The Britsh Supporting the confederates

[Gabe]

I recall the Mexican War US army was 40% immigrant. It shouldn't be surprising that a small number of dissaffected Catholics would sympathize with the cause of other Catholics in a war of discretion.

 

Wikipedia links

 

On the San Patricios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion

 

On San Patricio commander John Riley:

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

 

"A former British soldier, Riley is believed to have landed in Canada before entering the United States and shortly thereafter joining the US Army in Michigan... Prior to his desertion, he served in Company K of the 5th US Infantry Regiment."

Edited October 16, 2007 by Gabe

[Grant Whitley]

Many sources state Ireland such as the Ency. of World bios. plus that was mentioned numerous times when he was elected. I believe he left Cinn. in 1915 or abouts.

 

I'll go with the source that doesn't claim he dodged the draft by plunging himself into the middle of the Mexican Revolution.

[KingSargent]

By ship?

 

Probably not a lot of direct ships (quite possibly none), but plenty to the Caribbean, from where there was plenty of onward shipping to Mexico.

And who pays for his passage? Your average Irish immigrant was pretty impecunious.

 

The Mexicans certainly weren't running recruiting shops in Ireland and shipping people to Mexico -- especially since the British had repossessed the Mexican Navy.

 

And how far is a poor immigrant going to get WALKING to Mexico from the Atlantic seaboard? He couldn't afford a horse either.

 

About the only way for an immigrant to get to Mexico from the US was to let the government transport him.

[swerve]

And who pays for his passage? Your average Irish immigrant was pretty impecunious.

 

The Mexicans certainly weren't running recruiting shops in Ireland and shipping people to Mexico -- especially since the British had repossessed the Mexican Navy.

 

And how far is a poor immigrant going to get WALKING to Mexico from the Atlantic seaboard? He couldn't afford a horse either.

 

About the only way for an immigrant to get to Mexico from the US was to let the government transport him.

 

To the W. Indies? Same way as he paid to get to America. Look, we're not talking mass migration, so to say "the average Irish emigrant couldn't afford it, therefore no Irishmen went that way" is illogical. A small number - which is what we're talking about - is perfectly feasible.

[Grant Whitley]

Yes, I think that King is overthinking things a bit, especially considering that a fair number of European immigrants did in fact go to Latin America.

[Richard Lindquist]

I don't know if there were any other potential candidates for Confederate President......

 

In 1861, there were quite a few candidates. Davis was chosen because he was a compromize (as was VP Alex Stephens). All of the opther candidates had serious opposition. No one really disliked Davis in 1861 (though that quickly changed).

 

The best candidate for wartime president of the CSA was John Breckenridge of Kentucky, but he wasn't avaialble at in 1861 in Montgomery, AL because it was only the states that had sceded at the time who were conventioning (and Kentucky never seceded). Breckenridge was former VP of the US.

[KingSargent]

Yes, I think that King is overthinking things a bit, especially considering that a fair number of European immigrants did in fact go to Latin America.

But NOT stopping in the US on the way. There were direct routes, a visit to the US was hardly essential (or affordable). And if they went without running into American bigotry, how did they become "disaffected" enough to join the San Patricios?

 

I thought it too obvious to mention before, but the "get on a boat and go to Mexico" scenario runs into a serious snag in that the USN had a tight blockade of Mexico.

[67th Tigers]

But NOT stopping in the US on the way. There were direct routes, a visit to the US was hardly essential (or affordable). And if they went without running into American bigotry, how did they become "disaffected" enough to join the San Patricios?

 

They had to go where the shipping goes, and it generally ran (from the UK) Liverpool/ Southampton etc. -> Queenstown (now Cobh) -> either Montreal, Boston or NYC (sometimes stopping at Halifax). Moving on from these usually meant getting a coaster or a train, and the US has a very large fleet of coasters.

 

However, many simply got off at the first opportunity, leading to the large Irish immigrant populations of Liverpool (from the East Coast of Ireland) and NYC.

[Rich]

They had to go where the shipping goes, and it generally ran (from the UK) Liverpool/ Southampton etc. -> Queenstown (now Cobh) -> either Montreal, Boston or NYC (sometimes stopping at Halifax). Moving on from these usually meant getting a coaster or a train, and the US has a very large fleet of coasters.

 

However, many simply got off at the first opportunity, leading to the large Irish immigrant populations of Liverpool (from the East Coast of Ireland) and NYC.

