Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

whowhere · February 22, 2009

So you are maintaining that if the Continental army had been able to drive the British out, the US would have returned Canada to France? I've thought about it and think not.
The side deal signed by France and Britain in 1783 was a redistribution of territories seized in previous wars. France either didn't want Canada back or the British weren't willing to give it back. They got Tobago, Senegal and Newfoundland fishing rights instead. There was no need for France to cede Canada to Britain in 1783 as they had already done so in 1763.

From the Treaty of Paris 1763:

Ok so people are confused because there is two treaties of paris. The one in 1763 ceding Canada to Britain and the Treaty of Paris in 1783 establishing Independence for the United States. Not sure how this helps the argument against France helping the United States move for Independence to get Canada back.

When you make claims had the US been successful they would not have returned Canada to France is doubtful. George Washington was a man of principles and character. Had he succeeded in their 4 years quest to gain Canada it would have been returned to France why? Because they needed France to recognize them as an Independent Country and to establish and continue trade. If they did succeed in Gaining Canada (Thanks to Benedict Arnold they didn't) There is little doubt Canada would have been returned to France. Had France and Spain not secured military victory to establish the United States the US would still be sipping tea and toasting the queen. The US was in no position to take on France as France would have decimated the US. Look at the Facts. Napoleon mobilized France's military resources and dominated Europe for 30 years to fuel his vanity.

Had History Taken the turn where France Succeeded in Establishing the US, Canada was gained by the US, and France did not fall into Revolution that Led to King Louis XV demise Napoleon still would have rose the ranks and been there to be a force to contend with. Instead of Napoleon unleashing his wrath upon Europe he could have been unleashed upon a weak United States by King Louis XV to take Canada from the US. If Europe could not stand against France? How could the US? Had the US succeeded they would have certainly handed over Canada or they would have faced a crushing defeat at the hands of Napoleon.

It's no secret. In the United States move for Independence they betrayed France in negotioting with England behind France's back. Because France fell into Revolution anything and everything got lost in the torrent of History. As they say hindsite is 20/20.

You people are not interested in truth. All you people are interested is your propoganda to push your biased agenda.

g_bambino · February 22, 2009

Maybe the Queen has taken on a ceremonial role but the reality is she has power via the British Parliament to move on Canada.

What century are you living in? The British parliament has absolutely zero to do with Canada since 1982; with that legal severance, the Statute of Westminster 1931 became a Canadian law, and so, even if the parliament at Westminster decided to repeal or alter their version of the statute, it would, by Canadian law, have no effect on Canada. It is for the same reason that Elizabeth II is Queen of this country: Canadian law, not British law. If the UK abolished their monarchy, Canada's would go on without change until the Canadian parliaments decided to do so.

Jeez... do you still wear a powdered wig?

Wilber · February 22, 2009

The US was in no position to take on France as France would have decimated the US. Look at the Facts. Napoleon mobilized France's military resources and dominated Europe for 30 years to fuel his vanity.

France supported the Americans to stick one in the eye of the Britsh and it nearly broke them, helping bring on the revolution. France was in no position to take on anyone. Even though the British lost the 13 colonies they came out much better than France. Napoleon dominated Europe, Britain dominated everywhere else because they had control of the oceans. Britain was a maritime power, France was a continental power. Britain never had a standing army of more thaan a quarter million even at the height of empire yet accumulated the largest empire in history because for over a hundred years, they could go where they wanted, when they wanted and no one could stop them, No matter how big France's army was, it couldn't leave the continent. Napoleon found that out in Egypt. Britain became America's biggest trading partner, not France.

Leafless · February 22, 2009

What century are you living in? The British parliament has absolutely zero to do with Canada since 1982;

How can you post such crapolla.

You are wrong.

