From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:19:44 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <SMITH.92Aug29140617@minerva.harvard.edu> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
|grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
|
|> Indeed! You claimed that the creation of Canada was an orchestrated
|> piece of British policy. This is not so and I pointed out the
|> work of many historical figures which discounts your statement.
|
|The granting of colonial self-government, the move to confederation
|debated in Parliament, the establishment of Crown Colonies in the
|west, the Hudson Bay Company's sale of its territories in the (now)
|Canadian heartland, and the enormous economic investment that
|followed, all demonstrate Britain's interest in the foundation of
|Canada.  I don't see how the (many) worthy feats of the Canadian

Colonial self-government was nothing. You still do not understand
the concept of responsible government. Canadians had colonial
self-government since the act of 1791. What Canadian politicians
wanted and achieved (over British objections) was *responsible
government*. This was a government responsible to the Canadian'
electorate and which would act in Canada interest alone.

I know of no Crown colonoies which were established in the 
Canadian west (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta).

The enormous economic investment which occurred in the
Canadian west came from the Canadian economy. The
building of the Pacific railway almost bankrupted and
destroyed Canada.   It was a Canadian achievement in
which the British played NO PART.

|fathers you mention alter this conclusion.
|
|Canada was a self-governing colony of the British Empire before and
|after confederation.  Her soldiers fought under the command of British
|officers in Britain's wars even into World War I.  Britain managed her

Canadian soldiers did not fight in any British colonial war.
This was a major point of contention in Canada. Volunteers
were allowed to participate but there was no official 
Canadian participation in any British colonial war.

|foreign affairs exclusively until just after the turn of the century.

This is just not so. Canadians won the right to represent themsleves
internationally at the time of Confederation. There was an
embassy in Washington and even London. Canadians did not see 
themselves as the arms of any empire.

|Complete autonomy, except for the right to amend the BNA act, did not
|come until the 1930's.  This was a country independent of British
|interests?

It was a country which knew itself and was moving to recognised
independence. Indeed you seem to have forgotten the Balfour
declaration of 1926, in which the UK recognised the self-governing
countries of the Empire to be co-equal with the UK. 

|
|After confederation, Canada had the authority to declare her
|independence from Britain -- a possibility heartily debated in early
|Canadian politics -- but never did.  Evidence of this old allegiance

I give examples from history. Please give your eveidence to support this
assertion.

|has remained in Canada's national symbols throughout this century.
|Her old flag -- the Red Ensign -- was adorned with a Union Jack until
|1965.  Her constitution remained British property and resided in
|London until just ten years ago.  To this day her head of state is the
|Queen of England.

???? - wow

|
|Canada's early political phrases ``A British subject I will die,''
|``Canada first within the Empire,'' and ``Daughter in my mother's
|house, but mistress in my own'' (from Kipling), uttered in response to
|such ideas as American annexation and Imperial federation, indicate
|the direction she chose to follow in the last century: a
|self-governing nation loyal to the British Empire.
| 
|> MacDonald, Mackenzie and Laurier who followed them were all committed
|> to the creation of a new nation state. A nation state with ties to the
|> UK but an independent nation state nonetheless.
|
|This was the essential desire of Imperial Britain: to be ``the mother
|of free nations.''  If frankness were a Victorian quality, they might

I said an independent state with a separate national identity. You
keep bringing up the rehetoric of the "little England" crowd of
British politicians and expect it to apply to Canada. Give some
exaamples of policies of Canadian governments which showed a
desire for an imperial alliance. I cannot even conceive of
W.L. Mackenzie or H. Mercier supporting such a concept.
It was against the policies of both governing parties.
Just where do you find evidence in Canadian history of any
desire to to form a united empire?

|have said ``the mother of free and loyal nations.''  The greatest fear
|of Britain regarding Canada was not her independence, but annexation
|by the U.S.
|


|> }Perhaps it is you who lack understanding of British imperial history.
|>
|> Perhaps- However it is you who lack any undestanding of Canadian history.
|
|A central theme of Canadian history in second half of the nineteenth
|century, even up until World War I, is the contrast between national
|identity and imperial loyalty.  It appears that you wish only to

Please give examples of the policies of the Canadian government which
support your idea of Canadian imperial loyalty. You give no
examples from Canadian history of such policies and resort
to quoting British desires for a unioted empiere as if thiw
were Canadian policy.

|acknowledge the former sentiment.

That is correct. 

|
|In this respect I am beginning to feel like John Cleese's character in
|the Monty Python skit where Mr. Cleese is attempting to convince a pet
|shop owner that the bird he purchased is stone dead.  Like that shop
|owner who tried to change the subject, you keep listing the
|accomplishments of Canadians who built their country.  I agree with
|these facts, but that's not the point.  Just because Macdonald opposed
|Imperial federation, or Laurier was equivocal about support of
|Britain's imperial wars, it remains a historical fact that the British
|played an active role in Canada's foundation to secure their imperial
|interests in North America.

And you keep implying (with little evidence) that Canada desired to
be a member of of a united empire. It may have been in the interestes
of the Britsh to support some policies of Canadians for the shape
of their government. It may even have been a British desire for
a North American empire which fuelled this. However this desire
found no reflection in Canadian governments which saw themselves
as agents responsible only to Canadian people from the 1840's
onward.
|
|Unless you can offer a contradictory analysis of the facts I presented
|in evidence of this conclusion, I think we must agree to disagree.
|

You never offer any facts from Canadian history. You offer assertions
and vague quotes from British sources. Their is little understanding
of Canadian history in your posts.

-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics