With the British Navy controlling the coast AND the British Army keeping the French in line (The Loyalty of the French Canadians were well known during the Revolution, we only raised three Regiments of Infantry out of what in now Quebec, one surviving long enough to be with Washington at Yorktown, six years after any American Control of Quebec had ended).
Now, William Rogers (Of Roger's Ranger Fame from the French and Indian war) raised a regiment of Volunteers for the British, later called the Queen's Rangers, they surrendered at Yorktown to Washington and later settled in Ontario (where the Regiment still exists). This settlement of this regiment was important for the British for it provided the base for other loyalist Americans to re-settle in Ontario and provide the leadership of Ontario and modern Canada. This was important for after the Revolution both Britain and American went into severe Depression, which did not end till after about 1800. One of the Chief reason for the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 was how bad the economy had gone in the years since the end of the Revolution. Times were tough. This is considered the worse period in American History with the possible exceptions of the 1830s, 1870s and 1930s (And today, if the situation gets much worse). The economic situation had been building up for decades and was the chief reason the Revolution was fought (Benjamin Franklin made the comment had the British left Pennsylvania keep up its practice of issuing paper money the Revolution would never have occurred, but the British did, the Americans were cash short do to the British Ban on Paper money that Independence looked better and better, but I am getting off the subject).
Anyway, after the Revolution New England had a severe depression, farmers looked west for new lands. Britain wanted new settlers in Ontario, preferable English Speakers that the above people could provide leadership to. Do to the ongoing wars of the French Revolution immigration from Europe, while not unheard of, rare compared to the rates of immigration into the American Colonies pre-1774 (The US also had an acute Shortage of Immigrants during this time period, immigration into American would NOT resume till the Irish Famine of the 1830s). Thus England looked to New England for Settlers. The biggest problem that even British estimates of who supported the American Revolution showed New England Support in the high 90% range (The South was about 50/50 the Middle Colonies 1/2 for the Revolution, 1/4 neutral and 1/4 somewhat pro British, and remember these are ENGLISH estimates NOT America Estimates, American Estimates tend to make the Pro-USA percentage higher then these figures).
Thus England wanted Settlers and the only place they could come from was New England (In the US most Movement west was almost straight west, with New Englanders moving to both sides of the Great Lakes. Pennsylvanians and Virginians along the Ohio rivers. Up State New York to the Great lakes while lower New York (New York City Area) going with the Pennsylvanians. Virginians to Kentucky (Just South of the Ohio), Carolinas to Tennessee, Georgians and Carolinas to Alabama and Mississippi (There are exceptions to this rule, for example the California Gold Rush was mostly New Englanders and New York City Residents going to California via Ship either via the Magellan Straits OR Panama).
Back to Canada and New England. Thus in the period between 1790 and 1830 the movement into Ontario was mostly from New England, where over 90% of the people supported the Revolution. These were the poor Farmers from New England not the Ruling Elite (Through some of them went over, but very few for the British demanded a loyalty oath which the poor could take for it was meaningless to them, they had nothing to lose and no one to say they or their father had served at Bunker Hill), the elite were to well known so if they went west they stayed south of the Lakes. As I said above the leadership of Upper Canada had fought against the Revolution, but needed workers. The only source was New England and so they went and convinced New Englanders to move to Upper Canada and get free land. New Englanders jumped at this chance for free land given the lack of opportunities in New England during that period of Depression.
Thus Upper Canada developed a split personality, the ruling Elite, while still "Americans" were opposed to the USA, while the poor farmers and workers (And most people were farmers then) were pro-USA for they or their fathers had fought for it, but went to Canada for the land. As long as no conflict existed between the US and Britain no problem. When the War of 1812 broke out, a major problem. If the Canadian Militia could be used AND not fire their weapons at American Troops, they were reliable (See the British taking of Fort Detroit where the British dressed the Canadian Militia in British Uniform and the American mistaking them for British Regulars evacuated Detroit rather then putting the Canadian Militia to the Test. A few years later, when the US Invaded Upper Canada in the Battle of the Thames, the Canadian Militia was seen for what it was, something that had taken an oath to its King but did NOT want to Fight its Country (i.e. the USA)> While the Militia was not entirely ignored by the Attacking Americans, the fight quickly became a fight between the Indians and British Regulars under Tecumseh and the Americans. The British Commander at that time (The British Commander who had taken Detroit previously was by then dead) kept the Canadian militia around more to prevent them from Joining the Invading American then for any use against the Americans.
Side Note: In the Battle of the Thames, Tecumseh was killed and for all practical purposes the war was over, Tecumseh's proposed Indian Confederation died with him. The American army continued to the then City of York (Now Toronto), reaching the town and setting it on fire (There is a debate on why the fire was started, there was NO order ever given to start such a fire). By all Accounts overall command of the Army had ended right after the Battle of the Thames (The US Militia had only joined the fight to kill Tecumseh, who they view as the greatest threat to them, once he was dead they all wanted to go home, but the Army Leadership wanted to go forward to Toronto). The Army clearly dissolved while before it return to US soil AFTER taking Toronto (Many American Militiamen taking the opportunity to visit relatives living in Canada, remember most of the Militia on both sides were from New England).
While many people believe Canada became more and more Independent of both Britain and the US, economical the ties to the US expanded after 1812. The Erie Canal was not only a boom to New York State but anyone who wanted to ship to Europe from the Great Lakes, you no longer had to haul the cargo around Niagara falls. The Erie Canal was longer, but less of a climb up and down (In fact the first efforts to get around Niagara fall was do to British Fears of lost trade do to the Erie Canal). Canada even adopted the Dollar as its Currency in the mid 1800s do to its greater trade with the US then Britain (US and Canadian dollars were exchanged on a one to one basis except during the US Civil War, when the US Dollar dropped drastically compared to the Canadians Dollar).
The fact that Canada was subject to Free trade under British law, while the US had A tariff also came into play, most factories were built south of the lakes do to the fact no import duties were imposed if made in the USA but then shipped into Canada, but an import tax was imposed if made in Canada and imported into the US. Canada was also a source of Smuggled goods into the US around the Tariff.
The Connections between the US and Canada can also be seen in the US Civil War. From the start of the War, Canadians were serving in the US Army, even while it became clear Britain was supporting the South. The Canadian Militia went through two reorganization during the US Civil War in anticipation of an attack on Canada upon British Intervention on the side of the South. Both Reorganization was made to make the Militia more reliable by making it less universal AND more Voluntary (I.e. ending the pre- US Civil War concept that the Canadian Militias, like its American Cousin, consisted of every male capable of baring arms between the ages of 18 and 45 to one where it was reserved to those males who WANTED to serve). While the official reason for this change was to make the Militia more professional, it also reflected that more Canadians of Military Age were serving in the US Army between 1861 and 1865 then were willing to fight for Canada (and that included five Canadians who made General). Now Canadians Historians like to downplay the number of Canadians who served in the Union Army while up playing the number in the Canadian Militia (At least one attacked the numbers cited in the official US Record as being to precise to be accurate given how records were kept at that time period, which is a good line of attack, but then he compares that number to the Number in the Canadians Militias of 1861 BEFORE the above two reorganizations and included it its number many of the same people who were serving in the Union Army). American historians tend to ignore Canadians in the US Army, either ignoring them completely or mixing them in with other volunteers from Europe. The British war Gamers, on the other hand, do probably the best research and work on how well the Canadians Militia was between 1861 and 1865 and how the Canadians in the Union Army would have reacted to a War Between Britain and the US (i.e. the Union loses another 100-200,000 men but Britain loses Canada and the South is still Subject to 12 years of Occupation after the end of the War, this seems to have been the estimates of the British Generals and Admirals of the 1860s and you wonder why Britain did NOT go to war to support the South, an area where it received the vast majority of its Cotton for its then thriving Cotton mills).
The British Military did build up its defenses along the American Border between 1861 and 1865 but these were more a show of support to Canada and maybe something that would slow the Americans down, but never intended to really stop the Americans. Britain finally acknowledge that its rule over Canada was with American Consent when it granted Canada its "Independence" (I know only Dominion status but de facto independence). If the US wanted to take over Canada, Britain was NOT going to stand in the way (let Britain be trampled). This was acceptable to everyone and has been the rule to this day. Canada in Independent of the US because taking it over is NOT worth the costs. Economically Britain handed Canada over to the US when it granted Canada Independence in 1867 but then forbade it from imposing tariff, during a period of high US Tariffs. Canada could import from the US but not export to the US except what the US wanted to help its exports. Canada build a Railroad connecting Western Canada with Eastern Canada, but north of a failed US east-West rail line (I will NOT go into the Northern Pacific Railway, except it was replaced by the Great Northern Railway when the Great Northern was finished in 1905).
More on the Great Northern (Known as the Snake-Belt do to the fact it wiggle its way across the US south of the 49th Parallel. It "wiggled" for under Federal law of the time period the railroad received from the US Government every other sector of land it touched (remember this was unsettled land so we are talking about land that could be sold at a profit to homesteaders). The builders of the Railroad was more interested in getting the land for free then building the Railroad so it wiggled as the builders tried to figure out ways to get the most land possible to sell off later. At list one commentators said it was faster to walk a straight line from the start to the end then take the train on its route. Given that railroad as the American Competition to the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Pacific was not a threat to US economic Dominance of Canada (and in many ways enhanced it, given the sorry state of the Northern Pacific, which I must repeat has little to do with the much more successful Great Northern, the only American transcontinental railroad built without US Funds).
