|
They mention all of them FAILED, but did not go into details why. Basically as long as Britain was the Strongest Country in the World any invasion of Canada was going to fail DO TO BRITISH INTERVENTION. It was NOT Canadians who denied the US Quebec in 1776 and drove the US out of Montreal in early 1777, it was the British Army and Navy. In fact the US was able to raise THREE REGIMENTS of troops out of Canada during that time period (and Nova Scotia had sent delegates to the First Continental Congress in 1774, but do to increase British Military Present in 1775 could not sent delegates to the Second in 1775, this presence permitted the British to move their Army from Boston to Halifax in early 1776 as part of the preparation to Invade New York later in 1777). As to the Three Regiments raised iN Quebec, by Yorktown these had been combined into one Regiments, but given the losses between 1777 and 1781 the US was still getting recruits out of Canada as late as 1783 (Please note these were French-Canadians).
The next invasion, during the War of 1812 had a different set of problems. Do to the American Revolution and then the Wars of the French Revolution you did not have much immigration into the New World from 1774 till about 1830 and the Great Irish Potato Famine. At the same time what is now Ontario was settled by English Speaking people. These English Speaking people where of two types, the leadership tended to be Americans from the former Middle and Southern Colonies who had supported the Crown during the Revolution. The actual laborers and small farmers tended to come from New England (Which even by British Estimates of the 1770s was over 90% for the American Revolution). Britain was generous in land grant so a lot of people moving West after 1783 moved West into Ontario. Thus Ontario in 1812 had a leadership loyal to Britain but most of her people were pro-American as opposed to pro-Britain.
Anyway, the US had been moving West and Tecumseh decided to oppose this movement and used the Great Madrid Earthquake of 1811 as a sign from the Great Spirit for the Indians to drive out the Whites from the Ohio Valley. The people in the Ohio Valley then demanded war on Britain for Britain was giving guns to Tecumseh. The excuse for the war was Britain taking American Seamen of Merchant ships, but New England OPPOSED the war (and mot seamen at that time came from New England). Anyway it was an Excuse , not the Reason. The American West wanted Tecumseh dead. The Canadian Militia during the War had a mix reputation. In taking Fort Detroit the British had them dressed with British Army uniform so the American Commander thought their were British Regulars, thought he was unnumbered and vacated Detroit. Most British Historians (who tend be the most neutral) question if the Canadian Militia would have fought at all. When the Americans did get around to invade Canada (via Detroit and Ontario) Tecumseh meet them at Thames River in Ontario (Called the Battle of Monraviantown in US Army Books) and was killed. The Americans did not even engaged the Canadian Militia who basically sat out the Battle caught in an internal conflict, do they fight for their County (the US) or their King (King George III), as with most internal conflict it prevented any usefulness by the Canadian Militia (Though one British historian I read believe having the Canadian Militia in Service was useful, it prevented them from Joining their relations in the US Army).
Another debate about the invasion did the American Army reach Toronto? The Army was a Militia Based Army with some regular US Troops attached. Once Tecumseh was dead the Militia started to break up and go home. They went to War to Kill Tecumseh, he was dead, war was over as far as they were concerned (and many apparently dropped out of the Units to visit relatives they had in Ontario). By the time the Army finally reached Toronto, all forms of Discipline had broken down. The US Militiamen want to go home NOT finish the Invasion, the Commander seeing he was already half way to Toronto decided to take it since technically it was the military objective of the Campaign (Toronto was the Tactical object, the Strategic object was to kill Tecumseh which had already been accomplished). After "Taking" Toronto, the drunken troops let it catch on fire. Efforts were made to stop the fire, but the troops were to drunk to be effective at it (and their hearts was NOT in saving Toronto but going home). The Commander realizing that he had achieved his primary objective (Killing Tecumseh) sent the Troops home (Please note there are reports of some of the Regular Troops making it home, the Militia broke up even more, stooped off to see some relatives and walked home more as individuals than as organized military units.
As you can see that invasion achieved its objective, Tecumseh was dead, the invasion was NOT in reality an invasion to take and hold Canada and it makes me laugh every time I hear Canadians talk about how their drove out the Americans in that Invasion. Did not happen, some Americans even stayed and some Canadians even moved south with their relatives in the American Militia.
The next dispute was the 1839 Aroostook War, it was resolved by Britain and the US agreeing to survey the border and accept that survey as the border. The Story goes that the American on the Expedition keep the French Canadians drunk so to move the border as far north as possible (Thus the modern Quebec-Maine Border). Given the Political Situation in Quebec at that time sounds more like an excuse of why the French Canadian decided to give the Timber in the woodlands to Americans rather then British owners.
As to the 1866 Fenian invasion, again the Canadian Militia (reformed twice since 1860 to make it more loyal to Britain) was ineffective but the British Regulars drove the Fenians out. Yes they were arrested but soon released for the majority of Americans supported the Fenians and adding Canada to the Union. One note about the two Canadian reforms of its Militia. Before the First reform the Canadian Militia was just like the US Militia, every able body male between 18 and 45 was a member. The problem was starting in 1861 a lot of Canadians went south and Join the Union Army to Fight to Save the US Union. Given the huge number going south the British decided to reform the Militia to make it more loyal to Britain (The Excuse was to make it more "Professional, but loyalty was a major concern). Both Reforms reduced the total number of men technically in the Militia (by the second reform the Canadian Militia was more a Army Reserve or US National Guard type organization as opposed to the Militia of pre-1860).
