Canada/US Border Video

Page 1 of 212>
August 20th, 2013 at 6:26:35 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
I think the WoV site has a lot of Canadians, but not sure about Div. Tom.

Anyway, have you seen this video about the border? Pretty good.

http://www.upworthy.com/one-look-at-the-united-states-canada-border-reveals-some-ridiculous-things?g=2&c=bl3
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
August 20th, 2013 at 10:39:22 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: odiousgambit
I think the WoV site has a lot of Canadians, but not sure about Div. Tom.

Anyway, have you seen this video about the border? Pretty good.

http://www.upworthy.com/one-look-at-the-united-states-canada-border-reveals-some-ridiculous-things?g=2&c=bl3


Not seen the video, but knew those oddities (they didn't mention the long running dispute about the border around the San Juan Islands, or near Hadaii Gwai).

I didn't know how wonky the actually border was though.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
August 20th, 2013 at 11:28:23 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: TheCesspit
I didn't know how wonky the actually border was though.


In 1870 populations of all of Canada comparable to the two largest US states
4,382,759 New York
3,625,000 Canada
3,521,951 Pennsylvania

The UK felt that the USA would take over Canada as things settled down after the civil war. Probably they were right as USA had their immediate eye on Vancouver and British Columbia. The British parliament felt that by making Canada a country instead of a territory would protect it from US incursion.
They were correct, but the border still had sticky points.
August 20th, 2013 at 12:34:40 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: Pacomartin
In 1870 populations of all of Canada comparable to the two largest US states
4,382,759 New York
3,625,000 Canada
3,521,951 Pennsylvania

The UK felt that the USA would take over Canada as things settled down after the civil war. Probably they were right as USA had their immediate eye on Vancouver and British Columbia. The British parliament felt that by making Canada a country instead of a territory would protect it from US incursion.
They were correct, but the border still had sticky points.


The wonkyness of the 'straight' part.

The US wouldn't have had an eye on Vancouver in 1870, though, due to it not existing more than Gassy Jack's back woods pub and the mill. Vancouver -Island-, definitely was a target....
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
August 20th, 2013 at 1:01:07 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin


The UK felt that the USA would take over Canada as things settled down after the civil war. Probably they were right as USA had their immediate eye on Vancouver and British Columbia. The British parliament felt that by making Canada a country instead of a territory would protect it from US incursion.
They were correct, but the border still had sticky points.


There was desire to take over Canada as part of the War of 1812. Would have been nice to do, thought we would not have the NHL had we done so.
The President is a fink.
August 20th, 2013 at 1:54:05 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
There was desire to take over Canada as part of the War of 1812. Would have been nice to do, thought we would not have the NHL had we done so.


As soon as Napoleon quit in Europe, there was little chance of it happening.

No-one won the war of the 1812, but Indians/First Nations definitely lost.

Was the same a few years later in the Pig War. The US got the upper hand in the division of the Georgia Strait and the Alaskan Panhandle though. 54'40 or fight failed, though I wonder what would have happened if there had been an independent Cascadia (unlikely given the countries involved).
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
August 20th, 2013 at 2:59:57 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: TheCesspit
As soon as Napoleon quit in Europe, there was little chance of it happening.

No-one won the war of the 1812, but Indians/First Nations definitely lost.


The War of 1812 is rightly called America's Second War of Independence. Neither side could really "win." The Brits wanted to re-colonize the USA, but if they did occupation of even the major cities would have been impossible from a manpower basis alone. If they did, Redcoats that went into the countryside would have done so at their considerable peril.

Chances of ejecting the Brits from Canada would be equally hard for the USA. Even with Canada's far fewer major cities, the USA would not want to take on Quebec and the French there. And occupation and folding in of the population would take many years, all at the same time the Mexicans were a threat to New Orleans and the Indians could still make settling and traveling the frontier most unpleasant.

What we got was 100 years of "friendly competition" that would not end until WWI would set the USA up as the senior partner, though it took WWII for the Brits to finally accept that,

Quote:
Was the same a few years later in the Pig War. The US got the upper hand in the division of the Georgia Strait and the Alaskan Panhandle though. 54'40 or fight failed, though I wonder what would have happened if there had been an independent Cascadia (unlikely given the countries involved).


