When did the US lose their desire for Canada?

katchen

Banned
I must disagree with Shadow Knight here. What he is saying used to be the case. But we have reached the point where at least on the Republican side of the aisle, we have a group of highly cohesive conservative ideologues who function more like a majority in a parliamentary democracy than as Senaators and Representatives representing their individual states and districts and they simply don't care. They actually have solidarity!

This is something that we haven't seen since the 1850s. And just like the 1850s, the most committed ideologues feel power slipping from their hands. Both Texas and Arizona, as things stand now are in real danger of slipping decisively into the Democratic column within the next three elections the way California did in 2000 due to the growing number of Laino voters. The bitter battle over immigration in Arizona has been all about trying to minimize the number of Latino citizens and voters and prevent that from happening.

Moreover, many of the things that we did to "reform" Congress and make it less corupt have made it more ideological on both sides and reduced the room for compromise and practicality. When we as a people decided that "pork barrel" and "earmarked" spending was corrupt we closed off an area of compromise that made it possible for Senators and Congresspeople to reach across the aisle to one another and get re-elected because they could show the voters the projects they brought back home. Even something like special bills to give US citizenship to foreigners may look corrupt but they were an outlet that got a lot of people out of immigration limbo in the past and cut red tape in return for services rendered. No more of that. Now re-election depends on ads, organization, ideological consistency and not making any gaffes.

And behind all that is the fact tha quite a few parts of states are chronically under-represented in Washington or feel that they are. Maybe Central Pennsylvania or Southern Ohio feels put upon by Philadelphia or Clevleand and wants to be independent. Not to mention geographical absurdities like Alaska's capital locatd in the Alaskan Panhandle. And the fact that the number of Congresspeople has been fixed at 435 since 1910 as the population has tripled, giving each American less and less repreentation. Americans, once they get used to the idea may ask, if new states are financially viable, why not more states?

So maybe the old reasons why new states could not form don't apply in this environment of wave elections and increasing tensions. And maybe if we dont want a bunch o fnew red states we had better work hard to elect more democrats to the House next election.
 
I must disagree with Shadow Knight here. What he is saying used to be the case. But we have reached the point where at least on the Republican side of the aisle, we have a group of highly cohesive conservative ideologues who function more like a majority in a parliamentary democracy than as Senaators and Representatives representing their individual states and districts and they simply don't care. They actually have solidarity!

Yes, there is a very curious case of bizarre ideologues currently in Congress, but it is not a majority. Furthermore if you want to look at the Republicans even staunch Republican voters believe the party is seriously out of touch with the electorate. So I would expect some of the more ideologue members to get the boot in the next election cycle.

This is something that we haven't seen since the 1850s. And just like the 1850s, the most committed ideologues feel power slipping from their hands. Both Texas and Arizona, as things stand now are in real danger of slipping decisively into the Democratic column within the next three elections the way California did in 2000 due to the growing number of Laino voters. The bitter battle over immigration in Arizona has been all about trying to minimize the number of Latino citizens and voters and prevent that from happening.

Ah yes so changing demographics is rearing its ugly head. A truly bad problem for those aforementioned ideologues as the younger generation, minorities, and second generation immigrants are not following the pattern previously set by going more conservative as they grow older.

Moreover, many of the things that we did to "reform" Congress and make it less corupt have made it more ideological on both sides and reduced the room for compromise and practicality. When we as a people decided that "pork barrel" and "earmarked" spending was corrupt we closed off an area of compromise that made it possible for Senators and Congresspeople to reach across the aisle to one another and get re-elected because they could show the voters the projects they brought back home. Even something like special bills to give US citizenship to foreigners may look corrupt but they were an outlet that got a lot of people out of immigration limbo in the past and cut red tape in return for services rendered. No more of that. Now re-election depends on ads, organization, ideological consistency and not making any gaffes.

Sadly pork barrel and earmarks still exist. Those wanting it have just gotten smarter how they go about it. Bridges to nowhere are embarrassing but ridiculous spending still is going on.

And behind all that is the fact tha quite a few parts of states are chronically under-represented in Washington or feel that they are. Maybe Central Pennsylvania or Southern Ohio feels put upon by Philadelphia or Clevleand and wants to be independent. Not to mention geographical absurdities like Alaska's capital locatd in the Alaskan Panhandle. And the fact that the number of Congresspeople has been fixed at 435 since 1910 as the population has tripled, giving each American less and less repreentation. Americans, once they get used to the idea may ask, if new states are financially viable, why not more states?

Of course they are, but it cuts different ways as well. Many states are dominated by rural parts (Missouri for one is skewed heavily in its internal politics by the rural parts of the state) internally but rely heavily on the dense cities to provide greater representation in Congress. So if you change the make up both sides loose somewhere. Not good for the status quo.

So maybe the old reasons why new states could not form don't apply in this environment of wave elections and increasing tensions. And maybe if we dont want a bunch o fnew red states we had better work hard to elect more democrats to the House next election.

:shrug: This has nothing to do with parties but power and the retention of it. Personally I think the US should radically redo much of its structure to reflect the advancement of technology and better governance but it isn't going to happen anytime soon I can tell you that.
 
I think the War of 1812 put the final nail in the 'hey, let's conquer Canada!" coffin. Before the war, a lot of people in the USA had the (vastly mistaken) idea that Canadians were just aching to become Americans. A lot of this was fostered by the merchant class in the USA talking to the merchant class in the Canada (a lot of whom really did want to join the USA) and assuming that that held the same for the whole Canadian population. When in fact, it didn't. The war brought that fact brutally home to the USA...

