State or province? Bond or free?

The argument that “if they please, (they may make) of the whole Union a single State, and of the States mere Counties” certainly piqued my interest with respect to the Constitutional situation here.

Nova Scotia — once a proto-state in 1775 at the same level as New York, Jamaica or New Zealand, devolved into a province of the dominion of Canada in 1867 thanks to the BNA, whose counties were municipalized in 1879, whose Senate was dissolved by fiat in 1928 — seems to have completed the process of becoming a county in everything but name nearly 100 years ago. Its municipal corporations of note, the only carve-outs that survived this new regime, finally dissolved by fiat in 1996. Nova Scotia since that time seems to operate as nothing more than a borough of the province of Canada.

The skimming operation known as “Canada” is designed to suck the lifeblood out of the people, pilfering their productivity, their institutions, the economy, even their individuality. Increasingly centrally planned through various mechanisms, today it’s overwhelmingly “the climate” that serves as the vehicle of choice, though there are others — whether through “crown corporation” monopolies or (supposedly) “free market” oligopolies, it’s an onshore-off-shored economic environment for Canadian vassals outside an administrative class overwhelmingly geographically concentrated in what was once the province of Canada.

What portion of the profits that would be gained through a system like slavery are achieved by these Canadian fiefdoms I’m not sure, but Canada is like a ratchet without a quick release. The most basic rights of Canadian subjects such as control over their own bodies, their minds, and even their children’s education, is restricted more and more just as surely as their taxes are higher and higher in each and every session of a foreign crown’s parliament at Ottawa, on a parallel track is Canada’s suffocating reliance on a policy of divide and conquer.

Historically it was in terms of the loyalists and the disaffected, Tory and Whig, English and French. Today it’s evolved to include immigrants and the indigenous or “people of color” and sexual minorities versus everyone else in a race to find the most victimized sliver of humanity, as a way to discount the individual in favor of an assigned (by someone else) group identity. East versus west or oil versus the environment, the contrived Canadian political “conversation” ends in a contrived Canadian unitary message on every topic under the sun, from “coast to coast to coast”.

Any opposition or difference of opinion is deemed racist, sexist or some level of “phobic” as we move quickly down the road to an inevitable conclusion, the return to serfdom & villeinage outright, now that the “constitutional” appendage to Canada’s “‘constitutional’ monarchy” has been proven to be completely fungible and meaningless. When can we expect the announcement that Canada is being subsumed yet again, this time as a province of “CANZUK”?

This “return to monarchy” appears to this author to be imminent, at this stage, where even Nova Scotia’s constitutionally guaranteed Federal Senators have been left un-appointed for years. It was Nova Scotia’s Senators (along with New Brunswick’s) who served as the great concession of “confederation”, as a balance between the interests of the province of Canada (split into Ontario and Quebec) and the only others at the time, that of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (which, previous to 1784, was Nova Scotia in total).

Those Senators who have been appointed during the current regime are deemed “independent”, a novel status not found anywhere in the constitution, which defeats the purposes for which bicameralism was introduced into the BNA, and entirely politically convenient for those doing the appointing. I assume this is a lead up of some kind to the dissolution of the Senate entirely, a repeat of what occured to Nova Scotia’s upper house which has left us with a unicameral ram-fest ever since.

There is no limit to the corruption of the Canadian state and its institutions, free rein is given, even to the rearranging of power in Parliament after the fact, after “election”, in opposition to that power supposedly given by “voters”, whatever that particular appellation is worth at this point. (It’s worthless).

The economic stranglehold being placed like a noose around the neck of Alberta and the West more broadly, at the behest of “Ottawa”, is an echo of the past, when the same was done to what has become the dependency of “Atlantic Canada”; excise and duties being their main income at that time, fisheries their lifeblood, all became the province of “the Canadians”. They’ve been at the ready ever since that time to use the extensive powers that their inverted form of the US Constitution provides, as a political weapon — now the focus is “the climate” as it relates to energy, just coincidentally something Western Canada is particularly blessed with, its development now divorced from any other considerations by hyper-ideological zealots. Coincidence, and not by design, I’m sure.

If one is able to separate the constitutional considerations posited in the pamphlet below from the issue of slavery that was unfortunately its linchpin ⁠— a problem that also existed north of the border, regardless of those who seem to think their corner of the world had a geographical and temporal monopoly on the practice in order to suit their own modern political goals ⁠— one can more easily see the argument for States AND people together as America’s constituting force, that which created the Federal government, versus one or the other exclusively.

