Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 51st and 52nd states
National Post ^ | June 7, 2003 | Lawrence Solomon

Posted on 06/07/2003 11:21:23 AM PDT by Mister Magoo

The 51st and 52nd states

Alberta is already more American than Canadian in some ways, while a left-leaning State of British Columbia would keep the Democrats happy

Lawrence Solomon Financial Post

Thursday, June 05, 2003

CREDIT: National Post

A map of "the 51st and 52nd states".

George Bush wants Alberta's oil but, if it were up for grabs, he'd want Alberta even more. With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia. U.S. oil imports would plummet and America's great dependence on foreign oil would vanish.

Whenever loose talk arises of Canada becoming the 51st state, as it does from time to time, wise heads scoff at the notion. Getting into the Union isn't easy. No one has made it in almost a half century: Hawaii and Alaska, the last two to win acceptance, had to work long and hard at it. More importantly, many doubt that the U.S. would even want Canada. The U.S. idealizes unbridled free enterprise, rugged individualism and a cultural melting pot; Canada more leans to public-private partnerships, a welfare state and multiculturalism. A United States that swallowed Canada, holus-bolus, would invite a host of problems.

But Alberta, on its own, holds none of Canada's liabilities for Americans. Canada's most conservative province -- anti-Kyoto, anti-gun control, hostile to national health care, receptive to plebiscites and Bible-belt Christians, free of provincial sales tax -- is in some ways more American than Canadian. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien turned his back on President Bush's plan to invade Iraq; Alberta Premier Ralph Klein forthrightly embraced it. A Crawford Ranch North would clash not at all with Republican values.

Because U.S. Democrats would balk at adding a Republican state to the Union, they would want a second, more left-leaning state to be added at the same time, to maintain a balance of power -- this was part of the bargain that had to be struck before Democratic Alaska and Republican Hawaii could be ushered into the Union. The likeliest running mate for Alberta is British Columbia -- a lush and largely liberal urbanized province that has much in common with the west coast states of Washington, Oregon and California. The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland economy is already so integrated that books extol "Cascadia," as the cross-border city-region is sometimes called. To add to America's receptivity to a State of British Columbia, B.C.'s Premier Gordon Campbell, like Premier Klein, also supported the U.S. after our federal politicians attacked it over Iraq.

With B.C. in the U.S. fold, Alaska would be linked to the lower 48 states and, more importantly, the U.S. would have uninterrupted control over the west coast, allowing it to control the border against terrorists and simplifying its desire for National Missile Defence. National defence figured in America's decision in the 1950s to admit both Hawaii and Alaska. The military imperative is no less great today. And behind all the practical reasons for the U.S. to welcome Alberta and B.C. into the Union lies Manifest Destiny, an almost Messianic conviction that all of North America is fated for America. Manifest Destiny, central to American thought from the nation's very foundation, would legitimize any movement to extend the American flag north into what are now Canada's Rocky Mountain provinces.

To Americans, making Alberta and B.C. the 51st and 52nd states would be a no-brainer: It would augment America's security and its economy and fulfill its destiny. To British Columbians and especially Albertans, switching to the U.S. rather than fighting Canada's federal government, though currently on no one's political agenda, could one day become compelling. Many Western Canadians covet the low U.S. taxes and the high U.S. standard of living -- in Canada, only the urban swath between Calgary and Edmonton achieves U.S. levels of affluence. Should the federal government or a central province outrage B.C. or Alberta through a policy or a slight that spins seriously out of control, the stage would be set for the breakup of Canada. Albertans and British Columbians may well reason that they could hardly lose in the bargain. Depending on the outrage -- say, another egregious resource grab such as the National Energy Program of the 1980s -- they may well be right.

