It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How come none of the territores that joined Cannada join the US?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
The histories of Cannada and the US are very similar, i have always been curious why no region, other then Alaska, became a part of the United States.

Cannadians have always been potrayed as whiping puck lovers from the north, but it has such vast open forests, at least i belive
i want to visit.

What were some of the diffrence that led to the country of Cannada, independent of its niebhor to the south?




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

posted by TKainZero
The histories of Canada and the US are very similar, I have always been curious why no region, other then Alaska, became a part of the United States. Canadians have always been portrayed as whipping puck lovers from the north, but it has such vast open forests, at least I believe
I want to visit. What were some of the difference that led to the country of Canada, independent of its neighbors to the south?


Good topic, Mr TKO. I’m writing about a topic I know too little about but which holds considerable interest to me. Any native Canadians - or other more scholarly people - please know up front I take no offense at being corrected.

Aside from the obvious climatic differences, there is indeed a lot of similarity between Canada and the United States. After Gen. Wolf conquered Quebec City away from the French, all of Canada was a British colony. The French had been there first in any significant numbers but they were MALE only trappers, hunters and explorers. The British OTOH sent families to the New World to stay. That gave the Brits an advantage over both the French and Spanish when it came push to shove time.

The inhabitants of the original 13 colonies were not unanimous in their feelings toward the British Crown. The colonialists fell into 3 categories, but were not evenly divided, number-wise. One was the Loyalist. They opposed the Revolution. They supported the King. The next was the indifferent. They cared little for either the Brits or the Revolutionaries. The third group was of course the ones who wanted to be FREE of British control. Our Founding Fathers.

When the War was over, the 3rd group took revenge on the 1st group often by mob rule. Thousands of the first group returned to the British Isles. Other thousands moved north to the new colony of Canada. So it is true that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Canada are descendants of former Loyalists or Tories as they are sometimes called. This means there is no or not much love lost between them and us.

There were 2 (and one-half) distinct border disputes with Canada. The first involved New Brunswick, Massachusetts and Maine. It was settled in 1818 when the present borders were agreed to. I do not know which side gained or lost. The one-half of a dispute was a surveyor's disagreement which occurred between New York, New Hampshire and Canada and was resolved by admitting Vermont as the 14th state. 1791.

Q. What do Vermont, Texas and California have in common? See below for answer.

The second and more consequential dispute was the 54 40 or Fight a/k/a the Oregon Country dispute. The land north of California - Mexican territory then - included both Oregon, Washington state and the southern part of British Columbia. The parallel of latitude, 54 degrees, 40 minutes North, is essentially the line at Juneau, Alaska then Russian territory. The US claimed all the territory, from California to the south tip of Alaska. Our claim was based mostly on the Lewis and Clark 1803-1806 expedition, the Corps of Discovery. The British claims were based on the early seafarers like Francis Drake who had sailed into Vancouver harbor in the 16th century.

James K. Polk won the 1844 presidential race claiming 54 40 or Fight but afer taking office he promptly compromised on the 49th parallel, the present boundary line between the US and Canada. I believe the US got the best out of that bargain. But hey, how far was it from Oregon to W-DC, compared to the distance to London?

Alaska was never claimed by the British Crown, to my best knowledge. The Russians were early exploders there and in fact, they still have some territorial rights in Alaska. You can read the 1867 Treaty by going to the Avalon Project at the Yale U. website. Our cost, $7 million to the Czar.

So, basically, that is the short history of the US and Canada. It is of some note that the Americans invaded Canada in 1812 expecting to be welcomed as we expected in Baghdad, but as in Baghdad, we were not welcome. Angered, we burned the capital city of Canada, then named York, now named Toronto. In 1814 it was pay-back time and the Red Coats burned Washington, DC. If you will go to the Avalon Project and get the Articles of Confederation, you will find an article directly related to Canada, which is indicative of our somewhat quaint attitude towards Canadians. See Below.

A. Each state claimed to be an independent republic before being admitted intto the Union.


Below from the Avalon Project
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states . .

Art. I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America"

Art XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining 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.