The USA would never have allowed another independent country. If not for slavery I firmly believe Mexico would have either been absorbed or more annexed after the War of Mexican Aggression. It might have been a "supersized" version of the countries we see in Central America.
The President is a fink.
August 20th, 2013 at 3:52:02 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
The War of 1812 is rightly called America's Second War of Independence. Neither side could really "win." The Brits wanted to re-colonize the USA, but if they did occupation of even the major cities would have been impossible from a manpower basis alone. If they did, Redcoats that went into the countryside would have done so at their considerable peril.


British intentions would have more been to gather favourable terms in any treaty, rather than a recolonization of the US. I disagree it was a war of independence, even if Franklin disagrees with me. Not least, as it was started (with cassus belli) by the US to try and take over Upper Canada, and stop British interference with their growing trade. It was however a war that built two nations to be their own entities (the US much more quickly than Canada), and removed the influence of the British from the US even further. I suspect the British would have tried to keep some territories captured if they'd held onto to them by the Treaty of Ghent, and forced the US to accept a Western border. That may have led to problems further down the line.

It killed the chances of any independent nation state for the Indians, and by that gave the US access to the West.

Quote:
Chances of ejecting the Brits from Canada would be equally hard for the USA. Even with Canada's far fewer major cities, the USA would not want to take on Quebec and the French there. And occupation and folding in of the population would take many years, all at the same time the Mexicans were a threat to New Orleans and the Indians could still make settling and traveling the frontier most unpleasant.


The French were long gone. The Quebecois however weren't. Lower Canada and the Maritimes would have been much harder to control.

Quote:
What we got was 100 years of "friendly competition" that would not end until WWI would set the USA up as the senior partner, though it took WWII for the Brits to finally accept that,


We've just let you think that. ;)

Quote:
The USA would never have allowed another independent country. If not for slavery I firmly believe Mexico would have either been absorbed or more annexed after the War of Mexican Aggression. It might have been a "supersized" version of the countries we see in Central America.


Yeah, I'm not sure it which circumstances Cascadia could of existed. Less western influence by the US, which probably means 1812 didn't work out as it did. Canada's inability to purchase Alaska (the British weren't going to pay for Russian Canada) is also an interesting what if. It's less the US not allowing another independent country, rather than their ability to exert that desire West. They could, they did, and we have what we have today. I just could see Oregon, Washington and BC being a different kettle of fish in other circumstances (sheer numbers of west settlers pretty much set up the Oregon country to be US influenced, the British just couldn't compete).
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
August 20th, 2013 at 5:55:26 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: TheCesspit
I suspect the British would have tried to keep some territories captured if they'd held onto to them by the Treaty of Ghent, and forced the US to accept a Western border. That may have led to problems further down the line.


If the British had won the Battle of New Orleans they would have kept it, probably made it into a Western version of Honk Kong or Singapore. But the message would have clearly been, "we control your access to world markets." In return for that access the USA would have been limited in the armed forces we would have been allowed to have, and Texas may have been independent. It would have been in the British interest to have several western countries.

Quote:
It killed the chances of any independent nation state for the Indians, and by that gave the US access to the West.


An Indian Nation would not have happened no matter what. At best the Civilized Tribes might have gotten some kind of enclave, but their chances of staying united would be uncertain. With the possible exception of the Cherokee, they did not have the structure for a European-style nation-state.



Quote:
Yeah, I'm not sure it which circumstances Cascadia could of existed. Less western influence by the US, which probably means 1812 didn't work out as it did. Canada's inability to purchase Alaska (the British weren't going to pay for Russian Canada) is also an interesting what if. It's less the US not allowing another independent country, rather than their ability to exert that desire West. They could, they did, and we have what we have today. I just could see Oregon, Washington and BC being a different kettle of fish in other circumstances (sheer numbers of west settlers pretty much set up the Oregon country to be US influenced, the British just couldn't compete).


Canada and the Brits had less use for AK than the USA did. The USA bought it in large part to protect maritime access to our west coast. HI completed the package. As long as Canada and Mexico could be kept as minor naval and land powers safety was assured. Enough land was annexed from Mexico to keep them minor for 200 years. After the Great Lakes border was settled Canada had less reason to be aggressive.

Had the USA been able to take all of Oregon Country and then purchase AK it would have really been interesting. Canada would be semi-landocked country, though the gain to the USA would have been minimal.
The President is a fink.
August 21st, 2013 at 12:44:07 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Okay so its a wobbly border with a few really strange wobbles. Its unfortified, highly porous and peaceful. Now if only it could be weather-stripped.
Page 1 of 212>