An Interesting Border

An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Aug 03, 2014 5:46 pm

Canada and the United States share an interesting border, that much is clear:

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby dans » Aug 03, 2014 8:01 pm

There's also a couple points around the Lake of the Woods like that example on the left. There's also an island in lake Champlain divided like that. There's a town in Vermont and Quebec with a library and opera house where the border passes between the state and seating. Where is that point on the right? Somewhere out west I suppose, a tributary of the Missouri?
Say YES! to Puerto Rico! Tell your Representatives, tell your Senators: "Just 51% for the 51st State!"
User avatar
dans
Supporter
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Aug 29, 2012 11:01 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Aug 03, 2014 8:05 pm

You're right, here's some photos here of the QC/NH border library in Stanstead:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Bayowolf » Aug 04, 2014 11:26 am

Americalex wrote:You're right, here's some photos here of the QC/NH border library in Stanstead:

Actually that should read: "QC/VT border..." as [the southern border of] of rue Canusa [where did they get that catchy name, I wonder] runs along the international border (the 45th Parallel) between Stanstead, QC and Beebe Plain, VT (which is part of the Town of Derby, Vermont); the international border also runs between Stanstead and other parts of the Town of Derby. The "line" between Quebec and New Hampshire appears to be a ridge-line between the basins of the upper Connecticut River and a tributary (the name of which I don't know) of the St. Laurence.
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."
~~George Orwell

"[A] nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
~~John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Aug 04, 2014 11:45 am

My mistake, I had even checked it on Google maps but for some reason the state boundaries are not clearly delimited and I erroneously saw that it was with NH even it seemed awkward even to me. Quebec really has ties with Vermont, NH less so. We get their radio stations up here, I listen to VPR and sometimes the Buzz up here. I really enjoy VPR (liberal-capitalist) but it is stained by too much NPR (liberal-socialist) as part of its broadcasting unfortunately.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Bayowolf » Aug 04, 2014 4:15 pm

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, from Quebec's perspective the ridge line that forms the "inter-State" boundary between Quebec and New Hampshire would be the "Front Range" of the Appalachians; of course from the perspective of Portsmouth or Nashua, NH that range would be the "back range" of the Appalachians.

An interesting thing about Vermont: It's fairly common knowledge that in July 1777 that Vermont unilaterally declared independence from Great Britain. At the same time, it declared independence from the State of New York and appealed to the Continental Congress to be recognized as the 14th State; both the State of New York and the State of New Hampshire objected to this (both States had claims on Vermont and the Congress recognized New York's claim) so Vermont existed as an unrecognized Republic. The interesting part (which I didn't learn about in grade school) was that, in 1780, some of the movers and shakers of Vermont (including Ethan Allen and his brother Ira) approached Frederick Haldimand (who was then the British governor of the Province of Quebec) about admitting Vermont into Quebec. A "reverse annexation", if you will. :lol: As it turned out, of the Vermonters, only the fat cats were interested in this reversed annexation (and even they were half-hearted about it). The people and the legislature were pretty much against it, so negotiations between the fat cats and Haldimand were kept on the down low. Things start falling apart for this venture when the Vermonters got word that Admiral de Grasse defeated the Brits at the Battle of the Chesapeake. This battle also led to the American victory at Yorktown and then...(as the British would say) "Bob's your uncle!" :lol:
With the end of the war, the subject of Vermont's statehood remained stalemated in spite of the basic agreement on boundaries. The urge for statehood subsided for a time in Vermont, as it was not burdened by the debts of the war. (In fact, the Vermont government profited from the sale of the lands seized from Loyalists.) The subject was finally raised again in 1789 when the new United States Constitution came into force. Vermont's leadership was favorably disposed to it, and in the summer of 1789 negotiated terms with New York over their shared border, and agreed to pay $30,000 in compensation for land grants issued by New York.[62] A Vermont convention voted by an overwhelming landslide in favor of a petition for statehood on January 6, 1791. President George Washington presented the petition to the United States Congress on February 9, and signed the passed legislation on February 18, making Vermont the first new state to join the Union formed by the original thirteen. Vermont celebrated its statehood in Rutland on March 8, 1791.[


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haldimand_Affair
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."
~~George Orwell

"[A] nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
~~John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Aug 04, 2014 7:22 pm

Ethan Allen has quite a story when it comes to Quebec and the American revolution.. Aside from having caused it, he also almost single-handedly succeeded in getting Quebec to join the fledgling confederation! The sound capitalist one, before the evil socialists came and imposed their hoodwink of a constitution which was thankfully constrained by the unexpected bill of rights which they were unable to oppose!

Image

Image

Image

Image

One nation, SEPARATED BY FLOWERS:

Image

Anger K-Beckers and Vermonters demonstrating their opposition to the socialist measures:

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Bayowolf » Aug 04, 2014 9:40 pm

Americalex wrote:Ethan Allen has quite a story when it comes to Quebec and the American revolution.. Aside from having caused it, he also almost single-handedly succeeded in getting Quebec to join the fledgling confederation! The sound capitalist one, before the evil socialists came and imposed their hoodwink of a constitution which was thankfully constrained by the unexpected bill of rights which they were unable to oppose!

  • I don't know about Allen starting the Revolution. The British actually started it: In order to defray the cost of the 4th Intercolonial War ("the French and Indian War" to me and "the Seven Years War" to Lord Don-Jam) the Brits decided to impose taxes on the Americans. The Americans didn't like not being consulted on the taxes ("No taxation without representation"). They also felt that the British Government were infringing on their rights as Englishmen.
  • Yeah, he almost got Quebec to join--the old-fashioned way...by invading it in the early summer of 1775.
  • Instead of cajoling the French-Canadians to join the U.S.,[as I explained before] he, his brothers, and some of the other graybacks tried to negotiate Vermont's inclusion in the British Province of Quebec.
  • He may be a "capitalist" but he was really a Humanist...on a scale that would put me to shame (as if...).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen#Publication_of_Reason
  • The "hoodwink of a constitution" is not going anywhere anytime soon (especially since I and some others on this forum have sworn an oath to serve, protect, and defend it). Given this fact, why the fuck do you want to annex Quebec to the United States of America?
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."
~~George Orwell

"[A] nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
~~John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Aug 04, 2014 9:56 pm

Your facts are heavily distorted but I don't have time to get into addressing all of them now, but I will later, none of them strike me as surprises though. The masons tried to stick him with their islamic "deist" tag, to which he didn't really understand why or agreed to, but they've never been too keen on respecting the truth anyway. I know about his book because I actually red it, and he was just an interesting guy writing his thoughts down on religion. To say that he was a humanist is a masonic disparagement.. them trying to associate him with their stupidity at the expense of the truth as they did with others like George Washington who never really attended the trappings of that humanist leaning organization.

REASON, THE ONLY ORACLE OF MAN; OR A COMPENDIOUS SYSTEM OF NATURAL RELIGION. BY COL. ETHAN ALLEN
http://naturesgod.org/files/Oracles%20o ... zation.pdf

* He took Fort Ticonderoga without firing a shot, which forced the war upon the Continental Congress -without their authorization and against their better judgement- and the British Empire. He literally single handedly started the American war of independence.

* He invaded Quebec by going from community to community all alone, communicating the original ideas of the American dream, convincing them everywhere he went, and recruiting his Quebec force entirely out of French-Canadians. French-Canadians were doing the night watch to allow American soldiers to sleep when Montgomery showed up later. The Continentals controlled 99% of Quebec.. all of it except for the Fortress in Quebec city.. because Ethan Allan had single-handedly won the population over, as part of a self assigned quest which again nobody had asked him to indulge.

* The last point about the constitution deserves a thread of it's own, in the annexation debate section! But I get why you get all emotional about this. Others, like Amity Shlaes and George W. Bush don't, in fact they agree with me that the first constitution is the better one that was denied Americans, and that going back to it might be a worthwhile idea now... Especially since it's the first constitution that guaranteed statehood for Canada. It doesn't bother you that the usurper constitution which you were sworn to defend has led your country through the national traumas of civil war and fratricide. I guess if you're a humanist that may explain why you think these are great things that your constitutional regime helped achieve for your nation. If you are sworn to defend your constitution it also means that you are sworn to defend the mechanisms that exist for modifying it and the changes that can result from such modifications, in the same way that every fucking Canadian soldier is sworn to obey the Queen or next ruler of the British Monarchy, even if her will is to give her royal ascent to a passed annexation bill submitted to her by the federal parliament of Canada and signed by the premiers of the provinces. The notion of Canada annexing itself to the United States is not about some legal framework being adopted.. (especially when it's so corrupt and causing such poverty and disparity in living standards between rich and poor in your country)... It's about uniting two nations of similar attributes and attitudes, making an expanded nation out of that that's better than the sum of its parts, that is able to take the best aspects of each and improve on something that is already good and great.. not as a revolution, but as the natural evolution of both a relationship and a tradition of limited government anchored in freedom for those that inhabit this vast swathe of prosperous and stable land.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby CTMountaineer » Aug 20, 2014 11:13 pm

