Always to the frontier
Showing posts with label The Confederation of Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Confederation of Canada. Show all posts

Saturday, September 22, 2012

The (Anti) Quebec Separatism Post, Part One: Historical Background

On September 4th, 2012, the people of Quebec elected Pauline Marois as the new premier (provincial leader, like a governor) of Quebec.  Madame Marois is also the current leader of the Parti Quebecois, a provincial party in Quebec dedicated to the cause of Quebec sovereignty.  She has already blamed Prime Minister Harper for promoting Queen Elizabeth II as a symbol of Canadian nationalism and motioned for the removal of the national flag from swearing in ceremonies of provincial legislators.  Quebec nationalism, it seems, has emerged like a diseased bear from a burnt out forest it was supposed to have banished to in 1995.

Before I go on, a little background on your author is necessary to understand his biases.  My father's side of the family is largely highland Scot with Canadian ancestry dating back at most a century if less, while my mother's side is Irish and French, with the Irish presence being here since the 1880's and the French presence pretty much having arrived on the ships with Champlain as far as we know.  This is where things get complicated...

Ever since time began, English folks and French folks have not really gotten along.  Sure, England was almost constantly at odds with other powers, especially their Celtic co-inhabitants of the rainy islands, but the arch-enemy of all things English has largely been considered French.  During the Protestant Reformation, when things French tended to stay Roman Catholic for the most part, this rivalry turned into bitter hostility.  While racial and cultural bigotry that grew into the Black Legend pretty much focused on southern European, and particularly Spanish culture, the people of England and English-speaking North America learned to despise the "freedom-hating, overly Catholic" French as if such hatred were a religion.  The Catholic-centric policies of absolute ruler Louis XIV and his would be allies among the deposed Stuarts did little to dispel the Franco-Black Legend, and Americans, to be fair, had every reason to be concerned about French competition in North America, as it hemmed them in and threatened their nice colonial existence with possible annihilation, if not by the French, then by their native allies.  Even after the French were defeated, the Quebec act of 1774 still threatened to make the thirteen colonies prisoners of their lands.

Fortunately, the French came to the aid of the Americans in the American war for independence, and Britain now became the grand enemy.  Things French slowly became more acceptable in English speaking North America, more so when the country changed hands and became a European bastion of democracy (stop laughing, I know that the Revolution and Napoleon made a mockery out of this).  Of course, try telling your average American or newly minted Canadian loyalist of 1800 or so that things French in North America were not still the enemy.  Les Canadiens, you see, were still Catholic and might even be out to help France get a new foothold on the continent should the tables ever turn back in Paris.  The loyalists in Ontario were particularly concerned that any freedoms that the habitants of the lower St. Lawrence valley might get would somehow undermine their own existence, less an actual concern (because, you know, the government in charge was British) than a continuation of some old bigotry.

As time went by and English Canada became more of a dominant feature of British North America, this fear and bigotry, which should have simply evaporated, grew stronger.  Though insurrections by some elements of French Canada did occur in the 1830's and later in the century under Louis Riel, they were usually accompanied by a general dislike of the ruling government (English Ontario also saw rebellion in the 1830's). By and large, French-Canadians, Quebecois included, knew that their survival as a culture depended on the existence of Canada.  Had they remained under French control, they (we) might have been sold out as easily as Louisiana was in 1803 (to say nothing of what would have happened to Catholic Canadien culture under Revolutionary rule)!  Had the United States ever gained control of Quebec either in the invasion of the 1770's or the War of 1812, well, we can see how well things went over for Californios and Tejans when Mexico lost a lot of her territory.

For a while, then, French-Canadians, including Quebecois, knew that they had a good spot for themselves.  Confederation had even been really kind to Quebec, what with all the strong provincial powers being given to help maintain her unique status.  Still, resentment, especially on the English side of the Ottawa river, remained.  Now, remember back up there where I said things were going to get complicated?

My maternal great-grandmother was as French-Canadian as French-Canadians could ever hope to be.  Back at the turn of the 20th century (and until the 1960's), however, French-Canadians outside of Quebec could expect little advancement socially.  She married one of the Anglais, actually a Scottish-Canadian gentleman, Mr. Wilson of Smiths Falls, Ontario.  Smiths Falls, like much of eastern Ontario, is about as high United Empire Loyalist as any part of the old empire outside of Britain could hope to be!  Needless to say, in order not to "create scandal" or make things rough for the family, my great-grandmother had to stop going to Mass, work on flattening out that accent of hers, and was expected to fly the Union Jack off the front porch. She was, however, a little too proud of her grand heritage to abandon it completely.  To some of her children she secretly taught a Catholic catechism and spoke French with, one of whom was my grandmother.  Though my grandmother, Lillian Cassidy (nee Wilson) was raised Presbyterian and sounded politely Canadian English (despite being Scottish too), she found that when she married an Irishman, "conversion" to Catholicism was a rather simple affair.  The French language, however, was a different matter altogether.

My mother was never raised speaking French, because even if sleepy little Orillia, Ontario could ensure peaceful domestic bliss for an Irish-Catholic family (which was remarkable in a town that featured Orangemen parades until recently), being this deep into English-speaking Ontario, even in the 1950's, meant that any domestic use of French would earn a few raised eyebrows.  French, they said then, was for the nuns at the local Catholic school to use back at their convent and maybe in class.

Back to non-family history for a moment...

In the 1960's, this sort of thing changed.  Vast societal changes were taking place throughout North America.  Racial boundaries were being openly and defiantly broken, youth culture was emerging as a fighting force rather than a deviant minority, suits and ties were giving way to jeans and t-shirts, and peace was slowly becoming more attractive than war for the first time in human history.  Quebec took part in this upheaval in what has since been known as the "Quiet Revolution" in which the Catholic Church lost her place as a cornerstone of French-Canadian society and nationalistic tendencies rose up for the first time since confederation.  All of a sudden, even deep into Ontario, things French became cool and exciting, especially among progressive-minded youth yearning for a new society and world, more so when Parisians started transforming the artistic bent of their city, especially in the Sorbonne.  Montreal, long the crown jewel of Canadian commerce and cosmopolitan vitality, was looking to join the ranks of such cities as New York, London, Paris, etc.

Then the walls came crashing down.  Rather than ride the wave of new-found popularity, the nationalistic elements of the Quiet Revolution formed the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) and started committing terrorist acts in the name of Quebecois freedom.  In 1969, they bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange, and in 1970 started murdering and kidnapping government officials.  Ever since this time, the unity of Canada has been called into question by many on both sides of the internal border between Quebec and the rest of the nation.  I call these people extremists and just plain dumb.   Come by tomorrow when I explain the current (post 1980) situation of independence, but stay for now as I finish the personal history.

While my mother was largely kept in the dark about her cultural inheritance (she did know who her grandmother was and was taught French in school, to be fair), the fact that social pressures against French-Canadians was largely dead and gone by the early 1980's meant that my grandmother was quite eager to not see her heritage disappear.  She fed me lots of tourtieres, pea soup, and things both burnt and made of too much butter.  We read through saint picture books that prominently featured Joan of Arc, King Louis, and a number of Jesuits.  She sang Silent Night to me en Francais when I was a baby and spoke the mother tongue around me whenever we were alone together.  By the time I learned how to speak, I was becoming simultaneously bilingual.  Because the rest of my family and the majority of my existence in Ontario and other English-dominated parts of my early years surrounded me in English, I pretty much always spoke it without moving between the two languages, but the inside of the noggin was a different matter entirely, and I was a terrible speller until high school, mainly because of the battling languages going on in my head.  I laugh at the linguistic dueling, because it is so emblematic of what I strongly identify with as a "home" culture, that of being a Franco-Ontarian.



The Franco-Ontarian flag.  The above on is flown proudly alongside the Canadian and Ontarian flags in Mattawa, Ontario.


You would think I would thus be all for Quebecois freedom, non?  I again give you a resounding NO/NON to this tragedy of a concept, despite my heritage.  Why?  Because Quebecois freedom is oppressive to French-Canadian freedom.  By no means do some malcontents in politics have a monopoly on the cultural identity of our people.  Again, come by tomorrow as I expound on this.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Sunday Post: July 1st, 1867


Heh, try getting an assembly like this to agree on something these days!

Happy Canada Day!

Monday, June 11, 2012

The Impact of the American Civil War on the Neighbors: Part Four

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

On the whole, the Charlottetown conference had gone rather well for all involved.  Prince Edward Island was the sole region to voice reluctance regarding a possible union of Canada, with pretty much everyone else agreeing that the benefits of union were not only helpful in dealing with the Americans, but in helping move the regions towards a stronger economic future.  By late 1864, the American Civil War was looking as if it would wind down.  General Grant had made significant progress in splitting apart the Confederacy, and Union victory was looking to be something that would inevitably happen.   The participants at Charlottetown were well aware of this situation, and a union of their own seemed to grow in importance, but they probably also noticed how well they were all conducting themselves at what could have easily turned into a far more volatile meeting.  Most of the conference, in fact, was spent simply outlining positions regarding possible confederation, rather than arguing over its merits.  Remarkably, in the course of a mere week, the participants found themselves moving from a loose proposition to a desire to make union happen within several years.  As the nature of the conference was still considered to be an introduction of concepts, the proceedings closed without any manifested moves towards confederation, but all involved agreed to meet within a month.  They did so in October at Quebec City.

The gathered delegates at the Quebec conference.  Library and Archives Canada, C-006530.

The Quebec conference took things well beyond the level of proposition.  As noted, Charlottetown's conference closed with a strong desire of most participating bodies to see confederation happen, and soon.  By the time the delegates met again on the 10th of October, debates were being had over the nature of a federal government in a possible confederation.  In what would come to define Canadian politics ever since, Quebec and the Maritimes insisted on strong provincial rights and powers, mostly to safeguard their identities.  At the same time, proponents of a stronger federal government basically pointed south out of the windows and reminded the delegates how strong "states' rights" caused a very costly and bitterly dividing war that the Americans were still engaged in after four long years.  This cause was championed by none other than John A. MacDonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada.

Library and Archives Canada
John would have had some heavy debating to do, especially in confronting Quebec.  Fortunately, he had the foresight to engage the opposition and seek out compromises, something he had been doing for years with two very good friends, George Brown and French-Canadian superhero George-Etienne Cartier. 

Monsieur George!  Man could we ever use another one of him these days.
While George Brown fell out of the grand coalition that these three were instrumental in creating (over tariff issues), George of Quebec stood with John as long as his legs would let him.  The Quebec conference ended in a fair sketch of the system Canada uses these days, with the provinces allowed to safeguard their cultural and legal identities, while the federal government would be responsible for making sure that the provinces would work together and not try to act unilaterally.  At the time, and at the risk of sounding overly positive, in all subsequent history, this compromise pretty much satisfied all the parties involved.  Things still had to be approved of over in London, but considering as how the British government was pushing confederation from the start, all that was left to do there would be to actually draft some sort of an act detailing the creation of, well, Canada.  A few more issues were left to be hammered out, mostly cultural and involving education rights within the provinces.  On December 4, 1866, the British North America act was debated in London, and on March 29th, 1867, Queen Victoria told them all to basically get on with it.  We all know what happened on July 1st of that year and every subsequent years... celebration.

So why give out a history of how Canada came to be in a post about what the Civil War did to the continent?  Aside from the obvious matter that the threat of invasion had some people spooked up north, the very purpose of the Civil War, essentially a sealing of the purpose for creating the United States in the first place, affected not only the republic, but the rest of the world that had been paying close attention to the great American experiment in democracy.  The fathers of Confederation were not just looking out the south windows to see if shots were headed their way, but to understand what the whole venture of people on the continent was shaping up to be in the first place.  Individual rights and localization of government had come to question in the fight of brother against brother, while to the north it produced not a war but a separate nation following its own destiny.  As such, it might be easy to say that Canada exists because Canadians did not wish to become Americans, or that Canada exists because of the United States, when in fact the truth of the matter lies more in the reality that both nations exist because people decided that they wanted to protect their best interests and right to self-determination.

As was the case in Mexico, Canada survived the years following the Civil War because the cause of freedom took on a very fresh and powerful meaning for the re-United States.  The Canadians essentially told both the United States and Britain that they wanted to stand on their own, something that might never have happened had not the Americans had to again make that sort of choice for themselves.  As we remember the war in these years of the 150th anniversary, we would do well to also remember what a profound effect it had on the development of not one, but three nations.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

The Impact of the American Civil War on the Neighbors: Part Three

Part One.

Part two.

By the start of the American Civil War, Canada had experienced significant developments in telegraph and railroad lines between its otherwise parochial-minded regions.  For the first time, even if they were not speaking amicably or in agreement with one another, politicians and community leaders from the different parts of British North America were talking to one another.  The freedom of Quebec, the need for consolidation of the regions, a transcontinental railroad, and the consideration for a dominant capital were all among the topics hotly debated.  One particular concern, however, was at the forefront: The United States of America.  While the Quebecois laughed at the Ontarians who shook on their boots every time the southerners were spoken of, nobody was keen on the idea of Manifest Destiny taking a turn northwards.

Quebec might have proclaimed that it had nothing to fear from people who clearly were still not the best of friends with Britain, but it knew full well that its rights and culture would be just as much at odds with an English-speaking government in Washington as it was in London.  Ontario and Nova Scotia had every reason to be concerned about a third-generation attack on the descendants of Loyalist colonists, to say nothing of the fact that Ontario was quite a prize to take geographically.  To this day, complete control over the resources of the Great Lakes is still something very much coveted by certain portions of the United States government.  The memory of the Mexican-American war was just as fresh in the minds of Canadians as it was in Mexico, and just as everything from Texas to California had been seized in that conflict, fears had arisen regarding the annexation of British Columbia and southern Ontario by the United States.  Imagine a border at the continental divide and along the French and Ottawa rivers, for such might well have been the very least of what would have happened as an outcome of war between the two sides.  The politicians feared for their positions, while the ordinary people, especially the First Nations, wondered what would happen to their way of life and property.

Something had to be done, even while the various factions and regions were divided against one another.  In the end, the initiative was taken not by a trembling Ontarian, but by a Nova Scotian, Charles Tupper.

Charles Tupper, National Archives of Canada, PA-026317
Charles had a pretty good grasp of the big picture of what was going on in his time.  While Atlantic Canada did not feel much of a bond with distant Ontario, and with the possible exception of warm sentiments in strongly French-Canadian New Brunswick, did not feel much of anything for Quebec, the peoples of the Maritime lands, then as now, knew that continued isolation meant eventual take-over by the Americans.  Charles initially played his cards close to his vest, and proposed that the military vulnerability created by the existing regional separations could be lessened simply by a union of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (whose invitation apparently got lost in the mail).  Britain, knowing full well how helpful this would be, strongly encouraged the matter, and by 1864 a conference at Charlottetown on Prince Edward Island was called for.  This worked far better than Charles had hoped, because upon learning about the conference, both Ontario and Quebec wanted to come as well.  On the 1st of September, 1864, men with very different opinions and methodologies set aside their differences in the face of invasion by a common enemy.

Charlottetown Conference Delegates, National Archives of Canada, C-000733


Come by tomorrow for part four.