1
   

Canada in 1776

 
 
Equus
 
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 12:35 pm
Were Upper and Lower Canada, or other Canadian colonies invited to participate in the American revolution or the Continental Congress? What was different about Canada than the other North American British colonies in 1776?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,351 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 12:43 pm
Yes they were in fact in the winter and spring of 1776 Quebec city was under seige by a ragtag American Army under the command of Benedict Arnold and the Annapolis Valley region of Nova Soctia, populated mostly by New Englanders, was in open rebellion.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 01:16 pm
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 07:17 pm
The State of New York sent militia north in 1775, and General Montgomery took Montreal. As Acq has pointed out, Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan lead an expedition overland in an epic journey up the Kennebec to "the Heigh of Land" and the Dead River, then past Lake Megantic to descend the Chaudiere to Quebec. He and Montgomery attempted to take the city in December, 1775. Montgomery was killed, and Arnold was wounded--and a very small garrison managed to hold the city against superior force. Taking Quebec could have altered the war significantly.

Les habitants, the population of Canada at the time--French speakers--were unimpressed by the ragged Americans, especially as they starved in the late winter snows of early 1776. To them, it was a choice between on set of despised English-speakers and another. When the English fleet arrived in the Spring of 1776, Arnold was forced to retreat, and the Americans lost what few gains they had made in Canada.

Upper Canada was little more than a name at that time. It did not fill up until after the Revolution, when American Tories, calling themselves the United Empire Loyalists, were given refuge in Canada. Many starved, most were not equipped for life in the wildernesses of Upper Canada or of the Maratimes (New Brunswick is where many were dumped). Upper Canada would later begin to fill up with Americans from across the border. Those among the United Empire Loyalists who survived the ordeals of the early years became the governing ascendancy of what would one day become Ontario. They hung right many recently arrived Americans after the War of 1812. Their descendants long ruled Ontario.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 10:42 pm
Article 11, of the articles of confederation, allowed room for Canadian inclusion in the union. They were invited to send reps to Philadelphia, but as far as I know none were ever sent.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 10:56 pm
2PacksAday wrote:
Article 11, of the articles of confederation, allowed room for Canadian inclusion in the union. They were invited to send reps to Philadelphia, but as far as I know none were ever sent.
Too bad.
Setanta wrote:
Les habitants, the population of Canada at the time--French speakers--
Not all the population of Canada at the time spoke French.
0 Replies
 
knowledgeum
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 11:57 pm
One of the more important reasons that Canada (or at the time Quebec) didnt join the Americans was due to the Quebec Act.

The Quebec Act of 1774 gave Quebec the rights to its religion as well as language. It also gave them the entire Ohio valley to the mississippi. Basicly they bought thier loyalty to the british crown. For them to join the Americans would have meant giving up the landholdings in favor of us western expansion, as well as thier identity.

The war of 1812 also only helped to solidify nationality in canada against becoming a US holding.

In slight correction to the first post, In 1776 Upper and Lower Canada did not exist. At that point it was just Quebec. Quebec was split in 1791 into Upper and Lower Canada.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 02:10 am
knowledgeum wrote:
One of the more important reasons that Canada (or at the time Quebec) didnt join the Americans was due to the Quebec Act.
OK but why?
knowledgeum wrote:
The Quebec Act of 1774 gave Quebec the rights to its religion as well as language.
As agreed to by whom?
knowledgeum wrote:
It also gave them the entire Ohio valley to the mississippi.
Who is them? Is not the entire Ohio valley to the Mississippi US territory?
knowledgeum wrote:
Basicly they bought thier loyalty to the british crown.
Who are they and how did they buy thier loyalty to the British crown?
knowledgeum wrote:
For them to join the Americans would have meant giving up the landholdings in favor of us western expansion, as well as thier identity.
Who are them? What land holdings and why would they lose them? I do not understand what you mean by "in favor of us western expansion". What identity did they perceive they would lose, why did they think they would lose it, what was so important about this identity?
knowledgeum wrote:
The war of 1812 also only helped to solidify nationality in Canada against becoming a US holding.
Why would that be?
knowledgeum wrote:
In slight correction to the first post, In 1776 Upper and Lower Canada did not exist. At that point it was just Quebec. Quebec was split in 1791 into Upper and Lower Canada.
OK & much thanks!

