Let's wait until the appeal in CUP vs Becker before we decide that, though I'm fairly certain even that is limited to "students enrolled at my institution" and not "some guys I met on a website". Don't get me wrong, there's nothing I can do to stop you helping people pirate material: I just thought that someone as keen on peer-reviewed work as you are might have an interest in the continued financial viability of the model.It's called fair use for academic purposes
Actually, that was you. Remember?you brought up Ripley's report in the OR as if the Ordnance Department was the end all and be all of US sources of supply.
You told us to look at the report, and we did, and we saw an awful lot of foreign weapons on there, and questioned whether there might have been any issues trying to get those through the blockade. Then you told us to look at the reports of the adjutants general for Maine and New York. So we looked at New York, and we found an awful lot of muskets in 1861 and an awful lot of foreign rifles in 1862. Then you told us to forget New York and look really really hard at Maine, but by that time we were looking at Massachusetts and New Jersey and Indiana and seeing no reason to challenge the conclusion that the US was scraping the bottom of the barrel for weapons in 1861 and heavily reliant on British and European arms in 1862. It was at that point, I think, that you started moving phantom armies around the map and ignoring awkward questions like "if the news of Britain's response to the Trent made the people of New York take a million dollars a day out of the banks, what's going to happen when war breaks out and paper currency comes in?"Check the OR, notably BG J.W. Ripley's report for FY 1861-62
Indeed, and the result in 1861 was as I've posted- very little. Oh, I'll grant you that progress was made in 1862: but against a foe with no industry, no manpower, under blockade, which embarked on the war with a grand total of 1,765 .58 rifles, with the North subsequently being forced to call out another 300,000 men and invaded to boot- well, if I was Lincoln I wouldn't have broken out the champagne at that point.successful mobilizations can be judged by the results they have on the battlefield
Again, your rhetoric crumbles in the face of the facts. The Quebequois had no desire to trade an indifferent British overlord for the rapacious ultra-Protestant capitalists to the South. On the 29th December, the day news of the Union's caving in arrived, the good Catholics of Montreal were hearing a sermon reminding them of the heroes of Chateauguay (their bishop having offered his palace to the troops as accommodation). Quebec seems to have been more interested in Southern chivalry and traditionalism than repelled by their slavery: see Preston Jones, "Civil War, Culture War: French Quebec and the American War between the States", The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 87, no. 1 (Jan, 2001). You'll excuse me if I don't post a copy here for you.Vive le Quebec Libre en 1862! Tre bon...
Oh, I could talk about my academic background and my publication history, but the point of a pseudonymous website is that, in theory, it forces you to play the ball and not the man- though some still find it difficult to leave their egos at the door. However, I never said I wouldn't write you your peer-reviewed history: I just need you to do me a favour first. Nip over to the National Archives and dig out a copy of the Union war plan for Canada in 1862, would you? You know the one- it explains where they were going to find the troops, how they were going to put weapons in their hands, avoid economic collapse from the blockade, persuade those New Yorkers to put the $17,000,000 back in the banks, solve the saltpetre shortage, defeat the Royal Navy, invade Canada and beat the Confederacy. It's the one with the note at the bottom in Lincoln's handwriting saying "Better not, it'll put Harry Harrison out of a job: let's just back down instead."As far as the rest goes, you realize what I suggested you try and write was a summary of the likely British expeditionary force in BNA in 1862, not a putative AEF, right? So with that demonstration as evidence, and after reading your latest "labour", I understand why you'd be reluctant to write something for publication under peer review - enough said.
I'd love to discuss this further, but I think you've well and truly shot your bolt in terms of facts and I'm very much more interested than those than the baseless speculation. If you do come up with any, though, let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing you over in the post-1900 forum arguing that if war had broken out between Britain and America in 1915, all Britain had to do to win was cancel the Loos offensive and dig a few Lee-Metfords out of storage.