La Résistance(3)

The author has waffled on the issue of garrisoning Canada. First he claims there was no need to do so, then he creates four military posts and gives them over 16,000 troops to do the occupying. Having repeatedly denied the need for the Union to garrison the Canadian population, claiming that the Provisional Government could do it themselves, he then recants that statement and in Chapter 14 turns around and puts a reinforced division charged with garrisoning Canada in 1862-63.

Of course, as established before, there should be an overwhelming number of loyalists compared to rebels, and so the Union should have a much stiffer job with the Canadians than portrayed. This means either a much more robust formation of militia than portrayed, or at the very least a larger resistance movement in the rear.
Of course, instead we seem to get a lackluster fizzle.

What is interesting is this portrayal of a Canadian Loyalist versus an American Loyalist in 1863:

Two men, one in a blue uniform with a major general’s silver stars on his shoulders, the other in civilian dress, faced each other across a table in the commanding general’s office. The civilian’s compatriots were being held elsewhere in the Barracks, or a half-mile to the east at Fort York. The officer’s subordinates had been dismissed. This conversation was to be private. 

The man in blue, a short, wiry man in his sixties, leaned forward, elbows on the table and placed his chin in his hands. He spoke with the accent of the land, far to the south, where he had been born six decades earlier. 

“Suh, Ah know you are involved in this; you are a man of great importance in this country, a distinguished reh-tard offisuh, and a man of honor,” the general said. “And Ah alsuh know this sort of woah holds no honor, for you or anyone else … train-wrecking, bushwhacking men at their ease, pulling yur own countrymen out of their beds and having them disappeah, forevah … this is not the soht of woah you or Ah were taught to fight.” 

The man in civilian dress, two decades the general’s senior but still slender and vigorous, shook his head. “No, general, it is not how I was taught in the Royal Navy, or how you, I daresay, were taught at West Point,” he said with a thin smile. “And yet here you are in my country, uninvited.” 

“Captin, this woah is not muh doing, nor that of mah guv’mint,” the general said. “Yuh people intervened, jining with the rebels, and attacked mah country … yuh-all fard the first shot on the northern bohduh, not mine.” 

“Be that as it may, sir, my country has had more than enough provocation; from the Bahama Channel to the-“ 

His antagonist broke in:

“The Bahama Channel? Seems yur man fard first there, as well; and what of Saint Albans, and the Coaticook Valley, and Fort Montgomery? Those were redcoats invading New York, not our boys going north-“ 

“And yet you are here now, in my country, are you not? The people of Canada West did not ask for this war-“ 

“And neither did the people of Kentucky, but war came; oh did it evah, captin, and much to mah sorrow-" 

“Yes, and you stood aside from it when it began in ’61; why not when this began in ’62?” the civilian – the “captain” - asked. 

“Because when one’s country is attacked by a foreign power, any true patriot cannot stand by-“ the general began, but was interrupted: 

“Exactly, my good sir – so how can you expect any of us to stand by with your troops in our streets, and those puppets of yours, the Frenchies in Ottawa and Montreal-“ the captain began, but was interrupted in turn. 

“Those “puppets” as you call them are patriots in their own light, and in mine; fighting against a government of lords appointed over them-“ the general started, but was again interrupted: 

“Yes, and back in the States, where you have slaves, would you call them patriots if they rebelled against their masters, including in Kentucky-“ the captain began: 

“ENOUGH,” the general said, slamming a fist on the table. “You are my prisoner, suh, and I suggest you comport yourself as such … given your concern for the coloreds, in fact, you should be glad to know there are two brigades of them on the way to Upper Canada, one from the Lakes and the other from the Ohio. They are quite eager to be at those who are supporting the rebellion, and slavery, and who ally with those who execute men in uniform when made prisoner because of their color … now, the northern colored, they’re civilized enough, Ah suppose, like yuh own here in Upper Canada. But the ones from down south, the escaped slaves? They are not so genteel … especially, I heah, when it comes to womenfolk…”

The most curious thing here of course isn't that the atrociously accented Kentuckian dominates the conversation, but how now we get some answers. Apparently Rinaldo fired first in the Bahama Channel Incident (honestly unlikely) but that's how the author wants to portray it. We also have some semantics over patriotism, but that's mostly real life. Mind you, the Canadian makes a rather difficult point that he is fighting a foreign invasion while his counterpart sat out the civil insurrection. Though the author clearly desires the Americans to maintain the moral high ground as see:

