Historical difference between Canada and the United States
March 3, 2005 11:04 AM Subscribe
Can someone provide a good overview and possibly some links explaining what the difference was between the American colonies and the Maritime Provinces that led to their separation?
I think I'm missing something fundamental in my understanding of British colonialism, because I can't figure out why the original 13 colonies were distinct from Canadian colonies existing at the same time.
For example, why did Massachusetts elect for independence and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did not? Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island had a lot more in common with the Maritimes than they did with the southern colonies-- specifically in industry and agriculture.
It's one of those concepts that you're expected to just accept when you learn US history-- the 13 colonies were semi-cohesive and Canada was very separate. But they were contiguous political divisions in the same empire.
I think I'm missing something fundamental in my understanding of British colonialism, because I can't figure out why the original 13 colonies were distinct from Canadian colonies existing at the same time.
For example, why did Massachusetts elect for independence and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did not? Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island had a lot more in common with the Maritimes than they did with the southern colonies-- specifically in industry and agriculture.
It's one of those concepts that you're expected to just accept when you learn US history-- the 13 colonies were semi-cohesive and Canada was very separate. But they were contiguous political divisions in the same empire.
See Whigs and Tories. It all has a lot more to do with just the US and Canada, and would take forever and a day to type up, but you should be able to Google from here...
posted by togdon at 11:36 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by togdon at 11:36 AM on March 3, 2005
Here's another source I found. Can't really comment on its veracity, but it's at least chock full o' information.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:11 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:11 PM on March 3, 2005
I never knew that the Maritime provinces were subject to the Stamp Act. It makes sense but I'd never thought about it before. Great question.
posted by TetrisKid at 12:25 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by TetrisKid at 12:25 PM on March 3, 2005
Salon just had a great article about the expulsion of the Acadians (some of whom became Cajuns).
posted by kirkaracha at 2:00 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by kirkaracha at 2:00 PM on March 3, 2005
(but most people in the Maritimes still feel more affinity to the "Boston states" than we do to central Canada.)
That's certainly consistent with the concept in maritime history of the 'Atlantic World', which states that any two communities connected by maritime trade routes will have more in common, culturally and socially, than any maritime community will with any hinterland community. Coastal towns and cities are more alike than different, even when they're in different countries.
I certainly feel more cultural affinity with Boston, Portland ME, Block Island, Cape May, Key West, and Galveston than I do with Concord, NH, even though Concord is my state Capitol.
There are even those who've parsed the famous red vs. blue US election map to show that the blue exists where there is a strong maritime influence (coastal, riverine, Great Lake), while the red areas are high and dry.
Centuries of maritime trade, of goods and people and news coming and going, results in a coastal populace that is comfortable with the exchange of ideas, knows the size of the world, and understands the benefit of acting reasonably tolerant. Or, as my mildly misanthropic father says, it's good to live on the coast, because that way the idiots are only on three sides of you.
posted by Miko at 7:11 PM on March 3, 2005
That's certainly consistent with the concept in maritime history of the 'Atlantic World', which states that any two communities connected by maritime trade routes will have more in common, culturally and socially, than any maritime community will with any hinterland community. Coastal towns and cities are more alike than different, even when they're in different countries.
I certainly feel more cultural affinity with Boston, Portland ME, Block Island, Cape May, Key West, and Galveston than I do with Concord, NH, even though Concord is my state Capitol.
There are even those who've parsed the famous red vs. blue US election map to show that the blue exists where there is a strong maritime influence (coastal, riverine, Great Lake), while the red areas are high and dry.
Centuries of maritime trade, of goods and people and news coming and going, results in a coastal populace that is comfortable with the exchange of ideas, knows the size of the world, and understands the benefit of acting reasonably tolerant. Or, as my mildly misanthropic father says, it's good to live on the coast, because that way the idiots are only on three sides of you.
posted by Miko at 7:11 PM on March 3, 2005
I'm sure someone's done a study on the possible link between maritime cultures (Greeks, Brits, American colonists) and the growth of democratic ideals versus land cultures (Russians, Germans, Chinese) and more autocratic beliefs, which ties into Miko's suggestions.
As a further bit of trivia, the name "Acadia" may have derived from a Mi'kmaq name, Katy (in French, "La Katy" or "L'acadie"). I heard that suggestion several years ago, but never heard a confirmation/discredit of it.
There was also a suggestion around the time of Confederation that the Maritimes join the US instead of Canada (or go it alone). Economically, many believe we made the worst possible choice.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2005
As a further bit of trivia, the name "Acadia" may have derived from a Mi'kmaq name, Katy (in French, "La Katy" or "L'acadie"). I heard that suggestion several years ago, but never heard a confirmation/discredit of it.
There was also a suggestion around the time of Confederation that the Maritimes join the US instead of Canada (or go it alone). Economically, many believe we made the worst possible choice.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2005
GhostintheMachine, care to elaborate about "Economically, many believe we made the worst possible choice". I'm in B.C. and am curious about what you mean. I would think that with equalization payments etc. Canada would be a pretty good choice, but I'm totally ignorant so set me straight!
posted by Emanuel at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by Emanuel at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2005
Emanuel: The basic argument goes back to pre-Confederation. The Maritimes had a solid if unspectacular economy back then, with its natural trading partner, New England. It was one of the largest wooden ship building centres in the world, for instance, and with its proximity to Europe (and Halifax Harbour) was well situated for international trade.
With Confederation, that changed. The federal government forced the Maritimes to reduce its trade with the US. The natural north-south routes were altered to an unnatural (for us) east-west route. With few market options we sold our resources to central Canada at a loss, weakening our economy while strengthening that of Ontario and Quebec. Basically we got exploited by our own nation to provide the fuel for the central Canadian economic engine.
Had we remained independent or joined the US instead, we could have retained our natural (and profitable) trade routes and used our resources to build up our own economy rather than central Canada's. Or at least that's the argument. Some point to Maine and say that's the kind of economy we would have as an American state, while others think the Americans would have appreciated the value of the port of Halifax and properly developed it into an economic dynamo. It's an argument as old as Canada itself.
Where some in Canada see equalization as welfare for a region that couldn't make it on its own, many here see it as overdue compensation for the years of economic abuse suffered at the hands of Toronto financial interests. We made our sacrifice for the supposed greater good of the country, and now that the country is doing well we're looking for what's owed us.
Again, that's the argument, not necessarily my opinion. Hope that makes it clearer.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:04 AM on March 8, 2005
With Confederation, that changed. The federal government forced the Maritimes to reduce its trade with the US. The natural north-south routes were altered to an unnatural (for us) east-west route. With few market options we sold our resources to central Canada at a loss, weakening our economy while strengthening that of Ontario and Quebec. Basically we got exploited by our own nation to provide the fuel for the central Canadian economic engine.
Had we remained independent or joined the US instead, we could have retained our natural (and profitable) trade routes and used our resources to build up our own economy rather than central Canada's. Or at least that's the argument. Some point to Maine and say that's the kind of economy we would have as an American state, while others think the Americans would have appreciated the value of the port of Halifax and properly developed it into an economic dynamo. It's an argument as old as Canada itself.
Where some in Canada see equalization as welfare for a region that couldn't make it on its own, many here see it as overdue compensation for the years of economic abuse suffered at the hands of Toronto financial interests. We made our sacrifice for the supposed greater good of the country, and now that the country is doing well we're looking for what's owed us.
Again, that's the argument, not necessarily my opinion. Hope that makes it clearer.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:04 AM on March 8, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
(but most people in the Maritimes still feel more affinity to the "Boston states" than we do to central Canada.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:35 AM on March 3, 2005