Jeffrey Burton. Indian Territory and the United States, 1866–1906: Courts, Government, and the Movement for Oklahoma Statehood. (Legal History of North America, number 1.) Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1995. Pp. xix, 314. $28.95

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Balthazar

This paper's objective is to bring forth some elements which confirm the following hypothesis : Canada is consigned to continentalism, namely to economic and cultural integration with the United States though this fact is shrouded in a Canadian nationalism of sorts. The continentalist mentality is rooted in the history of British North America, inhabited mostly by refugees from America who have remained inherently "Yankees" in spite of their anti-americanism. The Confederation itself is based on a sort of complicity with the United States. More recently there were talks of a "North American nationality", and continentalism both cultural and economic has come to be seen as a 'force of nature" which the governments, at the most, put into a chanelling process. Still, it is possible for Canadian nationalism to exist provided it does not go beyond the threshold whence it would run headlong into the continental mentality. Canada has defined itself through an international or non-national perspective far too long for today's nationalism not to remain weak and poorly established. But the Americans whose "manifest destiny" has succeeded in spreading over Canada without even their having tried to hoist their flag there find it to their advantage to maintain some form of Canadian sovereignty. Canada as a "friendly nation" can be of use to Washington. That is why there are almost as many advocates for Canada's independence in the United States as there are north of the border. Canadian nationalism can thus further the interests of some Canadian elites without seriously prejudicing continental integration which can very well afford not to be set up into formalized structures.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-302
Author(s):  
Benjamin L. Berger

The three articles offered in this forum on the early history of criminal appeals do us the great service of adding much of interest on this important but neglected issue in the development of Anglo–North American criminal procedure. The opaqueness of the legal history of criminal appeals stands in stark contrast to their centrality and apparent naturalness in contemporary criminal justice systems in England, Canada, and the United States. These three papers look at the period leading up to and immediately following the creation of the first formalized system of what we might call criminal appeals, the establishment of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR) in 1848. This key period in the development of the adversary criminal trial was marked by both a concerted political effort to codify and rationalize the criminal law and by profound structural changes in the management of criminal justice.


1957 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 159-182
Author(s):  
H. Hale Bellot

In order to render my subject manageable, I have excluded from it the literature dealing with legal history, with the general history of political ideas, and with the constitutional and political debates that preceded and accompanied the American Revolution. Each of these is a large subject in itself and would, require for its most summary treatment a separate paper. I limit myself to what has been written during the last fifty years or so about the constitutional history of the Union and of the states in their relation to the Union since the year 1783.


1908 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 886
Author(s):  
W. F. Willoughby ◽  
Francis Newton Thorpe ◽  
Albert Edward McKinley

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-53
Author(s):  
Ted Binnema

The importance of decisions regarding the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs in federal states can only be understood well when studied transnationally and comparatively. Historians of Canada appear never to have considered the significance of the fact that the British North America Act (1867) gave the Canadian federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, even though that stipulation is unique among the constitutional documents of comparable federal states (the United States and Australia). This article explains that the constitutional provisions in Canada, the United States, and Australia are a product of the previous history of indigenous-state relations in each location, but also profoundly affected subsequent developments in each of those countries. Despite stark differences, the similar and parallel developments also hint at trends that influenced all three countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document