And on that note, more reason to avoid Jon Huer.
Christ, what DO they teach at UCLA?
UPDATE: North Korea celebrated the July 4 holiday by wasting two perfectly usable Scuds. I think Huer still wins on goofy points, though.
Oh, and Happy Great Tax Revolt of 1776 Day
Previous post: Open Thread #107
{ 1 trackback }
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
First!
I thought this was the open thread. Being able to say “First!” on that would have made my weekend.
I’ve lost face, and will now throw myself off the nearest cliff.
Jon who? Never heard of the guy. Should I have?
I swear to god Jon Huer sounds just like Baduk. Could it be?
I dunno, Robert; it seems a decent article to me, even if it sees Canada and Australia through lenses that are a little too rose-tinted. (The Canadian medical system, as it happens, is becoming more “Americanized” even as the opposite is happening south of our southern border. This change in Canada is happening due to the breakdown of our public medicare system.) Of course, it’s difficult to play the “what if?” game with total accuracy and knowledge, but it seems a thoughtful and interesting piece, at least.
By the way, if it was some historical or chronological error in the piece that prompted your note, I’d be pleased to learn what it was.
–
One point on which I would disagree with Huer is the argument about the presence of foreign troops on US soil; after more than 200 years, it doesn’t seem like such a disgrace to me, especially as the Patriot side won.
“I thought this was the open thread. Being able to say “First!” on that would have made my weekend. ”
You would have still been too late.
Seth Gecko July 4, 2009 at 8:51 am
First!
SomeguyinKorea July 4, 2009 at 8:50 am
Beautiful day, isn’t it?
(Two weeks in a row, sucka!)
“This change in Canada is happening due to the breakdown of our public medicare system.”
Maybe in your home province, but not necessarily in others.
Medical care in Canada is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. When you speak of the public medical care in Canada, you’re talking roughly a dozen distinct systems.
A fair point. For the record, my home province is BC, the third largest. But I think the general consensus is that medicare in many parts of Canada is deteriorating.
Okay, here we go.
Someone asked a few weeks ago if anyone remembered the second floor internet café at pimatgol. I was taken there by another teacher in early 1997, but I didn’t know what the point of such a business was. When I left Canada in the summer of ’95, a book was passed around at one of my going-away parties, and everyone wrote down their mailing address, saying “Send me a postcard from Asia!” I don’t think the book had a single email address in it.
I picked up a magazine in that café on pimatgol, maybe it was Seoul Classified. It had a satire “Top 10 fashions around Seoul” article. Numbers 2 ~ 10 were the basic things the young women were wearing in those days, but #1 showed a picture of a middle-aged woman dressed in mustard-colored clothes, and the “Yakult ajumma” was praised as the diva of the Seoul fashion scene. I had no idea what they were talking about; I might not even have known the word ajumma then.
Visited Cyberia a few times after that (where Buddha’s Belly is now, beside Hamilton), always with a friend who wanted to ‘check their email’. I always just got a coffee and chatted with the staff.
In 2001, I wrote this (the girl is the future Mrs Linkd):
In August of 2003, sitting in an apartment in downtown Montreal a few days before we began business school, Mrs Linkd logged onto the Dell website and bought me my first computer.
Now how did that end up in here?
“One point on which I would disagree with Huer is the argument about the presence of foreign troops on US soil; after more than 200 years, it doesn’t seem like such a disgrace to me, especially as the Patriot side won.” — Nathan B
Is Huer even correct? The Brits used German (Hessian) mercenary soldiers; and trapping their army between the Continental army and the guns of the French navy is what forced Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown. (Thanks, France!) But I haven’t heard of a French army in the Colonies during the Revolutionary War. Then again I’m not an expert (and as always, no wagering please).
Counterfactual masturbation. How unsatisfying is that?
It’s silly for Huer to assume that the de facto independent, democratic states of Canada and Australia would even exist in their present state without the American Revolution. The American Revolution furthered movements towards democracy and national self determination throughout the world. Would we be better if over half the world lived under the power of a tyrannical English King? Is that who Huer wants to pay more taxes to? Because a King could care less about providing for the rest of us. Britain granted Australia and Canada de facto independence and complete control over all major government policies precisely because they didn’t want to face another American Revolution.
Is Mr. Heur correct on any front? Much of what he ranks can’t be quantified, like: “Canada or Australia, which today happen to be among the best-run and happiest nations in the world.” WTF?
Here is another absolute he uses to justify his position: “They enjoy low crime rates, fewer divorces, universal healthcare, and little overall turmoil as a nation.”
WTF??
Interestingly, he did have a few quasi-quantifiable points in there didn’t he. I say quasi for two reasons. Any time you lump two countries together as your comparator you are going to have problems and any time you try and compare, for example, crime rates of countries with different criminal codes and different domestic agendas you probably have wasted your time. Anyway, what does “low crime rates” mean Mr. Huer? Also, “fewer divorces”? Again, is that an average of the two comparators? Regardless, is a slightly higher divorce rate significant? Maybe it is even benificial. Nevermind small gap, hell, maybe it is a large gap but then maybe a large gap is benificial?? I can name a few countries I’d personally never live in that have divorce rates near zero (though the ones that do usually have their heads cut off). Of course, old Mr. Huer never gave any of that a thought. Nor, I doubt, did he considered that there are a number of other factors that can affect the divorce rate, such as the marriage rate, legal issues (i.e. length of time between seperation and actual divorce), and the immigration rate (before anyone gets their balls in an uproar, it is to do with aggregate numbers not cultural differances). For the record, I took the time to browse the OECD numbers and while they show USA’s rate to be higher than Canada’s they also show that USA’s divorce rate has changed as a percent very little as compared to Canada’s (over the past 10 years and AGAIN with the caveats lisited above among others). I suppose I won’t disagree that there is a “universal healthcare” (his words) in Canada and presumably Australia, though I’ve never lived there. However, I wonder if universial heathcare is evidence that no war of independance would have benifited America or that America would have universal healthcare if they had never went to war in 1776 (sorry, I don’t exactly know which is what because hsi writing sucks). I think Sweden publicly funds its medical system upwards of 90%-95% and is generally considered universal heathcare, yet they did so without any aid from England. I’m sure there are a dozen other examples too. Still, perhaps there is a correlation, but I wonder whether universal heathcare in itself is a good thing or evidence of a better country (which I think, or rather I guess, Mr. Huer is banging at-I dunno because, as noted, his writing is brutal).
Finally, what is up with this statement: “This precedent of tax evasion has produced two huge problems for us: One is our national deficit, equal to one year of our total GNP; the other is a tragedy for our children’s education. [I won't botehr commenting on the out of place cut and paste of this almost random sentence: "A deficit occurs when expenditure is greater than income." ...opps I just did...]
I am going to assume Mr. Huer meant “aversion” when he said “evasion” since there is no evidence presented to show that Amercians have a precedent of tax evasion. Also, is tax aversion really related to national deficit? Well, I can see why he suddenly decided that “evasion” was a better word, though again, without the bother of evidence. Heck, why not just write an article saying Country A>USA and have no evidence at all, leave it at that! Though even The Onion provides evidence when the opposite (USA>India) is true: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27649 (warning: some math required!)
sorry…long-winded becuase I’m watching the Jays and Yanks play the slowest game in history…
OMFG, that has to be the worst Huer article I’ve read!
That’s saying a lot because he is a mental retard.
I had to stop halfway through the 4th paragraph as it was just making me ill.
Time for this ridiculous assclown to put up or shut up- turn in that US passport for a Korean one!
Horrible and maybe masochistic(don’t think that is even a word) experiment: get Huer, Steve Shertzer, and several of the “Korea is pure, US is evil” crew in a room together and see how fast they drown in their own bullshit!
So much for the great tax revolt:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin.....-Debt.html
Americans should suffer like hell since that seems to be the only way people will learn the consequences of their inaction. Freedom is not free — nor is it imported and on discount at Walmart.
oh also…I meant to ask if anyone knew wtf this meant: ” One is our national deficit, equal to one year of our total GNP”
I t left me completely confused. For example the national deficit, for this year projected, is 490 billion. The GNP is about 10 533 trillion. So, now, how is he relating these and moreover how are they related to his point (which at this junction seemed to be about tax evasion…err aversion…err eversion)? Totally confused…
This guy needs to be deported. Better yet, set adrift on a Greek Vaseline vessel.
useforstuff – national deficit is how much you owe, not mrely one years worth
“the debt stands today at a staggering $11.5 trillion — equivalent to over $37,000 for each and every American.”
“Would we be better if over half the world lived under the power of a tyrannical English King?”
Puhlease, in 1776 the english crown was already a constitutional monarchy and had been for some time. Please don’t pretend the rebellion, was about freedom, the citizen in america already had more freedom than the average english peasant. It was all about not paying taxes, which also were lower than in england.
Fair enough call on the representation part though, although there was again a large part of the english citizenry who didn’t have representation either.
Happy Day to all you departed misguided brethren nonetheless
Tyrannical leaders – why bring Bush into this
“It’s silly for Huer to assume that the de facto independent, democratic states of Canada and Australia would even exist in their present state without the American Revolution. The American Revolution furthered movements towards democracy and national self determination throughout the world. Would we be better if over half the world lived under the power of a tyrannical English King?”
I think you need to read up on history, especially the part where Canadians weren’t interested in participating in the American Revolution (despite the Patriots’ efforts to recruit them) or that where 46 000 Loyalists fled to Canada after the American Revolution because they were cruel persecuted.
Arghaeri…yes i know (for the most part) what a national deficit is–though, your explanation is almost as confusing as his statement. You said, “national deficit is how much you owe, not mrely one years worth” which I guess is your way of saying the national deficit is how much the fed govt. (in this case) owes per year not the total of all federal deficits of all years which make up the national debt. Anyway, you still didn’t answer the question: He, again, is stating ” One is our national deficit, equal to one year of our total GNP”…I’m pretty sure “GNP” does not stand for fed. debt….
“Yes I know”, followed by a complete denial of said knowledge, classic
National Deficit = “The sum of all previously incurred annual federal deficits.”
i.e. as already stated “how much you owe” , 11.5 trillion, not just the amount by which the amount increased in one year – (your 490billion.)
The national deficit, at 11.5trillion seems close enough to me to the 10.5 trillion GNP quoted.
Someguyinkorea, indeed good point, and he also ignores the fact that Canada and Australia are still under the terrible tyranny of Queen Elizabeth, and it wasn’t that long ago that the aussies had a referendum resulting in them remaining so. Or that they still came to aid queen and mother country pretty much immediately in first and second world wars.
One response:
I think that the sentence in the original was correct; it’s true that the Canadians by and large did not want to revolt like their American counterparts; it’s also true that the Brits did not want another War of Independence, and were more willing after a certain point to make concessions.
I still haven’t learned from the commenters what in the Huer piece occasions their wrath. Useforstuff fixates on divorce rates. Sperwer plays the name-calling game without engaging in any discussion of facts.
As far as crime goes, yes, different countries have different criminal codes, but it is undeniable that by any standard the US has one of the highest–if not the highest–violent crime rate of all the industrialized nations. It may be difficult to measure quality of life, but life expectancy is more or less objective–and the US lags behind Canada, and probably Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps healthcare has some bearing on that. I’m not claiming that the US is necessarily inferior to these countries, but I am saying that Huer’s piece makes what appears, on the surface, at least, to be some good points that require agreement or refutation, but not scorn.
It seems to me that Huer’s only crime was that he questioned the underlying doctrine of the religion of the US as a country born in rebellion. Civilized people disagree on many matters–and some might reasonably disagree with Huer on most of his points–but the visceral and emotional level of the responses here says more about the commenters than about the actual essay in question.
Today is the day colonials celebrate terrorist tactics to achieve political ends, with explosives no less.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4.....oursle.jpg
“I think that the sentence in the original was correct; it’s true that the Canadians by and large did not want to revolt like their American counterparts; it’s also true that the Brits did not want another War of Independence, and were more willing after a certain point to make concessions.”
Actually, the ones who had good reason to revolt against the Brits, the French-Canadians, had many of their rights returned following the Treaty of Paris of 1763 and in the years preceding the American Declaration of Independence.
To suggest that this was done because of the American Revolution is missing the fact that Canada was not a British colony like New England but a conquered country. Just read the following historical documents.
http://www.canadiana.org/citm/.....on6_e.html
What “facts?. Huer’s piece is a confection of non-facts. You two maybe should get a room to ascertain the number of angels spinning on that pinhead.
