Talk:Canada in the American Civil War
That is not quite accurate.
"In the end, the government followed what it believed to be the will of the people, which was predominately pro-Northern in sympathy, particularly (and this defied all theories of economic determinism) in those areas hit hardest by the cotton shortage." (craig. "europe, 1815-1914") --Fellnearshiva 09:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The final sentence looks misleading to me in that it refers to the unelected [Canadian] Senate. In 1867 the US Senate was also unelected in the contemporary sense of the word. Direct popular election of US Senators dates from 1913. -- Alan Peakall 13:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, just quickly reading the article myself, I'm struck by the fact it claims that Canada was largely sympathetic to the South, and then says thousands of Canadians fought for the North, and few if any fought for the South. Could somebody with a bit more knowledge maybe clean up those two statements so they don't appear to contradict each other? Much thanks Sherurcij 13:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The logical conclusion is that it's a simple matter of geography -- regardless of how the governing, political, or intellectual class in Canada felt, or how the prevailing sentiment throughout the country went, obviously individuals on the border (who would have the strongest ties with their neighbors overall) would have far stronger ties in the north than in the south. If you assume that most of the Canadians who enlisted did so because of bonds with friends or family, it's not that much of a surprise that they tended to enlist with the north. I don't know where you'd look for information about this, though... --Aquillion (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"If the conflict had continued to escalate Canada would have been the first target of Union forces."
Where did that gem of knowledge sprout from? In terms of the first paragraph there is a large logical gap between there being tensions between Canada and the Union states and that sentence I mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting "Effect of the American Civil War upon British North America"
I'm going to delete the section "Effect of the American Civil War upon British North America" because I don't think there is a way to bring up to Wikipedia standards. I see from the article history that it was originally in the American Civil War article, then cut and pasted to this article, presumably because the editors were having problems with it in its original place. It doesn't have citations, and it has a vague odour of original research or at least a novel synthesis of historical facts. It also wanders way off the topic at hand, "Canada in the American Civil War", but I can't see a way of cutting out the off-topic stuff without making it more incoherent than it already is. Indefatigable (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To whom was Canada sympathetic?
In the beginning of this article it states that Canada was sympathetic to the union because it was largely against slavery. However, the line directly after that says Quebec media supported secession. This line seems a little out of place. If Canada is supportive of the union proof should be given after that line is said instead of proof that Canada *wasn't* entirely supportive.
- "Canadians were largely opposed to slavery, the preservation of which was one of the main goals of the Confederate States of America, and Canada had recently become the terminus of the Underground Railroad. Close economic and cultural links across the long border also encouraged Canadian sympathy towards the Union. The conservative Catholic press in Quebec supported the secession and ridiculed the Yankees as lacking in morality."
Furthermore, there's a section called "Confederate Activity in Canada", which states:
- "Because of Canada's location and sympathy for the Southern cause, Confederate operators secretly used Canada as a base"
So which is it? Are we sympathetic to the north or the south? If it's both, should the article say "opinion on the matter was divided"? Or should these lines be removed altogether? As this article currently stands it's rather contradictory and a little confusing. Instead of saying "Canada was sympathetic" or "Canada wasn't sympathetic" perhaps it's best to divide these sentences in to saying *which* parts of Canada were and were not sympathetic to the cause of the north/ south. Saying "Canada" implies some sort of consensus. This article seems to state that there was none. Celynn (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)