 

Quite true, but also, in a somewhat smaller way, Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, all of which had more or less significant Irish populations as a very downtrodden minority (depending on where, they were considered by the WASPs to be somewhere either slightly above or below the black slave population and always below the freedman population). And of course there were also other small minority populations, such as German - Bachman's Battery from Charleston was a famous Confederate German unit - in the same cities and from there they spread along the coast and inland. So Irish Mexicans aren't really very surprising.

[KingSargent]

They had to go where the shipping goes, and it generally ran (from the UK) Liverpool/ Southampton etc. -> Queenstown (now Cobh) -> either Montreal, Boston or NYC (sometimes stopping at Halifax). Moving on from these usually meant getting a coaster or a train, and the US has a very large fleet of coasters.

 

However, many simply got off at the first opportunity, leading to the large Irish immigrant populations of Liverpool (from the East Coast of Ireland) and NYC.

There were routes to South America and the Caribbean that didn't pass through the US and/or Canada. Getting on a coaster might be possible, except you wouldn't get through the blockade.

 

And there were no trains to anywhere near the Mexican border in 1845, not to mention the northern 100 or so miles from the Texas border to "civilized" Mexico is pretty inhospitable.

[harryRIEDL]

In 1861, there were quite a few candidates. Davis was chosen because he was a compromize (as was VP Alex Stephens). All of the opther candidates had serious opposition. No one really disliked Davis in 1861 (though that quickly changed).

 

The best candidate for wartime president of the CSA was John Breckenridge of Kentucky, but he wasn't avaialble at in 1861 in Montgomery, AL because it was only the states that had sceded at the time who were conventioning (and Kentucky never seceded). Breckenridge was former VP of the US.

i Know Callhone was dead by the war started but would he been a good candidate for the Confederate presidency

[Grant Whitley]

But NOT stopping in the US on the way. There were direct routes, a visit to the US was hardly essential (or affordable). And if they went without running into American bigotry, how did they become "disaffected" enough to join the San Patricios?

 

I thought it too obvious to mention before, but the "get on a boat and go to Mexico" scenario runs into a serious snag in that the USN had a tight blockade of Mexico.

 

1. Immigrate to the US.

 

2. Things don't work out.

 

3. Immigrate to Mexico.

[Grant Whitley]

And there were no trains to anywhere near the Mexican border in 1845, not to mention the northern 100 or so miles from the Texas border to "civilized" Mexico is pretty inhospitable.

 

Since the San Patricios fought at Monterrey, if they were all deserters from the US army, they would had to have crossed that exact stretch of ground.

[Old Tanker]

A fair and constant source of immigration to the Western World was from seamen jumping ship.

This was a major factor in the War of 1812 from the Brit perspective. But this was a factor of immigration to most of the Americas.

Numerous family research journeys show that people frequently show up that never were on the passenger lists or any other manifests.

[67th Tigers]

Rich etc.

 

I happened to stumble across this book, and the preview is fairly useful as a overview of Canadian Militia strength.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=FoQaKy4ND...edKMPGQ#PPP1,M1

 

(I was searching for more on Williams General Militia Order of 20 Dec 61, specifically under what circumstances the 2nd tranche of 38,000 would be mobilised to bring the Embodied Militia upto the 75,000 figure the warplan suggested)

[Rich]

Rich etc.

 

I happened to stumble across this book, and the preview is fairly useful as a overview of Canadian Militia strength.

 

Yeah, it seems to be a pretty accurate summation of the planning versus reality that I already addressed in a number of posts. I wouldn't be suprised if he uses some of the same sources too?

[67th Tigers]

Yeah, it seems to be a pretty accurate summation of the planning versus reality that I already addressed in a number of posts. I wouldn't be suprised if he uses some of the same sources too?

 

I've also acquired the 1858 Militia return for UC, which makes interesting reading. The sedentary militia enrolled:

 

Staff Offrs: 27 (9 District HQ's)

Regimental Offrs: 6,712

Sgts: 3,915

1st (unmarried) R&F: 51,086 (the census showed ca 117,000 men eligable for this category in UC)

2nd (married/ with children): 53,027

Reserve (over 40): 33,298

(This return is for only 210 of the 257 Bns in UC, of which 32 were unorganised)

 

The basic story thus is:

 

Canada (UC and LC, excluding the Maritimes et al) had 35,000 Volunteers, had embodied 38,000 of the Sedentary Militia for active service (the text of Mil Gen Order states the Militia should be ready to march 14 days after the recipt of the order, which makes it around 4th-7th Jan), and were planning to embody more.

 

Would that be accurate in you estimation?