Alex, in the experience of our ancestors, fratricide has been caused by two things... religious zeal, and political ideals. Our Constitution did not cause the latter. It is the interpretation of it that brought about the result, much like different interpretations of the Bible historically resulted in conflict. The Bible was not scrapped, and neither will our Constitution. In both religion and politics we have profited from the errors of those who have gone before us, and now we look to debate and the courts to settle differences. Our own Constitution has enabled the world's longest free standing democracy to survive almost 2 and a half centuries. That said, it is not perfect which is why it can be modified according to the procedures for Amendment. It will never be scrapped here, but it might be modified, and has been numerous times in the past.

You brought about an interesting point about disparity of income here, but to blame that on our Constitution is inaccurate. There are other factors at play, most important among them the globalist movement which seeks to remove our protective borders and force our labor to compete with cheap labor countries to produce goods. This benefits only the super rich elitists, many of whom do not resemble in culture or tradition the more altruistic capitalists of past eras. Gone are the Christian ideals of an honest days work for an honest day's pay, which are now supplanted by if I can get somebody in Bug Tuck Asia to do it cheaper, too bad for you. We also have more sub cultural issues in terms of attitude here than you do in Canada, which accounts for part of the disparity you mentioned. We have legions of minorities who were conditioned by socialists in the late 1960s to believe the world owed them a living with which to contend, and many of them believe it is okay to have single parent families while making "the village" assume the responsibility to raise them and so forth. It will take decades to undo that damage, and it might be a couple more years before that work can begin. That entitlement mindset has done more to create dependency and reduce ambition to achieve than any document could ever do. But, this is a Nation of massive resources and a highly educated population overall. If we don't make the mistake of letting too many future dependents in the back door, our success is guaranteed.
User avatar
CTMountaineer
Opponent
 
Posts: 3199
Joined: Mar 01, 2006 12:26 am
Location: West Virginia

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Windwalker » Aug 21, 2014 12:54 am

I had always assumed the entitlement mindset went hand-in-hand with the majority of the Baby-Boomer generation, not just 'brainwashed socialist minorities' as you would put it.

The Baby-Boomers' parents set up a system that would have carried them through retirement, and left a balance for the next 3 or 4 generations, too. Unfortunately, the Boomers' first move once they had a majority in Congress (and the White House) was to rob the money their parents had left for their children and grandchildren and give it to themselves instead.
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2879
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Sep 15, 2014 12:23 pm

I'm not saying your constitution is bad. I'm simply stating the fact that the continental freemasons who pushed for it's adoption were presenting a socialized government structure that there were unable to pass as such, the various state representatives demanding the addition of the Bill of Rights establishing limitations on said general government (the good part of the constitution). Even so the tendancy over time has been to socialize power by additional amendments, by making the amendments apply as restrictions to the states also even though that was not originally the deal.. and later through the use of executive orders, the supreme court usurping the states as the lawful interpreters of the constitution, and the adoption of a socialized monetary system. You don't have to throw away the baby with the bath water, I get that. But that is what was done with the original constitution of your country, and personally I believe that there is much value in revisiting some of its concepts while questioning the motives of those who legally but unlawfully imposed a completely different constitutional order at the original constitution's expense. It is obvious that those who have sought such socialization of the means of government have done so because it is easier to control and corrupt a single point of aggregated power than a partially decentralized constellation of regional governments.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 15, 2014 7:05 pm

I think most Americans would disagree with your characterization of our founding fathers modes, methods, and intentions Alex. I would be interested to hear exactly what it is about the Articles of Confederation that you think worth restoring? What specifically? Because as i've said to you before, that system failed for a reason. The primary one being that it allowed for no national unity. States had their own foreign trade policy, own currency, often times were moved to the brink of war with one another over territory, ect. The government had no ability to say, raise a navy to defend against great Britain who at the time was seizing our vessels because they had no authority to tax. They could only request money from the states; the states never gave it.

The states muddied the waters for themselves in regards to the bill of right applying to them due to the issue of slavery, which is when it became necessary to apply them to the states visa the 14th amendment.
Also, i hope you don't buy to fully into the notion, as suggested by CTMountaineer that it's "minorities" fault for the atmosphere of entitlement in the states. You should know here, that opinion is typically expressed by the children and grand children of folks who's ancestors took advantage of the homestead act and other such projects, many of which provided free education to whites along with dirt cheap land while simultaneously disenfranchising Native Americans and blacks. A fact conveniently forgotten in the discussion about our safety net.

(In my opinion) besides your misinterpretation of our founders intentions in creating the current constitution, it sounds like you're trying to hit at a core discussion we've been having here in the states since Madison and Jefferson, and that gives me hope. Jefferson believed we could trust to the will of the people in governance, Adams believed a republic was doomed without an able Federal government to guard against government by "the mob". Also, the question of who was to interpret the constitution was never as straightforward as you claim. In the early days, because the founders were still alive, many of them working in the federal government but also active in their local communities interpreted the constitution but this could obviously not continue after they died.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Sep 16, 2014 7:40 pm

That state of things sounds about right to me, most Americans didn't research this stuff the way I have. But a couple of things should be glaring for everybody and yet it isn't. I find it amazing that literally nobody prior to me noticed that there is a major logical problem with having the supreme court (a part of the federal government) being the arbiter of what the federal government can or cannot do. Since I'm not found of democracy anyway, I have zero problem with not being aligned with the popular understandings, nor do I think that anybody can change the status quo by endorsing it, thankfully I clearly don't. I also disagree with the reasons you bring up for the failures of the confederal constitution: I believe these are the orthodox smear being levied against it, but that they actually are not the accurate explanation for the events that transpired.

I remember reading somewhere (can't find it now) a very striking passage from a text describing how the current constitution got pushed through. It stated that "many foreign powers were involved in schemes to usurp the lawful constitution" and the text goes about the grossly illogical conclusion that "hence it was necessary to usurp the constitution in order to prevent this from taking place. I surmise to you and everybody that this was in fact the real reason for the failing of the original constitution: the usurpation of lawful government through scheming involving foreign powers (Jefferson and the fattie were deeply involved with Continental Freemasonry.. the same freemasonry that ejaculated marxism basically). As for an example of a worthwhile article of confederation worth actually keeping? How about the 10th one? I believe this is the one that guarantees entry for Canada should it ever feel like joining the gang.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 17, 2014 10:35 am

I'm going to be late for class so i don't have very much time to really get into this, all i'll say is, i'd be careful about assuming "you know more" than Americans in regards to American history. That sounds like a presumption that could easily make one susceptible to confirmation bias. You may know more than the average 20 something, but even many of them might surprise you. Have you actually read the ratification debates for yourself? How many biographies, and other primary sources have you gone through? I only ask because many of your "interpretations" sound more like someones analysis of the ratification debates/ interpretation of the founding fathers intentions ect and not as if they come from the primary sources themselves (which i am VERY familiar with). History will always have people who try and interpret & spin things for their own reasons.

It's actually article 11, which invites Canada to join the union, should it wish, and yea that's one thing i think most supporters on this site would agree on lol but article 11 isn't the majority of the Article of Confederation. You're certainly entitled to disagree about the failures of the Articles of Confederation, but all of what i said are historical facts, well documented. So unless you can somehow prove/demonstrate those weren't fundamental structural problems (a task which would probably be nothing short of a dissertation), i'm not sure theres much room to disagree. The internet if full on "contrarians", all thinking their asymmetrical view of history tells the whole story. Your claims, as they are, require extraordinary evidence, citations, ect that i don't think the evidence bares out at all.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Sep 17, 2014 10:44 am

