” We take everything by conquest…Thank God”, wrote the National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser, an important Washington magazine, in February 1847.
In accordance with the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, the US recently purchased 55 % of Mexico for US$ 15 million. The alliance concluded the terrible Mexican-American War, which claimed thousands of lives.
Despite the loss of existence, and British interests to get all of Mexico, the treaty painted the whole experience as a legitimate “cession” of area rather than a invasion.
Every Canadian should be paying attention to this historical context of the United States. In one agreement, the US annexed the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. In the wake of this, it fraudulently invaded indigenous place in the west.
Canada might be the next state to join the United States, probably not right away as the 51st status, but rather as a US place that would impose some restrictions on freedom and make citizenship questions confusing. The US has the legal infrastructure to make it happen.
Difficult? Unfathomable? Some critics dismiss Trump’s belligerent rhetoric as hot-headed negotiations. It’s really hard speak, they say. Some claim that his rhetoric is merely a result of his preferred” art of the deal” negotiation strategy.
That’s the wrong checking. The US Constitution explains how Trump may fulfill the risk. For the US to get territory through surrender or subjugation, there is both probable and precedent.
Invading Canada
The US Department of War even came up with the War Plan Red of 1930 to show how to attack Canada if necessary.
It contained egregious details about the attack’s origins in Halifax, how it started with poison oil, how it rapidly retreated to New Brunswick, how it occupied Québec City and Montréal before claiming Niagara Falls, and more.
Previously, America has made many American leaders anxious. Queen Victoria felt that Ottawa, as a capital, may become sheltered from US attacks. As US Confederacy spies and pirates were permitted to hunk up in Montréal during the civil war, John A. Macdonald was concerned about Union troops ‘ attacks on Canada.
In the 1911 vote, when the Democratic party pushed for free deal with the US, they were shown the door by a flood of anti-American attitude that backed Robert Borden’s Republicans.
Treaties and legislative authorizations
Putting off hypothetical fear, the US Constitution firmly teaches that the country has the right to acquiesce to territory. It is easy. First, begin with Article II, Part 2 of the Constitution:
” He] The President ] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”.
Agreements are the means by which the US adopts “nothing by invasion” once the Senate ratifies them with a two-thirds majority.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was proposed to Congress in 1848, would conquer Mexican land. Congress ratified the convention despite some wanting to take the entire of Mexico.
In 1898, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 259. It ratified President William McKinley’s convention of the conquest of Hawaii. According to protest, petition and protest, it took 60 times for Hawaii to become an established position in 1957.
Just a small portion of the country is covered by the American nature tale of a nation born during a revolution. The remainder of the area became a result of invasion. The US expanded to 50 state and 14 abroad lands through a mix of surrender, activity and order.
The position of opposition
The belief that the US rise throughout the Americas was both justified and unavoidable is embedded in the US Constitution from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which saw 827, 987 flat miles of travel from France to the US from France to the US.
But so, also, is protest. Content IV, Part 2 of the Constitution provides Congress the authority to control or dispose of lands once the US officially acquires them:
The Congress may be able to adopt and adopt all necessary laws and regulations governing the United States ‘ country and other property.
A country can be disposed of if it was unfairly acquired through a convention, by immoral means, or by a conflict of interest. A prime example of this is the Marshall Islands.
The nation ratified a law in 1979 and is currently in a free association agreement with the US after serving as a US nuclear tests surface.
In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant proposed the annexation of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic in order to prevent the country from being attacked by Haiti. He believed that this would be a great place for the freed Black prisoners to identify themselves there. Congress did not possess it, and the convention was not ratified.
Cuba’s isolation — over glucose
In 1898, the US declared war on Spain by invading Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. Spain gave up within six weeks, and agreements of conquest by cession were drawn for each country. Although the Philippines won up its democracy in 1946, the US regained control over all but Cuba.
Senator Henry Teller of Colorado, who was concerned about Caribbean sugar flooding the American marketplace, was in charge of Cuba’s rejection. He emphasized the value of freedom, self-government, and the rights of man in beautiful rhetoric.
Teller, in fact, intended to keep Cuba out to support local honey beet growers. The act, which excluded Cuba, was passed by the Senate. However, another article by Connecticut Sen. Orville Platt gave the US the right to enter Cuba whenever it saw suit and established Guantanamo Bay as a continuous US military center on the island.
Opening lines of communication
It seems impossible to comprehend how debate about US annexation work against Canada actually start. It would be a mistake to ignore past, overlook the US Constitution, and attempt to overthrow the art of the offer, but it would be wrong to ignore it.
Trump’s demands for Canada’s integration into the US could only be supported by creating a treaty that establishes the legality of the surrender, order, or occupation process. Just then, and only with a two-thirds bulk of the Senate, was Congress review it. Trump does not have two-thirds of the Senate.
The best course of action is to bring American tones to Congress. Through personal interactions in a complex web of parental and business relations, Canada-US relations have always been strong.
Trump doesn’t see the benefit in that. Congress, but, does, particularly if annexing Canada proves costly. This is why American politicians need to open communication with Congress at the federal, provincial, and yet provincial levels, especially in economically proper state.
Instead of treating conquering Canada as a victory, Congressional representatives should see it as a crazy burden, both politically and financially.
Robert Huish is associate professor in International Development Studies, Dalhousie University
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.