Why did a united North America not form?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which is why 19th c German nationalists, no pansies, were gung ho to annex Switzerland?? Not.

The problem here is that you make the assumption that the German-speaking Swiss were more attracted to German nationalism than to Swiss nationalism. That would be a mistake. The Swiss are an example of nationalism that is contra to the German and Italian experiences, with mulitple language groups thinking of themselves not as three seperate nations (ala the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium) but one nation, the Swiss.

Tell a German-speaking Swiss that he's a German and you will not have made a friend, let me assure you.

but the question is, how did that occur? Part of it, I presume, is that back in the 16th century, the majority of German Swiss (though by no means all) went Protestant, while adjacent parts of Germany stayed Catholic (or were pressed back by the counter reform) Geneva was a Calvinist island apart from Catholic France. So the French and Germans overcame their languace differences to maintain a Protestant island. (the other language groups are much smaller and less central to Swiss identity, I think)

Also the Swiss heritage of medieval republicanism, set them apart from Austria and Bavaria.

Now look at Canada. Not quite as distinctive as Switzerland, but still pretty distinctive.

[chequita guevara]

I'm less interested in why it ocured than simply noting that it did occur. The Swiss feel they have a shared culture, so they think of themselves as Swiss, rather than French or German or Italian.

The original point to which I responded was that there there is no reason people with a shared culture should not reside under one state. Nationalism is the reason that comment was incorrect.

That doesn't apply to the U.S. and Canada, because we don't have a shared history, even if certain superificial aspects of our culture are similar and we share a language. Even before independence, there seems to have been a divide between our colonies and theirs. Where is the correspondence between leaders in Massachusetts and the Maritimes? The Thirteen colonies looked upon Canada as something to conquer, not as potential allies.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Thirteen colonies looked upon Canada as something to conquer, not as potential allies.

Wrong. You started looking on us as potential conquered territory afte we told you to piss off in 1775.

[KrazyHorse]

To the oppressed Inhabitants of Canada.(2)

FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN,

Alarmed by the designs of an arbitrary Ministry, to extirpate the Rights and liberties of all America, a sense of common danger conspired with the dictates of humanity, in urging us to call your attention, by our late address, to this very important object.

Since the conclusion of the late war, we have been happy in considering you as fellow-subjects, and from the commencement of the present plan for subjugating the continent, we have viewed you as fellow-sufferers with us. As we were both entitled by the bounty of an indulgent creator to freedom, and being both devoted by the cruel edicts of a despotic administration, to common ruin, we perceived the fate of the protestant and catholic colonies to be strongly linked together, and therefore invited you to join with us in resolving to be free, and in rejecting, with disdain, the fetters of slavery, however artfully polished.

We most sincerely condole with you on the arrival of that day, in the course of which, the sun could not shine on a single freeman in all your extensive dominion. Be assured, that your unmerited degradation has engaged the most unfeigned pity of your sister colonies; and we flatter ourselves you will not, by tamely bearing the yoke, suffer that pity to be supplanted by contempt.

When hardy attempts are made to deprive men of rights, bestowed by the almighty, when avenues are cut thro' the most solemn compacts for the admission of despotism, when the plighted faith of government ceases to give security to loyal and dutiful subjects, and when the insidious stratagems and manoeuvres of peace become more terrible than the sanguinary operations of war, it is high time for them to assert those rights, and, with honest indignation, oppose the torrent of oppression rushing in upon them.

By the introduction of your present form of government, or rather present form of tyranny, you and your wives and your children are made slaves. You have nothing that you can call your own, and all the fruits of your labour and industry may be taken from you, whenever an avaritious governor and a rapacious council may incline to demand them. You are liable by their edicts to be transported into foreign countries to fight Battles in which you have no interest, and to spill your blood in conflicts from which neither honor nor emolument can be derived: Nay, the enjoyment of your very religion, on the present system, depends on a legislature in which you have no share, and over which you have no controul, and your priests are exposed to expulsion, banishment, and ruin, whenever their wealth and possessions furnish sufficient temptation. They cannot be sure that a virtuous prince will always fill the throne, and should a wicked or a careless king concur with a wicked ministry in extracting the treasure and strength of your country, it is impossible to conceive to what variety and to what extremes of wretchedness you may, under the present establishment, be reduced.

We are informed you have already been called upon to waste your lives in a contest with us. Should you, by complying in this instance, assent to your new establishment, and a war break out with France, your wealth and your sons may be sent to perish in expeditions against their islands in the West indies.

It cannot be presumed that these considerations will have no weight with you, or that you are so lost to all sense of honor. We can never believe that the present race of Canadians are so degenerated as to possess neither the spirit, the gallantry, nor the courage of their ancestors. You certainly will not permit the infamy and disgrace of such pusillanimity to rest on your own heads, and the consequences of it on your children forever.

We, for our parts, are determined to live free, or not at all; and are resolved, that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world.

Permit us again to repeat that we are your friends, not your enemies, and be not imposed upon by those who may endeavour to create animosities. The taking the fort and military stores at Ticonderoga and Crown-Point, and the armed vessels on the lake, was dictated by the great law of self-preservation. They were intended to annoy us, and to cut off that friendly intercourse and communication, which has hitherto subsisted between you and us. We hope it has given you no uneasiness, and you may rely on our assurances, that these colonies will pursue no measures whatever, but such as friendship and a regard for our mutual safety and interest may suggest.

As our concern for your welfare entitles us to your friendship, we presume you will not, by doing us injury, reduce us to the disagreeable necessity of treating you as enemies.

We yet entertain hopes of your uniting with us in the defence of our common liberty, and there is yet reason to believe, that should we join in imploring the attention of our sovereign, to the unmerited and unparalleled oppressions of his American subjects, he will at length be undeceived, and forbid a licentious Ministry any longer to riot in the ruins of the rights of Mankind.(3)

Ordered, That the above Letter be signed by the president.

Ordered, That Mr.[John] Dickinson, end Mr.[Thomas] Mifflin, be a committee to get the letter translated into the french language, and to have 1,000 copies of it, so translated, printed, in order to be sent to Canada, and dispersed among the Inhabitants there.

[chequita guevara]

One letter in 1775 makes an effort? They should have been laying the groundwork in the 1760s, as they did in the 13 colonies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Wrong. You started looking on us as potential conquered territory afte we told you to piss off in 1775.

from what ive read, alot of folks in Quebec who were sympathetic or neutral, got pissed off at the Continental Army requisitioning food, and generally making a nuisance of themselves in 1775. Much as some americans got pissed at the British Army.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One letter in 1775 makes an effort? They should have been laying the groundwork in the 1760s, as they did in the 13 colonies.

but they werent thinking war or independence in the 1760s. They were looking at civil disturbances (the radicals) or boycotts (the moderates) to press parliament to revoke various acts. The added impact to the boycott probably wasnt worth the trouble.

[KrazyHorse]

The seven years' war only inded in NA in 1762-63, che

And the inhabitants of Quebec were French Catholics (who had just been granted a fairly generous setllement by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and who looked on the US' relatively anti-Catholic stance with suspicion)

And many of the inhabitants of the Maritimes were more recent British immigrants than were the inhabitants of the US East Coast

There was already a huge cultural gulf between what would become "Canada" and what was the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


from what ive read, alot of folks in Quebec who were sympathetic or neutral, got pissed off at the Continental Army requisitioning food, and generally making a nuisance of themselves in 1775. Much as some americans got pissed at the British Army.

French Canadians were pretty sure that they weren't going to get a better deal going to bed with Uncle Sam than they had just been granted by the Act of 1763

Invading Lower Canada in 1775 after we didn't rise up in favour of the rebellion didn't help either.

The 1775 attack on Quebec City was repulsed by a force of mainly French canadians. They didn't want any part of the Revolution. Certainly not one led by a bunch of WASPs from down south.

[KrazyHorse]

It's one of the remarkable facts of history that French Canada went from fighting the British for the French in 1760 to fighting the Americans (allies of the French) for the British in 1775

[Flubber]

Same culture ??

1. Gay marriage
2. nationalized medical care
3. NO Death penalty
4. Hockey
5. Multiple legitimate political parties

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


French Canadians were pretty sure that they weren't going to get a better deal going to bed with Uncle Sam than they had just been granted by the Act of 1763

Invading Lower Canada in 1775 after we didn't rise up in favour of the rebellion didn't help either.

The 1775 attack on Quebec City was repulsed by a force of mainly French canadians. They didn't want any part of the Revolution. Certainly not one led by a bunch of WASPs from down south.

according to Kevin Phillips, The Cousins Wars, not all french canadians were thrilled with the Quebec act, which reinforced the power of the RC church and the existing elites. A few freethinker-protojacobin types were totally opposed to the QA, and so were sympathetic to the Patriots, and some others who were Catholic, but not enthusiastic at the degree of establishment power in the QA were more neutral leaning.

The force that went up to Montreal had French guides, and was sold supplies pretty voluntarily at first. IIRC (also from Phillips) they even organized a French Canadian regiment.


Of course Canadians have "forgotten" such support, just as the US "forgot" about loyalism, in particular the fact that MOST loyalists did NOT go to Canada (or anywhere else) but stayed behind and became strong supporters of the US constitution and the Federalist party.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


according to Kevin Phillips, The Cousins Wars, not all french canadians were thrilled with the Quebec act, which reinforced the power of the RC church and the existing elites. A few freethinker-protojacobin types were totally opposed to the QA, and so were sympathetic to the Patriots, and some others who were Catholic, but not enthusiastic at the degree of establishment power in the QA were more neutral leaning.

The force that went up to Montreal had French guides, and was sold supplies pretty voluntarily at first. IIRC (also from Phillips) they even organized a French Canadian regiment.


Of course Canadians have "forgotten" such support, just as the US "forgot" about loyalism, in particular the fact that MOST loyalists did NOT go to Canada (or anywhere else) but stayed behind and became strong supporters of the US constitution and the Federalist party.

I think you're really talking exceptions here more than the rule (even more so than the Loyalists in the US who were 25-30% of the population)

The percentage of Quebecers who might be counted on to join the revolution was probably more on the order of 10%

Most were either hostile, or just didn't give a damn (probably the largest group) who would have been happy to sell supplies to anybody who had the cash.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I think you're really talking exceptions here more than the rule (even more so than the Loyalists in the US who were 25-30% of the population)

The percentage of Quebecers who might be counted on to join the revolution was probably more on the order of 10%

Most were either hostile, or just didn't give a damn (probably the largest group) who would have been happy to sell supplies to anybody who had the cash.

I dont disagree that there were fewer pro-americans in Quebec than loyalists in the thirteen colonies. Im just taking issue with the notion that there were NO pro-americans in Quebec. Certainly, had the Americans won the military campaign, there were enough pro-Americans, and enough neutrals, to have incorporated Quebec. Which has nothing to do with the original post of course, since these were NOT anglophones (IIUC the anglophones in Quebec were all pro-Brit - the only pro-rebel anglophones in "canada" were in Nova Scotia)

[KrazyHorse]

Not all Quebecers were happy with 1763, but it could have been a lot worse than it was, and I think people knew that.

It certainly wasn't the most liberal of possible agreements. It reaffirmed the power of the Church and the other elites, as you said. But that ws probably good enough for most Quebecers. Quebec was, in many ways, a backwater. The attitudes were provincial, and in general the populace was less concerned with notions of liberty, and more concerned with retaining their language and their religion.

The Enlightenment hadn't yet reached Quebec, and for a large part of the province, didn't until 1960, when the priests finally lost their stranglehold on the farms and villages.