Just curious, Someguy: are you suggesting with the word “this” that my comment was referring to the situation in 1763?
I am referring first to the Durham Report–which recommended responsible government for the colonies following the Canadian rebellions of the 1830’s–and also to what came about afterward.
I do not think that the American Revolution had no positive bearing at all on the struggle for self-determination in Canada.
Well, Sperwer, it’s a reflective piece based on the author’s understanding of history and his experience of the world. Necessarily, there are some generalisms. As for facts, Huer did reference a few very significant facts when he wrote “They enjoy low crime rates, fewer divorces, universal healthcare”; the last part of that sentence is also pretty hard to dispute. These are facts, make of them what one will.
I just don’t see what merits the scorn–unless it is that one religiously adheres to the idea that America the Glorious was born in moral superiority in the 18th century revolutionary war. Again, it’s one thing to hold that with a certain amount of conviction, but it’s another to hold it with a fundamentalist’s zeal.
In terms of the tenor of the consensus here, I’m more than reminded of religious fundamentalists’ tendency to quash believers’ questions rather than try to answer them.
Here’s what it seems to come down to, for me:
Is it wrong, unethical, and stupid to question whether, in light of subsequent history, the Patriots chose the best course of action when they opted to revolt against Britain?
Were the inhabitants of the territories north of the American colonies “Canadians” at the time of the Revolution?
Do you mean New France, consisting in its northern part of the 5 colonies of Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay and Newfoundland (Plaisance)(and later Île Royale (Cape Breton Island) as the successor to Acadia)?
And aren’t you overlooking the British claim to and colony in Hudson Bay, where the French claim was at best fanciful.
The history of this part of the world is not best appreciated and understood through the distorting lens of retrospective nationalist posturing over origins but rather as an episode in the competition and conflict of European empires, the successors to which inherited the fact and problem of all their claims being based on conquest of the aboriginal inhabitants.
Nathan B asked (implicitly):
“I still haven’t learned from the commenters what in the Huer piece occasions their wrath.”
Jeffery Hodges suggests:
People took him too seriously. I have my doubts about his utter seriousness. I think that he’s partly taking the piss out of people . . . though I’m not completely sure.
Full disclosure: I know Jon Huer. Or did. He is a very nice guy. I disagreed with him on American culture, but I liked him . . . and his very kindhearted wife. They were very good with our young children, very patient and kind.
I haven’t seen him for about five years, but I’ve always appreciated that he turned up for a talk that I gave in my final year at Hanshin University, a show of solidarity after I’d had my ‘tenure’ revoked for the egregious malfeasance of being a foreigner.
I suppose, therefore, that I’m not objective, so take me with a grain of salt.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Prof. Huer’s assertion that “less than one-third of colonists supported separation and independence” is based on an oft-repeated misundertanding.
John Adams said that only one-third of the people supported the revolution, but he was talking about the French Revolution, not the American Revolution, which was not a revolution but a war of independence, or secession, to use a more politically incorrect term.
Well, Nathan, it’s stupid to attempt it in the manner that Huer does with a lot of fundamentally unascertainable woulda, coulda, shoulda might have beens sonorously intoned by Huer from his comfy PC armchair with the full distortion of 20/20 hindsight. Surely there are more intellectually compelling and honest means of critique tha his sort of bankrupt rhetoric.
Right now, in one of the books that I am teaching, we are covering a couple of the speeches made before the war of independence. It reminded me of a few things. King George was as bonkers and parliament controlled the empire at that point. It also reminded me of an article George Washington wrote after the victory of the British over the French but before The Quebec act. It was all about spreading the glory of the British empire over the Appalachian Mountains. The Quebec act must have been very disappointing for him. The final thing it reminded me of was a book that dealt with a few historical myths. One of them had to do with the Boston Massacre. If I remember correctly no one or only one person died at the massacre. There was a disturbance, but the pro-indenpence press greatly exaggerated what happened on order to inflame people’s passions.
“There was a disturbance, but the pro-indenpence press greatly exaggerated what happened on order to inflame people’s passions.”
I’m guessing that’s what John Adams meant when he said, “Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one.”
