Should Canada be part of the United States? Maybe that’s a good question to ask Canadians.
If Justin Trudeau has the guts and moxie to throw the gloves down on the ice, all he needs to do is call a referendum!
Just put it on the ballot for Canadian voters to render their verdict on the once-and-future American president’s suggestion the true north strong and free ought to become the 51st state.
For Donald Trump, it would be a lose-lose proposition: If Canadian voters chose continued sovereignty, it’s a black eye for his revanchist bullying. In the wildly unlikely event they voted to join the U.S.A., it would create a block of votes that would ensure Democrats occupy the White House for a generation to come.
Remember, Canada is a country where the idea of becoming American is so popular that even candy stores are named after a woman who helped beat back the American invaders in 1813, and you’ll never meet a Canuck who won’t brag about the Night We Burned Ole DC Down.
What’s more, even Donald Trump doesn’t get a say on whether or not Canada joins the United States. We can join the United States on our own terms any time we want.
I give you the Articles of Confederation, the United States’ first constitution, adopted by the Continental Congress on Nov. 15, 1777.
The Articles set out the “perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,” thereafter to be known as the United States of America. (The 17th Century spacing and capitalization are from the original.)
You can – and should – read it for yourself. But let’s go to Article XI, which says … “Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.”
Now, you may say the Articles of Confederation were supplanted by the U.S. Constitution of 1789. True, but nothing in the Constitution says the Articles have been repealed. Indeed, the Constitution was written and signed by a group of gentlemen who gathered in convention to amend the Articles.
Because the Constitution supersedes the Articles of Confederation, and since it changes almost everything in them, most of the text is arguably irrelevant. But the Constitution did not change the Perpetual Union of the Original 13 plus Canada!
This is important because it means that if we do come knocking at the door and demand immediate admission to the Perpetual Union, we cannot be assigned second-class status, like the unfortunate citizens of Puerto Rico or “American” Samoa.
So if we feel like it, Mr. Trump, we damn well will join, whether you like it or not! No Art of the Deal required.
Now there are those in the United States who might argue the entire document is defunct. And there are those who are bound to claim Canada simply means Quebec. (After all, Alberta and Saskatchewan were in nobody’s atlas in 1777.)
But to them I say, leave that question, should it ever come up, to the United States Supreme Court. If we want in and it rules we’re not, we can just take our molybdenum and our rare earth metals and petition the European Union for membership. With Mr. Trump in the White House, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d be glad to have us sooner than later, even if NATO is defunct, which it probably will be if he’s around for long.
If we don’t want in, it’s of no concern to us what the Articles of Confederation say.
The referendum question should be posed at the same time as the next federal general election.
That would guarantee an historic turnout and concentrate Canadian minds wonderfully on the value of our citizenship, not to mention the risks of electing a government led by the Conservative Party of Canada, which could be just as easily called the American Party of Canada. (Yo! Andrew Scheer!)
Speaking of Conservatives, what’s become of their favourite historical punching bag, poor old Neville Chamberlain, whose memory gets trotted out every time our American Cousins want to invade some unlucky country and start by calling their leader the next Hitler?
Now that Mr. Trump’s looking north for Lebensraum all we hear about Chamberlain and appeasement and Munich is the sound of crickets chirping! Meanwhile, our brave leaders are shufflin’ off to Washington to kiss the Imperial Ass at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 – I mean you, Danielle Smith – or lining up to taste the famous chocolate treat at Mar-a-Lago.
By the way, if the referendum vote unexpectedly goes south, à la Brexit, what the hell? In that case, we’re all going to hell in a handbasket anyway.
On the other hand, if we so decide and enter the Perpetual Union on the terms set out in the Articles of Confederation, we’d join with our heads held high, not like whipped dogs, as Mr. Trump would surely describe us.
As for our American Cousins, they need to remember that if we do decide to join up, we’ll be bringing F🍁CK TRUMP flags, bagpipes, poutine, Theory of a Deadman, and some of the worst coffee on earth.
And they’ll sure as hell know we’re there every time they pledge allegiance to the flag, because once we’re part of the Perpetual Union, they’ll not only have to add a new star to Old Glory, but, as per the Articles, a 14th stripe as well.
In other words, they should be careful what they wish for in case they get it.
And it’s time for us to quit whining and play a rougher game of geopolitical hockey!
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
The problem with Brexit is that there was interference and less-than-honest propaganda to support it. Hence, the debacle that we see.
I would be concerned that there would be finagling if there is a referendum. Not something I would favour. I’ve lived briefly in Texas and the cost of health care alone is enough for me to nix all thought of joining up.
The cost of prisons and jails in the U S is $80.7 Billion per year, according to one estimate. A link to a bunch of articles about various aspects of prison/jail is below. Inequality dictates to a fairly great degree who goes to jail and prison. Going to jail or prison is very costly for families of incarcerated people and results in a much lower lifetime earnings of the person incarcerated, adding to the problems of poverty.
And their firearms laws are insane.
After seeing how public opinion was manipulated before the Brexit referendum, I wouldn’t want to chance it Just my opinion..
Fuck Trump flags?
Can I get a “Fuck UCP & Dani” first?
Then a “Fuck Pollievre” second?
Political comment just got really simple again
I was getting tired of reproving over and over
“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to win an argument with a stupid person.” – Bill Murray
And I will take a “Fuck Trump” flag too.
Yes, perhaps we should have a vote on Trumps modest proposal that is rattling some Canadians. After all, he brought it up and annoyingly it seems he won’t shut up about it now which is irritating even more Canadians.
It is a worrying thing when an older person gets stuck on a idea, so maybe we could help unstick him so he can move on to something else, like Peace in our time in Ukraine. Although isn’t it ironic that the greatest appeasers in history were Conservatives?
A recent unscientific media poll I recently saw put the No, Merci vote at around 85% and I feel that’s about right. We will be having an Federal election soon so this could be a good time to settle this once and for all, just in case the US did not get the message the last time, you know when somehow their White House was burnt down.
After the vote result we can still be nice neighbours to the US. No Merci does not mean we can’t get along. If Donald likes chocolates, I say send him some as a friendship gesture after, Laura Secord’s are quite good.
Send him chocolate from the Syrian chocolate company in Nova Scotia, Peace By Chocolate. We know how much he loves immigrants and refugees so that could be a little dig that we can’t let pass.
I can confirm that at least one person has been mentioning Neville Chamberlain and appeasement on X. The same person posts Quisling’s name and photo these days in relation to Alberta. This is not a bot.
Annoyingly, they seem to think that the next U.S. president should not be allowed to cross the border in June to attend the #G7 in Kananaskis. They won’t let it drop. (But then again, being annoying is the sole purpose of X.) Now a California congressman is questioning the next president’s fitness on the international scene. Just because someone happens to be a president doesn’t mean the next Canadian government should ignore criminal convictions or subversion. Would we grant an exception for Vladimir Putin? Rules are rules. You threaten to burn our house down, we respond by banning you from entering our country like any other nogoodnik.
Well, if it happens despite these concerns, let’s hope the international guests at the G7 receive boxes of Laura Secord chocolates. Perhaps some Hedgehogs for monsieur? Hedgehog diplomacy! We should also provide HEPA filters in all the international guest suites except one. Wildfire season is in full swing in June. One guest thinks budgets for firefighting should be cut. This could be a valuable learning experience. It might also be an idea to ensure that the staff are trained in the matter of handsy guests. Extra security would be welcome in order to ensure that the guests do not leave the compound and escape into civilization. Please don’t let them use the spa.
Speaking of lessons not learned and fires, did you know that the hashtag #1812 is not allowed on X? #Warof1812 is still good to go. Something must be getting under Elon Musk’s pasty, thin skin.
Did someone say Shawinigan handshake? Not yesterday, but Jean Chretien did celebrate his 91st birthday with a remarkable newspaper column and interviews. Take his advice, from one old man to another, Donald. If you don’t, you might have to “walk up Trump Tower with candles” when Quebec turns off your electricity! And to all our federal and provincial leaders, take M. Chrétien’s sage advice and grow a spine. Tell Donald Trump to fix his own borders and stop the flow of illegal weapons (and drugs and people; my ideas) into Canada. Face that bully and drop that puck! Stop being nice. Are we waiting for Greenland to tell Donald Trump to take a walk in the snow?
https://www.politico.eu/article/greenland-prime-minister-mute-b-egede-donald-trump-denmark/
Who was it that said Mr. Trump creates allies for Canada every time he opens his mouth? Right — Jean Chrétien! Now get out there and start aligning yourselves with our allies. Do not delay. Skate!
Oooh. Mr. C. is spicy in this post.
Thanks for writing this, David. It is your “…it would create a block of votes that would ensure Democrats occupy the White House for a generation to come.” comment that just leaves me dumbfounded by all of Trump’s ’51st state’ nonsense. In addition to to the basic electoral math about the electoral college votes math you referred to, I think resentment about being dragged into a new country would also be a strong anti-Republican factor. Given that kids often vote like their parents do, I think the effect would last longer than a generation. Look how long Quebec eschewed voting Conservative after Sir John A hanged Louis Riel.
I do love your referendum idea, however.
Voting like the previous generations is how Alberta got into the mess we’re in. Many rural Albertans are descendants of Republican U.S. immigrants who arrived in the early 20th century. It takes at least four generations for voting habits to change, IMO, and maybe longer for some.
Apropos to all this nationalism is some of the reality of what is actually happening across the globe. Yes, “to hell in a hand-basket” by tying our hands behind our backs while ass-kissing the Orange Julius as some accompany the brown-nosers across the Excited States.
But a simple point within your article creates immediate attention – “our rare earth metals”! The Mountain Pass mine in California is rapidly expanding extraction of rare earths now. But the US mine is only able to produce a commodity called bastnaesite, which contains all the rare earths mixed together. To separate the rare earth elements one from another, the bastnaesite must be shipped to China! Is this the case for Ford’s vaunted ‘Ring of Fire’ wet dreams as well? Who really hold the favoured Ace? [not ‘favored’ which would put my comment into “hate speech” on X – not that I do the twit thing anyway]
You’re not on X here, Bruce. Orange Caligula, more like. You’ve touched on an issue I’ve been nervous about raising this in the blog for fear of unleashing hysteria. To wit: That in 50 to 100 years, China is going to be the principal economic, military and technological power on the plant, probably running the place. This is a matter of personnel, education, economics and philosophy. How closely do we want to tie ourselves to the most likely loser in this geopolitical contest? DJC
Surely the threats to annex Canada and buy Greenland for a greenback are because the U.S. wants to seize the Arctic for the future Polar Silk Road shipping route the CBC has been talking about. This ties into the proposed seizure of the Panama Canal. China and Russia want it, too, so Canada is in a precarious position right now. Some climate change scientists predict the Northwest Passage will be open for shipping year-round by the middle of this century.
Climate change is accelerating. If anyone wonders why nothing is being done to stop it, this it. Certain international powers want the polar ice to melt in order to mine our minerals and pump out our oil and gas. They want that year-round shipping. It will come to pass that money is worth more to the oligarchs than the lives of you and I, or even their own children. Climate change doesn’t care.
The incoming U.S. government must move quickly if they are to beat Russia and China. Those pings heard in the north are not nothing. Whales don’t ping. Canada and Canadians will be collateral damage. It is going to happen. We’ll need intelligent and assertive leaders to wring something out of this for us. Jean Chrétien might argue they need steel spines. That’s what the federal election is about. If you spoil your ballot or vote for someone who is caught up in the political antics of the present, you are throwing away your future and your children’s future. This is NOT a game or a time for childish tantrums. Vote like your life depends on it because it does.
Isn’t that a smoking pile of doom and gloom?
I’ve been thinking along those lines too, over the past few months. That the world is shifting and the West is losing its stranglehold on the global economic fortunes and if we don’t wake up to that, we’ll be standing here with only the problematic USA to commiserate with. Even the French government is already waking up to that reality and has requested permission to participate in the upcoming BRICS meeting.
If it ever came to this I think Quebec* would probably go off on it’s own. I was talking to a Quebec friend the other day and told him that if that ever happened, I might just join them…I’d rather be ‘maitre chez nous’ than being under the jackboot of Washington and the U.S. constitution, with it’s second amendment madness. Besides, having been born in the U.S. I would still have my American citizenship anyway.
*I wonder what Alberta would do…probably be the first to sign the surrender papers, but that would put the lie to the Wexit nonsense. I’ve always said that if Albertans think Ottawa is out of touch with their needs, wait until it’s Washington that calls the shots. I would also think that Newfoundland (not sure about Labrador) would probably go it’s own way, even may petition to join the EU (they are an island that only joined Canada in 1949, so they have that sense of other-ness).
My take on it has always been, if Canada breaks up or joins the U.S.A. the only part of Canada which will still look like Canada is Quebec. I’d brush up on my French and move to Quebec.
If it came to a vote, mine would be NO. I’m not open to open carry gun laws, school shootings, not having our Canadian health care system, corporations being people for election financing rules, a Supreme Court which is too politically arranged, lack of social housing, schools where books are banned, religion of one group only is peddled like snake oil, etc.
Just have to look at the number of people who die each year because they can’t get the health care they need or the abortions they need. One can hardly wait to see what the right in the U.S.A. does next when it comes to women and basic human rights.
As Smith travels to Trump’s inauguration, no doubt she will be treating it like a visit to the shrine of Santa Muerta, complete with crawling. One does wonder what Smith’s ambitions are. Does she want to be Canada’s proconsul? Does she want to be our very own Vidkun Quisling or Philippe Petain, keeping in mind that the former died by firing squad and the latter died in solitary confinement. Leger Marketing polling found that 13 percent of Canadians want to join the U.S. There is a Fifth Column within Canada.
The America Show is really heating up this season!
@djc I presume you have read this? https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2025/01/06/Canada-Join-Trump-US-How-We-Play-It/
We could offer a side deal to Greenland too, after all, we have a large Inuit speaking territory just west of them.
I was just starting to pay attention to politics during the original FTA negotiations; I thought then, and now, it was a bad idea to tie our economy so closely to theirs.
I recognize that some integration is inevitable due to geographic proximity; but shipping east to Europe is not much further than shipping to deep south US or Mexico.
The biggest thing we could do is remove all of our interprovincial barriers. I have read (sorry, no source) we would be looking at a 15% increase in GDP w/o internal barriers?
Gerald: I had some similar thoughts about Greenland in the first draft of this piece, which ran way too long. I think that would be a good way to pull Trump’s chain. DJC
That would be fun! Just put it out there. Trudeau is leaving any how so it makes sense for him to go ahead. Perhaps have a few premiers get in on the fun. Being part of Canada makes so -much more sense than being part of the U.S.A. Greenland has more in common with Canada than the U.S.A., especially when it comes to a social safety net–we will have to beef ours up to meet Greenland’s standards. Of course Greenland is much better off staying with Denmark and Europe–better housing, education, health care, etc. Perhaps we could have a vote on whether Canada wants to join Denmark.
You should consider a whole line of F*CK Trump merch in beautiful NDP orange. Where can I get my flag and bumper sticker?
Let me think about that. What does an F-T flag cost? These might have to be smaller, so they could fit on a Prius. DJC
Or larger to fit on a Cyber Truck.
Albertans, who seem to drift towards ‘Murican wanna-be status more than most other Canadians, should consider that in a single “state” of Canada, their voice in the senate and congress would be even more faint and diluted.
The entire (former) country would only be awarded a paltry 2 seats in the senate or however few seats in Congress they would deign to assign a single entity.
The election of Senate or Congressional candidates would be continually and perpetually skewed even further to those “Eastern” politicians who reside in the major population zones. And do you think that things would be better having 15% representation (or thereabouts, as currently exists), or 15% of 1/51 (>.3%).
Why the 51st state, though, for all of Canada – why not the 51st through 60th? Canada is a large and diverse enough place that the interests of Ontario are vastly different than the interests of Alberta or Nova Scotia, so why would we accept having a single state (and a ). If the “Brexit” scenario happens, why not demand 2 senate seats and population proportional representation in Congress for each province or territory? I’m sure that Queen Dani and other politicians across the country would jump at the chance for a snout in the trough of bribes and corruption that is the US political system. Otherwise Dani, et al, would have to longingly watch the “state legislature” in Toronto from afar.
If we are stupid enough and wimpy enough to vote to join up with the “Great Satan” because we want to avoid getting into the good books of the orange faced schoolyard bully, why not shoot for keeping at least for some of our current standard of living, like health care that you can actually afford? And pensions! Do Albertans who are already worried about their pensions being taken over by Queen Dani and her TBA cohorts really think that the CPP would survive in an absorption of Canada by our southern “friends and neighbors” (yeah, we would also have to start using
Crawford Killian had some interesting ideas about all this in the Tyee
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2025/01/06/Canada-Join-Trump-US-How-We-Play-It/
Personally I would prefer to remain Canadian. I’m hoping that future PM PeePee doesn’t end up selling us down the river for a few dollars worth of trinkets.
H5N1 blankets, too?
OMG, DJ, this is your worst dog’s breakfast of a column ever! More unfiltered than a pubescent boy’s love letter to that cute girl in gym. More convoluted than a UCP argument defending wolverine hunts, luxury lodges and municipal political parties. Where to start?
1. Referendum: can be easily hijacked. Saar 1935.
2. A few years after Laura’s Walk in the Dark, we betrayed our First Nations allies.
3. Arguing over the foundational documents of the USA continues to this day, employing hundreds of poli sci grads. I raise you one Notwithstanding Clause.
4. Hmmm, perhaps you mean Upper and Lower Canada?
5. Joining the EU would require the okay from several Muskian countries like our friends in Hungary.
Finally, on another note, would Peter Rabbitskin be the right leader to defend us? Has Ms. Smith stolen his mojo? Thank you, DJC, for letting me rant. Oh, btw, Three Sisters coffee is fabulous..
Lefty: I’ve been meaning to see what happened to that cute girl in gym. I wonder if she’s on Facebook. Re Point 2, this is a good one. Re point 4, the Articles predate Canada. Lower Canada was so designated in 1791. That is why I said Quebec. DJC
One additional point- joining the EU would be an insanely bad idea. For starters we lose control of our currency , and by extension economy. If you don’t have a sovereign currency you’re basically not a real country.
2. We cede this control to an unelected council of some of the biggest freaks and losers that exist on the planet today.
3. What would we even get for it ? The ability to travel without a passport in Europe ? More “free” trade pacts that don’t benefit workers on either side ? Surely no security guarantees, they’re on the other side of the ocean.
Point three is something that would pertain to the United States as well, uh huge chunks of “Canada” are unceded territory, a distinction that is supported under international law. If Canada has a future, it’s indigenous; and I have a hard time believing any of those folks want to be European or American. I believe it’s fairly likely they would resist as an organized block from coast to coast as well; and it would be a muuuuuuch more difficult fight than one proffered by any of us settlers.
Back in my daze of idiocy in the RPC, there was a cadre of misfits (yun’ins) who wanted Canada (or Alberta) to join the US. This movement got its proof that life would be better by none other than Ted (Still Dead) Byfield. He wrote a column where he declared that Alberta, and the rest of Western Canada, would get a much better arrangement by joining the US. Among the many buckets of manna from heaven that would naturally fall in the waiting arms of every Albertan, was the reality that Christians are Jesus rule America. Okay. I recall that Byfield (and every denizen from Alberta Report) were Christian Nationalists before it became weirdly fashionable. Now, there are now many young hipster men raging about not being able to get a date, with the hot babes they really want, they are turning to their “Theo Bros” and demanding Gilead in America is their only hope for the Taliban family life they’ve been dreaming of. And more trips to Las Vegas, of course.
These young RPC bumpkins spent all their time raging on the Usenet about their hopes for Canada to be conquered by the US and gaining the benefits of being able to buy more stuff with that awesome US Dollar. Oh, and more Jesus and nukes.
Everyone was warned this was coming, and here we are…
Thank you to Max Fawcett for pointing this out in Canada’s National Observer.
“According to a Leger poll from December, 13 per cent of Canadians would like to see their country become the 51st state, as Trump has repeatedly suggested. The highest levels of disloyalty are among PPC supporters (25 per cent), the Conservative Party of Canada (21 per cent) and Albertans (19 per cent). If you can’t see the Venn diagram here, allow me to spell it out more clearly. Among Canadians, nobody is more enthusiastic about abandoning their country to the United States than Conservative Albertans.”
Alberta conservatives are like Americans, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who haven’t made it yet. Bedlam and calamity are for other people, I am blessed and ascendant. Jesus will pay this mortgage and truck payment for me , and if I collapse under my debt burden, it’s Trudeaus (or the CCP) fault.
At some point in our lives the American dollar will no longer be the reserve currency of the world and its purchasing power will shrink accordingly.
