The Federal Election And The U.S. Factor: Part Three

Posted on Tuesday, June 22 at 08:56 by Robin Mathews
His new, pretended moderation is no surprise. It is, in fact, historical. A constant characteristic of annexationist forces in Canada is recognition of the need to deceive Canadians about plans for the country. In the early 1880s when Goldwin Smith, Augustus Wiman, Richard Cartwright and a very large body of U.S. politicians, media moguls, and capitalists designed the end of Canadian independence [“deep integration” was then called Commercial Union], they made a false move. Wiman sent a newspaper letter from New York acknowledging that Commercial Union would result in political union. Canadians showed alarm. Ever after – in their drive towards annexation – the Commercial Unionists insisted the policy had nothing to do with annexation or Canada’s integration into the U.S.A. Incidentally, Wiman founded the renowned New York Canadian Club, very largely as a platform from which to preach Commercial Union. The Commercial Union advocates spent nearly a decade fighting for their cause. Wherever the Liberal spokesperson Goldwin Smith went in Ontario, Conservative Colonel George Denison and his supporters followed. They printed tens of thousands of informed denunciations of the Commercial Unionists and distributed them widely. The Commercial Unionists were watched carefully and were fraudulently supported by the White House and U.S. key government officials. As the 1891 election (a Commercial Union election) approached, the U.S. Secretary of State let it be known to John A. Macdonald’s government that the U.S. wanted trade talks. Macdonald’s people began meetings, though the U.S. insisted they were not “formal” and must remain secret. Then on the eve of the election top U.S. officials had an “informal but important” meeting with lifelong, self-described annexationist and a Globe editor Edward Farrer about Canada/U.S. trade. And the U.S. publicized that meeting. The election began. U.S. spokespeople flatly denied having had any meetings with Macdonald’s people about trade. The intention was to convince Canadians the Liberal, Commercial Union annexationists were open, flexible, and friendly; the Macdonald Conservatives were rigid and unbending. `Historian Donald Creighton records that the U.S. Secretary of State James Blaine had involved himself with Macdonald’s people “while he proceeded with complete impunity to double-cross them” (p. 554, The Old Chieftain). John A. Macdonald knew, at 76 years old, he was in the election of his life, an election to preserve Canada’s independence. That is why he made the famous statement: “A British subject I was born – a British subject I will die”. There was no Canadian citizenship at the time, and so John A. was saying in the only way he could that he would NOT be a U.S. citizen but would preserve his Canadian identity. He went on to call the Liberal plans and the activities of Edward Farrer “veiled treason”. At the height of the election – almost as if happening in a spy thriller – a worker in the Globe printshop smuggled out to John A. Macdonald’s supporters some pages from a secret pamphlet written by Edward Farrer. The secret pamphlet was intended for select top U.S. officials, instructing them in detail how to bring Canada to its knees so that it would accept Commercial Union, and annexation. (In the last months of Jean Chretien’s time in power, Brian Mulroney helped advise U.S. officials. It is said, also, that he has advised Stephen Harper in the lead-up to the present election. Mulroney is merely continuing the Edward Farrer role.) John A. Macdonald reported Farrer’s document at a major campaign meeting, claiming “a deliberate conspiracy, by force, by fraud, or by both, to force Canada into the American union”. The election went to the Conservatives and the drive for Commercial Union was over. The Liberals lay low until they had a handsome, debonair, elegant Liberal Prime Minister in power, Wilfred Laurier. Then they tried again for “deep integration”, this time calling it “Reciprocity”. But Laurier was defeated in the storied 1911 election, giving Canada time to build in order to complete independence in 1931 with the Westminster Act. Many believed the push for annexation was finally over. But they did not take full account of U.S. greed and the greed of some Canadians who believe they might be richer and more powerful as part of the U.S.A. Canada was hit very hard by the Great Depression of the 1930s. From there it was hurried into the Second World War in which Canada gave up too much to the U.S.A., hoping to get U.S. support for the war effort. After that war, the Cold War (significantly set in motion by the U.S. and Britain) aerved to pressure Canada, more and more, to give up independence to the U.S. in armaments, defense planning, intelligence and police cooperation, integration of military equipment and training … and more. Indeed, the cancellation and destruction of the Avro Arrow project in 1959 occurred very directly because the U.S. wanted Canada subordinate in air power and had no intention of purchasing the most advanced aircraft in the world from Canada. U.S. refusal to purchase guaranteed the failure of the project, as U.S. government intended. The greatest blow to Canadian independence was delivered by Brian Mulroney who made a pact with separatists in order to gain power. He brought in – eagerly – the Free Trade Agreement that has made Canada subject to U.S. trade laws at many levels of operation, and has opened Canada to unresisting economic takeover. The huge irony of the Agreement is that the U.S. accepts it only when convenient to its own policy. In the softwood lumber conflict, just for instance, the U.S. has lost over and over in tests of its own trade laws. It ignores the rulings completely and uses its sheer power to punish Canadian softwood operators – with impunity. Canadian government takes no action whatever in response to U.S. violation of the Agreement and of Canadian workers and enterprise. Mulroney made the initial Free Trade agreement on October 5, 1987, though a hard-fought election had to follow in 1989. In his bid for office in 1983, Mulroney had said: “Don’t talk to me about free trade. The issue was decided in 1911. Free trade is a danger to Canadian sovereignty”. Edward Farrer was more honest. If all Canadians knew even the brief history I’ve unfolded here – and the endless deceptions of the annexationists, they would make short shrift of Stephen Harper and his “moderate” Canadian Alliance masking as a “Conservative” party. The election is being fought hard. Canada must have a Liberal/NDP victory if it is to survive. If it does not have that victory, it may discover the Harper forces will turn out to fit John A. Macdonald’s phrase, as people engaging in “veiled treason”. Canadians may see them deliver most of Canada to the U.S. and turn what is left into such a disagreeable imitation of U.S. society that difference between the two countries will disappear.