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 . . "

[edit on 8/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Very good point donwhite, it gives the feeling that they mere more rugged people, haveing to surrvie that climate. It is explained in what you said too with the 49th parrall and why Montana isnt just everything from there to the artic.

That Act XI intrestes me. WHat does that mean. That doesn't put it as a US territory, but it is Cannada within the United States? Since 1777 Cannada has been with the US?

Did Cannada have as large as a Native American popualtion as that as in the great plains? I don't find it likely due to the climate, but this could help also elplain as we killed Native Americans for.... ooohh a few hundred years. I wonder if Act XI could still be used today?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

posted by TKainZero
That Act XI interests me. What does that mean. That doesn't put it as a US territory, but it is Canada within the United States? Since 1777 Canada has been with the US? I wonder if Act XI could still be used today?


I think it meant that the Canadians were invited to join us in a rebellion against the British Crown on equal terms. They declined the offer. The Articles were replaced in 1789 with the NEW Constitution so the offer is no longer on the table.


Did Canada have as large as a Native American population as that as in the great plains? I don't find it likely due to the climate, but this could help also explain as we killed Native Americans for.... ooohh a few hundred years.


Not likely. Estimates of pre-Columbus Native populations vary widely from 3 million to 50 million. I’m talking north of the Rio Grande. I like the 7.5 to 15 million. Canada would be about 1/10th of the US population or somewhere between 750,000 to 1.5 million.

Yes, the Native Americans of all stripes were killed or died of disease so that by 1900 the US Census gave somewhat fewer than 300,000 NAs were alive and well. Their numbers have grown smallish-ly ever since. I am not familiar with Canadian numbers but I think the Canadians use “Native Peoples” for who we call Native Americans.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Just to add to what's been said...

After the War of 1812, there was no further interest by the U.S. in gaining control of any of the British-owned territories to our north, and these area were settled by Canadians moving westward, just like the Oregon and California territories were settled by Americans.

Alaska wasn't British territory, it was owned by the Russians. The United States bought the territory from Russia in 1867.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
So at the Start of the American Revolutionary War the US asked 'Join US against the Brittish', and Cannda was just not going to fight / didn't have the means to fight? And that was it

Also, westward expantion was similar as the went acros the continent, only colinizing at teh great lakes.And after the war of 1812 Cannada has never seen war? I cant think of anytime Cannada has been attacked (check what the Russians are doing, this can change anytime) but if they were it would be the same as an attack on the United States i would think? For instance, if bombs took out several building in Toronto and killed a few thousand people, im sure the US would be there in a second to help Cannada out, and defend them? Im sure we have basses in Alaska that can reach anywhere in a few hours/gun down russian missiles.

Also, i belive that most of the Native peoples would be on the coastal regions as seafood would be a better source of food.

[edit on 8/19/2007 by TKainZero]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

posted by TKainZero
So at the Start of the American Revolutionary War the US asked 'Join US against the British', and Canada was just not going to fight / didn't have the means to fight? And that was it . .


Mr TKainZero, you are now raising a question that has become popular with historians over the past 25-50 years as people reconsider the causes of America’s Revolutionary War. Whereas once we were taught it was because of “taxation without representation” or that it was because of excessive taxes on stamps and tea, or that it was because we were forced to quarter British Red Coats, or that our own founders were so much in love with liberty and democracy that they just could not wait. It now seems to have been a much different set of imperatives that produced July 4, 1776. FYI, the first battles of the American Revolutionary War were fought on April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

The people living in Canada did not share the same economic interests the colonials living in the 13 southern colonies had. For the southern folks, it was more 1) Unhibited acquisition of land, and 2) preservation of a slave society. Today, it seems likely those were the more compelling reasons for the “Sprint of 1776" than any desire for freedom.

The modern assessment of the underlying causation finds that in reality, the colonialists were MORE free and LESS taxed than people living in the British Isles. Although Africans were first sold in Jamestown in 1619, the original “sale” price was treated as an indentured servant. The captain of the ship held a contract for the persons passage. This was the means used by many of the poor of Europe to pay for passage across the Atlantic which was very expensive then. The indenture period - a time of legal obligation to work for another person - varied but was frequently for 7 years. Some were as long as 20 years, but when the “pay back” period ended, the person was “free.” As free as any poor person ever is. Which is another topic.

