US War of Independence

[Ecthy]

You could just answer my question: why did Canada never join the revolution?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by techumseh
P**s off, racist.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe


Hi mate,

On the economic side of the US prior to WWI, I doubt the US would have got further than Germany as not only a late developer in the Industrial revolution- leaders in some fields maybe, not within the world as was then, in WW2, both Vickers and Krupp survived, as Boeing did for you- to the point of destroying the huge British Air industry, using technology us lot invnted!!
I'm skating on thin ice here however, and very tired. I don't know the size of the internal US market, plus South America?

The US was not a late developer with regards to the industrial revolution. In fact at the end of the Napoleonic War the US was already the world's second largest iron producer, ship builder, and maritime shipper.

Industrial output is a measure relative to the population? and also relative to the demands of it? a high population compared to the UK (you lot are about 5x larger than us) will give a higher output simply to serve your own population- ie, a US company will naturally be 5x larger than a British company where both have 20% of the home market?

Toby

Time to sleep methinks.

At the time of WW1 the US population was only about 2X that of the UK, but remember that your empire then encompassed one-quarter of all humanity, so the population of your empire was much more than 5X that of the US. Despite that US steel prodution had surpassed the combined production of Germany and Britain by 1900.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The US was not a late developer with regards to the industrial revolution. In fact at the end of the Napoleonic War the US was already the world's second largest iron producer, ship builder, and maritime shipper. At the time of WW1 the US population was only about 2X that of the UK, but remember that your empire then encompassed one-quarter of all humanity, so the population of your empire was much more than 5X that of the US. Despite that US steel prodution had surpassed the combined production of Germany and Britain by 1900.

Not long after the Civil War the U.S. had more railroad mileage than the rest of the world put together. The idea that the U.S. was some sort of local economic power remained for a long time in Europe. Germany mistakenly underestimated the effect of U.S. economic power in both world wars for instance. Interesting that this still persists.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You could just answer my question: why did Canada never join the revolution?

This is a question that I ask myself alot, but can't seem to find much substatial information on.

Canadians today will say that the reason is because Canadians didn't want to be part of America and that armed revolution somehow isn't part of the British tradition. But this argument doesn't hold much water considering that, at the time, all Anglo colonists in the Americas were considered Americans and that the inhabitants of the 13 colonies were just as much part of the British tradition as those living in Canada.

I think the real reason is simply that the Canadian colonies were too small to be able to defend themselves in the event of a war with GB. And assuming that support there was similar to support in the original 13 (around 25% for), it probably just didn't seem worth it, especially considering that the whole Revolution was a real longshot anyways. It was a contentious issue though, in places like Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, if I remember correctly, even in Quebec. It could have easily gone the other way, but for whatever reason it didn't.

I think the reasons were more practical than ideological. Afterall, the main aim of the war was to take wealth and power from London and remove it to local institutions and people. Who wouldn't want this? But in the time since then, I think Canadians have justified not joining in terms of a special identity, loyalty and a different style of governing than the US.... but none of these differences existed when the choice was actually made.

Good question though, I wish I had a definitive answer.

[Ecthy]

Thanks, finally a reply with sense

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I think the reasons were more practical than ideological. Afterall, the main aim of the war was to take wealth and power from London and remove it to local institutions and people. Who wouldn't want this? But in the time since then, I think Canadians have justified not joining in terms of a special identity, loyalty and a different style of governing than the US.... but none of these differences existed when the choice was actually made.

This is very important. You can't claim there was a distinct Canadian nation in 1775, 1783, 1800 or 1812.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

This is very important. You can't claim there was a distinct Canadian nation in 1775, 1783, 1800 or 1812.

True, although by 1812 you would have had a whole new generation of people in Canada who had grown up hating America. This isn't surprising considering that most of them would have been the sons and daughters of loyalists who left the "United States" because they didn't agree with the idea of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you're confusing the CAUSES of the war with the OBJECTIVES. And the fact that the US didn't list the conquest of Canada as a war aim shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all anyone as intellegent as you.

Oh please . One historian says it and suddenly you jump on the victimization train. And yes, the historian says the US couldn't public admit it because.... well why couldn't they admit it? And the mere fact that he ignores the British presense in the Ohio River Valley indicates that his knowledge in the conflict is lacking, at best.

The objectives were to drive the Brits out out of the Ohio River Valley and attack British troops, most of which were in the Ohio River Valley and Canada. Annexation of Canada wasn't a part of it.

If the US had taken Montreal without a shot, but the British were still in the Ohio River Valley and building forts, the war would have been an abject failure. What good is claiming more territory when you can't assert control over it... and THAT is what the objectives and aims were. To gain complete control over what was ceded to us by the Treaty of Paris.

Frankly WHY would the US have an objective that would further alienate half of the country (the North East) and may have led to secession (The North East states all voted against the war and were discussing secession in the 1814 Hartford Convention solely based on the fact the government declared war on Britain)? Yeah, gain Canada but lose New England? What sense does that make?

