How did Canada avoid being annexed or having large swathes of territory taken in wars like Mexico?

How did Canada avoid being annexed or having large swathes of territory taken in wars like Mexico?

Likewise, it’s interesting to me how much of Canadian politics is centred around trying as hard as possible to stay out of America. Both on the left and right. Leading to somewhat bizarre conclusions where left wing leaders are pro monarchy not because they love the idea of monarchies but because it’s as anti American as you can get

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They hate us cuz they aint us

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s because we are the same, you and I. We understand each other like no other people on this earth. So we negotiate, we don’t fight. Anyway most of Canada is worthless land so the map is misleading.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >most of Canada is worthless land
      Correct. We don’t even have that many plains compared to USA

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did Canada avoid being annexed or having large swathes of territory taken in wars like Mexico?
    Because Canada was a part of and backed by the full light of the British empire which the American republic couldn’t quite afford to pick a fight with and have a reasonable chance of winning until WWI. Trying to annex parts of Canada meant picking a fight with england, which would have been way too bloody and complex to be worth bothering about

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, America tried that back in the War of 1812, and Britain slapped their hand down pretty hard. After that America and Britain made up and were allies, so it would be gauche to steal territory from each other. Instead they worked things out through agreements.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How did Canada avoid being annexed or having large swathes of territory taken in wars like Mexico?
      Because Canada was a part of and backed by the full light of the British empire which the American republic couldn’t quite afford to pick a fight with and have a reasonable chance of winning until WWI. Trying to annex parts of Canada meant picking a fight with england, which would have been way too bloody and complex to be worth bothering about

      Britishers really think Americans couldn’t beat you like b***h frick you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You tried to annex Canada once, you got thrown out. That’s why you didn’t try again, see.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        US seems to take more of an approach of economic dominance these days, where corporations inside the US claim ownership of resources abroad. Given the growing economic power of China though, we may start seeing a breakdown of this strategy, leading to a more overtly violent US in the future.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >britishers
        don't forget to poo in the loo, rajesh

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Britons is fewer syllables, too. Are sub(continent)humans really just addicted to syllables?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >America tried that back in the War of 1812
      No they didn't, they were attempting to stop the British from raiding merchant shipping and impressing sailors, with potential territorial claims in Tecumseh's federation (not British Canada) being a secondary issue

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Main goal of War of 1812 was not Canadian annexation.

      It was the resumption of trade with Europe, stop impressment of American sailors by Britain, and stop Britain from arming Indians in the Great Lakes region. Any plans for annexing Canada would have been a means to accomplish those goals, not the goal itself

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > How did Canada avoid being annexed or having large swathes of territory taken in wars like Mexico?
    British empire protection. It’s as simple as that. America may not have defeated Britain in a war like that at least until the late 19th century. After that, there’s literally no reason to.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because it was essentially part of Britain, and by the time the US developed enough were it could possibly take on Britain and nab Canada there was little if any will or reason to do so

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the United States ever tried to invade they would have been demolished and decimated within minutes by the military genius of Defence Scheme No. 1; they never had a chance.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Canada wasn't an independent country until the 20th century, it was part of the British Empire. And the USA did try to take Canadian territory for itself, and went to war against Great Britain over it, but lost out on gaining any of the territory they'd tried to seize. That put a damper on any further ambitions to invade Canadian (read: British) territory again. Also there weren't many opportunities after that initial conflict, since Britain and America became firm trade partners and later military allies with common interests as Anglophone nations.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why did America even want to invade Canada given they had massive tracts of virgin land to the west with only some primitive natives to fight for it?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Trade ports along the Great Lakes, and a total monopoly on the beaver trade, which was immensely profitable for Britain.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        those tracts of virgin land were filled with natives who the British had allied to stop American expansion

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The British weren’t “allied” with them. They just had some basic trade deals where they sold them guns

          They came close to an alliance ONCE, around the battle of Tippecanoe but it didn’t happen

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Part of it during 1812 was probably that Canadian land taken could be used as a bargaining chip to extract other concessions and overall gain leverage against Britain in the peace treaty.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US stole the San Juan Islands from them after the Pig War

