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

[frankfrank]

I have to say that it grieves me that Britain didn't force the issue of retaining the Indiana territories and Ohio.....just think all the people in those areas would have universal health care and homo marriage by now.

Would Michigan also be part of Canada, now, if this had happened? And I was born in Michigan. I COULD HAVE BEEN BORN CANADIAN, but I wasn't. Dammit.

Wait, Canadians are people?!

Yes, but they're mutants. On South Park, the entire top of their heads become disconnected when they talk, unlike the Americans whose heads stay intact with a moving mouth.

The South held onto slavery for so long because of money. The entire economy of the South was based in slavery.

as shocking as it may be, Benvolio is right, there was no way the South was giving it up without a fight

Slavery isn't a racial thing, as much as the fact that those brought into slavery were mostly "unaffiliated" with any nation-state or colony.

Europeans had confined themselves to trading mainly along the coast. Inland the trade in slaves and commodities was handled by African and Arab merchants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section11.shtml

Therefore there were few or no Parliaments, or congresses, Presidents, Kings, bureaucracies, etc. to deal with in the areas where slaves came from - allowing the slavery nations such as the United States (and others) to go there and easily "harvest" people as though they were crops, and take them across the Atlantic.

It was the most convenient way to find slaves, because Africa was relatively close, and the populations were large. South America had already been largely colonised, therefore not many places where there were "unaffiliated" people who could simply be herded without accountability. Likewise with Asia (and of course Europe), there were very few areas which didn't fall under some sort of national or extra-national jurisdiction. Africa was the only major part of the world which was largely not ruled by nations, neither locally nor from offshore (i.e. colonial rule).

Therefore, it's merely a historical and geographical "accident" that international slave trade involved Black people; if the world had developed differently it could have instead been people from what is now called Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh...or Venezuela...or...

I also don't think there was a large enough population density in South America that would have been "suitable for harvest" anyway, if the area had still been largely under local/tribal rule as in Africa.

And even if there had been a lot of "unaffiliated" people (subjects of no nation) available for harvest in southern or eastern Asia, shipping would have been very difficult if even sustainable at all. Remember there was no Panama Canal, no Suez Canal, and the United States did not yet have transcontinental railroads to easily bring hordes of manpower via the West Coast yet - let alone that the United States didn't even own the west until the 1800's.

Of course, if there had been a large pool of potential slaves in Central or South America that were not claimed by any nation, rather than Spain and Portugal already claiming nearly everywhere and everybody there, slavery in the United States could have just as easily been aboriginal people instead of Black. Indeed early colonisation was more robust in the tropics than in what would become the United States, which I think was regarded mostly a "backwater" by Spain, etc.

Accident or not, the history of slavery is every bit as real and stark as anything can possibly be. And the models of slavery in the U. S. only imitated the previous histories of slavery elsewhere, which goes back through all of recorded history, and probably earlier.

 

[Alnitak]

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.

It doesn't matter what reason, without the votes in congress you don't get what you want.

 

[Rickrock]

I'm a little bit into history so I am finding this thread interesting.

 

[TX-Beau]

It doesn't matter what reason, without the votes in congress you don't get what you want.

So the fuck what? There was no United States in 1789, there was no congress, and if:

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.

(emphasis mine)

Canada had participated in the constitutional convention and IF they insisted that abolition of slavery be part of the constitution (HUGE assumption on your part) The South very definitively would have had a choice, they would simply not have signed - and there would have been fuck all Canada could have done about it. In case you've forgotten, the reason the Articles of Confederation didn't work was because the central government was a bad joke that couldn't even pay it's own bills, let alone force anyone to do anything. Canada and the "North" according to your assumption would have outlawed slavery in the new constitution, the south would have walked, and the history of the US would be entirely different.

In NO event does the inclusion of Canada to anything force anyone to do anything else. Period.

What you've asserted is a lot of supposition based on your modern interpretation of political context and understanding, that bears little resemblance to what was going on 2 centuries ago.

 

[Alnitak]

So the fuck what? There was no United States in 1789, there was no congress,

There was, the House first reached a quorum on April 1, 1789, and actually there were three in the prior two years,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Consitutional_Convention_of_1787#Constitutional_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

but ok... before your shout and curse you might want to fact check

and it could have happened any time between then and 1863.

In NO event does the inclusion of Canada to anything force anyone to do anything else. Period.

Well you're wrong because it takes a voting majority in Congress to effect the law. That was true in 1789, and it's true now. With Canada, the votes would have been there to outlaw slavery before the Civil War.

The South very definitively would have had a choice, they would simply not have signed -

Wrong again, the Constitution went into effect in 1788 with the signatures of nine states. Rhode Island didn't even ratify it until 1790 but were still bound by the laws passed by the 1st Congress.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh please, you asserted that Canada and the North would have included abolition of slavery in the Constitution which would have "forced" the South to give it up - which is silly, because the South never would have signed any such document.

All the rest if that is you trying to recover from a silly premise.