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:26 pm
    Canadians don't know their own history.

    The other night, I was watching the CPAC phone-in show in which I participated, and one of the callers said they liked harris because he kept his promises.

    He did what he said he'd do.

    About mulroney, this person said he ran FOR free trade and won, then implemeted it like he said he'd do.

    Obviously this person likes mulroney and harris. Go figure !

    The truth is, mulroney ran AGAINST free trade, and only after he was elected did it come slithering over the horizon, as mentioned in the article above.

    This kind of information is damaging in a call-in show because I believe most Canadians don't know the issues, and apparently don't know the history as well.

    I sincerely hope people see thru harper and his backers, mulroney and harris.



    ---
    "Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
    Jim Callaghan
    Minden, Ontario
    705-286-1860
    www.misterc.ca

  2. Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:51 pm
    I shudder every time people talk of the US as our "closest allies", when it truth they have been trying to take over Canada, either overtly or covertly, since the dawn of time.

  3. Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:36 pm
    You don't live here, so we'll take your comments with a grain of salt Mike. Perhaps MikeyMike should have phrased his statement a little different.<p> The American people are not our 'enemy' (more like adversary), souless, heartless Corporations are. And have you never heard of the War of 1812? When the US tried to invade Canada, and we had to lay a good beat down on you?<p> American or Forgien corporations are taking over our country. I have to pay a British company for the natural gas I use to heat my home, and the gas is taken from the ground not 5km from my home! I have to pay American oil companies for the refined gasoline that comes out of the ground even closer to my home. The stores I shop at are slowly being taken over by American companies, even the place I work has been.<p> Your economy and ours are very tightly interwoven. When your's fails, so will ours. So if we're sucking on your economy so tightly, why do we have a trade surplys every month for the last couple years, while your is in defecit? Don't kid yourself, we see what's going on, and we don't like it.<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
    "The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

  4. Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:43 pm
    interesting point of view. please spell out exactly how you feel we are "back-stabbing", exactly. Because we didn't join your illegal war? As for the excessive taxation, it's a total myth, not true at all. Read the CCPA's excellent article <a href="http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/taxmyths.pdf">Ten Tax Myths</a>

  5. by avatar Jesse
    Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:49 pm
    parent post deleted.

    ---
    Jesse

  6. Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:55 pm
    John Deifenbaker invoked the "Montreal Merchants" in his election campaigns. They're the ones who wrote the infamous "Annexation Manifesto" in 1840. Harper's words show just how clean the surgery was that removed the Red Tories from Deif's old party. <p> Still, there is great hope. A Globe and Mail poll put Tory support at 28% today. Since the right-wing has so narrowed its appeal by purging the progressive element, I believe they will never get beyond 30% support in the future. This means 70% of the electorate will support centre, centre-left parties. Once we get pro rep, we'll never have to worry about people like Harper ever again. <p> The future's so bright, I have to wear shades...