I don't think it was necessarily the War of 1812 that did in the annexation of Canada. The Treaty of Ghent which ended the war had things go back to status quo antebellum. When this happened, the US decided to expand westward rather than northward. Don't forget that Britain was directly controlling Canada at the time.

What really did in the desire for Canada was in 1867, Britain granted Canada "home rule", the day before Alaska was purchased by the US. The main reason Seward purchased Alaska was to put the squeeze on Canada so to entice them to join the USA. After the Canadian Confederation was created, the US could no longer claim to be liberating a colony from a European power, but would instead essentially be invading a sovereign territory in order to conquer it.
 
I took a Canadian history class in college. I did a paper on the Quebec conference. That is the 1867 meeting that set up the government that united all the former colonies into one country call Canada. A New York Newspaper editorialist assumed that movement to one country meant dissatisfaction with Britain and invited Canadians to join the US,
 
On the original Othertimelines,where I was active from 2006-2007,the US annexing g Canadian provinces was a common theme in TLs there.
tThat could very well mean that there were Americans interested in taking over Canadian territory as of 20062007.
 

katchen

Banned
That's not what the 1 April 1861 memorandum says.

"We must CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLIC FROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION OR DISUNION... FOR FOREIGN NATIONS, I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at once. I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continental spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention. And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, Would convene Congress and declare war against them."

No mention of annexations in Latin America, and Canada is an entirely legitimate target for alienation against Europe.
This would be a heck of a POD for a timeline! Lincoln and Seward start a war with Great Britain, Spain and France in March 1861 to keep the Union together, raise an army and ( I guess?) dare the States that have already seceded during the Buchanan Administration to interfere with mobilization against the foreign foe. Would it have worked?
 

katchen

Banned
For whom will they vote?

I think the US lost it's desire for Canada after 1870 when American Republican Senators in particular took a good look at the new Canadian Provinces and asked themselves the obvious question
: For whom will they vote?
And saw that with all the Irish Catholics in Ontario and all the French Catholics in Quebec that the answer was likely to be "the Democrats". End of appetite for Canada.
All through the Gilded Age Congressional Republicans were VERY careful about what states they let into the Union, admitting only those states that would pad their majority, particularly in the Senate. Kansas in 1863. Nevada in 1867. Colorado in 1876. Then no new states at all until an omnibus bill in 1889 that granted statehood to North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming. Ten new Senators. Guaranteed as much as possible to be Republicans.
Utah did not get statehood because the Mormons had not yet agreed to abolish polygamy and the Republicans were not sure they would vote their way. Arizona and New Mexico were predominantly Catholic. They did not get statehood until 1912, after the Democrats had retaken Congress (which had also been resistant about New Mexico on racial and ethnic grounds). And Congress resisted about Hawaii on racial grounds. The same with Puerto Rico and the Philippines, refusing to even permit them territorial status with the possibility of statehood. The Democrats refused because of race. The Republicans, because of Catholicism and probability that they would vote Democrat. Such was the politics of expansion in the United States.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I'm finding no results for this word in any language, so if it's an insult would you kindly tell me so that I can report you to the moderators? :confused:

What you've said here makes you sound quite ignorant, since "ibid" is a widely used Latin term and should be familiar to anyone with an academic background. You also come off as a liar, since you could easily have googled "ibid" and discovered what it means. You found no results for the word in any language because you made no search for it. Your feigned courtesy is a bid to seem clever, but the result is quite obnoxious. Finally, your assumption that he was insulting you - and the mention of moderators, which is nothing more than a crude threat in response to a perceived yet nonexistent slight - makes you look like an overly defensive tattletale.

Edit: You are also responding to lighthearted statements about differences in Canadian and American culture with unnecessarily aggressive political mantras. You over- and misuse the word "totalitarianism", yet when somebody opposed a law which affected their personal liberty, your response was "We're not going to apologize for obeying our laws." This is referred to as hypocrisy. When the same person expressed their distaste for anti-abortionists, you again referred to totalitarianism. If somebody believes that they are morally entitled or obligated to intrude on others' rights, those rights take precedence over the beliefs. Saying "No, modern society can't accommodate your belief that you have to the right to restrict others' rights" is not totalitarian. Saying "I have the right to restrict your rights" is.

And your notion that in America "people believe what they want to believe" sounds nice on paper, but isn't practicable. It's a relic of the Enlightenment era when everything had to be dealt with in absolutes to fit a neat rationalistic model. There are plenty of beliefs that are erroneous or harmful. It's perfectly acceptable for our peers, society at large, or even the government to take steps to correct those beliefs. If you go around telling people "I believe that by eating children I will become immortal", then the authorities will get involved to dissuade you of that belief. I think that's just great and we should continue to practice such measures.
 
Last edited:
Would it have worked?
Basically, no: there's a reason that Lincoln shut him down so quickly. Seward had made a lot of rash promises to Confederate commissioners that Sumter wouldn't be reinforced. Lincoln's inaugural speech said that the government would hold all the forts. Seward therefore argued that Sumter should be abandoned and the government should start agitating for a foreign war. But he still proposed to hold Fort Pickens, so all that happens is that there's a clash in Florida rather than South Carolina and the federal government has a more difficult foreign affairs situation to deal with.
 
Top