QuoteVOICE
Northern Fights
Why is Canada naming its warships after U.S. defeats?
BY MICHAEL PECK DECEMBER 23, 2013
Warships from the U.S. Navy will someday be sailing alongside the Royal Canadian Navy supply ships HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay, perhaps on a NATO exercise or a humanitarian relief mission. That might get awkward if a historically minded American sailor notices that Queenston and Chateauguay are battles where Canada defeated America in the War of 1812. Yo, Canada, what's the deal?
Yes, America's good-natured neighbor to the north is naming its newest naval vessels after battles where Canadians trounced U.S. invaders in the War of 1812. The Battle of Queenston Heights, on Oct. 13, 1812, saw an outnumbered force of 1,300 British regulars, Canadian militiamen, and Mohawk irregulars repel a poorly organized attempt by 3,500 U.S. regulars and militiamen to cross the Niagara River. The Battle of Chateauguay, on Oct. 26, 1813*, was another embarrassing U.S. defeat, when a 1,600-strong British and Canadian force defeated 2,600 Americans who were attempting to capture Montreal.
"The Government of Canada has named the new Joint Support Ships (JSS) to commemorate the War of 1812, in recognition of the achievements and sacrifices made by those early Canadians who fought and died in these significant battles of Queenston Heights and Chateauguay," said Canadian Navy spokeswoman Lt. Jennifer Fidler in an email to Foreign Policy. "The War of 1812 was a defining moment that contributed to shaping our identity as Canadians and ultimately our existence as a country. It laid the foundation for Confederation and the cornerstones of our political institutions."
Historians may quibble: Since Canada was a British colony rather than a nation in 1812, then technically the war was fought between Great Britain and the United States, and the glory of these victories belongs to the British. But history is no match for patriotic fervor. "These two key victories helped ensure our independent development in what was then British North America, leading to the eventual achievement of Canadian nationhood and a mutually respectful relationship with the United States of America," Fidler said.
The HMCS Queenston and Chateauguay, which together will cost $2.6 billion Canadian, are scheduled to enter service in 2019. They are designed to replace older Canadian Navy replenishment ships. They are the first vessels to be named after U.S. defeats by Canada, but they may not be the last. "If an additional Joint Support Ships vessel is constructed, the names of other prominent War of 1812 battles will be considered," noted Fidler.
Not surprisingly, the naming of the two ships comes after Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government sought last year to heavily commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. However, polls suggest that the festivities did not exactly stoke patriotic fires.
Should Americans feel aggrieved at Canada's actions, their northern friends have a fair riposte: We're only giving you a taste of your own medicine. The United States has never been shy about boasting of its own victories. British sailors must sail alongside current U.S. warships such as the USS Bunker Hill, USS Cowpens, and the USS Lake Champlain (at least the cruiser USS Yorktown has been retired). And the Japanese have to put up with the cruiser USS Leyte Gulf and the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, the Germans with the USS Normandy and USS Anzio -- and I'm sure the Vietnamese will look forward to a port visit from the cruiser USS Hue City. Not even domestic enemies are spared; Confederate nostalgists can grit their teeth over the USS Gettysburg and USS Vicksburg.
Britain and France are more or less friends now, but the British stuck it to the French with the now-retired nuclear submarine HMS Trafalgar. The Dutch have their frigate HNLMS Tromp (named after two admirals who beat the British). And the French have their frigate La Fayette, named after the general who helped the Americans beat the British, and of course the carrier Charles de Gaulle, named after a leader who drove the Americans and British crazy.
Perhaps the only nations that can't name their ships after famous victories are the former Axis powers. Germany would find it impolitic to name a ship the Denmark Strait or the Admiral Dönitz. The same goes for Japan. Will we ever see a Japanese warship named the Pearl Harbor?
*Correction, Dec. 23, 2013: This article originally misstated the year of the Battle of Chateauguay. It took place in 1813, not 1812.
Appalllling!
P.S. Canada sucks
I'm not sure that actually qualifies as a whine... :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:41:08 PM
I'm not sure that actually qualifies as a whine... :hmm:
SILENCE!
I'm bored and haven't started a thread in awhile.
Speaking of Canada, I may do some "consulting" up in Ontario in the late Spring. The hosers wanted me up there next month and I told the no way eh!
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
Thank you.
"Consulting"? Will you be lording it over the natives?
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
Were there actually Canadian militia in Washington?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2013, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
Were there actually Canadian militia in Washington?
Quiet, you. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Quote from: The Brain on December 27, 2013, 07:54:17 PM
"Consulting"? Will you be lording it over the natives?
Yes.
The US should name their next ship the USS Abby Wambach.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Well, now you have neither.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:12:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Well, now you have neither.
The Empire never dies. The bonds of affection and brotherhood still bind us.
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:12:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Well, now you have neither.
The Empire never dies. The bonds of affection and brotherhood still bind us.
Do androids dream of Dreadnoughts, Horselover?
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:12:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Well, now you have neither.
The Empire never dies. The bonds of affection and brotherhood still bind us.
That's nice. You and your bros Sudan and Pakistan should hang out more.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:47:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:12:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
Isn't that a victory? Being a part of the Empire sure seems a lot better than being a part of the United States.
Well, now you have neither.
The Empire never dies. The bonds of affection and brotherhood still bind us.
That's nice. You and your bros Sudan and Pakistan should hang out more.
I thought they were already kicked out of the club?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 09:47:13 PMThat's nice. You and your bros Sudan and Pakistan should hang out more.
You just jelly you don't even have any bros.
I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?
Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 12:20:39 AM
I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?
Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?
Because we didn't just have the 200 year anniversary of WWI or WWII?
You actually should not underestimate the historical importance of 1812 (even though it isn't well known). It was incredibaly important in forming the idea of a separate Canadian nation. After all in 1811 you basically just had a bunch of French-speaking people with few ties to the Crown, and a whole bunch of ex-American loyalists. There was nothing resembling a shared Canadian identity.
The notion that the US had simply to march wasn't all that foolish a one.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
But you still lost the war, and had to remain a British colony till the 1980's.
See Neil's answer. To the English Canadians, that is a victory in itself.
Quote from: Barrister on December 28, 2013, 12:36:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 12:20:39 AM
I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?
Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?
Because we didn't just have the 200 year anniversary of WWI or WWII?
You actually should not underestimate the historical importance of 1812 (even though it isn't well known). It was incredibaly important in forming the idea of a separate Canadian nation. After all in 1811 you basically just had a bunch of French-speaking people with few ties to the Crown, and a whole bunch of ex-American loyalists. There was nothing resembling a shared Canadian identity.
The notion that the US had simply to march wasn't all that foolish a one.
Is there one yet?
Quote from: Barrister on December 28, 2013, 12:36:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 12:20:39 AM
I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?
Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?
Because we didn't just have the 200 year anniversary of WWI or WWII?
Pfft. There is always some anniversary of something.
Quote
You actually should not underestimate the historical importance of 1812 (even though it isn't well known). It was incredibaly important in forming the idea of a separate Canadian nation. After all in 1811 you basically just had a bunch of French-speaking people with few ties to the Crown, and a whole bunch of ex-American loyalists. There was nothing resembling a shared Canadian identity.
The notion that the US had simply to march wasn't all that foolish a one.
OK, if you say so.
I still think that it looks more like insecurity than anything else. Pick the trivial and irrelevant battle that you won against the 800ln gorilla to the south rather than more relevant and significant battles.
Quote
Perhaps the only nations that can't name their ships after famous victories are the former Axis powers. Germany would find it impolitic to name a ship the Denmark Strait or the Admiral Dönitz.
:huh:
They already did in the 60s. Lütjens, Molders, Rommel...
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
Would you consider a subscription rate? Say, burn it down quarterly at a flat fixed amount. CDN naturally. Maybe you could take it in trade for some oil pipelines or something?
In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 02:56:00 AM
I still think that it looks more like insecurity than anything else. Pick the trivial and irrelevant battle that you won against the 800ln gorilla to the south rather than more relevant and significant battles.
Irrelevant? It was a war of national survival. It's about as relevant as you can get. When the Americans named their battlecruiser/carriers Lexington and Saratoga, it wasn't out of insecurity but rather pride. And it's not like Canada has a ton of battles to choose from. We've only ever fought four wars, and one of them is politically untouchable due to the large, unassimilated population of backwards malcontents that remains in one of our provinces. If we built an HMCS Plaines d'Abraham, viper and his ilk would lose their shit. Now that's insecurity. In a way, the US is better off. Any Southerners who bitch about a USS Gettysburg would be written off as cranks, whereas viper is treated somewhat seriously by people.
Besides, when your standard guided-missile frigate class bears the name of a guy who was a hero of the War of 1812, you have exactly zero room to complain.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2013, 09:46:07 AM
In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.
The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.
Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2013, 11:10:15 AM
The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.
Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.
None of those you named are from the French and Indian War, which was to America what the War of 1812 was to Canada. In fact, I don't think there are any US ships named after battles from the FIW.
However, I understand that there isn't much history to Canada, so they can't be picky about what "national history" they call upon to name their ships after. HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are fine names for ships, even if they are named after battles that took place before there was a "Canada." They are part of the national myth, and thus worth commemorating.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 12:20:39 AM
I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?
Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?
The Canadian government is desperately trying to create a Canadian identity that is not composed of French Canadians and English Canadians, but only Canadians. Harper, a man I usually respect of his intelligence, has decided the best way to do this is to go on some monarchy worshipping, replacing canadian artist's work by portrait of the Queen and celebrating a war only history buffs and Ontarians know about.
About as good an idea as naming a US ship the
USS Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2013, 09:46:07 AM
In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.
The US intention was certainly to displace the British from the continents, securing their northern border in the process. I don't know if they planned to offer statehood to the canadian colonies or simply annex them as territory, but they certainly weren't fighting to create a vast empty space reserved for the indians and the french colonists.
Quote from: viper37 on December 28, 2013, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2013, 09:46:07 AM
In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.
The US intention was certainly to displace the British from the continents, securing their northern border in the process. I don't know if they planned to offer statehood to the canadian colonies or simply annex them as territory, but they certainly weren't fighting to create a vast empty space reserved for the indians and the french colonists.
Well, annexing Canada would certainly prevent the British from providing arms to the Indians so that they could resist American incursions. I think that the priority for expansion was west rather than north. Conquering Canada would have been gravy, but the main goal was to isolate the Indians from their support so that they could be destroyed.
It's simply more room to expand to. West or North didn't make any difference, except the North was better defended by a united Empire instead of fragmented indian tribes, so the West was easier. But once Canada is conquered, I doubt the Americans would have simply let it go.
The land to the west was better, with a milder climate. Also, as evil as the early Americans were, even they would balk at exterminating thousands of white people.
That's what I'm talking about, Canadians have no idea as to the history. The War of 1812 is very similar to the Spanish-American War, in that a President foolishly got into a war for essentially no reason. In McKinley's case the war was a resounding success but saddled America with overseas territories that would later prove to be troublesome and have never been of any real benefit to the United States. McKinley was also vaguely anti-war with Spain, but was pushed into it because he was a weak President. Madison on the other hand appears to have had the most wretched reason possible for war with the British--domestic political concerns. Madison wanted a firmer break with the British and a war because he felt it would be the coup de grace to finish off the Federalist party and cement firm control for his own Democratic-Republican party. I can at least understand Henry Clay, who was almost solely concerned with westward expansion and removal of British as an obstacle to that. I can also understand some of the other political leaders who were up in arms about impressment and various other British misdeeds. But Madison's decision to go to war was a blemish on an otherwise exceptional career, and it's a fairly dark blemish as he literally took the country to war for his own domestic political purposes.
When war came, Madison's goal in regard to Canada was solely to capture key Canadian cities (because really, that's all of Canada in the year 1812) and then sue Britain for peace, using Canada as a bargaining chip. Neither Madison or the western expansionists (lead by Henry Clay) showed any interest in annexing Canada. The Clay faction felt they needed to bloody the British to keep their hands off the territory to the west that was as yet mostly unsettled by white men. Madison's hope was that this quick victory would force the British to stop impressment and get out of the way in the west and then Madison and his party would be able to take full credit for it. I'm not sure when the myth began that anyone who actually made these type of decisions was looking to conquer Canada, but the writings and historical documents involved make it clear what the reasoning was and what the strategy was the Americans intended to employ. There was simply no actual record of the President or his cabinet discussing annexation or conquest of Canada.
Interestingly by the end of the war, the British were mostly done with interfering overtly with American westward expansion and impressment1; though neither was really because of the war. Madison and his party also suffered fairly grave hits to their popularity primarily because of how ineptly they ran the war. But the Federalists saved them by holding the Hartford Convention which managed to make them look even worse than Madison, add Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans and Madison essentially ran off the playing field waving a flag of victory after a tie game and it seems more or less the public accepted that. (Jackson probably was the biggest beneficiary of the war politically since it vaulted him to national fame.)
1. Not to say the British and Americans didn't have further tussles in the 19th century. Over the Oregon territory, random spats over Northern Maine, and some unfriendliness during the ACW. But prior the the Napoleonic Wars the British were quite active in keeping natives provisioned for raiding into the Northwest Territory out of their forts in Canada and that practice did come to an end.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2013, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2013, 11:10:15 AM
The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.
Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.
None of those you named are from the French and Indian War, which was to America what the War of 1812 was to Canada. In fact, I don't think there are any US ships named after battles from the FIW.
Tico is named after the second battle, not the first, so you are correct there. What really matters here for national identity is where the local militia fought and the conseqeunces of those victories and losses. The Militia Levies in the French and Indian war did NOT distinguish themselves on the british side. What the Great Lakes campaign under Brock has in common with Vimy Ridge (which is THE battle that made Canada more than any other) was they were the militia fighting and deciding important campaigns, justifying their claim for political influence after the war. The british won the 7 years war in america by headshotting the french at quebect, NOT by holding the frontier with militia.
The reason 7YW battles don't ships in the US navy is that the victories that were had were won by british regulars outside of modern US territory. The reason 1812 battles deserve ships in the RCN is that they were victories won by canadian militia inside modern Canadian terrtory.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2013, 12:09:41 PM
However, I understand that there isn't much history to Canada, so they can't be picky about what "national history" they call upon to name their ships after. HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are fine names for ships, even if they are named after battles that took place before there was a "Canada." They are part of the national myth, and thus worth commemorating.
I had thought the Chesapeake Incident occurred right before the declaration of war, but turns out it was back in 1807.
I always thought along similar lines. Canadian territory was attacked because it had British targets within striking distance.
