Pakistan Is Not Happy

[Guest Manny]

Pretty hard to understand Canada's role in the US Civil War when there was no Canada yet.

Technically the name of Canada was already in use for a long time before the US civil war. Upper and lower Canada, and the Province of Canada were names of this region, even before 1840.

[diplomat]

Snow revolution in Russia today

The Russians has awakened at once. The whole country is outraged by State Duma elections held last weekend. The authorities attempting to keep power with massive falsifications, lie, and intimidation are illegitimate. Those who “won” on such elections have no right to rule the country, issue laws, nor dictate people how to live. We do not trust such authorities!

To inform authorities about our distrust, we go outdoors, we speak out our mind, we demand removal acting authorities from power and nullification of elections held.

YET! BE CONCERNED ABOUT PROVOCATIVE ACTIONS!!

Judging from what is going on, “Arabic scenario” is unfolding in Russia.

Intention of the World's oligarchy to take advantage of rightful indignation of Russian citizens with crying abuses of powers to destroy Russia is clearly visible today.

More information here http://rus-events.livejournal.com/

[GostHacked]

Technically the name of Canada was already in use for a long time before the US civil war. Upper and lower Canada, and the Province of Canada were names of this region, even before 1840.

Of course. Kanata was what the name the natives gave to villages. Kanata (Canada) was everywhere all over North America.

[jbg]

Weather Canada was a colony or an independant nation, the fact remains that with the population difference and the fact that the US at that point had a very powerful army with combat experiance meant that independant or not, England would fight if the US invaded. And the US did not invade in part because the Royal Navy was still the most powerfull in the world.

First of all, "Weather Canada" is actually "Environment Canada". Otherwise your post makes little sense.

The Royal Navy would not have had much of a role policing most of the British North America/U.S. border. The fact is that businessmen in the Maritimes insisted on trading with the Confederacy. Why not? It was profitable. It also ran the risk of involving Great Britain in a war in which it did not want entanglement.

[jbg]

Of course. Kanata was what the name the natives gave to villages. Kanata (Canada) was everywhere all over North America.

Alexis de Tocquevill has plenty of references to "Canada" in his 1830's account of the U.S., called "Democracy in America".

[Wilber]

The Royal Navy would not have had much of a role policing most of the British North America/U.S. border. The fact is that businessmen in the Maritimes insisted on trading with the Confederacy. Why not? It was profitable. It also ran the risk of involving Great Britain in a war in which it did not want entanglement.

No but the Royal Navy had the capability to destroy a country's trade. It also gave them the ability to put their armies where they wanted, when they wanted and deny that ability to others. Much as your navy can now but even more important in an age before air power. It's blockade of continental Europe was the biggest single thing responsible for Napoleon's downfall.

The War of 1812 was also very unpopular on both sides of the border because it disrupted trade. We are each others biggest trading partners and wars between us are very bad for business. As a neutral, we would have been willing to trade with both the Union and the Confederacy and surely did.

There was a certain amount of sympathy for the Confederacy in Britain but Britain had abolished slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. Canada was a refuge for escaped slaves when there was no such refuge in the North. Ultimately, slavery's existence in the Confederacy would have made going to war in its support a non starter.

[jbg]

The War of 1812 was also very unpopular on both sides of the border because it disrupted trade. We are each others biggest trading partners and wars between us are very bad for business.

Was that true in 1811? I know the war and the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts that preceded it were unpopular in New England but I thought that had more to do with shipping.

As a neutral, we would have been willing to trade with both the Union and the Confederacy and surely did.

Only one problem; the trade would have had to go through or off the coast of the Union.

There was a certain amount of sympathy for the Confederacy in Britain but Britain had abolished slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. Canada was a refuge for escaped slaves when there was no such refuge in the North. Ultimately, slavery's existence in the Confederacy would have made going to war in its support a non starter.

There was only a small prospect that Britain would go to war for the Confederacy. Being willing to trade was bad enough.

The problem is that no government should recognize or truck with a breakaway or renegade entity. Britain had severe problems with Ted Kennedy's interest in recognizing Northern Ireland.

[Wilber]

Was that true in 1811? I know the war and the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts that preceded it were unpopular in New England but I thought that had more to do with shipping.

There was a lot of trade across the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers, as well as between New England and the Maritimes. The war was very unpopular with those affected by it and in fact, some trade continued to go on in spite of those in Washington and London who precipitated the war.

Only one problem; the trade would have had to go through or off the coast of the Union.

There was only a small prospect that Britain would go to war for the Confederacy. Being willing to trade was bad enough.

Blockade running was private enterprise. British companies had extensive commercial interests in the South and they were protecting those interests. Something Americans should understand well. At the most, the British government turned a blind eye to those activities.

The problem is that no government should recognize or truck with a breakaway or renegade entity. Britain had severe problems with Ted Kennedy's interest in recognizing Northern Ireland.

Kennedy was looking after his domestic political interests and the Brits took exception to him using them to do it. Big deal, governments and politicians do it all the time.

Whether the South had the right to secede was certainly debatable. That the North decided to pursue its claim by force wasn't Britain's decision. We have had two referendums on secession in our country so it seems we look at this issue differently.

[jbg]

There was a lot of trade across the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers, as well as between New England and the Maritimes. The war was very unpopular with those affected by it and in fact, some trade continued to go on in spite of those in Washington and London who precipitated the war.

Thanks for that answer. That is what I suspected was the case.

Blockade running was private enterprise. British companies had extensive commercial interests in the South and they were protecting those interests. Something Americans should understand well. At the most, the British government turned a blind eye to those activities.

Britain may have turned a blind eye but part of the reason they separated Canada was the worry that the activity would drag them into the war.

Kennedy was looking after his domestic political interests and the Brits took exception to him using them to do it. Big deal, governments and politicians do it all the time.

I did not think Kennedy's activities were a good idea at all. I think recognizing renegade entities is generally a bad idea.

Whether the South had the right to secede was certainly debatable. That the North decided to pursue its claim by force wasn't Britain's decision. We have had two referendums on secession in our country so it seems we look at this issue differently.

Last I checked, the ROC never had its own "yes" or "no" referendum. Quebec solely had the "oui" or "non" referenda, and part of hte problem is that Quebec should not be able to seceded with PET Airport, the highways, and other infrastructure. Or for that matter with the Ungava Peninsula.

[Wilber]

Britain may have turned a blind eye but part of the reason they separated Canada was the worry that the activity would drag them into the war.

Possibly but I think the reason Canada was given self government within the Empire was more a desire not to repeat the American revolution than it was fear of the US itself. Australia and New Zealand followed. They did learn something from the American experience.

I did not think Kennedy's activities were a good idea at all. I think recognizing renegade entities is generally a bad idea.

The term "renegade" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the Confederate states didn't see themselves as renegades. Those States joined the Union voluntarily. Forcing them to remain against their will amounted to a shotgun marriage.

Last I checked, the ROC never had its own "yes" or "no" referendum. Quebec solely had the "oui" or "non" referenda, and part of hte problem is that Quebec should not be able to seceded with PET Airport, the highways, and other infrastructure. Or for that matter with the Ungava Peninsula.

True but I think you would find little desire in the ROC to go to war in order to keep Quebec (or any other Province) in Confederation against its will. Of course the terms of separation would have to be negotiated and there would be considerable legal battles over what exactly constituted that particular province.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Wilber