In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions around land. To begin, in Upper Canada, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.
In the Atlantic region of Prince Edward Island, there was also a problem with landholding systems. Since there was no crown land on PEI, townships were dispensed to those whom the government owed favors to. In doing this, proprietors were called on in hopes of colonizing the island with Scots and Roman Catholics. Spokesman, Cooper, takes part in an election of 1838 regarding the confiscation of this land because he, the Scots and the Roman Catholics believed that if you put work into the land, you should have the right to own it.
The 1830’s could be seen as an age of revolution for a number of reasons. For example, this time was the beginning of reform politics in Upper Canada. What this means is that the Tory’s desire to have a more “responsible government,” while the Family Compact believes they are already responsible. The radical reformers, who are in favor of the Tory’s, launched an attack on the Family Compact while voicing their belief that there is corruption in Upper Canada. This forces the British to replace their governor with Bond Head who creates a new executive council and calls for an election more favorable to him. As a result, the Family Compact and Tory’s try to push through the land, which eventually brings them back into power. Consequently, Mackenzie publishes a constitution for an independent Upper Canada in hopes of change, and attempts to overthrow the government. This should be seen as revolutionary because it displays the controversy over how far the Family Compact was willing to go to protect their colony and how far the Tory’s were willing to go to promote some kind of change.
Even though there was no real rebellion in the Atlantic region like that of the Canadas, the dissent expressed by Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came from similar causes. More specifically, both regions were upset with the economic and political power granted to those in the small group of elite. Like both of the Canadas, the Atlantic region was skeptical of the British control and government; they wanted a group to govern that would be responsive to the majority of the people and a government that would not only benefit the elite.
In Upper Canada, the “Alien Question” played a large part in the rebellion. The central conflict of land ownership, resulting in having the ability to participate in politics, was similar to that of Prince Edward Island. While in Upper Canada, the concern was based on making sure the Americans could not vote, in PEI, the Highland Scots were being kept from participating in the political system. In both regions, the elite (Family Compact in Upper Canada and Proprietors in the Atlantic) were able to use their power to influence who was gaining the ability to vote.
In addition, in the Canadas and in the Atlantic region, the majority of the people felt like elected assemblies (if there was one) did not actually hold any power compared to the appointed governors and council. What people in both regions really wanted was a responsible government who responded to the best interest of all the citizens.
The 1830s was definitely an age of revolution in British North America. We begin to see people taking a stand for what they want and believe, whether that is through newspapers, elected assemblies, or brining the government to a money halt. From this, we saw a significant change in the political system that was used to regulate British North America.
The insurrections of Upper and Lower Canada were direct results of the oligarchical undemocratic rule that had disenfranchised much of the population for many years. This reflects the same rise to rebellion that many Atlantic-bordering nations experienced in the surrounding decades. This includes the United States, France, Spanish America and Ireland and it was these examples that led Upper and Lower Canadian governments to become more oppressive in their handling, for fear the ‘republicanism’ might spread to Canada.
The rebellion of Lower Canada in 1837, which was raised earlier in the political sphere by James Stuart and Louis-Joseph Papineau, represented the desires of the French-speaking populace who were dominate by the small group of elite, the Chateau Clique. Their domination over trade, politics and religious regulation was challenged by the Parti Patriote. However this political rivalry failed to affect any change of consequence when it was undermined continuously by the larger political faction. This led to armed rebellion in the Spring of 1837, led by Papineau, bringing together both Quebecers and citizens of the newly formed United States, in the Patriot Wars of 1837-1838. It sparked a similar situation in Upper Canada, whose primarily English-speaking working class were dominated by the Family Compact. Reformer movements sought to bring an end to the feudalistic society. Upper Canada didn’t see the same level of armed rebellion as Lower Canada, nor some could argue, the same degree of challenge to British forces that quashed riots quickly.
Regardless of the fact that both cases resulted in continued civil oppression and directly caused the unification of the territories into the Province of Canada by the British Parliament, the 1830’s can most definitely be seen as an age of revolution, a revolution of ideology, if not in political representation.
The rebellions that took place in the Atlantic colonies, Upper, and Lower Canada, were a result of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers. The proprietors, Family Compact and the Chateau Clique were in control of power, and it was a widely held understanding that the current elected members had little to no power or influence. In each region, there were key aspects of politics and the economy that settlers felt decisions should be made by a responsible accountable elected legislature. However, this was not the case.
Power and land were interchangeable in this era. This being so, land claims were a major issue that caused unsettling feelings of hostility amongst the settlers towards the unaccountable elite. Settlers were not pleased with the fact that land was being granted to friends of the elites, or in the Atlantic region, people with whom the British owed favours. Furthermore, American settlers found it impossible to claim land without pledging allegiance to the King, and their status was highly questioned. American’s were not the only non-British settlers that found it difficult to be treated respectfully, or given political rights in the British North American colonies. It was a widespread issue.
In response to the oligarchical control exercised by colonial elites, settlers in all regions were calling for constitutional change in the form of responsible government. This was their overriding objective. Responsible government would ensure accountability, keep the executive in check, and give elected members far more influence.
The 1830’s served as an age of revolution in British North America. There was an overriding desire for change across all colonies, and cries for revolution were widespread. Settlers had grown tired of oligarchical rule, and felt it was time to progress. Mackenzie and Papineau’s rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada reflected this sentiment, as did the dissent expressed to London by the Atlantic regions. In other words, this period saw real action taken by settlers who felt that there was need for change; and change would ensue.
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
The rebellions of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Atlantic region are similar in that they all involved the post-Enlightenment republican and nationalistic idea of the power of the individual. The right to be represented by your government comes from the feeling that you are part of the nation in which you reside, and therefore it should at least partially reflect you and your opinions. So, the rebellions can be seen as outbursts of these ideals, in response to a lack of their being fulfilled – a lack of ministerial responsibility and responsiveness to the political/economic wills and weal of the people.
To me, the difference between an “age of revolution” and a rebellion is the level of involvement of the people, at least in its spirit if not physically. And from the lectures, insofar as it is possible, this kind of “spirit” does seem to be the case; that each rebellion was not isolated in itself, but that each was interconnected in its ideologies and built off of the others.
However, I would also like to point out that this age of revolution engendered a societal evolution, not revolution; that in many ways, what the colonists were protesting for was a nicer looking version of the system they were in – not a new one. So, perhaps I would argue that the 1830s should be considered an age of evolution, created by sometimes violent societal participation, and not a full-on “age of revolution”.
This dissatisfaction among the colonists that led to rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies was fuelled by the friction between the ruling classes and the middle class colonists themselves. In Upper Canada, social and cultural tensions were at its utmost peak between the British Loyalists of the Family Compact and those of the colonists, many of whom were American immigrants. Social and cultural tensions also prevailed within Lower Canada between anglophone merchants that formed the the Chateau Clique and the francophone middle class. As well, in Upper Canada, economic discontent among the colonists brewed from land policies implemented by the Family compact, and also from the fact that land was being granted to their supporters. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system was sparking tension with American settlers who were used to free-holding land. This widespread dissatisfaction within the two Canadas provided a platform for rebellion, a call for change to the government and political system, and a greater focus on individual participation and representation of ideas in government and politics. Such can be seen when looking at the rebellion in the Atlantic colonies, as discontent stemmed from the middle classes against those who held power. The ruling classes tried to stifle the middle class’s push towards political freedom, much like the the two Canadas, and in certain colonies, like Prince Edward Island, land holding was an a large issue as well, as William Copper sought to extract the land from Proprietors and rightfully pass it into the hands of the tenant farmers. Thus, political freedom and land ownership, propelled by the widespread dissatisfaction of the colonists and middle classes are among the primary similarities between the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies.
The 1830s can be considered an age of revolution in British North America, as the rebellions of this time marked as an push for change. People sought to be represented within the government and the political sphere, as they felt that their needs were considered subsidiary to those of the elites, who basically shaped laws and policies to their own benefit. As well, this time period further brought about an enlightened understanding of responsibility. The middle class colonists wanted the government to be responsible to them, the citizens, for nothing at that point was holding the governmental and political officials accountable to those they were governing. Thus exploitation and disregard for the populations was rampant. The rebellions sought to bring about a new age through reform politics and further the pursuits of the colonists and middle class people in establishing personal individuality, personal freedom, and political representation, thus characterizing this reformation period as an age of revolution.
Colonies in the Canadas and the Atlantic region had very similar uprisings in terms of reason and catalysts that lead to dissent among the general population. In both the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies there were issues in the landholding system in which an oligarchy took control of general affairs in the colonies and, in particular, would hand out lands based on favouritism. In Britain’s attempt to fix this situation the governors were replaced. However the new governors acted contrary to what the the general people wanted thus furthering the discontent in the colonies. The discontent in the colonies was expressed through key people: Gourlay in Upper Canada, Papineau in Lower Canada and a vocal middle class in the Atlantic colonies, in particular Joseph Howe. Though these people were tried for expressing their dissatisfaction with the government, the situation continued to escalate until in was the brink of full rebellion. These colonies’ rebellion was largely spurred on by the ideals brought about through the revolution in France and in the newly formed States.
