Talk:Trent Affair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

This article badly needs sources, this might as well been made up.-Cm

See the Paper referenced at the bottom. 67th Tigers 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to Conroy's "1862", it's a work of fiction.

Actually, I never suggested it wasn't fiction, but it is a fictional account of what might have occurred if the aftermath of the Trent affair had turned out differently. It's why I put it in the Further Reading section rather than in References. Would it be possible to include it in "The Trent Affair in Fiction" or something like that so as to emphasize the *fictional* nature without deleted the fact that it might be interesting to readers and appropriate? I'd add it myself, but I don't really want to be an impulse reverter -- I have no personal stake in this, just an interest. Isoxyl 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then a piece on "fictionalised accounts" after the article? BTW I've just added a piece on the British warplan.

Good idea. Should we note under "Further Reading" that this is in fact fiction explicitly? Isoxyl 14:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Some may consider the Trent Affair as one of the great "what ifs" of the American Civil War. Others may contend that, had Britain and the United States gone to war, it is possible that the Union war effort would have failed and the Confederacy would have become an independent nation. Still, some might maintain that a British invasion might have unified North and South in defiance against American submission to an Old World power."

Who are these "some" people? Weasel words, I'd say. There's no referencing at all here. WikiReaderer 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The section that says others contend that a British intervention would have united the US against a common enemy is a little oversighted (if such is to be used, there should be citation on such to provide such analysis). Considering the circumstances of the situation, I doubt the Confederates would have wanted to side with the Union against the British since it was the Union who seized and captured the diplomats who's main intent was on gaining such support from Europe. Particularily France and Britain. Britain would have been a natural ally had such results occured.

I agree that this is not an obvious conclusion. I think there are plausible arguments either way. Anyway, Conroy's fictional "1862" above gives one such fictional account, but I'm sure there are many other ways to go. If anything, I think Conroy might be a little generous with what he believes the Union's abilities/resources were, but it wasn't implausible either. Anyway, YMMV. Isoxyl 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Union in Conroy's book finds massively more resources than IRL. For example, they build more ironclads at a time when they had less iron (since IRL iron was mostly imported from the UK). Additionally, the British-Canadians are shown to be using massively less resources than they used in some brushfire colonial wars at around the time.

I'm sure you're right, I just don't know the historical data on amount of iron, etc., available to various countries in the 1860s. (Few do, I suppose.) Anyway, I think the book is an interesting take on the problem, one which historians will probably never agree on. I think the conjecture about the Trent Affair will never be 'settled', but it IS interesting to think about! I tend to find it hard to believe that having to fight TWO wars/fronts of the war rather than one, the Union could ever be better off than how history really turned out, but perhaps I am being naive or dumb! Isoxyl 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, several people in the Lincoln administration (notably Seward and Stanton) believed that if Britain declared war on the US that the Union might be restored. In addition, in extant journals of southerners, there is expressed a similar sentiment.

• Well Lincoln was dumb the Confederates would say welcome to the fight now break that Yankee blocade!

Puget Sound and the Trent Affair

I read with interest the nicely-in-depth coverage in this article, which also is nicely non-USAcentric as some joint-history articles can be (e.g. Oregon boundary dispute, which like others similar needs considerably more British/British Columbian POV/content). The blow-by-blow of British military plans here was especially good to read/see. I'm a Pacific Northwest history specialist and wondering if the sabre-rattling by BC Governor James Douglas and RN Admiral Baynes during the Trent Affair (and throughout the Civil War) to engage the US over the San Juans dispute and seize back - it was intended - the Puget Sound basin, which was lost to the US with the Oregon Treaty. Their proposal was shot down by London (presumably by coded telegram, as all communications with the colony was still via the US...), but had the Trent Affair broken into open war there would have been war in the PacNW, and pretty much Douglas and Baynes would have been left to their own devices, especially if US forces had, say, pressed northwards, either across the Straits or the 49th Parallel, so this would have been a "theatre of war". It's not that significant, and it wasn't official war plans by Britain, but it is an aspect of the Trent Affair, so wondering if someone here would care to word it suitably short and sweet (I'm not good at that, as you might be able to tell) and in the style of the current article; I can provide page/book cites (several, ultimately). During the 1850s, Douglas had also tried to snooker London in providing materiele and budget for a contingent of 500 men, ostensibly to protect against American incursions because of growing troubles in Washington Territory to do with the Cayuse War and Yakima War, although at least one of the main BC historical volumes (the Akriggs' BC Chronicle) speculates that Douglas' real intent was to invade and annex Russian America, and he was also trying to pitch London on that idea, too (and got shot down); even though there was a more-or-less truce between HBC and RAC managers in the region (business was business); I'll put more on this on the Crimean War page as it's a similar side-line to Douglas' intentions towards Puget Sound re the Trent Affair; posting this here as I gather a British Empire history specialist might be kicking around these parts who could help me out with some of the research/writing towards this content, and also help keep my verbiage in line (in the article that is...I'm hopeless on talkpages in terms of brevity....really, I do try.....).Skookum1 (Talk) 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Saltpetre

One aspect of the Trent incident which hasn't been mentioned is the utter dependency of the Union upon Britain for its supplies of Saltpetre, one of the main ingredients of Gunpowder. As is mentioned in "Battle Cry Of Freedom" the British Government blocked exports of that mineral, which originated from British India, including nearly 2 and a half thousand tons of the stuff which was sitting in British ports. This concentrated the Union minds wonderfully....

Pyers

193.113.48.9 07:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maine and US Troop Strength

Maine's feelings were very well known, and is reported in the British state papers, and in correspondence between military commanders in the area.

The garrison of Maine consisted of 5 very understrength artillery batteries (without guns) at Fort Prebble in Portland Harbor. Maine had no militia to speak of, the only two northern states to have functioning militia were New York and Pennsylvania, who managed to produce 30,000 militia to meet Lee's invasion of the North.

Maine had roughly 7,500 men in the Union Army (a cavalry squadron, an artillery battery and 14 infantry battalions, excluding the above 5 unformed batteries), which as a percentage of population is roughly in line with the other New England states. Quite a few of these men are Canadian.

If every Regiment of the Union Army was full strength then the army would be 650,000 strong. In fact, it is about 300,000 strong, and various functions which the British would have a civilian agency doing are done by drafts from the Army, bringing the number of men under arms to about 250,000. 67th Tigers 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have restored, without any actual documentation, material that I considered speculative. I have added four specific requests for citations to back up your claims. Specifically:

• What is your source (i.e. book and page number) indicating that “Maine seemed close to secession?” Your non-specific claim is not satisfactory.

• What is your source that indicates it was “more than likely” that the British would unite with the CSA for an assault on “Washington and other cities.”

• The article, prior to the additions that I deleted, indicated a strictly defensive ground plan combined with aggressive naval attacks. What is your source (i.e. what reliable source speculated) that there would be a “bloody and very costly” ground war between the British, Canadians, and Americans?

• What is your source that indicates that an invasion and occupation of the entirety of Canada was a policy considered by Great Britain or the United States as a result of the Trent Affair? In fact, British fears were of a sudden, quick seizure by the US made possible by Canadian/British unpreparedness. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Maine succession issue is discussed on page 1 of the "LIST OF THE CHIEF PORTS ON THE FEDERAL COAST OF THE UNITED STATES" for example, the primary intelligence report forwarded to Milne.

Hansard shows demands for a strike at New York or Boston, Milne however though Washington was a far better target (see Bourne's article)

The bloody ground war was not something I added, but the fear was the Union would make peace with the south, and redeploy their 300,000 men, 100,000 to the coastal defences, 100,000 to an Army aimed at Montreal, and 3 25,000 man Armies aimed at Nova Scotia, and the Niagara peninsula from bith directions (from Detroit and Buffalo). This was one reason it was essential to delay the Union until the St Lawrence thawed.

67th Tigers 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the fact tags. You need to add specific sources, either through the narrative or footnotes, to the article. If Maine secession is strictly a British intelligence analysis, then state it as such. The fear of Maine Secession is certainly absent from any work of any Civil War historians that I am aware of. Your brief comment regarding Hansard does not support the likelihood of a joint CSA/British military operation -- if this is simply speculation by British military leaders then the article should say so (with documentation). Without actual documentation you are simply presenting your own independent research. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After writing the above I downloaded the Bourne article from JSTOR. This article totally supports the deletions I made. The "Maine Secession" apparently dates back to War of 1812 British speculation that in a war Maine might prefer to be part of Canada rather than remain with the US -- there was no current intelligence mentioned with the article. A large offensive ground operation was specifically rejected by British planners -- the only land offensive would have been a small scale attack directed at Portland, Maine. The strikes at specific cities were strictly naval affairs and the article suggests that these would be directed at ships heading towards specific harbors rather than actually entering the harbors. As far as joint land operations with the CSA, this option was specifically rejected -- any cooperation would be limited to possible blockade actions. I will not revert the sections for a few days to give you a chance to respond. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Re-write Needed and Planned

The article as it exists today has no footnotes and few sources relative to the wealth of information available. The current section on "British plans for war with the Union" appears to be based on an article by Bourne listed in the references, but in very essential areas the Bourne article either contradicts the Wikipedia article or provides much needed context that has been omitted. In addition the Wikipedia article captures some proposed operational details while largely ignoring the overall strategic picture.

I am in the process of re-writing the article. I will add to the references section later this morning the books I am using for my re-write. The following is my general plan for reorganization -- I have listed section heads and what I intend to add or omit.

Background I intend to expand this to include specifics on the diplomatic events that had set the stage for the crisis. This will include the original contacts by Yancey et al attempting to secure recognition and the reasons why a change in CSA representatives was initiated, British attitudes towards Seward, US reactions to British discussions with the CSA reps, and the impact of the Mure-Bunch incident. Part of the British military preparations (or lack thereof) will be incorporated there as will the British analysis of the legal issues based on hypothetical problems considered before the Trent incident.

The Capture of the Trent I will go into more detail concerning Wilkes as an individual and operational details from the time that the US first became aware of the Slidell-Mason incidents. I will discuss specifically the actual catch and release of the Trent with details on Wilkes specific instructions to the boarding parting and the legal repercussions of the decisions made.

American Reaction This will cover the popular reaction as well as the very divided opinion on what the US should do. The role of Charles Sumner and Lincoln's Cabinet and the differences between Seward and Lincoln will be discussed. There will be more discussions of the legal issue involved. CSA reaction will also be discussed.

British Reaction The specific political considerations and reactions wil be discussed as will details of the role of Prince Albert. British military plans in reaction to the Trent affair will be discussed here rather than in a separate section.

Resolution This will cover the events in both Washington and London starting with the dispatch of the British "ultimatum" to Lord Lyons for delivery to Seward.

Aftermath I will eliminate the speculative first paragraph in the current section and expand on the second paragraph -- probably devoting a separate paragraph to how it effected Britain, the US, and the CSA.

Since it seems like all issues relating to the Civil War (not to mention conflicts between the US and foreign nations) tend to be controversial,I expect at least every paragraph to be footnoted and I will use direct quotes whenever simple paraphrasing may be questioned. I do not expect to retain information that cannot be verified from the sources I am using. I welcome any documentation that will support sections of the existing article. I appreciate any suggestions or comments -- I expect to present a completed article sometime between July 21 to 28 (assuming that others of you do not raise substantive issues that I have not considered). Tom (North Shoreman) 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I have some comments on the above proposal to rewrite the article.

1) The lack of references is something that should be corrected and it is not hard to do. What references there are, are currently bulleted rather than numbered and hence of limited value. However there is an implication in the above that a reference is better than no reference irrespective of the quality there of. As a great deal of the primary material for the Trent Affair is available on line I recommend that reference should only be made to secondary or tertiary sources for matters of fact which cannot be found in easily located primary sources. The opinions of published historians have no greater intrinsic value than the opinions of anyone else.

If providing references is "not hard to do" I am at a loss to explain why it hasn't been done. I have read the references that were originally part of the article before I expanded it and they do not support much of what is written or support its relevance. I reject the notion that "The opinions of published historians have no greater intrinsic value than the opinions of anyone else" -- a Wikipedia editor substituting their own analysis for that of historians is conducting original research. Do you have any specific objections to the sources I've listed.Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Trent Affair has primarily been analysed from a diplomatic POV, not a military one. Now, you seem to have no dramas over the diplomatic section above, but you do over British military preparations and plans. 67th Tigers 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The diplomatic issues discussed in the current article, while needed documentation and a major expansion, is largely accurate and relevant. The British military treatment is often irrelevant, inaccurate and/or misleading. There is too much confusion about what was planned, when it was planned, and what was actually accomplished. What is painfully missing from the article is the number of actual troops in Canada when the British learned of the Trent affair, their total unpreparedness to resist an American invasion (not that one was actually planned)the very poor state of the physical defenses of Canada, and the actual mobilization that had actually been accomplished by the time the crisis was over. As far as Milne's three pronged attack, there is a total omission of what his actual priorities were if war had broken out. Why do you think it is a productive idea to keep adding undocumented information to an article badly in need of documentation? Are you actually concerned with improving the article? Tom (North Shoreman) 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

2) Regarding the proposed background. It seems to me that this would make an excellent chapter on an article on Anglo-Federal relations during the war but is entierly inappropriate as an introduction to the Trent Affair.

Since the necessary material does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, the information I include will be necessary to place the subject of the Trent affair in its proper historical context. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3) If one wants to do justice to the seizure of RMS Trent then it will be important that information from all of the published reports of the Affair are summarised and reported. These being to my knowledge those of Moir, the Admiralty Mail Agent, the Confederate Commissioners, Captain Wiles, His Executive Officer Fairfax and those subordinate members of San Jacinto's crew ordered to make reports by Wilkes. The controversy over how Fairfax executed his orders and if Wilkes was indeed acting under orders needs to be handled very carefully to preserve a neutral point of view.

I disagree. Historians have done that analysis and their analysis will be part of the article. Do you have sourced information that Wilkes was actually acting on specific orders? Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

4)British and FEDERAL American reaction seems reasonable but if one is going into that level of detail one also needs a section on CONFEDERATE American reaction and French reaction. Inclusion of the response of the British North American colonies, the German Confederation and the Russian Empire would also be desirable. I do hope we don't get too much of the noble Prince Albert stuff as Palmerston revised the tone of the memo yet again after he had a go at it did he not? I think British war plans are probably more appropriate in a section of their own.

I have already noted that I will include CSA reaction. French reaction will be mentioned and I have some background information on the Russian analysis. However this was primarily a bilateral event. As far as British war plans, this was primarily a diplomatic incident and the most relevant preparations are those that specifically occurred from the time the British learned of the seizure and the time that the crisis ended. The rest is background and will be included only to the extent necessary for establishing the historical context. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

5) On the subject of resolution the very negative response of the European powers to the Federal American position should be covered. Some reference might be made to the impact of the loss of the Atlantic telegraph line and the time taken to communicate between the Federal Americans and the British. The journey of the Commissioners to Europe needs to be recorded also.

I agree. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

6) Aftermath should be kept short and factual. There are so many opinion pieces on the result of the Affair reviewing them would be totally unhelpful.

I agree. The current paragraph is entirely speculative. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is missing? Well I think that a review of the other naval incidents where the Federal Americans abused British ships during the war is in order. There should also be a section on what the Royal Navy was hoping to achieve by permitting the federal Americans to enforce the blockade in such an agressive fashion to the detriment of British commerce. That is to say that they were protecting and expanding the concept of blockade to British advantage.

Some of this does need to be included as background in order to establish the proper historical context. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A Trent in popular culture would also be useful.

I disagree as a matter of general principle-- if such a section is added it will have to come from somebody else. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to the revision and hope that the revised article will incorporate most if not all of the excellent information in the current article and keep its laudable NPOV,

The existing article is extremely POV with an overemphasis on the British position, especially the military without regard to whether it is related to the Trent Affair or not. Interestingly, there are 12 Brits mentioned by name but only three USA and three CSA. Milne is given way more attention than Wilkes. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Tielhard 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Specific factual/documentation/relevance problems with the existing article

As part of my rewrite I am finding much about the current article that appears to be either speculation or inaccurate. Documented speculation by an actual historian may be relevant to the article, but speculation by a Wikipedia editor is not. I have been attempting for several weeks to get whoever wrote this article or supports its accuracy to provide the type of verification I intend to add. Providing it now, before it is deleted because it contradicts what I am finding, could avoid unnecessary reverts after I have posted my revisions. The following in particular have been tagged and need documentation or clarification:

In the Background section Meanwhile, the government of France declared its willingness to support Britain in a war with the United States. My sources indicate that France supported the British position and would not have been adverse to a British—American war. However documentation is needed to support the claim that France was willing to support Britain in such a war.

Worrying you can't find one, they're dotted all over the litrature related to this subject. Try this: http://beck.library.emory.edu/iln/browse.php?id=iln39.1124.219

And yet the source you provide says NOTHING to indicate that the French would support Britain in a war. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nova Scotia alone trained and armed 45,000 men. When did this alleged buildup of 45,000 troops occur? If it did actually occur it had to have been well after the Trent Affair was resolved.

Alleged? They had an effective militia system. See http://www.cmhg.forces.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_450.asp?flash=1

It appears that the bulk of the 45,000 men are in the Sedentary Militia. See what I have documented concerning the effectiveness of this organization. User:North Shoreman/Sandbox Do you have sources that disagree? Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both the U.S. and British governments estimated that the maximum number of Union troops available for service against Canada was 50,000. I have seen that British estimates varied from 50,000 to 200,000. Nowhere have I seen that there was US planning for any number of men to be deployed for a Canadian invasion.

What was the PRIMARY source for a British estimate of 200,000 troops to invade Canada? I know of no estimates above 80,000. (Tielhard 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Meanwhile, the Union was facing a financial crisis, and the major banks reserves were running so low that Specie payments were suspended on 30th December, which would have resulted in hyperinflation had the crisis not been resolved. What “would” have happened is speculative and the Trent Affair was only part of the economic problems and its resolution did not cure these problems.

The timing of the suspension of specie payments give lie to the statement ' ... and the Trent Affair was only part of the economic problems ...' (Tielhard 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

It helped a lot though, British finance was crucial to continuing the war effort.

Even with the quick resolution, the value of the dollar halved, while the British stock exchange actually rose in anticipation of the government declaring war. Documentation is needed that this actually occurred and that it occurred during, and as a result of, the Trent Affair.

'Documentation is needed that this actually occurred ...' Yep.

'... and that it occurred during, and as a result of, the Trent Affair.' Frankly this is absurd. The assertion can neither be proved nor disproved. All one could do is provide an opinion and as I have said before an historians opion is no better than anyone else's (Tielhard 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

See reference

What reference? Waht page of that reference? Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Some may consider the Trent Affair as one of the great "what ifs" of the American Civil War. Others may contend that, had Britain and the United States gone to war, it is possible that the Union war effort would have failed and the Confederacy would have become an independent nation. Still, some might maintain that a British invasion might have unified North and South in defiance against American submission to an Old World power. The entire paragraph is speculative. Who are the “some” referred to?

You, for one, apparently.

Of course, my opinion has no more place in this article than yours. The opinions of actual historians who have written of these events would be relevant. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The British had a fairly detailed plan for the defence of Canada and war with the Union. My sources indicate that much of the specific planning occurred during the Trent Affair and that planning before the incident was largely to avoid a conflict. Sources and dates might be relevant to the article.

Obviously, it was set by the War Cabinet on 4th December 1861.

The what you meant to say was that the War Cabinet created a "fairly detailed plan". Unfortunately, the sources suggest that the plans originated with Williams in Canada. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Corps of 20,000 infantry (3 Divisions), 2,000 cavalry (The Lancer Brigade), 2,700 artillery, 900 engineers and 1,000 logistics personnel under Major General DK Rumley (then Inspector General of Infantry) was ordered to Canada in December 1861 as a vanguard, but the crisis abated before their movement was complete. This force was drawn from the 102,722 effective troops in the British Isles, without reference to the 54,907 effectives in the colonies or 67,909 effectives in India. The overall number ordered to Canada is accurate, but a source is needed for the particular breakdown of those troops. As far as the other available troops, documentation is needed to show that this is relevant to the subject – was there a plan to deploy all these additional troops?

Army Estimates, 1861 give the total strength as mentioned

Non-responsive. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant General William Fenwick Williams planned on destroying the bridges across the St. Lawrence River and defending the cities of Montreal, Quebec and Kingston. To accomplish this he had 12,000 British regulars and about 35,000 Canadian volunteers and militia. In fact, when the British became aware of the Trent incident there were about 5,000 regular troops and 5,000 poorly trained militia available.

While only two brigades (and slightly understrength, draughts to bring each battalion upto 1,200 arrived with reinforcements) were there at the time, another 11,000 arrived over the next month. The militia was 450 Infantry Battalions strong, but probably couldn't deploy more than 75,000 at short notice. The Special Militia Order of 20th December 1861 embodied 38,000 militia (one company from each battalion) to complement the 35,000 Volunteers. By 26th December (when the wire showed the Federal States backing down), 14,200 had been armed and equipped.

Once again, you appear to represent the Sedentary Militia as if it were armed and organized when, in fact, it largely existed only on paper. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinforcements in the form of a 50,000-man expeditionary force were prepared in the United Kingdom, to be transported if needed. These three infantry corps and one cavalry division would integrate with the main 25,000-man army at Montreal to form a field army. When exactly was this alleged 50,000 force assembled? Where did this 25,000 man army at Montreal come from?

It's there. Montreal had a large effective militia, which was combined with the regular forces arriving from the UK.

Your opinion is not a source. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Notably, suggestions were being made in Britain that 10,000 Volunteers could be raised to garrison the fortifications and free the regular army and militia for offensive action. My sources indicate that an inspection tour by Williams in November and December determined that the fortifications alluded to were either in poor repair or non-existent.

Read it again, Canada West was lacking (hence Williams and Napier oversaw the contruction of divisional strength strongpoints at London and Toronto), Canada East is a fortress.

Again, go to my draft which is supported by footnotes. Do you have a source that supports your claim? Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At sea, Rear Admiral Alexander Milne had a three part plan. First his squadron, along with Commodore Dunlop's, would smash the U.S. Navy ships and squadrons in detail, or in a major action should they concentrate. My sources (which include Milne’s own words) indicate that Milne’s first priority on the declaration of war was purely defensive

What sources? Bearing in mind I've read some of the Milne Papers and know his planning...

Go to my draft. Both Milne's orders and his own recollections in 1864 show that his first concern was defensive. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this would be a very difficult task … The entire paragraph is speculative and unsourced. Is this the editor’s speculation or the analysis of an actual historian? Who made these suggestions?

Milne would then institute a close blockade of the Federal Coast using 65 warships. A particular service squadron was assembling at Lisbon, including the ironclads Warrior, Black Prince, Defence, Resistance and a considerable force of frigates mounting over 1,000 guns aggregate. This force would be used against Fort Monroe, opening the route to attacking Washington itself. My sources indicate that the actual attacks on coastal cities were not part of the immediate plans for naval action.

As far as the relevance issue, certainly British intent to support its position militarily if necessary is relevant. The specific actions taken during the Trent affair is also certainly relevant as are the weaknesses of the Canadian defense. However plans that might have been implemented five months or more after the flurry of activity in December has little relevance to this particular article.

Cool, it's irrelevent, you rewrite the rest and leave it be

I have properly raised the issue of the verifiability of your claims. Even if you could convince folks of the relevance of the long range plans, you need to provide documentation. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

67th Tigers 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman)

Rewrite delayed

This is taking more time than I thought, but it is also turning out to be very interesting. There will be a separate section on British military preparations -- I have found it impossible to integrate it into the balance of the article. The first portion of the article is pretty much finished and can be reviewed at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman)

I have a few general comments about your draft in the sand box. I should like to make some more detailed comments later.

(1) I think the article is horribly Americentric (specifically Federal Americentric) not only in the POV, but in attitude and perspective. (2) You have grossly overused quotes from historians when primary sources are available. At least one of those historians is making ridiculous assertions. There is absolutely no need for all the opinion pieces you have put in. (3) Most of the background as I originally suggested is irrelevant and detrimental to the clarity of the article (as indeed are all the quotes). (4) Please use a standard reference format. The Harvard perhaps? (5) In discussing the incident itself it is readily apparent you have only used the US reports the discrepances with British reports are not mentioned. Further given your stated quest for rigor you don't go into sufficient detail. (6) There is a great deal of imprecision in what you have written. For example you use the term American when you mean Union in several instances, you call Trent a mail packet, you refer to San Jacinto with the prefix USS and yet Nashville does not get a CSS nor Trent an RMS, you refer to the Commissioners as 'diplomats' in para 1 thus conceeding one of the Confederacy's main points of argument. At no point do you discuss the term. (7) Not wishing to be negative you did turn up a coupleof things that were new to me. Thank you.

Tielhard;

For your continuing problem with the role of historians versus primary sources I suggest you refer to Wikipedia’s actual policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS#PSTS. To quote from that section:

“Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.”

and:

Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS -- As far as being Americentric, if there are secondary sources that I should have pursued and haven't, please provide them. If I have only provided one side of the story from any of the sources I have footnoted, then please provide this information. In discussing the incident itself, what relevant information has been left out? I am using a footnoting method that is used on any number of articles on Wikipedia although I may need to add a few sources to the bibliography portion. I use the terms envoys, diplomats, commissioners, etc interchangeably, much as the sources do. I also make clear the Union POV when I show that they are referred to as rebels and traitors. I will review my use of American versus Union -- in many cases since policy and attitudes predated the Civil War the term American is appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

67th Tigers,

I would like a nice numbered list of reference ideally in Harvard format for all of the points you are making please.

(Tielhard 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

---

Regarding the pacific North West Baynes is no longer in charge I think it is Maitland. (Tielhard 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Rewrite Completed

With little response to my proposals and absolutely no additional documentation provided I have proceeded and posted my revision. The only controversial section prior to my rewrite was the section on the British military preparations for which repeated requests for documentation were ignored. Like the entire article, my revisions are thoroughly footnoted.

The article is long and at some point the background section could be reduced if articles such as Diplomacy during the American Civil War (Union) and Diplomacy during the American Civil War (Confederate) are ever created, something that is on my to-do list but not as a priority. The British military section is long, but that is largely result of the edit war the preceded my revision.

The extensive use of direct quotes is my response to the fact that any issues relating to the Civil War tend to become controversial. I have provided relevant quotes from reliable historians. If there are equally reliable sources that present a different POV on any of the subjects that I have inadvertently missed, I would hope that other editors will provide SOURCED material to supplement the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you on writing such an expanded article. However, you need to check some of these sources, for example, ref 105 refers to a non-existant article (Bourne starts at pg 600 and never covered that topic), and is dubious, since "Ironclads" generally had no deeper draught than wooden vessels, and 7 of the 10 British armoured ships available in the first week of January 1862 had draughts less than 9 feet. Also, while it was reported in the press that the NA&WI squadron had more guns than the entire USN (850), they didn't, although the Particular Service Squadron (the reinforcements assembling at Lisbon) did (another 1,000 guns).

There's quite a few minor errors with respect to some British military structures which wouldn't be obvious (such as "Nova Scotia", which refers to Nova Scotia Command, not the province, and embraces the entire Maritimes), but they're not grevious.

67th Tigers 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual page numbers were 623-624 not 223-224 as I originally listed. The exact quote on the draught is (towards the end of the only full paragraph on page 624), "Their ironclads had too deep a draught to use Bermuda or to operate in the shallow waters of the North American coast. The monitors might therefore have played havoc with any attempt by the older wooden frigates to maintain a close blockade." As far as the number of British ironclads, "At the end of 1861 the British had only two of the new ironclads in commission and the rest emerged slowly in the course of the next few years but they could no doubt have been pushed on rapidly if war broke out." Tom (North Shoreman) 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The RN had 4 in "Commission" (i.e. deployed on active service; Terror, Thunderbolt, Aetna and Warrior) in November 1861, 5 in Reserve and 4 which could be available in 3 months (Black Prince, Defence, Resistance and Royal Oak). Terror was already deployed to Bermuda as a response to Milne's request to improve the defences of the harbour in 1860, Thunderbolt and Aetna were guarding the Thames, Warrior was on a cruise to Queenstown. As to Monitors, there aren't any at the time, by the end of 1862 there are three.

Attempt to avoid revert war

The dispute is over the total number of Canadian troops available to resist an American invasion in late 1861. Before I did a major revision of the entire article I specifically noted on the discussion page the lack of documentation in the existing article and even posted in my own sandbox the changes as they were made with a link on the discussion page to that sandbox. I included the following sentence in the section on British Military Preparations:

“Williams, on December 20 began training one company of 75 men from each battalion of the Sedentary Militia, about 38,000 men in total.”

This is fully supported by an appropriate footnote to a work by historian Gordon Warren. This is further supported by a direct quote in the preceding paragraph indicating that there were only 5,000 available volunteer troops prior to this training. The sentence has now been reverted four times by 67th Tigers. He insists that two newspaper articles from the London Times contain contrary information. I created a separate paragraph for his alternative numbers but he has insisted on continuing to distort the sentence from Warren.

Warren frequently quotes from the London Times and his bibliography lists ten different London newspapers among a total of 62 foreign and domestic newspapers. This is in addition to 37 different manuscript collections of primary documents. It is not clear why 67th Tigers apparent independent research should take precedent over Warren’s professional, published, and peer reviewed work which is totally in agreement with the other major sources cited by Bourne, Ferris, and Mahin among others.

This is the version of the contested issues that allows both my version and 67th’s version to be presented so that the reader can decide which is more reliable. So far 67th refused to accept this. I ask him to now accept this and welcome others to comment on the situation:

Williams, on December 20 began training one company of 75 men from each battalion of the Sedentary Militia, about 38,000 men in total. [94] Warren describes the Sedentary militia:

“Untrained and undisciplined, they showed up in all manner of dress, with belts of basswood bark and sprigs of green balsam in their hats, carrying an assortment of flintlocks, shotguns, rifles, and scythes. Their officers, prefacing orders with ‘please’, recoiled in horror as formations of the backwoodsmen zigzagged on command to wheel to the left.[95]”

His task was not dissimilar to the one that the Union and Confederates had faced at the beginning of the Civil War. Canadian governor Charles Monck believed that by April he would be able to mobilize a total of 100,000 troops from this group (assuming Britain provided most of the arms), a target suggested by Newcastle with the expectation that major British troops would be available by then in Canada. [96]

The Times reported different numbers. Rather than 38,000 unprepared militia, it stated that there was a Militia Army of ca. 66,615 militiamen and volunteers "quite equal in all these respects to any force the United States can bring against them" [97] The Times also reported that by February 10, 1862 modern arms and equipment for 105,550 had arrived in Canada along with 20 million cartridges [98].

67th Tiger has argued that since he relies exclusively on primary sources, then his edit should replace that of the professional historian. It should be noted that WP:NOR specifically provides the following official policy regarding primary sources, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." 67th Tiger is providing his own interpretation by concluding that the 66,615 militiamen he refers to are separate from the inactive and untrained Sedentary Militia -- a position that the numerous secondary sources cited in the article do not take. Strict application of Wikipedia Policy would mandate that 67th Tiger's numbers and conclusions not be included at all in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There were three seperate militia forces in Upper and Lower Canada:

• Active Militia (in 1860 this was about 5,000 men, by late 1861 it was expanded to 7,500)
• Volunteer Militia (in December it is estimated by the Times that 20,000 enlisted in this force, the official histories only give figures after the crisis abated and a large number left, these figures being about 14,000 men rising to over 25,000 later in the year)
• Sedentary Militia (459 Battalions in Upper and Lower Canada). On 20/12/1861 Williams mobilised a "flank company" from each battalion, taking only unmarried class A men. This action being a direct copy of the 1837 mobilisation. The official histories say that 14,200 had been accepted into service in the 6 days between the mobilisation order and mobilisation being suspended due to the American backdown.

39,015 militiamen mobilised in the "flank companies", ca. 20,000 volunteers (and rising they'd have 35,000 soon) and 7,500 active militia = 66,615.

In a latter revert I made it explicit that this was counting all three militia forces

From the Times, 8/1/1862:

From our Correspondant. Montreal, Dec. 23 By the time this reaches you Canada will have fully 60,000 men in arms to resist the invasion of her soil... (renumerates the figures above) A month ago Canada was at the mercy of the enemy; a month hence it will stand armed to the teeth and capable of offering a firm defence against any force that is likely to be brought against it during the winter.

There is a general description of the 10,000 man Volunteer Division raised at Montreal whch may be of use:

The following Corps were organised or commenced:- Victoria Rifles, 400 men, ranks full and drilling; Montreal Royals, 600 men, filling fast; a brigade of artillery, 24 guns, complete with men and horses, a battalion of Garrison Artillery, 300 men, drilling with heavy guns, two companies uniformed and effective; two battalions French Canadian riflemen, filling fast; one battalion Scotch rifles and one of Irish, organising; three companies of Engineers (Sappers and Miners); three troops of cavalry, organising. And to these may be added six companies of rifles, a battary of Horse Artillery, a company of Foot Artillery and several other independent corps raised by colleges, manufacturers, brewers and others; the Grand Trunk battalion and the workmen employed by it. Independent of all these is the active force, comprising the Prince of Wales Rifles, a battery of Horse Artillery, two companies of Foot Artillery and two troops of Cavalry, uniformed, armed and in a good state of efficiency."

There follows a description of some of the work being done, and the dispositions of the estimated 40,000 Federal troops (mostly recruits, but including those Federal veterans captured in Texas and recently paroled apparently).

67th Tigers 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not stopping you from putting your information in the article. All I am attempting is to get you to leave the fully documented section alone. I do not agree, nor do Warren, Mahin, Bourne et al agree with you -- you claim a fully mobilized Canadian Army existed in December, the historians say that the best case scenario is they might be ready in April. One thing anyone who has spent anytime reviewing historic newspaper articles is that they are often inaccurate or merely quoting government propoganda -- that is probably why it is important for Wikipedia editors to rely on secondary professionals who have reviewed a much larger number of original documents over years or decades of research as opposed to amateurs sifting through what they can find on their computers. You had every opportunity before I revised the article to provide footnotes to support your claims and you neglected to do so. Now you need to fit your intended additions within the structure I have created. Your piecemeal additions disrupt the footnotes in place and also distort the narrative. I am currently awaiting Administrator action on your repeated reverts, but will restructure it when that action is final. I note that your recent addition has returned to provided undocumented speculation.Tom (North Shoreman) 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of casual, irrelevant and amateur interest (and a smidge of patriotism), I noticed that apparently nine years later (1870, in case you read faster than you add) the UK led the (reunited) USA in iron ore production by 6 million tons to 1.7, and in coal production by 112 to 40. (Kinder, Hermann & Hilgemann, Werner: The Penguin Atlas of World History Volume 2. (2003) ISBN-10:0-141-01262-5.) Plus, for once Britons would actually have outnumbered their opponents, in this case by (sans empire) 29 million-ish (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_FOPM_Population.pdf) to about 22 million Union chaps (http://apusnotes.nfshost.com/outline/mpecot/21); this, of course, without taking the Confederates into account. 86.139.191.87 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quebeckers joined the union

To Tom (North Shoreman)

Congratulation for a job well done. I admire your dedication. I have read the discussion you had with the pro-British editor and I agree with you. He repetedly refuse to provide any kind of reference. And Times being a UK news paper is just as accurate as FOX news. NewPaper are not a good source of information on sensitive issue.

I am at lost to understand how some people can gloat at the idea of attacking Lincoln and america. British and British-Canadian are just sore loser for their lost of the continent. The idea that France would have invaded american is also preposterous. Napoleon III is seen as a moron and a puppet of English by french historian. He could not even defeat peasans in Mexico (see the Cinco the Mayo). French people are not the enemies of america or Lincoln. As demonstrated Lafitte who joined Jackson the french never went to war against america and actually join the american during the revolution and again in 1812.

As for the canadian of 1862, I beg to disagree with the pro-British poster. They did not considered themselves canadian at that time. They were proud British Colonist serving under the Union Jack flag. Historian beleive that British-Canadian began to consider themselves Canadian only at Vimy in 1915.

In reality the French in Quebec join the Union army by the thousand. The french living in Maine and Boston were the more patriotic pro-Lincoln. In fact Calixa Lavallé who wrote the Canadian Anthem was figthing on the side of the Union. His Canadian Anthem was written with the FRENCH in mind not for modern Canada. His french word speak of the Cross and Frontenac Glory.

In 1837 the British in Quebec has brutaly crushed a pro-American insurection. Those people are revered has hero in Quebec. Contrary to Salaberry who opposed the american in 1812, who is seen by modern quebec historian as an opportunist turn coat.

When an actual American army came in quebec in 1775, 50% of the population join the american side. Providing weapons and militian. Pro-British received little or no help from the ordinary people. They were furious about it.

As for how fit the milician were. The historian and writer Benjamin Sulte was one of them. And he was certainly not aof military material...those thousand of pro-British french were simple paper soldier who would have fled like those who help Carleton in 1775. The were unwilling conscript just barely there to be counted. Thousand of Quebec french would have join the american side in no time like they did in 1837 and by joining Lincoln army by the thousand.

pro-British should rethink their point of view before gloating. As for Lincoln his embarassment is only showing he is more intelligent then his British counter part whose ego provoked the war of 1812. Thank god for the american. Wilke did good by intercepting those traitors and he is a hero. That's not the point. Those criminal deserve no apologies for being the monster that they were.

And by the way the union people never cease to be american for a second. The union was not making the secession bid.

Once again Tom, Congratulation for your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republique2007 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting becuase all of the numerous books I've read on the subject (mostly pro-american) state that few Quebecers suported the United States if enough had doubtless Quebec would be apart of the US now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Odd that the article "Civil War, Culture War: French Quebec and the American War Between the States" by Preson Jones (Catholic Historical Review, 87:1, Jan 2001) takes an almost entirely different view on the subject. "In mid-nineteenth century Quebec the American Civil War appeared to be primarily one in which revolutionary, atheistic and Protestant hubris and aggression was indirectly pitted against French Quebec's Catholic tradition..." (p70) Robcraufurd (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Too Long!!

Wow, great article. Entirely too long! The only thing I can say is that all the content is great and shouldn't be removed, but I think it would really help the article if the average reader (aka me) could finish it in under 5 minutes of reading. If the article was briefs: the capture of Trent, american reaction, british reaction, conclusion, etc. and had other main articles for each, it might accomplish my request. Like American Reaction to the Trent Affair and Military Response to the Trent Affair. I really don't know what else to suggest, but I must admit, I only read half of the article, because this is way more than I needed to know. (At the time, I don't believe knowledge should be ignored... I'm just saying). I'd like to read a shorter version. Hope this helps.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the length is the large amount of background material. This was necessary because there are no articles dealing separately with either USA or CSA diplomacy during the war. These are probably the most needed spinoff articles. I agree that the Canadian and Britsh military preparations go on extra long -- this is largely the result of an edit war with an individual who wanted to make the POV point that England and Canada could have kicked USA butt. Probably much of this can be moved to the articles Great Britain in the American Civil War and Canada and the American Civil War. I will try to work on this. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is too long and not entirely accurate (reflecting entirely Warran's discredited ideas, to the exclusion of other, better data). I've intended to split off a "British military and diplomatic response to the American Civil War" for quite some time... 67th Tigers (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well again I think that the much of Trent affair material is substaintal (sp) enough to have it's own article. I'd probably not make the British diplomatic response singular. I'd actually probably make the article titled.... Foreign response to American Civil War... and then if there's too much material in the British section either because of length or undue weight then I'd split it off. If you did do the splits you could probably even add in the speculation about "what-if" England and Canada got involved... because I'm sure the Lincoln administration probably worried about it during the capture of the Trent. But with any kind of speculation it must be sourced (from original documents of the time), reliable, not POV charisma, and not original research.Thx again--Sparkygravity (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)