Matthew Ehret: The Hidden Battle Between Empire and Sovereignty in North America

In this wide-ranging overview, historian Matthew Ehret explores the deeper forces that shape political systems, economic policy, and historical narratives. Drawing from centuries of geopolitical history, he describes an enduring conflict between two competing models of society: one rooted in human sovereignty, development, and natural law, and another based on oligarchical control and imperial management of populations. The conversation moves from the American Revolution to modern technocratic institutions, touching on the power of privatized finance, the role of ideology in shaping societies, and the structural legacy of empire that still influences political systems today, including in Canada. Understanding these forces is essential if we hope to reclaim meaningful self-government and create a more prosperous future.Thank you to Matthew Ehret for sharing these insights about the true nature of the country and world we live in. You can follow him and find his books at:X (@ehret_matthew)Substack (Matthew Ehret)Website (You can Buy Ehret’s Books Here)Matthew Ehret begins by describing history as an ongoing struggle between two fundamentally different views of humanity. One perspective recognizes human beings as creative, moral agents capable of reason and self-governing. Within this framework, political authority derives from natural law and the consent of the governed, and the purpose of institutions is limited.Opposing this tradition is an oligarchical worldview that treats human populations as something to be managed. In this model, a minority claims the right to govern through hereditary power, financial control, or institutional authority. Maintaining such a system requires shaping public perception in ways that discourage people from believing they are capable of governing themselves. Cultural narratives, economic structures, and political institutions are designed to reinforce this hierarchy.Ehret argues that these competing conceptions of society appear across civilizations and eras. Whether in ancient empires or modern financial systems, the same philosophical divide persists. The political struggles of the modern world can often be understood as manifestations of this deeper conflict.The American Revolution represents one of the most significant expressions of the republican tradition in modern history. The Declaration of Independence contained the principle that human rights are inherent, divine, and cannot be granted or revoked by monarchs. This idea directly challenged the imperial structure that dominated global politics in the eighteenth century. Under that system, authority flowed downward from monarchs, aristocratic families, and financial institutions tied to imperial power centered in places like the City of London.The founders believed that societies should instead organize themselves around laws grounded in universal principles. Figures such as Franklin, Hamilton, and later Abraham Lincoln saw national development, infrastructure, and scientific progress as natural expressions of this philosophy. Lincoln’s economic program during the Civil War—tariffs, railroads, national banking, and large-scale infrastructure—reflected the same conviction that a sovereign nation should actively enable the potential of its people.The revolutionary impulse did not remain confined to a single country. It inspired reform movements and debates across the broader Atlantic world, including in territories that would later become Canada.One of the more striking historical episodes Matthew Ehret discusses involves Benjamin Franklin’s attempt to bring the northern colonies into the revolution. In 1776, Franklin travelled to Quebec in an effort to persuade the colonies that would later become Canada to join his movement and send a delegation south to sign the Declaration of Independence. The goal was to extend the revolutionary project across the continent and establish a broader republican alliance against the British imperial system.During his time there, Franklin helped establish early communication institutions, including a printing press, a newspaper, and elements of a postal system. These actions reflected Franklin’s belief that the foundations of a self-governing society required open communication, cultural development, and a politically engaged public.Despite these efforts, the mission ultimately failed. The northern colonies did not join the revolution and remained aligned with the British imperial structure. Ehret suggests that this outcome was not primarily the result of local hesitation, but reflected the influence of powerful networks, aligned with the imperial system, that worked to prevent the spread of the republican movement northward.Beyond political structures, Matthew Ehret places strong emphasis on the economic architecture that sustained imperial power. The British imperial system was not merely a political arrangement but a financial and commercial network that operated across continents through banks, trading companies, and chartered monopolies.Institutions centered around the City of London played a coordinating role within this system. Ehret explains how these networks were able to influence trade, finance, and political decision-making across large regions by controlling credit and commercial access. Chartered corporations such as the British East India Company became powerful instruments of this system. These organizations controlled vast territories, maintained private armies, issued currency, and governed trade routes stretching from Asia to North America.Ehret also highlights the ideological component of this system. The British Empire often promoted free trade as a universal economic principle. Thinkers such as Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776, helped popularize the argument that markets should operate without state interference. Yet in practice, Ehret argues, these rules were applied selectively. While imperial authorities promoted free trade abroad, they frequently employed protectionism in their own industries at home—a hypocritical, yet effective move.Ehret also draws attention to the role of revolutionary movements that were quietly tolerated—or at times strategically useful—within imperial systems. During the nineteenth century, London became a hub for political exiles, radicals, and anarchist organizers from across Europe. Many of these figures were wanted by other governments for their involvement in uprisings, assassinations, or revolutionary agitation, yet they were often able to operate with relative freedom in Britain.This created a striking paradox. While the British state publicly condemned revolutionary violence abroad, London simultaneously served as a refuge for individuals involved in destabilizing rival states. Publications, political organizations, and fundraising networks linked to revolutionary movements frequently operated from the city.Ehret describes how revolutionary chaos and terrorism weakened competing empires and destabilized governments that might otherwise challenge imperial influence. By allowing radical networks to organize within its borders, the British Empire could indirectly shape political landscapes abroad.The Russian Revolution of 1917 illustrates how revolutionary movements often intersected with broader geopolitical struggles, and highlights the shadowy relations that often underpin them. Figures such as Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky moved through international political networks before returning to Russia during the collapse of the old imperial order.Trotsky spent time in New York City in the months leading up to the revolution, participating in political circles and publishing revolutionary writings. Lenin, meanwhile, famously returned to Russia via a sealed train arranged by German authorities, who hoped that destabilizing Russia would weaken their enemy on the Eastern Front during the First World War.After the Bolsheviks consolidated power, the revolutionary coalition that had overthrown the old regime quickly fractured. The internal struggle for control of the Soviet state eventually culminated in the rise of Joseph Stalin, who moved to neutralize rival factions within the Communist Party. During the Moscow Trials of the 1930s, several prominent figures associated with earlier Bolshevik leadership—including individuals connected to Leon Trotsky’s network—were accused of participating in conspiracies involving foreign intelligence services and internal sabotage against the Soviet government.By the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Soviet Union had undergone rapid industrial transformation under Stalin’s leadership. This shift positioned the country as a major strategic power during the Second World War, leading to a wartime alliance with the United States under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt viewed cooperation with the Soviet Union as essential to defeating Nazi Germany and stabilizing the postwar world.However, Ehret emphasizes that this fragile partnership faced opposition from powerful geopolitical interests that had long viewed cooperation between major industrial powers as a threat to established imperial systems. Even as Roosevelt pursued collaboration with Moscow through initiatives such as the Lend-Lease program and plans for postwar economic reconstruction, networks within Western political and financial circles remained deeply suspicious of the Soviet alliance. The collapse of Roosevelt’s cooperative vision after his death in 1945 marked a decisive turning point, replacing wartime collaboration with the prolonged geopolitical rivalry that would define the second half of the twentieth century.When Canada emerged as a consolidated political entity in the nineteenth century, Ehret argues that its institutional framework reflected the broader imperial dynamics of the era. Confederation in 1867 created a federal structure, but the constitutional foundation remained closely tied to the British Crown and its administrative traditions.A key example Ehret highlights is the continuing role of institutions connected to the Crown, including the Privy Council, which historically functioned as an administrative mechanism linking colonial governance to imperial authority. Even in the modern era, officials swear allegiance not to the population directly but to the monarch and its successors.Ehret also points to venerable figures such as Wilfrid Laurier, who later attempted to move Canada toward closer economic cooperation with the United States through a continental customs union. Laurier’s efforts ultimately failed in part due to the influence of imperial networks such as Cecil Rhodes’s Round Table movement, which sought to preserve British strategic influence across the empire.For Ehret, these events illustrate how Canada’s constitutional structure developed within a framework shaped by imperial interests rather than purely republican principles.Ehret also points to the dramatic cultural transformation that took place in Quebec during the 1960s, often referred to as the Quiet Revolution. For much of its history, French Canadians had maintained a strong religious and communal identity rooted in Catholic institutions, which played a central role in education, healthcare, and social life. This religious culture acted as a stabilizing force within Quebec society and preserved a distinct civilizational outlook separate from the dominant political structure of the British Empire.During the Quiet Revolution, however, this framework was rapidly dismantled. The authority of the Catholic Church in public life declined sharply as the provincial government assumed control over institutions that had previously been managed by religious orders. Education, healthcare, and social services were secularized in a very short period of time, and traditional cultural structures that had defined Quebec society for generations were replaced by a modern technocratic administration.Ehret suggests that this transformation was not simply the result of spontaneous social change or a reaction to specific institutional abuses. Instead, he frames it as part of a broader shift occurring across much of the Western world in the postwar era, in which traditional cultural and religious institutions were gradually displaced by centralized bureaucratic governance.One example he highlights involves the eugenics movement that gained influence in parts of the Western world during the early twentieth century. Several jurisdictions—including Alberta and British Columbia—implemented sterilization programs aimed at preventing certain populations from reproducing. Quebec did not adopt such policies during the same period. Ehret notes that the strong influence of Catholic social doctrine, which emphasized the sanctity of human life and rejected eugenic theories, played an important role in blocking the implementation of similar programs within the province.From this perspective, the dismantling of Quebec’s religious institutions during the Quiet Revolution removed one of the major cultural barriers that had historically resisted such technocratic approaches to social policy. Just as constitutional structures and economic systems shape the direction of a society, shifts in cultural identity can profoundly influence what is possible politically and morally. Another major theme in Ehret’s analysis is the role of infrastructure and long-term development in shaping societies. Throughout history, he argues, periods of progress have often coincided with ambitious efforts to expand productive capacity through large infrastructure projects.Ehret points to continental proposals such as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) as examples of this development-oriented thinking. The project envisioned capturing a portion of northern water runoff and redistributing it through dams, reservoirs, and canals, generating hydroelectric power while improving water distribution across large regions.Political leaders such as John F. Kennedy expressed interest in similar large-scale development initiatives during the mid-twentieth century. For Ehret, Kennedy’s presidency represented one of the last moments when ambitious and collaborative infrastructure projects remained central to political imagination in North America. Such initiatives reflect a philosophy that sees economic progress as the result of human creativity applied to natural resources. Large-scale infrastructure planning requires cooperation across generations and a willingness to invest in the future—an ethos which has been slowly diminished.The discussion also touches on the role of ideology in shaping modern institutions. Ehret describes how certain intellectual movements in the twentieth century promoted technocratic governance and social engineering as tools for managing complex societies.International organizations and foundations played a role in spreading these ideas through educational reforms and policy initiatives. Figures such as Julian Huxley, the first director of UNESCO and a prominent advocate of scientific management of society, helped shape these global intellectual trends.These programs were often presented as modernizing efforts designed to bring societies in line with scientific and administrative expertise. However, Ehret suggests that some of these frameworks also promoted a more mechanistic view of human beings. In this perspective, populations are treated not as moral agents, but systems to be managed by experts and institutions. Ehret also places considerable emphasis on the role of financial institutions that operate beyond the direct control of national governments. In his view, modern history cannot be understood without examining the networks of banking power that developed alongside the British imperial system and later expanded across the Atlantic world.A pivotal moment in this story was the creation of the Federal Reserve System in the United States in 1913. The institution was formally established through legislation signed by President Woodrow Wilson, but its origins trace back to private meetings among leading bankers and financial figures. One such gathering, held on Jekyll Island in 1910, brought together representatives of major banking interests who drafted the framework for what would become the new central banking system.From Ehret’s perspective, this development reflected a broader pattern in which transnational banking networks—many historically linked to the financial traditions of the City of London—exercised influence across multiple countries simultaneously. Because such institutions operate through credit creation, currency management, and financial markets, their power can extend beyond the formal boundaries of national sovereignty and give individuals massive advantages over the population in the markets. In light of overreach and corruption, Ehret reflects on philosophical traditions that have give us an effective guide for legitimate political authority. He points to parallels between Western concepts of natural law and ideas found in other civilizations, including the Chinese concept known as the Mandate of Heaven, articulated by thinkers such as Mencius. In both traditions, rulers derive legitimacy from their adherence to God’s laws, not self-interest. If governments violate these principles or govern unjustly, they lose their legitimacy. Within this framework, citizens are not merely subjects of authority but participants in judging whether institutions remain aligned with the common good.For Ehret, studying history is not simply an academic exercise. It is a practical tool that helps societies understand the forces shaping their present conditions. By examining how institutions were built and how power structures evolved, citizens can better recognize the patterns that influence modern political decisions.Without this historical awareness, societies risk repeating mistakes and accepting narratives that obscure the real sources of power. Understanding the past allows individuals to navigate present challenges with greater clarity. As Ehret’s mentor says:“History does not repeat itself. Fools repeat history.”