But Canada would lose grievously should it lose either of these great provinces, making it imperative that events never be allowed to reach that stage. Keeping the provinces inside Canada by force is no longer an option -- the Supreme Court of Canada has already endorsed a province's departure if its citizens speak clearly on the matter. And neither can we keep Canada together by granting the provinces more powers, as Alberta demands through its proposal for a Triple-E Senate. Alberta's plan would give have-not provinces the great majority of votes, creating a block that would soon pillage the great wealth of wealthy provinces and hasten the day that they leave.

There is only one way to ensure that Alberta and B.C. stay within Canada: To make Canada worthy of Albertans and British Columbians. In my concluding column in this series, I will describe the road to worthiness.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com; Next: The True North Strong and Free

© Copyright 2003 National Post


TOPICS: Canada; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alberta; britishcolumbia; canada; destiny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2003 11:21:23 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I always love reading good fiction
2 posted on 06/07/2003 11:25:53 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (Tip the Pizza guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I'll take Alberta, and they can stuff British Columbia. Vancouver makes Seattle look like Greenville, South Carolina.
3 posted on 06/07/2003 11:26:49 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Make sure we DITCH vancouver as a free city though. Sasketwuan (sp?) may want to get in on this as well.
4 posted on 06/07/2003 11:27:27 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
54-40 or fight!


Maybe President Polk was right?

5 posted on 06/07/2003 11:28:00 AM PDT by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
And grab the Yukon Territory as well.
6 posted on 06/07/2003 11:28:02 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia. U.S. oil imports would plummet and America's great dependence on foreign oil would vanish.

If this is true, why isn't Canada selling us this oil at today's market price.  Something tells me there's more to the story.

7 posted on 06/07/2003 11:28:37 AM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexico.
8 posted on 06/07/2003 11:29:32 AM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Interesting thesis.
9 posted on 06/07/2003 11:31:04 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
How about maintaining the same number and trading Alberta for say Washington or even better Massachuttes.
10 posted on 06/07/2003 11:31:24 AM PDT by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Canada's most conservative province -- anti-Kyoto, anti-gun control, hostile to national health care, receptive to plebiscites and Bible-belt Christians, free of provincial sales tax

Why join the United States, they should form thier own country. Then if Hillary is ever elected, ill have a place to go. We would just end up holding them back. Do you honestly think that the Democrats would let us drill for oil there if they were a 51st state? It would just be one huge wildlife preserve with higher taxes.
11 posted on 06/07/2003 11:31:57 AM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
the Supreme Court of Canada has already endorsed a province's departure if its citizens speak clearly on the matter.

If they joined the US they would give up this option for themselves and for all of their descendants. Independence would be a better option for them. Interesting that the Canadians have a voluntary union. They should call theirs States and we should call ours provinces.
12 posted on 06/07/2003 11:32:25 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Bump
13 posted on 06/07/2003 11:33:39 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (http://www.ourgangnet.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
If this is true, why isn't Canada selling us this oil at today's market price. Something tells me there's more to the story.

We get about half of our oil from Canada, I think.

14 posted on 06/07/2003 11:34:08 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
The reason is simply that it is not economically feasible to extract much of Alberta's oil reserves. Much of the oil is located in "oil sands." Oil Sands are naturally occurring mixtures of bitumen, water, sand and clay that are found in three areas of Alberta - Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake.

Bitumen is a thick, sticky form of crude oil. At room temperature, bitumen is like cold molasses. It must be heated or diluted before it will flow into a well or through a pipeline.

If the oil sands deposits are close to the surface, bitumen can be recovered from the oil sands by open-pit mining and hot-water processing methods. Deeper deposits require in-situ methods such as steam injection through vertical or horizontal wells.

As new technologies are developed, up to 315 billion barrels are ultimately recoverable, compared with Saudi Arabia’s 262 billion barrels of proven reserves, U.S. reserves of 22 billion barrels and Mexico’s 28 billion barrels
15 posted on 06/07/2003 11:35:13 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Ohh sure, a state can leave our Union, you just have to have somthing like a 3/4 majority of the state legislator and 3/4 of the Senate and 4/5 majority of the house. So basically you are free to succede of no one else wants you.
16 posted on 06/07/2003 11:35:32 AM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
There are political problems with Vancouver, true. But the city is beautiful, and so is British Columbia as a whole. The weather along the coast is fairly moderate because of the ocean currents. Plus it would link the lower 48 with Alaska.

