« israeli police training for US local cops | Main | Iraq Diary - 16 August 2014 »

15 August 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

scott s.


(how to get to Eau Claire)

I think at that time, the typical approach to Eau Claire / Chippewa Falls was via river from Ft Crawford (Prairie du Chien). Ft Crawford and Ft Snelling (Minneapolis) being old fur trading areas and natural places for the US Army to garrison. To get to Ft Crawford one could travel upriver from St Louis or down the Fox/Wisconsin Rivers from Ft Howard (Green Bay). I suppose it could also be possible to travel from Chicago, but I don't think that would be an easy journey. Until after creation of Wisconsin Territory in the 1840s there was no gov't survey and no real ability for farming interests to enter the Eau Claire region (Chippewa River) and the main (white) business was lumbering. River transport was the only realistic way to move tress/lumber, but after the survey was complete and townships laid off, the Territory completed a road from Prairie du Chien to Hudson (Wis side of Miss R from Minneapolis) via Eau Claire which then opened the area to farming. Meanwhile for the Indian interests, the area around Eau Claire was a point where by treaty the lands of the Sioux (Dakota), Chippewa, and Winnebago (Ho Chunk) tribes met and hence was something of a no-man's land. In the later 1830s by US / US Army removal policy most Indians were sent west of the Miss R into Iowa and Minnesota, opening the land for settlement.


"American-bashing" - I think it depends where you are from. Most Canadians dislike some aspect of the US - otherwise they would probably move there - and respond to what seems a very extreme American culture rather than disliking Americans per se. However, its not accurate to conflate all Canadian opinion with say, opinion in a big, liberal urban center like Toronto. I do a lot of work out west (Alberta, Saskatchewan) and frankly they would likely shoot anyone from Toronto that said liberty was overrated - and after the revolt over the long gun registry here, they would probably still be well armed enough not to make it an idle threat.

Canada is such a big country and so sparsely populated that it would be impossible to make it a melting pot - we just don't talk to each other that often and all the parts are pretty distinct naturally. It's a mosaic simply because most people want to be let well enough alone - and so they are. I suspect that a lot of the bristling about American style liberty up here is more about the sense that they would be forced to give up the liberty they have for a culture that isn't theirs. You have to understand that underneath it, the US doesn't appear to have a live-and-let-live liberty as it is understood up here - it seems much more dogmatic and conformist than folks up here would ever agree to. We just don't like people in our business.

And while there is a lot of bristling about the amount of federal power and the good ol' "peace, order and good government" (something we referred to in law school as the POGG power - and yes, that's actually a constitutional thing) Canada jails fewer people (more liberty), is more permissive (cf. gay marriage - which we consider to be an expression of more liberty), etc. It's not the tyrants we fear up here - its more the day to day "how can I be left alone". Once you get out of Toronto and Vancouver, Canada is actually a pretty conservative place. The focus is just on something different.

Now if only we could defend our borders on our own, we'd be in pretty good shape. Thankfully we don't share a border with Russia - d'oh!!



I was agreeing with the Col that Canada has a limited view of Liberty. However, we do just fine within our limited horizon. To me, the benefits of Liberties beyond that which Canadians have doesn't seem worth the price.

Take for example, our stronger limitations on freedom of speech and limitations on election spending. We also limit ones right to lose their house if a member of the family gets sick.

All this requires greater governance over our populace and I am comfortable over the trade offs.


Be careful with your criticisms Canada (and Mexico). Senator Feinstein displayed a map in a Senate briefing recently that showed the US, Canada, and Mexico as the Homeland.


The plan, uncovered by a hacker, is to launch a blitzkrieg from North Dakota up into Manitoba, capturing Winnipeg, thus cutting off the western provinces from the eastern population centers. Then the main US forces will move from the Michigan upper peninsula and northeast US in a three pronged action to capture the major Canadian cities. It will all be over in a matter of weeks. The plan for Mexico is to buy them off. The politicians will be given large sums of money, and the general population will be promised food stamps (EBT cards) for life.


Actually, if Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan get wind of a plan to cut them off from the rest of Canada, they'd probably applaud and help out.



Well let them revolt. Canada would let them go. pl


Unlikely - once you let one piece go, the whole enterprise would split into pieces. Sometimes I think that the primary reason the feds fight so hard to keep Quebec is the fear that upon learning that Canada really is divisible, then entire country would split up. And loosing the oil sands just ain't gonna fly.


@FB Ali and Medicine Man,

You'd be surprised to know how many French communities there are in Alberta, complete with the annual Cabane à Sucre.


Now they're pissed that they have to pledge allegiance to the Queen when they become new citizens. ;-)

Medicine Man

Ha! Funny you should say so. Up until the Albertan brain trust was in charge, I'd have said the same thing about Albertans that I do about Quebecois.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad