Talk:Canada and the American Civil War

Untitled

"Britain, with whom the British North American colonies were still closely linked, backed the south for economic reasons linked to the cotton trade."

That is not quite accurate.

"In the end, the government followed what it believed to be the will of the people, which was predominately pro-Northern in sympathy, particularly (and this defied all theories of economic determinism) in those areas hit hardest by the cotton shortage." (craig. "europe, 1815-1914") --Fellnearshiva 09:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The final sentence looks misleading to me in that it refers to the unelected [Canadian] Senate. In 1867 the US Senate was also unelected in the contemporary sense of the word. Direct popular election of US Senators dates from 1913. -- Alan Peakall 13:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Confusion

Sorry, just quickly reading the article myself, I'm struck by the fact it claims that Canada was largely sympathetic to the South, and then says thousands of Canadians fought for the North, and few if any fought for the South. Could somebody with a bit more knowledge maybe clean up those two statements so they don't appear to contradict each other? Much thanks Sherurcij 13:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The logical conclusion is that it's a simple matter of geography -- regardless of how the governing, political, or intellectual class in Canada felt, or how the prevailing sentiment throughout the country went, obviously individuals on the border (who would have the strongest ties with their neighbors overall) would have far stronger ties in the north than in the south. If you assume that most of the Canadians who enlisted did so because of bonds with friends or family, it's not that much of a surprise that they tended to enlist with the north. I don't know where you'd look for information about this, though... --Aquillion (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh

"If the conflict had continued to escalate Canada would have been the first target of Union forces."

Where did that gem of knowledge sprout from? In terms of the first paragraph there is a large logical gap between there being tensions between Canada and the Union states and that sentence I mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.38.113 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Effect of the American Civil War upon British North America"

I'm going to delete the section "Effect of the American Civil War upon British North America" because I don't think there is a way to bring up to Wikipedia standards. I see from the article history that it was originally in the American Civil War article, then cut and pasted to this article, presumably because the editors were having problems with it in its original place. It doesn't have citations, and it has a vague odour of original research or at least a novel synthesis of historical facts. It also wanders way off the topic at hand, "Canada in the American Civil War", but I can't see a way of cutting out the off-topic stuff without making it more incoherent than it already is. Indefatigable (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom was Canada sympathetic?

In the beginning of this article it states that Canada was sympathetic to the union because it was largely against slavery. However, the line directly after that says Quebec media supported secession. This line seems a little out of place. If Canada is supportive of the union proof should be given after that line is said instead of proof that Canada *wasn't* entirely supportive.

"Canadians were largely opposed to slavery, the preservation of which was one of the main goals of the Confederate States of America, and Canada had recently become the terminus of the Underground Railroad. Close economic and cultural links across the long border also encouraged Canadian sympathy towards the Union. The conservative Catholic press in Quebec supported the secession and ridiculed the Yankees as lacking in morality."

Furthermore, there's a section called "Confederate Activity in Canada", which states:

"Because of Canada's location and sympathy for the Southern cause, Confederate operators secretly used Canada as a base"

So which is it? Are we sympathetic to the north or the south? If it's both, should the article say "opinion on the matter was divided"? Or should these lines be removed altogether? As this article currently stands it's rather contradictory and a little confusing. Instead of saying "Canada was sympathetic" or "Canada wasn't sympathetic" perhaps it's best to divide these sentences in to saying *which* parts of Canada were and were not sympathetic to the cause of the north/ south. Saying "Canada" implies some sort of consensus. This article seems to state that there was none. Celynn (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bahamas in the American Civil War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Canada in the American Civil War → British North America in the American Civil War – Since "Canada" did not refer to all of British North America at the time of the Civil War and the article isn't just about the Province (explicitly mentioning Nova Scotia for one thing), the manual of style on proper names would dictate such a change to the article title. Dissident (Talk) 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the change. the Wiki rule is uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. So look at the books and articles by RS: 1) Canada and the United States: The Civil War Years; 2) Confederate operations in Canada and the North: a little-known phase of the American Civil War; 3) Canadian public opinion on the American civil war; 4) "The Creation of a Myth: “Canadian” Enlistments in the Northern Armies During the American Civil War"; I find N=1 RS that use "British North America" in place of "Canada." [British North America and a Continent in Dissolution, 1861–71]. Rjensen (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this article does not cover British North America it covers the region north of the USA/CSA which was in the British Empire, this is a distinctly different proposition. There are other regions in British North America at this time that are SOUTH of the CSA/USA in this period -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need for this. The article constantly refers to "Canada" through-out the page, not "British North America". - ^theWOLFchild 08:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Canada would seem to be the more accessible term for the reader. Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/cancivwar/CanMOH.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053409/http://php.ams-inc.on.ca/?q=publications%2Fcanadian_medical_lives%2Fanderson_ruffin_abbot to http://php.ams-inc.on.ca/?q=publications%2Fcanadian_medical_lives%2Fanderson_ruffin_abbot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Morton (1964)

I don't understand this sentence, and i cannot find the source .

The British decided that colonial union was now a high priority, as it would relieve London of the need to defend Canada.

--Zaurus (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok I rephrased it to read: "The British decided that unification of the Canadian colonies was now a high priority--a new strong dominion would relieve London of the need to station large British forces to defend Canada." [footnote: Desmond Morton (2009). A Military History of Canada. McClelland & Stewart. p. 85. ISBN 9781551991405.] Rjensen (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. --Zaurus (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References