Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verbiage: Articles of Confederation, Canada becoming a state

Chacham (981) writes | about 9 years ago

User Journal 7

My younger brother pointed out to me that according to The Articles of Confederation Article 11, Canada can become part of the union at will. Other colonies would be voted on, but not Canada.

Strangely enough, they never took up the offer. I wonder why...

EDIT: Here the text:

My younger brother pointed out to me that according to The Articles of Confederation Article 11, Canada can become part of the union at will. Other colonies would be voted on, but not Canada.

Strangely enough, they never took up the offer. I wonder why...

EDIT: Here the text:

Art. 11. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

cancel ×

7 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Still British (1)

Timex (11710) | about 9 years ago | (#13428801)

Canada was still loyal to the crown then. When the American Colonies told King George to pack it with walnuts (and won the war to back up the offer), people still loyal to the crown went north to Canada.

Canada was federated in 1867 (information on Canada Day is available [pch.gc.ca] ), so until that point, I believe, they were still subject to British rule.

Re:Still British (1)

turg (19864) | about 9 years ago | (#13428966)

Well, if you want to be technical, Canada was subject to British rule until the new constitution in 1982. Though, by then it had been effectively independent for quite some time.

And the change that happened in 1982 was that the Queen was no longer the head of state of Canada because she was the monarch of Britain, but she was made the Queen of Canada as an entirely sepererate position from being the head of state of the UK.

Re:Still British (1)

Timex (11710) | about 9 years ago | (#13429405)

Thanks for setting the record straight.

I only know for sure what happens here in the US, and even then, sometimes I'm not so sure.

Re:Still British (1)

Chacham (981) | about 9 years ago | (#13429514)

Thanx for the info.

"Dominion Day". :)

'cept they're no longer in force (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 9 years ago | (#13432147)

While I suspect that the Senate would farily unanimously agree to fold Canada into the Union, Canada hasn't been able to automatically join since the 18th century.

Re:'cept they're no longer in force (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | about 9 years ago | (#13512156)

While I suspect that the Senate would farily unanimously agree to fold Canada into the Union

Oh, I'm sure some red state/blue state B.S. would creep in there.

No doubt Democrats would want all 10 provinces (plus the territories) admitted as individual states, but Republicans would probably want one big state of Canada (or maybe split it into Upper and Lower Canada).

Think about it. Even Alberta, probably Canada's most conservative province, is rather middle-of-the-roadish by American standards, so presumably Canada would lean heavily Democratic. Thus were all 10 provinces added as states, there would be 20 more Dems in the Senate and potentially loads more in the House (even though the House is roughly proportional to population, it still gives each state a slight bonus because of the math).

Thus while I'm sure huge majorities would welcome Canada into the Union, there would be a huge fight over just how to admit them and in what form.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:'cept they're no longer in force (1)

Chacham (981) | about 9 years ago | (#13520696)

As for the Senate, they would probably vote for third-party candidates, as there's no way Democrats and Republicans will properly represent the new voters. Most likely, the current politicians in those areas would become the politickers here. Although overall the lean may be more liberal, i wonder if ultimately they'd add balance by taking power away from the two parties, and have a three to four party ssytem.

As for the House, the number is currently capped at 435, so they be taking away Liberals nearly as much as they add, and they'd only be adding a few given their relatively small numbers.

Just a thought.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>