In any case, John Adams proved that the captain did not order his men to fire, the order had been shouted by someone in the crowd. The soldiers acted out of confusion. 6 out of the 8 accused were acquitted.
Someguy –
I think you are attacking a strawman version of my point. I didn’t claim that the British citizens in present day Canada wanted to participate in the American Revolution. My point is that during the last 200 plus years Britain granted de facto sovereignty to Canada and Australia largely due to a global movement towards democracy and national self determination that at least gained a lot of momentum from the American Revolution – maybe even originated with the American Revolution. If you take away US Independence, you take away inspiration for many later national independence movements, and Britain has far fewer incentives to offer concessions to Canada, Australia, etc, and who knows what kind of living conditions you’d find there. I’d bet that they’d be less developed, more unequal societies, and they wouldn’t have such a nifty flag to stitch on their backpacks here in Korea.
” it’s true that the Canadians by and large did not want to revolt like their American counterparts
Were the inhabitants of the territories north of the American colonies “Canadians” at the time of the Revolution?”
Well, Sperwer, I used the term as a matter of convenience. The term “Canada” in European use dates from the 16th century.
If I understand you correctly, Sperwer, you’re saying that questioning as to whether, in light of subsequent history, the Patriots made the best choice in revolting is allowed, but that Huer went about it in the wrong way. But I must ask you, when discussing a “what would have happened if X had not happened” question, what other constructions, besides “shoulda, woulda coulda” could one reasonably use? If I could entice you into playing the devil’s advocate for a moment, how would you have gone about this in the “correct” fashion?
Dokdoforever,
“I think you are attacking a strawman version of my point. ”
You suppose that Great Britain wasn’t already a democracy when you make that assertion. In fact, a constitutional monarchy was already in place long before the American Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
And how would you classify Canada and Australia’s political systems? Yes, they are both constitutional monarchies.
Hell:
“The Bill of Rights was later supplemented by the Act of Settlement in 1701 (while the Claim of Right Act in Scotland was supplemented by the Act of Union, 1707). Both the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right contributed a great deal to the establishment of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the curtailment of the powers of the monarch. Leading, ultimately, to the establishment of constitutional monarchy, while also along with the Penal Laws, settle the political and religious turmoil that had convulsed Scotland, England and Ireland in the 17th century.
It was a predecessor of the United States Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, as with the Bill of Rights, the US constitution requires jury trials and prohibits excessive bail and “cruel and unusual punishments.”
There you have it, in black and white: a predecessor to the United States Bill of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E....._of_Rights
Nathanb,
Had you bothered to read the historical documents that I linked to, you would have seen that Canada and Canadian were commonly accepted terms in the mid to late 18th century.
In fact, Canada was first used in 1535 by the explorer Jacques Cartier. It’s of Huron origin.
http://canadaonline.about.com/.....canada.htm
An important fact that is often ignored by Americans is that elections were held during the colonial period.
http://www.questia.com/library.....bishop.jsp
Someguy, what’s your point, exactly?
Someguy, by my reckoning 1535 is in the 16th century, and Cartier was European. Everyone knows the origin of the term “Canada” is not European, and I never said it was. Clarification, please.
The welfare system and all the free cheese are making Americans fat and lazy. If America is to survive as a leading nation, we have to get the federal government out of the business of charity and let natural selection return balance to the country.
Let the local churches and community organizations decide who deserves charity and who does not. That will force lazy people to work or starve while the infirm will continue to get the charity they need. The broken system we now have allows able-bodied men and women to set home and collect welfare checks while they only pretend to look for jobs.
American is going down the toilet, and so-called Democrats are doing most of the flushing.
Correction: to sit home
#44,
Actually, I don’t know any American who is bothers to think much about the events leading to 1776 who doesn’t know that we had elected assemblies.
The problems was that real power in the colonies was held by the governors, who were appointed by England.
BTW, I personally did not think this Jon Huer piece was that bad (which is not to say that I agree with him).
NathanB,
The term was clearly in common use in the 18th century, shortly before the American Revolution.
Sheesh, short memory?
“Were the inhabitants of the territories north of the American colonies “Canadians” at the time of the Revolution?””
“The problems was that real power in the colonies was held by the governors, who were appointed by England.”
Sure, but it wasn’t monarchy itself that was a problem. Some people fed up with the Continental Congress were considering a coup-d’état and placing George Washington as king. Apparently, George Washington wrote his “Farewell Address” to stifle talk about making him king.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....ll_Address
I kind of stopped reading after his comparison of the US to Canada and Australia, which completely ignores how demographically different the US is from either. It would be more accurate to draw comparisons to Barbados/BVI maybe even India. I wonder, if Britain would have even pushed for abolition at all were they to have held onto the colonies, it certainly would have been a shot in the foot for them, as I suspect their push for abolition was aimed at putting other nations at a dis-advantage.
That’s something I would not expect a sociologist to miss, except for the fact this guys from UCLA. That being said I doubt Napoleon would have sold the Louisiana territory to Jefferson, perhaps it would have gone to Mexico?
CaptBBQ,
“I kind of stopped reading after his comparison of the US to Canada and Australia, which completely ignores how demographically different the US is from either.”
Just look at the demographic differences that exist within the US.
Someguy, on this thread you’ve taken a few positions that I can only characterize as extremely odd: that healthcare in Canada is not deteriorating, and that the American War of Independence had no positive effect on self-determination in Canada.
You’ve also tried to suggest (in your comment #30) that I was talking about the events of 1763 when I was quite clear that I was talking about events after the US revolutionary war. Finally, your second last comment takes me to task for something that is certainly a misunderstanding or misreading on your part (and you’ve yet to clarify it in any case).
The organization of your most recent post, is equally baffling, addressed to me, as it is, at the beginning, but making no clear demarcation between your sentences that address me and those that address different people. Worse is the odd sequence of assertion, insult, and question. Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the question before the assertion, and the insult either at the beginning or the end?
My original comment to Sperwer, which was not addressed to you in any case, was correct in all points.
It’s clear that you have no great love for me, and that’s fine, but at some point it becomes a waste of my time to respond to you when you cannot express your views clearly and rationally. Around a year ago, or so, you were the soul of reason and reasonableness in these comment threads; what happened?
Sorry: “second last comment” should have been “second last comment addressed to me”–that is, the second part of #43.
Thank you, Andy Jackson! That’s what I was hoping to hear from more commenters who disagreed with his piece.
You are beginning to squander what credibility you have garnered with regard to your position on Dokdo with such obviously erroneous statements.
The common expression is that “opinions are like assholes” but in fact assholes are more respectable.
As for this piece, there is nothing to agree or disagree with. That would be a category error. It is nothing more conjecture based entirely on misinformation, illogic, a smattering of ideological bias. A discussion of how many angels could fit on the head of a fairy would have been as informed, relevent and worthy of a second thought.
#54,
Can’t attack the message, attack the messenger?
Clearly, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
PS. No great love for you? What’s that go to do with anything?
I simply disagree with you, that’s all.
Someguy, your “messages” in our conversation were increasingly incoherent (and also a little belligerent); #54 points that out without, I think, making any personal attacks on you. (That was the whole point of my foray into this thread and other similar ones: I’d like to see fewer personal attacks here.)
In the mean time, I don’t see further dialogue between us yielding much fruit for the near future, although I am happy to continue commenting on this blog with others with whom I share disagreements.
I knew that the moment you chose to ignore the evidence I presented in order to twist my argument.
“Someguy, by my reckoning 1535 is in the 16th century, and Cartier was European. Everyone knows the origin of the term “Canada” is not European, and I never said it was. Clarification, please.”
Incoherent? Belligerent? Sure, if you say so.
It’s true that Mackenzie’s 1837 rebellion had the stated aim of establishing American-style democracy in Canada. It is also true that the British North America act of 1867 came about partly because of fears that Canada might eventually revolt against the Crown. Some of the most influential people in Canada at that time, like the Scottish Sir John A. MacDonald, had little love for the English (and for the Americans). Lincoln’s enormous, victorious and idle Union Army must have been a bit of a worry, too. But the biggest reason that Canada became a Dominion rather than a colony was that England was tired of paying for Canada as a colony. I have always preferred to view Canada’s evolution as a financially inspired one, not as a contest of ideologies.
Well said, MrMao!
You must log in to post a comment.