[Rich]

I've also acquired the 1858 Militia return for UC, which makes interesting reading. The sedentary militia enrolled:

 

Staff Offrs: 27 (9 District HQ's)

Regimental Offrs: 6,712

Sgts: 3,915

1st (unmarried) R&F: 51,086 (the census showed ca 117,000 men eligable for this category in UC)

2nd (married/ with children): 53,027

Reserve (over 40): 33,298

(This return is for only 210 of the 257 Bns in UC, of which 32 were unorganised)

 

The basic story thus is:

 

Canada (UC and LC, excluding the Maritimes et al) had 35,000 Volunteers, had embodied 38,000 of the Sedentary Militia for active service (the text of Mil Gen Order states the Militia should be ready to march 14 days after the recipt of the order, which makes it around 4th-7th Jan), and were planning to embody more.

 

Yet again, how is it that you so blythly transpose plans into reality? The Sedentary Militia nominally paraded one day a year - if they could be bothered - to be enrolled, on the Queen's Birthday. The order, stated in the source you gave, was that one company of 75 men from each Sedentary Battalion was supposed to be formed. Thus 257 X 75 = 19,275. Assuming that Lower Canada could manage the same then you have a nominal 38,000. If you can decide who are the 75 out of an average 705 per battalion to go? If you can actually muster them? If you can arm them? If you can move them - every try to drill "troops" that have been with the colors for two weeks? It's like herding cats. And the provision of British Army NCOs to train the Militia was for the Voluntary Militia - all of some 100 of them - when the new drafts arrived from England.

 

And the Volunteers, even including the spontaneous volunteers that mustered in the cities, never approched 37,000, for one thing there wasn't enough money to keep more than 10,000 embodied for 12 days of training, which was then almost immediatley reduced to six days, let alone sufficient weapons.

 

Would that be accurate in you estimation?

 

Oh, about as accurate as anything you've ever posted I suppose?

 

Your problem seems to be an inability to distinguish between planning and reality, intent and capability. Until Confederation the Sedentary Militia was useless and it took a lot of reform after that to make the marginally useful. The Volunteers were good material, but funding was problematic, they had little training prior to December 1861, and the numbers available were relatively small as well. Even after four years of tension and a moderately improved Militia Bill in 1863, the Volunteers were hard put to mobilize quickly enough in 1866 to deal with the comic-opera Fenian invasion.

[67th Tigers]

Yet again, how is it that you so blythly transpose plans into reality? The Sedentary Militia nominally paraded one day a year - if they could be bothered - to be enrolled, on the Queen's Birthday.

 

Were required to parade once per year for muster. Those who didn't parade (something like 50-60% of the people eligable for militia service) were not counted on the rolls. It was on this day that the nominal roll for pay, equipment etc. was fixed. That is not to say that this is the complete training the militiamen did, which is highly variable, from those who turned up once a year for muster, to those who attended drill and rifle training twice a week (once Sunday after church and once on a weekday evening).

 

 

The order, stated in the source you gave, was that one company of 75 men from each Sedentary Battalion was supposed to be formed. Thus 257 X 75 = 19,275. Assuming that Lower Canada could manage the same then you have a nominal 38,000. If you can decide who are the 75 out of an average 705 per battalion to go? If you can actually muster them? If you can arm them? If you can move them - every try to drill "troops" that have been with the colors for two weeks? It's like herding cats.

 

Strictly speaking, the text of the order says 75 rank and file, 3 sergeants and 3 officers. It fairly usual for the British military of the time to talk of unit strengths etc. in terms of actual bayonets, omitting the commander, file closers, staff and logistics elements from such statements.

 

The text states that only volunteers will be accepted, and that it's the battalion commanders responsibility to select from the volunteers those who will actually be mobilised (since there were expected to be, and indeed were, far more volunteers than places). There are also clauses requiring that Majors are allowed to command the company, but Lt Cols require special authorisation to do so.

 

 

 

And the provision of British Army NCOs to train the Militia was for the Voluntary Militia - all of some 100 of them - when the new drafts arrived from England.

 

To bring the new volunteers in line with the sedentary and active militia, who already had an establishment of a regular drill instructor per Bn (sedentary militia) or Coy (active militia).

 

And the Volunteers, even including the spontaneous volunteers that mustered in the cities, never approched 37,000, for one thing there wasn't enough money to keep more than 10,000 embodied for 12 days of training, which was then almost immediatley reduced to six days, let alone sufficient weapons.

 

You're confusing volunteers (who were not paid) with the active militia (who were paid, but were limited to 5,000, raised to 7,500 during the Trent crisis). As for sufficient weapons, 105,000 modern rifles were shipped to Canada in the period 12 Dec-02 Jan, supplementing arms already present (28,000 Enfields, 17,500 percussion smoothbores and unknown number of unconverted muskets (probably 30 or 40,000), plus of course the Spencers of the active militia cavalry, the various Colts etc.).