It was not until the 1680s that the white’s began to treat the blacks as chattel, that is, as property and not as humans subject to a debt for their passage across the Atlantic. Slavery had come to America. Human slavery is at least as old as war and prostitution so this was not a novel concept in 1680. Tobacco was the primary money crop and tobacco is a very labor intensive crop to grow. The growing period begins around the first of April. The tobacco is harvested around the end of August. It is then hung in barns to dry until around January when it is ready to sell and ship. Like human babies, about a 9 months project. I have personally experienced the never-ending task of plucking worms off the tobacco plants during the hot days of July and August. It is vile, hot and tiring work.

Aside: Cotton did not become the major money crop in the south until the 1790s after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin to take the seeds out of the cotton boll. (Frequently spelled and pronounced as “ball.”) By 1860, cotton from America was the single largest export crop and most valuable in the world. It made possible the “industrial revolution” that began in the English cotton mills. End.

[edit on 8/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

After the war of 1812 Canada has never seen war? I cant think of anytime Canada has been attacked (check what the Russians are doing, this can change anytime) but if they were it would be the same as an attack on the United States I would think? For instance, if bombs took out several building in Toronto and killed a few thousand people, im sure the US would be there in a second to help Calnada out, and defend them? Im sure we have basses in Alaska that can reach anywhere in a few hours/gun down Russian missiles. Also, I believe that most of the Native peoples would be on the coastal regions as seafood would be a better source of food.


Well Mr TKainZero, back in the good old days - 1940s-1960s - we had first the Pine Tree Line and then the DEW Line, Distant Early Warning. The first down near the US-Canada border but the second up into the middle of Canada. These were a series of ground radar sites connected to nearby air bases equipped first with F89s - look’em up on Google - CF100s, then F102s and ending with F106s. All radars were aimed across the North Pole at the Soviet Union.

We also “played” with a missile defense system known as Nike-Zeus. More a boondoggle for defense contractors than a real anti-missile defense. Not unlike Reagan's "dream" of Star Wars. And B43's own SDI. We gave up Nike-Zeus as part of the ABM Treaty that was very important. The same treaty which the US under Bush43 unilaterally abrogated. That act is of very dubious constitutionality by the way. Yet another Gonzales thing to undo in 2009.

As much as Gen. LeMay wished for it, the USSR never developed a long range bomber fleet. We finally closed those obsolete bases. Canada then joined the US at Cheyenne Mountain with NORAD. North American Air Defense Command. Half the staff is Canadian, half American.

In 2007, I don’t think the Canadians would want George Bush helping out anywhere, anytime. Canadians cannot imagine a circumstance so bad as to ask George Bush for help. Any Canadian government that asked Bush43 for help would FALL in 30 minutes! We’ve never had a designated president before B43; if there is a GOD in Heaven, I ask Him to never do it to us again despite our evil inclinations!

[edit on 8/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Something that hasn't been mentioned, but played a huge part in why Canada (or what would become Canada) didn't join the American Revolution, is the Quebec Act of 1774.


In 1774 the English Parliament passed the Quebec Act. This was the first important milestone in the constitutional history of British Canada. Under its terms the boundaries of Quebec were extended as far as the Ohio River valley. The Roman Catholic church was recognized by the Quebec Act, and its right to collect tithes was confirmed. Also of enduring importance was the establishment of the French civil law to govern the relations of Canadian subjects in their business and other day-to-day relations with each other. British criminal law was imposed in all matters having to do with public law and order and offenses for which the punishment might be fine, imprisonment, or in some cases death. These imaginative gestures on the part of the English government won the admiration of the religious leaders in Quebec and to a large extent the goodwill of the people themselves.