Secondly, your attempt to minimize the influence of the War Hawks is unworthy. In order to win renomination, Madison had to placate the demands of the War Hawks in order to gain support from the western and southern states. Britannica Online:

Oh yes because 12 Congressmen out out over 150 had such a major effect. Please.

Finally, let's compare the application of "Manifest Destiny" to Florida, controlled by weak Spain, as opposed to Canada, controlled by powerful Britain. By 1819, the US had aquired control of Florida, which Spain was unable to defend. It's passing strange that the US was uninterested in owning Canada despite repeatedly invading it, while it invaded and stole Florida from Spain. All I can say is thank God we had Britain and not Spain to protect us.

I love the rhetoric!! Stole Florida from Spain! Forget the whole Adams-Onis Treaty. The US just took Florida, never mind the $5 million paid and giving up of claims in Texas and other Spanish areas. Hell the entire Louisana Purchase was for $15 million!

And you know when you fight against the Brits, you kind of have to attack the Brits. What, you wanted an amphibious invasion of Southern England?

As for why wouldn't the US want Canada, it was nice if we could get it, but we didn't aim for taking it over. The New England states sat out of 1812. An annexation may have led to the secession discussed at the Hartford Convention.

[Dr Strangelove]

In 1775 most of the inhabitants of Canada were still French or Indians, neither of whom saw anything about the nascent American Republic to prefer over their British masters. I wonder if the idea of sending a Franco-American force to Canada was ever entertained? It seems to me that after the elimination of half the English Army in North America at Yorktown that the colonists might have been able to spare some support for such an effort, but perhaps they weren't keen on having the French back in Canada as a neighbor.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh please . One historian says it and suddenly you jump on the victimization train. And yes, the historian says the US couldn't public admit it because.... well why couldn't they admit it? And the mere fact that he ignores the British presense in the Ohio River Valley indicates that his knowledge in the conflict is lacking, at best.

Unlike yours, which is trancendant.

The objectives were to drive the Brits out out of the Ohio River Valley and attack British troops, most of which were in the Ohio River Valley and Canada. Annexation of Canada wasn't a part of it.

Why, because you say so? In the accounts I've read, the Ohio valley forts are not listed as a major causus belli. Certainly, freedom to expand westward, stealing (yes, stealing) land from the Indians was a MAJOR American objective. And the British did have alliances with some of the tribes. In the end, though, the British sold them out.

If the US had taken Montreal without a shot, but the British were still in the Ohio River Valley and building forts, the war would have been an abject failure. What good is claiming more territory when you can't assert control over it... and THAT is what the objectives and aims were. To gain complete control over what was ceded to us by the Treaty of Paris.

If you think about the strategic situation for a minute, you'll realize that the British couldn't remain long in the Ohio river valley without communications through Canada.

Frankly WHY would the US have an objective that would further alienate half of the country (the North East) and may have led to secession (The North East states all voted against the war and were discussing secession in the 1814 Hartford Convention solely based on the fact the government declared war on Britain)? Yeah, gain Canada but lose New England? What sense does that make?

The New England states didn't support the war baecause they had a major interest in trade with Britain. Had the US succeeded in conquering Canada and concluded a peace treaty with Britain, they wouldn't have objected, just as long as their trade was restored.

Oh yes because 12 Congressmen out out over 150 had such a major effect. Please.

Again, it's your unsubstantiated opinion vs. say, the Encyclopedia Britannica - amoung others.

I love the rhetoric!! Stole Florida from Spain! Forget the whole Adams-Onis Treaty. The US just took Florida, never mind the $5 million paid and giving up of claims in Texas and other Spanish areas. Hell the entire Louisana Purchase was for $15 million!

The same pattern of American settlers moving in, then revolting against the Spanish government, followed by American military intervention that got you west Florida was also developing in east Florida. Spain had little chance of keeping it, so they got a little badly needed cash by signing the treaty. Your understanding of aggression lacks any subtlety.

And you know when you fight against the Brits, you kind of have to attack the Brits. What, you wanted an amphibious invasion of Southern England?

This (alone) makes some sense.

As for why wouldn't the US want Canada, it was nice if we could get it, but we didn't aim for taking it over. The New England states sat out of 1812. An annexation may have led to the secession discussed at the Hartford Convention.

Here you defeat your entire argument. If you could get it, you would have kept it. But the major military effort of your country WAS the capture of Canada. How you can hold that it wasn't an object of your strategy is beyond any logic or common sense. And this linking of New England secession to the annexation of Canada is just a figment of your imagination.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


This is a question that I ask myself alot, but can't seem to find much substatial information on.
...

Good question though, I wish I had a definitive answer.

PEI had only recently been colonised mostly by people straight from the British Isles. It is not surprising that they remained loyal.

Newfoundland never identified much with the rest of the Americas. When they were ready to leave the skirts of the mother country they tried independence. That failed and they reverted to the status of a colony. When they finally were steered towards leaving the nest a second time, it took two votes for them to see fit to join Canada (the first was rejected). No surprise they remained loyal either.

In Quebec there may have been some sympathy with some principles of the young America, but there were the major divides of language, religion, and custom. Neither the Church nor the land lords (who both benefitted from the status quo after the Quebec Act) had anything to gain from joining the revolutionaries. To the habitants themselves, the squabble between the British and the rebels was none of their concern. To say that Quebec remained loyal would be to misstate the situation. More like the British had demonstrated a willingness to live and let live through the continued use of French civil law, and to at least suffer the position of the church and use of the French language. Add it all up and the bulk of the people in Quebec simply didn't care, or had reasons not to get involved with a rebellion.

Nova Scotia might be the only surprise. There were close ties to New England and many of the people in the colony had come from there. However, Nova Scotia didn't amount to much at the time. There were only about 20,000 people there, living in scattered and isolated outposts and in Halifax. Powerful interests in Halifax ran the colony, and they had no interest in following the example of the colonies to their South.

While initially sympathetic to the cause of their former friends and neighbours, most of the recent American arrivals in Nova Scotia were too busy cutting a living out of new areas of the colony to have much appetite for rebellion. On the other hand, they also declined to serve in the militia when called up, and in fact the governor of the colony rescinded orders to both raise one based on mandatory service and the new taxes intended to support it.

That changed with time and events. American privateers launched raids up and down the coast of Nova Scotia. They stole anything not nailed down, and then paused for half the nails. Eventually, even former New Englanders were willing to both form militias and to pay some additional taxes to maintain them.

Nova Scotia didn't join the rebellion because the people who would have wanted to were too busy building new lives for themselves, and power in the colony was held by people with an interest in remaining in the Empire.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Thanks, finally a reply with sense

I think the reasons were more practical than ideological. Afterall, the main aim of the war was to take wealth and power from London and remove it to local institutions and people. Who wouldn't want this? But in the time since then, I think Canadians have justified not joining in terms of a special identity, loyalty and a different style of governing than the US.... but none of these differences existed when the choice was actually made.

This is very important. You can't claim there was a distinct Canadian nation in 1775, 1783, 1800 or 1812.

Actually...

The most significant part of Canada at the time was a distinct nation made up of les habitants, and they did indeed have a special identity and different style of law and governing than the American colonies... not to mention language and religion.

Quebec is still here, and together with the loyalists who arrived after the revolution, these two facts largely define what Canada was to subsequently become and they dominate our nation to this day.

[Ecthy]

Did they play ice hockey all the time too and worship Microsoft?

[notyoueither]

No, but they ate babies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the accounts I've read, the Ohio valley forts are not listed as a major causus belli.

And yet just about everyone else here sees the Ohio River Valley and its control to be a major issue involved. Hmmm...

The New England states didn't support the war baecause they had a major interest in trade with Britain. Had the US succeeded in conquering Canada and concluded a peace treaty with Britain, they wouldn't have objected, just as long as their trade was restored.

It's FAR more than that. It goes down the basis of the political parties. The Federalists were very pro-Britain while the Democratic-Republicans were very pro-France. It's one of the reasons that it is said about John Adams that his decision NOT to go to war against France in the late 1790s was made with his country in mind and not his party (who was dedicated to the British notions of hating France).

I mean do you think it was solely trade which almost led to the secession of the North Eastern states? I mean we know what was discussed at the Hartford Convention. The idea of secession was brought up by those delegates. Do you simply think it was trade? Don't you think that pro-British New Englanders would have just thought it already to antagonize Great Britain further by taking colonies.

The same pattern of American settlers moving in, then revolting against the Spanish government, followed by American military intervention that got you west Florida was also developing in east Florida.

Revolting against Spanish government? American military intervension was to deal with the Seminole raids on south Georgia. That intervension led to de facto US control over east Florida, but only because the Spanish couldn't afford to send any troops there to keep order. After all, they only regained control of Florida after the American Revolution (from 1763-1784 it was ruled by the British). The Spanish decided to sell it because they couldn't police it. They lacked the funds to. The exchange was for the renouncing of claims in Texas, which was closer to the Spanish hearts anyway because they could actually afford to keep troops there and assert some control.

If you think about the strategic situation for a minute, you'll realize that the British couldn't remain long in the Ohio river valley without communications through Canada.

Bingo... hence the reason for an invasion to Canada... to disrupt supply lines. Not for annexation as you mistakenly believe.

And this linking of New England secession to the annexation of Canada is just a figment of your imagination.

Please learn more history. I suggest starting with the Hartford Convention of 1814. Also look at the voting patterns for the war.

Also ask yourself about the Federalists who went from a large opposition party to nothing because they were seen as traitors who were about to leave the Union after what was percieved in the US as a victory.