It is fortunate then that I do not need to convince you or anybody of my own understandings in order for them to have value for me. The fact that you disagree is your right, and there is empirically room for us to do so by virtue of us doing so right before our very eyes. I don't accept your reading of my stance as being "disparaging towards younger americans": I never said anything of the sort, nor am I saying that those who espouse the orthodox views are dumb or ignorant: I simply think that they are suffering from tunnel vision. The fact that I haven't been exploring the primary sources as others (you) have, doesn't mean that my understandings are simply distilled from other people. That assertion of yours is offensive but I understand why you'd be tempted to espouse such rationalizations as a means of disparagement where my stance is concerned. You are basically saying that I am not qualified to have this conversation because I haven't been sufficiently exposed to the primary thoughts of people I don't really respect or care about. I am sorry that my stance offends and annoys you, but I'm fine with the fact that we both support the idea of uniting our nations, even though we do it from obviously different perspectives. You may not like mine, but that is a not a requisite for being in agreement about the propriety of seeking a political union between our nations that is anchored in lawful consent based sound government!

Aside from your narrative excluding me from being authorized to discuss such matters with you, don't you see any conflict of interest with the fact that in your system the arbiters of what the constitution allows the general government to do is the general government itself? :lol:
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 17, 2014 10:55 am

Well, if you intend to carry these ideas to the American public as a basis for why we should "return" to the Articles of Confederation you will indeed need to convince many people of your own understanding of these matters. It's a bit odd you'd think otherwise. I never said you were being disparaging, i said your comment about being more educated on these matters than Americans is an assumption, one that could easily lead you to bias in your own reading of historical events.

I think most people would agree, that the primary sources (of any subject) are the place to start when researching any historical topic, even if one ultimately disagrees with the source, it's important to absorb the information for yourself and not simply someone's analysis of it, which often is convoluted with their own political axe to grind, affiliations, ect. So if you haven't read them, what exactly qualifies you to interpret them? Your stance doesn't annoy or offend me, it's just erroneous in my view, and so before criticizing them it i wanted to know exactly what your exposure was to these events, ect.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Sep 17, 2014 11:00 am

TexanforUNA wrote:i said your comment about being more educated on these matters than Americans is an assumption

I never claimed to be more educated, I said that most people didn't research this topic in the way that i have: a different way than your classical "let's take things for granted as they are given to us by those who made things happen".

TexanforUNA wrote:Well, if you intend to carry these ideas to the American public as a basis for why we should "return" to the Articles of Confederation you will indeed need to convince many people of your own understanding of these matters.

Again, this is not what I said. I said that what should be revisited are some of the concepts contained within the orignial confederations of both Canada and the United States. Why you are so fundamentally hostile to that proposition is beyond me.

You don't create the future by trying to restore so romanticized notion of the past, I get that. The point here is that just because something was thrown out the window doesn't mean that this thing had zero value.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 17, 2014 11:05 am

Ok, i don't want to play semantics. The subtext of your comment is "Most Americans haven't researched this topic the way i have, therefore i am more knowledgeable on this subject than said Americans".

You're even making assumptions about my education and reasoning by asserting i'm "taking things for granted" instead of considering the possibility i've studied these issues for years and therefore have a perfectly rational and intelligent basis for my conclusions.

Before we "revisit" the Articles of Confederation, a system which most here agree failed for very concrete reasons, we would first have to have a good basis for doing so. So again, I'm not sure how that wouldn't entail people who believe we should making a pretty convincing case for it. You're just being overly sensitive and unnecessarily defensive, at someone challenging your ideas. You have a tendency to state your opinions as facts, and then become a bit condescending when someone challenges you.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: An Interesting Border

Postby Americalex » Sep 17, 2014 11:07 am

You don't like to play semantics, but you like to distort statements to make them seem dispagaring, got it. Go ahead and vocalize all of your complaints, I hope it will clear the way for more constructive exchanges once the emotional charge is released. You can be hostile as much as you want, but I am certainly entitled to defend myself, sorry! You've made it clear that you think it is pointless to even discuss the Articles of Confederation, because you know they suck ass, got it.

How about you put all that knowledge to good use by walking out of the academic closet and sharing your thoughts concerning my repeated observation concerning the fundamental illogism of having a federal government being its own arbiter as to what it can or cannot do? Isn't that relevant to our discussion since it pertains directly to the mutational evolution of your second constitution from its original form unto its current modern iteration?
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Next

Return to Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron