Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think both Quebec and Ontario are more to the left than most of the American states. I don't see any Canadian province who would have sided with the Confederacy.
You don't think Quebec would have sided with the Confederacy? What am I missing here lol?
About 40,000 men from what was then called "British North America " now Ontario and Quebec, volunteered to join the Union Army. Most of them were PAID by wealthy Americans, who had been drafted, to act as stand ins . The deal was that if the man who was serving in another man's place was killed, his family back in Canada would get a cash payment. From that comes the phrase " He bought the farm " as that was what the money usually represented. A typical death bonus was around 400 to 1000 dollars.
Now, for the historical reality of the 1860's. Canada was officially neutral, BUT the majority of the population was strongly in favour of the end of slavery. Supplying the Union Army was big business for Canadian manufacturers and farmers and railroads. Because Canada was "neutral " the Confederacy had a number of "agents " active in both Montreal and Toronto, who were trying to recruit trained British soldiers to their cause. Money offers to experienced Sgts and Officers, to induce them to desert were common. The South also used Montreal as a base of operations, to plot actions in the northern states, such as the daring daylight robbery of two banks in Vermont, on one day. The agents got away with $200,000 in US cash, and that money eventually made its way to Richmond.
Quebec support for the south ? Hardly. Although at the end of the war , SOME Confederate Generals made their way to Montreal, where they lived for years to escape threats on their lives.
About 40,000 men from what was then called "British North America " now Ontario and Quebec, volunteered to join the Union Army. Most of them were PAID by wealthy Americans, who had been drafted, to act as stand ins . The deal was that if the man who was serving in another man's place was killed, his family back in Canada would get a cash payment. From that comes the phrase " He bought the farm " as that was what the money usually represented. A typical death bonus was around 400 to 1000 dollars.
Now, for the historical reality of the 1860's. Canada was officially neutral, BUT the majority of the population was strongly in favour of the end of slavery. Supplying the Union Army was big business for Canadian manufacturers and farmers and railroads. Because Canada was "neutral " the Confederacy had a number of "agents " active in both Montreal and Toronto, who were trying to recruit trained British soldiers to their cause. Money offers to experienced Sgts and Officers, to induce them to desert were common. The South also used Montreal as a base of operations, to plot actions in the northern states, such as the daring daylight robbery of two banks in Vermont, on one day. The agents got away with $200,000 in US cash, and that money eventually made its way to Richmond.
Quebec support for the south ? Hardly. Although at the end of the war , SOME Confederate Generals made their way to Montreal, where they lived for years to escape threats on their lives.
Jim B.
Interesting information Canadian Citizen but I was asking the question in regards to a modern day Quebec as opposed to a 1860's Quebec (there was no PQ back then for example).. It would be hard to believe in a modern sense that at least in a certain faction there wouldn't be support in the very least in the ideological support for the souths right to secede. In 1860's U.S - if States in the south were allowed to secede via a referendum, the U.S of today would look VERY different than the U.S we know of.. The population of the southern U.S that made the confederacy, the vote tally in each of those States would have been overwhelmigly for permanent secession but the north did not allow it by force. The southern states were forced back into the union.
Interesting information Canadian Citizen but I was asking the question in regards to a modern day Quebec as opposed to a 1860's Quebec (there was no PQ back then for example).. It would be hard to believe in a modern sense that at least in a certain faction there wouldn't be support in the very least in the ideological support for the souths right to secede. In 1860's U.S - if States in the south were allowed to secede via a referendum, the U.S of today would look VERY different than the U.S we know of.. The population of the southern U.S that made the confederacy, the vote tally in each of those States would have been overwhelmigly for permanent secession but the north did not allow it by force. The southern states were forced back into the union.
If Quebec as a state would have actually joined the CSA is highly unlikely, since the cause of the CSA was centered around the defense of the institution of slavery. Quebec was far removed from the realities of a multi-racial, slavery-based society and would have no more of an incentive to identify with that cause than Maine or Michigan. Nonetheless French Canadian newspapers in Quebec were generally pro-CSA while English Canadian newspapers were generally pro-USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
The population of the southern U.S that made the confederacy, the vote tally in each of those States would have been overwhelmigly for permanent secession but the north did not allow it by force. The southern states were forced back into the union.
With only three exceptions, the final votes of secession were not voted on by a popular majority but by an elite group of representatives who often provoked violence and intimidation. It was hardly a matter of every voting-age male casting a ballot. By the end of the war over 1/4 of all soldiers in the US army were from the Confederate south. William Freehling's opus South vs. South: How anti-Confederate Southerners Changed The Course of the War goes into more detail. There are not many parallels to be drawn with Quebec; Quebec independence hinges on a popular, democratic vote, does not advocate violent confrontation or the mobilization of arms, and is rooted in linguistic identity rather than the defense of slavery.
If Quebec as a state would have actually joined the CSA is highly unlikely, since the cause of the CSA was centered around the defense of the institution of slavery. Quebec was far removed from the realities of a multi-racial, slavery-based society and would have no more of an incentive to identify with that cause than Maine or Michigan. Nonetheless French Canadian newspapers in Quebec were generally pro-CSA while English Canadian newspapers were generally pro-USA.
