The Britsh Supporting the confederates

[KingSargent]

The Model 1860 Cavalry Carbine? 1860 I'd assume

Once again, assumption makes an ASS out of YOU. Lincoln saw a prototype in 1862, and ordered some. They were not issued to the Union Army until mid-1863 (at least there were apparently none at G-burg in July).

 

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.

:rolleyes: I'm afraid it is going to take more than your unsupported assertion. BTW, who was making the ammunition, hmmmm...?

 

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.).

A lot of them were issued to the RN.

 

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

 

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

And production there never amounted to much. My histories of Colt's don't mention a HMG contract, other than Sam wanted one and gave up.

[KingSargent]

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.

Okay, our San Patricio wannabe pays for a train ticket to the Mississippi (if track had gotten that far by 1845), then walks to the Tex-Mex border (or buys a horse and pays for fodder) through hostile Indian country... Right... :rolleyes:

 

My point is that it is a lot easier for a disaffected immigrant to get to the Tex-Mex border on Uncle Suck's nickle, and he is a lot more likely to be dissatisfied when he gets there than he was was in New York, due to anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry encountered on the way.

[Rich]

The Model 1860 Cavalry Carbine? 1860 I'd assume

Once again, assumption makes an ASS out of YOU. Lincoln saw a prototype in 1862, and ordered some. They were not issued to the Union Army until mid-1863 (at least there were apparently none at G-burg in July).

 

This has become more than a bit comedic; first mythical troops and now mythical weapons. Although Spencer was granted a patent on 6 March 1860 for a repeating rifle, the later model known as the "1860" was only so known because of the patent date (it was engraved on the barrel of all models prior to the production of the Model 1865). The first test models were actually produced by hand (and in .36 caliber) and were first evaluated in June 1861 - by the Secretary of the Navy and John Dahlgren - which resulted in an order for 700 for the Navy. First Army evaluation was in August 1861, still probably the .36 caliber hand-made models (there were at least 13 of those produced), but the Army order for 10,000 made on Lincoln's insistance, wasn't placed until 31 December 1861. Production on both the Navy and Army order began in July 1862, but the first completed rifles weren't shipped until 4 December 1862 (600 of the Navy order), followed on 31 December 1862 by the first 500 of the Army order.

 

BTW, prior to 3 October 1863 all Spencer's delivered were rifles the first order for carbines was placed in June 1863.

 

There was no Canadian order. Well, sorry, not exactly, there was an order for 700 of them for the Canadian Cavalry, in 1866. Of Model 1865. Purchased from the postwar surplus.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Rich

[Grant Whitley]

Okay, our San Patricio wannabe pays for a train ticket to the Mississippi (if track had gotten that far by 1845), then walks to the Tex-Mex border (or buys a horse and pays for fodder) through hostile Indian country... Right... :rolleyes:

 

You've apparently settled in on the most onerous route and are acting like it was the only one. How about...a boat?

 

My point is that it is a lot easier for a disaffected immigrant to get to the Tex-Mex border on Uncle Suck's nickle, and he is a lot more likely to be dissatisfied when he gets there than he was was in New York, due to anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry encountered on the way.

 

That doesn't mean that all of the San Patricios were Irish-Catholic deserters. Given the small size of the US Army, I find it hard to believe that a unit of 300-800 men could be filled out by men of that exact persuasion.

[KingSargent]

You've apparently settled in on the most onerous route and are acting like it was the only one. How about...a boat?

How about a USN blockade of the coast, hmmm...?

 

That doesn't mean that all of the San Patricios were Irish-Catholic deserters. Given the small size of the US Army, I find it hard to believe that a unit of 300-800 men could be filled out by men of that exact persuasion.

The pre-war army couldn't have filled it, but the US Army on the Tex-Mex border was full of all sorts of people. They weren't all long-service professionals by any means.

 

Nor were the SPs all US deserters (at least I don't THINK so...). As always the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I can't see a unit of 300-800 men being filled out by blockade runners in small boats or people who hiked through Comanche country because they were PO'd enough at the US to want to fight. And I haven't seen any evidence of massive Irish immigration to Mexico (not that I've looked, not my field); if there was some fairly large Irish community in pre-1845 Mexico, I have no problem with that being the origin of the SP troops.

[Grant Whitley]

How about a USN blockade of the coast, hmmm...?

 

Why couldn't they have immigrated before the war?

 

The pre-war army couldn't have filled it, but the US Army on the Tex-Mex border was full of all sorts of people. They weren't all long-service professionals by any means.

Yeah, but most of the volunteer units were from the South, which doesn't rule out the presence of Irish immigrants obviously, but would probably mean a lot fewer of them. It was the regular army that had lots of immigrants.

 

As always the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Pretty much my position.

[KingSargent]

Why couldn't they have immigrated before the war?

Because there would be no point in emigrating to fight if there was no fight? I just said that if shown evidence of pre-1845 Irish immigration to Mexico, I'd accept that as a source of the SPs. However that would possibly knock the "disaffected with the US" thesis in the head. IOW I have no problem with people who went to Mexico before 1845 fighting for their new country, I just can't see the "disaffected with the US to the point of killing" part pre-war.

 

Yeah, but most of the volunteer units were from the South, which doesn't rule out the presence of Irish immigrants obviously, but would probably mean a lot fewer of them. It was the regular army that had lots of immigrants.

And AIUI most of them were new recruits. There was always Irish immigration, but the big waves were post-Potato Famine.

I agree that the chance of finding an Irish immigrant in an 1845 Southern Volunteer unit would be slim. The Pat Cleburne types were a bit later.

 

Pretty much my position.

[Old Tanker]

I checked out some google-fu results using Irish-Mexican and found various sites.

 

Some say deserters formed the Irish-Mex Bn also Irish-Catholics living in Texas.

Plus various connections of Mex. and South-American pols encouraging Irish immigration as far back as 1825-1830.

[Grant Whitley]

Because there would be no point in emigrating to fight if there was no fight?

 

No one ever said that they immigrated in order to fight.

 

I just said that if shown evidence of pre-1845 Irish immigration to Mexico, I'd accept that as a source of the SPs. However that would possibly knock the "disaffected with the US" thesis in the head. IOW I have no problem with people who went to Mexico before 1845 fighting for their new country, I just can't see the "disaffected with the US to the point of killing" part pre-war.

I never said that I thought they were "disaffected to the point of killing", just disaffected enough to seek greener pastures, with the subsequent result that they ended up fighting against the US.

 

And AIUI most of them were new recruits.

 

I don't recall offhand any big expansion of the regular army at the time. The army was filled out by the volunteers, while the regulars remained relatively few in number. Which was why they had to shift them around from the northern front to the southern one in order to carry out Scott's invasion plan.

[Rich]

I don't recall offhand any big expansion of the regular army at the time. The army was filled out by the volunteers, while the regulars remained relatively few in number. Which was why they had to shift them around from the northern front to the southern one in order to carry out Scott's invasion plan.

 

There wasn't, but just prior to the start of the war Taylor's regiments in Texas received large drafts of recruits to bring them up to strength. These were also - reputedly - the main source of the deserter problem, but no direct connection has every actually been found.

 

As far as the San Patricios go, there is some evidence that was just a nom de guerre and they were officially titled the Battalion of Foreigners. The idea that they were composed of "Irish deserters" also seems to be incorrect, their commander in fact was a Spanish Floridian, Major Francisco Rosendo Moreno. It is perhaps telling that Moreno and 85 men of his battalion were captured at Churabusco and that of the 85 eventually 51 were hanged and 10 lashed and branded for desertion, but of them only 27 were Irish. From that we might guess that two-thirds of the battalion were deserters and a little under half of the deserters were Irish, but it seems likely that the battalion never amounted to more than a few hundred, so perhaps 150 or so deserters of which possibly 70 were Irish? Hardly earth shaking, given the numbers of foreigners and Irish in the US Army? And that leaves maybe less than 100 to be foreigners that had emigrated to Mexico? Again easily conceivable.

[Grant Whitley]

As far as the San Patricios go, there is some evidence that was just a nom de guerre and they were officially titled the Battalion of Foreigners.

 

I have read before that there was a unit called this which fought at Resaca and Palo Alto; it was supposedly expanded later into the San Patricios.

 

The idea that they were composed of "Irish deserters" also seems to be incorrect, their commander in fact was a Spanish Floridian, Major Francisco Rosendo Moreno.

Moreno only became the commanding officer later on. IIRC this happened when the SPs were reorganized as an infantry unit. Early on they had been an artillery unit.

 

It is perhaps telling that Moreno and 85 men of his battalion were captured at Churabusco and that of the 85 eventually 51 were hanged and 10 lashed and branded for desertion, but of them only 27 were Irish. From that we might guess that two-thirds of the battalion were deserters and a little under half of the deserters were Irish, but it seems likely that the battalion never amounted to more than a few hundred, so perhaps 150 or so deserters of which possibly 70 were Irish? Hardly earth shaking, given the numbers of foreigners and Irish in the US Army? And that leaves maybe less than 100 to be foreigners that had emigrated to Mexico? Again easily conceivable.

 

Sounds reasonable to me, as has been stated before, we're talking about limited numbers.

