"We Could Have Been Canada" Topic
20 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 03 Aug 2018 9:42 p.m. PST |
"And what if it was a mistake from the start? The Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the creation of the United States of America—what if all this was a terrible idea, and what if the injustices and madness of American life since then have occurred not in spite of the virtues of the Founding Fathers but because of them? The Revolution, this argument might run, was a needless and brutal bit of slaveholders' panic mixed with Enlightenment argle-bargle, producing a country that was always marked for violence and disruption and demagogy. Look north to Canada, or south to Australia, and you will see different possibilities of peaceful evolution away from Britain, toward sane and whole, more equitable and less sanguinary countries. No revolution, and slavery might have ended, as it did elsewhere in the British Empire, more peacefully and sooner. No "peculiar institution," no hideous Civil War and appalling aftermath. Instead, an orderly development of the interior—less violent, and less inclined to celebrate the desperado over the peaceful peasant. We could have ended with a social-democratic commonwealth that stretched from north to south, a near-continent-wide Canada. The thought is taboo, the Revolution being still sacred in its self-directed propaganda. One can grasp the scale and strangeness of this sanctity only by leaving America for a country with a different attitude toward its past and its founding. As it happened, my own childhood was neatly divided between what I learned to call "the States" and Canada. In my Philadelphia grade school, we paraded with flags, singing "The Marines' Hymn" and "Here Comes the Flag!" ("Fathers shall bless it / Children caress it / All shall maintain it / No one shall stain it.") We were taught that the brave Americans hid behind trees to fight the redcoats—though why this made them brave was left unexplained. In Canada, ninth grade disclosed a history of uneasy compromise duality, and the constant search for temporary nonviolent solutions to intractable divides. The world wars, in which Canadians had played a large part, passed by mostly in solemn sadness. (That the Canadians had marched beyond their beach on D Day with aplomb while the Americans struggled on Omaha was never boasted about.) Patriotic pageantry arose only from actual accomplishments: when Team Canada won its eight-game series against the Russians, in 1972, the entire nation sang "O Canada"—but they sang it as a hockey anthem as much as a nationalist hymn…." Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
gamershs | 03 Aug 2018 11:18 p.m. PST |
If the United States had not fought and won it's independence I suspect that Canada would not have been given it's independence. The US colonies approached England with grievances which England ignored (take a look at how Benjamin Franklin was treated when he went to England). After the US revolution the English government seemed to be a little less flippant with the other territories situations. Watched a series on how Australia got it's independence and I suspect there was always that implied threat of what might happen if independence had been ignored. |
Glengarry5 | 04 Aug 2018 3:17 a.m. PST |
It's a nice thought but superficial. Demographically speaking this Canada/United States would still have been dominated by the Southern (United States) Colonies in terms of population and wealth. The slaving South would've been that much more powerful within the British empire and could have put off the end of slavery for decades more. On the other hand perhaps the American Civil War would not have happened or have been ended sooner if the South faced not only the United States but the force of the British Empire. There is also the matter of French speaking Quebec. Canada as a nation was built on compromises between English (mostly American Loyalists) and French which has done much to create Canada`s reputation as a politically peaceful nation, despite the 1837-38 Mackenzie and Papineau Rebellions. Would a United States-Canada hybrid nation have been as accommodating to the French fact or would we have faced a Civil War with Quebec? |
TacticalPainter01 | 04 Aug 2018 3:31 a.m. PST |
Watched a series on how Australia got it's independence Ahem, Australia is not independent, it's a British Dominion, the Queen is the head of state. As it happens, same for Canada. That said, they are independent in practice, but technically not 'independent'. Just saying. |
robert piepenbrink | 04 Aug 2018 4:02 a.m. PST |
This one was posted months ago, Tango. And I think you were the one then, too. One more time. The whole point of the American War of Independence was that following the French and Indian War, Britain not only was not keeping colonies on the road to sovereignty, but was taking a range of measures to reduce the independence the colonies had enjoyed to that point. This turkey's whole "America was a mistake" argument is based on the exact reverse of history--that the British government would had gone to the opposite of their 1760's policies even though those policies were working and had provoked no opposition. It's like saying the American Civil War was unnecessary, because the 13th Amendment would have abolished slavery in 1865 anyway. |
Tassie Wargamer | 04 Aug 2018 7:15 a.m. PST |
