Excellent video as always. I can't believe I'm doing this, but I've become too interested, so every video I'm gonna make a video asking for you to do a video about Sarawak. I understand that will probably be very annoying, but it must be done. So, consider this Day 1 of me asking for a video about Sarawak.
Always like the vids you do about little known history involving maps, I didn't really know about this proposal and I study a lot of history. Thanks and also congratz, glad to be a part of your half a million subscribers. Enjoy your break!
There was also period where America wanted Canadian lands as compensation for the damages caused by confederate ships built in British ship yards during the civil war, but they settled it with cash instead.
I have this crazy idea that segregation wouldn't have lasted long if they demanded Bermuda and the Bahamas instead (assuming the British would agree to losing their coaling stations - which they wouldn't). Imagine two whole states coming in with a majority of the population being free Black's in both. That would put considerable pressure on the Republicans to keep up Reconstruction, or at least honor the 14th Amendment's promise that Congress would accept fewer members in the House in States which restricted voting rights.
@@jeffbenton6183Not sure of the percentage, but the Bahamas had a much larger white population in the 1800s. A lot of them migrated to South Florida over the last half of the 19th century.
Okay, but Finnegan's raids are so hilarious. The plan was to hold Canada hostage and exchange it for Irish independence. Could you imagine *that* timeline?
@@concept5631 That's not what this would lead to *at all*. If you *read the comment*, the idea was to hold Canada hostage for *irish independence*. Canada would be largely the same (though the US may have capitalized on perceived weakness and taken Canada themselves), except Ireland would be united and free about a century earlier.
It was a silly plan, but could have done some real damage. The Fenians were mostly Union veterans. On the Canadian side, there was the militia and the regular infantry, neither of which had had much battle experience. At the battle of Ridgeway in 1866, the militia initially held its own but retreated due to confusion over signals and lack of discipline. The Fenians retreated as well, avoiding a confrontation with the approaching regulars. It didn't help that the Fenian reserves on the American side had also fled in advance of the arrival of a *very* unamused General Grant.
It wasnt even the fault of the American drafters - Canada East and West were the actual names of the subdivisions within the United Province of Canada at the time.
@@ahhno4662 Not sure how widespread those names would have been at time time (especially in the USA). Quebec referred to both regions in 1760s, but not sure about how popular/well known Ontario was before Confederation. Ontario's bar association even kept the name Law Society of Upper Canada until 2018!
@@LlamasAtMidnight The names “Upper Canada” and “Lower Canada” were changed in 1840 to become “Canada East” and “Canada West” regions within United Canada colony.
Not soon after in 1869 the Dominican Republic asked the U.S. to annex it, the final vote to annex ended up being a tie in the US Senate. Another interesting and much more plausible (albeit smaller) what-if? since this comment is getting traction I'll say that I learned this from a podcast here on RUclips called "Talkernate History" and their episode on the Banana Wars. They are woefully underrated and if you like history please please please give them the attention they deserve!
One thing I like about an America annexed Canada scenario is that Canada would inevitably form a distinct culture from the rest of the US, much like the south. Inevitably driving through Canada you'd be seeing people waving the Red Ensign with signs saying "Canada will rise again!"
Considering that at the time Canada's population was 3 million and the US's 31 milion it would dramatically change Canadian culture and heritage, I'm not sure if there would even be calls for a return to an Independent Canada when in the future most of the population will be immagrants coming from the US. Texans won't admit it but without the two Mexicos being so close to them they would've become a larger Oklahoma without the cultural influence bleeding from both Mexicos.
Fears of American invasion were the PRIMARY motivation for Canadian Confederation in 1867. Having a unified government was seen as necessary for defense, both from a standpoint of organization, but also logistically. Central to the agreement of the colonies was the new federal government financing/building the Intercolonial Railway to connect Halifax, Nova Scotia to Quebec (where existing railways connected to Toronto, Ontario). The reason this railway was considered essential wasn't for economic/trade reason; it was so that British regulars could be transported quickly to respond to an American attack. The St. Lawrence River freezes in the winter, making Halifax the only major all-season port. Without the Intercolonial Railway, the British wouldn't be able to reinforce an American attack in late autumn until the following spring, when it might be too late. Important to keep in mind that at the end of the American Civil War, the US had the largest standing army on the planet. Also, both before & during the Civil War, there had been "unsanctioned" militia actions along the Canadian border with the intension of sparking a war that might unite the US states against a common enemy. There was precedence for that, too, because it was regular citizens getting into cross-border fights that sparked the Mexican-American War just a couple decades earlier. So, while I agree that this proposed bill that barely saw the light of day in Congress likely had little to do with Canadian Confederation (I'd never heard of the bill prior to this video), the sentiment behind it was ABSOLUTELY a big motivator for Canada's founding.
In the early 1900s a treaty that was somewhat similar to NAFTA between America and Canada was stalled in the senate. It was only passed by a large margin when one senator claimed it would eventually lead to the US annexing Canada. (Naturally Canada immediately pulled out)
@@BlackBanditXX True, but those are groups that arrived later. The French were already in Louisiana, hence the comparison. But I wouldn't be surprised if NYC and Boston had similar French communities.
@@elpito9326 Texas under Spain and later Mexico received some southern English speaking protestant immigrants who later helped the US annex Texas, it's not exactly the same thing.
Ahhh, the alternative good ol' United States of North America Home of the French Quebec and Louisiana, the Spanish California, Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico, the British Northeast, the Russian Alaska, the Indian Nunavut and the Western reservations, and the Polynesian Hawaii.
A fun argument was the 1911 effort at free trade between US and Canada. Canadian Tories warned that such an agreement would be the first step in the US annexing them and the American Speaker of the House Champ Clark stupidly agreed that free trade was step 1 to US absorbing Canada. Tories overwhelmingly won 1911 Canadian election and free trade between US and Canada would have to wait until 1988. Just think, 77 years earlier US Canada free trade. Much much deeper economic integration.
They were playing Victoria 2 and using the Liberate-Annex exploit (you can declare war 1 for the freedom of a nation but just inside a single little state, then declare war 2 on said little nation to annex them because they are so small, then declare war 3 on the big nation again to give the little nation all its core land- accept peace from each at the same time while paused and boom youve annexed the whole of Cananda/Italy/India etc etc)
@@mozdy7457I don't even think majority of Albertans want to be American, they just feel closer to America because the liberal government is isolating them.
@@devincross2205 not really bud, as a Canadian I think I know my people, you see more Albertans talking about self governance then joining Biden but okay lol.
The main reason the USA couldn't invade Canada before the 20th century 1. The USA does not have a unified army, the USA relies heavily on volunteers in each state. 2. The territory of the USA is already very large and has not been well consolidated, especially the newly conquered western regions 3. Relations with Britain have benefited the USA, so there is no need to invade Canada anymore because the USA and Canada are already integrated with each other.
The Civil War rectified all that. Conscription, and federal income tax to fund it, created a huge army for the union. Rail networks crisscrossed the north and a transcontinental railroad had been finished. Also the British empire had no idea how to fight a peer army. They spent the decades after napoleon fighting colonial conflicts. When ww1 started, everyone was marching into machine gun fire. The us army had been bloodied in the Civil War, it had faced cannons and repeating rifles. A British invasion would trip over itself.
"Couldn't fight a peer army" except for that time they beat the russians, who had a far better army then the union ever did less the a decade earlier. Also there is the slit issue that most of the us guns were made in Britain, most of the unions gunpowder came from British India, and that despite the income tax 72% of government revenues were from trade tarrifs. @cpob2013
@@cpob2013 think about the number of deaths and injuries during and after the civil war, not to mention the infrastructure and social damage in the states affected by the war. The USA was not at all confident in fighting against Britain at that time, remember the British Navy could land troops anywhere. When the USA had built a navy strong enough to challenge Britain at the beginning of the 20th century, the US political leadership instead made an alliance with Britain which closed the possibility of conquering Canada. The only legal way to conquer Canada is to create a pro-USA political party whose ultimate goal is none other than to include Canada as part of the USA. But doing that would be the same as killing the alliance with Britain because the current British king also has the title of King of Canada.
The British likely wouldn’t have put up a fight for Canada. India certainly, but Canada was not worth it like in 1812. What’s more likely to happen is that the U.S. marches in and fights the Canadian militia but Britain does nothing but ask for compensation. The royal navy was in the middle of refitting itself due to the invention of ironclads and the British army was stretched thin and also in the middle of rearming to adopt breechloaders.
0:24 That's completely untrue. Between 1859 and 1874 there were serious concerns about a possible british-american war over todays British Columbia, aka Greater Oregon. Plus changing the borders here and there and taking advantage over the other always dominated british and american expansionist policies up to the Pacific. This back and forth diplomatic sausage wraggling caused how the border as it is today. Both sides used targeted settlement policies to raise claim for "uninhabited" territories, skirmishes between the locals were not rare, etc... Have the british their way fully and they will take a huge chunk out of the Praerie and who knows how much states down south west of the Rockies. Or at least todays State of Washington and Oregon annexed to Canada. Have the US their way and an independent Quebec is not out of the table, with the anglo-saxon territories being annexed. Or at least an expanded State of Oregon might came to be to in today's British Columbia.
My favorite Clive Cussler book is Night Probe where the joining of the US and Canada is the main plot. They go digging through the Empress of Ireland to find a piece of paper.
I would think that, once the purchase of Alaska concluded, it and the Territory of Columbia would swap territory in two ways: 1. The Territory of Columbia gets everything east of the 140th Meridian (roughly matching up with British-Canadian claims on Russian Alaska); Alaska could be compensated with everything north of the 60th Parallel (basically granting it the vast Yukon) 2. The District of Alaska gets everything north of the... I'm not sure exactly what Parallel (based off Wikipedia, it's somewhere between the 55th and 54th), but if you drew a straight line a few miles south of Wales Island, BC, this is what I'm referring to. Would definitely shrink Columbia but it would also likely make Alaska a territory sooner with the gold rushes that come in the later decades.
Choice 1 would never have worked at the time, since at that point, like 90% of the non-native population lived in the Alaska panhandle. You would be trading away basically all that was important in Alaska at that point.
@@thomasrinschler6783 True, I don't think Choice 1 was particularly a good option either, and the splitting of Rupert's Land just feels a bit odd (granted, most US territories were at some point). I'd just like to see a follow-up to this video.
Thank you for your video, i learn that Akimiski Island was a Nunavut land instead of Ontario.. almast all island of the Hudsan bay and Ungava bay area part of the Nunavut .
I don’t think they would ever have been able to take Newfoundland anyway. The Royal Navy would halt any attempt. In this timeline, Newfoundland remains British and becomes the last bastion of Canada. Horrifying.
The Finnians remained a thing for a while. A Finnian shot Thomas D'arcy Magee in 1868, Canada's only political assassination until Pierre Laport in 1970 during the FLQ crisis.
@@Hisscreeper46 No, British Trade Commissioner James Cross was eventually released by his captors. And yes, I had to check Wikipedia to confirm details, as I had only turned three at the time of the October Crisis, and really have no memory of that time.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee (1825 - 1868) was assassinated because it was thought he had betrayed the cause of Irish statehood. McGee when he was in his early 20s was a member of a Irish radical organisation called Young Ireland. He was involved in the unsuccessful insurrection in 1848 and had to flee the country. The IRB in the 1860s was a continuation of the Young Ireland party. "Fenian" is a modern pronunciation of Fianna, an army that protected ancient Celtic Ireland.
Oh my. Where to start on this video. First of all, the United States already tried to annex Canada. Twice. The first was during the American Revolution when Benedict Arnold was sent up to Montreal to try to conquer BNA. He failed miserably and this is one reason he defected back to the British. The second was during the War of 1812, which lasted from 1812 to 1814. The Americans once again tried to conquer what is now Quebec and failed. The war ended with minor territorial concessions to the Americans from the British, but was mainly a stalemate. Canada was never, ever called the "Confederation of Canada," Confederation was an action, specifically the action of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario joining together to firm the Dominion of Canada.
That juicy artic border has me drooling, and not even 10 seconds later,,, "Creating the giant US controlled map that everyone always foams at the mouth over."
Interesting perspective on the pre-Confederation annexation concerns of the British North American Colonies. The Fenians (pronounced "Feenians" as it was an Irish political movement) unsuccessfully attacked New Brunswick (NB) in 1866. The result of this military threat was a provincial election resulting in a change of the NB government from anti to pro-Confederation. That made the politically stalled Confederation project viable and colonial politicians from Canada West, Canada East, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia headed to Great Britain to negotiate with the Imperial Government to create the British North America Act (BNA Act) later in 1866. The BNA Act came into effect by royal decree on July 1st, 1867 creating the Dominion of Canada.
As a Canadian I find this amusing. My understanding of Canadian history and politics is that up until 1970s, or there abouts, the borders were pretty porous anyway. Lots of people from Canada moved south and lots of people from the U.S. moved North at will. Most Canadian now would not be amenable to an amalgamation. One of the worst things a politician in Canada can be accused of is imitating our Neighbours to the south. It would take some sort of crisis, either military or socio-economic, for modern Canadians to accept the idea.
One ding-dong of an elected official can have the idea to annex Canada that doesn't mean they could have done it. By 1866 the american army was demobilized down to 80,000 soldiers, by 1867 they were down to 20,000. The brits had 220,000 regulars and the massive Indian army of over 280,000 regulars. Re-mobilization probably wouldn't have been possible, half the major cities were in ruins and there was huge social unrest over drafts when the north was fighting for it's existence. This scenario does not take into account the broken state that america was in at the time. They were in no shape to annex territory. They were lucky that Mexico with france's backing didn't try to retake california. Not to mention the US navy couldn't hold a candle to the Brits. The Brits were a super power, america was an upstart that just finished killing each other for 5 years. There was no transcontinental railroad at the time. The Brits could have blocked every major port and reinforced Canada. The only chance the US would have would be to capture Halifax early on to prevent reinforcements. That's assuming america had the will and ability to fight, and after the civil war it didn't.
0:33 right map are false, the territority ceded in 1783 wasn't all original 13 colonies territories, it's also include a part of new-france conquer by britain in 1763.
The subject of annexation of all or part of Canada is quite common in alt-history fiction. For example, in 1996 the table top role-playing game (TTRPG) GURPS published a supplement entitled 'Alternate Earths', containing six different world scenarios, the first being one of those "The South survived" scenarios simply called 'Dixie'. In it, after the war, a vengeful US meddles in the Red River Rebellion, and helps Louis Riel and his followers establish the Republic of Manitoba, encompassing all of Western Canada, in 1872. Nearly 40 years later, the Republic of Manitoba is absorbed into the US, eventually split into four states: - Columbia (British Columbia and Yukon) - Athabaska (Alberta and western portion of the Northwest Territories) - Saskatchewan (with the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories) - Manitoba ( with Nunavut, although the map doesn't stipulate whether Baffin Island is included or not)
The mormon prophet Joseph Smith proposed inviting Canada as well as Mexico to join the usa. It was part of his platform when he tried to run for president of the US in the 1830s. He also wanted to end slavery and predicted the civil war as being caused by the slave question with the rebellion of the south starting with South Carolina this was also in the 1830s
There was an oregon territory or oregon country used by hbc w a Vancouver on Columbia River. It went fm Redding cal oregon wash and bc Alberta rocky mts. Montana Idaho Jackson hole red lodge mt, Yellowstone River Helena east were part of it. Parts of east oregon want to rejoin it by going under idaho
I grew up around Detroit and had plenty of family in SW Ontario. Used to tease my Canadian cousins incessantly about when Canada was going to become the 51st state. LOL
I remember in the 1990s when Quebec was seriously considering leaving Canada there was some leaked info about preliminary discussions in the Maritime Provinces about possibly joining the US since they would be cut off from Canada and had some cultural similarities to parts of New England... but I haven't really heard or seem anything about it since... I think it was very thoroughly covered up....
It’s interesting to play out the hypothetical populations in vast swaths of western Canada as well as cities like Calgary or Edmonton had the US seized much of Canada. .
Different outcomes are interesting. It probably depends more on whether the scenario is willing (the British colonies vote to join the US or the US helps pro-US forces take over) or unwilling (outright invasion with Canadian resistance)
Under the plan, the people of British Canada would be allocated 29 Representatives, making them as a political force (albeit in four states) 2nd in number only to NY (31). If such a unification occurred today, the ex-Canadians would rank 1st. (Govt population estimates: Canada 41.1m (Apr. '24); California 39.0m (Jul. '23).)
There was talk about just that back in the 1960s. However, it didn't come in the form of an annexation it came in the form of a merger. They even pondered a new mane for the new nation that would come out of that. I can't remember all the ideas that was bounced around.
You missed one invasion. The Battle of the Windmill was fought from 12 to 16 November 1838 near Prescott, in Upper Canada, and ended in a defeat for the invaders (known as Hunters) from the US. One month later, the Battle of Windsor put an end to the American incursions and Canadian rebellion. This was the first time the US Navy and Army worked with the militias and British regulars from Upper Canada with the Royal Navy to stop the republicans known as "Hunters" from the attempted invasion.
Too bad this didn't happen. Now we are stuck with an ultra large and under populated country that doesn't invest in its military, wants to live like their cousin South but have to pay more for everything, tried to kill anything French-speaking in the East since the last 200 years. This in turn has become the focus of any political group in the East (Qc), which in turn is becoming very annoying to even French-Canadian people living there who are now all able to speak both national language and are tired to this undergoing "protection" effort. That country's people now wants to focus and work together on common goals like education and health services, R&D, hydro/aero electricity, better native people recognition and not this language-war that is forever going on.
As interesting than annexation of Canada would be the alternative for it being even larger at Confederation by having the UK taking from Denmark both Greenland and Iceland in the Napoleonic Wars (along with Danish Virgin islands) and the armed Hudson's Bay Company being instructed to evict Russian trade settlements in Alaska at the time of the Crimean War 1853-56.
A US-Canadian voluntary merger would result in a remarkably scenic country with vast natural and Human Resources, producing an economy with boundless potential for growth. Concessions would be made for Quebec independence and government managed healthcare. Citizens could opt for private or public healthcare services.
Banks played a prominent role in my dissertation but let me offer some background info. While he is generally written off as a failed political general from the war, Baks was a very prominent early Republican who often held the middle ground. He was speaker of the House and served three terms as governor. Had it not been for VP Hamlin nixing him in favor of Gideon Welles, Banks was penciled in for a spot in Lincoln's Cabinet. While he can be dismissed as an opportunist, Banks was generally consistent in international affairs, favoring a muscular foreign policy and favoring the annexation of as much territory as possible. From his perch on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he did wield the gavel on, Banks was a key supporter of the Alaska purchase. He was a force on Capitol Hill for many years and a proposal from him like this would garner some attention.
I have a feeling that may be possible because the Canadians don’t like Justin Trudeau. He silenced out the truck driver protesters, I think because I haven’t heard a word about them in a few years
imagine how mad someone in texas or alabama would be in this timeline, that you don't get to vote in the presidential elections while some random chunks of land just annexed do
I think it would have voided the Monroe Doctrine deal with Britain. With France already colonizing Mexico at this time. I wonder if, out of spite, Britain and France would team up in the Western Hemisphere. Launching an era of Western Hemisphere re-colonization.
I wonder how this would affect WW1, since the U.K. would have one less nation to bring troops and resources from. Would they lose? Would the Entente still win, but the war would drag on to 1919? Interesting thought really.
Very few people afforded to live in Canada, until by the way, today. Its inhospitable, most of the year. Could have been done if someone in 1866 cared for Canada.
There was no Confederation of Canada, nor a Canadian Confederation. Confederation, in Canadian history, has only every been used to identify an event: the actions of Confederation. The Government was not really a Confederation and more of a Federation or Union, nor was it ever called a Confederation. Calling it 'the Confederation of Canada' is wrong... its called Canada, or, more rarely, the Dominion of Canada. I really hope this doesn't come off as rude or anything, its a minor correction based on my own studies and experiences as a Canadian history student.
but wasn't it, let's say, popularly or familiarly "publicised" or "pretented" as such by many at that era, and so that's why the term "Confederation" when talking about modern Canada is still mentionned?
@@nicolasrenaud6875 Personally, I haven never seen a document written by a Canadian that uses the word 'Confederation', except as a verb, rather than an adjective. Canada was never, by definition, a Confederation, rather, it is and always has been a Federation (since 1867). The New York times, on its July 2nd front page, calls it s "New State", and uses the word Dominion to describe it, the word Confederation is only used to describe the event that took place.
Correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t know a lot about American history. However at this time I imagined the Republican Party as a northern, Anglo Saxon, Protestant, anti Catholic and anti immigrant party, while the democrats appealed a lot more to immigrant and Catholic newcomers to America. Upper Canada, or as the US state of Western Canada, was highly Anglo Saxon, Protestant, anti Catholic, anti immigrant, as well as part of the centre of the Canadian elite that was growing (or would have been growing) I would imagine their interests would align a lot more with republicans than democrats. I could see French Catholic dominated Quebec maybe aligning with the democrats to try and protect and expand their influence over the Anglo elites of Lower Canada, but Upper Canada I feel would go Republican. Although there was plenty of sympathy for the south in Upper Canada during the civil war.
Apart from the Fenian raids, (which were thwarted at the border, as a British spy held command of one of the attacking forces), you fail to recognize the Confederate raid into Vermont, (by a group organized by the Confederate Secret Service), that heightened tensions between the United States and the British Empire. Three banks were robbed at St. Albans with one civilian being killed; and, the raiders escaped back to Canada. The United States tried several times to extradite these raiders as criminals, but failed, as they were "under orders" as soldier to rob the banks. John Wilkes Booth was briefly involved with the Confederate Secret Service, but he failed to find support for his idea of capturing Abraham Lincoln and taking him into the South.
After the organization of Canadian home rule put paid to chances of London selling or trading Canada. London didn’t even try hard to retain the proven valuable Oregon country of the northwest. Nor did London annex Hawaii.
In the end the US played the right cards. Modern Canada is not the responsibility of the USA but to be sure the USA owns Canada, so all the benefits without the hassle.
Thanks for 500,000 subs! I made this video ahead of time so I could enjoy the week off. I’ll see if maybe I’ll do a celebratory stream later.
Enjoy your week of celebration! You earned it
You deserve every one of those subscribers and then some. Congrats dude!
Excellent video as always.
I can't believe I'm doing this, but I've become too interested, so every video I'm gonna make a video asking for you to do a video about Sarawak. I understand that will probably be very annoying, but it must be done.
So, consider this Day 1 of me asking for a video about Sarawak.
Always like the vids you do about little known history involving maps, I didn't really know about this proposal and I study a lot of history. Thanks and also congratz, glad to be a part of your half a million subscribers. Enjoy your break!
Congratulations
There was also period where America wanted Canadian lands as compensation for the damages caused by confederate ships built in British ship yards during the civil war, but they settled it with cash instead.
Damn DEMOCRAT confederates!
I have this crazy idea that segregation wouldn't have lasted long if they demanded Bermuda and the Bahamas instead (assuming the British would agree to losing their coaling stations - which they wouldn't).
Imagine two whole states coming in with a majority of the population being free Black's in both. That would put considerable pressure on the Republicans to keep up Reconstruction, or at least honor the 14th Amendment's promise that Congress would accept fewer members in the House in States which restricted voting rights.
@@jeffbenton6183Not sure of the percentage, but the Bahamas had a much larger white population in the 1800s. A lot of them migrated to South Florida over the last half of the 19th century.
@@jeffbenton6183An Interesting Vibe but Likely Very little Change
Just another Puerto Rico to look after
Wow...but no compensation for invading and burning the white house.
Okay, but Finnegan's raids are so hilarious. The plan was to hold Canada hostage and exchange it for Irish independence. Could you imagine *that* timeline?
Irish Canada. Imagine that.
@@concept5631 thats just Newfoundland
@@concept5631 That's not what this would lead to *at all*. If you *read the comment*, the idea was to hold Canada hostage for *irish independence*. Canada would be largely the same (though the US may have capitalized on perceived weakness and taken Canada themselves), except Ireland would be united and free about a century earlier.
@@brutusthebear9050 I am well aware. I was making a joke.
It was a silly plan, but could have done some real damage. The Fenians were mostly Union veterans. On the Canadian side, there was the militia and the regular infantry, neither of which had had much battle experience.
At the battle of Ridgeway in 1866, the militia initially held its own but retreated due to confusion over signals and lack of discipline. The Fenians retreated as well, avoiding a confrontation with the approaching regulars. It didn't help that the Fenian reserves on the American side had also fled in advance of the arrival of a *very* unamused General Grant.
If someone made an alt history mod for HOI4 or whatever and used the names "Canada East" and "Canada West," they'd be laughed out for lazy writing.
It wasnt even the fault of the American drafters - Canada East and West were the actual names of the subdivisions within the United Province of Canada at the time.
They could have used “Ontario” and “Quebec” but apparently not
@@ahhno4662 Not sure how widespread those names would have been at time time (especially in the USA). Quebec referred to both regions in 1760s, but not sure about how popular/well known Ontario was before Confederation. Ontario's bar association even kept the name Law Society of Upper Canada until 2018!
Why didn't they just use Upper and Lower Canada like everyone else?
@@LlamasAtMidnight The names “Upper Canada” and “Lower Canada” were changed in 1840 to become “Canada East” and “Canada West” regions within United Canada colony.
Not soon after in 1869 the Dominican Republic asked the U.S. to annex it, the final vote to annex ended up being a tie in the US Senate. Another interesting and much more plausible (albeit smaller) what-if?
since this comment is getting traction I'll say that I learned this from a podcast here on RUclips called "Talkernate History" and their episode on the Banana Wars. They are woefully underrated and if you like history please please please give them the attention they deserve!
Another Puerto rico
Honestly Puerto rico and Dominican republic together might have been enough to actually turn into a state. @@fiorino4554
imagine how many people would be trying to get in from Haiti
@@fiorino4554in the proposal the Dominican Republic would join already as a State. Not a territory
Newfoundland and the Azores also wanted to be annexed at some point.
One thing I like about an America annexed Canada scenario is that Canada would inevitably form a distinct culture from the rest of the US, much like the south. Inevitably driving through Canada you'd be seeing people waving the Red Ensign with signs saying "Canada will rise again!"
Yeah back then loyalty to the British was very high, I think you’d have seen a quasi insurgency as a result if they annexed it (back then anyway)
🧢
the true north remains strong & free!!! 🤣😂
Considering that at the time Canada's population was 3 million and the US's 31 milion it would dramatically change Canadian culture and heritage, I'm not sure if there would even be calls for a return to an Independent Canada when in the future most of the population will be immagrants coming from the US. Texans won't admit it but without the two Mexicos being so close to them they would've become a larger Oklahoma without the cultural influence bleeding from both Mexicos.
Except Canadian 'culture' is way more similar to yankee culture than southern culture Is to yankee culture.
Fears of American invasion were the PRIMARY motivation for Canadian Confederation in 1867. Having a unified government was seen as necessary for defense, both from a standpoint of organization, but also logistically. Central to the agreement of the colonies was the new federal government financing/building the Intercolonial Railway to connect Halifax, Nova Scotia to Quebec (where existing railways connected to Toronto, Ontario). The reason this railway was considered essential wasn't for economic/trade reason; it was so that British regulars could be transported quickly to respond to an American attack. The St. Lawrence River freezes in the winter, making Halifax the only major all-season port. Without the Intercolonial Railway, the British wouldn't be able to reinforce an American attack in late autumn until the following spring, when it might be too late.
Important to keep in mind that at the end of the American Civil War, the US had the largest standing army on the planet. Also, both before & during the Civil War, there had been "unsanctioned" militia actions along the Canadian border with the intension of sparking a war that might unite the US states against a common enemy. There was precedence for that, too, because it was regular citizens getting into cross-border fights that sparked the Mexican-American War just a couple decades earlier.
So, while I agree that this proposed bill that barely saw the light of day in Congress likely had little to do with Canadian Confederation (I'd never heard of the bill prior to this video), the sentiment behind it was ABSOLUTELY a big motivator for Canada's founding.
In the early 1900s a treaty that was somewhat similar to NAFTA between America and Canada was stalled in the senate. It was only passed by a large margin when one senator claimed it would eventually lead to the US annexing Canada. (Naturally Canada immediately pulled out)
The wildest part of this is Quebec being given Newfoundland
The Newfoundland insurgency wouldn't have been pretty.
I think the goal was to further dilute the French-speaking population.
Acadians.
Newfoundland was originally french. It would be giving it BACK to Quebec
@@Chrysobubulle Well… it was mostly a toss up between France and Great Britain. Both claimed it and had establishments on the island.
As a québécois, I'm wondering how a US English mostly protestant population would have felt integrating a French speaking roman catholic population.
Probably would end up like Louisiana, with Montréal becoming a northern New Orleans.
@@kingofhearts3185 Don't forget up here in New England there are plenty of Roman Catholic enclaves, especially of Irish imigrants.
@@BlackBanditXX True, but those are groups that arrived later. The French were already in Louisiana, hence the comparison. But I wouldn't be surprised if NYC and Boston had similar French communities.
Well, think of how the US integrated a Spanish-speaking Roman Catholic population from Texas to California
@@elpito9326 Texas under Spain and later Mexico received some southern English speaking protestant immigrants who later helped the US annex Texas, it's not exactly the same thing.
Ahhh, the alternative good ol' United States of North America
Home of the French Quebec and Louisiana, the Spanish California, Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico, the British Northeast, the Russian Alaska, the Indian Nunavut and the Western reservations, and the Polynesian Hawaii.
Dont forget Puerto Rico! And Cuba, Haiti and Dominica, and usually Mexico too
Why would India ever have a stake in the North American continent?
Native american indians. Ever heard of them?@@nathanirick7806
@@nathanirick7806 Student visas from the British Raj
@@nathanirick7806amerikkkans call native americans “indians” for some reason
My Great Grandfather fought in the Canadian Militia that defended against the Fenian Raids.🇨🇦
A fun argument was the 1911 effort at free trade between US and Canada. Canadian Tories warned that such an agreement would be the first step in the US annexing them and the American Speaker of the House Champ Clark stupidly agreed that free trade was step 1 to US absorbing Canada. Tories overwhelmingly won 1911 Canadian election and free trade between US and Canada would have to wait until 1988.
Just think, 77 years earlier US Canada free trade. Much much deeper economic integration.
Protip: Don't say the quiet part out loud.
Honestly would have been better with no free trade, the Yankees can go back down south where they belong
They were playing Victoria 2 and using the Liberate-Annex exploit
(you can declare war 1 for the freedom of a nation but just inside a single little state, then declare war 2 on said little nation to annex them because they are so small, then declare war 3 on the big nation again to give the little nation all its core land- accept peace from each at the same time while paused and boom youve annexed the whole of Cananda/Italy/India etc etc)
Thanks!
6:07 - Ironically, if you squint the results of the 1868 election look a bit like the union jack
As a Canadian, I have to say:
...Wait, what?
I would say Albertans got a time machine but they seem to have been eaten by Saskatchewan
@@mozdy7457I don't even think majority of Albertans want to be American, they just feel closer to America because the liberal government is isolating them.
@@dnrspdr03canadian95 They've always been this way... They just forgot about it for a little while during the Harper years.
@@devincross2205 not really bud, as a Canadian I think I know my people, you see more Albertans talking about self governance then joining Biden but okay lol.
@@devincross2205 and even then, their response to self governance is a response to the liberal government isolating Alberta.
The main reason the USA couldn't invade Canada before the 20th century
1. The USA does not have a unified army, the USA relies heavily on volunteers in each state.
2. The territory of the USA is already very large and has not been well consolidated, especially the newly conquered western regions
3. Relations with Britain have benefited the USA, so there is no need to invade Canada anymore because the USA and Canada are already integrated with each other.
The Civil War rectified all that. Conscription, and federal income tax to fund it, created a huge army for the union. Rail networks crisscrossed the north and a transcontinental railroad had been finished.
Also the British empire had no idea how to fight a peer army. They spent the decades after napoleon fighting colonial conflicts. When ww1 started, everyone was marching into machine gun fire. The us army had been bloodied in the Civil War, it had faced cannons and repeating rifles. A British invasion would trip over itself.
Nntnnntttttttnttnttntnntbrrrrnrnrnrnnnnbrbbbbbbbbbbbbbrbrrrbbr
"Couldn't fight a peer army" except for that time they beat the russians, who had a far better army then the union ever did less the a decade earlier.
