Competition and conflicts between the French and the Iroquois and English continued throughout the 1600s and through the mid-1700s. Periods of peace were short-lived and often punctuated by battles being waged in Europe. For example, just when “New France’s long conflict with the Iroquois ended, war broke out again with England” (Francis, et. al. 119). This war would last until 1760. Two important documents, the Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Paris, would mark the start of a new yet precarious era in Canadian history.
Britain’s Proclamation of 1763 set up a reserve for Amerindian populations. While this gave formal recognition to indigenous rights, it was not enforceable “without a substantial British military presence in the interior” (Francis, et. al. 168). Regardless of the level of enforcement, it did promote positive relations with the Amerindians. “Whatever the motive, it was one of the few honourable events in the brutal tale of the European seizure of North America” (Economist 37). While this seemed honorable from one perspective, it simultaneously reduced Quebec’s territory and threatened to undermine Roman Catholics through exclusion from political office (Francis, et. al. 169-170).
As the Treaty of Paris in 1763 officially severed French control over Canadian colonies, as Britain took over, the new question for Britain was what to do with a large population of French Catholic subjects. The Proclamation had suggested that the plan was to establish British rule throughout the colony. However, another strategy was devised. As a way of appeasing those resenting British rule, and perhaps for some the motivation was nobler, the Quebec Act of 1774 was passed (Duggan 40).
The Quebec Act insured citizens their right to practice Catholicism and to be ruled by French civil law. While the reaction of the French Canadians are assumed to be mostly positive, the reaction of the thirteen English colonies ranged from surprised to hostile. First, the act defined boundaries in ways that limited the growth of the colonies. These new boundaries extended westward to the Mississippi, included islands in the St. Lawrence, and north to Hudson Bay. Even more of a threat to the predominantly Protestant colonies was the Act’s support of Roman Catholicism. “It is hereby declared, That His Majesty’s Subjects professing the Religion of the Church of Rome, of, and I the said Province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy, the free Exercise of the Religion of the Church of Rome” (Essential Documents, Quebec Act). The response was so strong that the Quebec Act is credited as a major driving force behind the American Revolution. While the act may have helped cost England her colonies, it simultaneously helped maintain loyalty of the French Canadians during the Revolution.
The end of “the American Revolutionary War left Britain with the cold, unprofitable remnants of the continent. Perhaps something might be made of them” (Morton 29). The Constitutional Act of 1791 divided the province into Upper and Lower Canada along line that reflected the cultural differences of English and French settlement patterns. This meant discontent for English Protestants residing in Lower Canada where they were the minority. However, the idea was to allow for freer growth for the English-dominated Upper Canada while putting the French in the position where they “could do little damage” (Francis, et. al. 201-204). This government was similar to that of Britain, and it included a governor, legislative and executive councils appointed by the governor, and an elected legislative assembly (Canada & the World Backgrounder 6).
While the assembly was supposed to represent all of the citizens, it was actually quite limited. To begin with, the governor could veto any of its decisions. In this way, it acted more as an advisory council with no teeth. Also, the rules for members and voters required land ownership and natural citizenship; this eliminated several citizens. Those residing in rural areas could not afford the time or the travel, resulting in less power for the agriculturally-based French citizens. Voting could also be “influenced” through threats and other means of manipulation. Sir Francis Bond Head won an election 1836 by giving vote to new British immigrants and placing polling sites in locations only convenient for his supporters (7).
Rebellions broke out in 1837 and 1838, and soon after Britain sent Lord Durham to find out the causes for the rebellions. He called for “responsible government” that gave greater power to the Assembly including the power to appoint both the prime minister and the Executive Council (Canada & the World Backgrounder 7).
In addition to suggesting several changes, Durham’s report reflected a continuous perception that since Quebec was a British possession, it should be assimilated into the British culture. One way to do this would be to increase the population of English citizens living in Quebec. The French Canadians of Quebec had held fast to their culture through their religion and maintaining an agricultural society. However, their response to potentially being outnumbered, called the “Revenge of the Cradles”, was to increase their birth rate.
While this tactic successfully deterred any attempts to assimilate such a now large number of citizens, this population increase now threatened their agricultural society. Without enough land to support such large numbers of descendents, French Canadians began emigrating to work in industrialized areas of New England. Ironically, an act to save French culture for their children resulted in those very children having to leave for English settlements. Different political camps presented different solutions. The Rouges opposed British dominance but leaned towards a separation of church and state. The Bleu Party, however, held strong to the idea that the church is central to French culture, as was the rural life of an agricultural society. Instead of increasing industry in Quebec, those siding with the Bleu Party called for expansion to gain more land (Conwill 16-21).
As we review these key events in history, several significant areas of conflict become evident. First and perhaps the most obvious is religion. The French Canadians held strongly to their faith in Roman Catholicism. They saw this as being central to their cultural identity. The very nature of English Protestant faiths, however, was to question the authority of the church.
Conflict over land disputes is another common theme. The value of locations near ports of trade began with the first settlers. Equally important to the French Canadians, however, was the dependence their culture had on maintaining large amounts of land for agriculture.
Religion and industry versus cleaving to the land also reflect another source of conflict; this is the perception of the individual’s role in society. The French Canadians valued an individual’s connections to the whole; an individual is part of a family, part of the church, and part of the land. The English culture, while appreciating these connections, placed greater value on individual success and one’s ability to take advantage of opportunity. Unfortunately, these values often led to exploitation of resources (Conwill 16-21). A common perspective of an English settler was that “the wilderness was a hostile and relentless force that had to be destroyed if it was not to destroy him” (Edmonds 145).
While we speak of these cultural differences in the past tense, the reality is that Quebec “was North America’s last agricultural frontier” with the Department of Colonization operating through the 1950s (Conwill). Today, Canada is still faced with the potential separation of Quebec (Griffith 29-36). In order to fully understand the complexities of Canadian politics today, we must look to her past. Armed with this information, we can better prepare for either Canada as two countries or perhaps finally see a sense of peace and the prevailing of unity.
Works Cited
Callwood, June. Portrait of Canada. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.
Conwill, Joseph D. “ Return to Land: Quebec’s Colonisation Movement.” History Today 34.4
(1984): 16-21.
Duggan, William Redman. Our Neighbors Upstairs: The Canadians. Chicago: Nelson-Hall,
1979.
Edmonds, Walter D. The Musket and the Cross. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968.
Francis, Douglas R., Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. Origins: Canadian History to
Confederation. Toronto: Harcourt Canada Ltd., 2000.
Griffith, William E. “Quebec in Revolt.” Foreign Affairs 43.1 (1964): 29-36.
“Memoir for the Marquis de Seignelay Regarding the Dangers That Threaten Canada and the
Means to Remedy Them.” Essential Documents in American History, 1492-Present. New
York: Great Neck Publishing.
Morton, Desmond. A Short History of Canada. Edmonton: Hurtig Publishers Ltd., 1983.
“Not for the Faint of Heart.” Canada & the World Backgrounder 66.1 (2000): 6-7.
Parkman, Francis. France and England in North America Volume II. New York: Literary
Classics of the United States, Inc., 1983.
“The Quebec Act.” Essential Documents in American History; Essential Documents, 1492 –
Present. New York: Great Neck Publishing.
“The Wisdom of King George.” Economist 341.7994 (1996): 37.