Interesting colonial map - I never knew the extent of French territiory in North America (c. 1750)

[darden]

With Canada in Congress, the South would never have had a voice and slavery probably would have been outlawed in the Constitution.

would the South have actually accepted that, though? or rebelled against the Northern states and allied with England?

 

[Alnitak]

would the South have actually accepted that, though? or rebelled against the Northern states and allied with England?

Canada consisted of at least five provinces by 1789, so the South wouldn't have had a choice. Remember at that time the interior was barely settled unlike in 1860. There was nothing substantial west of the Piedmont. No way did the South have the territory, population, or resources to mount such a campaign, and as futile as it was in 1860, it would have been even more so at that time. The Southern colonies very much resented British rule, although to a lesser degree than New England. The British lost the colonies fair and square, so it wouldn't have mattered what they wanted to do after a national government was formed even under the Articles.

 

[palbert]

Canada consisted of at least five provinces by 1789, so the South wouldn't have had a choice. Remember at that time the interior was barely settled unlike in 1860. There was nothing substantial west of the Piedmont. No way did the South have the territory, population, or resources to mount such a campaign, and as futile as it was in 1860, it would have been even more so at that time. The Southern colonies very much resented British rule, although to a lesser degree than New England. The British lost the colonies fair and square, so it wouldn't have mattered what they wanted to do after a national government was formed even under the Articles.

What if the Canadians were counted only as 3/5ths persons?

 

[darden]

What if the Canadians were counted only as 3/5ths persons?

the funny thing about the 3/5ths compromise is that it was the southern states pushing for their slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of congressional delegate allocation (the northern states didn't want them counted whatsoever)

I guess it would have been fair turnabout for the Southerns to push for only counting Canadians are partial people too

 

[Rolyo85]

Wait, Canadians are people?!

 

[Alnitak]

the funny thing about the 3/5ths compromise is that it was the southern states pushing for their slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of congressional delegate allocation (the northern states didn't want them counted whatsoever)

I guess it would have been fair turnabout for the Southerns to push for only counting Canadians are partial people too

They might not have approved if slavery in the North but they were very much racist as was Lincoln.

 

[Benvolio]

With Canada in Congress, the South would never have had a voice and slavery probably would have been outlawed in the Constitution.

Wrong. The states preexisted the Constitution. They formed the Federal government. The Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution or joined the Union if it had freed the slaves. Any attempt to coerce them would have been a civil war.

 

[Benvolio]

the funny thing about the 3/5ths compromise is that it was the southern states pushing for their slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of congressional delegate allocation (the northern states didn't want them counted whatsoever)

I guess it would have been fair turnabout for the Southerns to push for only counting Canadians are partial people too

The North did not want to count slaves, since the Southern states did not allow them to vote. The 3/5 count was a compromise.

 

[Alnitak]

Wrong. The states preexisted the Constitution. They formed the Federal government. The Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution or joined the Union if it had freed the slaves. Any attempt to coerce them would have been a civil war.

Wrong. The states agreed to belong to a national government when they signed the Articles of Confederation. If Canada had joined the United States and ratified the Constitution, the South would have had no choice.

 

[Sausy]

The Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation though. it was so that there would be a federal union under the Constitution that the slavery question got kicked down the road.

 

[Benvolio]

The states did not have to join the union or ratify the Constitution. They would not have accepted any attempt to force them to end slavery. It would have taken physical force, I.e., a civil war.

 

[Telstra]

Interesting how the Europeans chopped up native lands LOL

 

[rareboy]

France still has a territorial interest just off Canada.

We were gonna kick the crap out of them, but said 'Excuse me, We're sorry' instead.

The best one was when Turks and Caicos have wanted to join Canada.

 

[maxpowr9]

Interesting how the Europeans chopped up native lands LOL

Mostly the British suck at topography. You can blame them for Kashmir and a few other quandaries [I think the Balkan states as well].

 

[darden]

Mostly the British suck at topography. You can blame them for Kashmir and a few other quandaries [I think the Balkan states as well].

along with most of the problems in the Middle East

sometimes I wish there was a way that we could sit all the major leaders down and allow them to redraw their own borders along cultural/geographic lines.

 

[TX-Beau]

They might not have approved if slavery in the North but they were very much racist as was Lincoln.

First off slavery was pretty important to a lot of Northern interests - who do you think owned the shipping? Slavery was legal in the North until 1820.

If Canada was part of the 1789 union that would not have driven the South into silence or impotence of any kind - it's silly to say such a thing.

 

[TX-Beau]

Interesting how the Europeans chopped up native lands LOL

I was going to mention that all those political partitions didn't mention a single tribe, but then figured it was pointless. This thread is basically a contest of who stole the most.

 

[Alnitak]

First off slavery was pretty important to a lot of Northern interests - who do you think owned the shipping? Slavery was legal in the North until 1820.

If Canada was part of the 1789 union that would not have driven the South into silence or impotence of any kind - it's silly to say such a thing.

I didn't say silence, but I did say impotence. The reason they held slavery out so long was its share of Congress, and when that changed in the 1850s the shit hit the fan.

 

[Benvolio]

I didn't say silence, but I did say impotence. The reason they held slavery out so long was its share of Congress, and when that changed in the 1850s the shit hit the fan.

There was never a time when the South would not have left the union,if necessary to keep slavery, resulting in civil war or peaceful separation.

 

[TX-Beau]

I didn't say silence, but I did say impotence. The reason they held slavery out so long was its share of Congress, and when that changed in the 1850s the shit hit the fan.

The South held onto slavery for so long because of money. The entire economy of the South was based in slavery. There would have been nothing Canada could have done about that, there was nothing the North could have done about it, and as shocking as it may be, Benvolio is right, there was no way the South was giving it up without a fight, NO way.

If losing that war was what had to happen to rid us of that abomination, then it was a war well lost - it was also the war everyone saw coming, and that's why there were so many attempts at compromises that legally enforced slavery.