In 1847, National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser celebrated the acquisition of more than half of Mexican territory with a revealing phrase: “We take nothing with the conquest… Thank God”. A statement that hid a very different reality and that today, analyzing the situation in Canada, takes on a particularly intense meaning.
The constitutional mechanism that allowed that historic annexation, my dear readers, is still valid: and it could be used even today. How seriously should we take the statements of the newly elected US president? (By the way: regardless of the media exaggerations, do you know what he said?1)
The American Expansionist History: Between Reality and Propaganda
It makes me smile how America has always had its own way of describing territorial annexations. History, they say, is written by the victors: and the US version is rather… How to say… Naive.
In the 1848, the President Zachary Taylor proposed to Congress the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to “peacefully acquire” Mexican territories. With a single treaty, The United States acquired the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.
The price? A “modest” check for 15 million dollars for 55% of the Mexican territory. Not a bad real estate deal, don’t you think?
Manifest Destiny: When “Destiny” Rhymes with Expansion
The concept of Manifest Destiny, the belief that U.S. expansion into the Americas was both justified and inevitable, It is an integral part of America's constitutional DNA.
From the Louisiana Purchase Part 1803, which saw the passage of over 827.987 square miles from France to the United States, until the cession of the Marshall Islands from Japan in 1947, this expansionist philosophy has created an interesting pattern: the US never “conquers”, it simply “acquires” or “receives in transfer”. And when they don't acquire, they export democracy, I would say. But that's another story.
When Canada Trembled: The Infamous Red Plan
The “threat” to Canada did not originate with Trump, and above all it has never been just theoretical, even if some strategies seem to have come out of a B-series movie. In 1930, War Department of the United States developed the “Red Plan“, a detailed invasion plan that included the use of poison gas on Halifax (why be subtle when you can be drastic?), followed by the rapid occupation of New Brunswick and the capture of Quebec City, Montreal and Niagara Falls.
Clearly, no one at the Pentagon had considered how to deal with 9 million square kilometers of new hostile territory. Or did they? In fact, the plan was not implemented.
The fact is that Canadian concerns have deep roots. Queen Victoria He chose Ottawa as his capital because he believed it was safe from US invasions. The prime minister John A. Macdonald he was so concerned that during the American Civil War he allowed Confederate spies to hide in Montreal (a move we would today call “strategically questionable”).
The Legal Basis: When the Constitution Becomes Flexible
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. On this basis, in 1898, Congress ratified the treaty of President William McKinley for the annexation of Hawaii. It took 60 years of protests for Hawaii to become a state, which speaks volumes about American patience when it comes to “integrating” new territories.
Of course, expansionist ambitions are not always successful. President Ulysses S. Grant offers in 1870 the annexation of Santo Domingo, thinking it could be a refuge for former slaves fleeing discrimination in the Southern states. Congress rejected the idea, proving that sometimes even imperialism has its limits.
Cuba: When Sugar Is Bitter Than Freedom
The Cuba case is emblematic of American pragmatics. In 1898, the US invaded Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. While it gained sovereignty over almost all of these territories, Cuba remained excluded thanks to the Senator Henry Teller of Colorado.
The reason? It was not so much the noble ideals of autonomy and self-determination, but the prosaic fear that Cuban sugar could ruin the market for American sugar beet producers. As they say, business first, then geopolitics. A strategic mistake that will make history, but let's go back to the land of rangers and the maple leaf, the article needs a conclusion.
Modern Canada: Between Alarmism and Economic Reality
When we hear talk of Canada's annexation today, we should perhaps smile at the dramatic interpretations of the media. As the Professor Robert Huish of Dalhousie University, Congressional representatives must see Canada's annexation as a ridiculous burden, both politically and financially. Indeed, managing a territory the size of Europe, with a proudly independent population and a public health system, may be more of a headache than a trophy.
For this reason, leaving aside Trump's statements (also because the impression is that we will hear them again soon), the real strategy should be based on diplomacy and common sense..
The strength of the Canada-U.S. relationship lies in people-to-people and trade ties. Canadian politicians at all levels must keep the lines of communication open with the U.S. Congress, especially in economically strategic states. After all, it is easier to do business with a friendly neighbor than to manage a rebellious territory. And then, who would really want to take responsibility for managing Toronto's climate?
- The president-elect has threatened to use the “economic strength“, not the military one, to push Canada to become the 51st US state. At a press conference in Florida, Trump criticized the trade deficit with Canada, arguing that the United States does not need to import Canadian products such as cars, lumber and dairy products. He went on to say that the US spends “hundreds of billions” to support Canada and that the border between the two countries is just an “artificial line.” ↩︎