 

Most estimates (including the book mentioned above) place the number of Volunteer Militia formed during the Trent Affair as 35,000, which promptly fell back to lower figures as the crisis abated

 

 

Oh, about as accurate as anything you've ever posted I suppose?

Aye, completely accurate with the then know data to within acceptable error bounds

 

Your problem seems to be an inability to distinguish between planning and reality, intent and capability. Until Confederation the Sedentary Militia was useless and it took a lot of reform after that to make the marginally useful. The Volunteers were good material, but funding was problematic, they had little training prior to December 1861, and the numbers available were relatively small as well. Even after four years of tension and a moderately improved Militia Bill in 1863, the Volunteers were hard put to mobilize quickly enough in 1866 to deal with the comic-opera Fenian invasion.

 

Of course, the 1863 act decreased the training of the militia to deal with fiscal pressures. The real improvements were the 1846 and 1855 acts, which established an effective force from the Sedentary Militia (essentially by shrinking it) and established the Active Militia respectively.

 

As for the 1866 invasion (which I assume you're referring to, as it's the only one where the IRA had any success against the Canadian Militia), the Canadians were not at all mobilised, and Ridgeway was fought by two militia battalions that had only had 2-3 hours to mobilise before entraining. A couple of days later, the IRA was compelled to withdraw as the Canadians had mobilised tens of thousands to oppose them.

[KingSargent]

1. Immigrate to the US.

 

2. Things don't work out.

 

3. Immigrate to Mexico.

Using what for money? If things "don't work out" isn't the immigrany going to be pretty broke?

[KingSargent]

Since the San Patricios fought at Monterrey, if they were all deserters from the US army, they would had to have crossed that exact stretch of ground.

Yeah, they would have crossed it with the Mexican Army - or with the US Army supplying them into Mexico before they deserted - not alone on foot looking for a chance to enlist.

[KingSargent]

To bring the new volunteers in line with the sedentary and active militia, who already had an establishment of a regular drill instructor per Bn (sedentary militia) or Coy (active militia).

You're confusing volunteers (who were not paid) with the active militia (who were paid, but were limited to 5,000, raised to 7,500 during the Trent crisis). As for sufficient weapons, 105,000 modern rifles were shipped to Canada in the period 12 Dec-02 Jan, supplementing arms already present (28,000 Enfields, 17,500 percussion smoothbores and unknown number of unconverted muskets (probably 30 or 40,000), plus of course the Spencers of the active militia cavalry, the various Colts etc.).

Just when do you think the Spencer was invented, nummnutz? It certainly wasn't equipping Canadian Militia in 1961-2 (it wasn't equipping ANYBODY, anywhere). Nor were Colt revolvers an item of HMG issue, and they were a bit expensive for volunteer unpaid (or even paid, if there were any) militia.

 

Typical made-up BS. Making shit up isn't convincing anybody.

[67th Tigers]

Just when do you think the Spencer was invented, nummnutz? It certainly wasn't equipping Canadian Militia in 1961-2 (it wasn't equipping ANYBODY, anywhere). Nor were Colt revolvers an item of HMG issue, and they were a bit expensive for volunteer unpaid (or even paid, if there were any) militia.

 

Typical made-up BS. Making shit up isn't convincing anybody.

 

The Model 1860 Cavalry Carbine? 1860 I'd assume

 

The Canadian Militia order was the only order they got (for 800 I'd assume), and many of those were impounded by Federal authorities as a result of the Trent difficulty.

 

HMG acquired over 40,000 London Colt .36's in the early 1850's and they saw extensive use in the Crimea etc., by 1861 they were being reissued to the Militia etc. as HM Army reequipped with the superior Adams (fixed frame, double action etc.).

 

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

 

Colt London shut down in 1857, when he lost the HMG contract.

[Grant Whitley]

Using what for money? If things "don't work out" isn't the immigrany going to be pretty broke?

 

Why would that have to be the case? One can be dissatisfied with his current situation and yet not be destitute.

[Grant Whitley]

Yeah, they would have crossed it with the Mexican Army - or with the US Army supplying them into Mexico before they deserted - not alone on foot looking for a chance to enlist.

 

But the Mexican army was at Monterrey, and Taylor was on the Rio Grande, and I can't imagine that too many US soldiers would have deserted to it in the immediate aftermath of Resaca or Palo Alto- those were disastrous defeats for Mexico. Most of the army that defended Monterrey was newly raised. The only Mexican troops in between AFAIK were Canales' raiders- not the sort of dude that's likely to welcome you with open arms.