Canadian politicians and others hailed this achievement as monumental. Many described it as bringing home or repatriating’ Canada’s Constitution from Britain to Canada. Nothing of the sort happened. The BNA Act and all its amendments, including those of 1982, remain statutes of the British Parliament which it can repeal or amend, with or without Canada’s approval. The only independent right Canada now has is to amend sections of the BNA Act by using a new amending formula. Most observers recognize the formula is unworkable.
Two embarrassing provisions remain in the BNA Act. One permits the British government to disallow any piece of Canadian federal legislation. The other gives Canada’s federal government permission to disallow statutes passed by Canada’s provincial legislators. While those sections have fallen into disuse they remain a blight on Canada’s independence.

http://www.bouckslawblog.com/bouckslawblog...ming-canad.html

whowhere · February 22, 2009

What century are you living in? The British parliament has absolutely zero to do with Canada since 1982; with that legal severance, the Statute of Westminster 1931 became a Canadian law, and so, even if the parliament at Westminster decided to repeal or alter their version of the statute, it would, by Canadian law, have no effect on Canada. It is for the same reason that Elizabeth II is Queen of this country: Canadian law, not British law. If the UK abolished their monarchy, Canada's would go on without change until the Canadian parliaments decided to do so.
Jeez... do you still wear a powdered wig?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

Executive branch:
chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Michaelle JEAN (since 27 September 2005)

head of government: Prime Minister Stephen HARPER (since 6 February 2006)

cabinet: Federal Ministry chosen by the prime minister usually from among the members of his own party sitting in Parliament

elections: the monarchy is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister for a five-year term; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition in the House of Commons is automatically designated prime minister by the governor general

Why don't you like the Queen? According to this US website she is the Head of state. Believe what you want but that will not change the reality of this situation.

And then there is the

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/citizenship/c...remony.asp#oath

Oath of citizenship

This is the oath of citizenship:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

You should stop with your delusions.

Smallc · February 22, 2009

This is the oath of citizenship:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Notice the bolded portion.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Smallc

whowhere · February 22, 2009

France supported the Americans to stick one in the eye of the Britsh and it nearly broke them, helping bring on the revolution. France was in no position to take on anyone. Even though the British lost the 13 colonies they came out much better than France. Napoleon dominated Europe, Britain dominated everywhere else because they had control of the oceans. Britain was a maritime power, France was a continental power. Britain never had a standing army of more thaan a quarter million even at the height of empire yet accumulated the largest empire in history because for over a hundred years, they could go where they wanted, when they wanted and no one could stop them, No matter how big France's army was, it couldn't leave the continent. Napoleon found that out in Egypt. Britain became America's biggest trading partner, not France.

British Naval superiority didn't stop France from delivering the battaleon that secured US independence. Maybe Britain was superior on the sea and France on land but it is doubtful Britain would have defended the Independent United States From France taking Canada from the US had they possessed Canada. It is also doubtful the US at the time could resist France from taking Canada from them had this been the course of History.

Obviously, The United States today is a military super power and Britain and France together could not take them.

Fighting over history has been to 1867 Canada's detriment. Had Canada embraced common ground instead of what divides Canada there is little doubt Canada could have been a world leader instead of a backward resource base country. The Politics of distraction utilized by Canada's politicians, bureacrats, and media has eroded this country. These people need to expunged from the public eye.

whowhere · February 22, 2009

Notice the bolded portion.

Yes, people should note that and stop living in their fantasy Canada.

jbg · February 22, 2009

France supported the Americans to stick one in the eye of the Britsh and it nearly broke them, helping bring on the revolution. France was in no position to take on anyone. Even though the British lost the 13 colonies they came out much better than France.

Napolean was way post-U.S. and French revolutions.

Napoleon dominated Europe, Britain dominated everywhere else because they had control of the oceans. Britain was a maritime power, France was a continental power. Britain never had a standing army of more thaan a quarter million even at the height of empire yet accumulated the largest empire in history because for over a hundred years, they could go where they wanted, when they wanted and no one could stop them, No matter how big France's army was, it couldn't leave the continent. Napoleon found that out in Egypt. Britain became America's biggest trading partner, not France.

Other than your minor factual error above good post. The French, despite a coastline, always looked inland to Europe; Britain to the sea.

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

Yes, people should note that and stop living in their fantasy Canada.

Of course, you do realise that you are one of those people you speak of, correct? This is good, as we can now continue without your blathering about Canada still being subject to Whitehall.

Wilber · February 23, 2009

Napolean was way post-U.S. and French revolutions.
Other than your minor factual error above good post. The French, despite a coastline, always looked inland to Europe; Britain to the sea.

I was responding to whowhere's comments about Napoleon, I realize he was part of and post Revolution. France did look inland because that is where the major threat to its security lay. Since the Hundred Years War, France had never been invaded from the sea until D Day. Their defensive priorities were much different. Their strategy was to dominate Europe, Britain's was to form alliances with weaker powers to prevent any one country from dominating Europe. Britain could ensure its own security by dominating the sea. France also didn't have deep water ports in close proximity to the Channel and North Sea whereas Britain had several giving them a distinct advantage.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Wilber

Wilber · February 23, 2009

British Naval superiority didn't stop France from delivering the battaleon that secured US independence. Maybe Britain was superior on the sea and France on land but it is doubtful Britain would have defended the Independent United States From France taking Canada from the US had they possessed Canada. It is also doubtful the US at the time could resist France from taking Canada from them had this been the course of History.

Actually it was the British inability to remove a French fleet from Chesapeake Bay that gave the French local naval superiority long enough to force Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown but say for a moment you are right and the Americans did hand back Canada to France if they had taken it. What good would it do them if the Royal Navy could prevent them from having access to it? How long do you think it would have been until it withered and died or become part of the United States?

blueblood · February 23, 2009

Actually it was the British inability to remove a French fleet from Chesapeake Bay that gave the French local naval superiority long enough to force Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown but say for a moment you are right and the Americans did hand back Canada to France if they had taken it. What good would it do them if the Royal Navy could prevent them from having access to it? How long do you think it would have been until it withered and died or become part of the United States?

The Louisiana Purchase would have been much larger...

jbg · February 23, 2009

Fighting over history has been to 1867 Canada's detriment.

I looked at a map and see no country called "1867 Canada".

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html
What part of 1776 do you not understand. What part of the treaty of paris do you not understand. What is it about the Statutues of Liberty in the US and France you don't get.

:lol: You remind of a moron who has a Web site claiming that the United States is still a British Colony, based on the treaty recognizing U.S. independance.

And what part of me pointing out that you are a moron do you not get? Go visit that site. The fact you make even less sense than the idiot who wrote that says a lot... about you.

The US is an independent Country thanks to France and Spain and they are governed by a constitution which was constructed and voted on by the people of the United States in a act of democracy.

And i still want the state by state result of the 1787 US referendum on the Constitution.

Edited February 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

Only an imbecile would try to claim a history as 'his'. History is a record of events. I am a Canadian and proud enough of my nation to study its beginnings and developments. In a democratic nation of equals, no person or group can announce that they have some separate history that they "own" and thus are unique and superior to others. Yours is the philosophy of easily bruised egos, of replacing positive construction of a society with indignation, with taking offence rather than seeking solutions, of blaming other because history did not work out as you would have liked, and disparaging countrymen who fought and died for your freedoms and rights because they will not dig out the kneepads when you grace us with your presence. The rotten corpse you carry so proudly is remarkable only for its stench.

On behalf of all egotistic individuals, I must protest against your characterisation of whowere.

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

How can you post such crapolla.
You are wrong.

As usual, you do not get it.

Statute of Westminster

4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

Canada Act (1982), voted by the Britsh Parliament at the request of the Governments of Canada and nine provinces.

2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.

Clear enough?

Edited February 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

What's your point? The deal was made between the British Monarch and Quebec. The British Monarch still exists and Quebec still exists. Britain didn't defeat anyone. They captured a poorly defended colony. France was blocked from sending its battleships. 20 years later France empowered and established an Independent United States. Part of the conscessions to establish an Independent United States was the ceding of canada to England.
Wait a second??? Something is not adding up?? Why would France need to cede Canada to Britain in the Treaty of Paris when Canada was already under British Occupation since 1759?? wasn't Canada already in British Possession? Ceding an already possessed Canada (?????) in the Treaty of Paris goes to establish a fact that France indeed supported American Independence for the reason of getting Canada back.

Really??? Think about that, if you people can think. Canada/Quebec was already a possession of Britian so why would France need to cede Canada in the Treaty of Paris unless it was clear to Britain as to why France supported American Independence: They wanted Canada and the US fought 4 years to gain Canada. The treaty was designed to establish an Independent United States. At least that was accomplished. France honored its agreement, the United States didn't.

The Contintental Congress fought four years to gain Canada. Why not reenact that fight? Why does everyone dwell on 1759 and 1812. What about 1774 -1778 when the US why trying to gain Quebec?

How about re-enacting that?

Here's the full text of the Treaty of Paris (1783), by which Great Britain recognised the independance of the United States. The word France does not even appear in that treaty.

Not the same as the Treaty of Paris (1763) by which France ceaded in North American posessions to Great Britain.

BTW, there was a re-enactment of the 1775 battle of Quebec in 1975.

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

How can you post such crapolla.

Are you seriously citing a blog as support for your unequivocal dismissal of me as "wrong"? The kook you quoted obviously forgot that the Statute of Westminster is a part of Canada's constitution; from an actual judge in a court ruling (s. 32): "The Statute of Westminster is a part of the Constitution of Canada by virtue of it being listed in the schedule to the Constitution (Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52(2)()." As the Statute of Westminster says (s. 4): "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof." So, there you have it: Canadian law says UK law is no good here any more, unless Canada says so.

This has been the case since at least 1937, when the Canadian parliament passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 1 Geo. IV, c.16, in order to legislate the required consent the Canadian Cabinet had given the year before for Edward VIII to abdicate the throne in favour of his brother; as the abdlication declaration read: "And whereas, following upon the communication to His Dominions of His Majesty's said declaration and desire, the Dominion of Canada pursuant to the provisions of section four of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, has requested and consented to the enactment of this Act...". Similarly, in 1953, our parliament had to pass its own Royal Titles and Styles Act to change Elizabeth II's title in Canada, as the legislation passed in the UK at the same time and for the same purpose had no effect in Canada. So, your blogging fool is as mired in the past as Whowhee is.

_{[ed. for sp.]}

Edited February 23, 2009 by g_bambino

jbg · February 23, 2009

And what part of me pointing out that you are a moron do you not get? Go visit that site. The fact you make even less sense than the idiot who wrote that says a lot... about you.

Your link goes to a partially completed reply to some post of WhoWhere.

And i still want the state by state result of the 1787 US referendum on the Constitution.

There was no such referendum.

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

Your link goes to a partially completed reply to some post of WhoWhere.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppps. sorry all.

Here it is. Believe me, it is almost as hilarious as some of the stuff posted here. And I have corrected my earlier posting.

There was no such referendum.

Are you by any chance dooubting whowhere and the King James Bible? Unlike you, I have seen the light, so I ask whowhere to reveal to me the results of the 1787 referendum. Beware the wrath of Jupiter.

Edited February 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

Leafless · February 23, 2009

As usual, you do not get it.
Statute of Westminster

Canada Act (1982), voted by the Britsh Parliament at the request of the Governments of Canada and nine provinces.

Clear enough?

What is clear enough is that you do not understand Canada is NOT a sovereign country.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Leafless

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

What is clear enough is that you do not understand Canada is NOT a sovereign country.

Let me check.

No other country can pass laws applicable in Canada.

No other country can make a Canadian law unapplicable in Canada.

We share the same Head of State as 16 other countires, but that can be changed through a Constitutional amendment, and there is no legal mechanism under which any other country would be able to prevent that from happening.

Sounds like being pretty much sovereign to me.

Leafless · February 23, 2009

Let me check.
No other country can pass laws applicable in Canada.

No other country can make a Canadian law unapplicable in Canada.

We share the same Head of State as 16 other countires, but that can be changed through a Constitutional amendment, and there is no legal mechanism under which any other country would be able to prevent that from happening.

Sounds like being pretty much sovereign to me.

Canada unilaterally cannot make amendments to Canada's own inherited British constitution without obtaining permission from the British Parliament.

Doesn't sound very sovereign to me.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Leafless