7 ms·

You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. Canada exists in huge part because of the american revolution. British-american loyalists ha

You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. Canada exists in huge part because of the american revolution. British-american loyalists have basically founded upper Canada, which is now Ontario, so it makes sense that they were particularly close to the throne and the British homeland and government. French-canada was also just recently conquered and placated by the Quebec Act, but still tried a couple of uprisings during the Patriot wars of 1837-38. I don't think Canada would've stayed british without the loyalist escaping here, since they made it an inherent part of their identity to not revolt against the british as opposed to the americans they left behind. But agreed, there are too many exceptions in general to the article's point.

masklinn 4y ago
> You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. As opposed to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Yes, if you read the rest of my comment I explained why. Canada has had a very big (relatively speaking) influx of deeply loyal british-american refugees that often directly fought the revolutionaries down south. That meant that the early history of english canada was very deeply influenced by an almost identity defining loyalism to britain, because those refugees often left everything behind in the US to stay loyal the crown. In a way, being british was the entire point of early anglocanadian identity. I think that makes it pretty different from Australia, a penal colony and South Africa which was conquered more than colonized (and was very hard to hold on for the british). I was more trying to explain why Canada was an outlier in the Americas, and how Britain managed to hold it very easily for so long, even with a free population and little direct military occupation.
wintogreen74 4y ago
I'm a 10th+ generation Canadian of German ancestry, whose relatives had both an affinity for the British Empire (initially fleeing persecution to England) and a practical one: rich farmland in exchange for fighting with the loyalists against the upstart colonists. It's hard to determine which had the bigger impact.
jameshart 4y ago
So… empires can’t retain territory over a month away from its capital, unless it’s populated by people loyal to the empire? Isn’t the point of the month rule that it’s hard to maintain a loyal population at that distance? So this amounts to saying ‘well the rule doesn’t apply to Canada because the rule doesn’t account for Canada’. Right. So it’s a bit of a rubbish rule then?
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  I agree that the rule is basically worthless, but my point was more that Canada had an exceptionally loyal population, and disproportionately so compared to what we coule expect from a "normal distribution"! It can, in part, explain the rift between the US and Canada :)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bregma 4y ago
The influx of loyalists was a couple of generations before the 1837 rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada. Yet another generation elapsed before home rule with responsible government was devolved from Westminster and a few more before Canada was considered "independent" from the centralized Empire by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. A century is a pretty long time for your argument about the beliefs of some individuals to stay valid.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Yes that's my point though. The patriot wars happened after the loyalists were well settled, and at a point when upper canada in general was almost as established as lower canada. French-canada was barely loyal, and would've probably been a huge torn in the backside of Britain if it wasn't balanced by a super loyal anglo population that counterbalanced the animosity of french canada. The loyalists shaped the relationship Canada had with britain, and while I'd guess even their descendants were a minority (relative to immigrants) by the mid 19th century, it still defined Canadian identity even to this day. If Canada hadn't seen that initial influx of usually rich, upper class loyalists that became the founding stock of upper canadian politics/elite, we might have had a very, very different outcome. One that is more in line with most other colonies in the New World.

masklinn 4y ago

> You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. As opposed to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?

mardifoufs 4y ago
Yes, if you read the rest of my comment I explained why. Canada has had a very big (relatively speaking) influx of deeply loyal british-american refugees that often directly fought the revolutionaries down south. That meant that the early history of english canada was very deeply influenced by an almost identity defining loyalism to britain, because those refugees often left everything behind in the US to stay loyal the crown. In a way, being british was the entire point of early anglocanadian identity. I think that makes it pretty different from Australia, a penal colony and South Africa which was conquered more than colonized (and was very hard to hold on for the british). I was more trying to explain why Canada was an outlier in the Americas, and how Britain managed to hold it very easily for so long, even with a free population and little direct military occupation.

wintogreen74 4y ago

I'm a 10th+ generation Canadian of German ancestry, whose relatives had both an affinity for the British Empire (initially fleeing persecution to England) and a practical one: rich farmland in exchange for fighting with the loyalists against the upstart colonists. It's hard to determine which had the bigger impact.

jameshart 4y ago

So… empires can’t retain territory over a month away from its capital, unless it’s populated by people loyal to the empire? Isn’t the point of the month rule that it’s hard to maintain a loyal population at that distance? So this amounts to saying ‘well the rule doesn’t apply to Canada because the rule doesn’t account for Canada’. Right. So it’s a bit of a rubbish rule then?

mardifoufs 4y ago
I agree that the rule is basically worthless, but my point was more that Canada had an exceptionally loyal population, and disproportionately so compared to what we coule expect from a "normal distribution"! It can, in part, explain the rift between the US and Canada :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

bregma 4y ago

The influx of loyalists was a couple of generations before the 1837 rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada. Yet another generation elapsed before home rule with responsible government was devolved from Westminster and a few more before Canada was considered "independent" from the centralized Empire by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. A century is a pretty long time for your argument about the beliefs of some individuals to stay valid.

mardifoufs 4y ago
Yes that's my point though. The patriot wars happened after the loyalists were well settled, and at a point when upper canada in general was almost as established as lower canada. French-canada was barely loyal, and would've probably been a huge torn in the backside of Britain if it wasn't balanced by a super loyal anglo population that counterbalanced the animosity of french canada. The loyalists shaped the relationship Canada had with britain, and while I'd guess even their descendants were a minority (relative to immigrants) by the mid 19th century, it still defined Canadian identity even to this day. If Canada hadn't seen that initial influx of usually rich, upper class loyalists that became the founding stock of upper canadian politics/elite, we might have had a very, very different outcome. One that is more in line with most other colonies in the New World.