“England with its American colonies” as an example of overstretching this limit?
Once again, when explaining a historic trend or event in terms of what happened in the US, we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada.
Once again, when explaining a historic trend or event in terms of what happened in the US, we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada.
I don't think Canada would've stayed british without the loyalist escaping here, since they made it an inherent part of their identity to not revolt against the british as opposed to the americans they left behind. But agreed, there are too many exceptions in general to the article's point.
As opposed to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
That meant that the early history of english canada was very deeply influenced by an almost identity defining loyalism to britain, because those refugees often left everything behind in the US to stay loyal the crown. In a way, being british was the entire point of early anglocanadian identity.
I think that makes it pretty different from Australia, a penal colony and South Africa which was conquered more than colonized (and was very hard to hold on for the british). I was more trying to explain why Canada was an outlier in the Americas, and how Britain managed to hold it very easily for so long, even with a free population and little direct military occupation.
Isn’t the point of the month rule that it’s hard to maintain a loyal population at that distance? So this amounts to saying ‘well the rule doesn’t apply to Canada because the rule doesn’t account for Canada’.
Right. So it’s a bit of a rubbish rule then?
A century is a pretty long time for your argument about the beliefs of some individuals to stay valid.
The loyalists shaped the relationship Canada had with britain, and while I'd guess even their descendants were a minority (relative to immigrants) by the mid 19th century, it still defined Canadian identity even to this day. If Canada hadn't seen that initial influx of usually rich, upper class loyalists that became the founding stock of upper canadian politics/elite, we might have had a very, very different outcome. One that is more in line with most other colonies in the New World.
Secondly, Canada is something of an imperial power unto itself. There are countless stories of armies marching under the crown violently clashing with nations that existed on the continent prior to European colonization. Likewise, even other European descended colonist as well as the Métis were subjugated by British rule as the Anglophone powers expanded across the continent (e.g. Queen Anne's War, Red River Rebellion, and Fenian raids). Gaining the ability to exploit the natural resources that these other nations and colonies held.
The crown was a convenient way to gain both legitimacy from the British loyalists who settled in Canadian territory and a reliable trading partner to receive resources from in the British Canadian bids for expansion. Compared to the US, who used democratic rule to gain its own legitimacy; and who's natural resources were abundant enough to be a valuable trading partner.
Is it though? England did lose Canada to home-rule. In fact, I contend that a major reason why a newly independent (but also broke and fledgling) Canada was not annexed by the US was mainly because of the American preoccupation with civil war and Reconstruction, and the diplomatic efforts of John A. Macdonald.
In another thread, I also made an argument for another major mitigating factor with respect to Americas, namely, the native populations were wiped out by old-world diseases which prevented local rebellions from succeeding and allowed Europeans to establish large population centers.
To which the existence of British colonies in Canada after 1776 is kind of a direct rejoinder, right? The eventual loss of those colonies is irrelevant to the point that you can’t explain the American revolution as being an inevitable consequence of remoteness.
If the territory is fully pacified with no significant resistance and/or it's run by dedicated loyalists with plentiful local resources the limit doesn't apply.
Basically an empire can only retain territory against an active threat or resistance within certain limits. If there is no active threat, or the threat is too minor to be a concern, the territory can be considered stable and fully colonised.
The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.
(#) Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities of Africans across the ocean to enslave, but could have just done that with the locals.
That's all I meant to clarify. You'd be surprised how many people today actually think that the native population was wiped out through deliberate and intentional action. Your wording made it seem you believed that as well, but that seemed to not be the case.
>Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities
That's a caricature.
Canada intentionally withheld food it owed to natives as part of treaty agreements, with the understanding that if a bunch of people starved to death, Canada wouldn't need to send as much food.
Similarly, disease was spread intentionally through small pox blankets, with the intention listed
(Not saying this is the right perspective, but I understand why people would argue for it, especially when using ahistorical lens of today's diseases handling)
So I think a mitigating factor for US, Canada, Australia was that the local native population was wiped out by old-world diseases, so there was minimal capability for local population to rebel. This is also the major factor of why those nations' population is largely made-up of the descendent of the colonists. Contrast that with Africa, which suffered from similar attempts at colonialism, was much closer to Europe, but because its native population was not susceptible to European diseases (and in fact, the colonists were decimated by native diseases like malaria), Africa today has a tiny number of colonial descendants (around 5 million European descendants out of a population of ~1 billion)
The population of pre-colonized North America was on the order of 60 million (European population was on the order of ~70 million). Had that population been maintained (i.e. not wiped out by old-world diseases), there was zero chance of European powers being able to establish large colonial populations. In that scenario, once the technological advantage was removed (due to trade, for example), I think you would have seen successful native rebellions.
I would say South America also follows this pattern. No chance of the Spanish being able to establish large colonial populations or maintain hold over native South American populations had they been not wiped out by old-world diseases.