how invitable/unlikely was Canada?

[stewacide]

How Inevitable / Unlikely Was Canada?

I was listening Richard Gwyn talk about the second part of his John A. Macdonald bio, and he stated his belief that without John A. Canada never would have lasted.

http://youtu.be/cicS8WeXx3s

His point was that Canada at the time made no sense (immediately following confederation), and no rational observer would have bet on it lasting. Among his points:

- Canada had nearly no industry, and the protectionist policy it pursued IOTL was clearly against its immediate interests (cheaper just to buy from the US)
- Canada was in a depression and losing population to the US, while the US was full of beans after the Civil War
- While the US west was being rapidly populated, Canada was desperate for immigrants, but was nobody's first choice, and could do nothing to stop newcomers from heading south
- While the US trans-continental railroad was built to serve a ready-made market of hundreds of thousands on its west coast, Canada's west coast had only ~25k at the time!
- There hardly seemed any rational reason to build the railroad since transport through the US was easier anyhow
- There was hardly much support in Canada for Confederation: e.g. the Nova Scotia election immediately following 52/53 legislators elected were for leaving Canada!
- Britain really didn't care what Canada did - confederation or otherwise - so long as it didn't drag it into a war with the Americans

All that PLUS the French/English dynamic that's always strained the country.

Particularly in light of what a success Canada has turned out to be (arguably THE most successful major country in the world today), it's strange to think what an unlikely country it is (unless you think Richard is wrong?)

edit -- yes the thread title is mis-spelled sorry

 

[danwild6]

Canada proves any country can exist as long as you have a powerful enough backer long enough to set up governing institutions that have a vested interest in maintaining independence. Canada could be entirely anglophone and still exist separately from America as long as the RN maintains superiority in the North Atlantic and the St. Lawrence.

 

[KingByng]

I was listening Richard Gwyn talk about the second part of his John A. Macdonald bio, and he stated his belief that without John A. Canada never would have lasted.

He's partly right.

It was the force of will of that corrupt drunken bastard that brought everything together rather smoothly and helped to hold it together during that initial instability. But he was not the only charismatic man intent on bringing the colonies of British North America together in confederation.

It's a somewhat popular thing to say that Canada was an unlikely abberation, both by Canadians who love to believe that we became the greatest country on Earth against all odds, and by Americans who love to believe they could have taken us in if things had been differently.

But we can't forget men like James Douglas, George Simpson, George-Etienne Cartier, Amor de Cosmos, Charles Tupper, and the others. Post 1846 BNA was going to become a single polity from coast to coast to coast, free of the US and loyal to the Crown, that much is certain. It wasn't just the force of one man's will that held it all together, but he certainly helped facilitate it.

 

[stewacide]

...Post 1846 BNA was going to become a single polity from coast to coast to coast, free of the US and loyal to the Crown, that much is certain. It wasn't just the force of one man's will that held it all together, but he certainly helped facilitate it.

I think his point is that if BNA had free trade with the US before it had much industry or east-west trade links (which MacDonalds's against-all-odds national policy was responsible for), it'd inevitably lead to economic union with the US (with all the shots called from D.C.), and that'd inevitably lead to political union.

 

[Socrates]

I think his point is that if BNA had free trade with the US before it had much industry or east-west trade links (which MacDonalds's against-all-odds national policy was responsible for), it'd inevitably lead to economic union with the US (with all the shots called from D.C.), and that'd inevitably lead to political union.

I imagine there'd be an extra stage in there:

(1) Free trade with US
(2) Break-up of the confederation into constituent states
(3) Ad hoc entry of some of these states into the US
(4) Increased US domination of the remaining independent ones

In the end most or all would join, but Quebec might be an exception.

 

[stewacide]

Even for Quebec it'd be pointless not to join the US if they're totally integrated into the US economy: it'd give them at least *some* say vs. simply being dictated to. I don't see what they stand to gain by being the only nominally independent state in a continent-wide customs union.

Anyhoo Richard's explanation for why this didn't happen, besides the leadership of Macdonald, is that Ontario farmers had some miraculous foresight, and sacrificed their own interests in order to provide industrial jobs for their children in the cities.

Does anyone know what the attitude to industrial tariffs were in the then-mostly-farming US upper midwest? (i.e. did they share the same foresight?)

 

[Plumber]

It's unlikely that the Maritimes went along with the whole thing. Wilcox's TL with the Laruentine countries is more plausible IMO.