From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:06:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: minerva.SMITH.92Aug29140617
	<SMITH.92Aug21111000@minerva.harvard.edu> <12670@grayt>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

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

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
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.

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
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
acknowledge the former sentiment.

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.

Unless you can offer a contradictory analysis of the facts I presented
in evidence of this conclusion, I think we must agree to disagree.

Steven Smith