70 years later, not 90. The British North American colonies achieved responsible government by 1848 onwards.
Colonial arrangements of the original U.S./Canada sort were suited to mercantilism, not industrial capitalism. Britain by the 1840s was more interested in free trade than traditional colonies. One example of how that worked: British industrialists wanted cheap wheat to lower the cost of living and thus wages. That meant competition and free trade, not protected trade with colonies such as Canada. There was no longer a need for that colonial relationship, and why get stuck defending a worthless colony? Better to hive it off.
Why did Britain give up Canada?
Have you ever tasted Canadian beer?
My recollection from Canadian history - after the revolution, the English government cracked down on the freedoms that allowed self-government to flourish and evolve to the degree that Americans became uppity and demanded even more self-government. However, that led to the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in 1837. It was that repeat of history that taught the British that they could not micromanage colonies, and they resolved to allow gradual self-direction in their colonies.
The step of Confederation, where the Canadian colonies got together to form Canada, was an initiative of the local politicians. Americans had often expressed their “manifest destiny” to take over the whole of North America. The final land rushes across the American plains were set to fill the states (terriritories) and possibly expand north.
The Civil War had been a distraction, but as things wound down and the North was poised to win, the Canadian colonies were looking at a stronger, more militarily capable USA. “Confederation” was the best option to forestall any chance the Americans would pick off the colonies one by one. Remember, Ontario (“Upper Canada”) was populated by a lot of the United Empire Loyalists, who had moved to Canada because they objected to America’s break with Britain - often, then driven out of the new USA by the revolutionary-minded fellow Americans.
Britain went along because a strong self-supporting subject nation, or Dominion, of the Empire meant less effort spent by the British military to defend Canada.
One of the first great undertakings of the new country was to recruit British Columbia on the far coast into the new confederation. To seal the deal, the new Canadian government committed to a transcontinental railroad, the CPR. The land between was barely explored, the surveyors and planners barely stayed ahead of the construction crew; it was a major undertaking, but it allowed Canada to quickly expand and fill the central plains that might otherwise have been occupied by Americans and gone the way of Texas.
The British Empire was decidedly sub-galactic.
Canada is a member of the British commonwealth so is not totally independent. They like Australia, India, New Zealand and 49 other countries have their own political system and elect Members of Parliament (MP) who then choose a Prime Minister, similar to the UK, however still pay homage to the Queen, who decides who will be Governor General of Canada will be. The sticky part of Canada is Province of Quebec where use of the English language is for all practical purposes forbidden. Simple minded individuals have refused to teach their children the most common second language in the world, sentencing them to live in a French speaking area where even the french can’t understand what they say.
The queen they pay homage to is, however, the Queen of Canada. Of course, she happens to be the same person as the Queen of Great Britain, but the position is wholly Canadian.
This is quite the exaggeration of the extent of Quebec’s language laws. While they can be draconian, they certainly fall far short of “forbidding use of the English language”.
Most wide-spread, perhaps, but hardly the largest. The British Empire was only the largest in terms of land area if you count all of North America other than Mexico, most of which Britain never mapped much less exercised dominion over. The same is true of most of Australia and about half of India which was never under acknowledged British rule.
Though perhaps a still-united British Empire could have won the Space Race and fielded Poutine-class Imperial Star Destroyers to secure a new dominion on the moon. Sorey that the deal is getting worse all the time, eh?
No, she doesn’t. She “acts on the advice” of the government of Canada, or in other words simply adds a formal confirmation to what they’ve already decided. There is no political or governmental issue on which the government of Canada’s freedom of choice is restricted (other than by international agreements, like NATO, that they chose to enter into). Same goes for Australia, India and New Zealand and so on/ The Commonwealth is a talking-shop and forum for development co-operation and assistance, and none of its members is there to take orders from any other.
HM is not India’s head of state. It recognizes her as head of the Commonwealth but it is a republic.
Hari, I think your initial question is looking at the issue as too black and white: independent nation or colony, with nothing in between.
Unlike the US, Canada is an evolutionary country, not a revolutionary one.
If you had asked Lord Durham on 1838 or Lord Carnarvon in 1867 if Canada had ceased to be British, they would have said “Of course not! They’re part of the Empire.”
And you’d get the same response on this side of the pond, from Howe, Baldwin and LaFontaine in 1848, and from Macdonald and Cartier in 1867: Canada was part of the British Empire. In fact, Macdonald campaigned in his last election in 1891 on the personal slogan, “A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die.”
The gradual development of self-government in the British North American colonies, and then their union into Canada, was not the creation of an independent country, but an evolutionary development.
The real recognition of Canada’s independence came in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster in 1931. But those steps were not forced on Britain, but rather a recognition that the Dominions had already achieved independence, and the law had to be updated to recognize it.
Canada/Australia/SA all entered WW1 directly, but signed Versailles as separate entities.
They signed as part of the British Empire, not as independent countries. But, as a matter of politics, the “colonials” experience in WWI was fundamental in establishing national identities separate from Britain.
Particularly after the thunderstruck way the different colonials beheld the British generals’ use of their troops…
Yes, I think this is the explanation. It just evolved, but at each step the British government went along. But they didn’t go along with the American attempts at self government.
In another post, the claim was made that the Queen appoints the Governor General. Only on paper and the Queen is the Queen of Canada who is the same as the Queen of England, but doesn’t have to be. Since the Brits passed a new succession law (which changed male primogeniture to ungendered primogeniture) while Canada’s constitution still prescribes male primogeniture, it is conceivable that at some future date, the sovereigns could differ. The current government (although it was defeated yesterday and will go away in a few days, it is still the current government) tried to change it by statute, but was told it would require a constitutional amendment and the 1981 constitution is practically impossible to amend.
It is not illegal to speak English in Quebec. I was a professor at McGill for many years and spoke only English. The real problem is that, unlike most places in the world, the school system is set up to delay teaching of English as long as possible and to teach it as badly as possible, by teachers who are barely competent. The idea seems to be to breed good separitists who will not be able to head to Alberta for jobs.
The same could be said about the teaching of French in Alberta.
Yup. Some 80.000 loyalists who got their shit took when the revolutionaries won picked up sticks and moved Oop Norf, to settle in the then relatively sparsely populated area north of the Great Lakes and west of Quebec.
By the demographic numbers of that era, that’s a HUGE number of people showing up on your doorstep (for reference, 80k represents the 1790 population of Georgia) and they subsequently had quite a weight in politics. They pissed off the Quebecois something fierce, for one thing 
And so it began…
It’s worth remembering why Canada was so valuable in the first place: people thought that beaver-fur hats were incredibly awesome. Once silk hats became more popular, who needs a few acres of snow?
(I’m only half joking.)