  7. Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:28 pm
    Hello action-jackson. I agree for the most part that the future is bright...it looks like a Liberal-NDP coalition could be a reality. If the NDP does well enough, the coalition could stave off the Bloq and conservative manure we're facing......we simply need to get the word out about our history--and the internet appears to be the cheapest way to do that.

    A leader could really use the net to his/her advantage, if they cared about our history.

  8. Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:44 pm
    Yeah, that's what makes a Canadian leader great. You had Deif thinking back all the way to 1840. Even Jean Chretien, whom we don't think of as a thoughtful man, reached back into Canadian history when he needed to. <p> I remember in the debates over Iraq Chretien invoked the memories of Arthur Meighn, a leader of the Conservatives who coined the phrase "Ready, Aye, Ready" in regards to supporting Great Britain's imperial ambitions. Chretien was able to invoke that whole strain of Canadians opposing blind obedience to the big powers. He won the debate. <p> In time of need, like Iraq, the historical memory always saves us.

  9. Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:31 pm
    I watched harper on CBC last night, and is he ever smooth. His "real" platform is still a mystery to me.

    He ducks so fast you don't even see him do it.

    Peter Mansbridge was pinning him down as well as he could, but even he couldn't get harper to tell the truth.

    I was hoping beyond hope that someone would ask the question regarding the BoC, but, alas, it didn't happen.

    I always bring it up when I call into CPAC call-in shows.

    If I ever get face to face with a politician, my first comment will be "Answer the question Yes or No", and if they don't, I'll make a really big deal out of it.

    Everyone in the room will know who I am when I leave the place.

    That's me.


    ---
    "Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
    Jim Callaghan
    Minden, Ontario
    705-286-1860
    www.misterc.ca

  10. by hoopoe
    Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:26 pm
    I would like to say I was shocked that Mulroney would be advising the US government on how to deal with the Canadian government when Chretien was in power, but then again everything that I read about Mulroney points to him as nothing but a traitor to Canada.

    When you talk about Canadians being ignorant of their own history it is not only that from 70 to 100 years ago that they don't know but more importantly they don't even know about or understand events that have occurred within their lifetimes. In particular, the FTA with the US signed by Mulroney was a travesty. If someone really wants to understand how this agreement came about and understand how Canada got taken for a ride (in my opinion willingly by Mulroney) they should read Linda McQuaig's book The Quick and the Dead. For instance, Simon Reisman, Canada's chief negotiator for the deal, actually advised Mulroney to reject the deal because the Americans would not budge on issues important to Canada and because the deal would be so disadvantageous to Canada. Mulroney's solution: Fire Reisman and send in Pat Carney and other know-nothings to give in to all the AMericans' demands and sign the deal.

    This is the man that the PCs had speak at their convention (to everyone's praise but Orchard's people), the new conservative party had speak at their convention, and by what I hear is advising Harper at present.

    This deal absolutely should be abrogated. The NDP said that they would but then backed off and now the only party I know of who has the courage to do this is the Canadian Action Party (CPA).

  11. Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:23 am
    Hi Dr. Caleb, it's Hans Krampe here.

    Actually, it's not corporations who are the root problem. They are just the heavy artillery of domination and control. At the root (or rather the top of the heap) are the controllers of corporate activities, the principal investers, i.e. financial institutions. In other words, BANKS and international financiers are the cold-hearted, avaricious bastards raising your hackles. You find their representatives comfortably ensconced within the IMF and the World Bank.

    They have managed, piecemeal and over time by every kind of criminal method, to legalize counterfeiting and establish it as their lawful prerogative, worldwide. Our debts are their profits, extorted by way of taxation.

    THOSE WHO CONTROL THE MONEY SUPPLY CONTROL THE WORLD.

    I agree with the last post below: The Canadian Action Party is the only one advocating the use of the Bank of Canada for the creation of interest free and debt free Canadian currency and the abrogation of the FTA and NAFTA, among others.

    In other words, it's the only party in Canada, under the leadership of Connie Fogal, widow of recently deceased Vancouver labour lawyer Harry Rankin, who categorically opposes U.S. annexation designs not just with rethoric but with serious and doable programs.

    As usual, the mainstream media (including the CBC) wouldn't give something THAT Canadian the time of day. They like it to remain little known and obscure, perhaps because it's just a tad too "anti-american".



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news