Two quick questions if I might:
What part did the indigenous peoples of North America play in all this?
What part did other than French speaking peoples play in all this?
0 Replies
 
knowledgeum
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 03:06 am
Chumly wrote:
OK but why?

The Quebec Act gave the formerly French colony of New France the right to continue to practice its religion and language. New France was Catholic, while Brittain was Protestant. America was also Protestant.
Chumly wrote:
As agreed to by whom?

The Quebec Act was signed between Brittain (it specificly stated an oath to George III instead of Elizabeth I to get around any reference to Protestant faith) and Quebec.
Chumly wrote:
Who is them? Is not the entire Ohio valley to the Mississippi US territory?

The Act gave Quebec land claim to everything in the continental US between the Great Lakes, The Ohio River, and the Mississippi River. At the time of signing the US colonies were still within thier origional boundries, with the Indian Territory (formed in 1763) West of the Appalacians. This prevented the US colonies from expanding westward. Additionaly, Virginia residents had already began entering the Ohio Territory, and there were already plans in the us colonies to use the resources of the Ohio Territory.
Chumly wrote:
Who are they and how did they buy thier loyalty to the British crown?

The British assured New France's loyalty to the crown by ensuring thier religion and language were kept intact, despite the differences in Brittain and French religion/language, aswell as giving them a large section of North America to exploit (furs mainly).
Chumly wrote:
Who are them? What land holdings and why would they lose them? I do not understand what you mean by "in favor of us western expansion". What identity did they perceive they would lose, why did they think they would lose it, what was so important about this identity?

Quebec held the Ohio Territory under the Quebec Act, the US colonies cited teh Quebec Act as one of the "Intolerable Acts" in thier reasons for the revolution. America viewed the Quebec Act as Brittain stopping thier western expansion, As such Quebec needed to give up its claim to the Ohio Territory for America to expand westward. Quebec would have lost its religion, or its language, more likely even both if it had joined the US colonies (barring any us version of the Quebec Act). Catholic Churches were already being burned in the Ohio Territory after the siging of the Quebec Act, which would indicate they woudl at the least loose thier religion infavor of Protestantism.
Chumly wrote:
Why would that be?

Previous attempts by the Americans to bring Quebec into the union had failed, due most in part to the Quebec Act, and differences in culture. By 1812 Quebec had been seperated into Upper (mostly loyal british) and Lower (quebec) Canada. Upper and Lower were very distant due to thier different cultures. However both were loyal to Brittain. Upper Canada being Loyalists who left america after the revolution to remain under british control and new British Colonists, and Lower Canada being Quebecers under the Quebec Act (Quebec also now had representative government to elect thier representatives). As such they were unwiling to become part of America, which had assumed they could march up and would be welcomed as liberators of represive Brittain.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 03:15 am
Thanks much indeed, sounds like imperialism & religion rearing it's ugly head (among other influences). I take it the indigenous peoples of North America were for the most part treated with bigotry and cruelty throughout all this?
0 Replies
 
knowledgeum
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 03:30 am
Chumly wrote:
I take it the indigenous peoples of North America were for the most part treated with bigotry and cruelty throughout all this?


Can't say (I wasnt there). The proclamation of 1763 created the Indian Territory west of the 13 Colonies. It also restricted colonization west of the Appalacians. The main purpose of this act was to stop the exploitive purchases of native land. This boundry was not permanent. It allowed for the purchase of land, by including all parties equaly. The boundry was change twice after it went into effect. The American colonies still viewed it as attempts by the British to stop western expansion, aswell as to ensure the establishment of a competing religion in the region (the Quebec Catholic settlers moving into the Ohio Territory). After the American Revolution the Proclamation of 1763 became null (which lead to the relocation of natives to the west of the Mississippi river) in America, however the proclamation still exists in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is still the basis for all aborigional land claims in Canada today.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 06:24 am
Setanta wrote:
American Tories, calling themselves the United Empire Loyalists, were given refuge in Canada. (New Brunswick is where many were dumped). .