Without imposing my personal thoughts on the American situation, which is not my intention (though to investigate Nova Scotia’s unwritten Constitution makes any separation of the two virtually impossible) — I see the necessity of this argument as reflected in Canada’s constitutional framework. Canadian jurisdictions are the constitutional end result that (at least some in “the south”, and perhaps otherwise) feared for their States; a total loss of sovereignty to a highly centralized unitary state.

This poem seems fitting, located in Canada East & Canada West, once “the province of Canada”, in the map below:

“The field is neither lost nor won,
For Freedom’s battle’s just begun.
What is the next new State to be,
Tell us, in heaven’s name, bond or Free?”

Lewis free soil, slavery, and territorial map of the United States” (

It certainly seems from the historical record that what were once colonies and are now the provinces “of Canada” were subsumed, ushered into “Canada” as something other than free. Who owned the land that “Canada” now claims as its (supposedly) sovereign territory? “If England had the power to barter or give Canada without the will of the people, she might cede the territory to China or Russia“, a throw away line from another forgotten title that makes so much sense in the current environment of love for “basic dictatorships” and former Prime Ministers meeting with friends, ten years after they’re out of office.

Since what is now known as “confederation” ⁠— which occurred shortly after the Civil War ended, around the same time that Alaska, what was once (all of, part of?) Russian America, was purchased and made American territory ⁠— Canada seems to have served as a vessel and a template for an evolution of slavery. Canadian slavery is much more nuanced than the villeinage of old, in the form of “Constitutional monarchy”, a contradiction in terms and in opposition to the “responsible government” that came before it. It’s a framework that provides the perpetually arbitrary and ad hoc necessary, the certainty and security required, for those whose “investments” depend on a skimming operation within a never ending identity crisis.

Those in the past who have trusted in “the crown”, who have labored under the impression that the institutions strengthened by their efforts would stand the test of time, have all been betrayed in what has become an inevitable and perpetual race to the constitutional bottom, generation after generation. A cabal of Canadian elites at all levels now use wokeness to market the same old corrupt crown institutions in a skin suit of intersectionality to a new generation less familiar with its obfuscations.

Our educational system whose priority is indoctrination won’t provide any inkling of opposition to these new narratives, as with most other institutions, they’re bereft of accountability mechanisms in favor of struggle sessions designed to market top-down despotism as an evolution, victimhood narratives as power. The arbitrary has taken hold to the point of unilateral dissolution of elected school boards in the name of racial justice, without any school choice the reasons are clear — the Canadian State has asserted itself as parent to all, the great beyond can’t be far off now.

I advocate for a republic, for a free and sovereign State of Nova Scotia within a framework of Canadian federalism that is based on the principles behind the US Constitution ⁠— especially the ninth and tenth amendment and not its Canadian inversion in the form of residuary power ⁠— given to what is at this point, nothing more than a unitary state at “Ottawa”. While a sub-national written Constitution and a bill of rights provide no guarantee they will be upheld, they at least create an agreed upon foundation with which to protect those most basic institutions and concepts, especially considering both Canada’s constitutional framework of specifically apportioned provincial powers (at least, when convenient to “Ottawa”) and its tendency to redefine institutions and concepts as often as is required for the accumulation and centralization of power (at Ottawa).

Perhaps part of the fix for Canada’s clumsy carpentry needs to come from the sub-national on another front, perhaps Nova Scotia needs to encompass other Maritime Provinces in a return to Nova Scotia’s ancient Maritime boundaries? It is by no means a silver bullet and will likely meet resistance on many fronts, not altogether unwarranted. Inviting Newfoundland and Labrador to join with us too, as an Atlantic state, wouldn’t make the herding of cats any easier but it seems to make sense given our shared culture, geography and interests, beyond the fact the Canadians have already defined us into a “region”.

What was in motion previous to “confederation” could help now by putting an end to constant squabbling about “East” versus “West”, it’s my contention that there’s very few people east of Quebec who want a vote that is worth more than the vote of those in Western Canada or in any other part of Canada. Ridings in the House of Commons should be proportional based on population as they are in the US House, one person, one vote. Senators should be selected by Provincial legislatures and apportioned equally to each, regardless of population, as they were previous to the 17th amendment in the United States — as they were selected by Nova Scotia’s Legislature for its Senate, previous to its dissolution by a foreign Privy Council that needs not worry about publishing a dissent.

What is for certain is that whatever changes we make must take into account the wishes of the people if they are to be citizens in any meaningful way, which for them (and them) would be a first, no matter what intersectional identity they ascribe to themselves. I advocate for liberation from the bonds of dependency on the crowned Canadian despots and their ever more totalitarian unitary state at “Ottawa”, for some level of self determination and self government in whatever construct we the people, not we the vassals of a foreign crown, decide to create.

The alternative to a future we take into our own hands is a return to the horrors of the past just as fast as “Ottawa” can devolve our state of affairs — a future that is in motion, one I’m unwilling to participate in, but which at this point seems to be all but inevitable.

“Nothing is more essential to the statesman and the people alike, than to understand the true causes that bring about sudden catastrophes; for thus only they can understand the reach and depth of the questions involved, or even what at heart those questions are. And without knowing that, neither statesman or people can know or even guess at the true remedy, or what it is the part of wisdom in the given case to endeavor to do. Nothing can be settled, until the pith of a controversy is reached and understood. The physician who should mistake the sporadic pustules on the skin for the actual disorder, and undertake to treat them alone, would be fortunate if he did not kill his patient; and statesmen who undertake to patch up by compromise controversies caused by radical differences of opinion on great fundamental principles, are like quacks who pretend to cure with cataplasms of roots and herbs, cancers whose roots cling around the very core of the heart.”

“Revolutions that shatter empires are not improvised, under the spur of a causeless excitement, by a few schemers or malcontents. Habit is a stronger bond of union than affection, and its influence can only be destroyed by the operation of sufficient causes, acting for a long time. It is continual dropping only, that wears away the stone.”

“If George III. and Lord North and the British Parliament had been wise, the Colonies would not have revolted—then. Was it not as well for them to revolt then? Could they always have remained Colonies? Was it not well that king and minister and Parliament would not listen to Chatham and Barre?”

“The Southern States hold, as Jefferson and Madison and all the Anti-Federal party held, that the General Government is the result of a compact between the States; a compact made by the States, amendable by the States only, and dissolvable by the States whenever it fails to answer the purposes for which they created it. The earliest symbol of the Union—a chain, composed of thirteen circular links, each perfect in symmetry and complete in its separate identity—well expressed the true nature of that union, and the Southern States-rights doctrine. The Northern States, on the contrary, hold that there is no such compact; that the whole people of all the States, as an aggregate and unit, made the Constitution; and that there is no right of secession retained by a State; from which, by our American common law, it results as an inevitable corollary, that whenever the majority of voters of the whole Union choose to exercise the power, notwithstanding the mode provided by the Constitution for its amendment, they may call a Convention, not of the States, nor in each State, but of the whole People of all; and, the majority being there represented, may set aside the present Constitution of the United States, and make a new one, making, if they please, of the whole Union a single State, and of the States mere Counties. For it is fresh in our recollection that the People of New York, not many years since, held a Convention, in utter contempt of their Constitution, and of the mode which it provided for its amendment, and made a new Constitution, which the highest Court of that State held valid; and it governs that State now.”

“There is a difference as wide and substantial between this Government, as its nature is understood by the fifteen Slave-holding States, and the same Government, as its nature is understood by the nineteen Non-Slaveholding States, as there is between Constitutional Monarchy in England and Imperial Absolutism in France.”

“Scotland and England were separate and independent States and Kingdoms. Now they are, with Ireland, but one Nation. Surely that was effected by the separate but concurrent action of each State or Kingdom. The only difference is, that our Constitution required the action of each State to be endorsed by the determination of its People, in convention, and not by the act of its Legislature; while in England and Scotland, the action of the Parliament of each Nation was the act of the Nation.”

“A town, city, parish, or county is a municipal corporation. So is a State, though with larger powers; and so is the United States. The people are the corporators in all but the last, and whether they or the States are corporators in that makes it none the less a corporation.”

“A “corporation,” or “body politic and corporate,” is defined to be “a body created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, and may be continually changed, the ideal body remaining one, identical, and the same, notwithstanding the change of persons.””

“British America will, in all probability, desire to become, at no distant day, a part of the Union, if it continues; and a simple act of Congress will admit it… How long would it be, under that system, before the union of North and South would be like that between England and Ireland; which, obtained by bribery, has been always maintained by force?”

Pike, Albert. “State or province? Bond or free? : addressed particularly to the people of Arkansas” [Arkansas?] : [publisher not identified], 1861.