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain was America’s biggest trading partner by a long shot and before the 20th century none of that land would have been worth the hassle of taking it. By the end of the world wars Britain was America’s gimp-slave b***h and all of its colonies were too, especially Canada. So actually annexing it would have just been a pointless formality.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We BTFO'd the mutts and they've feared us since

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Americans are nothing without their nukes and aircraft carriers and submarines and missiles.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well with the way things are going there's a good chance that Canada won't exist for too much longer OP.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The reason why is that the canadiens did not want to be subsumed by the American republic.
    The french colonists in modern day Canada realized they got a pretty sweet deal from the Brits after they were conquered and knew they would never get that kind of shit if they were part of the USA.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The norther colonies were threatening secession the entire time crying about the south being mean to britian actively sabotaging operations in canada

    you will never be told this because it goes against the narrative

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What are you referring to? Provide dates and details

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look up northern secession

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I did, nothing comes up

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            isn't that convenient for the narrative

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A subject this interesting would have many books written about it. Would you be so kind as to recommend me a book for further reading, one published by a university?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah the narrative that shits on the foundation of the US so hard that it shines a light on all modern problems would be perpetuated through federal nationalist school systems that were created by the same people it shines a light on

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm trying to be open-minded here but you aren't giving me a lot of reason to take this seriously. I found the Hardford Convention, which is a nothingburger and takes place during the Virginia Dynasty (this is why I told you to provide dates, or else all your claims float around unmoored). The in the 1840s we have some hardcore abolitionists (ye olde version of woke) like Garrison calling for secession in a newspaper; again, nothing burger; again, the timeline is completely divorced from your gloss: JQA was a congressman at this time. Like I said, I would like this subject to be as rich as you imagine it to be to but I really think it's just some dixie cope, as in, "look the North did it too!", well not really. The North seemed to have a couple nothingburgers, were as the South, yknow, actually did secede.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeh Garrison, one of the premier newspaper editors and abolitionist in the north calling for secession is a nothingburger

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, one guy saying something in a newspaper and then secession not occurring is a definitive nothingburger, I’m sorry this isn’t as important as you want it to be

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it didn't happen so people weren't talking about it
            well that's a different argument entirely.

            The entire point of threatening secession is pointing out they were in no way friendly to the south and there's a through-line between the alien and sedition federalist money printers and the republican party

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your case isn’t convincing in the slightest because it relies on something completely fringe taking centre stage, which it never does. It’s a conspiratorial view of history and it will only convince people that ‘want to believe’ the north was really as bad as the south on this subject when obviously they weren’t.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >something fringe
            >the federalist party and its policies existing and being taken up by the republican party
            read a book, unironically

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Id like to but you haven’t recommended one. I’m still waiting

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't even need to read a book you just need to not be moronic. It's well known the north were threatening secession all during the Virginian dynasty. It's well known they didn't assist the US government during the war of 1812, rejects like yourself praise these actions. This is why the US never took over Canada. The same people threatening secession were the same people that became abolitionists, or purposeful attackers of the southern economy, refusing even gradual emancipation. It was these people that forced the civil war and after created the nationalized school system we known today.

            And it's in these schools they teach that nothing they ever did was any fault of their own. Have you ever wondered why every single conflict the US has ever gotten into it has historiographically bleached any argument for personal responsibility? No of course you haven't, because you're sheep

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I know, you know it, everybody knows it
            Brilliant stuff. I’m gonna get back to my book (I actually read books). I regret that this discourse of ours did not unveil any actual historical truths, but I will continue to give anons the benefit of the doubt. Cheers

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't even try to inform yourself of basic facts you're an ignoramus

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Columbian Centinel
            January 13, 1813

            North of the Delaware, there is among all who do not bask or expect to bask in the Executive sunshine but one voice for Peace. South of that river, the general cry is “Open war, O peers!” There are not two hostile nations upon earth whose views of the principles and polity of a perfect commonwealth, and of men and measures, are more discordant than those of these two great divisions.

            We must no longer be deafened by senseless clamors about a separation of the States.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Politico
            KEVIN ROBILLARD

            11/14/2012

            10 facts about secession from U.S.
            1. The first serious threat of secession came from New England, not the South.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thomas Jefferson 1801
            Inaugural Address
            "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

            Thomas Jefferson 1816
            reacting to new england's call for secession
            "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jefferson? The guy who wrote the Kentucky Resolutions?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Massachusetts (capital of Federalism) Senator Timothy Pickering lead the movement for New England's secession. Pickering was George Washington's adjutant general and quartermaster and his secretary of state and secretary of war. In 1803 he announced "I will rather anticipate a anew confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence of the aristocratic Democrats of the South." "There will be separation and the black and while populations will be the boundary."

            Senator James Hillhouse of Connecticut said "The Eastern States must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government."

            Aaron Burr "The Northern States must be governed by Virginia or govern Virginia."

            To the Hartford Convention: the Federalists and the origins of party politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815
            Origins of Massachusetts Federalism

            "Such questions, joined with fears for the stability of the republic, gave rise as early as Washington's first term to a concern that no government situated situated outside of New England could retain the region's loyalty and esteem. By 1792, Fisher Arnes concluded that 'the government is too far off to gain the affections of the people'"

            "Massachusetts congressmen repeatedly bewailed the quality of life in Philadelphia. Despite their stature at home they felt frustrated in attempts to gain entree to the city's prestigious circles. Long before the transfer to Washington the figures of Massachusetts found pubic service a 'splendid torment'"

            "When the capital moved to the Potomac wilderness in 1800, these sentiments rapidly intensified. The government had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners."

            "Fewer Massachusetts Federalists sitting in Congress or occupying executive posts after 1800 only hardened the conviction that the government had withdrawn its concerns and protections from the northeast."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Convinced the nation had fallen into evil hands, some of the most talented and ambitions men in the age found themselves collected in Massachusetts growing increasingly convinced their task was to redeem the republic."

            "Rural Federalists like Sedgwick and Strong joined maritime leaders like Otis and Cabot in protesting that shipping and trade were the bulwarks of the fragile union. In vain Massachusetts Federalists protested against the Embargo of 1807, but no matter how forcefully they mobilized the force of public opinion in Massachusetts nothing moved from its determined course."

            Stephen Higginson to Timothy Pickering Nov, 22, 1803
            "The Virginia faction have certainly formed a deliberate plan to govern and depress New England; and its eagerness to extend our territory and create new states is an essential part of it."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Governor Roger Griswold of Connecticut to Oliver Wolcott March 11, 1804
            "there can be no safety to the Northern States without a separation from the confederacy ."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also this is about secession from the north, so please stop weaseling your way out by changing the subject. Do you think I don’t notice and this makes your case more convincing? If you want to enjoy time with people on IQfy that already agree with you, keep doing what you’re doing. If you’d like to ever change anyones mind on planet earth you need to play fair

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >federalists take control of the US
        >It's short lived because they pass the alien and sedition acts to arrest people that are critical of them
        >this leads to the Virginia dynasty, a period where the US was dominated by southern politics, namely Jeffersonianism
        >the entire time the federalists are out of power they're screeching about secession
        >England is becoming belligerent because of the Napoleonic wars
        >the south wants none of it and wants to declare war on them
        >the north, which is more financially tied to England, doesn't want to
        >war is declared through congress anyway
        >again the north is threatening secession
        >the president calls for the north to send troops to help them fight the British
        >they refuse
        >the lack of northern support leads to a stalemate in Canada and a sacking of US ports by the British
        >they even burn the white house
        >federalists northerners jump and cheer
        >the Virginia dynasty dies as the vice president of James Monroe, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (the capital of federalism) becomes president
        >Adams pushes for tons of federalist money printing and appoints Henry Clay as secretary of state which breaks the mold and sees federalist policies at the forefront of the US once again

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          JQA was in Monroe’s cabinet, this is a pretty simplistic retelling

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >JQA was in Monroe’s cabinet
            Secretary of state, arguable a more important position than vice president

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mexico didn't have Spain backing its shit for as long as Canada was part of the British Empire. Also, they stole our "United States" name from us shamelessly.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Canadians are extremely underrated fighters. World Wars proved it enough

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because its all trees and mountains and hostile climate almost zero natural resources for anything

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *