“Repression will provoke rebellion” expressed by Hugh Williamson. In Upper and Lower Canada, citizens were dissatisfied with the government as what the citizens wanted was of none of their concern. Lower Canada was experiencing the termination of the french culture, land problems, and lack of power within their community. However, Upper Canada had an outdated colonial system of government, land grievances, and transportation problems. All together, both the Upper Canada and Lower Canada 1837 rebellions were justified. Rebellion in Lower Canada erupted because of the government's misuse of power, repression of the french culture, and discrimination. French-Canadians found difficulty voicing their opinions, as the Chateau Clique had no interest …show more content…
The oligarchy controlled almost everything, but the reformers wanted to remove the oligarchy and change the government. Additionally, the English governor rejected bills to preserve the French language, the Roman Catholic religion, and their traditional agricultural way of life. Many French citizens thought the government was trying to suppress the French majority by encouraging English-speaking immigrants to settle in Lower Canada. The French resented the growing number of English-speaking immigrants as they were afraid their traditional way of life would be changed. In addition to, the French were being discriminated against because of unequal taxation and lack of power within government. Also, the English-speaking settlers were being given land grants if they moved to Lower Canada. Lord Durham had even stated in his report the conflict in Lower Canada was predominantly racial in nature as he wrote “[he] found a struggle, not of principles, but of races”. Although Lower Canada was …show more content…
Lord Durham had determined the fault of the rebellion was the system of government and the family compact as they were inadequate to cater to the needs of civilians. The governor listened only to the advice of the Family Compact, which left the elected Assembly with little to no say in decisions. As a result, it lead to a lack of voice in the government and no access to influential positions for citizens. Also, immigrants felt betrayed when they did not receive the land they were promised, as land speculators and absentee landowners overpriced or tied up prime land. Influential figures, like the Family Compact, Tories and the Anglican Church, usually had the best land and many of them did not use it or kept it uncleared. Moreover, poor roads caused hardship and discontent as large uncleared clergy reserves held up further development, because no roads could be built through them. As a result, the farmers could not get their products to the market because of inadequate roads. If the government had listened to the citizens complaints and concerns they could have easily avoided the rebellion. The rebellion lead to a needed change in the system of government as the system was very broken and corrupt. Rebellion in Upper Canada was justified because there was a serious need for reform within the colonial
Gary B. Nash argues that the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense on how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. Generally what Gary B. Nash is trying to inform the reader is to discuss the different conditions made by the real people who were actually fighting for their freedom. In his argument he makes it clear that throughout the revolution people showed “radicalism” in the result of extreme riots against the Stamp Act merchants, but as well against the British policies that were implemented. He discusses the urgency of the Americans when it came to declaring their issues against the British on how many slaves became militants and went up against their masters in the fight for a proclamation to free themselves from slavery. But he slowly emerges into the argument on how colonists felt under the
...no loyalty to the Crown now, in future conflicts, the colonists may turn against us and become our enemy. Radical action must be taken in order to regulate their behavior. They must recognize the royal authority.
To answer this, one must address the severity of the crisis, as well as the degree to which the War Measures Act would alleviate the situation. This proves to be an unexpectedly difficult task, as it is impossible to accurately capture the zeitgeist of such a turbulent time period without being subject to bias. However from a purely objective standpoint, the evidence clearly identifies that there was no insurrection, nor was one likely to take place. Trudeau relied heavily on galvanizing the risk that the FLQ posed to the Canadian public. However, this came to be a detriment to his case when the supposed danger was discredited. According to most authorities, the FLQ “was a collection of scattered, radical grouplets who communicated amongst themselves with great difficulty and apprehension”(Conrad et al). It is of course, rather difficult to carry out widespread insurrection without a cohesive unit to do so. Trudeau’s speech relied heavily on the notion that the FLQ posed a greater threat than they realistically did, and by the end of the crisis it was clear that his claims were null. However, Trudeau did not operate alone in his endeavors. The crisis was rapidly escalated in scale by local and national media alike. The media “Fed the notion of a hydra head conspiracy, unknown, unknowable, but of course infinitely dangerous”, an error that almost did more to aid in the FLQ’s influence over the country, than it did to call in any sort of justifiable action (Bothwell, 447-50). This combined with rumors of Quebec dissolving their government due to the “severity” of the situation, a rumor that was initially reported to be started by Trudeau (although it was enforced by numerous parties”) in order to gain the support of the public for the actions he was preparing to take (Clement). It is generally agreed upon that War
The British colonies in the 17th century were afflicted by many strenuous periods of tension that boiled over resulting in violent rebellions. Bacon’s Rebellion and the Stono rebellion are two such rebellions that rocked the colonies. These conflicts rose from tension between the governance of the colonies and those who they ruled over. The Stono Rebellion and Bacon’s Rebellion were both examples of the American people’s willful determination, unifying capability, and ability to fight back.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
People in the Chesapeake colonies were unhappy with the rich aristocrats running the show. Francis Bacon led a revolt in Virginia against Governor Berkeley. He felt that the lack of unity among all citizens was apparent and needed to change. He felt that the government at the time was doing an inadequate job at public work i.e. safety, defense, advancement of trade (Document H). This problem was not present among the citizens of the New England colonies as the goals of the New England citizens were different (Document A).
