Little factoid that blew my mind.

CROMPTON, Lizzie

This is one of the great legends of the Civil War. A newspaper article on January 9th, 1864 from the Louisville Democrat (state of Kentucky) told the story of a 16 year old girl who had been discharged from the 11th Kentucky Calvary to which she belonged for several months. Her total service in Union forces, according to her own words was eighteen months, during which time her sex was discovered seven times, and each time she was mustered out of service, she re-enlisted under an assumed name. Wounded twice in battle, once at Fredericksburg, and once at the Green River Bridge fight on the 4th of July. She told the commanding officer her home town was London, Canada West, and that here parents still lived there. The commanding officer had her locked up at this time, awaiting orders, but no further information is made of her, she disappears into history. She may have lied about her hometown, but very few people at this time ever heard of London, Canada West, so its hard to imagine why she would lie about it. For example, if lying, why not say you were from Toronto, Montreal, or even New York?

http://www.footnote.com/page/1547_canadians_and_the_civil_war/

I have seen some research papers that have indicated numbers as high as 100,000 fighting in the conflict.

Can you provide a link for your opening post?

Yeah.  I was rather excited by all this, posting here and wandering off to find more.

http://www.start.ca/users/joneil/cw.htm

That's the link to the opening post.

When did London, Ontario gain it's current name? I though the change happen after the 1880s?

I thought it was still known as Moraviantown.

I think Moraviantown was a small settlement outside London, were a skirmish took place in the War of 1812.   I think it's been London since Simcoe wandered through and saw the forks as a strategic place.   Going by memory here, it's all easily googlable.

I'm guessing "Canada West" is a pre-Confederation nomenclature, but where this started to appear in place of "Upper Canada" I don't know, or maybe both terms were used at the same time,  Like we specify today "South Western Ontario", while "Ontario" is also used.

Wikihistory:

Prior to European contact in the 18th century, the present site of London was occupied by several Neutral and Odawa [6]/Ojibwa [7] villages. One Anishinaabe [8] community site was described as located near the forks of Askunessippi (Anishinaabe language [9]: Eshkani-ziibi, "Antler River"; now called the Thames River [10]) in circa 1690[3] [11] and was referred to as Pahkatequayang[4] [12] ("Baketigweyaang":"At the River Fork" (lit: at where the by-stream is)). Archaeological investigations in the region indicate that aboriginal [13] people have resided in the area for at least the past 10,000 years.[5] [14]

The current location of London was selected as the site of the future capital of Upper Canada [15] in 1793 by Lieutenant-Governor [16] John Graves Simcoe [17]. Simcoe named the settlement after London, England [18] and renamed the river. However, this choice of a capital site in the midst of extensive hardwood forests was rejected by Guy Carleton, (Governor Dorchester) [19]. In 1814, there was a skirmish during the War of 1812 [20] in what is now southwest London at Reservoir Hill, formerly Hungerford Hill.

I've been in favour of changing the name back to Pahkatequayang.  A bit more original.

What motivated Lizzie Crompton?

Hard to say, any number of reasons.

I think you will like this link. It has a large number of details on veterans from the London area.

http://www.start.ca/users/joneil/cw.htm

A number of women have enlisted as men in armed forces. In France, the "Chevalier d'Éon" made history, for instance. Many were not found out until their memoirs came out. It was a way to escape poverty and marriage, to travel... they enlisted for the same reason men did and go on doing.

Yeah, there is a pretty long tradition of such things happening.  I read several such accounts for a history course once.  Interesting stuff.

Of course the real history of warfare, at least in the European- North American sense given the small extent of my knowledge, is that women were often directly involved in military campaigns.  History records the camp followers as prosititutes but that is only barely factual, in that some undoubtedly were.  However the role of women in warfare was much, much larger and more extensive for underclass women.  Women moved men off the battlefield, tended the wounded, for the most part ran the military camps in terms of day to day realities, and if they were over run, or needed they often were the last line of defense if a position was over run.  And the few first hand account I have read suggests they fought like banshees.  Women have always been warriors.

The Pics had women warriors until around 697 AD, when a Roman Catholic priest named Adomnan, the Abbot of Iona stopped women from fighting.

The British army (in North America) in the late 1700s and early 1800s allowed 8-10 married women to follow each 100 man company.

I think there is also written accounts (Caesar's "Gallic Wars"?) and, if my memory serves, archeological evidence that Celtic men and women fought along side each other against Caesar's foray into Britain.

The one website above pointed to Canadian men joining up for much the same reasons men always join up.  Money.  Adventure.  And maybe it was so for Lizzie Crompton. 

I can't help but consider though, that it might have been anti-slavery furror, not just with her, but with some of the men, too.   "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was certainly a very powerfull book, and went a long way to motivate people into joining the abolishionist crusade.  And there were a number of Londoners involved in running the underground railroad.  I grew up not far from a house that was one of the way stations. 

Of course, City of London allowed the building to be demolished.  But, I could show you where it was.

Women as leaders and warriors has been eradicated from history to serve patriarchial purposes, and in fact still are today. And the Roman Catholic church has played no small part in this.

Boudica -  Britain's  Warrior Queen

'"Between AD 61 and AD 63 Boadicea led her Iceni people to a glorious war against the Romans. The Iceni Celts had submitted their kingdom in East Anglia to the conquering Romans and the rule of Emperor Claudius in AD 43. In AD 61, Prasutagus, Boadicea's husband and King of the Iceni died. A dispute followed during which Boadicea, was publicly beaten by the soldiers of the emperor, and her two daughters raped. The Iceni were insulted and rose in revolt led by their queen Boadicea. So successful was the uprising that the Romans were almost defeated...Boadicea pillaged the Roman settlements; [28] she remains to this day, the greatest of the heroines of Britain."

" Boadicea..was publicly flogged and forced to watch as her daughters were raped.

Infuriated, Queen Boadicea -- described by one Roman historian as a tall, terrifying-looking woman with fierce eyes, a harsh voice, and very long hair -- became the leader of a violent uprising against Roman rule. The rebels destroyed London, Colchester, and other cities, slaughtering some 70,000 people.""Boadicea then killed herself with poison so she would not fall into Roman hands [29]"

What sent me off on the little adventure to where I stumbled across the story of Lizzie Crompton is Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals."  You might want to give it a read, Remind. (and I think Webgear especially, but others would also enjoy)  Goodwin, unlike other male historians in the past, doesn't gloss over or give short shrift to the powerfull contributions of women in this tumultuous time. 

Thanks wrote it down see if the Library has it if not will get them to get it.

Something about the claim that Canadians enlisted to serve in the Civil War for the money didn't sit well in my mind.   And, above, Webgear was correct, it seems there may have been up to 100,000 men-- and at least one woman-- who served.  Mostly on the Union side.  Estimates vary because Canadians had to change their names due to the British Foriegn Enlistment Act, which made it illegal for British subjects to serve with the Union or Confederacy.

I had always surmised that the U.S. Civil War meant boom times here in what was then called "Canada West", as the Union War Machine would have been buying just about anything S/W Ontario had to sell.   In particular, I always wondered if the London Port Stanely Rail Road, linking London and environs with the lake port, and thus Ohio and New York would have meant even better commerce in the London area.

On the last point, I am still left to guess work for now. But it seems reasonable.

But then I thought I remembered something about British Trade being blocked or suspended to the U.S. at this time.  It was-- but only from the Confederacy.  

Canada West, since the 1850's had been enjoying the benifits of a reciprocity treaty that existed between them and the U.S., and that treaty remained in effect until the end of the Civil War.

So, Canadians--  although there are bound to be individual exceptions-- didn't have to join the Union Army to earn cash money.  That could be made at home, without being shot at.

I have to wonder if many of those volunteers from here were former British Soldiers, settled here as part of their pension?  Once a soldier, always a soldier?

There was a reference to many "English" NCO's, prized for their soldiering experience, on one web site.  Surely, Americans at that time wouldn't have made a distinction between "Englishmen" and "Canadians".

I think it is quite likely that many idealistic men and a few women joined in the American Civil War out of a sense of idealism. 

You can see the same sort of mentality at play with the Spanish Civil War, the Vietnam War, Americans joining the Canadian and British Armies for the World Wars long before their country.  I am not saying they all come from the SAME idealism.  But in the mind of the joiner I doubt money was even a consideration. (Although in earlier times poverty was a strong motivator- as was the press gang)

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/militarygeneral/p/hannah_snell.htm

Born in Worcester, England, Hannah Snell married James Summs in 1744. When she became pregnant, Summs left, and after the death of their daughter, Susannah, who lived only a year, she decided to find her husband.

Hannah Snell decided to track down her missing husband by traveling in male attire borrowed from her brother-in-law, James Gray, whose name she assumed. "He" quickly found herself pressed into General Guise's Regiment. She fought with the Duke of Northumberland's army against Bonnie Prince Charlie. She deserted after a sergeant sentenced her to 500 lashes.

Hannah Snell then enlisted in the Marines at Portsmouth, still hoping to find her missing husband. She shipped out to the East Indies on the Swallow. She fought in the siege of Araapong and in the campaign to capture Pondicherry, and later in the battle in Devicotta. By her own account, she was wounded a number of times, avoiding exposure by removing a bullet from her own groin with the help of an Indian nurse.

500 lashes was, I gather from Cornwell, in fact a death sentence.  I guess shot might have varied in size, and also the charges propelling them.  But from what I know, those projectiles were big.  Surviving that, and the ever present danger of infection boggles my mind.

The size of ball was quite large, the average musket fired a ball around 65 caliber or greater.

Inflection and disease was the most effective killer while on campaign.

Here is a link to an 1812 article

http://www.warof1812.ca/41stsurgeons.htm

The Regimental Medical System: A Study of the Surgeons of the 41st Regiment of Foot during the War of 1812
By Gareth Newfield

Despite the pervasive stereotype of incompetent military doctors during the period, the regimental surgeons of the 41st Regiment played an important and successful role in providing medical care to the British forces during the War of 1812. In the face of many hardships, they were frequently called upon to tend to large numbers of sick and wounded, having to make do with the materials and facilities at hand in largely rural Canada. The surgeons of the 41st showed a strong devotion to duty, as Surgeon Thom demonstrated by remaining with the wounded throughout the retreat to Burlington Heights in May 1813. Far from being incompetent butchers, they were technically proficient in matters of surgery and professionally capable of providing for their patients' comfort, as borne out by Assistant Surgeon Kennedy's efforts after the Battle of Lake Erie and later in Ancaster. They were innovative medical practitioners, willing to try unconventional treatments like Assistant Surgeon Faulkner did at Fort Amhertsburg. Several remained in Canada after the war, and made significant contributions to their new communities, both medically and otherwise, as did Surgeon Robertson in Montreal . The 41st Regiment was a mainstay of the defence of Canada during the War of 1812, and the services of the regimental surgeons of the 41st were every bit as difficult, challenging and no less creditable than those endured by their more famous colleagues serving in the Peninsular War.