French-Canadian Nationalism
For nearly two centuries the inhabitants of New France lived their day to day lives
under the French Regime. The colony of New France was shaped by such institutions as the
Catholic Church, and the seigneural system. After the Conquest of 1763, the inhabitants of
New France now found themselves under the control of the British monarch. However, the
life for the inhabitants of New France, virtually remained unchanged. It was not until the
American Revolution, that the inhabitants of New France began to feel the British presence.
As a result of the American Revolution many British subjects, who became known as the
United Empire Loyalists migrated north to the British colonies. The loyalists who settled
in colonies were uneasy by the lack of government and demanded that some form of
government be established. The British, who feared another war in North America, were
quick to appease the loyalists concerns. Thus in 1791 the Constitution Act was
implemented. From its implementation major clashes developed between the French and
English populations. These major clashes in Lower Canada in the first decade of the
nineteenth century were caused by the implementation of the Constitution Act of 1791. It
will be shown that the French-Canadian response to these tensions gave way for the birth of
French-Canadian nationalism.
The Constitution Act of 1791, which was a result of loyalists demands, left some
English feeling somewhat dissatisfied, particularly with the division of the colony into
Upper and Lower Canada.
In Lower Canada the French population held an overwhel...
... middle of paper ...
...rneau, F. X.. History of Canada. Montreal: John Lovell, 1862.
Ouellet, Fernand. "French-Canadian Nationalism: Its Origins to the Insurrection of
1837," in Dale Miquelon, ed., Society and Conquest. Toronto: Copp Clark
Publishing, 1977, pp. 171-186.
Smith, Lawrence A. H.. "Le Canadien and the British Constitution", in Ramsay
Cook, Craig Brown, Carl Berger, eds., Constitutionalism and Nationalism in
Lower Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969, pp. 17-32.
Wade, Mason. The French Canadians: 1760 - 1967. Toronto: Macmillan of
Canada, 1968.
Wade, Mason. The French-Canadian Outlook. New York: McClelland and
Stewart Limited, 1964.
Wallot, Jean-Pierre. "The 1800's", in J. M. Careless, ed., Colonists ans Canadiens:
1760 - 1867. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1971, pp. 95-121.
First of all, each of the different colonies’ founders all expressed sentiments to establish a solid and uncorrupt government. One that would honor God. This government would be made up of a Governor, and a general Assembly and/or provincial Council where most political and judicial decisions would be made and agreed on together. In the Mayflower Compact, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, men were given the right to vote and choose the officials and representatives who would have a place in the government. These first colonies also promised the people that justice would be restored, it would not be sold, or withheld.
When the colonies were being formed, many colonists came from England to escape the restrictions placed upon them by the crown. Britain had laws for regulating trade and collecting taxes, but they were generally not enforced. The colonists had gotten used to being able to govern themselves. However, Britain sooned changed it’s colonial policy because of the piling debt due to four wars the British got into with the French and the Spanish. The most notable of these, the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), had immediate effects on the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain, leading to the concept of no taxation without representation becoming the motivating force for the American revolutionary movement and a great symbol for democracy amongst the colonies, as Britain tried to tighten their hold on the colonies through various acts and measures.
To summarize the book into a few paragraphs doesn't due it the justice it deserves. The beginning details of the French and Ind...
In the 1770’s the British army was well known for its monetary wealth and professional well trained militia. American colonists were slowly getting more and more fed up with the inequality and taxation under British rule so they took a stand. Americans known as Rebels or Patriots fought in the Revolutionary War to gain independence from Britain. Some colonists also known as loyalists, thought that the Patriots had no chance against the professional militia so they stayed loyal to the crown. Although improbable at the start of the American Revolution, the colonists were able to defeat the British army and formally gain independence because they had great leadership from George Washington, similar goals that created high morale, and aided from
How were the seeds for self-government sown in the early colonies? Why was this important when England started to enforce rules (such as the Intolerable Acts)? Please give specific examples.
...olonists’ needs so the colonists began to gain confidence in a governmental system that did not rely on a king.
The colonies weren’t close to accepting the attitude and policies that Great Britain was throwing at them. They felt that they too were Englishmen and should have all the rights any Englishman would have.
Tensions were already high between English- and French-Canadians, especially after Ontario had stopped teaching French in Catholic Schools, and the conscription crisis only served to increase them.
The location of New France was North America. North America was an area colonized by France which stretched from New Foundland to Hudson Bay to the Rocky Mountains all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. All the territory was divided into 5 different colonies and those colonies were: Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, New Foundland(Plaisance), and Louisiana.
The colonists felt as if they were being strangled by Britain’s rule, the British passing a series of policies that the common man, as well as the elite, didn’t agree with. This ranged from the Stamp Act to the Sugar Act to even
The American Revolution was a war in which the colonists achieved political independence from their former rulers Great Britain. It was "the formulation of new principles of the relation of men to government, and of the relation of colonies to mother country. It was the inauguration of effective self-government and of social and economic equality."1 The colonists, in effect, achieved full autonomy from Great Britain through the American Revolution. The colonists felt (for the betterment of all Americans) that it was their duty and responsibility to rise up against their oppressors to form their own government. John Adams even states, "[that] the real American Revolution was a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people. Above all, [the Revolution] was in the minds and hearts of the peopl...
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
Canada and Quebec have always been in conflict from the confederation of 1867 to the Supreme court judgement on the secession of Quebec in 1998. Quebec faces several challenges in terms of constitutional relations with the rest of Canada. Quebec is seeking a special status to preserve and protect its culture and language, while the rest of English-speaking Canada accepts the view of provincial equality. There have been attempts to recognize Quebec's concerns through constitutional amendments, but these attempts have not lived up to Quebec's expectations and for the most parts have failed. Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top. In this essay I will discuss the various historical attempts made by government to keep Quebec a part of Canada. I will also attempt to explain the impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Quebec secession. Many argue that the federalist won in the decision but that statement is debatable. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada won in the ruling. I believe that English Canadians should spend some time getting to know their French neighbors and vice ...
The question of whether Quebec will secede from Canada to become an independent nation has been a hot topic in the country for several years now. It dates back to the abortive rebellions of 1837-38. In 1980, a referendum to secede was rejected by a 60-40 margin. Since then though, the numbers of Quebeckers that want to become sovereign has significantly increased. There is so many questions of what will happen if this does happen. In this paper I plan to take a deeper look at this situation and try to figure out what it would actually be like if Quebec was its own country.
They became empowered and confident in this idea of breaking free from their mother country. Now, able to express their grievances and frustrations, the Colonies were able to essentially “stick it to the man” against Britain. Thomas Jefferson writes how Great Britain’s king had “impos[ed] taxes on [them] without [their] consent,” and “depriv[ed] [them] of the benefits of trial by jury. “ He goes on to say that the king had abolish[ed] [their] most valuable laws; and alter[ed] fundamentally the forms of [their] governments.”