They didn't need even more big empty territory to colonize at the time.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2013, 05:02:34 PM
I always thought along similar lines. Canadian territory was attacked because it had British targets within striking distance.
They didn't need even more big empty territory to colonize at the time.
Yeah, and realistically at the time Canada for all intents and purposes was a few British forts and couple major cities of the time. Capturing those was not actually that grandiose a plan; if the United States actually had a functioning regular army prior to declaring war then most likely they would have achieved those goals. It's only because of having essentially no standing army and militia that refused to leave their State borders that saved Canada from the initial invasion. It's questionable as to why Madison and the military leadership felt a bunch of untrained recruits and officers hastily recruited would be effective soldiers, but there you go.
Presumably Madison assumed that his highly partisan war would gain support from even his political enemies. I assumed he proceeded on the assumption that New England would actually participate and that state militias and volunteers could make an army, given that, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2013, 02:56:00 AMI still think that it looks more like insecurity than anything else. Pick the trivial and irrelevant battle that you won against the 800ln gorilla to the south rather than more relevant and significant battles.
I disagree. They're a distinctive part of Canadian history and, if BBoy is right, key in creating a Canadian identity. That's as relevant and significant to Canada as any battle in a war of independence or a revolution. Even if it's not historically accurate that that war 'made' Canada, if it's their national myth that's rather more significant.
As Neil points out it's pride in their past not insecurity.
The War of 1812 was important for both Canada and the United States, but mostly in how it made both look at themselves, so to speak. In the U.S. it taught some lessons about how a proper country needed to be ran and organized, and to some level it also reinforced the concept that America was truly independent of the British. You would not have thought this was in doubt, but I've read a lot of American literature that was written in the period 1840-1880 and I can remember a few scattered passages where characters would note the 1812 War sort of like it had "reinforced" its independence. I don't doubt the perception in Canada about the War of 1812, but just like in the United States I think the perception and the reality were different.
In the U.S. it was perceived as reasserting independence (never in jeopardy), and righting grievances against the British (the British had already decided to stop the offending behavior prior to the DOW by Madison); in Canada it's part of their foundational national folklore and is thought of as successfully fighting off American conquest (when that w as never even something that the Americans intended.)
By far the biggest losers of the War of 1812 were natives in the Northwest Territory; they came hard at the American settlements and thought with British help it was an opportune time to reclaim their land and force the Americans back to the East. Instead the natives lost major battles that basically meant the end of their presence in the region, and after the war without any British help at all the natives that were still around after Tecumseh's War and etc were pretty easily mopped up by Americans who wanted their land.
I propose a different way of examining the annexation question.
Imagine a historical hypothetical in which the shitty American militia won its battles around the Great Lakes, and managed to hold the key border forts at the time the peace treaty was negotiated. I think it's very easy to argue that in that case the US would have pressed for annexation of Upper Canada (modern Ontario), possession being 9/10 of the law, and it's equally plausible that the British wouldn't have fought that hard to retain it. My understanding is that Upper Canada was *very* sparsely populated at the time, and that the vast majority of the Anglo population of the provinces was settled in or around Halifax. Keep in mind the British were willing to concede on search of US ships and the arming of Indian allies *before* the one decisive battle of the entire war had been fought.
I think a rough analogy can be made with the Mexican-American War. I don't consider myself an expert on the origins of that war and starting intentions of the two sides, but as a rough cut it seems that the war arose because Mexicans thought the outcome of the Texan War for Independence was not conclusive. Yet at the end, the victorious US, in occupation of the enemies capital, annexed massive amounts of territory because, well, why not?
I don't feel like pouring through my copy of Pierre Burton's history of 1812 at the moment, but my memory is that a great number of US politicians were calling for the annexation of British North America in the debates leading up to the war.
In short, the argument that "the US didn't want to conquer what became Canada" is false. The US CB may have been impressment, but it was very much a war of territorial expansion. And perhaps not unreasonably - the war of independence was only 30 years ago, the border felt far more fluid that in wound up being.
I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2013, 01:23:31 AM
I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.
At least that way you wouldn't wind up with a useless JD. :console:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2013, 01:23:31 AM
I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.
Somebody wants benefits and a council house.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2013, 09:49:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2013, 01:23:31 AM
I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.
Somebody wants benefits and a council house.
NHS >>>>>>>> Obamacare
Be careful. The Greeks are about to take over the EU presidency.
1. Canadians always argue "politicians argued for annexation", what politicians? Certainly not the cabinet or the President. Random members of Congress say crazy things all the time, but it's the President and typically his administration that actually negotiate peace treaties, not Henry Clay or whoever may have rambled on about annexing Canada (although I would be surprised if it was Clay, his interest in westward expansion was more personally related to areas closer to Kentucky.)
2. With Mexico we had made our intentions known we wanted that large swathe of territory prior to the war. Polk had sent representatives to Mexico willing to offer as much as $30m to settle two outstanding issues, one was the border between Texas and Mexico. When the United States annexed Texas, it adopted the Rio Grande as the border as this was what had been agreed upon in the treaty that ended the Texas War of Independence. But Mexico viewed the treaty as illegitimate and instead insisted a line going roughly North from the Nueces River was the boundary (or alternatively, argued that Mexico still had rightful claim to all of Texas--Mexico's Presidency changed hands like 4-6 times in the year or so leading up to the war.) So part of the $30m was to settle the dispute there and get Mexico to agree formally on the Rio Grande as the border. Secondly, the province of Alta California would also be included in the deal, as many Americans had already moved to the territory and were setting up business for themselves. After concluding the Oregon Treaty with the United Kingdom the last great fear of British expansion in the west was that they might pursue a colony in California (elements back in Britain favored this and they had sent expeditions through the area and found California to be quite favorable.)
Due to an executive leadership vacuum we could barely negotiate any sort of settlement with the Mexicans, and a lot of Mexican hardliners viewed any cessions to the Americans as unacceptable (part of the amount was also forgiveness of very large debts the Mexican government/people owed to the United States, too.)
So right there, prior to the war, Polk had made it known what he wanted and he was willing to pay for it. When there was no progress made in negotiations he sent Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande, and some soldiers under his command were attacked supposedly on the American side of the river (Lincoln was in the House at the time and questioned that narrative and made several attempts to get a precise accounting of where the soldiers were when they were attacked by the Mexicans, but this went nowhere.) That was all the CB Polk needed, and we proceeded to whip Mexico's ass; after the war in the Treaty of G-H, we ended up giving them $15m for the Mexican Cession vs the $30m we had previously offered, for land they never had any hope of keeping in the first place.
With Canada we certainly had no such clear indications as we did with Mexico, nor was the Mexican Cession some sort of "hey, we're here now let's just keep it" thing, it was a pretty publicly acknowledge war goal.
That's all true Otto, but once Polk administration realized the magnitude of the victory they'd won they demanded a lot more only to be stabbed in the back and sabotaged by their treasonous head diplomat.
It's pretty typical that the bigger you're winning the more you ask for, so if the U.S. is in position to demand Ontario they probably will.
What I'm really interested in is to what extent US annexation plans in 1812 have impacted the Toronto/Vancouver housing bubbles.
TBR! :o
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 29, 2013, 11:41:00 PM
What I'm really interested in is to what extent US annexation plans in 1812 have impacted the Toronto/Vancouver housing bubbles.
And the ability to move there at the drop of a hat with 5 dollars in your pocket and a plucky attitude.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 29, 2013, 07:22:54 PM
1. Canadians always argue "politicians argued for annexation", what politicians? Certainly not the cabinet or the President. Random members of Congress say crazy things all the time, but it's the President and typically his administration that actually negotiate peace treaties, not Henry Clay or whoever may have rambled on about annexing Canada (although I would be surprised if it was Clay, his interest in westward expansion was more personally related to areas closer to Kentucky.)
Okay, you made me start looking it up. It certainly was members of the administration. How about William Eustis, the Secretary of War, who said "We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard." How about President Madison who said "[t]he acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching,"
All those butter tarts for the taking.....
:mmm:
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2013, 07:52:15 PM
p.s. We burnt down your White House. :nelson:
So Canada also needs a warship named Washington in memory of that battle. ;)
None of those statements indicates what they intended the disposition of those takings to be. That's like arguing the British desired to annex Spain because of the Peninsular Campaign. You aren't always looking to annex areas you seize in war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2013, 11:17:18 PM
That's all true Otto, but once Polk administration realized the magnitude of the victory they'd won they demanded a lot more only to be stabbed in the back and sabotaged by their treasonous head diplomat.
It's pretty typical that the bigger you're winning the more you ask for, so if the U.S. is in position to demand Ontario they probably will.
There's a lot of white Anglos in Canada at the time that didn't want to be part of the United States. The United States wasn't keen on what it would take to hold Canada. Pushing out a bunch of natives was not big thing, and with the Mexican Cession and Texas acquisition a large population of Americans had already on their own initiative established a strong enough foothold in those regions that the government back in Washington didn't need to worry about the local populace.
There wasn't any very effective mechanism available to the United States at the time to subjugate a hostile country with modern (in that era) weapons and civilization. It's a different matter to push natives out or to take land that Americans had already heavily populated.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 29, 2013, 07:22:54 PM
1. Canadians always argue "politicians argued for annexation", what politicians? Certainly not the cabinet or the President. Random members of Congress say crazy things all the time, but it's the President and typically his administration that actually negotiate peace treaties, not Henry Clay or whoever may have rambled on about annexing Canada (although I would be surprised if it was Clay, his interest in westward expansion was more personally related to areas closer to Kentucky.)
Well it is contoversial one way or the other whether annexation of Canada was one of the primary goals of war with historians on both sides. I don't think it is absurd as you make it sound.
There were numerous positive reasons for taking Cananda that backed other stated goals of the administration. For example of the stated main reasons for the war was to prevent British interference with American westward settlement, by aiding the Native Americans in particular. Well obviously throwing the British out of Canada would be an easy way to handle that problem. And it was a means in itself to more ideological or fervent Americans as Thomas Jefferson hoped in 1812:
QuoteThe acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent
I mean booting the British Empire from the continent was the dream. But it was mainly a dream, the American militias were sent up there with the leadership thinking 'well maybe it if goes this way...that could be interesting' but it was not some huge devastating disappointment the Tories did not join with us or anything. It was more like 'ah well guess that is not going to happen' sort of like it was when we tried it with the French back in 1776. Besides we soon had bigger problems to deal with, like troops being released by the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
The militia did not seem to have any illusions about the situation though, my wife's Kentucky ancestors promised their parents they would kill many 'Tories, Frenchmen, and Indians' before they left to fight the Battle of the Thames.
I do not get the butthurt about the names of the Canadian ships though. The War of 1812 is when the whole British Canada project really got going, it was the foundation moment of a nation. I mean nobody gets all butthurt about us naming ships 'Lexington', 'Saratoga', and 'Yorktown'. And if they do they can kiss my ass. I am so tired of naming ships lame garbage like some US politician or some Canadian pansy. We have ships finally named after goddamn battles we should be grateful.
Sweden doesn't have the problem of other countries having ever been victorious against us.
I've actually gone through some books in my library where I've dog-eared some stuff about this as this IIRC has come up multiple times before in the history of Languish (most likely due to the large number of Canadians and their delusional nature.) I would suggest reading the following:
The United States, Great Britain and British North America, From the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace After the War 1812 (http://www.amazon.com/BRITAIN-BRITISH-AMERICA-REVOLUTION-ESTABLISHMENT/dp/B003KCMM0G)
The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (http://www.amazon.com/The-War-1812-Forgotten-Bicentennial/dp/0252078373/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388420965&sr=8-1&keywords=Hickey+War+of+1812)
The Republic in Peril: 1812 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Republic-Peril-Roger-Brown/dp/039300578X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388421007&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Republic+in+Peril+1812)
I'm not sure I have the energy to debate it any further unless someone actually gets up to par with me on this subject.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:20:17 AM
None of those statements indicates what they intended the disposition of those takings to be. That's like arguing the British desired to annex Spain because of the Peninsular Campaign. You aren't always looking to annex areas you seize in war.
Not always, but often times you are.
Why do you think the US was invading upper and lower Canada? They were not a military threat to the US. In fact the one area that was a military threat, namely Halifax, was never even contemplated to be invaded. It was precisely because the US felt that they could invade these areas, be seen as liberators, and incorporate those territories into the US (precisely as they did in subsequent campaigns against Mexico).
And to be fair - that was not a stupid idea. Montreal and lower Canada had only been conquered by the British some sixty years earlier, and while the elites had made their peace with the British it was never a happy marriage. And upper Canada was mostly populated by loyalists - in other words, Americans.
As well, for a war that was supposedly instigated because of British abuses against American shipping, it is curious that when those policies were rescinded days before the war started (though word had not yet reached Washington), that the US insisted on carrying out the war for a further two years. If you've been given your war aims immediately upon your declaration of war, then sssurely the continued persistence in waging war means you had other aims as well.
Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about Clay - he was another big proponent of taking Canada, stating "I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:33:41 AM
I've actually gone through some books in my library where I've dog-eared some stuff about this as this IIRC has come up multiple times before in the history of Languish (most likely due to the large number of Canadians and their delusional nature.) I would suggest reading the following:
The United States, Great Britain and British North America, From the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace After the War 1812 (http://www.amazon.com/BRITAIN-BRITISH-AMERICA-REVOLUTION-ESTABLISHMENT/dp/B003KCMM0G)
The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (http://www.amazon.com/The-War-1812-Forgotten-Bicentennial/dp/0252078373/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388420965&sr=8-1&keywords=Hickey+War+of+1812)
The Republic in Peril: 1812 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Republic-Peril-Roger-Brown/dp/039300578X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388421007&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Republic+in+Peril+1812)
I'm not sure I have the energy to debate it any further unless someone actually gets up to par with me on this subject.
I get most of my knowledge from
http://www.amazon.com/Pierre-Bertons-War-1812-Berton-ebook/dp/B004UI0OF4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388421387&sr=1-1&keywords=1812+pierre+burton
I don't always like Berton's writing style, but his books are very well researched.
Also, when people start quoting Thomas Jefferson and his anti-British viewpoints in discussions about the War of 1812 that's usually when I know they've conceded their point. TJ had nothing to do with the War of 1812 anymore than George W. Bush has anything to do with the stuff Obama is doing in office.
There's a ton of source material that shows the war plan was to use Canada as a means to get British grievances addressed. Only out of context quotes like those from BB and irrelevant ones from powerless figures during the conflict like Thomas Jefferson exist to the contrary. We have the Congressional record and lots of other primary source material showing that the goal of taking Canada was to force the British into a negotiated peace.
There is also little mechanism by which the United States could have annexed Canada. What legal form would Canada be converted to? Certainly not States, in the War of 1812 era States were paramount, and if we brought Canada in as a State or cut it up into 1-2 States they'd be able to break away essentially immediately. Even fighting to keep them in would have been politically nigh-impossible in the 1810s-1820s.
We could have made them a territory, but there was no precedent for the United States creating a territory made up of settled, hostile Europeans. How would we have kept them under thumb? We had virtually no standing army even after 1812, the standing army we had raised was not signed up for life. They typically signed short enlistments and the volunteers were primarily motivated by a desire to defend the national honor and fight against Britain (glory seeking was rampant--the War of 1812 required no conscription and had an excess of volunteers.) But when the task becomes "suppress revolts in Canada", those soldiers would not sign up for new enlistments to do that, they'd want back to their homes. The State militias in the other States certainly would not go to Canada to suppress rebellion.
Madison was actually President of the United States, so I suspect he knew all of this far better than I and more of the particulars as to why it was untenable. Yes, if Canadians had hated the British and essentially rose up in arms with us during the War of 1812 we may have annexed Canada regardless of what our pre-war goals were. But given the lack of any interest in becoming American by the English speaking Canadians (most of whom in 1812 were probably UELs who had fled America after the Revolution) even if we had taken and held the key Canadian forts/towns I see no real scenario where Madison actually thinks it could be a permanent acquisition. Not only was it militarily impossible it would have been politically unpopular.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:33:41 AM
(most likely due to the large number of Canadians and their delusional nature.)
And why would somebody want to debate you on this when you obviously have already made your mind up?
The professor I TA'd for at Texas State believed that annexation of Canada was a goal of the war, I buy the line that it was a bit of a fuzzy incredibly optimistic dream. That many people let themselves dream we could win a glorious victory and with the liberated Canadians by our side throw the tyrannical British from North America, and more level headed and practical types went along with it at least to test the waters.
I mean this is a subject historians still debate. So I am not sure it is something we can really come to a consensus about.
The fact though is that, regardless of our intentions, is the Canadians COULD have taken this opportunity to join the US but rejected it and went off on their own path. That is the beginning of English-speaking Canada.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:40:43 AM
Also, when people start quoting Thomas Jefferson and his anti-British viewpoints in discussions about the War of 1812 that's usually when I know they've conceded their point.
See? I mean why bother? 'You've already lost! Haha!'
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:40:43 AM
Also, when people start quoting Thomas Jefferson and his anti-British viewpoints in discussions about the War of 1812 that's usually when I know they've conceded their point. TJ had nothing to do with the War of 1812 anymore than George W. Bush has anything to do with the stuff Obama is doing in office.
There's a ton of source material that shows the war plan was to use Canada as a means to get British grievances addressed. Only out of context quotes like those from BB and irrelevant ones from powerless figures during the conflict like Thomas Jefferson exist to the contrary. We have the Congressional record and lots of other primary source material showing that the goal of taking Canada was to force the British into a negotiated peace.
There is also little mechanism by which the United States could have annexed Canada. What legal form would Canada be converted to? Certainly not States, in the War of 1812 era States were paramount, and if we brought Canada in as a State or cut it up into 1-2 States they'd be able to break away essentially immediately. Even fighting to keep them in would have been politically nigh-impossible in the 1810s-1820s.
We could have made them a territory, but there was no precedent for the United States creating a territory made up of settled, hostile Europeans. How would we have kept them under thumb? We had virtually no standing army even after 1812, the standing army we had raised was not signed up for life. They typically signed short enlistments and the volunteers were primarily motivated by a desire to defend the national honor and fight against Britain (glory seeking was rampant--the War of 1812 required no conscription and had an excess of volunteers.) But when the task becomes "suppress revolts in Canada", those soldiers would not sign up for new enlistments to do that, they'd want back to their homes. The State militias in the other States certainly would not go to Canada to suppress rebellion.
Madison was actually President of the United States, so I suspect he knew all of this far better than I and more of the particulars as to why it was untenable. Yes, if Canadians had hated the British and essentially rose up in arms with us during the War of 1812 we may have annexed Canada regardless of what our pre-war goals were. But given the lack of any interest in becoming American by the English speaking Canadians (most of whom in 1812 were probably UELs who had fled America after the Revolution) even if we had taken and held the key Canadian forts/towns I see no real scenario where Madison actually thinks it could be a permanent acquisition. Not only was it militarily impossible it would have been politically unpopular.
But that's why they all keep going on about "just needing to march".
It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted. And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... ;)
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted. And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... ;)
I don't think it was assumed. We weren't giving those goddamn Tories that much credit.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
But that's why they all keep going on about "just needing to march".
It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted. And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... ;)
That really sounds like how easy a military strategy would be (which is different then the motive) One could say similar things to the invasion of Iraq, and nobody wanted to actually
own Iraq.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2013, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
But that's why they all keep going on about "just needing to march".
It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted. And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... ;)
That really sounds like how easy a military strategy would be (which is different then the motive) One could say similar things to the invasion of Iraq, and nobody wanted to actually own Iraq.
But invading York is a useless military strategy in and of itself. It doesn't advance your stated war aims, which had to do with shipping. There was no high-value target there, no significant military fort that was threatening you.
INvading York is only a useful military strategy if your ultimate goal is to own York.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 12:43:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2013, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
But that's why they all keep going on about "just needing to march".
It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted. And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... ;)
That really sounds like how easy a military strategy would be (which is different then the motive) One could say similar things to the invasion of Iraq, and nobody wanted to actually own Iraq.
But invading York is a useless military strategy in and of itself. It doesn't advance your stated war aims, which had to do with shipping. There was no high-value target there, no significant military fort that was threatening you.
INvading York is only a useful military strategy if your ultimate goal is to own York.
Not at all - that isn't how wars worked in that time.
Grabbing stuff of the other guy was part of making war, because it gave you a bargaining chip after the war.
But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.
At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value. But York?
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 01:09:01 PM
But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.
At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value. But York?
So?
So your argument is that the area was desirable enough that the US wished to conquer it, but not desirable enough for the US to want to seize it and use in a post-war peace deal? How does that follow?
And all this is ignoring the difference between what the goals are once the war starts, as compared to what the motivation for the war might be - not at all the same thing.
And it is all pretty much irrelevant to the basic fact that these battles were not "Canadian" victories anymore than the Brits winning the Seven Years War were American victories, and the fact that the battles in question were largely meaningless, except, apparently, as the basis for a Canadian alternate history mythos where they bravely seized/defended/established their independence against the evil, conquering Americans intent on denying it to them..
Which really is pretty damn funny, at the end of the day. Canucks are just adorable!
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 01:09:01 PM
But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.
At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value. But York?
So?
So your argument is that the area was desirable enough that the US wished to conquer it, but not desirable enough for the US to want to seize it and use in a post-war peace deal? How does that follow?
And all this is ignoring the difference between what the goals are once the war starts, as compared to what the motivation for the war might be - not at all the same thing.
And it is all pretty much irrelevant to the basic fact that these battles were not "Canadian" victories anymore than the Brits winning the Seven Years War were American victories, and the fact that the battles in question were largely meaningless, except, apparently, as the basis for a Canadian alternate history mythos where they bravely seized/defended/established their independence against the evil, conquering Americans intent on denying it to them..
Which really is pretty damn funny, at the end of the day. Canucks are just adorable!
Clearly the area was going to be desireable. It was an area that the US would want to seize in order to open it up for settlement. But in 1812? Seizing York was hardly going to force the Brits to the negotiating table.
Look, some victories were obviously more Canadian than others. I threw out a gratuitous "we burned down your White House" comment because tradition demands it, but that was an action carried out on US soil by regular british soldiers. Canada has nothing to do with it.
But Queenston Heights and CHateauguay? Those were battles fought on Canadian soil, and fought in large part by Canadian militiamen (bolstered and commanded by British soldiers). That sounds pretty Canadian to me.
WHat's adorable is Americans claiming that despite the US being involved in repeated wars of Conquest for the entire 19th century, that this one war was different - they had no territorial ambitions whatsoever (and just ignore all that Manifest Destiny crap)!
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 01:09:01 PM
But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.
At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value. But York?
Well England was a bit out of reach. They attacked what was within striking distance. It was my understanding that York had a fort, and was a regional capital. That sounds like a political and military objective to me.
Shame Manifest Destiny post dates the war by quite a bit.
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2013, 02:53:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 01:09:01 PM
But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.
At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value. But York?
Well England was a bit out of reach. They attacked what was within striking distance. It was my understanding that York had a fort, and was a regional capital. That sounds like a political and military objective to me.
Upper Canada was hardly within easy reach either - they had to travel through the wilds of Detroit to get there (my, the more things change...) ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
ACW
It had significant territorial implications---north, east, and west.
To the north, there was canada.
To the west, there was british involvement with native tribes, which was thwarting expansion within US territory.
To the east, the british were impinging on the rights of American trading ships.
The war was for a long time taught in the US as the "second war of independence", because it was critical to the practical recognition of US sovereignty by the British. The victory for the US on the west and east issues was very important, and I think the war is one of the most important the US has ever fought.
The Northern issue - Canada - is different. After the Revolution, the legend of British despotism was engrained in the US national narrative. The idea that Canadians might prefer British rule was not really conceivable for a lot of Americans. The US made rather pathetic and comical attempts at conquest during the early parts of the war, because, imo, they never understood they actually needed to fight for Canada. The assumption was the Anglo - Canadians would simply join the US and the British didn't have the means to stop it. Once that assumption was shown to be wrong, it was most important for the US to prevail on the western and eastern issues--where it had its hands more than full anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
Spanish American war was for selling newspapers.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
:lmfao:
Is this part of the Canadian mythology as well, or is this more of a personal mythology?
The US wanted to conquer it for ideological reasons.
When you think of the early US, it's helpful to think of them as being like the Nazis.
When you think of Neil's trolling, it's helpful to think of him as being like Goebbels. Readily transparent.
Goebbels had some moves. I think a better comparison is to Hugo Chavez' trolling.
Come on. Big ideas? Expansionist? Bloodthirsty? Racialist? Mass use of slavery? They're not expactly the same, but the broad strokes are all there.
When the strokes are broad enough everyone is there.
Goebbels was loyal, and loyalty is enough.
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 03:19:55 PM
The US wanted to conquer it for ideological reasons.
When you think of the early US, it's helpful to think of them as being like the Nazis.
I fully reject this statement.
What the US did was not unusual compared to other nations of the 19th century. But that doesn't mean they weren't wars of conquest.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 05:03:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 03:19:55 PM
The US wanted to conquer it for ideological reasons.
When you think of the early US, it's helpful to think of them as being like the Nazis.
I fully reject this statement.
What the US did was not unusual compared to other nations of the 19th century. But that doesn't mean they weren't wars of conquest.
I believe the key term was "repeated wars of Conquest for the entire 19th century,". You really have to have a very serious axe to grind to describe US history in the 19th century in that manner.
Quote from: Valmy on December 30, 2013, 11:45:15 AMAnd why would somebody want to debate you on this when you obviously have already made your mind up?
The professor I TA'd for at Texas State believed that annexation of Canada was a goal of the war, I buy the line that it was a bit of a fuzzy incredibly optimistic dream. That many people let themselves dream we could win a glorious victory and with the liberated Canadians by our side throw the tyrannical British from North America, and more level headed and practical types went along with it at least to test the waters.
I mean this is a subject historians still debate. So I am not sure it is something we can really come to a consensus about.
The fact though is that, regardless of our intentions, is the Canadians COULD have taken this opportunity to join the US but rejected it and went off on their own path. That is the beginning of English-speaking Canada.
There is no debate that the actual Congressional records, and the words of guys like Henry Clay and Madison explicitly describe a strategy that relies on using Canada as a bargaining chip. I'm not really engaging in what you are, which is "speculation", I'm just repeating the facts as we know them. Is it possibly Madison and others would have decided to keep Canada if the invasion had gone well? Sure. It's also possible the New England states in a fit of anger at the Mid-Atlantic and Southern warmongering and animosity with Britain broke away and formed their own country. It's possible Texas becomes a dependency of Belgium or that William the Conqueror falls off his horse and dies on the way to Hastings. But that's just speculative, and cannot be derived from facts. The facts we do have only point to using Canada as a bargaining chip. Everything else is "well, I think this would have happened if this had happened."
Now, I don't doubt a professor at Texas State thought that annexation was a war goal. I might think any number of things if I was a professor at such an undistinguished school, but one of the books I linked to was written by Don Hickey who is considered the preeminent scholar of his generation on the War of 1812 who has won various awards and accolades for his War of 1812 research.
I guess we'll never know, since the US lost a number of battles and thus was unable to win the war. Because of this, a Canadian guys would write 200 years later that Americans shouldn't be butthurt over the naming of Canadian ships after these battles, even though no Americans seem to be raging about that. Ultimately, the War of 1812 will primarily be remembered by Canadians as the deliverance that allows us socialized medicine, and by the Americans not at all, except for people who are like to argue that they didn't really lose.
I pat myself on the back for this thread.
It will continue to be remembered by Americans for kicking a lot of British ass, particularly at sea.
I think that the better troll is winning this thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
It will continue to be remembered by Americans for kicking a lot of British ass, particularly at sea.
If remembered at all in the US, it is for the Star Spangled Banner.
Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2013, 05:49:02 PM
If remembered at all in the US, it is for the Star Spangled Banner.
My guess is only around 1/20 Americans could tell you when that was written.
Yeah, I suspect most Americans would guess that they're talking about the rebellion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 11:40:43 AM
There is also little mechanism by which the United States could have annexed Canada. What legal form would Canada be converted to? Certainly not States, in the War of 1812 era States were paramount, and if we brought Canada in as a State or cut it up into 1-2 States they'd be able to break away essentially immediately. Even fighting to keep them in would have been politically nigh-impossible in the 1810s-1820s.
We could have made them a territory, but there was no precedent for the United States creating a territory made up of settled, hostile Europeans. How would we have kept them under thumb? We had virtually no standing army even after 1812, the standing army we had raised was not signed up for life. They typically signed short enlistments and the volunteers were primarily motivated by a desire to defend the national honor and fight against Britain (glory seeking was rampant--the War of 1812 required no conscription and had an excess of volunteers.) But when the task becomes "suppress revolts in Canada", those soldiers would not sign up for new enlistments to do that, they'd want back to their homes. The State militias in the other States certainly would not go to Canada to suppress rebellion.
... I see no real scenario where Madison actually thinks it could be a permanent acquisition. Not only was it militarily impossible it would have been politically unpopular.
There was plenty of modern Canadian territory we could have demanded had we won that was then uninhabited such as the Oregon territory and the territory controlled by the Hudson Bay company.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2013, 05:31:31 PM
Is it possibly Madison and others would have decided to keep Canada if the invasion had gone well? Sure. It's also possible the New England states in a fit of anger at the Mid-Atlantic and Southern warmongering and animosity with Britain broke away and formed their own country. It's possible Texas becomes a dependency of Britain or that William the Conqueror falls off his horse and dies on the way to Hastings. But that's just speculative, and cannot be derived from facts. The facts we do have only point to using Canada as a bargaining chip. Everything else is "well, I think this would have happened if this had happened."
Fixed
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
I pat myself on the back for this thread.
You did well. I have been entertained.
The Pig War was a far more vital American/Canadian conflict.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 30, 2013, 11:18:17 PM
The Pig War was a far more vital American/Canadian conflict.
Your just saying that because the Americans won that round - in litigation.... :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
Of course it is, since they were not wars, and there weren't any foreign nations to conquer in "repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century".
I wouldn't classify protecting squatters from being killed by absentee landlords as a "war of conquest" :P
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War.
That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands. Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War.
That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands. Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.
It's one of those things where there is just enough of a shred of similarity to allow someone to pretend like it was basically the same thing as Napoleon marching into Austria.
Of course, it is utter rubbish in any honest discussion. But then, people who make such claims are not generally much interested in that.
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands. Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.
The Great Plains Business doesn't fit the war of conquest template at all. You should know that better than most folks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands. Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.
The Great Plains Business doesn't fit the war of conquest template at all. You should know that better than most folks.
A series of campaigns by the military to stake out various strategic terrain in several decades, though really 1850s-1870s for the main work, followed by movement of peoples away from traditional lands after the military actions were dying down strikes me as (in part, I noted) wars of conquest.
As Berk notes, it is not Napoleon marching through Austria, it is rather more like the conquests of ancient period.
Quote from: Berkut on December 31, 2013, 05:09:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands. Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.
It's one of those things where there is just enough of a shred of similarity to allow someone to pretend like it was basically the same thing as Napoleon marching into Austria.
Of course, it is utter rubbish in any honest discussion. But then, people who make such claims are not generally much interested in that.
It is more like the conquests of the Ancient World, to be honest. Though set in the 19th century, it was conquest in the mold of Dacia rather than Austria.
I'm puzzled as to which ancient wars of conquest were fought to ensure unmolested transit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 05:25:02 PM
I'm puzzled as to which ancient wars of conquest were fought to ensure unmolested transit.
If you believe that was what the struggles on the Great Plains (and the Columbia River drainage) was about you have read some slanted works. The actions concerning the Oregon Trail and later railroads in regions like future Wyoming were not the driving force of the military actions (and trail protection was indeed part of the this region's actions). Instead, it was the military presence due in part to settlement and economic concerns that drove the conquest.
The military presence in mining regions, settlement areas (often not according to treaties), and along the West Coast in the period from 1850-1865 bears the hallmark of military campaigns of subjugation followed by garrison and reprisals to ensure control of the region. Utley, no hysterical claimant of genocide or the like acknowledges that they were military campaigns of conquest - conquest because of the settlement and movement of Europeans, not some fanatical military or government policy to put the Indian away.
The plains was more than the Oregon Trail, though that narrative of Whites just moving through and being attacked is as useful now as it was then.
Quote from: Berkut on December 31, 2013, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2013, 02:57:32 PM
Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century? :unsure:
It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?
Of course it is, since they were not wars, and there weren't any foreign nations to conquer in "repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century".
It's a good thing no nations were conquered on the way to the Pacific.
Damn the white man.
Ohio is thankfully Indian free.
But not beaner free. :glare:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2013, 06:00:53 PM
Ohio is thankfully Indian free.
But not beaner free. :glare:
We are reclaiming our lands!
Quote from: katmai on December 31, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2013, 06:00:53 PM
Ohio is thankfully Indian free.
But not beaner free. :glare:
We are reclaiming our lands!
Stop reading Shadowrun sourcebooks.
But I wanna be a street samurai!
Katmai is aggressively redefining Aztlan. :o
Quote from: katmai on December 31, 2013, 06:09:19 PM
But I wanna be a street samurai!
Who sleeps in Internet cafes.
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 05:36:51 PM
If you believe that was what the struggles on the Great Plains (and the Columbia River drainage) was about you have read some slanted works. The actions concerning the Oregon Trail and later railroads in regions like future Wyoming were not the driving force of the military actions (and trail protection was indeed part of the this region's actions). Instead, it was the military presence due in part to settlement and economic concerns that drove the conquest.
The military presence in mining regions, settlement areas (often not according to treaties), and along the West Coast in the period from 1850-1865 bears the hallmark of military campaigns of subjugation followed by garrison and reprisals to ensure control of the region. Utley, no hysterical claimant of genocide or the like acknowledges that they were military campaigns of conquest - conquest because of the settlement and movement of Europeans, not some fanatical military or government policy to put the Indian away.
The plains was more than the Oregon Trail, though that narrative of Whites just moving through and being attacked is as useful now as it was then.
The slanted book I've read is Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
The forts established in the Missouri River basin were not, to the best of my knowledge, set up to protect mining operations or agricultural settlements. The Great Plains were considered a desert until the invention of the steel plow.
Street samurais hang out at the corner of Home Depot.
What about the mining operations in the Rockies, the settlements in the Columbia, the riches of the Coast? They were all protected by military forts and aggressive shows of force to pacify the Indians. And to the contrary, the forts of the Plains (though you are right, not the High Plains) were to protect settlement in Iowa, Minnesota, the Eastern Dakotas, Kansas in the pre Civil War period...
While Wyoming and Montana were roads to elsewhere (at least until the post Civil War period and the discoveries of gold in the Rockies), the whole Great Plains was military involved to protect settlement and economic interests.
The area is vast, and to take the 1830-1850 Missouri/Platte or Missouri/Yellowstone forts as defining is rather narrow.
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 06:14:20 PM
Street samurais hang out at the corner of Home Depot.
Hey esse, we'll kill your neighbor for 20 dollars and an El Paso Taco Kit.
Nuyen, Ed. 20 Nuyen. :nerd:
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 06:20:16 PM
What about the mining operations in the Rockies, the settlements in the Columbia, the riches of the Coast? They were all protected by military forts and aggressive shows of force to pacify the Indians. And to the contrary, the forts of the Plains (though you are right, not the High Plains) were to protect settlement in Iowa, Minnesota, the Eastern Dakotas, Kansas in the pre Civil War period...
While Wyoming and Montana were roads to elsewhere (at least until the post Civil War period and the discoveries of gold in the Rockies), the whole Great Plains was military involved to protect settlement and economic interests.
The area is vast, and to take the 1830-1850 Missouri/Platte or Missouri/Yellowstone forts as defining is rather narrow.
You'll notice I purposely started out limiting my discussion to the Great Plains. I know things were different in Colorado, Utah, and the Pacific Northwest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 06:27:47 PM
You'll notice I purposely started out limiting my discussion to the Great Plains. I know things were different in Colorado, Utah, and the Pacific Northwest.
And you are defining the Great Plains as Wyoming and Montana, Western Nebraska and the Western Dakotas? Really that limits things a bit...
I'm defining the Great Plains by both the presence of untillable prairie grass and the orbit of the horse-riding, buffalo hunting Plains tribes.
I'm defining this evening as beer drinking starting....now!
:face:
Quote from: PDH on December 31, 2013, 08:01:47 PM
I'm defining this evening as beer drinking starting....now!
Yi went to great plains to explain this to you. Don't be an ass.
Quote from: Valmy on December 30, 2013, 11:25:59 AM
I am so tired of naming ships lame garbage like some US politician or some Canadian pansy. We have ships finally named after goddamn battles we should be grateful.
HMCS Justin Trudeau.
HMCS Gilles Duceppe.
Cool names, I think. :ph34r:
:P
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 05:39:19 PM
I guess we'll never know, since the US lost a number of battles and thus was unable to win the war. Because of this, a Canadian guys would write 200 years later that Americans shouldn't be butthurt over the naming of Canadian ships after these battles, even though no Americans seem to be raging about that. Ultimately, the War of 1812 will primarily be remembered by Canadians as the deliverance that allows us socialized medicine, and by the Americans not at all, except for people who are like to argue that they didn't really lose.
Neil nails it.
The Americans--well, the 1 in 1000 who actually know anything about the war of 1812 - are just mad at the Brit/Canuck side for giving back Detroit. :P
Quote from: Malthus on January 02, 2014, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 05:39:19 PM
I guess we'll never know, since the US lost a number of battles and thus was unable to win the war. Because of this, a Canadian guys would write 200 years later that Americans shouldn't be butthurt over the naming of Canadian ships after these battles, even though no Americans seem to be raging about that. Ultimately, the War of 1812 will primarily be remembered by Canadians as the deliverance that allows us socialized medicine, and by the Americans not at all, except for people who are like to argue that they didn't really lose.
Neil nails it.
The Americans--well, the 1 in 1000 who actually know anything about the war of 1812 - are just mad at the Brit/Canuck side for giving back Detroit. :P
Yep. The only real outcome of the war was to allow Canadians to delude themselves that they "won a war" against the US, and so could thus claim to be a nation. The fact that the nation is based on a lie doesn't make it less a nation (see: the US), and if the Canadians want to believe the lie that the US lost the war, I say they are welcome to their national myths. No one else really cares, and they care a lot, so let it be so.
Quote from: grumbler on January 02, 2014, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 02, 2014, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 05:39:19 PM
I guess we'll never know, since the US lost a number of battles and thus was unable to win the war. Because of this, a Canadian guys would write 200 years later that Americans shouldn't be butthurt over the naming of Canadian ships after these battles, even though no Americans seem to be raging about that. Ultimately, the War of 1812 will primarily be remembered by Canadians as the deliverance that allows us socialized medicine, and by the Americans not at all, except for people who are like to argue that they didn't really lose.
Neil nails it.
The Americans--well, the 1 in 1000 who actually know anything about the war of 1812 - are just mad at the Brit/Canuck side for giving back Detroit. :P
Yep. The only real outcome of the war was to allow Canadians to delude themselves that they "won a war" against the US, and so could thus claim to be a nation. The fact that the nation is based on a lie doesn't make it less a nation (see: the US), and if the Canadians want to believe the lie that the US lost the war, I say they are welcome to their national myths. No one else really cares, and they care a lot, so let it be so.
Sooo ... I take it you agree about Detroit? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on January 02, 2014, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 02, 2014, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 05:39:19 PM
I guess we'll never know, since the US lost a number of battles and thus was unable to win the war. Because of this, a Canadian guys would write 200 years later that Americans shouldn't be butthurt over the naming of Canadian ships after these battles, even though no Americans seem to be raging about that. Ultimately, the War of 1812 will primarily be remembered by Canadians as the deliverance that allows us socialized medicine, and by the Americans not at all, except for people who are like to argue that they didn't really lose.
Neil nails it.
The Americans--well, the 1 in 1000 who actually know anything about the war of 1812 - are just mad at the Brit/Canuck side for giving back Detroit. :P
Yep. The only real outcome of the war was to allow Canadians to delude themselves that they "won a war" against the US, and so could thus claim to be a nation. The fact that the nation is based on a lie doesn't make it less a nation (see: the US), and if the Canadians want to believe the lie that the US lost the war, I say they are welcome to their national myths. No one else really cares, and they care a lot, so let it be so.
I dont really care that you dont understand the signficance of the war of 1812. As Malthus stated, most Americans dont. But despite your lack of understanding and your dripping sarcasm you are somewhat close to the truth. Canadians do not believe they won a war against the US. We do, however, believe that the war was signficant to the later formation of Canada for a couple of reasons.
First, if the Americans had succeeded with their planned invasion there might not have been a Canada - at least in the form we now know it. It may well have been restricted to Maritime provinces to protect the main thing the British really cared about, their naval base at Halifax.
Second, the spectre of the American threat was later used as an argument for the formation of Canada to better fend off the barbarians. Variants of the American threat argument are used to this day. Although we dont worry too much about a military threat we do constantly remind ourselves that we want to be like Americans. Health care is a good example. The biggest insult one Canadian can give to another Canadian is that they want American style X.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 31, 2013, 05:38:33 PMIt's a good thing no nations were conquered on the way to the Pacific.
There's a big distinction between "winning" the West and "conquering" it. The distinction may be lost on the various nations that inhabited the territory prior to it being won, but that's an insignificant detail.
Have any of the Canadians read 1812: War with America? I found it quite interesting and a welcome change to the usual American narrative of things. http://www.amazon.com/1812-War-America-Jon-Latimer/dp/0674034775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388742162&sr=8-1&keywords=1812+war+with+america
After a few too many complimentary refreshments at a press reception, I once asked a Royal Navy Commodore why all our destroyers had such gay names. It was before I became a defence specialist, I hasten to add! And they really don't, except that the Admiral Duncan is a famous gay pub in Soho notoriously targeted by a nail bomber in 1999.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 03, 2014, 04:46:05 AM
Have any of the Canadians read 1812: War with America? I found it quite interesting and a welcome change to the usual American narrative of things. http://www.amazon.com/1812-War-America-Jon-Latimer/dp/0674034775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388742162&sr=8-1&keywords=1812+war+with+america
I haven't read it, but it looks interesting.
The usual US/Canuck trolling aside, it's an interesting conflict which, in spite of the local connections here, isn't well studied or understood.
What parts do you think need more clarity?
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 10:00:30 AM
What parts do you think need more clarity?
I meant "... by average non-historians (like us)".
As in, despite the fact that many of the battles of that war were actually fought in Southern Ontario, including York, it isn't well-known or well-understood by the people who live here.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 10:00:30 AM
What parts do you think need more clarity?
I meant "... by average non-historians (like us)".
As in, despite the fact that many of the battles of that war were actually fought in Southern Ontario, including York, it isn't well-known or well-understood by the people who live here.
I dunno, seems like this thread proves that Canadians understand it pretty well.
The US attacked the nation of Canada, and the plucky Canadians won their independence from Britain by defeating the massive invasion forces put together by the Americans bent on conquest at war with Britain.
What could be confusing?
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:11:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 10:00:30 AM
What parts do you think need more clarity?
I meant "... by average non-historians (like us)".
As in, despite the fact that many of the battles of that war were actually fought in Southern Ontario, including York, it isn't well-known or well-understood by the people who live here.
I dunno, seems like this thread proves that Canadians understand it pretty well.
The US attacked the nation of Canada, and the plucky Canadians won their independence from Britain by defeating the massive invasion forces put together by the Americans bent on conquest at war with Britain.
What could be confusing?
:rolleyes:
Let's try again:
The US declared war with Britain, which of course controlled Canada. The US stated the war was over shipping issues, but many in the US (including President Madison) saw it as a great opportunity to 'liberate' Canada from British control. The US had no standing army, so sent a couple of rag-tag state militias north to try and conquer Canada. Britain, meanwhile, was distracted by a little guy named Napoleon, so had few troops stationed in Canada. The few British troops helped organize the local Canadians into militias, and together were ultimately able to defeat the US invasions.
The invasion of Canada thwarted, and the shipping issues now moot due to the defeat of Napoleon, Britain and the US declared the war a draw. Canadians saw it as some of the first steps to an emerging Canadian national identity, and the memory of those invasions was a key factor in Canadian Confederation 50 years later.
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
:huh:
I never even used the word independence.
I said 1812 and the ongoing fear of a US invasion was a big part of what led to Confederation - bringing together at first Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one new Dominion of Canada. At the time the Fathers of Confederation would have been horrified at the notion that what they were doing was declaring Independence from the Empire. But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity
within the British Empire.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
No surprise here, you have a signally US-inspired view that the Big Bad in other nation's national histories has to be the "colonial masters", and what they truly wanted was "independence". That is not at all what English Canadians thought, or wanted.
What they wanted was the right to self-determination within the Empire, which was never viewed as the Big Bad. That slot was filled by the US, and English Canadians had lots of reasons for that - in spite of (perhaps even because of) the fact that many English Canadians were immigrants from the US, at least, in those early days.
The US example of violent revolution and inter-communial strife, (leading eventually to a massive civil war), and violent expansion at the expense of native groups and Mexicans, was seen as a cautionary tale of what *not* to do, in achieving peaceful self-determination.
It is no surprise that this is "bizzare" to you. In the US, while it is widely acknowledged that 'Mistakes Were Made' (tm), the national story is generally cast as a triumph of freedom. In Canada, the story is that we got the freedom, but without many of the Mistakes (tm).
:lol:
Sorry. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
It is no surprise that this is "bizzare" to you. In the US, while it is widely acknowledged that 'Mistakes Were Made' (tm), the national story is generally cast as a triumph of freedom. In Canada, the story is that we got the freedom, but without many of the Mistakes (tm).
That is a triumph of national delusion, but hey, every nation has those I suppose...
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
:huh:
I never even used the word independence.
I said 1812 and the ongoing fear of a US invasion was a big part of what led to Confederation - bringing together at first Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one new Dominion of Canada. At the time the Fathers of Confederation would have been horrified at the notion that what they were doing was declaring Independence from the Empire. But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity within the British Empire.
That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?
The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.
And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that
1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.
I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity within the British Empire.
Seems to me that the biggest problem with this particular narrative is that y'all never did in fact form a united Canadian identity.
I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this. It seems incredibly clear and logical to me. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 02:57:34 PMSeems to me that the biggest problem with this particular narrative is that y'all never did in fact form a united Canadian identity.
What do you mean?
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 03:15:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 02:57:34 PMSeems to me that the biggest problem with this particular narrative is that y'all never did in fact form a united Canadian identity.
What do you mean?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.timetoast.com%2Fpublic%2Fuploads%2Fphotos%2F4078562%2FFlag_Map_of_Canada_with_Independent_Quebec.png%3F1369222953&hash=27b2568e6ed9e06b8fa77464fc7a0178c13591c3)
?
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
:huh:
I never even used the word independence.
I said 1812 and the ongoing fear of a US invasion was a big part of what led to Confederation - bringing together at first Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one new Dominion of Canada. At the time the Fathers of Confederation would have been horrified at the notion that what they were doing was declaring Independence from the Empire. But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity within the British Empire.
That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?
The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.
And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that
1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.
I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.
I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.
As you yourself noted:
QuoteThe US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
Confederation was designed to prevent groups within what is now "Canada" of seeking just that. What if, for example, Louis Riel approached the US Congress hoping to get a better deal from the US for "Manitoba"?
garbon - if that's what Yi means, then IMO that's an overstatement in spite of the political inclinations of Grallon et. al.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 03, 2014, 03:11:47 PM
I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this. It seems incredibly clear and logical to me. :mellow:
I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained
within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in
Star Wars. :D
Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 03, 2014, 03:11:47 PM
I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this. It seems incredibly clear and logical to me. :mellow:
I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in Star Wars. :D
Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.
I can only think you are willfully creating a strawman American position...at least insofar as the Americans that have participated in this thread.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 03:24:00 PM
I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.
I don't really get this point either. Are you claiming that *Canadians* were clamoring for Confederation because they were afraid they might be "tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire," or that Confederation was a solution cooked up in Westminster to guard against that threat?
In neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.
For what it's worth, the interpretation of Confederation that I recently read was that it was an attempt to submerge a possibly seperatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 03:37:08 PMIn neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.
For what it's worth, the interpretation of Confederation that I recently read was that it was an attempt to submerge a possibly seperatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one.
So you're saying Confederation cannot be seen as important in creating a Canadian identity while your reading suggests that it was an attempt to create a pan-Canadian identity?
I'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
LOL.
So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?
Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?
This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.
:huh:
I never even used the word independence.
I said 1812 and the ongoing fear of a US invasion was a big part of what led to Confederation - bringing together at first Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one new Dominion of Canada. At the time the Fathers of Confederation would have been horrified at the notion that what they were doing was declaring Independence from the Empire. But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity within the British Empire.
That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?
The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.
And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that
1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.
I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.
I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.
As you yourself noted:
QuoteThe US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
Confederation was designed to prevent groups within what is now "Canada" of seeking just that. What if, for example, Louis Riel approached the US Congress hoping to get a better deal from the US for "Manitoba"?
Ahhh, ok - I see what you mean. I was thinking the claim was that you needed to be united in order to resist a US attempt to conquer Canada. Because, as we know from Beebs expert history, the US was engaged in constant wars of conquest pretty much throughout that entire century.... P
I can certainly see the idea of Confederation as a means to short circuit non-military "takeover"....that is interesting.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 03:44:19 PM
I'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?
I wasn't suggesting that. I was highlighting that talk of a united Canadian identity stemming from 1812 is a little odd only insofar that one of the key parts of Canada at that time (Quebec) doesn't seem to be fully united in said identity. Although as you rightfully point out - most of Quebec isn't like grallon, viper et al.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 03, 2014, 03:11:47 PM
I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this. It seems incredibly clear and logical to me. :mellow:
I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in Star Wars. :D
Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.
I am going to operate under the assumption that this is as tongue in cheek as my own postings about the Canadian perspective... :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 03:44:19 PM
So you're saying Confederation cannot be seen as important in creating a Canadian identity while your reading suggests that it was an attempt to create a pan-Canadian identity?
:huh: No.
I think if you cut through the verbiage, it was an attempt to create a single Anglo-majority political unit that would have less tendency to separate from the UK. For comparison take a look at the only other British colony with a significant non-British white population: South Africa.
QuoteI'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?
I think there are broadly speaking two Canadian identities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 03:52:23 PMI think if you cut through the verbiage, it was an attempt to create a single Anglo-majority political unit that would have less tendency to separate from the UK.
That's not an unreasonable interpretation.
It seems to me that that attempt was reasonably successful, and that it formed the foundation for the Canadian identity afterwards. So of course we celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.
QuoteFor comparison take a look at the only other British colony with a significant non-British white population: South Africa.
Not sure what you mean for us to take from that comparison.
QuoteI think there are broadly speaking two Canadian identities.
Let me guess: First Nations and immigrant-derived?
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 03:59:36 PM
Not sure what you mean for us to take from that comparison.
That Britain felt, with good reason, that non-British white subjects would feel less attached to the mother country.
CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 03:24:00 PM
I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.
I don't really get this point either. Are you claiming that *Canadians* were clamoring for Confederation because they were afraid they might be "tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire," or that Confederation was a solution cooked up in Westminster to guard against that threat?
In neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.
For what it's worth, the interpretation of Confederation that I recently read was that it was an attempt to submerge a possibly seperatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one.
Confederation in Canada was a complex process, but it was undoubtedly indigenous - it was not something imposed by the Brits.
Part of it was a reaction to the US Civil War. Canadians were horrified by that conflict. It killed dead any lingering notions that joining the US en bloc was desireable.
Part of it was reaction to the post-Civil War Fenian raids. Yes, these were comic-opera in hindsight, but the notion of thousands of Irish-American Civil War vets swarming into Canada bent on pillage and murder (with the US largely indifferent to stopping them, due to anger at the Brits supporting the South in the Civil War) was horrifying at the time.
QuoteThe Fenian raids caused an increased anti-American feeling in Canada and the Maritimes because of the U.S. government's perceived tolerance of the Fenians when they were meeting openly and preparing for the raids.The raids also aroused a martial spirit among Canadians by testing the militia's strength. Because of their poor performance, the militia took efforts to improve themselves. This was achieved without the huge cost of a real war. The greatest impact of the Fenian raids was in the developing a sense of Canadian nationalism and leading the provinces into a Confederation. This was shown to be necessary for survival and self-defence; the raids showed Canadians that safety lay in unity. The Fenian raids thus should be viewed as an important factor in creating the country we know today as Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids#Results_and_long_term_effects
To Canadians, the Fenian raids combined with the War of 1812 demonstrated the necessity of self-defence, even though, as stated, the raids themselves were comic-opera affairs.
Part of it was to discourage local actors from attempting to play the US off against fellow-colonies. Unity was seen as important.
Part of it was simply to obtain comparative advantages for resources and taxation.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 02:50:43 PM
That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?
The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.
And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that
1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.
This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.
I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.
I wanted to address the bolded part, because it's at least something new to argue.
Canada in the 1860s was very, very concerned about the possibility of a US invasion.
Now you can argue that such fears were misplaced, but that that fear existed should not be doubted. It was very much one of the prime motivators behind Confederation.
Why did Canadians fear invasion? Well, as mentioned, there was the example of 1812. By the 1860s that would be very old news - a battle your grandfather fought in, but it was not forgotten. Probably more important though was the fact that there was an armed paramilitary group than was planning, and carried out, military assaults into Canada from the United States - the Fenian Brotherhood. Their stated aim was to pressure for an independent Ireland, but since the US seemingly turned a blind eye to their activities, it was not hard to see some level of support for their actions.
And finally, by 1865 the United States had one of the largest standing armies in the world, and Canada had no unified military defending it.
Edit: Malthus beat me to mentioning the Fenians. <_<
Tramp, tramp, tramp the boys are marching
Onward, onward let them come
For beneath the Union Jack
We will drive the Fenians back
And we'll fight for our beloved Canadian homes!
- I learned this song from my grandfather.
The US of the mid-19th century had no qualms about invading their own country. Why would a neighbor feel safe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 03:37:08 PM
For what it's worth, the interpretation of Confederation that I recently read was that it was an attempt to submerge a possibly seperatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one.
That's something of an over-arching theme of Canadian history, true, but it's not actually relevant to Confederation itself.
The reason is that they had already tried "submerging a possibly separatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one". It had happened 20 years earlier, when Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec) were merged into the united Province of Canada. That was done pretty explicitly to try and overwhelm the then French majority.
The problem was that it didn't particularly work well. That's why, as part of Confederation, the separate provinces of Quebec and Ontario were formed.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 03:50:26 PMI wasn't suggesting that. I was highlighting that talk of a united Canadian identity stemming from 1812 is a little odd only insofar that one of the key parts of Canada at that time (Quebec) doesn't seem to be fully united in said identity. Although as you rightfully point out - most of Quebec isn't like grallon, viper et al.
Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that the events of 1812 are some sort of singular all-encompassing source of Canadian identity or anything like that; rather it was one of several early foundational events from which Canadian identity was formed.
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 04:12:56 PM
Why did Canadians fear invasion? Well, as mentioned, there was the example of 1812. By the 1860s that would be very old news - a battle your grandfather fought in, but it was not forgotten. Probably more important though was the fact that there was an armed paramilitary group than was planning, and carried out, military assaults into Canada from the United States - the Fenian Brotherhood. Their stated aim was to pressure for an independent Ireland, but since the US seemingly turned a blind eye to their activities, it was not hard to see some level of support for their actions.
And finally, by 1865 the United States had one of the largest standing armies in the world, and Canada had no unified military defending it.
Edit: Malthus beat me to mentioning the Fenians. <_<
But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada? Malthus linked to the wiki article that seems to suggest that like in 1812, the invasion by the Fenians was done to use Canada as a bargaining chip - not for conquest. I can see then a confederation for mutual defense stemming from that (and the 1812 bit) but not because there was fear that they were going to be annexed - just that their lands were to be continually disrupted/lain to waste if they didn't band together.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2014, 04:12:56 PM
Why did Canadians fear invasion? Well, as mentioned, there was the example of 1812. By the 1860s that would be very old news - a battle your grandfather fought in, but it was not forgotten. Probably more important though was the fact that there was an armed paramilitary group than was planning, and carried out, military assaults into Canada from the United States - the Fenian Brotherhood. Their stated aim was to pressure for an independent Ireland, but since the US seemingly turned a blind eye to their activities, it was not hard to see some level of support for their actions.
And finally, by 1865 the United States had one of the largest standing armies in the world, and Canada had no unified military defending it.
Edit: Malthus beat me to mentioning the Fenians. <_<
But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada? Malthus linked to the wiki article that seems to suggest that like in 1812, the invasion by the Fenians was done to use Canada as a bargaining chip - not for conquest. I can see then a confederation for mutual defense stemming from that (and the 1812 bit) but not because there was fear that they were going to be annexed - just that their lands were to be continually disrupted/lain to waste if they didn't band together.
The Fenian plan had nothing to do with the US wanting to annex Canada, it is true. It is more the theme of continual hostility comming from south of the border.
Note that one of the Fenian raids was undertaken with the express intention of supporting Louis Riel - the Pembina Raid (which was even more farcical than most of the Fenian raids, but still).
The message was clear: any hint of disunity north of the border could easily attract hostile intervention from south of the border. If the disunity was sufficiently serious, and depending on the US political situation at the time, the possibility at least existed of the US doing unto Canada what it had earlier done unto Mexico - that is, nab bits of it.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 04:22:22 PMBut like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada?
In hindsight, maybe; but that is hardly relevant to the issue of the formation of national myths and identity.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 03, 2014, 03:11:47 PM
I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this. It seems incredibly clear and logical to me. :mellow:
Canada Lover! :mad:
How shocking that "Benedict Arnold" is a traitor.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 04:22:22 PMBut like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada?
In hindsight, maybe; but that is hardly relevant to the issue of the formation of national myths and identity.
I don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 04:58:48 PMI don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 04:58:48 PMI don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.
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.
:rolleyes:
Actually, they should have been reading my posts. :angry:
Ted Cruz is swelling with pride, but he doesn't know why.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
The US example of violent revolution and inter-communial strife, (leading eventually to a massive civil war), and violent expansion at the expense of native groups and Mexicans, was seen as a cautionary tale of what *not* to do, in achieving peaceful self-determination.
The American revolution was not that violent as Revolutions go. Certainly was quite tame compared to the contemporary one in France.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:33:00 PM
Ted Cruz is swelling with pride, but he doesn't know why.
That's not "pride", it's the secret hidden smugness that all canadians feel when in contact with their southern counterparts.
Quote from: Viking on January 03, 2014, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:33:00 PM
Ted Cruz is swelling with pride, but he doesn't know why.
That's not "pride", it's the secret hidden smugness that all canadians feel when in contact with their southern counterparts.
thats not true. Our smugness is never hidden :D
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2014, 10:28:38 PM
thats not true. Our smugness is never hidden :D
Pffft, yours is often hidden behind embarrassment. :P
Pretty much everything has been said about this, but I'll just add this.
- The War of 1812 is mostly unknown, except for history buffs, the likes we find on these forums. This goes for America and Canada.
- The myth of this war as one that founded Canada, were English, French and Indians fought side by side to repeal the invader is pretty recent. As of last year, mentionning this got laughs from English Canadians. It still does in Quebec.
- The French militiamen, incorporated with British garrison troops, under the command of Charles de Salaberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Salaberry), fought to defend Lower Canada from an American invasion forces. "Indians" did not rally to the cause, rather, the Mohawks living nearby, mostly former loyalist indians fought with the British, and some French soldiers who decided to join the British military at some point after the Quebec Act, because it pays well. They did their duties, point. There was no drum of war beating in lower Canada, and at this point, I'm unsure they cared either way wich was the worst between two group of englishmen.
- Tecumseh built a formidable alliance of indians to fight against the Americans, siding with the British when the opportunity presented itself. He couldn't care less about British intentions, all he wanted was for his people to be left alone by encroaching Americans. It's not that Americans were nazis and British do-gooders, but there was a ton more Americans than British colonists, and they required more space. As soon as things turn bad, the British turned their back and retreated, leaving Tecumseh and his allies to fend for themselves.
- Later in history, despite the mythology, indians in canadian territories were starved and displaced by the British and the Canadians. Indian bands seeking refuge in Canada were promptly forced to go back to the US to suffer anihilation. It wasn't as bad as in the US, because the country was so large and there were so few colonists, but whenever the British & Canadians needed something, they took it, be it Metis or Indians they were displaced or coerced. Given that the north was mostly for fur trapping and barely any colonization efforts until very later on, the shock was not as brutal as for the US, wich expanded in all four directions at once.
- The American behavior is invading Canada was considered brutal, very brutal, and helped shaped what would become canadian identity, as in "we're not americans". It was a gradual process, not a straight cut. It further develop toward the 1866s, but again, it's a gradual evolution.
- As BB&Malthus said, there were certainly fear of American invasions, politicians did use the War of 1812 as a reminder of what would happen to a disunited Canada. How much did people buy it, I don't know. What was a more pressing fear was US annexation of various territories in their march to the West, once the Civil War was ended. Uninhabited territories could be claimed by whomever, but once colonists start living there, if they petition to rejoin the US, it is doubtful that Great Britain would go to war to preserve some "Canadian unity".
- Building the railroad was the objective of the Canadian Confederation, and that could not be done without a merger of all colonies. As such, the prospect of American invasion was raised, and the War of 1812 was instrumental to raise some fear amongst the populace, what would happen if the Evil Americans were to again invade in force.
- The US Civil War was instrumental in shaping what is Canada today, as the British colonists of the time felt that a decentralized Canada would pave way to a bloody civil war on our side, unless we were governed by a single overarching huge central government. That was certainly Sir John A. McDonald's point of view.
- French was re-established as an official languages and no longer forbidden in parliament as a way to get Quebec politicians onboard the deal. Later on came the myth that Canada save us from anihilation.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 04:16:15 PM
Tramp, tramp, tramp the boys are marching
Onward, onward let them come
For beneath the Union Jack
We will drive the Fenians back
And we'll fight for our beloved Canadian homes!
- I learned this song from my grandfather.
Damn Canadians, stealing our songs.
Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. :blink:
I liked the points you made man.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 05:32:27 PM
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?"
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."
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2014, 11:33:19 AMI am not sure they have read your posts, either. Simple assertion does not equal evidence.
But maybe I have read
their posts :smarty:
QuoteI 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?"
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."
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 may be right. It may well be that the importance of 1812 to the formation of a Canadian identity was a retcon at the time of Confederation, or even later. Personally, I expect that these sort of crucial dates in a nation's mythology as often as not are understood very differently at the time than once they're part of the canon, so to speak.
How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.
Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.
Quote from: JacobHow- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.
Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2014, 03:26:52 AM
Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. :blink:
I liked the points you made man.
Concur - good points, well made.
I'm not sure I agree with the first one entirely, at least for Canada. I think a significant number of Canadians will be at least dimly aware of some sort of "we burnt down the white house!!11!!" claim. Though I guess you can argue that that still counts as "mostly unknown".
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 11:54:13 AM
Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.
Quote from: JacobHow- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.
Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.
Alarming!
Alright, Tim.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 11:54:13 AM
Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.
Quote from: JacobHow- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.
Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.
Alarming!
Alright, Tim.
Shrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.
That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 12:01:29 PMShrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.
That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.
:lol:
And your post says a lot about the importance to you of feeling hard done by.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 12:01:29 PMShrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.
That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.
:lol:
And your post says a lot about the importance to you of feeling hard done by.
Oh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 12:04:38 PMOh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.
Yes Berkut, that is exactly what you should do.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 12:07:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 12:04:38 PMOh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.
Yes Berkut, that is exactly what you should do.
Is he playing a martyr here though? You opened up the can when you said that it might just be mythologizing that posts Canadian identity forming as the result of perceived threats from America. Nothing wrong with contesting that perhaps Canada shouldn't be forcing that myth on its new citizens. :P
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 12:12:37 PMIs he playing a martyr here though?
Yes. Yes he is. He is alarmed about the terrible things Canadians apparently think about his nation, and the weighty implications thereof.
QuoteYou opened up the can when you said that it might just be mythologizing that posts Canadian identity forming as the result of perceived threats from America. Nothing wrong with contesting that perhaps Canada shouldn't be forcing that myth on its new citizens. :P
Yeah, because it's not like the US has a bunch of mythology that casts non-Americans in an unflattering light in the service of its national identity :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 12:26:14 PM
Yes. Yes he is. He is alarmed about the terrible things Canadians apparently think about his nation, and the weighty implications thereof.
I don't know that he has said there are many weighty implications.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 12:26:14 PM
Yeah, because it's not like the US has a bunch of mythology that casts non-Americans in an unflattering light in the service of its national identity :lol:
2 wrongs make a right? Besides, I'd wholeheartedly agree with less American mythologizing and more teaching of nuanced history. Makes it more interesting at least.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2014, 11:50:47 AM
You may be right. It may well be that the importance of 1812 to the formation of a Canadian identity was a retcon at the time of Confederation, or even later. Personally, I expect that these sort of crucial dates in a nation's mythology as often as not are understood very differently at the time than once they're part of the canon, so to speak.
How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.
Agreed, and that is why I think the ship names are fine; they celebrate what the country believes about itself, just as the equivalent US ship names (Ticonderoga and Bunker Hill, especially) celebrate US stories that are not, strictly speaking, historical.
Thinking on this further, I think I'm coming around towards Otto's view on what would have happened if the U.S. had managed to fluke its way to victory (in hindsight nearly impossible, I'd imagine Napoleon would have to do better in Europe distracting Britain, but the how doesn't really matter).
I really don't think the U.S. would have annexed the populated territories in Canada, the American government of the time really was not capable of doing so. It would simply not be as easy as the later annexation of the Mexican cession. Unlike the prewar predictions the Canadians did not welcome the Americans as liberators. They fought them wholeheartedly. The Maritimes and Upper Canada are inhabited by white anglo-saxon protestants. They simply can not be oppressed, disposed of their land, etc like the Mexicans and Native Americans. The political culture of the United States at this time would not be able to bear this.
The expulsion of loyalists after the revolution is simply not comparable. For one thing there is no significant class of elites to favor in opposition to the loyalists, they were all loyalists in Canada. Secondly the American political climate had changed since that time. There is not the personal enmity that was characterized by decades of political and open warfare that engendered the reprisals against the loyalists after the Revolution. The New England states which were lukewarm on the war in the first won't support harsh measures that are likely to disrupt trade and I don't think the South could possibly have the stomach for such a widespread usurpation of private property of a white upper class, it sets a very bad precedent. Nor can they be occupied by a standing army for more than a decade after the war like the south after reconstruction, a standing army of such size and power was politically anathema to America at the time, so much so that they went to war with one of the two strongest nations in the world with virtually nothing but state militia.
Simply put the Maritimes and Upper Canada must be given statehood if they come under U.S. rule, and the states having much more sovereign power at that time, what is to stop them from jumping ship and seceding at the first opportunity. How could they be trusted not to conspire with foreign powers to gain their independence, particularly Great Britain? It is a Civil War waiting to happen.
I don't see how these problems could be overcome and the people in charge would understand that. If the US somehow won in 1812 they would at most demand the cession of the Oregon Country and Rupert's Land.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2014, 03:26:52 AM
Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. :blink:
I liked the points you made man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2014, 03:26:52 AM
Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. :blink:
I liked the points you made man.
I might have been drinking a lot, wich I'm not supposed to do.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
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?"
Your problem is that you see 1867 Canada as being entirely populated by "Canadians", as like today's Canadians. In 1867, I'm pretty sure there was a strong feeling of Americans being Americans rather than former British, right? Southerners prossibly felt more attached to their State than America proper, but they were no longer in any position to do anything about it. I can't see South Carolina in 1867 saying something like "Give us Slavery back or we'll join Mexico". That's totally unrealistic.
However, in 1867 Canada, you got American immigrants, you got British immigrants, you got Irish, Scots, French & Metis. Discounting here the Indian populations.
Among the British, some are deeply loyal to the Crown, some start to feel more like something else, most of them kinda like the Queen and feel loyal, but if it's a choice between their own interests and the interests of the Crown, strong-arming the colonial government might not be out of the question.
Also, if a territory becomes largely populated by American immigrants, whose to say they won't ask the American government to join them as a New State? And what's Great Britain gonna do? They already told canadian officials during the Civil War they wouldn't defend them if there was another invasion.
All of this combined to commercial interests makes a stronger case for unity.
Quote
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.
No, your reading is wrong. BB once posted our 'declaration of independance". I use the quotes, because this word never appears in the statement. As Jacob & Malthus pointed, it's autonomy within the Empire. Canada is still a colony. Its citizens are still British Citizens carrying a British passport. Canada did not achieve independance before the Statute of Westminster, ca 1931-1932.
Quote
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."
Newfoundland was not settled by Americans. America had no claims over Newfoundland. For the western provinces, it was another matter.
Quote
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.
In 1865, advocating anything without the Queen's consent was considered treason. Just being accused of it would discredit you in parliament.
In 1865, a Canadian was a French speaking citizen living in Lower Canada. John A. McDonald did not call himself a Canadian patriot, nor did Georges-Étienne Cartier.
John A. McDonald is not a Canadian equivalent of George Washington. As Jacob&Malthus both said, you got to get out of this 'American' mentality when you analyze canadian politics.
Americans started developing as a nation during the Seven Year Wars and it built up to the Revolution, but that process never happenned in Canada.
Laugh if you want, but I'll quote
Last of the Mohicans here. When the British officer is trying to raise his levy, some of the colonials feel they should protect their homes first, to wich the British officer replies: "For you homes, for King & Country". And then, one of the colonists says "I agree with some of what Nathaniel says [not being much of a subject at all], but I also believe England rules this land". This is Canada in
People may being to feel different, may beging to feel Canadian, but there's no way they'll reject the Crown at that point. They are British citizens beyond anything else. As further evidence, when WW1&WW2 comes, lots of Canadian citizens prefer to enlist in the regular British military rather than the Canadian forces. It is not the sign of a distinct identity, a rupture, as we saw with the US in 1776.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
I really don't think the U.S. would have annexed the populated territories in Canada, the American government of the time really was not capable of doing so. It would simply not be as easy as the later annexation of the Mexican cession. Unlike the prewar predictions the Canadians did not welcome the Americans as liberators. They fought them wholeheartedly. The Maritimes and Upper Canada are inhabited by white anglo-saxon protestants. They simply can not be oppressed, disposed of their land, etc like the Mexicans and Native Americans. The political culture of the United States at this time would not be able to bear this.
My ancestors fought the British too. Those who did not fight saw all their life burn in front of their eyes.
Yet, we were conquered by the British who left a token force in Quebec city. And the only attemp at rebellion was more of a "police action" from the British than a proper military campaign.
Quote
The expulsion of loyalists after the revolution is simply not comparable. For one thing there is no significant class of elites to favor in opposition to the loyalists, they were all loyalists in Canada. Secondly the American political climate had changed since that time. There is not the personal enmity that was characterized by decades of political and open warfare that engendered the reprisals against the loyalists after the Revolution. The New England states which were lukewarm on the war in the first won't support harsh measures that are likely to disrupt trade and I don't think the South could possibly have the stomach for such a widespread usurpation of private property of a white upper class, it sets a very bad precedent. Nor can they be occupied by a standing army for more than a decade after the war like the south after reconstruction, a standing army of such size and power was politically anathema to America at the time, so much so that they went to war with one of the two strongest nations in the world with virtually nothing but state militia.
There isn't that many Loyalists in Canada at the time. Once conquered, you offer them a choice of leaving, with some token compensation, free boat to England, many will take it, the other will learn to live under the new rule.
Lots of territories were conquered throughout time, I think genocide was the exception, most populace simply learn to live with the occupying forces.
QuoteHow could they be trusted not to conspire with foreign powers to gain their independence, particularly Great Britain? It is a Civil War waiting to happen.
Because Great Britain might not think it worth it to reclaim its colonies? Just as France did not seem it was worth it to keep fighting in Europe to preserve lands in India and Canada a few years earlier.
Quote
I don't see how these problems could be overcome and the people in charge would understand that. If the US somehow won in 1812 they would at most demand the cession of the Oregon Country and Rupert's Land.
There wasn't that much people in Ontario at the time. You case might be good for parts of Quebec and the Maritimes, but the Yanks sure would have gotten Ontario out of the deal if they captured and held it.
The rest, well, it's mostly empty space. Conquer a fort, you got something to hold, but walk over a prairie and claim it's yours, good luck holding it if the ennemy strikes back.
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
Your problem is that you see 1867 Canada as being entirely populated by "Canadians", as like today's Canadians. In 1867, I'm pretty sure there was a strong feeling of Americans being Americans rather than former British, right? Southerners prossibly felt more attached to their State than America proper, but they were no longer in any position to do anything about it. I can't see South Carolina in 1867 saying something like "Give us Slavery back or we'll join Mexico". That's totally unrealistic.
Your problem is that you are too much in love with strawman arguments. Nothing you said here responds to any of my points; indeed, they mirror my points. Instead, you put words in my mouth and respond to that. 1867 South Carolina has no analogue in 1867 Canada.
QuoteHowever, in 1867 Canada, you got American immigrants, you got British immigrants, you got Irish, Scots, French & Metis. Discounting here the Indian populations.
Among the British, some are deeply loyal to the Crown, some start to feel more like something else, most of them kinda like the Queen and feel loyal, but if it's a choice between their own interests and the interests of the Crown, strong-arming the colonial government might not be out of the question.
Also, if a territory becomes largely populated by American immigrants, whose to say they won't ask the American government to join them as a New State? And what's Great Britain gonna do? They already told canadian officials during the Civil War they wouldn't defend them if there was another invasion.
All of this combined to commercial interests makes a stronger case for unity.
Actually, as we saw with the case of British Colombia, there was no legal way for a non-US territory to p[petition to become a territory or state. Several bills were offered to try to rectify this in the US Congress, but they all failed. BC was the only current Canadian territory that was ever in danger of trying to seek to join the US, because of the residual US residents from the gold rush era, but it wasn't part of the original Confederation of canada, only joining in 1871 (after Canada offered to absorb the territory's massive per-capita debt). Even then, it was no sense of "Canadian identity" that motivated the British Colombians; they seriously threatened several times thereafter to leave the Confederation in those first years over what they saw as broken promises.
Again, we see "Canadian identity" arising
from confederation, rather than causing it. And, again, we see confederation arising not from fear of a US takeover, but from a desire to simplify and strengthen the hand of the locals vis-a-vis London.
QuoteNo, your reading is wrong. BB once posted our 'declaration of independance". I use the quotes, because this word never appears in the statement. As Jacob & Malthus pointed, it's autonomy within the Empire. Canada is still a colony. Its citizens are still British Citizens carrying a British passport. Canada did not achieve independance before the Statute of Westminster, ca 1931-1932.
You say that my reading is wrong, and then repeat my points! :lol:
QuoteNewfoundland was not settled by Americans. America had no claims over Newfoundland. For the western provinces, it was another matter.
Non sequitor. The US had no claim over the western Canadian provinces. Only BC even had a notable American presence.
QuoteIn 1865, advocating anything without the Queen's consent was considered treason. Just being accused of it would discredit you in parliament.
In 1865, a Canadian was a French speaking citizen living in Lower Canada. John A. McDonald did not call himself a Canadian patriot, nor did Georges-Étienne Cartier.
John A. McDonald is not a Canadian equivalent of George Washington. As Jacob&Malthus both said, you got to get out of this 'American' mentality when you analyze canadian politics.
Americans started developing as a nation during the Seven Year Wars and it built up to the Revolution, but that process never happenned in Canada.
Laugh if you want, but I'll quote Last of the Mohicans here. When the British officer is trying to raise his levy, some of the colonials feel they should protect their homes first, to wich the British officer replies: "For you homes, for King & Country". And then, one of the colonists says "I agree with some of what Nathaniel says [not being much of a subject at all], but I also believe England rules this land". This is Canada in
People may being to feel different, may beging to feel Canadian, but there's no way they'll reject the Crown at that point. They are British citizens beyond anything else. As further evidence, when WW1&WW2 comes, lots of Canadian citizens prefer to enlist in the regular British military rather than the Canadian forces. It is not the sign of a distinct identity, a rupture, as we saw with the US in 1776.
You are just repeating my points! :lol: You've got to stop thinking provincially and actually read what I write before lecturing me "to get out of this 'American' mentality [sic] when you analyze canadian [sic] politics," because your argument is that I am stuck in some kind of "American mentality" which leads me to conclusions that, it turns out, are pretty much identical to what you argue. The only arguments you demolish are the strawman arguments like those about "a Canadian equivalent of George Washington," which are entirely fabricated on your part.
Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.
No, the mistake is that you are not reading what I actually write, and therefor come up with strawman arguments like the one that I believe that somehow 19th century Canadians got infected with the 18th Century US desire for independence. There is no parallel between US independence movements and Canadian confederation, so I don't know why you even try to link them into a sentence.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
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."
What have you been reading to lead you to this odd conclusion.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.
No, the mistake is that you are not reading what I actually write, and therefor come up with strawman arguments like the one that I believe that somehow 19th century Canadians got infected with the 18th Century US desire for independence. There is no parallel between US independence movements and Canadian confederation, so I don't know why you even try to link them into a sentence.
Quote
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.
Then I don't know what that is. You do make strange readings, for sure.
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2014, 03:55:43 PM
Quote
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.
Then I don't know what that is. You do make strange readings, for sure.
My readings are not strange at all. Your readings of my posts are bizarre, to say the least. If you don't understand something I write (and that is entirely understandable, given that English isn't your native tongue), it is probably better to ask what it means, rather than claiming that it means that "John A. McDonald is... a Canadian equivalent of George Washington!" :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
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.
The Maritimes wanted to unite to get a better deal in their trade with the US. One of the reasons they joined Canada is they were promised a Free trade agreement with the United States and the other canadian provinces joining in the Confederation. Wich did not really happen for another century, and there are still restrictions to inter-provincial commerce.
Anyhow, again, the basic idea of the proposed merger was to create a stronger block toward the United States. The idea of joining not only the Maritimes, but Upper&Lower Canada also was received with mixed feelings, as the links were never that strong between the various provinces. Trade has most often been made on a north-south axis rather then east-west. Even today, in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, you'll find a lot more Bruins fans than Habs or Leafs fans.
I liked this thread better when I was posting drunk replies in it.
And what is stopping you now sir?!?
Good point. Give me some time and I'll be back to figure out where the Great Plains are with Yi.
The Great Plains and I are solid.
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2014, 06:07:45 PM
The Maritimes wanted to unite to get a better deal in their trade with the US. One of the reasons they joined Canada is they were promised a Free trade agreement with the United States and the other canadian provinces joining in the Confederation.
And who would negotiate this agreement? London, just as London had negotiated the Elgin-Marcy Treaty. So, to get what they wanted, the Maritimes wanted to unite to give them more leverage in London, not Washington. You are merely reinforcing my point.
QuoteAnyhow, again, the basic idea of the proposed merger was to create a stronger block toward the United States. The idea of joining not only the Maritimes, but Upper&Lower Canada also was received with mixed feelings, as the links were never that strong between the various provinces. Trade has most often been made on a north-south axis rather then east-west. Even today, in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, you'll find a lot more Bruins fans than Habs or Leafs fans.
More reinforcements for my argument! :showoff:
Quote from: PDH on January 05, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
I liked this thread better when I was posting drunk replies in it.
I am still entertained.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2014, 07:02:57 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 05, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
I liked this thread better when I was posting drunk replies in it.
I am still entertained.
Needs more Calvados
I've got some pear Calvados. Every time Grumbler posts more that 3 paragraphs, I'll take a drink.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2014, 07:17:58 PM
I've got some pear Calvados. Every time Grumbler posts more that 3 paragraphs, I'll take a drink.
Good moderation. A drinking game where you take a shot every time Grumbler says "strawman" or "you're just reenforcing my argument" would be killer.
Viper blames English Canada - 1 drink
Josq posts a mopey diatribe - 1 drink
Beeb mentions Curling - 1 drink
Ide mentions nationalization- 1 drink
Tim being his usual Assburger self - 1 drink
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klwines.com%2Fimages%2Fskus%2F1035545x.jpg&hash=87c89205b2a0f49ee4dd2ff0ab57b61800f68bc8)
:)
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 06:06:08 AM
Actually, as we saw with the case of British Colombia, there was no legal way for a non-US territory to p[petition to become a territory or state. Several bills were offered to try to rectify this in the US Congress, but they all failed. BC was the only current Canadian territory that was ever in danger of trying to seek to join the US, because of the residual US residents from the gold rush era, but it wasn't part of the original Confederation of canada, only joining in 1871 (after Canada offered to absorb the territory's massive per-capita debt). Even then, it was no sense of "Canadian identity" that motivated the British Colombians; they seriously threatened several times thereafter to leave the Confederation in those first years over what they saw as broken promises.
Again, we see "Canadian identity" arising from confederation, rather than causing it. And, again, we see confederation arising not from fear of a US takeover, but from a desire to simplify and strengthen the hand of the locals vis-a-vis London.
I would like to learn more about this. Can you recommend a good source?
Why is Berkut winning about Canada's warship names?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
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"
Quote from: Siege on January 05, 2014, 08:08:26 PM
Why is Berkut winning about Canada's warship names?
I am just a winner.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
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
:bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2014, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
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
:bleeding:
"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.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 06, 2014, 04:39:26 AM
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"
Quote
"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.
Bookmarked!
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2014, 07:27:19 PM
Viper blames English Canada - 1 drink
You'd have to make it 1 drink of maple syrup whiskey.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 06, 2014, 04:39:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2014, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
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
:bleeding:
"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?
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 05:32:27 PM
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.
QuoteMy 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).
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
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?
Do these books have titties?
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2014, 05:07:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:50:58 AM
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'!" :huh:
I have a feeling that that dog just won't hunt.
QuoteObviously, things are a trifle more complex than either/or.
Obviously.
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteYou 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?
*takes a drink*
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.
It's best not to bother reading grumbler's posts that don't pertain to naval warfare. He's just trying to troll folks.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 07:49:04 PM
It's best not to bother reading grumbler's posts that don't pertain to naval warfare. He's just trying to troll folks.
But I owe him that. He'd do the same for me!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 07:46:10 PM
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.
Well to be fair, Viper did tell him he was wrong then largely agree with him.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 07:49:04 PM
It's best not to bother reading grumbler's posts that don't pertain to naval warfare. He's just trying to troll folks.
:lol:
hey, pot, are you seriously arguing that your obvious trolling is more worth reading than an intellectual discussion of the sources of Canadian identity? If so, then I agree with you that you should not only stop commenting in threads with intellectual disagreements, but not even read them once you realize what they are. Being all publicly butthurt because someone is engaging in a controversy doesn't do you, or the forum, any good.
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2014, 10:20:03 AM
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Lol, and that is exactly what he did.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2014, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2014, 05:07:41 AM
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.
Heh no. They had a hard enough time just having Catholicism tolerated, there were anti-Catholic Protestant revolts that took control of the Colony for periods. If they had actually made Catholicism the official religion I doubt the colony would have made it. Simply not persecuting Catholics was controversial enough.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2014, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2014, 10:20:03 AM
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Lol, and that is exactly what he did.
LOL. Of course: he's
my cite, after all. :contract:
I predict that one of you, or viper, (or both) will claim that he doesn't agree with me.
:lmfao:
The really entertaining thing about you Grumbler is that the rabbit hole is never far away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2014, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2014, 10:20:03 AM
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Lol, and that is exactly what he did.
Are you really pleased that you were able to accurately predict that grumbler would say that is what he was saying all along, when in fact YOU repeated his own argument back to him?
I mean, come one - it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that if you set out to repeat what someone else says, then in fact they will respond by saying that is in fact what they were said...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2014, 02:08:48 PM
:lmfao:
The really entertaining thing about you Grumbler is that the rabbit hole is never far away.
:Embarrass: Damn. I didn't remember to predict the
ad hom, even though I knew you were going to use one instead of responding intellectually to an intellectual argument.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2014, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2014, 10:20:03 AM
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Lol, and that is exactly what he did.
Are you really pleased that you were able to accurately predict that grumbler would say that is what he was saying all along, when in fact YOU repeated his own argument back to him?
I mean, come one - it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that if you set out to repeat what someone else says, then in fact they will respond by saying that is in fact what they were said...
Grumbler said that Canada formed itself because the colonists felt they were different than the people of Great Britain. That's not true at all. He said he took his argument from a book, wich was quoted to say what everyone was saying: namely, Canada formed itself out of fear of the US, not because they were unhappy with the British Empire.
And then he comes, and says he was saying that all along, that Canada formed itself out of fear of US expansionism.
That's total bullshit. If I was the only one misunderstanding him, I could blame my english comprehension, but it seems Malthus and CC understood the same.
On a suggestion upthread, I'm now reading Jon Latimer's
1812: War With America. I'll let you guys know what I think of it when I'm done, which may take awhile.
Fliping to the conclusions, the author states as follows on the last page:
QuoteCanadian nationalism had also been strengthened by the War of 1812, and the move towards Confederation was accelerated by Anglo-American tensions created during the American Civil War and the ill-fated Fenian incursions in 1866 by US-based Irish nationalists. These tensions and its own increasing self-reliance helped bring into existence the Dominion of Canada ...
In short, one of the pime factors, but not the sole factor, in creating confederation was a history of animocity directed northwards from the US, of which the War of 1812 was only a part.
Berkutthurt.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2014, 03:23:23 PM
On a suggestion upthread, I'm now reading Jon Latimer's 1812: War With America. I'll let you guys know what I think of it when I'm done, which may take awhile.
:thumbsup: Let me know what you think. I quite enjoyed it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2014, 01:07:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 07:49:04 PM
It's best not to bother reading grumbler's posts that don't pertain to naval warfare. He's just trying to troll folks.
:lol:
hey, pot, are you seriously arguing that your obvious trolling is more worth reading than an intellectual discussion of the sources of Canadian identity? If so, then I agree with you that you should not only stop commenting in threads with intellectual disagreements, but not even read them once you realize what they are. Being all publicly butthurt because someone is engaging in a controversy doesn't do you, or the forum, any good.
You don't have intellectual discussions. You pick a side (occasionally at random) and then fling poo and adhoms until people get tired of arguing with you. You're just a sophisticated version of Raz.
Quote from: viper37 on January 07, 2014, 02:59:02 PM
Grumbler said that Canada formed itself because the colonists felt they were different than the people of Great Britain.
In fact, I said the opposite. The argument that you are disagreeing with is my argument that the development of a distinct Canadian identity was more a result of the confederation than a cause of it.
QuoteThat's not true at all. He said he took his argument from a book, wich was quoted to say what everyone was saying: namely, Canada formed itself out of fear of the US, not because they were unhappy with the British Empire.
That's not true at all. I never said that I took my argument from Careless. I just said that Careless was a good source for reading about Canadian history. Careless does NOT say that "Canada formed itself out of fear of the US." In fact, he notes that, while there was anti-American sentiment as a result of the War of 1812, this was too narrow a base on which to build a national identity.
QuoteAnd then he comes, and says he was saying that all along, that Canada formed itself out of fear of US expansionism.
Yet another strawman. I have never held in this discussion, and do not hold now, that "Canada formed itself out of fear of US expansionism." The initial impetus towards Canadian unity came from the Maritimes, who wanted, I argue (and Careless supports this I believe, though, again, I read him many years ago), to strengthen their hand in relationship to Britain; specifically, to get the British to negotiate the same sort of free trade agreement with the US that Britain had negotiated for the United Province of Canada (modern-day Quebec and Ontario).
I haven't argued that the war of 1812 and the Fenian raids (or other, more generalized fears of being annexed by the US) played no role in Canadian history or the development of a Canadian identity. I have merely argued that they were not central to the process, and that the process of creating Canada would have gone on about the same in their absence. I argue that the substitution of the more "heroic" "self-defense against the US" motive for the more prosaic self-interest motive for the confederation and the subsequent development of a Canadian identity is a retcon. Both the timing of the confederation, and the existence of very similar movements in places like Australia (never threatened by the US in any way, nor indeed threatened by anyone else) would support my contention, i believe.
If you are going to debate the issue, at least debate the argument I am actually making, instead of creating arguments I have never made and then arguing against those.
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2014, 03:51:42 PM
You don't have intellectual discussions. You pick a side (occasionally at random) and then fling poo and adhoms until people get tired of arguing with you. You're just a sophisticated version of Raz.
Please try to be a little more subtle and a little less Raz in your trolls. :bowler:
Seems I'm not so different after all. Everyone is like me these days!
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2014, 03:53:44 PM
I haven't argued that the war of 1812 and the Fenian raids (or other, more generalized fears of being annexed by the US) played no role in Canadian history or the development of a Canadian identity. I have merely argued that they were not central to the process, and that the process of creating Canada would have gone on about the same in their absence. I argue that the substitution of the more "heroic" "self-defense against the US" motive for the more prosaic self-interest motive for the confederation and the subsequent development of a Canadian identity is a retcon. Both the timing of the confederation, and the existence of very similar movements in places like Australia (never threatened by the US in any way, nor indeed threatened by anyone else) would support my contention, i believe.
In summary, where Jon Latimer says "... These tensions and its own increasing self-reliance helped bring into existence the Dominion of Canada ... ", you are more inclined to reverese the significance of "tensions" and "self-reliance".
I disagree, and I think the timing of the move demonstrates that tensions with the US were more central to the process. For example, the fact that confederation took place very soon after the US Civil War (which saw tensions ratcheted up to new heights) and after the initial Fenian raids (themselves allowed exactly because of those tensions) were surely of great significance.
Maybe confederation would have happened anyway if no such tensions existed, arguing from counterfactuals is a trifle difficult to refute, but it would have been for different motives. The example of the federation of Australia isn't really evidence of your point - given that it was, at least in part, motivated by the already existing example of Canada as a self-governing "White dominion". If Canada can do it, why not Australia?
I don't think that the Canadian identity is a "retcon" or "subsequent" to confederation. No doubt confederation played a role in developing Canadian identity, but it too was in large part a development of the fact of an already-existing identity, albeit centered on seperate colonies, that was shaped in large part by decades of concern about the ambitions and aggressions of its southern neighbours.
I'd say there were no clear Canadian identity until WW1, when Canada fought with its own army, and it further moved that way with WWII, again for the same reasons.
There you see Canadians moving toward the "we are Canadians", rather than "we are British citizens of Canada".
MB is gonna be so drunk after this.
:lol:
Interesting text here about the name of the new country, its foundation:
QuoteDuring the Charlottetown Conference of 1864, John A. Macdonald, who later became the first Prime Minister of Canada, talked of "founding a great British monarchy", in connection with the British Empire. He advocated, in the fourth Canadian draft of the British North America Act, the name "Kingdom of Canada,"[21] in the text is said:
"The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada.
"The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
"The words 'Privy Council' shall mean such persons as may from time to time be appointed, by the Governor General, and sworn to aid and advise in the Government of the Kingdom."[22]
Canada's founders, led by Sir John A. Macdonald wished their new nation to be called the Kingdom of Canada, to "fix the monarchical basis of the constitution."[23] The governor general at the time, the Viscount Monck, supported the move to designate Canada a kingdom;[24] however, officials at the Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country. They were also wary of antagonizing the United States, which had emerged from its Civil War as a formidable military power with unsettled grievances because British interests had sold ships to the Confederacy despite a blockade, and thus opposed the use of terms such as kingdom or empire to describe the new country.[25]
New Brunswick premier Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley suggested the term 'Dominion',[26] inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."[27] This is also echoed in Canada's motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for "from sea to sea").[28]
The term had been used for centuries to refer to the lands held by a monarch,[29] and had previously been adopted as titles for the Dominion of New England and the Dominion and Colony of Virginia. It continued to apply as a generic term for the major colonial possessions of the British Empire until well into the 20th century,[30] although Tilley and the other Fathers of Confederation broadened the meaning of the word 'dominion' to a "virtual synonym for sovereign state".[31] Its adoption as a title for Canada in 1867 served the purpose of upholding the monarchist principle in Canada; in a letter to Queen Victoria, Lord Carnarvon stated: "The North American delegates are anxious that the United Provinces should be designated as the 'Dominion of Canada.' It is a new title, but intended on their part as a tribute to the Monarchical principle which they earnestly desire to uphold.".[32]
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2014, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2014, 10:20:03 AM
He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.
Lol, and that is exactly what he did.
Are you really pleased that you were able to accurately predict that grumbler would say that is what he was saying all along, when in fact YOU repeated his own argument back to him?
Did you even read the thread?
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
I'm following the rules of the Languish Drinking Game.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
:lol:
Yeah, they're (Canada) like the prude yuppie couple living above a rowdy biker bar.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
Whereas the Americans are saying, 'sure, we invaded your country, and let free-lancering Irish CdM types invade your country to murder and pillage ... but clearly that had little to do with confederation. You guys just can't take a joke, can you.' :P
I'm trying, but failing, to imagine what examples of "small-minded insecurity" the US would come up with in the present day, if Canadians allowed Islamicists to stage their own version of the Fenian raids today ... :lol: Given the fact that the US generally goes apeshit over terrorism, as we are all reminded each time we travel through a US airport, methinks that folks in the US are not in a position to lecture others about "small minded insecurity".
Malthus, you are going to have to do better to get the replies up that facilitate the drinking game.
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2014, 09:55:22 AM
Malthus, you are going to have to do better to get the replies up that facilitate the drinking game.
You didn't give me a rule. :(
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2014, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
I'm too drunk to read the thread.
The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
Whereas the Americans are saying, 'sure, we invaded your country a colony of the British Empire who had gone to war with us long before it was your country in an effort to free you from your colonial masters, and who in the hell has ever heard of a Frinian? You guys just can't take a joke, can you.' :P
FYP.
BB, tell us about your last curling game and how it relates to the Canadian love of freedom from the grasping claws of the US.
I think you might be on to something there CC...is this really all about curling?
I think Viper blames the English for curling. Tim, draw a map while Grumbler writes up a few paragraphs about it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PMI think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2014, 09:56:49 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2014, 09:55:22 AM
Malthus, you are going to have to do better to get the replies up that facilitate the drinking game.
You didn't give me a rule. :(
Drinking game Errata:
Malthus slavishly toes the party line on 1812- 1 drink
Berkut objects to the party line on 1812- 1 drink
Just open a vein and pour it straight in dude.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
That's about how Canada got formed, but you refuse to acknowledge it. You all seem intent on considering Canadians as Americans who woke up about the evil of the British Empire a century too late.
The part of history that is made up, is the part about 1812 being a war where everyone in the country fought&bled together for a common cause, freedom from the Evil American Invaders. That is certainly a lie. But to say that the Confederation had nothing to do with the threat (real or overblowned) of an American invasion is certainly a lie too.
Each province had its reasons to form a union, there were many causes, but the main one was certainly anti-US: fear of military invasion, fear of commercial dominance, fear of US expansionism in the West, etc, etc.
What it was certainly not: a feeling that "Canadians" (remember, that word applied only to French Canadians at the time, others were simply British subject) were feeling distinct from the other people of the Empire or that they felt somewhat unfairly treated by the British. There was no desire to create an independant country, but the desire to unite the colonies, to present a united front, subservient to the British interests (as attested by our later involvements in colonial conflicts like the Boers Wars and WW1), to the Americans, wich were rapidly growing into a military and commercial superpower.
That this threat of invasion or land grabbing in the West was real or not is irrelevent. After all, the British crown was far from being the Evil the American colonists portrayed it in 1776 and 1812. What is relevent is that people of the time felt the US was a threat to their interests and decided to unite to face this threat.
It did not do so out of love of freedom and independance, it did not to do so because they felt they were treated so unfairly from the British that they had to seperate from the Empire.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2014, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2014, 09:56:49 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2014, 09:55:22 AM
Malthus, you are going to have to do better to get the replies up that facilitate the drinking game.
You didn't give me a rule. :(
Drinking game Errata:
Malthus slavishly toes the party line on 1812- 1 drink
Berkut objects to the party line on 1812- 1 drink
Can one get drunk on just girl drinks?
What's a girl drink?
Quote from: katmai on January 08, 2014, 04:23:33 PM
Can one get drunk on just girl drinks?
Yes, one can even become a Girl Drink Drunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GW22sAElpE
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:24:12 PM
What's a girl drink?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.independent.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fcocktails-blog1-300x225.jpg&hash=eb3aabbf9cb5aba0253f7c27c6e3d55738c3fa25)
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:24:12 PM
What's a girl drink?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.independent.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fcocktails-blog1-300x225.jpg&hash=eb3aabbf9cb5aba0253f7c27c6e3d55738c3fa25)
Ah, so the term is a mark of the sexist.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.
All national myths are based on small-minded insecurities and adjusted history. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, nor should the fact that Canadian nationalism is based largely on some flavour of anti-americanism.
Fortunately nationalism isn't that big in Canada, at least in my observations.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:27:58 PM
Ah, so the term is a mark of the sexist.
Only if you consider 'girl' to be a negative thing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 04:29:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:27:58 PM
Ah, so the term is a mark of the sexist.
Only if you consider 'girl' to be a negative thing.
You're right I really meant something like a person committed to rigid gender rules.
Quote from: Maximus on January 08, 2014, 04:28:23 PM
Fortunately nationalism isn't that big in Canada, at least in my observations.
Except for Canada Day, when all inhabitants re-enact a Star Trek episode. :D
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:30:29 PM
You're right I really meant something like a person committed to rigid gender rules.
Rules are made to be broken.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 08, 2014, 04:25:27 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 08, 2014, 04:23:33 PM
Can one get drunk on just girl drinks?
Yes, one can even become a Girl Drink Drunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GW22sAElpE
You beat me to it *shakesfist*
Quote from: Savonarola on January 08, 2014, 04:25:27 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 08, 2014, 04:23:33 PM
Can one get drunk on just girl drinks?
Yes, one can even become a Girl Drink Drunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GW22sAElpE
Once again I :wub: you Sav.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:24:12 PM
What's a girl drink?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.independent.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fcocktails-blog1-300x225.jpg&hash=eb3aabbf9cb5aba0253f7c27c6e3d55738c3fa25)
Ah, so the term is a mark of the sexist.
Lighten up Babe.
Quote from: katmai on January 08, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2014, 04:24:12 PM
What's a girl drink?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.independent.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fcocktails-blog1-300x225.jpg&hash=eb3aabbf9cb5aba0253f7c27c6e3d55738c3fa25)
Ah, so the term is a mark of the sexist.
Lighten up Babe.
Now you are calling me fat? :grr:
A moment on the lips, lifetime on the hips, stop enjoying yourself so much at Palm Springs!
I though gin/vodka went passed through me like water. :weep:
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."
But that's not what they're saying. From what I'm reading they're saying that fighting that war, defending their territory from attack was the start of the creation of Canadian nationhood. That's the key element, not that it happened to be against the USA. It could have been Russia or, more awkardly, the French if the response was early militias and a sense that they need to stick together to stay safe.
I'm afraid the US isn't the bad guy, it's just incidental. You happened to be the power at war that kickstarted that process.
Maybe, from my dodgy knowledge, an analogy would be with the effect the Seven Years War had on the American states?
Except that the US was always going to be the biggest threat given their proximity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 09, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Except that the US was always going to be the biggest threat given their proximity.
That doesn't make the US an actual threat though.
There is also this: Quebec aside, the Canadian colonials were simply not very different from the Americans, right up to the War of 1812. There was a population of United Empire Loyalists it is true (who had fled the US on losing the Revolution), but the majority of colonists were not; many in Upper Canada were in fact American-born, not UELs, who had moved to Upper Canada pursuing economic interests. In any event, the ethnic make-up of English-speaking Canadian colonists was more or less identical to those in the US.
Indeed, at the beginning of the War of 1812, there was a widespread expectation in the US (and fear on the bart of the British authorities) that the colonists would support the invaders.
What changed all that was the war itself, particularly in Niagara, which was one of the hotspots. In particular, mutual perception of atrocities (the Brits supporting the Indians was a big US grievance) led to an escalating cycle of abuses aimed at the general population - the US burning and pillaging of Newark and York, for example, which led to retaliation burnings and pillagings across the border in revenge, the most famous of which being Washington itself. This had the effect, as it often has done in other places, of heightening or creating differences and nationalistic feeling, even when none had previously existed. [Note that the burning of Newark was alleged to be the fault of "Canadian" volunteers serving with the US forces].
The War was very significant in creating this feeling of incipient nationalism. It did not lead to nation-formation at that time exactly because it was not aimed at the Brits: Canadians felt their interests were best served by inclusion within the powerful British Empire.