The same Act was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:


For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies


Obviously, there were many factors that come in to play, but the Quebec Act was critical in my opinion. It was demonized thoroughly in the southern colonies, leaving the French-speaking population feeling rather insulted and loathe to join any group that wanted to 'un-Frenchify' them. Quebecois are kind of funny that way - they want to speak French, be Catholic and use French civil law.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

posted by Duzey
Something that hasn't been mentioned, but played a huge part in why Canada (or what would become Canada) didn't join the American Revolution, is the Quebec Act of 1774. Obviously, there were many factors that come in to play, but the Quebec Act was critical in my opinion. It was demonized thoroughly in the southern colonies, leaving the French-speaking population feeling rather insulted and loathe to join any group that wanted to 'un-Frenchify' them. Québécois are kind of funny that way - they want to speak French, be Catholic and use French civil law.


A technical point, Duzey. Does not the Quebec Act of 1774 pre-date the French Civil Law which I attribute to Napoleon well after the 1789-1792 French Revolution?

I assume in 1774 the majority of the population of Canada was French or of French extraction. By granting a “special status” to the French it served to undercut the yet to come offer of equal status to Canada in Article XI of the 1777 Articles of Confederation. A pre-emptive strike by the English Crown, covering its northern (left?) flank. I also expect the 1774 grant of privileged status to the Catholic Church was very much tongue in cheek. The territory south to the Ohio River later became our Northwest Territory which turned the Crown's move into an empty gesture.

Early psy-ops!

[edit on 8/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Yes, the Quebec Act predates Napoleonic Code. At that time, the French were using Coutume de Paris.

It was definitely a pre-emptive move on the part of the Crown to keep any unhappy Quebecois from supporting unrest in the southern colonies. The majority of the population was French (around 80%) and the special status of the RCC within Quebec was (and still is) extremely important to them. Until the Quebec Act came into being, Catholics were prevented from holding public office unless they renounced their faith and swore an oath as a Protestant.

The French have been a driving force in Canadian politics and history since before there was a Canada.




[edit on 19-8-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I just thought of another thing that hasn't been mentioned - The Hudson's Bay Company. They basically owned half of the land that was to become Canada and for all intents and purposes they were the government and law in those areas. They had been granted a monopoly by the Crown (think East India Company) and didn't want that messed up with a new goverment.


They dealt primarily in furs, and were perfectly happy selling everything to Britian which meant that the issue of restricted access to markets wasn't the same problem in Canada as it was in the US.

TKainZero, thanks for this thread!



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Very intresting, and thanks for the responses.

The Hudson Bay Company was cannada pretty much, and had a Fur Trade Monoploly for almost 200 years, seems though it was run by the French, and for the most Part the Freanch seemed to take the profits too, it was only in 1870 could entrrpuners make a profit, this also may have led to a reluctence to join thier niegbors in the south.

What a wonderfull country, in steand of a history of wars and violence, that of Cannada is one of just wondering around hunting/tradeing and exploring the unknown country, sounds wonderful.

On a side note, if Russia keeps 'claiming' parts of Northern America, i am sure the US would get involed



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Q. What resource is becoming more critical in the western half of the US every day? Oil? Not really.

A. WATER? Right-on!

Crazy as it may sound, Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the US. Ranked #29. And it is totally say again, totally dependant on Hoover Dam and Lake Mead for its survival! Every look at those magnificent tourist attracting fountains in the NEW Las Vegas? They claim they re-cycle the water but they don’t tell you how much water evaporates and is lost in mist every day! They want you to FEEL GOOD. And gamble your heart out. Crazy.

Phoenix. The 6th largest city in America. It is also growing by leaps and bounds. Tucson AZ is #32. Mesa AZ is #41. Where do all those people now living in the desert get their water? From deep wells, going down into a smallish aquifer. What the heck’s a “aquifer?” An aquifer is a porous zine in the ground that has a clay bottom to hold water, and sands above it to hold water. The greatest aquifer in the world is the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer serving small parts of MN, IN and MO. It serves 98% of IA and over half of WI and IL. capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/alphabetical.html

Two problems with aquifers. 1) Most of the water stored in them came from glacial melt at the end of the last Ice Age. 2) We are withdrawing water 10 times faster than nature can restore it.

Last, the Imperial Valley. Located in a desert, it is the largest single food producing region in America! How come? The Colorado River and the All-American Canal. The American taxpayers have made growers in the Valley among the richest people on the Planet Earth. In return we get about half of the fresh vegetables and fruits we eat. If you are of Mexican descent, the name “All American Canal” is significant to you. It signifies who gets the water! But you knew that already. www.imperialvalley.net/

OK, OK. So what’s this got to do with Canada? Simple. Q. Where are we going to get the water essential to sustain the uninhibited, unrestrained growth in populations in the western states, especially in Nevada and Arizona?

A. The Great Slave Lake. Ninth largest lake in the world. Great Bear Lake. 7th largest lake in the world. In area. Great Slave is larger in volume. Which is what we want! Volumes and volumes of water! From Yellowknife to Phoenix is 2,006 miles. Note: We can’t use the Great Lakes for 2 reasons, 1) They are too polluted, and 2) The people there won’t let us. (It’s about 1,400 miles from Phoenix to Duluth, MN).

So we build a giant trans-Canada pipeline from the area around Yellowknife down to Lake Mead and on over to the area around Phoenix. I can see 6 large pipes side by side, each about 10 feet in diameter, just rushing with water 24/7. 2 going to Nevada, 2 to Arizona and 2 to the Imperial Valley. Hallelujah! Sweet Jesus! Come Quick!

What say you Canucks?

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

posted by Duzey
I just thought of another thing that hasn't been mentioned - The Hudson's Bay Company. They basically owned half of the land that was to become Canada and for all intents and purposes they were the government and law in those areas. They had been granted a monopoly by the Crown (think East India Company) and didn't want that messed up with a new government. They dealt primarily in furs, and were perfectly happy selling everything to Britain which meant that the issue of restricted access to markets wasn't the same problem in Canada as it was in the US. TKainZero, thanks for this thread!


Yes, as in India, The British employed private entrepreneurs. I suppose that was as much due to inadequate numbers of bureaucrats in London as any love affair with Adam Smith? I don’t know how Hudson Bay Company played out with the French trappers. Since the English burned Joan of Arc toward the end of the 100 Years War the French have had it in for the English.

Thanks for posting the map of the Hudson Bay Company’s grant. It looks like the drainage basin for the Hudson Bay. I wonder if that is true, is it based on some ancient rule or law or war that if you control the mouth of a stream of water, you “own” or control all that it drains?

Aside: Kentucky, once part of Virginia, claimed its west boundary was the low water mark on the far side of the Ohio River. That claim was in conformity with the 1607 Grant of James I. Ohio and Indiana sued, wanting the center of the Ohio River as the boundary. The Supreme Court appointed a Master who drew a line about 20 feet out from the far shore, which is now the boundary between Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. This basically sustained the original Grant.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I posted earlier: " . . I don’t know how Hudson Bay Company played out with the French trappers. Since the English burned Joan of Arc [May 30, 1431] toward the end of the 100 Years War the French have had it in for the English."

Q. Mr Duzey. Wikipedia says Joan d'Arc was burned at the stake on orders of Lord Bedford, commanding the English Army in France, on her conviction of heresy. Not of treason, not of rebellion, but of heresy. Now heresy is a very particular charge and would involve testimony what she said or did, as well as testimony from experts on how she had violated some Church dogma or article of faith to be heretical.

Because she was tried and executed in France, I am of the opinion that the judge or judges would have been local bishops? I’m wondering why the British would give a whit about her beliefs or practices? That they wanted her dead is proven by them burning her to death. But who instigated that charge of heresy and who tried the case? Curious.

Do I smell a conspiracy here?

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I would not go so far as a consipiricy, many poeple were exucuted in the middle ages/dark ages for Herasy.

As far as building 1000's of miles fo pipelines, i don't think that should be our first option here. I think that de-salination plants could work. Water could then be pumped from the Pacific, this is how 100& of the water is gotten on some of the smaller islands in the Carriebean, the islands that don't have a source of freash water on the island.

It would have to be the worlds largest and most advanceed de-salination plant in the world, in the middle of the desert. To tell you the truth im just not in favor of taking the freash water from another country, to give water to fols out in the desert. But if Neveda/Arizona taxpayers wanted to do think, they sould, or if a brilliant billionare could do it, and would make a fortune.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

posted by TKainZero
I would not go so far as a conspiracy, many people were executed in the middle ages/dark ages for heresy.


Yes on heresy in the middle ages. But, it was not done in the back rooms of the courthouse. It was an open, public spectacle. Such trials were not only meant to deal with the accused, but to teach a vital lesson to the on-lookers. I feel relatively sure there is a transcript of Joan’s trial. People were well into record keeping in the 15th century. They really did have due process even back then, even if we - Bush43 - deny it to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and our other SECRET prisons.


As far as building 1000's of miles fo pipelines, I don't think that should be our first option here. I think that de-salination plants could work. Water could then be pumped from the Pacific, this is how 100% of the water is gotten on some of the smaller islands in the Caribbean, the islands that don't have a source of fresh water on the island.


Well, it has been done on ships for a 100 years. But it is also the most labor intensive equipment on a ship. In fact, most large ships have TWO such fresh water machines, one to run while the other is being readied to its next cycle. If you’ve seen the movie “Midway” (less than 10 times) you will recall the shrewd trickery we used to confirm the Japanese intentions.


It would have to be the worlds largest and most advanced de-salination plant in the world, in the middle of the desert. To tell you the truth im just not in favor of taking the fresh water from another country, to give water to [fools] out in the desert. But if Nevada/Arizona taxpayers wanted to do think, they should, or if a brilliant billionaire could do it, and would make a fortune.


The only place where de-salination is done on a large scale is in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil kingdoms. It is done there because they get the fuel free! For us who have to pay for heat, it is too costly. I am not familiar with the islands of the Caribbean.


[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
The only place where de-salination is done on a large scale is in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil kingdoms. It is done there because they get the fuel free! For us who have to pay for heat, it is too costly. I am not familiar with the islands of the Caribbean.


I couldn't belive it in the Carribian, the first time i saw the HUGE pile os salt that they poured out of the plant on conveyour belts, my dad told me all about them, cool stuff. But it is relativly small scale, not to mention surrounded by water, ill look into those saudi plants, must be nice to be Floating on oil reserves...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
It looks like the drainage basin for the Hudson Bay.

Very observant, donwhite! That is exactly how the size of the land grant was determined.

reply to post by donwhite
 

Wow two subjects in one.


The two fellows that start the company actually were Frenchmen who had gotten a 'hot tip' from the First Nations people (Native Americans to you). There are differing versions of how they ended up being backed by Britain. One version is that France wouldn't give them any money for a trading post on Hudson's Bay because they wanted to get into farming and out of the exploration and fur trapping business. Then some colonists in what would become the US took them over to England and hooked them up with the big boys.

Another version is that after they returned to Montreal from a very successful expedition, their furs were seized by French officials because they hadn't asked for permission first. After fighting with the French for compensation for a few years, they met up with the colonists in version one of the story.

The honeymoon didn't last too long though; the two switched back to France within five years and Britain got to keep the company.

Now, on to Joan...

The judge was a local bishop named Pierre Cauchon, and he opposed Charles VII. He was involved in getting her turned over (sold) to the English after her capture.

I believe the reason for the heresy charge was to try to use her to discredit Charles. The idea was to turn 'God helped Joan put Charles VII on the throne' to 'the devil did it'. That would put God solidly on the side of England.

Re: water - most people in Canada don't want to become your water provider, but our government (whichever one is in power, doesn't matter) will happily sell it to you in bulk over our objections.


reply to post by TKainZero
 

TKainZero, the secret to Canada having such a peaceful history is due to the fact that we got all our fighting done while we were still British North America.
We are, however, one of only a few countries that changed to democracy and self-rule through negotiation.





[edit on 21-8-2007 by Duzey]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join