More on the Northern Pacific:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Pacific_Railwayhttp://www.landgrant.org/history.htmlThe Great Northern Railway:
http://www.greatnorthernempire.net/http://www.railserve.com/JJHill.htmlhttp://www.gnrhs.org/Battle of the Thames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_ThamesCanadian Military Cite, pro-Canada and ignores facts that are NOT pro-Canada (Which is typical of countries with an history the present leadership of that country is unhappy with, other examples of this is the South and Slavery (and segregation) the US as a whole and its treatment of the Indians (Through this is getting better press over the last 100 years or so, I always joked about my grade school, American History till the Civil War, then nothing for their wanted to avoid the labor unrest of the late 1800s).
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_320.aspOdds and end facts about Canada and the US Civil War:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Canajun,+eh%3F-a0102272996http://ca.geocities.com/docmilner/canadians1.htmhttp://www.conservationhamilton.ca/Asset/iu_files/CanadianCivilWar.pdfhttp://books.google.com/books?id=tZwp9I8HaSYC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Canadians+in+the+Union+Army&source=bl&ots=9Z0F71e6RR&sig=1wZ-mISBW9WuAaoSatqFE9e8Sj0&hl=en&ei=zQyeSe2gK6CYNa3gjcUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=resultThe reason I wrote the Above is simple, Canada and the US are one Country, one nation as those terms are generally used. Canada and the US are two separate states, as those terms are used internationally (i.e. sovereign and Independently Politically from any other state). In most situations, one's Country, Nation and State are the same, but in other their are different. For example the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is one State. It is a internationally legal entity. The concept of nation, unlike the concept of state, implies more then legal togetherness. The Scots, Irish and wales view themselves (to a degree, and no where near the degree it was viewed in the 1700s for example) as separate groups of people, as separate nations. If you were to ask an Irishmen or women if Northern Ireland was part of the STATE of Ireland, he or she would say NO, but if you ask if Northern Ireland was part of the NATION or COUNTRY of Ireland he or she will said yes.
We are running across this problem in Iraq. If you were to ask a Kurd living in Iraq what was his Nation, he or she would say "Kurdistan", for that is where most Kurds live and being a Kurd is more important to him or her then being an Iraqi. If you were to ask him his or her State, he or her will say "Iraq" for that is the name of the legal entitle he or she lives in. If you were to ask him or her what country he or she lived in, he or she could say "Arabia" for that is the name of the region he or she is living in.
i point this out for people may be one one country, made up of different Nations (What Europe is slowly becoming under the concept of the Euro) made up of different States (Again what Europe is becoming and what it was before the raise of the Nation-State about the same time as the protestant Reformation). Ancient Rome, was a legal State (Rome), made up of at least three Countries (Latin West, Greek East and Egyptian South) made up of numerous nations within those Countries. China is a Country made up of many nations (Chinese is NOT a language but an alphabet each of the nations of China understands and uses) that has in the past divide itself into several states (And is today divided into two States, Mainline China and Taiwan). Russia is a State made of many nations (With the Russian being the largest and most important) but belongs to a greater Country presently known as the Former Soviet Union (for lack of a better name) the border of the Country is presently in flux (as it has been for at least 1000 years). Sometime the Country includes the Baltic States and Poland, other times it does not (The Baltic states, Poland and the Ukraine all look like they are staying independent of the former Soviet Country, but that has NOT always been the case). Sometime it includes the Central Asia Republics, other times it does not (At present it looks like these republics are rejoining the former Soviet Country, while maintaining their independent Statehoods and Nationhood).
Canada and the US has the same problem. Neither is a nation based on race (unlike most nations in the world, through the French in Quebec and Louisiana are exceptions to this rule) but on common ideas, that both States share (i.e. both Canada and the US are one Nation). Like modern Europe both the US and Canada view each other as having the same economy. If Canada is attacked the US will react as if it was attack on the US, if the US is attack Canada will do the same EVEN IF BOTH DID NOT HAVE ANY TREATY TO THAT AFFECT (and this has been true for all practical purposes since 1763 when France gave up all claims to Quebec, as shown by the Three Canadian regiments the US raised during the Revolution).
While the US and Canada are one Country and One Nation, they are two different Legal States, and that division is not do to some split internally, but do to the fact Canada was that part of British North America Britain was able to hold onto in 1783. Thus Canada are Americans in all sense of the world except legally, and in many ways that is the least important.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