If Canada wanted to become the United States we should have done so in the interwar period and got in when it was still good, why on earth would we want to tie ourselves to a drowning empire ?
I’ll tell you one thing, if I was a business guy I’d be learning Mandarin or Russian.
I think Elizabeth May’s suggestion that the West Coast, Vermont, and Maine join Canada is much more salutary – we need more socially democratic parliamentary democracies in North America not less. Not, as you say, that the referendum is likely to be successful. If I may be so bold as to emulate Pogo:
https://youtu.be/9uf6EY2BZBw?si=Xu5EjKMVEpDV3b8h
AMF: We should all emulate POGO. DJC
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the history lesson. Of note is the absence of an invitation to Nova Scotia, or Acadia (NS, NB and PEI now). Which is odd because of the 15 British colonies in mainland America 14 had rebellions. Only Quebec (Canada then) remained loyal, primarily because of the American colonies stated aim to eradicate the Catholic Church in North Amercia. The Nova Scotia rebellion was small, but failed, partially due to the size of the garrison in Halifax, and partially because they got no support from the other 13 colonies. And still didn’t, given the Articles of Constitution.
But I don’t think Canada should tie itself to a dying regime. I have thought over the years that when this came to be the USA would split, and like Ms. May I’ve thought many of the States might want to join Canada, while the more radical States would become a new confederacy.
We do indeed live in intersting times.
Paul: The year I graduated from high school, “dissident” (in the language of Western propaganda at the time) Andrei Alekseevich Amalri wrote a book called ” Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984.” He only lived to 1980, so he didn’t get to see how close he came to nailing it. He chose 1984, he told someone, not because of the title of Geroge Orwell’s dystopian novel, but because it was 15 years in the future as he was working on the manuscript, and that’s about how long he figured the mighty republics would ever endure, to borrow a line from the Hymn of the Soviet Union. In the event, it managed to hang on for another six years. I think by about, say, 2025, someone could write a book called “Will the United States Survive Until 2040” and have a pretty good chance of getting it right. I frequently look at right-wing sites from the Benighted States and I’ve noticed lately a lot of talk lately demanding the the U.S. federal government not help California with its ongoing climate-change catastrophe, or even break the state into five smaller states that would be easier to manage and control. (There is no talk of doing the same thing to Texas, of course.) CalExit is waiting in the wings, I suspect, to become a real political movement, and TexExit won’t be far behind. That’ll put the multi- in polar for sure. Interesting times indeed.
I believe the right of Texas to divide into 5 states in the future was part of the deal that brought the Independent Country of Texas into the Union, and was unique. I doubt it would apply to California, and beside, if they want to go that route Putin might want to reclaim his part of the state that was settled as part of Imperial Russia. Oh, and Alaska.
A note on my previous post. The invitation to Canada (Quebec) was made after the attempted invasion failed, and before the insurrection in Nova Scotia, but I think the Founding Fathers just saw no need for the maritimes, or imagined if they controlled the St. Lawrence in Quebec they would control the interior of the continent and didn’t need to worry about Halifax, it would eventually become theirs.
British Columbia is so called because the treaty 49th parallel separates the upper reaches of of the Columbia River in the Britain’s Crown Colony from the Oregon Territory when it ceded the lower reaches to the USA in 1848; the lower part might have been called “American Columbia” but Americans’ habit of confederating smaller states divided the Territory, first when Oregon and Washington Territories were separated in 1853; the remainder of (now) Washington Territory covering all of present-day Idaho and parts of Montana until the state of Oregon was confederated in 1859 (when the part that became western Wyoming was joined onto Washington Territory. Thence Washington and Montana were confederated in 1889, Idho and Wyoming in 1890. I suspect the practical logistics of establishing effective state administrations as fast as US-style fevered democracies wanted them in the horse-and-buggy era precluded large federates. But of course politicians also saw opportunity for partisan advantage—particularly for land-owning, the status symbol everywhere in Greater Anglo-Saxony—and inflicted much corruption, gerrymandering territorial boundaries, rigging presidential elections with the Electoral College, and double-dealing treaties with indigenous nations. Yet Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, was skeptical about federalism—he just couldn’t think of a better way to administer a continental-sized country. He reserved his opinion about a federally organized state by qualifying, “…if you can keep it.”
