country: One tends to begin to see things in a different light than how one viewed things before.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

While I cannot answer this question, I can offer that, by June 1866, there were comparatively few British troops in Canada. This is based on the Canadian near-hysteria (check out the newspapers of that spring from Toronto/York and other larger cities in Canada) over the anticipated (and then very real) invasions of Canada in April and June 1866 by Irish-Americans of the Fenian Brotherhood's Irish Republican Army. One of the main reasons for the formation of the Canadian nation in 1867 was a Canadian perception that Great Britain would not protect them sufficiently from armed incursions from the United States.

[Southern Cal]

More than one firebrand who had a bee up his/her arse on some issue that led him/her to run for elected office has discovered, much to his/her disillusionment, that what he/she swore to correct in a certain way could not be done as promised, only to be branded a "traitor" by those who were still outside of the actual governing body and process.

Serving in government as an elected official is much like spending an extended time in a foreign country: One tends to begin to see things in a different light than how one viewed things before.

During a local election, a City Councilman answered me concerning a high density housing project up for an approval vote: "where a person stands depends a lot on where they sit".

[Pvt Peck]

Kevin:

I wonder if this is why a few years ago while crossing the border into BC the border guard was convinced my wife and I were armed. We were asked to pull into the Canadian border station and asked in a very terse manner repeatedly if we did in fact have firearms in the car or on our person. Hmmm another paranoid Canadian fearing an armed incursion from the US. I did not realize the British troop levels had fallen so much by the time of the Fenian trouble, willl have to read up on that.

Edward Parrott

[Southern Cal]

Next time you might want to take those Civil War uniforms off and place all that leather gear in the trunk before going into Canada. :)

[Pvt Peck]

My wife is from England you would think they would welcome her, but my dad is from Ireland so maybe they thought I was a Fenian? Could be they just did not like our California license plates...

Edward Parrott

[Lee Ragan]

A reenactor pard told me a few years ago about him and his wife taking a driving trip up to Canada. He's also from Texas and an NRA member. He said if you go, make sure you DO NOT have an NRA sticker on your car. He did, and the local Canadian border guards removed the interior of his vehicle like they suspected him of smuggling contraband into their country. The Canucks went thru everything including all of their luggage and checked everyplace that a gun could possibly be hidden.
Maybe they are still scared we're going to invade them!

[wilber6150]

While pondering this topic I wondered that if war with England did occur what would the Irish units within the Confederacy do if they were forced to fight with British troops ,they despised, against their Irish brothers in the Union.. Talk about torn allegencies...

[Major Duane]

Britain's fears were not without some precedent. An insurrection had broken out in Canada in 1837 and several hundred Americans crossed over to fight. This led to the Caroline Incident when the American steamer Caroline, carrying supplies to the insurgents, was attacked by British forces on the New York shore and burned -- causing quite an international incident. (American Pageant, 12th Edition, 2002)

John Adams
Huckleberry Mess