Hmm! Australia hasn't been a British dominion since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 (adopted by Australia in 1942 and backdated to 1939) and any remaining vestiges were abolished by the Australia Act of 1986. Queen Elizabeth II reigns over Australia as Queen of Australia and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Cheers, TW |
ToysnSoldiers | 04 Aug 2018 7:21 a.m. PST |
@Robert You didn't read the article, did you? |
StoneMtnMinis | 04 Aug 2018 7:45 a.m. PST |
Wait until Monday and we can put this article out with the rest of trash to be hauled off. Dave |
foxweasel | 04 Aug 2018 7:48 a.m. PST |
Perhaps the people of the North American colonies would have contributed as much to the British empire as they went on to do in the United States. Perhaps the combined wealth and resources of India, Africa and the Americas would have led to the British empire becoming unstoppable and taking over the world. This in turn would have led to the technologies of the 20th century being those of the 19th century. As we would have been in space 100 years earlier, perhaps the rebels the Empire faced would have been at Alderaan and not Lexington. Or perhaps not. |
42flanker | 04 Aug 2018 11:17 a.m. PST |
"a range of measures to reduce the independence the colonies had enjoyed to that point" Weren't the Crown simply attempting to get the colonies to contribute to the cost of their defence, while attempting to reduce the need for defence expenditure by putting a brake on the westward expansion into Indian lands? The French were defeated so that financial burden should have diminished over time. The question of representation could have been solved sensibly and peaceably without armed conflict. The fact that G. Washington Esq and friends weres involved in massive property speculation west of the Appalachians is but one example of vested interests in play. |
Florida Tory | 04 Aug 2018 4:53 p.m. PST |
/q/Australia is not independent, it's a British Dominion, the Queen is the head of state. As it happens, same for Canada. That said, they are independent in practice, but technically not 'independent'./-q/ Actually,no. Expanding upon what Tassie Warmer wrote, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the other Commonwealth nations are independent. Several of them are monarchies that happen to share the same person as their respective monarchs. But Elizabeth is separately the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom., etc. Rick |
Dn Jackson | 04 Aug 2018 5:17 p.m. PST |
"…and what if the injustices and madness of American life since then have occurred…" What a load of drivel. Does the, achem, individual who wrote this have any idea how the common man was treated prior to the American Revolution? If you think there's injustice now, try going to a country where the ideals of said revolution never took hold, China, North Korea, Russia, then imagine the entire world is like that. |
Dn Jackson | 04 Aug 2018 5:19 p.m. PST |
"The question of representation could have been solved sensibly and peaceably without armed conflict." It was tried, and didn't work. Why do you think the colonies finally revolted and felt they had no choice but to use armed force?
|
42flanker | 04 Aug 2018 11:52 p.m. PST |
"Why do you think the colonies finally revolted..?" Isn't that something of an oversimplification? It suggests that in 1775 there was a popular rising en masse from Boston to St Augustine. There were groups in the 13 colonies that pushed for a confrontation with the Crown but also a significant proportion of the population who were either Loyalists opposed to them, or simply kept their heads down. The image of a popular revolution against a tyrannical government is surely a myth that is long out of date. |
TacticalPainter01 | 05 Aug 2018 9:18 p.m. PST |
Australia hasn't been a British dominion since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 (adopted by Australia in 1942 and backdated to 1939) and any remaining vestiges were abolished by the Australia Act of 1986. Queen Elizabeth II reigns over Australia as Queen of Australia and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. OK LOL, my bad. |
gamershs | 05 Aug 2018 11:16 p.m. PST |
I wonder if any form of independence would have been allowed to Australia or Canada if there had not been successful revolution in the United States. I thought Franklin went to England to find a peaceful solution to the situation but was ignored for the most part and ridiculed when he tried to go through the back door. The easiest way for the colonies to contribute to the cost of their defense was to have the colonies form and pay for their own regular/territorial regiments to be used in the defense of the colony. Match that with certain ships bought and payed for by the colony to defend the colony. These forces could be called up by the request of the monarch and a vote of the colonies to defend the British Empire. |
42flanker | 06 Aug 2018 2:02 a.m. PST |
During the F&IW the British had already experienced a reluctance on the part of the colonies to provide troops, or pay for them. The Continental Congress proved reluctant enough to fund regular troops during the AWI and the government of the United States perpetuated that parsimonious attitude prefering to rely on the cheap option, militia. The impediment was not only financial. There was indeed a suspicion of standing armies on both sides of the Atlantic. |
Bill N | 06 Aug 2018 11:15 a.m. PST |
Weren't the Crown simply attempting to get the colonies to contribute to the cost of their defence It would be more accurate to say that Parliament and the British government was trying to get the colonies to contribute to the cost of their REGULATION. In 1774 the colony of Virginia with the consent of its royal governor raised an army to meet the threat being posed by the Ohio tribes to settlers along the Virginia frontier. There were more than adequate British forces in the North American mainland to mount a punitive expedition. There were probably enough to have occupied a series of strong points along the frontier which would have discouraged the Ohio tribes in the first place. However the British forces were otherwise engaged at the time. From the American colonial perspective after the end of Pontiac's War and the Cherokee War in the south British forces were no longer engaged in protecting the colonies. They were not deployed in a way to protect the colonies from threats the colonies were concerned about. There were groups in the 13 colonies that pushed for a confrontation with the Crown but also a significant proportion of the population who were either Loyalists opposed to them, or simply kept their heads down. This should not be construed to mean that the loyalists approved of the policies of Parliament and the Royal Government in 1763-1775 time period. Grievances over policies of Parliament and the Royal Government were fairly widespread in the colonies. The division between rebels and many loyalists was over the solution to those grievances. As others have noted in Canada the Crown had the advantage of knowing the consequences of failing to properly consider local interests in setting imperial policies and dealing with local grievances. |
nevinsrip | 11 Aug 2018 7:40 p.m. PST |
from a noted historian. Not my own drivel. Hi Bill, I wasn't going to get involved with this one, but on second thoughts, there's a lot of crap being said (on both sides)…… What everyone on here is getting wrong (regardless of side) is that the British Empire would most definitely NOT have evolved in the same way that it did post-AWI, and for the very simple reason that the British would not have had the example of the AWI as "how not to do it". There were actually two British Empires – one ended in 1783, the other started in approximately 1787 with the founding of the first colony in Australia. Both included the Caribbean and a hefty chunk of India (however, British pre-eminence as the controlling European power on the latter sub-continent did not come until 1785 or thereabouts, with the final defeat of the French and their allies), but the way they were governed changed as a result of the AWI. Whilst it would not do Americans any harm to look more closely at Canada and learn some valuable lessons on how a more mature society functions (not being one illness away from bankruptcy is NOT socialism), that process is itself a direct result of the AWI transplanting Loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies to the eastern half of Canada, eventually making the French-speaking population a minority . This, in turn, has preserved an essentially British (or rather British-derived) character to the place. So the basic premise of the article is wrong. Put simply, British policy towards its colonies shifted – perhaps imperceptibly at first, but more noticeably as time elapsed – from the AWI position, to one of having more local say in how day-to-day life was run. In fact, Britain owes America a vote of thanks for teaching us that our pre-1783 policy was not working. However, some of the American (and some of the pro-British) posters on here need to read a little more widely. By 1775, Americans were the LEAST taxed people in the entire British Empire, and probably the least taxed white people in any structured society on the planet. And let's not forget that taxes didn't go away after 1783 – they actually increased (much as Britain's income from its former American colonies did – another thing we should thank you for). Nor should we forget that dear old Ben Franklin only became a proponent of the cause of "liberty" after being rejected for the post of controller of those lovely stamps the rest of his fellow-colonists got so hot and bothered about. Clever guy? Yup, no argument there. But let's stop keep elevating him to sainthood every time his name crops up. |
nevinsrip | 12 Aug 2018 2:35 a.m. PST |
I think <<Repiqueone>> has pretty much nailed it. The British Army was too small for purpose in 1775 (the Adjutant-General, Harvey, estimated that 30,000 troops – around 3/4 of its actual strength world-wide in that year – would be needed to restore control), Parliament was divided over support for the war, and – even at that point – everyone had one eye on the French. By 1779, Great Britain was fighting a world war against the two global superpowers of the day, France and Spain (albeit only just in Spain's case), plus another maritime power, the Dutch, and let's not forget the League of Armed Neutrality set up by Fred the gross. All this at a time when the Royal Navy was at its lowest point ever in terms of quality of ships, manpower and general morale. Meanwhile, America was – only just – coping with fighting a limited land war in its own back yard (and had privateering not been so profitable, that probably would have been even less popular than serving in the Continental Army). Outcome hardly surprising in the circumstances. Post-war, the former American colonies became much more valuable to the British economy to the point where there was a treaty signed allowing the Royal Navy to protect American merchant ships on the high seas. |
|