Dumped? You are speaking of my ancestors . We sir were asked to leave... (one step head of the sherif...cancels all debts you know, but that's another issue)
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 07:46 am
And your forebears, Acq?
Did they become Galvanized Yankees or did they leave and later return?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 07:59 am
Chumly wrote:
Not all the population of Canada at the time spoke French.


Thought you'd drag your ugly anti-francophone bigotry in here, eh?

Sorry, but the English-speaking portion of the population west of the Maratimes was negligible before the end of the American Revolution, and the French speakers far outnumbered English-speakers until long after that event. I speak of west of the Maratimes because, before 1867, only what are now Ontario and Québec were part of Canada. In those days, Upper and Lower Canada; later, they became Canada East and Canada West.

I am not surprised, though, to learn that you are a rabid supporter of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy--the most pleasant and reasonable Canadians turn into snarling bigots on this topic.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 12:26 pm
Amuse me with your castles in the sand:

Defend your inflammatory and pretentious allegation that I am an "ugly anti-francophone bigot" as you have provided no evidence to back this up.

Defend your inflammatory and pretentious allegation that I am a "rabid supporter of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy" as you have provided no evidence to back this up.

I did not reference to the
Setanta wrote:
English-speaking portion of the population……..
you did.

However I did speak of
Chumly wrote:
…….indigenous peoples of North America were for the most part treated with bigotry and cruelty
and I spoke to
Chumly wrote:
Not all the population of Canada at the time spoke French.
0 Replies
 
knowledgeum
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 01:03 pm
Thought this would be an interesting comparison. I compiled it from the Canada Census Website.

I wish Lower Canda had kept better records, I was going to include ratios, but there isnt enough data to do that effectively. And well records from that time are all iffy at best unfortunately.

http://members.shaw.ca/knowledgeum/CanadaPopulation.gif

By the 1830's it was a ~2:1 ratio, where it started out in the 1780's at ~10:1 ratio.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 01:44 pm
George wrote:
And your forebears, Acq?
Did they become Galvanized Yankees or did they leave and later return?


Actually, they came from Pennsylvania and I'm not certain that there going to New Brunswick had any political cause. I suspect that in 1784 they were justed "asked to leave". On the next available ship as it were. Many of them had drifted into the upper St Johns River by the 1830's (timber cutting) and got caught up in the Aroostick War. I'll bet there are not 12 people out side of northern Maine that have heard of that. In any case when the boarder was drawn they were either in the US or adjacent to it and slowly drifted back.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 02:00 pm
Chumly wrote:
Defend your inflammatory and pretentious allegation that I am an "ugly anti-francophone bigot" as you have provided no evidence to back this up.


I did not call you a bigot--i specifically referred to your "ugly anti-francophone bigotry." Those are not the same things. For all i know (and i wish to know no more of you), you're a nice guy--when the topic is not francophone Canadians.

Quote:
Defend your inflammatory and pretentious allegation that I am a "rabid supporter of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy" as you have provided no evidence to back this up.


I did not say you were rabid, i said you were a rabid supporter of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy. I see no reason to change that evaluation. You have now twice intentionally warped what i wrote to make it appear more inflammatory.

The evidence is to be found in the PC thread, in which you referred to "forced language indoctrination and all that supposed separate culture drivel," as well as you response to Intrepid's remark about multiculturalism, which ran: "Says who? You? The Official Languages Act? The Multiculturalism Act? The Chinese? The East Indians? The Jews? The Poles? The Native Aboriginals?"

It certainly appears that the only portion of Canada's cultural history or language usage which you consider valid is the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy. Say what you will, these remarks have convinced me of a bigotry which you have expressed, and an inferential rabid support for the Ascendancy.

Quote:
I did not reference to the
Setanta wrote:
English-speaking portion of the population……..
you did.

However I did speak of
Chumly wrote:
…….indigenous peoples of North America were for the most part treated with bigotry and cruelty
and I spoke to
Chumly wrote:
Not all the population of Canada at the time spoke French.


Yes, a few thousand people in all of British North America spoke English. The overwhelming majority of them were in the Maratimes, and not in any portion of British North American which was then known as Canada, or would be known as Canada for the ninety years subsequent to 1776.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 02:03 pm
Replying to Acquiunk...

A voyage north or an extreme make-over with tar and feathers.
Easy choice.

(I almost visited St John NB a few years back, but our ship broke.)
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 09:36 pm
Hi Set,

As per the prior pet peeve thread below, and as defined by the term pet peeve below, and given you did not respond to my last pet peeve post; please advise of your intention to respond in this here new thread "Canada in 1776".

Should it be your intention not to respond again, despite my merited, on point, congruent responses, I would consider any further input addressing your inflammatory and specious allegations as per your below pet peeve posting, and as per your newer inflammatory and specious allegationsin in this here new thread "Canada in 1776", to be time better spent elsewhere.
Setanta wrote:
Chumly, you have provided the evidence of your own bigotry with your statements about les habitants and about the "multi-culturalism" in Canada.
Chumly wrote:
Set, it's seems clear that you have quite misunderstood and wish to label me a bigot.

You wish to defend your position not by quoting me in full context, in my phrasing, and wording, and in the spirit of this thread and then by placing specified comments and arguments as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted, so that we can see exactly what you think I meant by my text, but by referring me to your prior post of which I read with some interest a few times.

Again it is quite plain that your prior post in question shows you misunderstood my post by some margin.

Until and or unless you quote me and place specified comments and arguments after each quote, as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted it will be rather impossible for me to see exactly what you think I meant by my text.

Notes:

a) My reference to multiculturalism was as to government interventionism and the implications theretofore as per PC and not as to the spirit or intent of multiculturalism as a realty or idealization or goal.

As to les habitants I did not use that phrase although may well have alluded to such, so I again request that you quote me in full context, in my phrasing, and wording, and in the spirit of this thread and then by placing specified comments and arguments as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted so that we can see exactly what you think I meant by my text.

I have to get back to work, I'll check in later.
Cheers,

Chum.
Setanta wrote:
I may, another day, if i have the time. However, you should note that you are already changing the terms, as for example with your reference to government intervention. As for referring to les habitants, you apparently understood the reference, so whether or not you had used it was not relevant. Maybe later, i'll respond, but don't bet on it. If you can't see, i see no profit to either of us getting in a pissing match over the details or remarks about cultural drivel.
Chumly wrote:
In fact I did not "apparently understood the reference" (sic) as per "les habitants". I have never used that phrase before at any time nor am I sure what your definition of it might be. All I did say was that "I may well have alluded to such". My reason for saying this is that you have concluded that I alluded to "les habitants". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. No more, no less.

As such I make four points:

a) You appear to be reading into my text things which are not there.

b) I am not "changing my terms" as per so-called "government intervention". As such I will quote me
Chumly wrote:
Why should that be presumed to be validation for the government's nosey interventionism vis-a-vis the Official Languages Act and the Multiculturalism Act?


c) I remind you of the tittle and hence apropos context of this thread "Name your political correctness peeve".

d) Perhaps before jumping in with both feet you might wish to see if there is water in the pool.
Pet Peeve: a pet peeve is a minor annoyance that can instill extreme frustration in an individual. Typically each person has several pet peeves that aggravate him more than the average person. Another person may not react as negatively or at all to the same circumstance.
The term originated from the word 'peeve.' A 'peeve,' meaning something that is particularly irritating or annoying, is a relatively recent word. Its first printed usage was in 1911. The term is a back formation from a 14th-century word: 'peevish,' meaning ornery or ill-tempered.
The phrase 'pet peeve,' a uniquely personal irritant, first appeared in print in 1919.

Pet peeves are typically of common occurrences and a person may encounter his pet peeve very often. An example of this would be someone not using his turn signal while driving; while some drivers feel frustrated when another driver does not use his turn signal, other drivers do not care very much. Many pet peeves associated with driving can result in road rage, where the person who feels peeved seeks some sort of retribution for the action.

Often a pet peeve will seem illogical to others. For example a supervisor may have a pet peeve about people leaving the lid on the copier up and react angrily. That same supervisor may witness employees coming into work late, and not feel any annoyance whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Canada in 1776
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 07:35:47