[Miguel]

$1:

The comparison between the Quebec secession and the US civil war is nothing short of ridiculous. Quebec didn't even put up a fight (and, as frenchmen, they probably would have surrendered or lost very quickly).

Oh it's true I forgot that a language as a lot to do with the capacity of fighting in a war. Are you saying that frenchman in the Canadian army would make Canada loose a war? Call me a francocentric or whatever but I sometimes I don't understand english speaking person.

But it is true that there was no fights because it is not in Quebec's interest. It is not a matter of speaking French it is a matter of being an unarmed-6million-minority nation in a highly agressive ethnocentric continent.

And no Quebec has nothing to do with the american civil war.

[Miguel]

And we I am talking about agressivness I am refering to the USA of course.

[JBG]

Miguel Miguel:

But it is true that there was no fights because it is not in Quebec's interest. It is not a matter of speaking French it is a matter of being an unarmed-6million-minority nation in a highly agressive ethnocentric continent.

And no Quebec has nothing to do with the american civil war.

No, the Francophones stayed out because they did not want to fight for a fellow democracy, one that speaks English.

[Dan74]

So Quebec wants to seperate but is unwilling to fight for it.
They must not want it bad enough.
I am not a fan of war and I agree a civil war in Canada would not solve anything.
So Quebec does not want to fight.
Wants to use Canadian Money,Passports,Stamps and its goverment workers still want to keep their pensions.

Imagine how rich the other "HAVE" provinces would be if Quebec was not sucking off their tit.

[Neo-CanadianBacon]

Hey... Quebec isn't that bad... lol, Quebec only failed to suceed because of old people... That's what the head of the BQ said anyway.... And we produce incom just like every other province... Well, the Marintimes don't really produce as much ever since the Grand BAnks were fished out, but the point is that if anyone should stop sucking on Canada's tit it's them! Then again, we couldn't just abandon a province of ours for dead...

[EyeBrock]

You guys need to read a history book or three. Which part of “Canada” in 1770 are you talking about? Quebec?

Canada, as in Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1770, was being flooded with UEL fleeing the revolution and the 13 colonies, for a life under the Crown. I hardly think they were thinking of throwing off the yoke of British oppression , more like embracing it. Makes the joining the 13 Colonies discussion a bit moot eh?

Also neo-Canadian, who do you think burned the whitehouse? Not the Upper Canadian militia, who performed pretty badly in the whole 1812 war. Tyandaga’s First Nation troops were more military effective in this war than the miltia’s of the Canada’s.
You guys diss the Imperial links all the time, but it was the British regulars under General Ross that burnt the whitehouse. You can’t have it both ways.

[Ruxpercnd]

If this had gone the other way, Canada might have extended South to include Washington and Oregon. A little history.....

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!

In 1818, the United States and the United Kingdom (controlling British Canada) established a joint claim over the Oregon Territory - the region west of the Rocky Mountains and between 42° North and 54°40' North (the southern boundary of Russia's Alaska territory).

Joint control worked for over a decade and a half but ultimately, the parties decided that joint occupancy wasn't working well so they set about to divide Oregon.

The 1844 Democratic presidential candidate James K. Polk ran on a platform of taking control over the entire Oregon Territory and used the famous campaign slogan, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" (after the line of latitude serving as the northern boundary of Oregon at 54°40'). Polk's plan was to claim and go to war over the entire territory for the United States.

President James K. Polk
Polk won the election with a popular vote of 1,337,243 to Henry Clay's 1,299,068 (the electoral vote yielded Polk 170 votes vs. 105 for Clay).

Through negotiations with the British after Polk's inauguration, the boundary between the U.S. and British Canada was established at 49° with the Treaty of Oregon in 1846. The exception to the 49th parallel boundary is that it turns south in the channel separating Vancouver Island with the mainland and then turns south through the Juan de Fuca Strait. This maritime portion of the boundary wasn't officially demarcated until 1872.

The boundary established by the Oregon Treaty still exists today between the United States and independent Canada.

[WildMoose]

I, for one, m very grateful we did not join their rebellion. We would not be who we are today had we taken up arms alongside the colonists. The fundamental difference between Canada and the U.S is that they were founded on rebllion and war. Canada, while we had our own incidents was actually founded via treaty and negotiation. We would not be the moderates we are today otherwise.

[EyeBrock]

Wild moose I disagree.
I would say that Canada's formation is a direct result of the revolution.

Don't forget Upper Canada was founded by loyal (to the Crown) American refugees, after they were expelled or forced off their land in the US. The Maritimes were also settled by US refugees from the war.

That is when BNA began to take shape as Canada.
There was no treaty or negotiation there. The refugees landed with Gen Haldimand and set up shop.
Without the war there would have been no 'Canada' besides the conquered New France.

It is also argued by many historians that without the US Civil war , Confederation wouldn't have happened in 1867. Even then there were mixed feelings within the British Colonies. Without the Fenian raids and the threat from the US 'War Hawks' federation may never have happened.


These two major wars in the US had a huge impact on what is now Canada. To say we came about by treaty and good will is less than accurate. We were born out of conflict.

[WildMoose]

We were definately shaped by displaced Loyalists. The BNA, though, was an act of self preservation by Britain. They gave us a measure of self rule to head off another nasty uprising as was seen in the colonies. Trudeau then 'sealed the deal' through negotiation. No wars were necessary which provided us a different perspective than our Southern neighbours.

[JBG]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

The 1844 Democratic presidential candidate James K. Polk ran on a platform of taking control over the entire Oregon Territory and used the famous campaign slogan, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" (after the line of latitude serving as the northern boundary of Oregon at 54°40'). Polk's plan was to claim and go to war over the entire territory for the United States.

President James K. Polk
Polk won the election with a popular vote of 1,337,243 to Henry Clay's 1,299,068 (the electoral vote yielded Polk 170 votes vs. 105 for Clay).

Through negotiations with the British after Polk's inauguration, the boundary between the U.S. and British Canada was established at 49° with the Treaty of Oregon in 1846. The exception to the 49th parallel boundary is that it turns south in the channel separating Vancouver Island with the mainland and then turns south through the Juan de Fuca Strait. This maritime portion of the boundary wasn't officially demarcated until 1872.

The boundary established by the Oregon Treaty still exists today between the United States and independent Canada.

The story's basically right but it was a bit more complex than that. "54°40' or Fight" was a Paul Martin-style lie designed to appeal to Northern voters who feared an increased number of "slave states" with the pending admission of the Republic of Texas, which was expected to be carved into a bunch of smaller states (ultimately half of New Mexico, a sliver of Colorado and I think part of Oklahoma were hacked off of it). Polk, a Democrat and Southerner, had no intention of pushing the Oregon issue.

[Ruxpercnd]

JBG - that's kind of interesting. For all of Polk's campaign rhetoric, the issue disappeared after the election.

However, I also think it's significant that Britain was a major military power, and America probably wasn't interested in further combat.

America had another close call with British-Canada with the Pig War of 1859, the only causalty being a pig. If the Pig War had gone to full combat, it's possible that Canada would extend down the American West Coast and America would be split North/South. Of course that's all theoretical, which is kind of fun. The British had a stronger military presence on the West coast than America did.

So, I think what kept America and Canada from getting merged was:

1. A strong British Military in Canada.

2. All parties were probably more interested in getting along rather than fighting.

3. Most importantly of all, I believe that there was and still is, a cultural difference between Canada and America that offset any urge to merge. The biggest reason for the American rebellion (as the Brits like to call our Revolution) is that Americans, after 200 colonial years, were forming their own unique culture that was sufficiently different from Britain to create tension.

So the loyalist drifted North beyond the Colonies and became Canada.

[EyeBrock]

founded Upper Canada. And I despair that you gloss over 100 years of pretty tumultuous history and fast forward to PET as if he was some saintly saviour of Canada. Canada existed long before PET decided to escape serving his country in WW2 by fleeing to the US. A Brave Canadian icon indeed.

RuperCND,

You reasons for Canada not merging with the US aren’t supported historically.

The Loyalist’s didn’t “drift” north, they were forced out and landed as refugees, albeit to British land grants. Besides the support by the UEL for the Crown, they were very similar to their US cousins. Same preachers, shared interests, cross border trade, common interest in media and literature. Before the War (1812) Upper Canada’s schools usually taught from US text books. We are more similar than you think.

The Royal Navy played a good part in keeping the US out of Canada, plus the UEL were rabidly anti-republicans, to obsession.

On British Military strength:
The Imperial Garrison barely made it through the War of 1812, Brock actually thought that many Upper Canadians would side with the US and didn’t hold much hope for Colonial defence, and without the 1st Nations , would have probably lost to a very inept (at the time) US Military.

There was even talk at the time of some of the New England States actually joining the British Colonies because of the strong cross border trade and links at the time. Those States basically were neutral throughout the war.

This is all basic history guys.

[Welsh]

Callout to JBG:

Just curious if you are the same JBG who used to post in a now-extinct Canadian Forum (know what I am talking about?).

Also, what is your line of work? The JBG I am thinking of wouldn't mind answering these questions.

Thanks,

Welsh.

[JBG]

Welsh Welsh:

Callout to JBG:

Just curious if you are the same JBG who used to post in a now-extinct Canadian Forum (know what I am talking about?).

Also, what is your line of work? The JBG I am thinking of wouldn't mind answering these questions.

Thanks,

Welsh.

I sent you a private message. I'm a bankruptcy lawyer in the US. I used to post on the now-defunct www.cbc.ca/forums. I post actively on www.freedominion.ca and www.freecbc.ca . I post as jbgusa (someone took "jbg") on www.freerepublic.com and www.lucianne.com