The matter is arcane for most—meaning tRump is definitely ignorant in the whole. He neither knows nor cares that equality of federates is sacrosanct in a federation—unlike confederacies which may admit some confederates under different terms of union that others—which is more how tRump views the USA as composed of two kinds of federates: Red and Blue States, the latter ‘deserving nothing’ in the Orange One’s transactional mind because their Electoral College delegates didn’t vote for him. Although for completely different reasons, tRump’s bifurcation disturbingly reminds of the USA’s greatest failure, the
British Columbia is so called because the treaty 49th parallel separated the upper reaches of of the Columbia River in the Britain’s Crown Colony from the Oregon Territory when it ceded the lower reaches to the USA in 1848; the lower part might have been called “American Columbia” but Americans’ habit of confederating smaller states divided the Territory, first when Oregon and Washington Territories were separated in 1853; the remainder of (now) Washington Territory covering all of present-day Idaho and parts of Montana until the state of Oregon was confederated in 1859 (when the part that became western Wyoming was joined onto Washington Territory). Thence Washington and Montana were confederated in 1889, Idaho and Wyoming in 1890. From one Territory to all of three states and parts of two more.
Practical logistics of establishing effective state administrations— as fast as fevered local US democracies wanted them in the horse-and-buggy era—precluded geographically large federates. But of course US politicians also saw opportunity for partisan advantage—particularly for a land-owning “class,” a status symbol everywhere in Greater Anglo-Saxony—and inflicted much corruption, gerrymandering of territorial boundaries, biasing presidential elections with the Electoral College, and double-dealing treaties with indigenous nations. Yet Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, was skeptical about federalism—he just couldn’t think of a better way to administer a continental-sized country. He reserved his opinion about a federally organized state by qualifying, “…if you can keep it.”
The matter is arcane for most—meaning tRump is altogether ignorant. He neither knows nor cares that equality of federates is sacrosanct in a federation(unlike confederacies which may admit some confederates under different terms of union that others) which is more how tRump views the USA: composed of Red States and Blue States, the latter ‘deserving nothing’ in the Orange One’s transactional mind because their Electoral College delegates didn’t vote for him. Although for different reasons, tRump’s bifurcation disturbingly reminds of the USA’s greatest failure, the Civil War, itself a bifurcation along the lines of slave and anti-slave states instead of MAGA-or-not. Thus tRump hasn’t a clue what is entailed in any notion of confederating the second largest sovereign jurisdiction in the world. Just call Justin a governor and, poof!—a 51st US state? (I’m reminded that tRump bragged he would have prevented the Civil War with a “perfect” phone call, but later expressed astonishment at the carnage of that tragedy—“Wow! Wow!! [like, wow!—who knew?]” he said, as if just apprised what actually happened.)
Has tRump ever driven a great distance anywhere, or is his perception of distance gleaned only from looking out his jetliner’s window? Does he understand how big Canada is? He talks as if Canada would be a single 51st state, but even with modern transport and communications, no single jurisdiction that big can be practically administered. Somebody outta ask the Orange-Goo-Tanned ignoramus what he means. (I could tell him, for example, that it’s really big: I must have walked, altogether, across western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan while trying to hitch a ride, and THAT’s a long way—just that little ribbon of Canada!)
Canada has 10 federates to the US’s 5o—and 40% of Canada’s area isn’ even confederated yet (the 3 Territories). Like in all New World Euro-colonial states evolved from continental-size claims, “founding fathers” had no historical example of federations: they were all emigres from unitary kingdoms. They made federations up according to their circumstances and needs. Proto-colonial North American settlements of the late 16th and early 17th centuries extended jurisdictional claims inland only as far as practical communication with East Coast ports would allow in the horse-and-buggy era; hence Atlantic states and provinces evolved from colonies are relatively small.
The Continental Interiors were divided more on maps than on the ground and therefore into huge parcels like Louisiana Territory, Rupert’s Land, and the Northwest Territories; naturally these were subdivided as settlers moved in. Canada’s subdivisions were notably much larger than the US’s, reflecting the hurry the young Dominion was in to, first, secure Pacific tidewater after its original confederation before the US got it (the Oregon Treaty and sale of Alaska Panhandle suggested UK was losing interest in the remote Pacific Northwest and that the US was interested in acquiring the whole Coast, contiguously from Alaska to California) and, second, to settle the in-between as quickly as possible.