[Rich]

I have read before that there was a unit called this which fought at Resaca and Palo Alto; it was supposedly expanded later into the San Patricios.

 

The San Patricio battery fought at Palo Alto IIRC, I don't think they were organized as early as Resaca? And yes that was their earliest incarnation, thanks for reminding me.

 

Moreno only became the commanding officer later on. IIRC this happened when the SPs were reorganized as an infantry unit. Early on they had been an artillery unit.

Again correct, AFAIK there is no record of who commanded the earlier "battery" (which may have been only a two-gun section, so probably fewer than 30 or so men), although legend (and bad TV movies) would have us believe it was the famous Irishman Private John "Reilly, Riley, or O'Reilly" deserter from Company K, 5th Infantry. Of course that it may have been just a gun section with fewer than 30 men may actually match with the 27 Irish deserters captured at Churabusco?

 

Sounds reasonable to me, as has been stated before, we're talking about limited numbers.

 

Yep, on the whole I tend to think the entire Mexican "foreign legion" was probably fewer than 300 men, that fewer than half those were deserters from the US Army or Navy, and that fewer than a quarter of those were Irish. All in all kind of a silly thing to become such a discursive aside to this thread.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Rich

[Grant Whitley]

The San Patricio battery fought at Palo Alto IIRC, I don't think they were organized as early as Resaca? And yes that was their earliest incarnation, thanks for reminding me.

 

Again correct, AFAIK there is no record of who commanded the earlier "battery" (which may have been only a two-gun section, so probably fewer than 30 or so men), although legend (and bad TV movies) would have us believe it was the famous Irishman Private John "Reilly, Riley, or O'Reilly" deserter from Company K, 5th Infantry.

 

Everything I've seen has Riley listed as the first CO. But the problem(in general) is that nothing I have in my library actually references any Mexican primary sources. Mr. Polk's Army relies almost entirely on primary sources, but uses a secondary source when referencing the San Patricios. That's why I was looking for Anton Adams, as I vaguely recall him using some actual primary sources.

[Rich]

Everything I've seen has Riley listed as the first CO. But the problem(in general) is that nothing I have in my library actually references any Mexican primary sources. Mr. Polk's Army relies almost entirely on primary sources, but uses a secondary source when referencing the San Patricios. That's why I was looking for Anton Adams, as I vaguely recall him using some actual primary sources.

 

The references Bauer gives in the Mexican War 1846-1848 are:

 

Edward S. Wallace, "Deserters in the Mexican War," Hispanic American Historical Review XV, (August 1935), 374-82.

_____. "Battalion of St. Patrick in the Mexican War," Military Affairs XIV, (Summer 1950), 84-91.

G.T. Hopkins, "San Patricio Battalion," U.S. Cavalry Journal XXIV, (September 1913), 279-84.

Robert B. McCornack, "San Patricio Deserters," The Americas VIII, (October 1951), 131-42.

 

And of course the various papers of the JAG regarding the two courts martial (the Riley and Garland courts).

 

As you say there is a distinct lack of primary sources from the Mexican viewpoint on this subject.

[67th Tigers]

An aside, during my Christmas reading I was reading up on the FPW, and found that the concept of "beaten zone" dates from post-FPW analysis done at Spandau.

 

"After the war, rifle tests carried out at the Spandau Marksmanship

School illustrated what had happened. Most rifle shots, especially at long

range or medium range (six hundred to twelve hundred meters), missed

a man-sized target and struck either a few meters to the left or right, or

if the sights were incorrectly set, hit tens of meters before or behind the

target. "Misses" could hit other targets located within this "cone of fire."

Because massed formations increased the potential targets within this

endangered area, company columns and close-order lines suffered

around 60 percent casualties in an advance through long and medium

range, with columns taking slightly heavier losses because more shots

that passed over the front rank hit the rear ranks. Dense skirmish lines

still created about 30 percent casualties, enough to stop most units long

before they reached close range. Usually, to renew the advance, supports

and reserves had to deploy as skirmishers and push forward the attack,

but this action only exacerbated the problem and led to greater losses."

 

- Jackman SD, J Mil Hist, 68(1) 73-104

[ickysdad]

And? The South isn't going to win the war in that time.

Bring imports into the West Coast. Even without a transcontinental railroad there are established wagon routes and with a war going on plenty of manpower to protect them and even pioneer alternates during the winter.

 

No as far as nitrate goes the US had enough in caves in just in Ohio,Kentucky,Indiana and Illinois to support a war like the ACW for both sides for 5-6 years that doesn't include Places like some deposits in the NorthEast ,Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama , Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and some large deeposits out West. So even if the Union is cutoff there are plenty of domestic products that they can use.

Unless of course you live in Tiger II Wonderland Fantasy World..