![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldWhile thinking earlier today about the situation of Russia and Ukraine, my thoughts turned to North American history. It seems to be generally true that Russian public opinion, and Russian policymakers, find it difficult to imagine a Ukraine that might exist independently of Russia, a Ukraine that might make its own decisions and join alliances without Russia. This, in turn, is connected to Russian skepticism that a separate Ukrainian ethnicity actually exists. Talk of said, whether in Ukraine never mind inside Russia, seems to be one of the many things that Russian official language would define as "fascist". Putin said in 2007 that Ukraine was not a real country, after all.
Was this really so different from the situation between the United States and the future Canada? After the War of American Independence, many Americans confidently imagined that the British North American colonies would soon be part of the American union. The British North American colonies' series was an American desire during the War of 1812, and throughout the 19th century many Americans seem to have believed that the poorer, more conservative British North American colonies would inevitable fall into the American orbit. (To be fair, a not-inconsiderable number of British North Americans, not only of American descent, agreed with this.) Prominent public support for the annexation of Canada could be voiced as late as the early 20th century, when statements in favour of annexing Canada ended up determining the outcome of the 1911 Canadian election.
The pro-integration Liberals lost that election.
The point of this analogy is that, eventually, Americans stopped caring so much about Canada being part of their country. I think I'm correct in suspecting Americans wouldn't mind, but that they just don't see the pressing need. What of Russia? I only hope it won't take more than a century for recognition of Ukrainian distinctiveness and rightful statehood to become accepted.
Thoughts, criticisms?
Was this really so different from the situation between the United States and the future Canada? After the War of American Independence, many Americans confidently imagined that the British North American colonies would soon be part of the American union. The British North American colonies' series was an American desire during the War of 1812, and throughout the 19th century many Americans seem to have believed that the poorer, more conservative British North American colonies would inevitable fall into the American orbit. (To be fair, a not-inconsiderable number of British North Americans, not only of American descent, agreed with this.) Prominent public support for the annexation of Canada could be voiced as late as the early 20th century, when statements in favour of annexing Canada ended up determining the outcome of the 1911 Canadian election.
The Democratic Speaker of the American House of Representatives Champ Clark declared on the floor of the House that: "I look forward to the time when the American flag will fly over every square foot of British North America up to the North Pole. The people of Canada are of our blood and language". Clark went on to suggest in his speech that reciprocity agreement was the first step towards the end of Canada, a speech that was greeted with "prolonged applause" according to the Congressional Record. The Washington Post reported that: "Evidently, then, the Democrats generally approved of Mr. Clark's annexation sentiments and voted for the reciprocity bill because, among other things, it improves the prospect of annexation". The Chicago Tribunal in an editorial condemned Clark, warned that Clark's speech might had fatally damaged the reciprocity agreement in Canada and stated: "He lets his imagination run wild like a Missouri mule on a rampage. Remarks about the absorption of one country by another grate harshly on the ears of the smaller".
Then Republican Congressman William Bennett of New York, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee introduced a resolution asking the Taft administration to begin talks with Britain on how the United States might best annex Canada. Taft rejected the proposal, and asked the committee to take a vote on the resolution (which only Bennett voted for), but the Conservatives now had more ammunition. Since Bennett, a strong protectionist, had been an opponent of the reciprocity agreement, the Canadian historian Chantal Allen suggested that Bennett had introduced his resolution with the aim of inflaming Canadian opinion against the reciprocity agreement. Clark's speech that provoked massive outrage in Canada, and was taken by many Canadians as confirming the Conservative charge that the reciprocity agreement would result in American annexation of Canada. The Washington Post noted that the effect of Clark's speech and Bennett's resolution in Canada had "roused the opponents of reciprocity in and out of Parliament to the highest pitch of excitement they have yet reached". The Montreal Daily Star, English Canada's most widely read newspaper which until then had supported the Liberals and reciprocity now did a volte-face and turned against the reciprocity agreement. In an editorial, the Star wrote: "None of us realized the inward meaning of the shrewdly framed offer of the long headed American government when we first saw it. It was as cunning a trap as ever laid. The master bargainers of Washington have not lost their skill."
The pro-integration Liberals lost that election.
The point of this analogy is that, eventually, Americans stopped caring so much about Canada being part of their country. I think I'm correct in suspecting Americans wouldn't mind, but that they just don't see the pressing need. What of Russia? I only hope it won't take more than a century for recognition of Ukrainian distinctiveness and rightful statehood to become accepted.
Thoughts, criticisms?