 

[Alnitak]

Oh please, you asserted that Canada and the North would have included abolition of slavery in the Constitution which would have "forced" the South to give it up - which is silly, because the South never would have signed any such document.

Again, the Constitution went into effect without the signatures of four states, Rhode Island being one of them.

 

[TX-Beau]

Silly is silly no matter how much you try to nitpick.

 

[Alnitak]

Silly is silly no matter how much you try to nitpick.

Except you just said the Southern states couldn't be forced into the Constitution, when four states actually were.

 

[TX-Beau]

IF all the South had decided to go it's own way no Union.

- - - Updated - - -

Or do you think that New England was going to go to war to stop them in 1789?

Please.

 

[Alnitak]

IF all the South had decided to go it's own way no Union.

- - - Updated - - -

Of do you think that New England was going to go to war to stop them in 1789?

Please.

The South of 1789 was not the South of 1860. It literally had nothing, no major harbors other than Charleston, and no industry whatsoever. The disparity, as great as it was in 1860, was even more so in 1789. The South would not have had a choice.

 

[TX-Beau]

We've entered whatever territory, you are determined to say that the empty, powerless South had no choice if only Canada!!!!!!! Please. Who wrote the declaration of Independence? A Southerner. Who was the first president? A Southerner, 6 of the First 10 Presidents were Southerners, strange for such and empty and powerless place.

And ultimately the South said a big fuck you to Congress and it took five years of carnage to put the Union back together again.

But whatever, you seem to be determined to have your revision of history, probably because it makes you feel smug. So be it, I've gotten bored.

 

[Alnitak]

We've entered whatever territory, you are determined to say that the empty, powerless South had no choice if only Canada!!!!!!! Please.

Yes, it would have tipped the balance enormously to have an additional five Northern states.

Who wrote the declaration of Independence? A Southerner.

Strange isn't it? Given their proclivity for slavery. Oh, and the Declaration of Independence was not a constitution.

Who was the first president? A Southerner, 6 of the First 10 Presidents were Southerners, strange for such and empty and powerless place.

Of course Canada wasn't actually part of the American revolution.

And ultimately the South said a big fuck you to Congress and it took five years of carnage to put the Union back together again.

Yeah in 1860, not in 1789.

But whatever, you seem to be determined to have your revision of history, probably because it makes you feel smug. So be it, I've gotten bored.

Interesting how I brought facts to the table, while you brought a temper.

 

[Kulindahr]

Canadian provinces were invited to the First Continental Congress. Had they participated in the war, the United States would be absolutely enormous and unshakably liberal. Slavery would have also ended much sooner.

I've always thought it sad that they didn't join in. It would be fun to have an alternate history where they had -- I've pondered whether that might have been enough to prevent the Civil War.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well you're wrong because it takes a voting majority in Congress to effect the law. That was true in 1789, and it's true now. With Canada, the votes would have been there to outlaw slavery before the Civil War.

The votes would have been there in Congress to start the Civil War, is the reality, if that vote had been to outlaw slavery, Even with Canadian provinces as states in the Union, ending slavery would have had to be done by whittling away at it, not all at once.

 

[Kulindahr]

The South of 1789 was not the South of 1860. It literally had nothing, no major harbors other than Charleston, and no industry whatsoever. The disparity, as great as it was in 1860, was even more so in 1789. The South would not have had a choice.

The South would have had just as much choice as they did in history as it played out: there would have been no united colonies standing against Great Britain, and if the rest waited until after that war to impose abolition, the South would have walked.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah in 1860, not in 1789.

The South was ready to walk in 1775 -- fifteen years would not have made them change their minds. Any time until Britain had actually done away with slavery, they would have preferred to go back to London than submit to an abolitionist Washington.

 

[Alnitak]

The South would have had just as much choice as they did in history as it played out: there would have been no united colonies standing against Great Britain, and if the rest waited until after that war to impose abolition, the South would have walked.

The remaining anti-federalist states quickly figured out that they had no choice and ratifying the Constitution was inevitable...

 

[Kulindahr]

The remaining anti-federalist states quickly figured out that they had no choice and ratifying the Constitution was inevitable...

They ratified a constitution that put off the civil war for their generation. Had they been presented with one that contained abolition, they would not have signed -- they would have formed their own country. They would have done that if Jefferson had not backed down with his Declaration, and would have done so at whatever point abolition was put into law.

If the force of law would have been so binding as you suggest, there never would have been a Civil War at all. The reality is that it was only put off so long because the North compromised over and over in order to keep the dream of independence alive.

 

[Alnitak]

They ratified a constitution that put off the civil war for their generation. Had they been presented with one that contained abolition, they would not have signed -- they would have formed their own country. They would have done that if Jefferson had not backed down with his Declaration, and would have done so at whatever point abolition was put into law.

If the force of law would have been so binding as you suggest, there never would have been a Civil War at all. The reality is that it was only put off so long because the North compromised over and over in order to keep the dream of independence alive.

I would have liked to have seen the South try in 1789. No allies, no industry, no ports...