Canada envy

It was a frigid night in North America, mid-1770s. Boats and floating ice bobbed on the river as ragged men shivered on the bank, waiting to board. Their resolute leader strode up and down among the troops, urging them to keep their powder dry and their passage swift and silent. With a flag bearer and a handful of eager aides, he commandeered one of the boats for himself, climbed aboard, and settled in for a cold journey.

Any patriotic American should have some version of Washington Crossing the Delaware in mind right about now, but the description fits another water journey, much longer, that took place a year earlier, in the fall of 1775. The river was the Chaudière in southern Quebec, the resolute leader was Benedict Arnold, one eager aide was Aaron Burr, and the objective was not to surprise a British garrison but to capture all of Canada.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. The region was sparsely populated and thinly guarded, with French settlers who resented British rule and British settlers who might be open to rebellion. If the American patriots could capture Montreal and Quebec, both principal cities would be under their control and friendly persuasion might win the inhabitants to the side of liberty.

As you already know, it didn’t work out that way. Montreal fell easily enough, but Quebec resisted the attack that came on the last day of the year in a raging snowstorm. The “natives will rise up and join us” scenario didn’t play out (it almost never does), and logistics were a nightmare. In spite of individual feats of heroism and endurance, the episode sank ingloriously into the sands of American history. Not so in Canadian history, where it’s considered a milestone in the development of a national identity.

Ambitious Americans didn’t give up on annexing Canada until after the War of 1812, but more recently it seems that some Americans would be happy to see Canada annex the United States. Just look at our neighbors to the north, they say: free healthcare, no slavery legacy, a better record on native relations, and nicer all around. The title of an article in the May 15 New Yorker by staff writer Adam Gopnik captured this wistful mood: “We Could Have Been Canada.” (Sigh.) They ended up as free as we, with less stress—no Civil War, fewer ugly Indian battles and labor disputes, and a peaceful path to sovereignty, unlike the bloody, merciless conflict Americans celebrate every Fourth of July.

He’s right about the bloody conflict: Though pageantry and quaint costumes blunt its edge, our War for Independence had its share of butchery, chaos, confusion, and mixed motives. Some historians call it our first civil war, a bitter struggle of neighbor against neighbor. But was it all a mistake?

Some Americans seem to think so. Why the rush for independence, when we could have waited 90 years and achieved it peaceably? Why didn’t more Christians make the case against rebellion, citing Romans 13 and 1 Peter 3? Why couldn’t we have tried harder to ease heavy-handed British mercantile policies with tactful diplomacy? Why couldn’t we have been Canada?

There are several reasons why—geographical, cultural, political, and practical. But mostly providential. Even America’s detractors acknowledge that 1776 marked a break in human history, away from inherited power and toward self-rule. The United States blazed that trail. The trailblazer takes the risk, the knocks, and the scratches, and afterward history flows in ways it wouldn’t have otherwise (mostly for the better). Begun as an experiment, our nation remains experimental, continually testing whether a government of, for, and by the people can long endure. Still hotly debating state vs. individual. Still trying the limits of free speech, religious liberty, free enterprise, and moral debauchery. Still threatening to fly apart, and still here by the grace of God.

He made from one man every nation of mankind (Acts 17:26) and has His purpose for each one. Let Canada be Canada. It looks like we were born to struggle, and our struggle continues.