The American colonists’ disagreements with British policymakers lead to the colonist’s belief that the policies imposed on them violated of their constitutional rights and their colonial charters. These policies that were imposed on the colonist came with outcome like established new boundaries, new internal and external taxes, unnecessary and cruel punishment, and taxation without representation. British policymakers enforcing Acts of Parliament, or policies, that ultimately lead in the colonist civil unrest, outbreak of hostilities, and the colonist prepared to declare their independence.
To start off, I’ll be writing about the life of people in British North America and its significance towards unifying Canada, as well as background knowledge of conflicts that existed. Life in British North America was changing at an alarming rate. New technology and services were being introduced such as railways and steamships. Industries such as building, producing and farming were being introduced. This was in part due to the many immigrants from Britain and France who’d settled. This was dreadful for the First Nations as their land had been taken away even more so than before. More resources were needed for the growing crowd so trade agreements were made. As more people came, the First Nations were even more distanced from the Europeans. Meanwhile, the French and the British wanted the other’s culture to be erased from the
Canada: The Quiet Revolution in Quebec The English-French relations have not always been easy. Each is always arguing and accusing the other of wrong doings. All this hatred and differences started in the past, and this Quiet revolution, right after a new Liberal government led by Jean Lesage came in 1960. Thus was the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
The colonists have to deal with a government that is trying to dictate what and how things should be done in America, from across the ocean, and they are starting to realize that they should have a voice for their own well being. The Proclamation of 1763 is just the beginning of the rebellion towards the British and their control over the colonists.
...ere why the crown did not want the colonists to expand their territory because issues had not been settled yet. Still, the colonists felt that their rights were still being violated. The colonists saw the rest of the land as part of their states and believed that they should be able to expand there. These geographic factors prevented the colonists from expanding their territory and economy and pushed the colonists further into rebellion.
More immigration lead to racism and fear among both English Canadians who believed immigrants were taking away their jobs and French Canadians who feared that immigrants may potentially dominate their culture. These misconceptions and fears lead the Canadian government to declare new regulations that restricted the immigration of Asian and eastern, and southern European descents as well as Jewish immigrants. Canada gave more preference to descendants of both Britain and Western Europe. Policies were then developed to grant access to the best immigrants (as it was called) who were mainly whites that possessed a wealth of skills and benefits but to exclude the non whites who we...
Which led to the Constitutional Act of 1791 where Quebec was divided into two parts; Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Due to the Loyalists their were many changes, like creations of new colonies like Upper Canada, which are now Canadian provinces. Furthermore, because of the large amount of english speaking settlers, they established a bilingual identity for Canada. The constitutional act stated that each province could elect an assembly, raise taxes, and pass laws. Each colony also had its own governor and an appointed council to advise the governor. The constitutional act was a total success. To conclude the Loyalists had a big impact in the making of Lower canada and Upper
The British North America Act went into effect July 1st, 1867 creating a union known as the Dominion of Canada, but this did not complete the debate on the Confederation issue. Many Nova Scotians continued their opposition to the idea and it would take considerable time before all Nova Scotians would accept the fact of Confederation. “These Nova Scotians, disgruntled at their treatment by Great Britain, found that their loyalty had markedly diminished. The more they considered taking over the responsibility for their own affairs from England, however, the greater trust they had to place in Confederation.”25 Confederation struck a balance between the rights of English and French speaking Canadians. Nevertheless, many divisions, conflicts, and debates would occur not only in Quebec but also in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over this balance. Economic disparities between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada would also create many problems for the years following 1867. As a result, Confederation can be viewed as a beginning and not an end.
French Canadians play a huge role in Canadian society, for it to separate is unimaginable. Canada is known as a multicultural and acceptance land. Yet, the hypocrisy comes in as the belief of Quebec sovereignty rises. Over the course of history, there was much unrest between the Anglophones and francophones, which leads to an unstable relation between the two ethnic groups today. In the past, the English-speaking community were always much more larger and tended to exercise control over the French-speaking community. This caused the French-speaking citizens to question the authority and protest against all English government political ideas and policies. The unfair treatment felt by French Canadians shaped them into nationalists who needed to stand up for themselves in an English dominated society. In terms of the future of Canada, French and English Canadians can eliminate idea of separatism, as long as they agree to work together and put their pasts behind. Ultimately, the aim of this letter is to make citizens aware of the glass ceiling that exists between the two groups and potentially Quebec and Canada will finally unite.