The Fenian Brotherhood was formed in the US in 1858, a partner organization to the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The groups were militant organizations looking to procure Irish independence from the British, and they found significant support among the Irish-American immigrant community. In November 1865 they purchased some 7500 1861 and 1863 pattern muskets left over from Civil War production, and used them to invade Canada in April 1866. The idea was to capture the country and then trade it to the British in exchange for Irish independence…but the invasion went quite badly. The Fenians briefly held Fort Erie, but we pushed out after a few hours and largely arrested by American forces.
The Fenians’ muskets were confiscated, but all returned by the end of 1866 in exchange for promised Irish-American support of embattled President Johnson. By 1868, the group was making plans for another attempt at conquering Canada. This time they would have better arms – the obtained a disused locomotive factory in Trenton NJ and set up the Pioneer Arms Works to convert 5,020 muskets into centerfire Needham Conversion breechloaders. These were given chambers that could fire standard .58 centerfire ammunition, or the .577 Snider ammunition that the Fenians expected to be able to procure once in Canada. Most of the guns also had their stocks cut, to allow them to be packed in shorter crates for transit. These usually have a distinctive “V” cut in the stock, which was spliced back together before use.
When the second invasion came in April 1870, it was again a failure. Only 800-1000 men turned out or the 5,000+ expected. They were scattered among several different muster points on the border, and the Canadians were once again aware of their plans. The most substantial fight was at a place called Eccles Hill, where the Missisiquoi Home Guard was ready and waiting for them with good Ballard rifles. Upon crossing the border, the Fenians were soundly defeated.
This second time, the guns were confiscated and not returned. Instead, the Watervliet Arsenal sold them as surplus in 1871. They were purchased by Schuyler, Hartley & Graham for commercial resale, and thanks to that several hundred remain in collector hands today.
Oh Ian, this Canadian says, please stop suggesting invading Canada has ever been a good idea. There is a border between Canada and the US for a reason! Mostly to remind adventurists to stay south of the line.
Eccles Hill is a national historic site, and quite moving – when you look past the modern houses, roads, utility poles and forests.
Don’t worry. No idiot in the US is considering invading Canada anytime soon. Oh…. ummm..hold on…
Moriarty with the negative waves again.
I honestly can’t see the US invading either Canada or Greenland. Not in terms of “conquest”, anyway.
However, if the stupid bastards running either of those territories refuse to step up to the plate and defend their own sovereignty and allow strategic threats to the United States to base themselves on said territories? Don’t expect the US or its citizens to just look the other way while the process initiates or continues. You want national sovereignty? There are responsibilities attached.
Right now, both the Canadians and Danes are not doing their jobs, when it comes to security in the North. Both nations have been negotiating with China, which would put Chinese footholds/bases well within the footprint of US strategic concern… Just like in Panama.
Y’all can whinge all you want about being your own country, but when you subcontract the majority of your strategic defense responsibility to a neighbor, don’t be awfully surprised when they take that and a threat from outside as license to take you at your words and actions, removing your sovereign rights over the disputed terrain in question.
The current strategic situation of both Canada and Denmark would be analogous to the reverse of the idea of “attractive nuisance”. Y’all have ceded your collective rights in the Arctic; don’t be real surprised when the actual bill-payer for that bullshit calls you on it.
Canada was once a decent strategic partner in the defense of North America. What it is today? A free-loading straphanger whose feckless approach to defending their own territory and interests in the Arctic are a major strategic vulnerability to the entire North American continent.
Someone get the Lifeguard! This guy’s gone off the deep end. And, while you are out, find a grammar teacher to help him use proper English when speaking in public.
As a sovereign country, Denmark can negotiate with China as much as they want, and USA has zero rights to violate their borders.
Since when have ‘rights’ hindered conquest?
Denmark may certainly do as it pleases; Denmark can also pay the price for doing that.
When you sit under a security umbrella that you’re not paying for, it’s neither honorable nor wise to negotiate in order to create a security risk for that provider’s North Atlantic flank.
Denmark is just demonstrating more of the same; lip service and backstabbing. From my sources, the US did not even find out about those mining concession negotiations until very late in the game; they were deliberately concealed from US security. Even if that is untrue, the sheer stupidity of allowing Chinese interests to build anything along the GIUK gap is awe-inspiring in terms of “Wow, who would think…?”
The various minor countries of Europe continue to astonish and demonstrate precisely why they’re minor. And, what’s is most precious of all? The reaction when someone calls them out on their self-serving bullshit.
I’m unaware of the details for certain, but my informant about the potential Chinese concessions claims that those same mining concessions were sought by US and Canadian companies, only to be rebuffed for “reasons”, many of which were supposedly “concern for the environment”. Apparently, the suspicion is that the Chinese spread lots and lots of money all over the Danish government and political scene, resulting in “change”.
All y’all Euro-trash should start budgeting for the US leaving NATO; more and more of actual US citizens, as opposed to politicians, are observing this sort of thing, and wondering “Why are we in this thing…?”
This is the same sort of backstabbing monetization that went on with regards to Iraq: The US goes in to assure world access to Persian Gulf oil, and what immediately happens once we win? “Oh, don’t take out Saddam; sanction him…”
Cue general European high-profit sanction-busting. Which virtually mandated that the US either acquiesce to Saddam running free with his activities by shutting down the no-fly zones (again, insisted on by “all the right people”), or taking him out. The sanctions-busters basically made the invasion of Iraq mandatory by 2003, but you’ll never hear anyone acknowledge that fact or admit to their roles in it all. Anyone besides me remember the whole “Oil for Food” scam, and who profited from it the most…? Oh, that’s right: Sanctimonious asshole European politicians, their friends and families.
Odd how the grand “North Atlantic Alliance” is falling apart, ain’t it?
“but when you subcontract the majority of your strategic defense responsibility to a neighbor, don’t be awfully surprised when they take that and a threat from outside”
If you mean subcontracting to America, I thought America stood for freedom to negotiate with anyone. But in practice America has reacted hostilely to anyone trying to reduce that subcontracting and reclaiming sovereign rights. Look at how much Americans have hated the French because DeGaulle created an independent nuclear deterrent 60 years ago. Look at how much pressure we put on countries like the Philippines during the War On Moslems to return to the US empire of bases. Most of all, look at how we treated Cuba for overthrowing our Mafia and sugar companies. How would we punish Japan if it chose to re-arm and acquire nukes but as a neutral power?
“Sovereign rights” are not generally held to include creating massive security threats to the rest of your already-entered alliances.
Not without consequence to those alliances, that is…
Denmark has a really good deal with regards to NATO; they get a nuclear umbrella, the ability to get by with a relatively tiny military, and all the ancillary benefits like the US securing their worldwide access to free trade and energy. Danes aren’t having to send their young men off to the Red Sea in order to ensure that the tankers keep flowing their oil and other goods that they can’t get at home.
This would, in a sensible world, imply that Denmark know which side of the bread their butter is on, and refrain from screwing over the major ally providing that world-spanning security by creating a massive vulnerability in an area of the world that has heretofore been very low-risk for that nation. By allowing the effective basing of Chinese “assets” in the North Atlantic, the Danes are creating something that the US will have to spend billions to address…
All so some Danish politicians can feather their own beds for nothing, in terms of short-term cost. After having turned down other, far lower-risk candidates to exploit those resources, I might add.
This has been the story of most US experience with NATO “allies”. Which is precisely why the US will likely be leaving that so-called alliance, which is increasingly a club for grifters out to screw over the major bill-payer.
And, before you Euro lot start whinging about having joined in with the whole “GWOT” thing, do remember how most of your forces got to the theaters involved and how they were supplied: By US logistics that you don’t have the ability to provide for yourselves because you never paid to develope it. What actual military forces there are in Europe are predominantly boutique; there’s no “there”, when you go to look at the underpinnings like strategic mobility or actual depth of logistics. The US gets left holding the bag, every time Europe needs to do something. Even on Europe’s doorstep, like Bosnia and Libya.
All y’all in Europe should be carefully considering what the effect of these things are on the “alliance” you continually abuse. The fact that NATO has lasted as long as it has is a testament to the fecklessness and charitable nature of the American electorate. That won’t last forever, and you should plan on having to protect your own interests around the world, once that changes. And, it will.
Since you alluded to being well-informed, please share with the group. I avoid QAnon, Infowars, Truth Social, Breitbart, and Alex Jones. There are other sources for verifiable content.
Since you mentioned Denmark, give yourself a lesson in modern off-shore patrolling. RDNS Absalon has been on several counter piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden, including one that was filmed for a documentary and is available on YouTube. Quite interesting to see how another navy fights.
Read up on Mission Command in Wikipedia, and Operation Bollebak. A single Danish Leopard tank hammered aggressive Serbs in Bosnia causing dozens of casualties, and all because the commanders read and internalized their orders to protect civilians. The commander was challenged why he fired 75 rounds of 105mm. He responded, ‘It was all I had.’
And, something I saw on my deployment in Kandahar, read up on Denmark’s mechanized battle group in Helmand. They sustained 43 casualties out of a total of 18,376 personnel. In 2019, the US Army War College published a thoughtful piece on how a small and advanced country gets itself into, through, and out of combat in Afghanistan.
But none of this has anything to do with the theme of the video or border skirmishes not far from where I grew up in Canada, except to show that Canadians will defend their sovereignty.
I don’t think Ian suggested it. On the contrary he told a take of how such expeditions have historically gone awry.
Rob over at British Muzzeloaders did a 4 parts series on the Battle of Eccles Hill from the Canadian side. A must watch on the topic. here is a link to part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrG6iRy5H7w
Andrew Johnson was “embattled” mostly because he had an almost supernatural talent for backing the wrong horse.
For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was essentially the one written and passed by Congress in 1866. Which Johnson vetoed.
Lincoln apparently chose Johnson as his 1864 running mate replacing Hannibal Hamlin to blunt his Democratic challenger, Gen. George McClellan. And also because, as Horace Greeley said of Hamlin, the electorate was divided into two camps where he was concerned; those who didn’t know who he was and those who didn’t like him.
Johnson, a Southern Democrat, was seen by Lincoln as a potential peacemaker in a war that by 1864 was no longer in doubt. Unfortunately, Johnson turned out to be less intelligent than Lincoln probably hoped.
When Grant won the 1868 election, the country pretty much breathed a collective sigh of relief. They had no idea that Grant would spend eight years trying to clean up the mess in Washington that nearly lost the Union the war.
Moral; When the news media says a President’s administration is “corrupt” because of the number of officials being perp-walked for offenses in office, that just means the ones being arrested are the ones the journalists approve of.
clear ether
eon
You mean we could’ve had the 1964 Act a century sooner? Um…this you think to be a good thing? Look out the window, guy
I would rather burn this country to the ground than go back to Jim Crow. Much less slavery.
Only half-White and proud of it.
Yes, here in Alabama there were “Colored” and “White” signs everywhere when I was born.
Now when I look around I can’t even find their ugly shadows, and that’s a good thing indeed.
In Shreveport police ask victims, ‘Well, why were you outside after dark?’ Yeah, tell me about ‘progress.’ It’s 1980’s Balkans Lite.Civil War while y’all hum Kumbayah
Some years ago, I saw one of these conversions. As I recall it was in the J.M. Davis museum in Claremore, Oklahoma. I have been a big fan of the Springfield trapdoor for many years and was quite interested in the similarities. Keep up the great work.
The 1861 and 1863 models were technically called rifled muskets. Don’t ask. Just remember it was the government doing this.
There were multiple attempts to convert the Union Civil War rifled muskets to a center fire cartridge single shot rifle. Is there a listing of the ranking of how good the different conversion attempts were?
Rifled muskets was a common term. Often smooth bore muskets were converted by having the barrels rifled. Hence rifled muskets. The “government “ was not to blame for a then obvious nomenclature.
In official ordnance terminology back then, these were the definitions;
Rifle-Musket; .58 caliber, 40-inch barrel, full-stock, three bands securing barrel to stock. Standard issue for line infantry.
Rifle; .58 Caliber, 33-inch barrel, full-stock, two securing bands. Standard issue for light infantry, skirmishers, and scout units.
Musketoon; .58 caliber, 22-inch barrel, half-stock, one band, swiveled ramrod. Issued to cavalry, dragoons (mounted infantry), artillery. Note that at the time, the term “carbine” was restricted to
Pistol-Carbine; .58 caliber, 12-inch barrel, swiveled ramrod, with detachable shoulder stock. Issued to dragoons and cavalry only.
So far from being “a distinction without a difference”, the terms “rifle-musket” and “rifle” defined two different classes of weapons with distinctly different missions.
See Civil War Guns by William B. Edwards, Stackpole, 1962.
clear ether
eon
Hugo Borchard (of later Sharps Borchardt, Borchardt pistol and therefore Luger pistol fame) worked at Pioneer Arms and was the works superintendent when he left in 1872. He went on to work for Singer Sewing Machine, Colt, Winchester and Sharps before returning to Europe.
Sadly, there is no good biography on Borchardt who deserves more study.
This Canadian says don’t make us come down there and burn down the whitehouse again lol jk jk
Rifle boxes, The Movie SANTA FE TRAIL (1940), had John Brown’s boys shipping them in crates marked “Farm Implements, smart move. If you ever saw RUN OF THE ARROW
(1957), early Sam Fuller, we were treated to the sight of unreconstructed Rebel Rod Steiger smashing his TRAPDOOR Springfield in 1865.
If you ever see the Star Trek Original Series episode “A Private Little War”, about the Klingons introducing flintlocks on the planet Neural, look closely at those “flintlocks”. They’re actually Trapdoors with faked flintlocks attached. So they could use standard blank cartridges.
cheers
eon
Stembridge Gun Rentals did this with a lot of surplus Trapdoors for films meant to depict flintlocks. They created an over mold or hardware tapped into the side to resemble lockwork, because the time, trapdoors could be had for extreme low cost. They were plentiful, for cheap, and easy to get as surplus.
You can often find these converted guns on Gunbroker, as they pop up for sale from time to time.
.
For a 1957 movie that is actually not so bad. I’d expect guys running around with 1894 Winchesters
This was a lot of fun. A book dedicated to muzzle to breech loader conversions would be an absolute MUST HAVE!
Is there a broader variety of forgotten weapons? I doubt it.
H
Have Fun!
Reg.
BTW I want a type 96 update. Did you get the ammo sorted?
huh.kind of like a sideways trapdoor Springfield.
Very interesting historical aspect.
CG
by the way, don’t any of you want to comment about actual guns, instead of the price of tea everywhere but China?
CG
The follow up Fenian plan was to develop the first modern submarine, then use it to sink the Royal Navy.
They did pay for John Holland to invent submarines and build the first two, but the rest of the plan didn’t get rolling.
Also that’s no part of U. S.” on the bands, it’s U for UP.