God Save The King

[Barrister]

The first part is true, the second is utterly false, as demonstrated by the 1982 Constitution.

Charlottetown was rejected by the Western provinces as well as Quebec in 1992, while Meech was firmly rejected by Manitoba and Newfoundland in 1990.  Mulroney had insisted on a unanimous approval by all province, and all provinces had first agreed to sign the document, but after the elections, two provincial governments decided to renege their signature. In the end, Elijah Harper from Manitoba decided to reject it because First Nations weren't included in this document.  Which was just a bullshit excuse to show his anti French racism, of course.  Rejecting the province that always tried to include its First Nations in all Constitutional negotiations despite the Feds attempts at isolating them was just dumb.  Had he been of good faith, he could have spearheaded a new round of negotiations between all first nations and the Federal government.  Or he could have spoken before the 11th hour.  In the end, he was either a racist, or he was manipulated by racist.  Either way, that was a dumb move, and 32 years later, the First Nation cause in Canada hasn't advanced one iota.

Elijah Harper was a racist?  Say what now?

[OttoVonBismarck]

As such, it is still a powerful symbol of colonialism for all the conquered people of this country, and a powerful reminder of whom this country was built for.  It's a shame really, that so many people would call themselves "progressives" and support such institutions.  They're more attached to inclusive writing, gender neutral speak and forced diversity than anything really meaningful.

Hear hear! Death to monarchy!

That being said my guess as to how it is has remained in the non-UK countries so long is entirely because the vast majority of voters don't spend a lot of time caring about things that do not affect their daily lives. Liz II being on your money and nominally being Head of State (with all real Head of State functions performed by a Governor General) is a situation that just doesn't matter a lot to most people's daily lives. Not as much as the price of staples, rent, immigration, etc etc and all the other things that governments bicker over.

The cost benefit ratio of chucking the monarchy just doesn't work out all that way. The ongoing costs of maintaining the status quo, politically speaking, are basically nil. The political effort and cost of replacing it is greater than nil.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.

I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.

[Barrister]

In terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.

I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.

More than that - the US having such a huge army in the 1860s was a prime reason behind confederation itself!  It was felt that a unified dominion, rather than separate colonies, would better be able to defend itself.

There was no meaningful support for independence in the 19th century.  Much of the english-speaking population had arrived from the UK.  Arrivals from other countries (Like Ukraine) were just glad to have been taken in and were generally pretty loyal to the new country.  As for Quebec... well I can't really speak for the mood in Quebec.  There was some sentiment in favour of Quebec independence, but never really expressed itself as much of a political movement.


As for war in general between the US and UK... the two countries had fought a war just 50 years prior so such a thing was not impossible.  The US was a growing country, but the UK was almost at the peak of her Empire as well and "ruled the waves".  There were several efforts by the Fenians to try and draw the two countries into war, but both countries new to avoid such a war at all costs.

[Valmy]

And the North knew that if they suddenly got themselves into what would be a long and difficult war with Canada that the South would be very pro-UK in its sentiments. Hardly a good position to challenge the greatest naval power on earth.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right, there was a persistent faction in the U.S. that wanted another war with the UK in the mid-19th century. Not to "conquer" Canada, which I don't think was ever seriously considered after 1812 (and even then they called it a "liberation"), but more to settle boundary disputes. Cooler heads on both sides realized a major war between the US and UK just made little sense over things like the border of Maine and some lines of latitude in the Pacific Northwest.

[Valmy]

In terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.

I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.

If the Canadians wouldn't join us against British rule in the 1810s, when almost all of its English speakers had been born in the 13 colonies, it seems insane to think they would do so in the 1860s. They had made their choice to align with Britain...well at least when it came to rejecting the United States. Obviously they had issues with how London did things sometimes as you can see from the 1830 revolts.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It is interesting how quickly the relationship changed, while it obviously never happened, there was at least "serious talk" of war between the 1840s and 1860s, but by the 1880s the UK was America's closest European relationship and you started to have a lot of intermarriage between the English upper class and American wealthy families (Churchill was the product of one such union.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

In terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.

I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.

If the Canadians wouldn't join us against British rule in the 1810s, when almost all of its English speakers had been born in the 13 colonies, it seems insane to think they would do so in the 1860s. They had made their choice to align with Britain...well at least when it came to rejecting the United States. Obviously they had issues with how London did things sometimes as you can see from the 1830 revolts.

Right, to my knowledge our two major beefs with them--the border between British land and American holdings in the Pacific North West (then the Oregon Territory) and the border between Maine and New Brunswick (Aroostook War), there was no talk of war to "conquer" Canada. It would have entirely been war to settle those border disputes in American favor.

The last big issue was British tacit support for the Confederacy, and in that instance war was considered primarily as a vehicle to stop British support for the CSA. I think some speculation I've read of American thinking is a quick march into lower Canada, seizing some strategic locations, and then basically telling the British "we'll give these back if you agree to cease any and all aid to the CSA."

As it was, the British support for the Confederacy just didn't escalate to the point where this seemed like a good idea. The closest to conflict we got was the Trent affair, and Lincoln shrewdly understood the folly of escalating things, and chose a diplomatic solution where he released the prisoners we had taken but made no formal apology. Note that the British publicly announced plans to blockade New York harbor if war were to break out, which very likely we could have done nothing about, our Navy simply was not big enough to contest the British at scale on the seas.

I think to some degree the close economic relationship between the two countries in the 1860s made war somewhat unlikely in any case--something like 40% of American saltpeter, essential to the war effort, was imported from Britain, and a quarter of all grain used in British food was imported from the United States in this era.

I also think it was politically awkward for the British after the Emancipation Proclamation. There was strong anti-slavery sentiment in the British working class and parts of the ruling class at the time, that combined with the Battle of Antietam making Confederate long term success seem doubtful undermined any possibility of Britain going as far as formally supporting the CSA.

The Confederates of course always were desirous of British involvement, and some of their leaders "assumed" it would occur and would secure their independence. They stopped exporting cotton to the British, hoping the denial of Britain's major cotton supply would entice them to join the war on the Confederate side, but the British just switched to Egyptian cotton instead, permanently damaging demand for American cotton that never recovered its previous importance.

[Barrister]

Right, to my knowledge our two major beefs with them--the border between British land and American holdings in the Pacific North West (then the Oregon Territory) and the border between Maine and New Brunswick (Aroostook War), there was no talk of war to "conquer" Canada. It would have entirely been war to settle those border disputes in American favor.

War talk was not just one way though.

Our (Canada's) major beef with the US in that time period was the Fenian raids.  Armed militants based out of the northern states would make armed raids across the border into Canada in order to somehow drive the UK out of Ireland.  Some leaders were arrested in the US, but it was generally thought the US should do more to supress the Fenians.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I had never even heard of those. It continually surprises me how minimally American support for Irish independence (and later the IRA in Northern Ireland) is ever talked about here. I did not know until probably I was 40+ years old for example that the U.S. was the largest supplier of weapons and financing for Irish partisans, going back 100+ years.

It's odd we do talk up the Aroostook War and the battle over 54'40 though.

[Barrister]

I had never even heard of those. It continually surprises me how minimally American support for Irish independence (and later the IRA in Northern Ireland) is ever talked about here. I did not know until probably I was 40+ years old for example that the U.S. was the largest supplier of weapons and financing for Irish partisans, going back 100+ years.

It's odd we do talk up the Aroostook War and the battle over 54'40 though.

Yeah it seemed like you didn't know about them, so I thought I'd go into a tiny bit of detail.

I can't say that is something every Canadian knows by heart but it was covered in high school Canadian history as one of the driving forces behind Confederation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Reading about them a little bit I struggle to understand the logic.

1. Raid Canada
2. Somehow somehow Britain lets Ireland free
3. Profit

I don't really understand how they seriously thought a few sloppy raids along the border of a British possession 3,000 miles away from Ireland was going to further Irish independence. 

[Malthus]

An anti-Fenian song, based on the US Civil War era song "Tramp! Tramp! Tramp!":

'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 Canadian homes!'

[crazy canuck]

Right but CC is talking about that like it is some insane concept that no one but a well-educated Canadian lawyer could understand. Most countries have relatively higher hurdles for constitutional amendments than regular legislation. The idea this is some complicated thing non-Canadians are too stupid to understand is..highly ignorant in and of itself.

You again completely misunderstand the point.  As BB has said, at least twice, and I have agreed with him, both times, it would be easy to amend the text itself.  However, it would be next to impossible to amend the constitution.  First, simply as a practical matter, because of the amending formula.  But more importantly because of the constitutional crisis which has occurred during the modern era whenever an amendment is attempted.

And a small quibble.  It does not take a well educated Canadian lawyer to understand these simple facts.  Most Canadians seem to understand them.  I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.