Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by todd s, Jul 3, 2005.
Just curious. Was their every thoughts of a revolutionary rebellion from England in Canada? Thanks!
Considering how a lot of Canadians were Loyalists from the US colonies, I should think not. Of course, there were probably fringe elements, but those always exist in any country.
No, because the British colonies in Canada were much younger than the 13 American colonies. Britain only threw the French and Spanish out of North America at the end of the Seven Year's War (what the Americans called The French and Indian War) and that was so recent that George Washington (among others) had fought in it. The American colonies had been self-governing, self-taxing, semi-autonomous societies for over 150 years by the time the Stamp Act was introduced in 1765 - the first attempt by Parliament in London to directly tax the citizens of the 13 Atlantic colonies. That's what began the long, slow, process of moving the colonies toward independence - what the Americans saw as an attack on their rights as Englishmen. As far as they were concerned, their colonial governors and local assemblies reported to the king, not to a Parliament in which the Americans had no representation. It was only after King George himself declared the colonists to be rebels and their leaders traitors that independence came to be seen as a serious option. There was simply no corresponding political situation with the relatively small Canadian colonies that would have produced a similar result. Also don't forget that even in America no more than about 1/3 of the population was ever actively pro-independence. (There was more support for the anti-British action of 1775 and 76 before independence was declared.) Another third was neutral and the remaining third remained loyal to the British crown. Many of them emigrated to Canada after the war, others went to England. When I saw the title of this thread I thought you were going to ask about Benedict Arnold's "missed it by that much" attempt to conquer Canada and turn it into the 14th colony early in the war. Regards, Joe
You were close. I was watching the Revolution program on the History channel tonight. And it talked about Arnolds attempt to take Canada.
In the War of 1812, the US invaded Canada because they were on the British side. However, the Canadians whooped our ass and we were forced to retreat back home. Ever since then the US and Canadians have been at peace.
hehe, ya we did kick your asses. You thought you were all big and powerful and we just beat you down. (I am so sorry. Please don't hurt us now) No we never had a revolution in Canada. but the french tried to separate a few years back. I'll always remeber this saying, "Canada is bigger and we're on top. If we were in prison, you'd be our bitch!)
Yeah, keep telling yourselves that. We haven't forgiven you for Shatner yet. If it weren't for that little unpleasantness in Iraq you'd all be one Celin Dion album away from major beat-down! Regards, Joe (In all seriousness no comments even peripherally touching on the Canadian military should omit a reference to the past heroism of the Canadian forces, especially in the liberation of Europe. Dieppe and Juno Beach should be as well-known as The Battle of Britain and Bloody Omaha.)
We declared War on the Brits.
But they started it. And I don't think they would have pushed things so far with impressing American sailors and interfering with American commerce if they hadn't known that they had troops and bases in Canada ready to go if it came to war.
Benjamin Franklin went to Montreal to beg the French there to come to our side during the revelutionary war, but they decided against it.
Wasn't Franklin's Montreal visit to "feel out" the Canadian government's prospects of joining the revolution ? Franklin's Paris trip was to gain support from King Louis....
Speaking of US-British relations. About 10 years ago I read a book about the Spanish-American war. One of the side issues was up until a few months before the war US-British relations were not good. Then British leaders saw the growing power of Germany. And within a short time. The Brits were referring to the US as their cousins across the pond.
I would assume that he targeted the french canadians to rebel because of their natural rivalry with the British. This was only 13 years after the French and Indian war. I'm not sure how much of a cohesive unit Canada was at that point. For those who forgot: http://www.irelandinformationguide.c...olutionary_War http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/War_of_1812 Interesting Note: Famous Canadian historian Pierre Berton stated his belief that if the War of 1812 had never happened Canada would be part of the United States today, as more and more American settlers would have arrived, and Canadian nationalism would never have developed.
The concern wasn't about getting help from the USA as much as preventing the USA allying with Germany. The Brits honestly believed they could defeat the Germans single-handed, but Germany and the USA together might have been a bit trickier.
true, so let's begin . Though I can agree with the British point of once a subject always a subject, the Leopard firing on an uncleared (thus unarmed) Chesapeake was clearly an act of war. Forcibly boarding and searching American vessels is not a nice way to express diplomacy.
Why? The British had recognized American independence, and thus the fact that the United States was a sovereign nation with all the rights inherent in that status - including the right to naturalize as citizens natives of other nations. You can't recognize that right without also recognizing the corresponding right of those individuals, including British subjects, to accept such naturalization. Besides, they abandoned "once a subject always a subject" the minute they agreed to negotiate the peace treaty and certainly by the time the acknowledged Washington as President and accepted John Adams as his ambassador. Both of them had been born British subjects, but were accepted by the King and by Parliament as citizens of a foreign country once that country was established. The precendent was set. Either subjects are subjects forever or they aren't. Long before 1812 the British had accepted that they aren't, and they had no right to try to unring that bell later. Finally, of course, they seized many Americans who had been born in what were now the United States, and other English-speakers who had never been British subjects. Regards, Joe
Yes, but they'd looked at us in a funny way. All joking aside, I think that right was on the American side. Some of the US arguments were tenuous, but it was clearly impractical for the UK to continue to expect the USA to meekly follow what London said. Personally, I think it was a shame that sanity didn't prevail on both sides and the USA didn't follow what Canada did, if only because you'd probably have got rid of slavery sooner, and avoided the civil war. On the other side of the coin, some of the libertarian ideas might have created political reform faster in the UK. However, who knows if something worse might have happened instead had all this happened?
Good point Joseph. Not saying I agreed with the British seizures, just that I could see their logic. I guess you could say they acknowledged dual citizenship . But you're absolutely right that they only used that logic when it suited them. I don't think the Canada model would ever have worked in the US, just because each of the colonies were more like a separate country. I think you would have just seen a civil war happen sooner.
Andrew, I blame the British for making us have to grovel for help from the French....And now 200 years later we keep having to repay that debt. For anyone who gets insulted with what I said....it was a joke.
All of this War of 1812 talk made me watch the History Channel DVD on the war which has been sitting on my shelf. 1. Britain stopped the practice of impressment only two days before Madison declared war. There was no way for this news to reach the US in time. 2. The US declared war but there was one small problem. We had no real Army or Navy - and we really didn't have the money to pay for one. 3. The war was really pushed by the "war hawks" of the interior states who felt that the British were halting our westward expansion by pushing their Indian allies to attack our Western outposts. The war was not popular in New England and Connecticut almost seceeded from the union over it.