Two centuries after the War of 1812, the Canadian government sought to commemorate the “fact” that Canada had thwarted the invasion of troops of the American republics to the south. “Two hundred years ago, the United States invaded our territory,” a narrator says over dark images and ominous music in the government’s ad. “But we defended our land; we stood side by side and won the fight for Canada.” However, the New York Times points out that “because Canada did not become a nation until 1867, the War of 1812 was actually a battle between the young United States and Britain.” The fight was not for Canada because the British troops were fighting for the British empire rather than for colonies in what is now Canada.
The British are coming! A British hero in "Upper Canada." rpsc.org
The real question is why the young American empire sought to take on the British empire--an empire within taking on the seat of the larger empire (as if an empire, the United Colonies,being in an empire makes sense and is durable).
The real question is why the young American empire sought to take on the British empire--an empire within taking on the seat of the larger empire (as if an empire, the United Colonies,being in an empire makes sense and is durable).
The other correction that comes with shifting the question to why a young empire would challenge an older and larger one involves the distinction between a colony, state or host kingdom on the one hand and an empire thereof on the other. In the case of the American colonies, a very large one (e.g., Virginia) as well as several of them in an informal group (e.g., New England) and even the United Colonies of North America as a whole were referred to as an empire. By the time of the American independence, the term empire was generally applied on both sides of the Atlantic to both the U.S. (and, hitherto, to The United Colonies) and the British empire. In contrast, the few colonies north of that American “empire within an empire” were not viewed as an empire, but, rather, as a colony (or a few?) of the British empire.
In the context of the meaning of empire as the political unit just above that of many kingdom-level polities (including colonies as such polities) of sufficient scale, a few colonies must surely fall short. Even in the twenty-first century, the amount of usable land and the population of Canada (34 million in 2011—only a few million more than California’s population) is equivalent to one of the large states in the U.S. To be sure, the cultural differences between Quebec and Newfoundland, for instance, are of such magnitude to rival those from province to province in an empire, but the scale and number of Canadian provinces wherein the respective cultures are markedly unique are not sufficient for Canada itself to be considered to be on the empire-level alongside the U.S., E.U., China, India, and Russia (at least not until global warming renders much of Northern Canada habitable such that the population and number of states in Canada increase dramatically).
In the context of the meaning of empire as the political unit just above that of many kingdom-level polities (including colonies as such polities) of sufficient scale, a few colonies must surely fall short. Even in the twenty-first century, the amount of usable land and the population of Canada (34 million in 2011—only a few million more than California’s population) is equivalent to one of the large states in the U.S. To be sure, the cultural differences between Quebec and Newfoundland, for instance, are of such magnitude to rival those from province to province in an empire, but the scale and number of Canadian provinces wherein the respective cultures are markedly unique are not sufficient for Canada itself to be considered to be on the empire-level alongside the U.S., E.U., China, India, and Russia (at least not until global warming renders much of Northern Canada habitable such that the population and number of states in Canada increase dramatically).
Accordingly, the U.S.'s Articles of Confederation allowed for Canada to enter the Union as a state. To be sure, the ten Canadian provinces (and three territories) could join the U.S. as a few medium-sized member-states rather than altogether as one big like California. Either way, it would not be a case of two empires uniting. No European would say that Turkey joining the E.U. would be a merger of two empires. “That would be like Mexico becoming a state in the U.S.,” a European official once put the matter to me. That is to say, the “United States of” Mexico would translate into one big state (or a few smaller ones) rather than as another United States of America.
There is thus a category mistake in the following statement by James Moore, who as minister of Canadian heritage was in charge of the advertising (or propaganda) campaign on the War of 1812. “Canada was invaded, the invasion was repelled and we endured, but we endured in partnership with the United States,” he said. The British Empire was invaded, and the accession of Canada would not be a matter of partnership. To take a few maple leaves and consider them to be commensurate to a branch is to make a category mistake that cannot but lead to erroneous conclusions.
Source:
See also, British Colonies Forge an American Empire, by Skip Worden.
