Complete frippery, as is everything else said.
But just as likely as Canada voting to annex itself to the US.
Complete frippery, as is everything else said.
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 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...
The political split in the US might be disrupted with the addition of Canada, as even most conservatives in Canada would be called socialists in the US.
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?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.
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?![]()
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.Would it have worked?