Sounds like a deal to me.
17 posted on 06/07/2003 11:36:01 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
If this is true, why isn't Canada selling us this oil at today's market price.

What makes you think they aren't? Still, the cost to process it is rather high I believe (removing the sand), but IIRC, Canada still is our no. 2 oil producer.

18 posted on 06/07/2003 11:36:34 AM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Agreed, Saskatchewan and likely Manitoba also.

Not B.C. -- never, for any reason.

19 posted on 06/07/2003 11:36:54 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
United North America.
20 posted on 06/07/2003 11:39:00 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo; stands2reason
OK, I was aware of the natural gas, but not so much the oil output of Canada.

However, given all the extra processing necessary to extract Canadian oil, the price per barrel would have to increase a whole lot to make it worthwhile.  That of course, would have lots of repercussions.  Looks like most of that Canadian oil is staying right where it is.

21 posted on 06/07/2003 11:40:04 AM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
The most interesting part of this article is the Candian Supreme Court decision that any province could choose to leave Canada. This means Albertans can force the issue. With the exchange rate so bad, they might.

If any Canadian province leaves (We were all thinking Québec, weren't we?) Canada won't survive well. I wonder if it can be argued that Canada's health care system is essentially paid for by Alberta oil.

Now, with regard to the first sentence: Neither Bush nor the US in general is particularly eager to get Alberta's oil. Yes, it'd be nice to have it within US borders for national security purposes, but Canada needs to sell it more than we need to buy it and it won't be free -- US consumers still have to buy it no matter what. It just won't be subject to whatever tariffs or other taxes Canada puts on it.

22 posted on 06/07/2003 11:40:25 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Ontario Independence League.
23 posted on 06/07/2003 11:43:32 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Vancouver Island would be a gorgeous addition to the Union. On its highways, careless drivers are yelled at as "Stupid American!"

The only problem is that, if they join the US, those provinces would have to give up speaking English.

24 posted on 06/07/2003 11:44:30 AM PDT by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
British Columbia is beautiful... who cares about the residents.... buy more acreage and you don't ever have to see them.
25 posted on 06/07/2003 11:46:22 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Republic of Cascadia.
26 posted on 06/07/2003 11:46:52 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexico

can't we trade these two to canada...

27 posted on 06/07/2003 11:49:05 AM PDT by Bill Davis FR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Vancouver?

I've always called it "Tiajuana del Norte".

28 posted on 06/07/2003 11:49:27 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Western Canada Concept.
29 posted on 06/07/2003 11:49:52 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Consort
British Columbia Separatist Movemment.
30 posted on 06/07/2003 11:51:48 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Can we get that 51st/52 state map redone with Aztlan removed to see what American will really look like? Thanks.
31 posted on 06/07/2003 11:52:14 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Husker24
Ohh sure, a state can leave our Union, you just have to have somthing like a 3/4 majority of the state legislator and 3/4 of the Senate and 4/5 majority of the house. So basically you are free to succede of no one else wants you.

Interesting concept of self-determination, but true enough.
32 posted on 06/07/2003 12:00:52 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bill Davis FR; fish hawk
Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexico

can't we trade these two to canada...

Mexico has first dibs....
But that doesn't mean we can't downsize to 48 states and give 'em New York and Massachusettes. Heck, toss in Vermont and make it 47.

33 posted on 06/07/2003 12:01:41 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
US consumers still have to buy it no matter what.

