Week 6 – Lecture 2
History 202 – Canada to 1867
Why couldAboriginal and European belief systems be the cause of misunderstanding and conflict?
How did Native and French cultures influence each other in the early period of the colonisation of New France?
How did the Catholic Church exercise its power in New France? What limits were placed on its power?
What allowed Q to develop over the century between 1660 and 1760?
What accounted for the change in the fortunes of French defence between 1756 and 1763?
Why was the British treatment of the French unique in the 18thC?
Require evidence and explanation
- NOT of representing ▯don’t bring in other material to answer this
British Revolution of 1688 supposedly creates the liberties that the Revolutions of 1776 and 1789 aspire to:
- exaction and authoritarianism versus trade, consent and public opinion pay taxes and so have some degree of
representation (even if it is not yet a democracy/not everyone can vote)
o debate is a legitimisation strategy
revolution in Canada catches up for it’s own nation later
- Parliamentary elections and the rise of press = triumph of public opinion
Want to bring this to Canada = hard to work out how
- hard to apply metropolitan standards in a colony – esp. with distinct populations
- if British rule by consent then they need different models for each distinction a trade of what each wants
o Much debate in Britain re.what is consent
Scottish theorists – Smith and Hume
Montesquieu (views Britain well vs. French monarchical system)
How to reconcile state and popular interests?
- Haphazard coping mechanisms of the 1760s followed by more systematic legislation in 1774
o 1774 the QuebecAct of 1774
confirms tolerant gubernatorial practises – earlier terms claim that the French will lose all their rights
• NOW – French Canadians need not abjure Catholicism, they will keep civil law
Puts ‘Indian territory’under Quebec’s jurisdiction – expands colonial borders
What problems is QAsupposed to resolve?
- Part 1 – split between imperial policy and pract▯British have always governed overseas colonies by consent of the
‘strongest or greatest’part of the population (except Ireland)
o In Quebec they must choose between offending the French Canadians and offending British Canadians
- What is Union in the case? – usually such matters are managed discreetly by instructions to the governor, who is told to
finesse things and not to rouse serious opposition whatever the cost
o So for governors to be tolerant in practice on the frontier is entirely consistent with past tradition novelty in
1774 is that is legitimised by parliament
QuebecAct draws serious opposition everywhere outside Q = Protestants protests and riots; cartoons of Catholic bishops dancing
to celebrate their trampling of British rights
- much of the debate re. what was happening in Q between 1763 and 1774
o Burke is in the legislature arguing that to tolerate French laws in Q is to reverse the process that has already
occurred knows that the case is tolerance of French Canadian missions etc. but he argues that it was English
and thus Englishness is being ‘annihilated’
For theAmerican colonists = a threatening form of departure: take it as a warning that the British intend to govern them more
closely, to micromanage them with a heavier hand and more coercion
- American colonies are not governed as Ireland is governed – maybe 1774 will become like 1663 when the French crown
decided to take over direct rule of Quebec
o Distance is annihilated part of a shrinkingAtlantic new electoral technology and new transportation
People were even angrier re. part 2 – the boundaries
- theAct re-enacts Royal Proclamation’s repudiation of westward expansion – a policy that looks wise to those of us who
have read Rushforth?
o Is this actually wisdom given previous difficulties or failures
- By putting the Great Lakes region under direct rule o From 1763-1774, Q becomes a massive expanse of territory before this was a bigger stretch of Indian territory
as they create a barrier between all land not owned by Spain
Now they are taking a chunk of that land and transferring it back to ordinary rule leave First Nation
territories created in treaties but take the Northern part and put it into government space under Q rule
• Putting it under Quebec = trying to get it out of the competition of the USAstates
• No longer off-limits = probably meant as an overture to the settlers that they will gradually
start to populate it BUT – it seems that they are putting more land under royal control rather
than American legislature
= Politics of land – politics of autonomy converging
- their convergence plays very well to ambitious colonials who know already that the British empire is straining at the
seams ▯the state was losing control to the periphery has been obvious to colonial reformers for a couple of decades
o by the 1740s clear that there is diminishing control of the frontiers where there are many people who wish to
live a fully British life with wealth, trade, lan