More than 35,000 American citizens joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) during World War One.1  An entire unit within the CEF was composed mostly of Americans before it was disbanded.   Additional units were designated for American citizens, but for various reasons were disbanded before seeing combat.  Most Americans who volunteered served as individuals or with small clusters of their countrymen in already existing Canadian units.  Regardless of where, or how, or in what capacity they served, their reasons for joining are as diverse as adventurism or romanticism.  Why so many served in this specific case is a question that has not been sufficiently addressed.  The reasons why men volunteer for combat is well documented, the aspect of serving in another country’s armed forces is a topic lacking substantial review.  The reasons surrounding their service and the circumstances regarding their continuation of duty offers insight as to why they volunteered.  The intent is to examine the pervasive aspect of masculinity among others as to why Americans volunteered and served in the CEF.

Works addressing the subject of Americans serving in the CEF are few and far between.  The most recent is Fred Gaffen’s 1995, Cross Border Warriors: Canadians in American Forces and Americans in Canadian Forces, from the Civil War to the Gulf War.2 Gaffen uses the experiences of those that served to touch briefly on this theme during numerous conflicts.   There are three other scholarly sources that discuss policy, the recruitment and the disposition of American Citizens in the CEF.  Canadian Historian Desmond Morton explores these themes in his Military History of Canada and A Peculiar Kind of Politics: Canada’s Overseas Ministry in the First World War.3

Ronald G. Haycock, another Canadian historian, addresses the subject as well in his very specific Sam Hughes, The Public Career of a Controversial Canadian 1885-1916 and with his chapter  “Recruiting, 1914-1916,” in Marc Milner’s  Canadian Military History, Selected Readings.4  There are also a few good primary sources ranging from personal narratives to archived official government documents that are particularly useful for the analysis of the role that masculinity played in explaining why Americans served in CEF.  These sources which include the accounts of three American men, who served in the Canadian Army during WWI, include many references to masculinity that help to explain these men’s actions and decisions.

Prior to the declaration of war the Canadian government of Sir Robert Borden quickly convened and offered every sentiment of assistance to His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom.  In the meantime, provisions had to be made to prepare the government and people of Canada.  One aspect of this took the form of the unusual precedent of the War Measures Act of 1914 as drafted by W.F.O. O’Connor, a legal advisor to Borden.5  The far reaching scope and range of the Act made it unprecedented.  The Act was also unusual because it was not an ‘off the shelf’ plan, which may help to explain the nature of other government and Militia plans such as recruiting plans made in the same hasty manner.

Recruiting at this early stage of the war started with the directives of the Militia Minister, Sir Sam Hughes, in a way that allowed for the recruitment of foreign volunteers, namely Americans.  Hughes was apt to act and make comments without realizing their unsettling potential.6

Concerning the recruitment of Americans, Hughes mentioned that two battalions, approximately 800 - 1,000 men each could be raised.7  This was a spontaneous idea in regards to the size of the component proposed.  In reality, the planning and recruitment drove the number to a total of five battalions, or a reinforced brigade of 6,000 men.  Pursuit of this concept went on without regard for the neutrality of the United States.  This eventually presented a unique recruiting challenge to an already ill-administered recruiting system.

Expediting the formation and training of the various Canadian contingents to be sent overseas convinced the Minister to number the battalions and lean away from traditional regimental designations.  This numbering system became critical in the mind of the Militia Minister when considering the volume of men needed.  The numbering system also proved to be convenient for the proposed creation of American units. 8  

Individual Americans had volunteered and had been integrated into already existing Canadian units.9  But, these Americans seemed to be an exception, as it took the commencement of the formation of American units to get more U.S. citizens to join.  Once this happened, the bulk of American citizens who served seemed to have joined during and after the fall of 1915.  This coincided with the formation of the first of the American units, the 97th Battalion, CEF which began mobilization and staffing on 30 October 1915. The word of this unit forming was known throughout the recruiting districts, particularly along the United States and Canadian border.10

The purpose of designating one battalion of Americans was never clearly stated, except there had been some offers made by prominent American citizens living in Canada to the Militia Minister to fund and sponsor such units.  Hughes thought the idea a good one and took the necessary steps to implement it.  Again, as in earlier administrative decisions, he did so without regard for the consideration of the matter by Sir Robert Borden’s government, British authorities, the Governor General, or the United States government.11