“You know, because of this little woah rebellion you-all have tried to cook up, I’ve had to ask General Buell for more reinforcements; about double what I have in the District today. So along with the two colored brigades, Ah’m getting two more of infantry from General Fremont’s Northwest District, men from Minnesota and Wisconsin who just finished putting down the Sioux – and they saw first hand what those savages did to white women and children. Ah doubt they’ll have much sympathy for woah rebels who wreck trains and kill wounded men, even if they’re white… and ah got a whole brigade of Illini cavalry coming in, as well, who have been facing the rebs down south in Tennessee and Kentucky. They’ve lost enough friends to Enfields and Whitworths; they won’t hold back, neither…”

Evidently the Canadian rebels have taken to killing wounded men for kicks. Considering the war here hasn't been especially brutal or long, and the derailing of the train would probably accomplish all that and more, I can't see why the Canadians would be invested enough to stick around and murder people at a train wreck beyond the author wanting them to look worse.

Though of course in response the one Canadian present makes another rather valid point:

“So this is the reality, despite all the fine words from your president,” he said. “War to the knife? War against women and children?”

War to the knife against women and children over the derailment of a troop train is a mite excessive anyone would agree. But don't worry, it's all relative when compared to the British:

“And wat sort of woah did Tecumsey fight, back in 18 and 13, when he was Britain’s greatest ally? What did the British do at Olympia? Hell, you all blew rebel Indians from the mouths of guns in ‘57, and did the same to the Chinamen in ’60,” the Kentuckian said. “The president is a lawyer, and a political man; Ahm’ a soldier – as are you. How many rebels were executed in ’37 and ’38?”

Tecumseh, whom Pratt fought against, was not an especially savage person. He never tolerated the practice of killing women and children, and treated prisoners humanely. One may contrast this of course with the routine massacre of Indians indiscriminately by the US government. So the irony of an American berating the British for the mistreatment of Indians is a tad rich.

However, debating the morality of nations is not an argument that can be won, despite what the author would like to do here. The British are clearly more "evil" for their executions while the Americans are "right" in theirs. While it's pointless to engage in debating the morality of nation states, we can do a quick numbers comparison for the sake of the author.

Number of rebels executed in the aftermath of the Rebellions of 1837-38: 32

For comparisons sake let's look at the fate of the Saint Patrick Battalion from the Mexican American War, men who took up arms against the United States: 50 (I would use the Civil War, but no one really knows how many people were executed for treason by either side, whether it be for espionage or other means)

Evidently the British are far more lenient than they are portrayed in the sheer numbers game the author wants to play in terms of morality.

Moving on from the quagmire of the morality of this all we end this little interlude with the good captains son being spared execution as the captain gives up information in exchange for his sons life. We then get in to the meat of this chapter.

First compare this statement:

Worth noting, of course, is that once Montreal was firmly in U.S. hands – and with the short distance between Montreal and Plattsburgh, the time of year the war broke out, and the weakness of the British military forces in the Canadas, the outcome of the winter campaign had hardly been in doubt - the geography of Upper and Lower Canada lent itself to the American desire to avoid a costly occupation. With clear supply lines north from Albany to Montreal through largely-Francophone Canada East, the Americans had no need to occupy the Anglophone-majority Canada West districts. Once the British military presence had been removed, the vast majority of American troops moved east to Lower Canada or New England, and the Department of the Lakes, now commanded by Major General Don Carlos Buell, remained headquartered in Detroit. Other than the handful of fortified posts on the border, the Americans happily left policing in Upper Canada to the Provisional Government, now established in Ottawa.

With this:

Pratt’s command initially included 15 regiments of infantry and four of cavalry, split into the equivalent of four reinforced brigades, with headquarters at London, Toronto, Kingston, and Prescott. The organization had worked reasonably well over the summer and fall, especially as economic activity, fueled by U.S. greenbacks, picked up, and the harvest was brought in: the outcome of the battle of Berthierville in September, although very close-run, was another shock to the loyalists.

More than a bit of a discrepancy.