Canadian Nationalist have always had problem with the huge number of Canadians joining the Union army between 1861-1865. Please remember the American South was counting on English intervention to save the South. Britain main source of Cotton, its main form of Clothing Material at that time, was from the US South. Thus the South believe England would intervene to secure its Cotton Supplies. The problem for the south Britain was able to get around the shortage of cotton in three ways, first the South did get some cotton out, through this dropped as the war progressed. Second the North exported Captured Cotton, and this INCREASED as the war progressed and third access to Egyptian Cotton. Thus England had enough Cotton and thus no the economic reason to intervene in the US Civil Are.
While the Threat of English intervention was minimized it was a real threat throughout the American Civil War. If war did break out between Britain and the US, Canada would be in the Cross-hairs. Thus the huge number of Canadian Volunteers into the US Army frighten Britain and upset Modern Canadian Nationalists. Thus the debate between American, Canadians and British Historians, which had more Canadians, the Canadian Militia or the Union Army? If you go by the Militia of 1860, the Canadian Militia, but if you go by Militia of 1865, the Union Army had more Volunteers. Canadians Nationalist sometime attack the numbers of Canadians serving in the Union Army as to precise to be accurate given the records of the time period so you have a debate but given Five Canadians made General in the Union Army but none in the Canadian Militia of the Time period gives you an idea of the number of Canadians in both.
The chief result of the above was Britain made a strategic decision in 1867, giving Canada Dominion Status. Basically Britain was telling the US, lets share Canada, we know you can take it anytime you want. A good number of its Citizens would welcome you, but some will oppose you, so lets share, we just leave the Canadians themselves arbitrate between us. The US wanting to reduce its debt from fighting the Civil War did not want to invade Canada accepted the situation. Thus Modern Canada was born as a child of two powers, Britain and the US. Both were happy if the other did not have complete control of Canada so it remained till about 1905 (When Canada adopted the Dollar replacing the English Pound). The Canadian Dollar and US Dollar were generally the same (You did have cost to exchange one for the other but other than that the same) till Nixon ended the fixed exchange rates of the post war period by leaving the Dollar float (But that is a different Story).
Thus Canada has economically been part of the US since at least 1905 (and a very good argument can be made for 1867). Canada at the same time has been an independent State, but only as long the its independence costs the US less than taking Canada. NAFTA made the economic hold of the US over Canada even greater.
Thus since 1867 the US has had no need to invade Canada, in fact the plan outlined in the Washington Post involved a War with BRITAIN in which Canada was taken by the US as part of that war. The US will only invade Canada when an independent Canada costs the US more than Invading Canada.
Please note regarding Canada we are NOT talking about a true nation-state like Mexico. You can call Quebec more of a nation-State than Canada (Same language, same culture, Geographically united, economical united yet separate from the economies of other Nation-States, this is true even with Globalization). The Classic Nation-State is France. It is part of the European market, but still economically independent of the rest of the EU, it has the same language, and its is centered generally and politically around Paris. Germany is not as united as France, but is another Nation-State for the same reasons (Though it has two center, Government around Berlin, But economically Frankfort). Britain is same (centered around London). Italy is a more troublesome case, but still meet the requirements. China is a nation-State despite its huge size (I am talking about China Proper NOT Tibet (Xizang) and Xinjiany but including Manchuria). These are Nation-States. Does Canada meet this requirement? The US Does given its same Culture, Dominate Language (English) and central of Geography (The Mississippi River). The US has Fringes, for example Both Coast but these are fully integrated with the Mississippi water shed. What is Canada's Center? An Argument can be made for the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence, but the US also borders the Great Lakes (and rivers and lakes unite people, they do not divide people). And that is Canada's chief problem since 1777, Canada is NOT a nation-State but that part of English North American Britain was able to hold onto in 1783. It is a remnant, a useful remnant but a remnant (Like the English Channel Islands, closer to France than Britain but part of Britain except for being Occupied by the Germans 1940-1944). You can make a better argument that the American South is a Nation-State than you can for Canada (Similar History, similar language, and outlook, an outlook different from the rest of the US do to the South's History). The South is not a variable Country given the unifying power of the Mississippi, but it has more difference culturally from the rest of the US than does Canada.
Geography and economically (through NOT politically) the US goes from the Mississippi Water Shed to both Coasts, and includes the Great lakes and the St Lawrence (and thus all of Canada). The US Southern Border is less Certain, while Texans like to think as the Rio Grand as its Border, River Unite not Divide people. The Rio Grand was claimed by Sam Houston to be used as a trip wire of a Mexican invasion than as a true border. The Rio Grand Valley is more a nation-State than Canada, it has a Center, The Rio Grand, it is separate enough from both the Mexican Valley and the Mississippi Valley to be independent of both. It has a common Language (Spanish). In many ways the Rio Grand is like Egypt, a Nation-State defined by a River than any other center. A similar argument can be made for the Colorado River except for its nearest to Southern California which with its large English speaking Population makes it part of the US (Through I can see Southern California and the Colorado River as a separate Nation-State for again like Egypt water is important. Northern California is clearly part of the US Nation-State, it is NOT a border area under the Control of a Nation-State (Like the Colorado and Rio Grand is under US control).
Thus whenever I read about Canada I just have to remind myself it is a Independent State even if it is not a Nation. These two words are do NOT mean the same thing. Canada is just the best example of the difference in the world.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