The motive was, naturally, to defend Canada from its southern neighbour which had attacked British North America in 1775 and 1812-14, and tacitly allowed Irish republican “Fenians” to launch terrorists raids into colonial Canada from bases in the USA (an Irish-republican sympathizer assassinated Canadian Father of Confederation, D’arcy McGee, as he returned home from the House of Commons in 1868) and whiskey-traders to trespass into Canadian Prairies; “Manifest Destiny” was raised again after Civil War guns and soldiers were idled in 1865, prompting Canada’s 1867 confederation; and again when Canadian troops had to deploy against the 1885 Northwest Rebellion in present-day Saskatchewan through the USA, prompting US war-hawks to wonder out loud whether a country that couldn’t deploy in its own territory should be allowed to exist. If many Canadians don’t know this, guaranteed tRump doesn’t, either, the difference being that he doesn’t really care anyway. If the man-boy could add together the French and English relationships with the 13 Colonies, he’s see a consistently healthy wariness lasting over 400 years to this very day. Guaranteed all he sees is politicians and news media running around, freaking out about some pretty easy insults. He doesn’t care bout 400 years.
I’m not only confident that 20% of Canadians dislike the USA, I’m pretty sure it’s actually 20% of EACH Canadian. Still, my better half doesn’t approve of a referendum to illustrate these facts. (But, honey, tRump doesn’t care anyway…). I tend to agree with her that we don’t want to encourage domestic partisan differences—especially not now at the height of rhetorical partisan hyperbole in the electoral cycle—when our intent should be to show patriotic unity. On the other hand, any civilized or legal confederation of anywhere or anyplace with the USA (as I understand DJC’s interpretation of the US documents, that’s how it has to happen—tRump’s ignorance of this notwithstanding) would require ratification of all Canada’s provincial and federal parliaments. That could happen with reference to the electorate (or the elected parliamentarians of those parliaments could represent their respective constituents in this regard without a referendum).
I can’t imagine it, but I suppose it’s possible ulteriorly motivated agencies could fabricate a nearly “tied” referendum result to rig a 0ne-point win (presuming it requires a simple, 50%+1 threshold and not a supermajority). However, that would leave the new US “state”—or 100 “states” or whatever—with a significant proportion of Canadian loyalists operating freely and indiscernibly among the general population—a native fifth-column, as ‘t were. And that would leave tRump with too many hostile factions in the new US of NA to handle. Not that tRump knows or cares about history, but aside from Canadian colonials violently beating back American invaders in 1775 and 1812-14, violent domestic insurrections have happened in Canada too. Yes, 1837 (Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions) was a long time ago, so too the Red River and Northwest Rebellions (1875, 1885, respectively), but the 1970 FLQ Crisis should remind that resort to political violence is not unheard of from us “friendly” Canadians. If someone read Jean Chrétien’s G&M missive to tRump, it’s a wonder if he understands that even a 91-year-old is ready to come down to MAGA Logo for an arm-wrestle, or maybe a good ole eye-blacking.
Most ordinary people recognize tRump is posturing—in his usual, boorish way—and that he obviously doesn’t understand or care to understand what the ramifications of his threats are. Rather he’s focused on showing his base the “American First” ethos—by which he means, “White Americans from Ted States First.” Most of us understand that his intended posture as “fortress America” (for which his strategic pea-brain figures it needs Greenland, Canada and Panama—which has its logic— on a kid’s board-game) cannot much threaten the outside world while he’s busy fomenting division and, ultimately, weakness inside his own country.
How scary is his sabre-rattling when he tries to impress foreign adversaries by hauling off and sucker-punching his trusty best friend standing loyally beside him? How seriously can he be taken now when he brags that America First can go it alone, without NATO, without friends, allies and trading partners? He’s drawing a line around what he thinks makes a geographical fortress America, and daring anyone to cross it as he demonstrates his resolve to the world by attacking his own people, neighbours and vital strategic and economic allies. What, other than geography, does one need to have to forfeit world hegemony, already in the hand, in exchange for provoked enemies within and surrounding the American Fatherland? A Sharpie, maybe?
It’s getting time to inject a little funditry into the punditry. One day we’ll have a good laugh at how twisted we got our knickers in 2025.