Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[jimmy olsen]

I would like to learn more about this. Can you recommend a good source?

Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless is old, but good.  Get the 1963 edition, and brag that you have "read a Careless book about Canada"

Found a text version online but the formating is horrible.
http://archive.org/stream/canadaastoryofch007273mbp/canadaastoryofch007273mbp_djvu.txt

[Sophie Scholl]

I would like to learn more about this. Can you recommend a good source?

Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless is old, but good.  Get the 1963 edition, and brag that you have "read a Careless book about Canada"

Found a text version online but the formating is horrible.
http://archive.org/stream/canadaastoryofch007273mbp/canadaastoryofch007273mbp_djvu.txt

"Yet the war had left lasting marks. Pride in the successful defence
against invasion had planted the roots of Canadian nat-
ional feeling. Both British and French Canada had shared fully
in that defence. The French-Canadian militia had turned back
the Americans at Chateauguay and Lacolle, as the English-Cana-
dians had at Crysler's Farm and Queenston Heights. French
Canada had been active in this war, as it had not been in the
American Revolution, largely because the benefits of the Quebec
Act, combined with representative government, were now much
appreciated. The French realized that they would not enjoy their
special rights of law and religion in the American republic. Be-
sides., the French Revolution had destroyed the old Catholic feudal
France from which Quebec had sprung. French Canada, as a
result, had even favoured Britain in its wars with the revolution-
ary and irreligious French republic.

The War of 1812 thus tended to bring British North America
together and strengthened the bond with Britain. Any common
feelings among the colonists, however, were largely directed
against the United States. This anti- American spirit was still a
narrow basis on which to build a Canadian nationalism. Anti-
Americanism was particularly evident in Upper Canada. Further
American settlement was largely prevented there, and American
settlers already in the province were in danger of persecution
the Loyalists* case in reverse if their declarations of British sen-
timents were not loud enough. Nevertheless, on the whole these
reactions to the strain of the War of 1812 were understandable;
and not an extreme price to pay for the survival of British North
America."
-Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless, Pages 135-136

Make of that what you will.

[jimmy olsen]

Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless is old, but good.  Get the 1963 edition, and brag that you have "read a Careless book about Canada"

"Yet the war had left lasting marks. Pride in the successful defence
against invasion had planted the roots of Canadian nat-
ional feeling. Both British and French Canada had shared fully
in that defence. The French-Canadian militia had turned back
the Americans at Chateauguay and Lacolle, as the English-Cana-
dians had at Crysler's Farm and Queenston Heights. French
Canada had been active in this war, as it had not been in the
American Revolution, largely because the benefits of the Quebec
Act, combined with representative government, were now much
appreciated. The French realized that they would not enjoy their
special rights of law and religion in the American republic. Be-
sides., the French Revolution had destroyed the old Catholic feudal
France from which Quebec had sprung. French Canada, as a
result, had even favoured Britain in its wars with the revolution-
ary and irreligious French republic.

Massachusetts still had a state church at this time. Nothing to stop Quebec from making Catholicism the state religion.

[Siege]

Bookmarked!

[viper37]

Viper blames English Canada - 1 drink

You'd have to make it 1 drink of maple syrup whiskey.

[Malthus]

I would like to learn more about this. Can you recommend a good source?

Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless is old, but good.  Get the 1963 edition, and brag that you have "read a Careless book about Canada"

Found a text version online but the formating is horrible.
http://archive.org/stream/canadaastoryofch007273mbp/canadaastoryofch007273mbp_djvu.txt

"Yet the war had left lasting marks. Pride in the successful defence
against invasion had planted the roots of Canadian nat-
ional feeling. Both British and French Canada had shared fully
in that defence. The French-Canadian militia had turned back
the Americans at Chateauguay and Lacolle, as the English-Cana-
dians had at Crysler's Farm and Queenston Heights. French
Canada had been active in this war, as it had not been in the
American Revolution, largely because the benefits of the Quebec
Act, combined with representative government, were now much
appreciated. The French realized that they would not enjoy their
special rights of law and religion in the American republic. Be-
sides., the French Revolution had destroyed the old Catholic feudal
France from which Quebec had sprung. French Canada, as a
result, had even favoured Britain in its wars with the revolution-
ary and irreligious French republic.

The War of 1812 thus tended to bring British North America
together and strengthened the bond with Britain. Any common
feelings among the colonists, however, were largely directed
against the United States. This anti- American spirit was still a
narrow basis on which to build a Canadian nationalism. Anti-
Americanism was particularly evident in Upper Canada. Further
American settlement was largely prevented there, and American
settlers already in the province were in danger of persecution
the Loyalists* case in reverse if their declarations of British sen-
timents were not loud enough. Nevertheless, on the whole these
reactions to the strain of the War of 1812 were understandable;
and not an extreme price to pay for the survival of British North
America."
-Canada: A Story of Challenge by J. M. S. Careless, Pages 135-136

Make of that what you will.

Interesting. I wonder what Grumbler will make of this. Agree or disagree?

[viper37]

He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.

[Malthus]

Uh... yes it does. People were concerned, at that time, that those events might lead to annexation. You saying that they shouldn't have been does not somehow undermine the role those concerns played in the formation of Canadian identity.

British subjects in the 1800s Canada did not read your posts on languish, so they were unaware that you have dismissed their concerns.

I am not sure they have read your posts, either.  Simple assertion does not equal evidence.

I find it interesting that BB and Malthus would argue that the US invasions in the War of 1812 lead to a sense of Canadian identity, and yet also argue that, 50 years later, the Confederation was needed to avoid having separate Canadian provinces play off the US against one another.  If a canadian identity arose out of the US invasions, then why would Canadians play the US card against each other?  OTOH, if there was a genuine fear that the separate provinces would play the US card, isn't that evidence that they did not, indeed, feel a sense of "Canadian identity?"

Does the US South playing the "British Card" during the Civil War mean that the Revolutionary War had no effect on the creation of a "US identity"?

Obviously, things are a trifle more complex than either/or.

My reading of Canadian history is that the idea the Canadians were a separate and distinct people arose from Confederation, which was aimed not at the US, but at Britain. Some parts of Canada were self-ruling before Confederation, and some were not (or, at least, less so; all had some voice in their own affairs by then).  Certainly, when the Maritimes started talking about joining together in 1864, no one anticipated that their actions would lead to Confederation only three years later.  Equally certainly, the motives for the Maritimes to unite wasn't due to their fear of a US invasion.  Newfoundland didn't join until 1949, and yet never played the "US card."

As I've pointed out in my posts above, and as others have also, there are many different factors that went into confederation. The fear of US aggression was *one* factor, but not the *sole* factor. Others played a role - creation of a cross-Canada railway, economic and taxation, etc.

The notion that Confederation was aimed at Britain is I think quite incorrect; English-Canadians at least were quite happy to be part of the British Empire, there was no particular animocity directed at Britain aside from a feeling that the Brits did not want to pay their fair share of colonial costs, particularly defence against possible aggression originating from the US (another impetus behind confederation).

In short, I see no evidence that the retcon of Canadian history to include fear of a US invasion, US annexation, or that the separate provinces would play the "US card" as reasons for the creation of a Canadian identity and Canada itself.  Rather, as I see it, confederation occurred because of the separate provinces saw increasing political and economic advantages to banding together, especially in their relations with Britain.  I see a sense of Canadian identity as a result of confederation, not as a cause of confederation.

You see nothing in the 'coincidence' that the Fenian raids occurred during the very years of confederation?

While it is true that the raids were comic-opera affairs in hindsight, they did kill dozens of people and created widespread contemporary alarm (the threat of allegedly thousands of battle-hardened Irish Civil War vets planning, with apparently complete impunity on the part of the US government, to invade your towns from their bases in the US is a reasonable cause for alarm). 

The War of 1812 was one part of a narrative of US aggression - the one time that the US itself invaded what was to be Canada. However, it was only a part. Throughout the 19th century, the US had been very aggressive in its 'manifest destiny', and not unreasonably, people in what was to be Canada had certain concerns that, if conditions were right, they could be on the menu. US government invasions were only a part of the issue - there was also filibustering and raiding like that of the Fenians. The relatively recent (to confederation) spectacle of the Civil War created widespread contemporary alarm in Canada, as the US was obviously capable of creating a huge war machine and using it on its own people in pursuit of unity.

[crazy canuck]

What have you been reading to lead you to this odd conclusion.

Books, mostly.  There is nothing odd about the contention that the Maritimes did not fear a US invasion.

Do these books have titles?

[The Brain]

Do these books have titties?

[grumbler]

Interesting. I wonder what Grumbler will make of this. Agree or disagree?

What Careless wrote (and I was fully aware of the thrust, of course, even if I didn't remember any of the specifics) is consistent with my position.  I think Careless uses the term "British North America" wrongly here; the impact of anti-Americanism (as he later discusses, IIRC) is largely confined to the United Province.  It is little felt in the Maritimes and further west.  But, then, my position has never been that the War of 1812 was irrelevant, merely that it was, to quote Careless, "[t]his anti- American spirit was still a narrow basis on which to build a Canadian nationalism."  I argue that Canadian nationalism's real base comes from the mutual interests perceived as a result of Confederation.

[MadImmortalMan]

Massachusetts still had a state church at this time. Nothing to stop Quebec from making Catholicism the state religion.

I think Maryland's state religion was Catholicism.

[grumbler]

Does the US South playing the "British Card" during the Civil War mean that the Revolutionary War had no effect on the creation of a "US identity"?

If I were you, I wouldn't even try to pursue your argument that "the Revolutionary War had no effect on the creation of a 'US identity'!" 

I have a feeling that that dog just won't hunt.

Obviously, things are a trifle more complex than either/or.

Obviously.

As I've pointed out in my posts above, and as others have also, there are many different factors that went into confederation. The fear of US aggression was *one* factor, but not the *sole* factor. Others played a role - creation of a cross-Canada railway, economic and taxation, etc.

Sorry, but you cannot have my point.

The notion that Confederation was aimed at Britain is I think quite incorrect; English-Canadians at least were quite happy to be part of the British Empire, there was no particular animocity directed at Britain aside from a feeling that the Brits did not want to pay their fair share of colonial costs, particularly defence against possible aggression originating from the US (another impetus behind confederation).

Why would the fact that Confederation was aimed at giving Canadians more sway  in London be seen by anyone as a hostile act?  The Australian colonies combined for that purpose in 1901 and no one thought that they did so with animus towards Britain nor out of fear of US invasion.

You see nothing in the 'coincidence' that the Fenian raids occurred during the very years of confederation?

The Charlottetown conference on Maritime Union (which kicked off the confederation movement) occurred three years before the first Fenian raid.  So, yes, I believe that confederation would have occurred pretty much as it did, even had there been no Fenian raids.  Do you have evidence that confederation depended in any way on those raids?

[Ed Anger]

*takes a drink*

[Razgovory]

I can no longer tell if Grumbler is arguing with people or just insulting people who agree with him.  There seems to be a lot of overlap.