Also there is the slit issue that most of the us guns were made in Britain, most of the unions gunpowder came from British India, and that despite the income tax 72% of government revenues were from trade tarrifs.
@cpob2013
@@cpob2013 think about the number of deaths and injuries during and after the civil war, not to mention the infrastructure and social damage in the states affected by the war. The USA was not at all confident in fighting against Britain at that time, remember the British Navy could land troops anywhere. When the USA had built a navy strong enough to challenge Britain at the beginning of the 20th century, the US political leadership instead made an alliance with Britain which closed the possibility of conquering Canada. The only legal way to conquer Canada is to create a pro-USA political party whose ultimate goal is none other than to include Canada as part of the USA. But doing that would be the same as killing the alliance with Britain because the current British king also has the title of King of Canada.
The British likely wouldn’t have put up a fight for Canada. India certainly, but Canada was not worth it like in 1812. What’s more likely to happen is that the U.S. marches in and fights the Canadian militia but Britain does nothing but ask for compensation. The royal navy was in the middle of refitting itself due to the invention of ironclads and the British army was stretched thin and also in the middle of rearming to adopt breechloaders.
0:24 That's completely untrue. Between 1859 and 1874 there were serious concerns about a possible british-american war over todays British Columbia, aka Greater Oregon.
Plus changing the borders here and there and taking advantage over the other always dominated british and american expansionist policies up to the Pacific.
This back and forth diplomatic sausage wraggling caused how the border as it is today. Both sides used targeted settlement policies to raise claim for "uninhabited" territories, skirmishes between the locals were not rare, etc...
Have the british their way fully and they will take a huge chunk out of the Praerie and who knows how much states down south west of the Rockies.
Or at least todays State of Washington and Oregon annexed to Canada.
Have the US their way and an independent Quebec is not out of the table, with the anglo-saxon territories being annexed.
Or at least an expanded State of Oregon might came to be to in today's British Columbia.
I struggled to read that but yes, the current border might conceivably have ended up in a few different places.
And if that had happened think how far people from Surrey would have to drive to get cheap milk.
Grant's threats to annex areas that are today southern saskatchewan and alberta due to lawlessness is what in part led to the NWMP.
You should be careful saying that Trudeau's government is horrible. Because a worst government could be formed.
Tories: You rang?
That’s right, Freeland could be PM.
My favorite Clive Cussler book is Night Probe where the joining of the US and Canada is the main plot. They go digging through the Empress of Ireland to find a piece of paper.
I would think that, once the purchase of Alaska concluded, it and the Territory of Columbia would swap territory in two ways:
1. The Territory of Columbia gets everything east of the 140th Meridian (roughly matching up with British-Canadian claims on Russian Alaska); Alaska could be compensated with everything north of the 60th Parallel (basically granting it the vast Yukon)
2. The District of Alaska gets everything north of the... I'm not sure exactly what Parallel (based off Wikipedia, it's somewhere between the 55th and 54th), but if you drew a straight line a few miles south of Wales Island, BC, this is what I'm referring to. Would definitely shrink Columbia but it would also likely make Alaska a territory sooner with the gold rushes that come in the later decades.
Choice 1 would never have worked at the time, since at that point, like 90% of the non-native population lived in the Alaska panhandle. You would be trading away basically all that was important in Alaska at that point.
@@thomasrinschler6783 True, I don't think Choice 1 was particularly a good option either, and the splitting of Rupert's Land just feels a bit odd (granted, most US territories were at some point). I'd just like to see a follow-up to this video.
thats 5th colomnia though
Maine will march for our rightful territory. The greater lobster empire!
except lobsters are only catchable on the coast, where their was no border dispute 🤪 sorry mainah here
@@awesomeguyat7771 Also here, why I said "our"
Maine is the Massachusetts of *CANADA!!!* 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Thank you for your video, i learn that Akimiski Island was a Nunavut land instead of Ontario.. almast all island of the Hudsan bay and Ungava bay area part of the Nunavut .
Nunavut, not Nanavut
@@colinvickers1191 Thanks, i correct it. 😊
Newfoundland being corralled into joining Canada IRL was bad enough, being lumped in with Quebec in this timeline is somehow _worse._
I don’t think they would ever have been able to take Newfoundland anyway. The Royal Navy would halt any attempt.
In this timeline, Newfoundland remains British and becomes the last bastion of Canada. Horrifying.
@@Adsper2000 truly the Taiwan of the West.
couldn't type that with a straight face lmao
@@Adsper2000Newfoundland wasn’t Canada until 1949, so all of Canada would be under US control in that time period.
Pancakes and cheeseburgers for everyone!
The Finnians remained a thing for a while. A Finnian shot Thomas D'arcy Magee in 1868, Canada's only political assassination until Pierre Laport in 1970 during the FLQ crisis.
Wasn't there also a second guy killed in 1970 by the FLQ?
@@Hisscreeper46 No, British Trade Commissioner James Cross was eventually released by his captors.
And yes, I had to check Wikipedia to confirm details, as I had only turned three at the time of the October Crisis, and really have no memory of that time.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee (1825 - 1868) was assassinated because it was thought he had betrayed the cause of Irish statehood.
McGee when he was in his early 20s was a member of a Irish radical organisation called Young Ireland. He was involved in the unsuccessful insurrection in 1848 and had to flee the country.
The IRB in the 1860s was a continuation of the Young Ireland party. "Fenian" is a modern pronunciation of Fianna, an army that protected ancient Celtic Ireland.
Fenians.
That is interesting. Thanks for doing this.
California having 5 electoral votes is hilarious!
A certain portion of the population would be thrilled at such a concept
Was anyone else expecting Cody to hop in at the end?
Yes he's the king of "Lets annex Canada"
Oh my. Where to start on this video. First of all, the United States already tried to annex Canada. Twice. The first was during the American Revolution when Benedict Arnold was sent up to Montreal to try to conquer BNA. He failed miserably and this is one reason he defected back to the British.
The second was during the War of 1812, which lasted from 1812 to 1814. The Americans once again tried to conquer what is now Quebec and failed. The war ended with minor territorial concessions to the Americans from the British, but was mainly a stalemate.
Canada was never, ever called the "Confederation of Canada," Confederation was an action, specifically the action of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario joining together to firm the Dominion of Canada.
That juicy artic border has me drooling, and not even 10 seconds later,,,
"Creating the giant US controlled map that everyone always foams at the mouth over."
Wait? Drool? Over those borders? Me?! No way. hahaha
unless...