We should note though, that the Union now carry out what amounts to the perfect pacification campaign:

By winter, however, the British blockade was beginning to tell, and the inability of the provisional government and Grant’s army to force a decision in Lower Canada led to grumbling and more overt opposition. This, in turn, engendered a more active resistance movement among the loyalists, which in turn led to various acts of sabotage and sniping, which led to retaliation by the Americans and the largely Francophone Provisional Government militia. Much of the sabotage campaign was focused on the Grand Trunk; most of the efforts were minor, but one had led to the wreck of a troop train in November that took the life of Col. Wendell Phillips, a Lincoln confidant and advocate of civil rights for the Indians. The incident had done little except engender even more bitterness toward the British; Phillips’ regiment, the 53rd New York, originally recruited as a largely Francophone Zoauve unit in 1861, had been re-christened “Le Vengeurs” and filled by a mix of Indians and Francophones from the United States and British North America.
The 53rd was sent on to Grant’s army in Lower Canada, distinguishing itself at Arthabaska under the command of Lt. Col. Ely Parker, a full-blooded Seneca; Pratt’s troops had been left to deal with the aftermath, which the Kentuckian had done with a vengeance and winning his sobriquet. Anglophones had been dismissed from the USMRR and replaced by Francophones and men brought north from the States; blockhouses had been built along the tracks and garrisoned; towns and villages that bordered the tracks in close terrain had been emptied; and, in the end, hostages had been taken.
The British raids continued, led, it was said, by a pair of veterans of the Royal Canadian Rifles, operating behind the lines and with the support of a varied band of loyalists, mostly recalcitrant militia officers and Orangemen who had surrendered in 1862, given their parole, and faded into the countryside. These two men, known amongst loyalists as “Captain Sharpe” and “Rifleman Dodd,” appeared to be everywhere; not unlike their Irish Catholic antecedent from the previous century, “Captain Moonlight,” what were obvious nomes’de-guerre became shorthand for a variety of incidents, from legitimate acts of partisan warfare to civilian feuds based on overlapping claims to land, squatters rights, religion, and ancient feuds dating to the 1700s.

As it was, as the defenses on the railroad increased, for example, the families of Canadians, Francophone or Anglophone, who served with the Americans were targeted, with men being pulled from their homes to disappear among the snowy woods and icy marshes of Upper Canada; such tactics led to larger numbers of Francophones and Anglophones to join the ranks of the Provisional Government’s militia and the Canadian Volunteers serving in Grant’s and Buell’s departments. The end result was that by late in the winter of 1862, the western district of the province had, as far as weather allowed, seen a significant breakdown in law and order.

Pratt, who had been careful in his actions beforehand, reacted by declaring martial law early in the year and placed several captured raiders before military tribunals. British soldiers found out of uniform were executed; Canadians, quite calculatedly, were not, instead being imprisoned with suspended death sentences. After several such trials and a series of raids against “rebel” targets, the district calmed down.

Two things should be noted here. The first is that the Americans are apparently perfect in their actions, only executing British soldiers found out of uniform, and keeping the Canadians on suspended death sentences. Just how this distinction is properly made and no atrocities are carried out by the occupiers is blithely ignored, if only because it is impossible. One could write a book on the horrors of an occupying army, and the Union would be no exception, and indeed were not when it came to subduing their rebellious countrymen. Just as Ivan Turchin. That's not to say the Canadians are more "moral" but portraying one army as lacking in depredation and depicting the other as the exact opposite borders the realm of fantasy.

The second which we must note is that there are people joining the Provisional Government militia and Canadian Volunteers. Once again no real specifications, especially not in how the Provisional Government would pay or organize such a force. Though since the author has done a complete 180 on the matter and had the Union itself take over the policing of Canada this problem is neatly solved.

The greatest oddity though is that all this seems to take place in the Western portion of the Province, which is a curious thing. This level of violence is almost completely unknown in Canadian history, and problems with land claims and squatters rights dating back to the 1700s seems more like it would be an issue in Canada East, where grievances dated back to that century. The reason that there is no Canadian guerrilla activity against the Union in Canada East is not explained, when surely there would be. The bonds of Loyalism run deep, and as examined before, the potential pro-American rebels held sway in only a small geographic area.

This section though is off, if not due to the inconsistency in the narrative itself, from how much the author seeks to contrast how moral the Union is compared to the British. For a 19th century person some of this might seem ok from their propaganda perspective, but to a 21st century reader it grates a tad. This seems more like the author's personal bias though, as it isn't history.

Either way the chapter concludes with:

The partisan campaign did have an impact, however, no matter how short its duration: at one point in the winter, Pratt had no less than 40,000 troops under his command, including nine brigades of infantry and two of cavalry.

The Canadians it seems, aren't even capable of mounting a guerrilla campaign in earnest when faced with the power of the Union, while the Union can summon more resources with a wave of the hand.

In any case, the authors view of Canadian resolve and loyalty is rather one sided, as portrayed in parts one and two.