U.S. History

 

We Canadians frequently accuse Americans of not understanding Canada and knowing our history.  But before we get too superior on this, we have to ask how much US history we really know.  Oh, we know their history in the 20^th and now 21^st centuries: about how they won the Second World War and saved democracy; how they won the Cold War; how they came to the aid of Europe in the First World War; their humiliation in Viet Nam; their Great Depression (which affected most of the world); and how they suffered on September 11^th, 2001.  Some of us may even know things about their Civil War, including your author (the best overall book on this war is probably “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James M. McPherson).  It is a captivating war to follow.

But apart from these highlights, how much do we really know about the contests that went on to define the nature of the US. 

Why is this something that Canadians should worry about, particularly now?  It’s relevant because of the recent struggles between the provincial and federal governments.  The fact that some provinces feel alienated by the federal government, and by the call in some provinces for more autonomy and the ability of a province to ignore federal laws. This is the main plank of Dannielle Smith’s campaign to become the next Premier of Alberta with her Sovereignty Act. It has always been a fact of life between Quebec and Ottawa, but it has now spread to the Prairie Provinces.  What we probably don’t know is that this struggle happened in the US as well. 

The US, like Canada, came about as the result of several separate colonies joining into a union. The US forced the issue by war, in Canada by negotiation.  But the result was the same; a country made of up of several states or provinces.  In both cases, their constitutions (the US Constitution and the British North America Act) attempted to define the powers and obligations of each side of the equation. In Canada, these were captured anew in the Canadian constitution.  This inevitably led to friction between the two levels of governments as each tried to enforce their respective mandates.  In both cases, the federal level had the weaker hand at the beginning.

The early years in the US were dominated by arguments over states’ rights versus federal jurisdiction. Many states tried nullification, the act of nullifying federal laws.  It was their attempt to emulate our ‘not withstanding’ clause, except they did not limit it to charter rights. The proposed Sovereignty Act is an attempt to provide a legal basis for nullification.  But it must be noted that the various attempts at nullification in the US came to nothing, being declared unconstitutional by the courts.  The battle over states’ rights eventually became the primary cause of the US Civil War (slavery became the main topic only in 1862 when Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to give the North a rallying cry to strengthen the war effort).  But one of the main debates over the issue was held back in 1830 when it was aired in the US Senate.  Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina argue that the federal government was only an agent to the states, that “the Union could only last if the rights of the states . . . were respected and protected”[1].  He was countered by Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts who argued that the Union was a union of people, not states and that the people were sovereign.  It should be noted that after the Civil War, the issue of states’ rights was forgotten until the last few years.  It is now again being postulated on such issues as abortion rights and voting laws.

Not too long ago, I wrote a blog (https://gordf.blogspot.com/2021/09/what-country.html.) about the burdens that the provinces would have to deal with if they seceded from Canada, or if Canada failed to exist.  Perhaps it is time for Canadians to listen to some lessons from the United States and realize that we are a country, not some loose collection of provinces.

---

[1] A Short History of the United States, Robert V. Remini, 2008, page 103

Representational Diversity

I think we have a problem in this country about who we elect to represent us in the various legislatures.  In this case I don’t mean ethnic or religious diversity, I mean diversity in the working experiences that are the background to their legislative endeavours.

The Conservative Party of Canada is about to elect a leader who has never worked at anything except politics.  The current Prime Minister is not much better having been a teacher before politics, but at least he has that much.  Most politicians are lawyers, political studies majors, or economists.  There have been a few medical doctors although these days of medical shortages we may prefer that they had stuck to their professions.  But where are the steel workers, the engineers, the scientists, the miners, the fishermen (fisherpersons?), or oil workers? 

“A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.”
  - Alfred E. Wiggam

If our legislatures are to truly to represent the people who elect them, there must be more of these people.  How can the law makers pass judgement on the labour movement without steel, auto and mining workers?  How can these bodies make intelligent decisions of large procurements without engineers?  How can they decide scientific policy without scientists?  Oh, you can say that the various ministers have access to these specialists in the civil service.  But civil servants don’t make laws or decide policy.  As we have seen several times over the last few years, governments are prone to make decisions despite any input from experts.  Just look at the Donald Trump and Covid, or most conservative movements and climate change.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

So, why aren’t these vocationally diverse people not represented?  It can’t be about the pay.  Most workers would make more salary in a legislature that on a shop floor.  It could be about the cost of entry into the election process where they have to spend money to get any name recognition.  But surely attractive candidates could get some support from the political parties.  Or could they?  Could it be that political parties have a prejudice against these ‘ordinary’ people?  Could a party that serves the interests of the lawyers, economists and political majors see these working people as not worthy of entering their hallowed ground?  That ordinary people are to be ruled, not be rulers.  Is that the attitude?

If we are to face the technical and scientific challenges or today and the future, it is imperative that we bring more expertise in other fields into out legislative bodies.  Ways must be found to bring more diversity into those who make our laws and policies.

“At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political ideas.”

  - Aldous Huxley

Food for thought, I think.  Oh, that I was 30 years younger!

 

Grief

This afternoon I spent time cleaning out my dead wife’s clothes.  It was difficult, it has taken almost six weeks for me even to contemplate such an undertaking.  I’m not finished, but I have made a good start.

So, I am grieving my lovely wife, Denee.  We had 56 years of married life together.  I loved her as much the day she died as the day I married her.

I’m grieving but I’m not sure if I am doing it right.  I looked up the five or seven stages of grief.  The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. The seven stages add shock as the first stage and processing grief as the last stage. 

I’ve read the stages but I’m still not sure that I have any better understanding.  I don’t know where I am and what I’m supposed to feel.  There doesn’t seem to be any rules about grieving.  What stage am I supposed to be in now?  I don’t think I denied her death.  We had known it was coming for quite a few days.  When they move someone from a regular ward to the palliative care wing of the hospital, it is a pretty good indicator.  Anger? I don’t think that I ever felt that.  I wasn’t angry with Denee or with anyone else.  What purpose would it serve?  Bargaining they say involves dwelling on what could've been done to prevent the loss.  But how far back do you have to look for some clue to that?  A week, a month, a year?  Did my battle with depression in the 1990s do harm?  Was our move to Peterborough from Ottawa late last year to be near family a mistake?  The accident that precipitated her hospitalization was just that – an accident. What could I have done differently?  Nothing that I can determine other than perhaps love her even more.

Depression is the most difficult phase they say. But it is something that I am very familiar with having been diagnosed with it over 30 years ago and been treating it with prescription medication ever since.  I have come to know when my mood has changed and what to do about it.  Does that mean that I am somehow immune to this stage?  Probably not, but hopefully I will recognize it and deal with it as I usually do by seeking help from my therapist.  And finally, there is acceptance.  Do you ever fully accept the death of a loved one?  I don’t know but I think this stage will take a long time to fade.  Yes, I know that Denee is dead and that I will never see or hear her again except through pictures and the odd video.  I will never forget her, but I will know that she is gone.

Perhaps the best advice that I have received about all of this is, “Everyone does it differently”.

GRIEF IS UNIVERSAL - GRIEVERS ARE DISTINCTIVE.