Interesting perspective on the pre-Confederation annexation concerns of the British North American Colonies. The Fenians (pronounced "Feenians" as it was an Irish political movement) unsuccessfully attacked New Brunswick (NB) in 1866. The result of this military threat was a provincial election resulting in a change of the NB government from anti to pro-Confederation. That made the politically stalled Confederation project viable and colonial politicians from Canada West, Canada East, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia headed to Great Britain to negotiate with the Imperial Government to create the British North America Act (BNA Act) later in 1866. The BNA Act came into effect by royal decree on July 1st, 1867 creating the Dominion of Canada.
As a Canadian I find this amusing. My understanding of Canadian history and politics is that up until 1970s, or there abouts, the borders were pretty porous anyway.
Lots of people from Canada moved south and lots of people from the U.S. moved North at will.
Most Canadian now would not be amenable to an amalgamation.
One of the worst things a politician in Canada can be accused of is imitating our Neighbours to the south.
It would take some sort of crisis, either military or socio-economic, for modern Canadians to accept the idea.
More important: Americans wouldn't take us. We would all vote Democrat so Republicans would block it.
Yeah, as a Canadian I hear scenarios like that and it immediately awakens my fight or flight instinct and channels my inner war criminal
Anti Americanism is more of an Eastern Canadian thing.
Our dedicated boys keeping the peace in newly annexed Canada, 2077
One ding-dong of an elected official can have the idea to annex Canada that doesn't mean they could have done it. By 1866 the american army was demobilized down to 80,000 soldiers, by 1867 they were down to 20,000. The brits had 220,000 regulars and the massive Indian army of over 280,000 regulars. Re-mobilization probably wouldn't have been possible, half the major cities were in ruins and there was huge social unrest over drafts when the north was fighting for it's existence. This scenario does not take into account the broken state that america was in at the time. They were in no shape to annex territory. They were lucky that Mexico with france's backing didn't try to retake california.
Not to mention the US navy couldn't hold a candle to the Brits.
The Brits were a super power, america was an upstart that just finished killing each other for 5 years.
There was no transcontinental railroad at the time. The Brits could have blocked every major port and reinforced Canada. The only chance the US would have would be to capture Halifax early on to prevent reinforcements. That's assuming america had the will and ability to fight, and after the civil war it didn't.
Is there any small desire for the two nations uniting now?
Boy, u' sure got a purdy prairie...
(banjo plays song from Deliverance)
0:33 right map are false, the territority ceded in 1783 wasn't all original 13 colonies territories, it's also include a part of new-france conquer by britain in 1763.
The subject of annexation of all or part of Canada is quite common in alt-history fiction. For example, in 1996 the table top role-playing game (TTRPG) GURPS published a supplement entitled 'Alternate Earths', containing six different world scenarios, the first being one of those "The South survived" scenarios simply called 'Dixie'. In it, after the war, a vengeful US meddles in the Red River Rebellion, and helps Louis Riel and his followers establish the Republic of Manitoba, encompassing all of Western Canada, in 1872. Nearly 40 years later, the Republic of Manitoba is absorbed into the US, eventually split into four states:
- Columbia (British Columbia and Yukon)
- Athabaska (Alberta and western portion of the Northwest Territories)
- Saskatchewan (with the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories)
- Manitoba ( with Nunavut, although the map doesn't stipulate whether Baffin Island is included or not)
What made the oldest (and really lucky) child develop such a toxic attitude to its mother and younger sister?
The mormon prophet Joseph Smith proposed inviting Canada as well as Mexico to join the usa. It was part of his platform when he tried to run for president of the US in the 1830s. He also wanted to end slavery and predicted the civil war as being caused by the slave question with the rebellion of the south starting with South Carolina this was also in the 1830s
Wow! That’s interesting as heck!
Congratulations for the 500k of subscribes
1:25 ain't you Nathaniel B?
There was an oregon territory or oregon country used by hbc w a Vancouver on Columbia River. It went fm Redding cal oregon wash and bc Alberta rocky mts. Montana Idaho Jackson hole red lodge mt, Yellowstone River Helena east were part of it.
Parts of east oregon want to rejoin it by going under idaho
I’d like to see them try now. We’d lose for sure, but we might scratch a few more items off the Geneva Checklist.
The whole purpose of Canada existing is a symbol of loyalty to British crown in North America
I always wondered why the St Lawerence did not end up as the Canadian USA border?
Perhaps because mountain chains are better natural borders than rivers? 🤔
please lets do this this century
I grew up around Detroit and had plenty of family in SW Ontario. Used to tease my Canadian cousins incessantly about when Canada was going to become the 51st state. LOL
Perfect pronouncement of Saskatchewan. 👍 good job.
How would you pronounce it?
I remember in the 1990s when Quebec was seriously considering leaving Canada there was some leaked info about preliminary discussions in the Maritime Provinces about possibly joining the US since they would be cut off from Canada and had some cultural similarities to parts of New England... but I haven't really heard or seem anything about it since... I think it was very thoroughly covered up....
Another reason for tension was the CSS Alabama and other Confederate warships which were built in Britain.
It’s interesting to play out the hypothetical populations in vast swaths of western Canada as well as cities like Calgary or Edmonton had the US seized much of Canada. .
Different outcomes are interesting.
It probably depends more on whether the scenario is willing (the British colonies vote to join the US or the US helps pro-US forces take over) or unwilling (outright invasion with Canadian resistance)
Under the plan, the people of British Canada would be allocated 29 Representatives, making them as a political force (albeit in four states) 2nd in number only to NY (31).
If such a unification occurred today, the ex-Canadians would rank 1st. (Govt population estimates: Canada 41.1m (Apr. '24); California 39.0m (Jul. '23).)
There was talk about just that back in the 1960s. However, it didn't come in the form of an annexation it came in the form of a merger. They even pondered a new mane for the new nation that would come out of that. I can't remember all the ideas that was bounced around.
Very interesting.
You missed one invasion. The Battle of the Windmill was fought from 12 to 16 November 1838 near Prescott, in Upper Canada, and ended in a defeat for the invaders (known as Hunters) from the US. One month later, the Battle of Windsor put an end to the American incursions and Canadian rebellion. This was the first time the US Navy and Army worked with the militias and British regulars from Upper Canada with the Royal Navy to stop the republicans known as "Hunters" from the attempted invasion.
Too bad this didn't happen. Now we are stuck with an ultra large and under populated country that doesn't invest in its military, wants to live like their cousin South but have to pay more for everything, tried to kill anything French-speaking in the East since the last 200 years. This in turn has become the focus of any political group in the East (Qc), which in turn is becoming very annoying to even French-Canadian people living there who are now all able to speak both national language and are tired to this undergoing "protection" effort. That country's people now wants to focus and work together on common goals like education and health services, R&D, hydro/aero electricity, better native people recognition and not this language-war that is forever going on.
As interesting than annexation of Canada would be the alternative for it being even larger at Confederation by having the UK taking from Denmark both Greenland and Iceland in the Napoleonic Wars (along with Danish Virgin islands) and the armed Hudson's Bay Company being instructed to evict Russian trade settlements in Alaska at the time of the Crimean War 1853-56.
A US-Canadian voluntary merger would result in a remarkably scenic country with vast natural and Human Resources, producing an economy with boundless potential for growth. Concessions would be made for Quebec independence and government managed healthcare. Citizens could opt for private or public healthcare services.
I wish they did, and I am from Canada.
can you leave?
@@Jigger2361 I think about that every day, along with thousands of others fed up with this stupid country
Banks played a prominent role in my dissertation but let me offer some background info. While he is generally written off as a failed political general from the war, Baks was a very prominent early Republican who often held the middle ground. He was speaker of the House and served three terms as governor. Had it not been for VP Hamlin nixing him in favor of Gideon Welles, Banks was penciled in for a spot in Lincoln's Cabinet. While he can be dismissed as an opportunist, Banks was generally consistent in international affairs, favoring a muscular foreign policy and favoring the annexation of as much territory as possible. From his perch on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he did wield the gavel on, Banks was a key supporter of the Alaska purchase. He was a force on Capitol Hill for many years and a proposal from him like this would garner some attention.
As a newfoundlander it pisses me off america would put us under french quebec rule atleast give us to nova scotia and let new brunswick have PEI
Even the modern day bridge goes from New Brunswick to PEI
Every complaint Newfoundlanders and Quebecers ever had about Canada (many of which were/ are valid) would be so much worse under American rule
Didnt this happen in the Fallout Universe around 2060?
Missed a golden chance to be the physically largest country in the world.
This was fun.
History would have wildly different
They should have done it. Hopefully it will still happen some day.
I have a feeling that may be possible because the Canadians don’t like Justin Trudeau. He silenced out the truck driver protesters, I think because I haven’t heard a word about them in a few years
imagine how mad someone in texas or alabama would be in this timeline, that you don't get to vote in the presidential elections while some random chunks of land just annexed do
An idea whose time has come - let's do it, at least Alberta.
I think it would have voided the Monroe Doctrine deal with Britain. With France already colonizing Mexico at this time. I wonder if, out of spite, Britain and France would team up in the Western Hemisphere. Launching an era of Western Hemisphere re-colonization.
By the 1860s almost all of Latin America was independent countries. Canada was an outlier for still being a European colony.
There’s still European colonies in North America today in 2024; Greenland, Bermuda, St Pierre etc.
The platforms comment rules are becoming very odd.
I wonder how this would affect WW1, since the U.K. would have one less nation to bring troops and resources from. Would they lose? Would the Entente still win, but the war would drag on to 1919? Interesting thought really.
Wonder what would happen if tomorrow America tried to annex Canada or form some kind of Canadain/American Union
I'd boog
Many Americans would go home in body bags.
If Trump wins we may find out
It should still be done, along with Mexico. We need the lower narrow border for building a shorter border wall
Very few people afforded to live in Canada, until by the way, today. Its inhospitable, most of the year. Could have been done if someone in 1866 cared for Canada.
Should of been done years ago..one big happy country!
the inevitable future.....
There was no Confederation of Canada, nor a Canadian Confederation. Confederation, in Canadian history, has only every been used to identify an event: the actions of Confederation. The Government was not really a Confederation and more of a Federation or Union, nor was it ever called a Confederation. Calling it 'the Confederation of Canada' is wrong... its called Canada, or, more rarely, the Dominion of Canada.
I really hope this doesn't come off as rude or anything, its a minor correction based on my own studies and experiences as a Canadian history student.
but wasn't it, let's say, popularly or familiarly "publicised" or "pretented" as such by many at that era, and so that's why the term "Confederation" when talking about modern Canada is still mentionned?
@@nicolasrenaud6875 Personally, I haven never seen a document written by a Canadian that uses the word 'Confederation', except as a verb, rather than an adjective. Canada was never, by definition, a Confederation, rather, it is and always has been a Federation (since 1867).
The New York times, on its July 2nd front page, calls it s "New State", and uses the word Dominion to describe it, the word Confederation is only used to describe the event that took place.
Canada, don't make this hard, just let us absorb you already! What could go wrong?
It's not too late...
_sweats Canadianly_
I would be in favor of Canada and America joining as one nation. Include all of Greenland as well.
Correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t know a lot about American history. However at this time I imagined the Republican Party as a northern, Anglo Saxon, Protestant, anti Catholic and anti immigrant party, while the democrats appealed a lot more to immigrant and Catholic newcomers to America. Upper Canada, or as the US state of Western Canada, was highly Anglo Saxon, Protestant, anti Catholic, anti immigrant, as well as part of the centre of the Canadian elite that was growing (or would have been growing) I would imagine their interests would align a lot more with republicans than democrats. I could see French Catholic dominated Quebec maybe aligning with the democrats to try and protect and expand their influence over the Anglo elites of Lower Canada, but Upper Canada I feel would go Republican. Although there was plenty of sympathy for the south in Upper Canada during the civil war.
Apart from the Fenian raids, (which were thwarted at the border, as a British spy held command of one of the attacking forces), you fail to recognize the Confederate raid into Vermont, (by a group organized by the Confederate Secret Service), that heightened tensions between the United States and the British Empire. Three banks were robbed at St. Albans with one civilian being killed; and, the raiders escaped back to Canada. The United States tried several times to extradite these raiders as criminals, but failed, as they were "under orders" as soldier to rob the banks. John Wilkes Booth was briefly involved with the Confederate Secret Service, but he failed to find support for his idea of capturing Abraham Lincoln and taking him into the South.
I wish they had.
Glad they didn't!!!
Great video!
I am really glad that we held out for a more modern Constitution.
5:01 oh yeah look how beautiful it would be!
It’s not too late!
After the organization of Canadian home rule put paid to chances of London selling or trading Canada. London didn’t even try hard to retain the proven valuable Oregon country of the northwest. Nor did London annex Hawaii.
In the end the US played the right cards. Modern Canada is not the responsibility of the USA but to be sure the USA owns Canada, so all the benefits without the hassle.
Well now I know what to do next time I play Vic2
It saddens me to see what has happened to my fellow Canadians. We were once much more industrious and independent.
Madison also considered annexing Canada in the war of 1812.
You forgot to mention the Rebellion of 1836