The U.S. Foreign Enlistment Act of 1818 essentially forbids U.S. citizens to serve in the armed forces of another nation.  The consequence can be jail and or loss of U.S. citizenship.  A clause in the Canadian War Measures Act of 1914 resolved this issue by allowing Americans to take an oath in which they did not swear an allegiance to the Crown.  In addition to the 1818 law, the United States had declared itself neutral in the conflict and the repercussions of having its citizens joining and fighting in another country’s armed forces might be considered a breach of that neutrality.12

Once it became clear that Hughes was indeed allowing the recruitment there was little that could be done to retard its effects.  Tellingly though, the British government did not allow the deployment of identifiable and noticeable U.S. units within the CEF to England.  This had the effect of allowing the American volunteers to remain in the ranks yet not deploy overseas in regalia that marked them as Americans or homogeneous U.S. units.13  That this did not have a stronger negative effect on the volunteers says something about why they may have joined and continued to serve.

American citizens began serving in the CEF as early as September 1914, by joining an already existing Militia or Regular Force unit or a new unit of the “American Legion.”  Americans who joined before the fall of 1915 generally adhered to the first entry scheme.  After the autumn of 1915, Americans continued to join in the manner of the first scheme or they opted for one of the five battalions accepting Americans.  These were the 97th, 211th, 212th, 213th and the 237th Battalions of the CEF.14  Each of these units eventually disbanded and its soldiers were sent to other units.

There is something especially definitive about American men volunteering for this war.  Specifically, for American citizens during World War One there were reasons of adventure, politics, economics, romanticism, religion, propaganda, familial links, and, most dominant, aspects of masculinity.  There are also male bonding camaraderie traits of risk and sacrifice.  In war, risk, sacrifice, and masculinity are often marbled together.

In 1914 when the British Empire committed itself to war there were familial links that at a minimum caused compassion in support of Britain and her Empire.  Generally, family connections were emphasized more in the early part of the 20th Century than they are today.  Therefore, with the Empire of Britain at war, some men who joined the CEF may have done so because of a masculine tendency to defend “family”.

A fictional historical and romanticized account to consider because of its portrayal of masculinity during the time period is a segment in the motion picture, Legends of the Fall, based on the book by Jim Harrison.  The three brothers of the main character family leave for Canada with the intent to join the army.

 There are many reasons why the sons Alfred, Tristan, and Samuel leave their fathers ranch in Montana and cross the Canadian border to join the CEF.  On one hand, they are motivated by the threat to England and Empire, and not wanting to miss “a turning point in the history of the world.”  On the other hand, when justifying their argument to their father as to why they are off to war they use the familial link.  Alfred, the eldest brother, states, “we’ve already lost two cousins at [Battle of] the Marne!” he is rebuffed by his father, a combat veteran.  Later, when the father is writing to the boys’ estranged mother he tells her that her sons are off to fight, “to defend an England they have never seen.”15

Ideas in relation to the development of masculinity could be considered the bedrock for actions taken by volunteers for war.  War is characteristically masculine. The assertion that males are usually prepared to recognize, develop, and hone their masculinity is dependant on their family background and upbringing.  Historically, the idea of modern masculinity is characterized by many concepts:  toughening of the mind, spirit, and body through sport and adventure; learning that the power of a strong male will coupled with robust physical and moral courage was commonplace in that time period.  The blending in of militarism served only to enhance these qualities and bring them out in a more pronounced fashion.

When bonding this male masculine identity to militarism and the test of war, early 20th century males were apt to flock to the call for duty.16 This drive to prove one’s manliness can be strong on an individual basis but can snowball when caught up with similar feelings and actions of others.17

Manliness, militarism and the sense of service can affect even those males already involved in a profession or calling that might perhaps be considered more mature.  Such was the case of the physician and surgeon, Bellenden S. Hutcheson, an American citizen who joined the CEF in December of 1915 from Mount Carmel, Illinois.18  Earlier in life he was called to medicine; now he heeded a different call.

Captain Charles A. Botsford, of the 254th Battalion CEF, wrote a series of books starting in 1918 and ending in 1921.  The series was a fictional account of the American Expeditionary Force units during early U.S. participation in the war.  The motivation to write the book, In the Trenches is clear and serves two purposes.  In the preface Botsford mentions that he hopes what is written can be of use to Americans “over there,” and by thanking the many “boy readers” it can be suggested that he is contributing in a small way to the masculine development of so many young American males.19

In the Trenches is much like an adventure novel.  The characters are rough and ready Americans dealing death to the “Hun.”  Sprinkled liberally throughout the book are lessons learned from the war in the hopes of informing the reader of his experiences and helping the reader to learn of life in the trenches.  Another book that tells the tale of a writer’s experiences is by Sergeant Alexander McClintock.  Sergeant McClintock writes with great admiration of his encounter with Australian soldiers that is filled with masculine comparisons of tenacity, resilience, and physical strength.20

One of the most revealing sources written by an American citizen who served in the CEF is by Mr. Bob Elston.  Elston wrote a series of installment articles written during early 1936 for the Canadian magazine Liberty.21

In his articles Elston thoroughly describes the manly characters that made up the American 97th Battalion of the CEF.  The descriptions Mr. Elston uses are right out of heroic literature.  He describes many of the U.S. volunteers as veterans of the Army, Navy, and Marines.  Many had prior combat experience in the Spanish American War, the Boxer Rebellion, and other military and para-military adventures in Central and South America.  His description of the discipline of the 97th Battalion is revealing.  Volunteers and veterans with adventurous names such as Ort Harper and “Bandy Legged” Lee Christmas were some of the men from the U.S. that joined and tangled with other CEF units in Canada during pre-deployment brawls.22

The portrait is of Americans who wanted to get to the fight and show the Germans what they were made of.  Knocking heads with other CEF units seemed a fairly regular occurrence.  There is particular note made of some CEF units the 97th really enjoyed scrapping with; one was a ‘Sportsmen’ and the other a ‘Pals’ battalion.23 Each of these units was a microcosm of strutting masculinity.

In writing about these experiences these authors told quite a bit about themselves and why they joined.  Mr. Elston in his series of articles would seem to have run out of material since the life of the 97th Battalion and other “American Legion” units was so short lived.  Yet, Elston goes on to write that regardless of the breakup of the unit and the disbursement of its colorful characters, the spirit of the adventurous American men lived on.

The recommendation and awarding of the Victoria Cross (VC) for valor is difficult to achieve, it says a great deal about the individual, often the medal is awarded posthumously. The range and scope of selfless sacrifice in the acts that merit the receipt of the VC hold deep meaning.  Therefore, it can be suggested that these men in the context of their actions could be described as possessing some of the best qualities when volunteering for service, taking risks and making sacrifices.  Out of the approximately 35,000 American citizens who served in the CEF five received the Victoria Cross.24 Examining American citizens noteworthy accomplishments in the CEF might also address the question as to why they served.

Further addressing the aspect of masculinity and its relation to this argument are the famous war poets of England who wrote about their personal masculinity and the concept of masculinity in general.  Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon made the appeal that though they were scared by what they saw and experienced, the feeling of a type of freedom was very clear.25 They argue that controlled aggression, as controlled as it can be in combat, is probably the freest action a man can make.  Perhaps it is this most basic freedom coupled with shared risk and sacrifice that compel men to join and serve.

Under laying and shoring up the foundation of masculinity and acts of manliness are a long history of US wars and conflicts.  This is especially true in the wake of the turn-of the-century American imperial adventures as directed by then President Theodore Roosevelt.  This is directly reflected in the case of the Americans soldiers, sailors, and Marines who made a mark for themselves in that era and continued the tradition by joining the CEF.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, boys raised to be tough and to seek adventure as men turned to combat to find  these things.  An aspect of the masculine relationship to war and combat that is overlooked can be illustrated by scenes in the motion picture Behind the Lines.  How the true frailty of manhood can be breached in combat and then restored is told in a story of a Highland castle which serves as a psychiatric hospital for officers who are psychological casualties of combat on the Western Front.  The task of the chief psychologist is to help these officers rediscover their nerve and if possible send them back to the trenches.  During an inspection of the hospital a visiting staff officer questions the chief psychologist as to why one of the patients is marching about a Troop of Boy Scouts.  He is assured that the practice is a part of the therapy.  The theory behind this therapy is that a young officer who once led men in battle can slowly regain his posture of command by drilling boys.26  The Boy Scouts, adolescent boys, get to “play” at war and the officer rehabilitates his wounded manhood with leadership exercises.  Cobbling the many ideas together of why men joined the CEF with nails of masculinity may help to explain why U.S. male citizens volunteered and served in the CEF of World War One.