If Alberta joined the Union would the democrats allow the Albertans to drill for oil in the pristine Alberta environment even if they wanted to? I suspect they would make it into Grand Escalante north forthwith. Alberta should go for independence if they want to control their own destiny. Our Congress might prove to be more disadvantageous to them than their parliament and obviously their Supreme Court is less hostile to their interests than ours would be.
34 posted on 06/07/2003 12:05:19 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Waiting for the day we take Canada and go to war against Quebec.
35 posted on 06/07/2003 12:07:22 PM PDT by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Forget it -- the author is confusing the conservative spirit of Alberta with a pro-American one. If anything, Alberta is probably more strongly opposed to joining the U.S. than any other Canadian province is.

When asked to choose between Ottawa and Washington, most Albertans would select Calgary.

36 posted on 06/07/2003 12:09:28 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia.

With Alberta as the 51st state, this oil would promptly be declared off-limits as a result of endless litigation by environmentalists.

37 posted on 06/07/2003 12:11:03 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I think Poland would make a better 51st state.
38 posted on 06/07/2003 12:17:07 PM PDT by Katana16j
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I don't disagree with that. The only way for Alberta to have it's cake and eat it too would be to first declare independance, immediately tap the oil reserves, and then hammer out an agreement with Washington that they are off-limits to the environmental whackos. In other words, negotiate your entry on your terms, ala Texas.

As for BC, I think I'd rather have Regina or Saskatchewan as the 52'd state.
39 posted on 06/07/2003 12:17:48 PM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (There is a cure for liberalism: common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
the author is confusing

No Kidding. He's confusing a lot of things and doesn't know much about what he's writing about.

I suspect he's setting the reader up for his second article. Where he proves it.

40 posted on 06/07/2003 12:20:24 PM PDT by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
Any artists conceptions been done of what a flag for the next few possibilities of added states would look like? 51, 52, 53, 54 stars? Does the US government itself keep such designs waiting in the wings?
41 posted on 06/07/2003 12:29:12 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I'd cheer, I think.
42 posted on 06/07/2003 12:38:19 PM PDT by Quix (HEBREW VOWEL ISSUE DISCUSSED, SCHOLARS N JUNE BCD search for TRUE HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON CONTINUES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I suppose that, even if Alberta and BC were to become US states by their own choice--the US would still be branded as imperialist, merely for allowing it. And that we did so only for oil. And that we are now oppressing all the Vancouver potheads, acting like hegemons, blah blah blah jingoistic blah blah blah military-industrial complex yadda yadda long live Chairman Mao blah blah...arright, I guess I'm getting carried away now.
43 posted on 06/07/2003 12:40:12 PM PDT by HassanBenSobar (I now inform you that you are too far from reality!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Katana16j
It's funny that some of the former Soviet republics are more "American" than Democrats in this country. Let's just move Democrats to Poland and move the Poles here.
44 posted on 06/07/2003 12:52:15 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
The guy that wrote this article for the National Post might want to look here: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=6493 and consider it an introduction to the real world.
Rederic
45 posted on 06/07/2003 12:55:42 PM PDT by rederic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
The U.S. can minimize foreign oil imports any time it wants.
All that is necessary to do is to stop making those damn SUVs.
46 posted on 06/07/2003 12:55:47 PM PDT by curmudgeonII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Not so fast, Vancouver and Victoria have some of the best 'Gentleman's Clubs' known to man....
47 posted on 06/07/2003 12:56:08 PM PDT by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII
The U.S. can minimize foreign oil imports any time it wants.
All that is necessary to do is to stop making those damn SUVs.

Please please please tell me you are joking ....

48 posted on 06/07/2003 12:57:14 PM PDT by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I always thought that confusion & denial were the 51st&52nd states!

LOL :)
49 posted on 06/07/2003 12:59:49 PM PDT by Knightsofswing (sic semper tranyis [death to tryants!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
"Actually there would still only be 50 states as we lose Kalifornia and Arizona back to Mexico."

Seems like a good trade to me, although I don't think the liberals would stand for it....far too many white people in Canada to suit their taste.

50 posted on 06/07/2003 1:00:12 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson