Defending the Crown

In the years before the Rebellions of 1837-1838, the British sought to prevent political power in Lower Canada being taken into the hands of French Canadian. The focus of research on the Rebellions has been on the Patriotes, their organisation and actions while the attitudes and behaviour of the British in respect of the aspirations of French Canada have until recently tended to be given a lower priority. However, Loyalists played a major part in the Rebellions of 1837-1838, in the rise in political tension and in the repression of the rebellion. This paper seeks to redress that balance.

In the Canadas before the rebellions, there were approximately 20,000 English colonists, split equally between the two provinces. The 10,000 in Lower Canada were dwarfed by 140,000 French Canadians. They were largely concentrated in the areas of Montreal and Quebec, in the Cantons de l’Est (Eastern Townships) and south of the Richelieu. They were supporters of the British Crown and its Protestant traditions and felt threatened by the growing political power of the Catholic French Canadians. In addition, Loyalists feared republican ideas that came from the United States. They wanted to assimilate the French Canadians or at the very least to put them into a minority through further immigration largely because they believed this was essential if they were to build a country based on British traditions and with a powerful commercial economy. In addition to English colonists in Lower Canada, there were Scots and Irish. The Scots tended to side with the English and were broadly loyalist in their attitudes. The Irish, generally Catholics, were divided. Some supported the Patriotes because of similarities in the fight for self-determination by the two people and their shared religion. Others were loyalist in their attitudes identifying with the British Empire and sharing a common language.[1]

The historian Maurice Séguin showed that the British played a major part in the Rebellions

La révolte de 1837 est, en réalité, un double soulèvement: le soulèvement des Britanniques du Bas-Canada contre la menace d’une République canadienne-française, soulèvement de la section la plus avancée des nationalistes canadiens-français contre la domination anglaise. [2]

In his interpretation, the Rebellions were a civil war between two national groups with opposing view of what form the state should take. Séguin also emphasised the importance of the loyalist organisations and the role of loyalist volunteers in the army.[3] Profiting from the popular support, the Canadian French elite was elected to the Assembly and engaged in political and constitutional conflict with the British oligarchy that dominated both Executive and Legislative Councils and was supported by the British government in London. At issue was the future direction of the colonial State that was, for both Loyalists and Patriotes, still of a transient nature.

Anglophones in Lower Canada had felt considerable frustration since the Constitutional Act of 1791 that had created a French-dominated Lower Canada with an Assembly of elected deputies who were largely from the Catholic majority. Maurice Séguin argued that the division of 1791 led to the movement for Canadian French emancipation.

Par la division de 1791 et l’octroi aux Canadiens d’une chambre d’assemblée, elle (la politique anglaise) organise et relance puissamment un mouvement de libération. Et ce, malgré les protestations des Britanniques, maîtres de la vie économique, définitivement ancrés au coeur même du Bas-Canada, dans les villes de Québec et de Montréal, et premières victimes de la politique impériale. [4]

Moreover, Canadian French nationalism made it more difficult for the British who wanted to establish a state of British North America that would include all the British colonies of America in order to preserve the British traditions and avoid the perceived republican threat from the United States. Lower Canada was at the heart of the economy of the British colonies. British North America without Lower Canada, especially if it was ruled independently by French Canadians, would be significantly weakened and more likely to be absorbed by America then at its most expansive.

British fear of being controlled by French Canadians was amplified by the Ninety-Two Resolutions that called for election to the Legislative Council by the people. If implemented, the British would have lost the considerable political power that came through their control of the executive. According to Loyalists, elective councils would remove the barriers that defended them against French tyranny and reinforced their desire to assume political dominance over the government of the province. The British were as a result at odds with the democratic principles at the heart of Patriote demands as they called in question British control of Lower Canada.

The British loyalists were also critical of the political conciliation adopted by the colonial authorities since it gave many French Canadians the impression that London was prepared to accede to their demands. In a letter to Gosford in 1835, Adam Thom[5], editor of the Montreal Herald, argued that since the Conquest the authorities had spoken too much about French Canadians and had neglected their English subjects. He added that Gosford’s policy of conciliation would allow French Canadians to dictate colonial policy. According to Thom, the revolt to be feared was not that of the Patriotes but of Loyalist because the reprisals that would follow if only one drop of British blood was spilled and did not hesitate in his newspaper to encourage the Loyalists to arm themselves. In 1835, it was clear that the British minority categorically refused to be ruled by French Canadians and that they were prepared to resist this eventuality. The Gosford Commission, which sought to conciliate the two parties and resolve their problems, arrived at the following conclusion

Si l’Angleterre retirait sa protection, il s’ensuivrait une lutte immédiate entre les deux races, et même je doute si, sans la présence d’une force imposante, les mêmes conséquences ne se produiraient pas, lors même que l’on souscrirait aux présentes demandes de l’Assemblée et comme dans le cas, le parti anglais serait probablement l’agresseur, les forces du gouvernement aurait d’abord à être dirigées contre des hommes qui, non seulement sont nos co-sujets, mais qui pour la plupart sont natifs des îles.

To ensure British control over the territory, the Loyalists rejected Gosford’s policy of conciliation. However, the Patriotes did not seem inclined to use force largely because they had few weapons or little military organisation. Gerard Filteau suggested that there was a plot between Colborne, Adam Thom and Ogden[6], the Attorney-General to provoke the Patriotes and that the running battle between the Fils de la Liberté and loyalists and the Doric Club in Montreal on 6 November 1837 was used to justify the issue of arrest warrants for the Patriote leaders. He asked who benefited from the disorders and concluded that only the British party had any interest in the breakdown of order.

---

[1] On the complexities of the Irish position and its changing nature, see later blog.

[2] Séguin, Maurice, L’idée d’indépendance au Québec, Génèse et historique, (Boréal Express), 1968, p. 33.

[3] Séguin, Maurice, ‘Problème politique et national trente ans après la conquête’, in Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-38: Les patriotes du Bas Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, (Boréal Express), Montréal, 1983, pp. 173-189 and Synthèse de l’évolution politique et économique des deux Canadas, notes polycopiées pour cours d'histoire du Canada, 1965-1961 and L’idée d’indépendance au Québec, Génèse et historique, (Boréal Express), 1968.

[4] Cit, ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-38: Les patriotes du Bas Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, p. 175.

[5] ‘Adam Thom’, DCB, Vol. 9, pp. 874-877.

[6] ‘Charles Richard Ogden’, DCB, Vol. 8, pp. 610-611.

Introducing Loyalists and Patriotes

When I say Canadiens, to whom do I refer? The hyphenated Canadien-francais only appeared after the rebellion period. Helen Taft Manning argued that

The French-speaking inhabitants of the Lower St Lawrence Valley were the only part of the population who laid claim to the title of Canadian, and it was accorded to them freely by the English-speaking residents in the province.[1]

Traditionally the Patriotes and the rebellions have tended to be associated with a school of separatist historiography in which their rebellion is seen as the first symbolic step in a struggle to overthrow British imperialism and fulfil Quebec’s right to national self-determination. The rebellion’s failure is seen as the launch pad for British domination that is viewed by some as continuing to this day. More recent readings such as those by Alan Greer in his The patriots and the people, throw further nuances on such an interpretation of the rebellions. Greer sees the rebellions as falling into the framework of a general questioning of governance that occurred in the Western world in the nineteenth century, often known as ‘The Age of Revolutions’, therefore downplaying the localised inter-ethnic conflict aspect of events. Bernier and Salée[2] have also challenged the ethnic division thesis, taking the statement from Ernest Gellner as their premise that ‘Nationalism is not what it seems, and above all not what it seems to itself.’[3]

These studies do not deny the Patriote role in the development of a distinctive ideology that questioned structures of colonial rule, but in the case of Bernier and Salée, they stress the movement as one of emancipation, as opposed to separation. They do not dismiss the presence of the national question in Patriote debates surrounding the rebellion, but for them it does not constitute the instigating factor. They argue that the national question was not uniquely what stirred the Patriotes into taking up arms, but merely formed part of a number of contributing issues related to the wider social and political context. Nationalist discourse therefore is seen as an ‘epiphenomenon’, as opposed to the motivation behind the rebellions.

This is an important rereading of the Patriote movement. Instead of being viewed in terms of a narrow exclusive nationalism with an emphasis on their role in the development of an independent Quebec based on the exclusion of difference, the inclusive nature of their thought is stressed. In contrast to models of national identity from later in the nineteenth and early twentieth century that were founded on exclusion of other, the Patriote vision was not limited uniquely to the descendants of 1760. It is in direct opposition therefore to the claims of many commentators and historians who have pigeonholed Patriotes within a narrow nationalist framework. The Patriote message was addressed to all citizens of Lower Canada, whatever their ethnic or linguistic background, ready to participate in the construction of a new society. We cannot ignore the Patriote critique of the ‘Ancien regime’ and it is easy to read a liberation project into Patriote writings, but care must be taken to differentiate between the questioning of colonial injustices and the desire to break with the mother country.

The loyalist movement that was established after 1833 was distinguished from its predecessors in being organised to a greater extent. In 1810, 1822 and in 1827, the different loyalist groups each had a political programme, solid membership and a means of disseminating its ideological message but they tended to be short-lived. After 1833, the loyalist movement had a permanent structure and hierarchical organisation ensuring that a degree of institutional and ideological continuity lasted until shortly after the 1837-1838 rebellions. Between 1833 and 1838, the loyalist movement experienced less fluctuation in support largely because of the threat from its rival, the Parti Patriote. The movement reacted to the effect of the political and economic situation and in particular to the actions of the Patriote movement. Between 1834 and 1838, the Constitutional Associations of Quebec and Montreal formed the core of the movement from which radiated the majority of loyalist activities (electoral committees, national associations and paramilitary groups). The initiatives taken in Quebec and Montreal were found generally across Lower Canada though on lesser scale.

The demise of Patriote radicalism in the aftermath of the rebellions in 1837 and 1838 was followed by the break up of the alliance of loyalist constitutional associations in 1839 and 1840. In part, this was the result of the end of ideological conflict between radical and more moderate reformers but also reflected the changing political environment especially different attitudes to the union project contained in Durham’s Report. The loyalist alliance contained individuals from different and conflicting political positions but those differences were contained by the need to counter the radical Patriote threat. Once that threat had evaporated, the old divisions re-appeared. For British loyalists, union in 1841 represented the containment of French Canadian domination while for those moderate Patriotes, who had been unwilling to accept the republican radicalism of Papineau and his supporters and who had supported a constitutionalist solution, union signified assimilation, a threat to their existence as a distinct ethnic group. The critical question for them was how to manage union: to call for French Canadian separatism or work within the union structure and mould it to French Canadian advantage. The 1840s saw the working out of these solutions as the new province moved towards responsible government. Yet a strong sense of Tory Loyalism of the 1830s remained and was evident in the debates in 1849 on the Rebellion Losses Bill. Colonel Bartholomew Gugy, a veteran of the Rebellions, summed up loyalist opinion

There were many other projects which it would be most desirable to continue, but what assistance could be given if the funds were pledged to reward those who had resorted to resistance; now the word loyalist is a term of reproach, for the law was to reward those who had rebelled; they flourished while loyalists were beggared, and many of them disgraced in Canada East...It would be against the conscience of protestants that that money should not be applied to a more holy purpose than paying those who made war against the Queen...They should reflect that Eastern Canada was not exclusively inhabited by French Canadians. Those English inhabitants were patient, and would be slow to rebel; but say when you tax them exclusively for this purpose will you not goad them? - Would they tax that class to pay those who rebelled, or would they tax both, to pay those who did their duty?...He hoped that he had not been misunderstood in the expression of his sentiments, he would never change them - never! never! never.[4]

Again, later in the debate

What! when the late government urged, impelled the Loyalists into activity by appeals of the most stirring kind, appeals which had been made to himself (Col. G.), was that activity to be imputed to them as a crime, and by a British governor general? Were they to be branded, as they had been in this House, as Goths and Vandals, as robbers, as incendiaries, as assassins? And were they to be taxed by this majority to reward and propitiate the men who had been guilty of every excess, and had avowed, as they still avowed, their design to sever the connexion with England? To act in that spirit would be making a most ungrateful return to the Loyalists. It would be, too, a manifest violation of the plighted faith and honour of the Crown. Now, of that faith and honour: who was the guardian in this colony? Not the majority in this House surely. No; but the governor general alone. [5]

The 1837-1838 rebellions represented a rejection of the colonial past but it also eliminated particular lines of development, reformist as well as conservative.

---

[1] Ibid, Taft-Manning, Helen, The Revolt of French-Canada, 1800-1835: A Chapter in the History of the British Commonwealth, p. 10.

[2] Ibid, Bernier, Gérald and Salée, Daniel, ‘Les patriotes, la question nationale et les rebellions de 1837-1838 au Bas-Canada’, in Sarra-Bournet, Michel & Saint-Pierre, Jocelyn, (eds.), Les Nationalismes au Quebec du xix au xxi siècle, pp. 26-36.

[3] Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism, (Blackwell, 1983), p. 56

[4] Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada 1849, 13 February 1849, Vol. 8, t. 1, pp. 662, 664-665.

[5] Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada 1849, 2 March 1849, Vol. 8, t. 2, p. 1101.