With only three exceptions, the final votes of secession were not voted on by a popular majority but by an elite group of representatives who often provoked violence and intimidation. It was hardly a matter of every voting-age male casting a ballot. By the end of the war over 1/4 of all soldiers in the US army were from the Confederate south. William Freehling's opus South vs. South: How anti-Confederate Southerners Changed The Course of the War goes into more detail. There are not many parallels to be drawn with Quebec; Quebec independence hinges on a popular, democratic vote, does not advocate violent confrontation or the mobilization of arms, and is rooted in linguistic identity rather than the defense of slavery.
I agree and understand that there aren't many parallels between the situation in modern day Quebec and 1860's U.S... Regardless, assuming the vote went to a popular majority voti in each of the Confederate States do you not think that the majority if not all would have favoured secession? I can't imagine millions of southerners going to war with the north and millions dying for 4 long bloody years as anything but.. If the will of the people in each State at the time was respected (regardless of the moral atrocities that constituted slavery) I think we'd be looking at a very different U.S.. Quite simply, the North took back the south with force - a democratic vote was simply not on the table and Lincoln certainly didn't offer that solution up to the people of the south and I actually agree - slavery was a horrendous human attrocity.. As for Quebec independence, it hinges on what is detailed in the Clarity act.
What would be the requirements for a State to secede in modern day U.S? Say Texas wanted to give the big finger to the U.S and the majority of Texans wanted a referendum.. What would happen?
I agree and understand that there aren't many parallels between the situation in modern day Quebec and 1860's U.S... Regardless, assuming the vote went to a popular majority voti in each of the Confederate States do you not think that the majority if not all would have favoured secession? I can't imagine millions of southerners going to war with the north and millions dying for 4 long bloody years as anything but.. If the will of the people in each State at the time was respected (regardless of the moral atrocities that constituted slavery) I think we'd be looking at a very different U.S.. Quite simply, the North took back the south with force - a democratic vote was simply not on the table and Lincoln certainly didn't offer that solution up to the people of the south and I actually agree - slavery was a horrendous human attrocity.. As for Quebec independence, it hinges on what is detailed in the Clarity act.
What would be the requirements for a State to secede in modern day U.S? Say Texas wanted to give the big finger to the U.S and the majority of Texans wanted a referendum.. What would happen?
If Quebec in 1838, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland actually had a choice, Canada would look very different. Quebec was actually trying to join the US, then wanted independence, and then was forced into Canada. There were no referendums back then. Nova Scotia also tried to join the US, then Newfoundland did the same. What if is a pointless game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Regardless, assuming the vote went to a popular majority voti in each of the Confederate States do you not think that the majority if not all would have favoured secession?
Wait, you really that in popular referendum the millions of blacks who were 50% of the southern population would have voted to be slaves in the CSA?? That's a line of thinking you rarely hear.
I agreed that the parallels are just not there with what happened in the 1800's vs what does and should happen in the 21st century.. I'm just saying if the majority of the population at any given time's views were respected in a popular vote democratically - the nations that we know of today would be very different including the U.S itself..
If you read a further post I actually agreed with Lincoln going to war with the south and in particular because of the horrendous conditions that were experienced by the slaves, though I don't think that was his only motivation.. As for the slave vote - even if it were counted they only represented a 1/4 of the souths population at the advent of the Civil War so their vote would not have been enough.
If you read a further post I actually agreed with Lincoln going to war with the south and in particular because of the horrendous conditions that were experienced by the slaves, though I don't think that was his only motivation.. As for the slave vote - even if it were counted they only represented a 1/4 of the souths population at the advent of the Civil War so their vote would not have been enough.
Blacks were 40% of the population of the CSA. In the original seven Confederate states, blacks were the majority in Mississippi and South Carolina (the state the sparked the whole movement), and were anywhere from 40-50% of the population in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana. Of the original Confederate states, only Texas had a black population of under 40%. It is logical that in a popular vote these states would have stayed in the USA. Hardly any blacks would vote to be slaves in the CSA, and it is a safe bet that at least1/3 whites would support the USA in most of these states, just like they did under arms in the many Unionist regiments of the US army. Poor whites were not nearly as enthusiastic to establish a slave republic as the planter elites were. The reason why the CSA mustered so many men is because the planters enforced the first draft in American history. Even still, up to half of the Confederate army deserted.
It should also be noted that Louisiana was NOT primarily settled by people from Quebec. Its French population was mostly Creoles with roots in the French Caribbean, with a minority Acadian population, who were from Acadia, the modern day Maritime provinces, not Quebec. Their society was relatively racially tolerant, mercantile, and urban when compared to the agrarian, rural, slave based American Southern society they were absorbed by, and it was the Southern migrants who were secessionists who identified strongly with slavery as an issue, not the original French colonists.
What again is the difference between Cajuns and Creoles? I know Cajuns are/were mostly rural folks, but are Creoles always multiracial (but either urban or rural) or is that a misconception?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
