America's designs on annexing Canada have a long history − and record of political failures

Donald Trump has repeatedly raised the specter of annexing Canada since his inauguration to a second term as president.
The president's rhetoric about making Canada 'the 51st state' may seem to project confidence, a 21st-century vision of manifest destiny, a belief in the United States' right and obligation to expand.
Trump is not the first American leader to dream of northern expansion. To me, a historian of early U.S.-Canadian relations, these designs suggest not power, but weakness and simmering divisions inside the United States.
Even before independence, social conflict helped turn American eyes northward. Throughout the 18th century, England's Colonial population in North America doubled every 25 years. Successive generations of Colonists along the Eastern Seaboard had to compete with each other, and with Indigenous people, for resources, arable land and trade.
These unhappy, land-hungry Colonists clamored for expansion, instigating a series of wars against both the French and Spanish empires for control of the northeastern half of the continent, culminating in the French and Indian War, from 1754 to 1763.
While these Colonists were animated by their thirst for expansion, they had little else unifying them. Many Americans today are familiar with the 'Join, or Die' cartoon Ben Franklin printed, featuring a segmented snake with each section representing one of the Colonies. However, few realize that it was not crafted during the Revolution to unite Colonists against Britain, but in 1754, to rally divided British Colonists in their war against France.
Britain finished conquering Canada in 1763, but the empire never fully supported Colonial expansion northward. In the 1750s and 1760s, British troops forcibly removed French colonists from Acadia in Nova Scotia and recruited thousands of Colonists from neighboring New England to move north. These settlers had long imagined the region rich in fishing and timber to be a land of opportunity. But disillusioned by the financial cost of sustaining their settlements, many of these Colonists returned to New England by the early 1770s.
Attempts to settle other lands ceded by France were no more successful. Fearful that Colonists might provoke a costly war with Indigenous people, Parliament issued the Proclamation of 1763, which attempted to protect native land by discouraging Colonial expansion westward. Many Colonists turned against Britain in response, especially those like George Washington, who had speculated in the land west of the Appalachian Mountains.
In the earliest months of the Revolution, the Continental Congress authorized an American invasion of British-occupied Quebec. In a letter addressed to 'Friends and Brethren' of Canada, Washington himself implored Canadians to join invading troops. 'The Cause of America, and of Liberty, is the Cause of every virtuous American Citizen,' he wrote. 'Come then, ye generous Citizens, range yourselves under the Standard of general Liberty.'
But at home, Colonists were far from united in their rebellion. Historians estimate that around 20% of the white Colonial population, more than 500,000 people, remained loyal to Britain, and an even larger number hoped to remain neutral.
The difficult realities of conquest also turned many soldiers against the invasion of Canada. In late October 1775, nearly a quarter of the underfed and overworked troops under the command of soon-to-be turncoat Benedict Arnold abandoned their arduous journey through interior Maine toward Canada. The soldiers who carried on prayed these deserters 'might die by the way, or meet with some disaster, Equal to the Cowardly dastardly and unfriendly Spirit they discover'd in returning Back without orders.'
The more resilient troops who reached Quebec were emphatically defeated by British forces in December, making Washington skeptical of any future efforts to attack Canada.
Following American independence, tens of thousands of loyal Colonists sailed north to Canada, determined to build British colonies that would become what one of these refugees called 'the envy of the American States.' Their presence on the contested northern border was an unsettling reminder to the new American nation about the power Britain still exerted on the continent.
Conflict with Britain over land and trade in the early 1800s reopened old divisions among Americans. Virginia Congressman John Randolph expressed his frustrations with renewed calls for a northern invasion. 'We have but one word, like the whip-poor-will, but one eternal monstrous tone,' an exasperated Randolph noted, 'Canada! Canada! Canada!'
The debate over Canada was one of many issues dividing the nation, and as President James Madison would later explain, he hoped that war would help unify a polarized nation. His gamble paid off, but only after opponents from New England flirted with the idea of secession to negotiate their own end to conflict.
When the popular editor and columnist John O'Sullivan called for the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico in 1845, he also suggested the annexation of Canada would naturally follow. The anti-expansionist response united pacifists, abolitionists and a variety of religious and literary figures, helping deepen the divides that would lead to the Civil War.
Trump's posturing has served to unite Canadians and revive Canadian nationalism. In the U.S., most people seem to understand the practical hurdles of adding a new state or dismiss the idea altogether.
One example of annexation talk from the 20th century, however, might serve as a warning to Trump, showing how aggressive rhetoric toward Canada has led to political defeat. In 1911, a bill creating free trade with Canada passed Congress with the support of President William Taft, despite objections from protectionists in both parties.
In an attempt to have the agreement defeated in the Canadian Parliament, U.S. opponents from both sides of the aisle attempted to stir popular sentiment against the U.S. in Canada. Champ Clark, the Democratic speaker of the House and a front-runner for the presidential nomination in 1912, seized on the moment.
'I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions, clear to the North Pole,' Champ proclaimed on the House floor. William Stiles Bennet, a Republican, proposed a resolution that would authorize the president to begin negotiations for annexation.
Their approach to defeating the trade agreement worked, at least in Canada. In the general election of September 1911, worried Canadian voters ousted the Liberal Party, which had supported free trade, and the new Conservative majority rejected the agreement.
Back home, however, the plan backfired. Woodrow Wilson, not Clark, secured the Democratic nomination in 1912 and would go on to defeat both the incumbent Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt. The bluster led not to success and victory, but loss and defeat.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: G. Patrick O'Brien, University of Tampa
Read more:
Canada and Greenland aren't likely to join the US anytime soon – but 'GrAmeriCa' is a revealing thought experiment
Trudeau taps out: How Trump's taunts and tariff threats added to domestic woes confronting Canada's long-standing PM
If US attempts World Bank retreat, the China-led AIIB could be poised to step in – and provide a model of global cooperation
G. Patrick O'Brien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

36 minutes ago

Mahmoud Khalil released from Louisiana jail after 3+ months in ICE custody

A federal judge granted his release on bail, ruling the Trump administration was punishing him over his pro-Palestinian speech.

Hamilton Spectator

37 minutes ago

• Hamilton Spectator

US evacuates 79 staff and family from embassy in Israel as more Americans ask how to leave

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. evacuated 79 staff and families from the U.S. Embassy in Israel on Friday as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies and growing numbers of private American citizens seek information on how to leave Israel and Iran. An internal State Department memo says the military flight, the second known to have occurred this week, left Tel Aviv for Sofia, Bulgaria, where some or all of the passengers were to get a connecting charter flight to Washington. The document, which was obtained by The Associated Press, also said that more than 6,400 U.S. citizens in Israel had filled out an online form on Friday alone asking for information about when and if the U.S. government would organize evacuation flights. An additional 3,265 people, some of whom may also have competed the form, called an emergency number seeking assistance. The document estimated that between 300 and 500 people per day could need evacuation assistance should the U.S. decide to offer flights or ships to get Americans out, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has said is being considered. There are some 700,000 Americans in Israel, many of them dual nationals, according to estimates, although the exact number at any given time is unclear because U.S. citizens are not required to notify the embassy if they are there or when they might leave. Earlier Friday, before the memo was distributed, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters that more than 25,000 Americans had reached out for information on leaving Israel, the West Bank and Iran. She told reporters that those people had sought 'information and support' and were 'seeking guidance' on departing. She would not give a breakdown of where the queries had come from and would not comment on embassy evacuations. In Iran, the document said that at least 84 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, or Green Card holders, had crossed into neighboring Azerbaijan by land since the conflict began and that an additional 774 had been granted permission to enter as of Friday. Nearly 200 American citizens and Green Card holders are awaiting permission to travel overland from Iran to neighboring Turkmenistan, it said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

How Trump has targeted Harvard's international students — and what the latest court ruling means

President Donald Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University's enrollment of international students, part of the White House's effort to secure policy changes at the private, Ivy League college. Targeting foreign students has become the administration's cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation's oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard's students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard's identity. Courts have stopped some of the government's actions, at least for now — but not all. In the latest court order, a federal judge on Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard's international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remain in limbo. Here are all the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard's foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands. Homeland Security tries to revoke Harvard's certification to host foreign students In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security's authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States. Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government's own regulations for withdrawing a school's certification. Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration's ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security's move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer. The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campus. However, it's usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to 'operate as a bona fide institution of learning.' Other colleges are removed when they close. Notably, Burroughs' order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs' emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical 'Notice of Intent to Withdraw' Harvard's participation in the international student visa program. 'Today's order does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. 'Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University's certification.' Trump has sought to ban U.S. entry for incoming Harvard students Earlier this month, Trump himself moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority. Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump's legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing him to block a 'class of aliens' deemed detrimental to the nation's interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn't qualify as a 'class of aliens,' Harvard said in its filing. Harvard's lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard's request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard told international students Friday. At the center of Trump's pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration's demands for further changes. The administration has stepped up scrutiny of Harvard scholars' and students' visas In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to 'public.' In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public. Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools. Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government's recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States. International students make up half the students at some Harvard programs Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the U.S. But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master's program in comparative law are international students. The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government's demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university. ____ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at