A British California after Trent

The Gunslinger

I think an independent pro-British California is far more likely than a straight British one.

BUT, should it become British, I think that when Canada confederates (1867), there will likely be 2 dominions formed. The Canada we know and love, and a Pacific dominion that encompasses California, British Columbia and Vancouver Island. British Columbia wasn't overly keen on Confederation to begin with.

If the Civil War involves the British, the French also probably join. So now you've got British ships up the Californian coast, Sibley running around in the SW (in OTL, his campaign is almost hilariously bad IMHO), and the French coming up from Mexico. With Emperor Max being the navally inclined man that he is, maybe the British give Mexico San Diego and the Gadsden purchase region to shore up his reign.
 

kent

Where do you get your facts from? Some dime novel? California was PRO-UNION there were no more than 100-200 Confederate minded in the southern portaion of the state. California was able to raise forces that
were sent to Yuma AZ to help protect the area. Just about every male and some females owed personnel weapons. Had your all powerful Red Coats landed after taking and distroying the forts in San Francisco Bay. They would have had to fight street by street. I think you should get a better grip on just how much an attack by the Bloody British would have inflamed the American population. The killings would go on for a long time.




67th Tigers said:
I take it your unfamiliar with the fact that due to the extreme pro-Confederate sympathies of the population all the weapons (not that many of them, most were shipped eastwards in 1861) were placed on Alcatraz Island to prevent their seizure by pro-Confederate militias?
Click to expand...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
kent said:
Where do you get your facts from? Some dime novel? California was PRO-UNION there were no more than 100-200 Confederate minded in the southern portaion of the state. California was able to raise forces that
were sent to Yuma AZ to help protect the area. Just about every male and some females owed personnel weapons. Had your all powerful Red Coats landed after taking and distroying the forts in San Francisco Bay. They would have had to fight street by street. I think you should get a better grip on just how much an attack by the Bloody British would have inflamed the American population. The killings would go on for a long time.
Click to expand...

I see. How do you explain 33,969 votes for Breckinridge and 9,111 for Bell? Seems at least 42,000 "Confederate" voters were in the state.

The idea that the population was heavily armed is a myth I'm afraid. The idea that they'd fight a war to the knife is frankly insane. It never happened in 1775-83, or 1812-15, or 1861-65. Americans just aren't that way inclined.

Dime novel? That's your world.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
MAlexMatt said:
That study was bullshit and it's been proven to you several times.

Please don't tell me you're still spouting that shit.
Click to expand...

One of many I'm afraid.

What was this putative heavily armed population carrying? Musket? Repeaters? AK-47's? You know California had quite strict gun controls?

There was a reason why the US (and CS) had serious difficult arming 200-300,000 men each in the first year of the war, even with the existing military arms stocks.

Take Samuel Clemens (Mark Twains) experiences in Aurora (Nevada Territory) as an example. In the town there were two groups, one pro-Union/ "state of Nevada" (inc. Clemens) and one pro-Confederate/ state of California. Neither side had any guns and so the whole thing was academic, there were some violent clashes but no shootings. The matter was settled when a California Volunteer Cavalry troop under Lt Noble arrived and distributed 50 muskets to the loyalists in the town. They now had guns and the pro-Confederates didn't.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
67th Tigers said:
One of many I'm afraid.

What was this putative heavily armed population carrying? Musket? Repeaters? AK-47's? You know California had quite strict gun controls?

There was a reason why the US (and CS) had serious difficult arming 200-300,000 men each in the first year of the war, even with the existing military arms stocks.

Take Samuel Clemens (Mark Twains) experiences in Aurora (Nevada Territory) as an example. In the town there were two groups, one pro-Union/ "state of Nevada" (inc. Clemens) and one pro-Confederate/ state of California. Neither side had any guns and so the whole thing was academic, there were some violent clashes but no shootings. The matter was settled when a California Volunteer Cavalry troop under Lt Noble arrived and distributed 50 muskets to the loyalists in the town. They now had guns and the pro-Confederates didn't.
Click to expand...

Tiny sample size.

Incomplete narrative.

Next.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
67th Tigers said:
So, where is your evidence? If it's well established you should be able to back it up.
Click to expand...

If you are making the claim that something is a myth, you better be able to back up its mythological status, instead of dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof.
 

kent

You seem to think that a vote for Breckinridge was also a vote for the
Confederate idea of breaking the Union. In so far as weapons
you are wrong. The population was armed. many with sidearms most with some type of rifle. I agree not in the city it's self but the greater population was in the Sacramento Valley, and the Mines in the Seirra's.
The population of San Francisco had sidearms. They just did not carry them openly.
Study more about life in California in the 1860's.
As far as the war to the knife, tell that to the Torries during the original Reveolution., tell it also to the Native Americans, Be sure to tell it to the British who marched back to Boston from Concord.



67th Tigers said:
I see. How do you explain 33,969 votes for Breckinridge and 9,111 for Bell? Seems at least 42,000 "Confederate" voters were in the state.

The idea that the population was heavily armed is a myth I'm afraid. The idea that they'd fight a war to the knife is frankly insane. It never happened in 1775-83, or 1812-15, or 1861-65. Americans just aren't that way inclined.

Dime novel? That's your world.
Click to expand...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
kent said:
You seem to think that a vote for Breckinridge was also a vote for the
Confederate idea of breaking the Union. In so far as weapons
you are wrong. The population was armed. many with sidearms most with some type of rifle. I agree not in the city it's self but the greater population was in the Sacramento Valley, and the Mines in the Seirra's.
The population of San Francisco had sidearms. They just did not carry them openly.
Study more about life in California in the 1860's.
As far as the war to the knife, tell that to the Torries during the original Reveolution., tell it also to the Native Americans, Be sure to tell it to the British who marched back to Boston from Concord.
Click to expand...

Armed?

Numbers? Colt had sold about 10,000 pistols (excluding military contracts) to 1861. How many of these are in California? What other pistols? Old smoothbore muzzleloaders? What?

Rifles? What type? How many?

The contemporary accounts show that there was a lack of arms in the Californian population except for government arms. Why are the pro-Confederate militia of the southern six counties appealing to AS Johnston to open Benicia arsenal to them if they have plenty of guns themselves? Bernica at the time the war broke out contained:

14,649 M1816 muskets altered to percussion, .69
4,107 M1816 muskets altered to Maynard locks, .69
2,650 M1842 percussion muskets, .69
19,812 M1842/55 percussion muskets altered to rifling, .69
7,252 M1855 rifle-muskets, .58
4,574 M1841 rifle, .54

Most of the earlier weapons were unservicible, and on the outbreak of the war 30,000 stand of arms (including virtually all the modern rifle-muskets) were shipped east to the Union Army via a steamer. Of the remaining 10,000 stand of arms (i.e. what remained after issues to new volunteer regiments) Johnston had them moved to Alcatraz Island to keep them out of the Confederates hands. Such was his sense of duty. He could have flung open the doors to the Confederates and established the Confederate Territory of Colorado overnight. He didn't.

The Californian population was not "heavily armed". This prevented a spread of the violence of the Civil War into the state and so must be regarded as a good thing.

You do know the difference between a militia armed with government weapons (such as those at Lexington, the Government troops were ordered to confiscate Government arms seized illegally) and the general population?
 

Darth Revan

67th Tigers said:
I see. How do you explain 33,969 votes for Breckinridge and 9,111 for Bell? Seems at least 42,000 "Confederate" voters were in the state.

The idea that the population was heavily armed is a myth I'm afraid. The idea that they'd fight a war to the knife is frankly insane. It never happened in 1775-83, or 1812-15, or 1861-65. Americans just aren't that way inclined.

Dime novel? That's your world.
Click to expand...

No offense, by your argument is total bullshit. By the same logic, Maryland had a population that would be 90% Confederate (since 90% of the population voted for Breckenridge or Bell).

Moreover, when you are trying to disproved what is widely credited to be a fact , the burden of proof is on you. That is not even considering the fact that you have a history of misquoting historical documents and books. As usual, your process of fit the data to your own biased "hail britannia" methodology rears its ugly head.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Darth Revan said:
No offense, by your argument is total bullshit. By the same logic, Maryland had a population that would be 90% Confederate (since 90% of the population voted for Breckenridge or Bell).
Click to expand...

Which is why a swift military occupation was necessary and forestalled secession.
 

kent

Pro-Confederate Militia in the six southern countries is/was a myth created by revisonist historans who thought if only Southern California had seprated and gone with the South. Was not going to happen. Again I think you had better study California history a little better. There were attempts by a few a very, very few to have Sourthern California seperate. they were laughed down. Had they tried their revolt would have been short lived. Colt was not the only maker of small arms. Smoothbore muzzleloaders did just fine when used in an ambush.
As for possible reinforcements for California. Have you forgotten the Morman Brigade that along with Militia from Colorado moved into Arizona and New Mexico? Or the Oregon Militia? There were also troops at Fort Humbolt that were used to control the Native Americans. As well as the Third Cav. Regiment at Yuma.




67th Tigers said:
Armed?

Numbers? Colt had sold about 10,000 pistols (excluding military contracts) to 1861. How many of these are in California? What other pistols? Old smoothbore muzzleloaders? What?

Rifles? What type? How many?

The contemporary accounts show that there was a lack of arms in the Californian population except for government arms. Why are the pro-Confederate militia of the southern six counties appealing to AS Johnston to open Benicia arsenal to them if they have plenty of guns themselves? Bernica at the time the war broke out contained:

14,649 M1816 muskets altered to percussion, .69
4,107 M1816 muskets altered to Maynard locks, .69
2,650 M1842 percussion muskets, .69
19,812 M1842/55 percussion muskets altered to rifling, .69
7,252 M1855 rifle-muskets, .58
4,574 M1841 rifle, .54

Most of the earlier weapons were unservicible, and on the outbreak of the war 30,000 stand of arms (including virtually all the modern rifle-muskets) were shipped east to the Union Army via a steamer. Of the remaining 10,000 stand of arms (i.e. what remained after issues to new volunteer regiments) Johnston had them moved to Alcatraz Island to keep them out of the Confederates hands. Such was his sense of duty. He could have flung open the doors to the Confederates and established the Confederate Territory of Colorado overnight. He didn't.

The Californian population was not "heavily armed". This prevented a spread of the violence of the Civil War into the state and so must be regarded as a good thing.

You do know the difference between a militia armed with government weapons (such as those at Lexington, the Government troops were ordered to confiscate Government arms seized illegally) and the general population?
Click to expand...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
kent said:
As for possible reinforcements for California. Have you forgotten the Morman Brigade that along with Militia from Colorado moved into Arizona and New Mexico? Or the Oregon Militia? There were also troops at Fort Humbolt that were used to control the Native Americans. As well as the Third Cav. Regiment at Yuma.
Click to expand...

What Mormon brigade is that then? Show me a reference. I am aware that the US has just finished putting down a Mormon secession attempt.

I have not forgot Colorado's 9 companies.

At the time of the Trent Affair Oregon had no militia and had organised no units.

Fort Humboldt? 30 bayonets of infantry (Coy B, 4th US)

Fort Yuma? 60 bayonets of infantry? (Coy E, 4th US and Coy C, 6th US)

See http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/447/Department of the Pacific June 30th 1861.pdf

You're clutching at straws. A few infantry companies hundreds of miles east of the Rockies.
 

Darth Revan

67th Tigers said:
Which is why a swift military occupation was necessary and forestalled secession.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you want to argue that a state that sent 60,000 to fight for the union cause is 90% confederate, far be it me to stop you. Oh, I won't argue that there were not sympathies for the Confederacy in the state, (after Lincoln did find it necessary to declare martial law), but in the end it sent soldiers in a 2:1 ratio to fight to preserve, not destroy, the union.That is not an action of a state that is 90% confederate.

The mormons are no more likelier to turn coat. There WAS significant concern that the Young might try something in the civil war to the point that soldiers were sent to make sure that didn't happen. The concern was however totally unjustified, as seen by the fact that the said soldiers spent the entire time fighting indians.
 

kent

The Mormon Battalion (sorry I said Brigade before) was part of the Utah terrority effort to support the Union. Authorized by the Leadership of the Mormon Church, to show their loyalty to the Union, There was no Mormon Secesssion attempt. In the 1850's a small band of Mormon zelots staged a raid and massacre of a small wagon train, then tried to blame the Ute Indians. This force of zelots was in fact turned over on Order of Brigham Young. Your History knowledge of the Western United States
is just as bad as your lack of real knowledge of the Civil War. You still think that the Little Napoleon was a great military General who single handly saved the Union.


67th Tigers said:
What Mormon brigade is that then? Show me a reference. I am aware that the US has just finished putting down a Mormon secession attempt.

I have not forgot Colorado's 9 companies.

At the time of the Trent Affair Oregon had no militia and had organised no units.

Fort Humboldt? 30 bayonets of infantry (Coy B, 4th US)

Fort Yuma? 60 bayonets of infantry? (Coy E, 4th US and Coy C, 6th US)

See http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/447/Department of the Pacific June 30th 1861.pdf

You're clutching at straws. A few infantry companies hundreds of miles east of the Rockies.
Click to expand...
 

kent

Also Yama AZ and Euraka California (home to Fort Humbolt are not EAST of the Rockies.

Please explain how Oregon managed to put down two Indian uprisings
One in and around Kalamath Falls and Modoc (in California) and the other in Eastern Oregon by the Idaho/Navada border if they had no military force.

Your constant half-truths, out right false hoods and misquoting makes me realize that you set on one idea, and twist facts to match it. Sorry I will no longer be one of your foils, I will not respond to any of your posts.



67th Tigers said:
What Mormon brigade is that then? Show me a reference. I am aware that the US has just finished putting down a Mormon secession attempt.

I have not forgot Colorado's 9 companies.

At the time of the Trent Affair Oregon had no militia and had organised no units.

Fort Humboldt? 30 bayonets of infantry (Coy B, 4th US)

Fort Yuma? 60 bayonets of infantry? (Coy E, 4th US and Coy C, 6th US)

See http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/447/Department of the Pacific June 30th 1861.pdf

You're clutching at straws. A few infantry companies hundreds of miles east of the Rockies.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top