Where the colonies differ is that this growing discontent turned into a full rebellion in the Canadas, but not in the Atlantic colonies. The British government was able to more effectively deal with the situation in the Atlantic colonies partly due to the fear of having to deal with the same situation as was happening in the Canadas. The British were also able to quench the rebellion in the Canadas, but the legacy of the uprising remained.
To a great extent the 1830s in British North America could be considered an age of rebellion. Or better, an age of revolution. With new ideals as a result of the Napoleonic War and the War of Independence, the people in the colonies in British North America became more aware of the corruption in their current colonies. This realization, carried out through key people, resulted in the rebellions. However the rebellions were short-lived. Britian was better prepared to deal with the rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies mainly due to their prior loss in the American Revolutionary War. Britain also realized the need to keep British North America on their side, thus making more concessions in favour of the majority in these colonies than they had done in the past. Therefore, this age of rebellion, had a much different outcome than prior rebellions had in the past.
The similarity between the rebellions in the two regions is mainly that they originated with dissent against the elites, who had much more that the lower classes while doing very little. For example, the seigneurs in Lower Canada who owned all the land, which was very much like the land holding system in PEI. There was also a lot of dissent against the political policies that were put in place, such as the Naturalization Act in in Upper Canada, and the taxes and restrictions placed on the logging industry that made people very upset. Most of all, the settlers all wanted a government that was responsible to the people. Upper and Lower Canada Had elected assemblies, but they had very little power and were controlled by the executive council. Several of the Atlantic colonies did not have and form of elected government.
General resentment towards the economy was also a factor that lead to the rising idea of rebellion in the colonies. Land was becoming scarce and the quality was bad in Lower Canada, and the farmers could not yield as many crops. The Americans in Upper Canada had their land rights taken away in 1818, which meant they could not make a living. The Atlantic colonies were also suffering in their economies as well, as most of their industry had been in supplying the British troops with timber, and building their ships. After the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the Atlantic colonies were no longer needed to provide large quantities of material, and they had no more ships to privateer, and so their economy fell, and the people became unhappy.
The 1830s could be seen as an Age of Revolution in British North America, although very little rebelling actually happened. I believe An Age of Revolution is when the majority of people have a need for change stirring in their minds, and this was definitely demonstrated by the lower and middle classes. Rebellions did not break out in the Atlantic colonies, but the masses recognized a need for change in the political system. They were very lucky that the British government recognized this need and made changes before and one was hurt. Revolution can also refer to change, which did happen, and so the Age of Revolution would be an acceptable term for the 1830s.
Similarities between the “rebellions” in the Atlantic region and Upper and Lower Canada stem from a common dissatisfaction amongst the people in regard to the distribution of power. In Upper and Lower Canada, the Family Compact and Chateau Clique (respectively) dominated the communities through abuse of land-holding and political rights. In LC, differing political opinions of the Anglophone and Candien groups caused controversy among the people. In UC matters were made worse by tension involving the large number of American immigrants as well as blatant favouritism of the British. Since the Atlantic regions adopted similar styles of government, similar issues of abuse of power – especially in regards to landholding – were bound to arise, and a similar goal of accountability for those in power was bound to develop.
The 1830s was certainly a decade in which change was desired, but when the lack of radical change is considered, labelling these years an age of revolution may be too strong. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the 1830s can be seen as a time of obvious desire for change. Political, social-cultural, and economic changes were desired in the various colonies, and the people were prepared to act in order to have their desires heard. Reformers such as William Lyon Mackenzie and the Baldwins made considerable arguments in UC while a change from Parti canadien to Parti patriote in LC drew much attention to the need for reform. Despite all of this, there was little action that can be strongly labelled as rebellion, least of all (it seems) in the Atlantic regions.
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.
The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).
amandawoodland, 
chliane, and 7 others are discussing.
jpellegrino 11:46 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions around land. To begin, in Upper Canada, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.
In the Atlantic region of Prince Edward Island, there was also a problem with landholding systems. Since there was no crown land on PEI, townships were dispensed to those whom the government owed favors to. In doing this, proprietors were called on in hopes of colonizing the island with Scots and Roman Catholics. Spokesman, Cooper, takes part in an election of 1838 regarding the confiscation of this land because he, the Scots and the Roman Catholics believed that if you put work into the land, you should have the right to own it.
The 1830’s could be seen as an age of revolution for a number of reasons. For example, this time was the beginning of reform politics in Upper Canada. What this means is that the Tory’s desire to have a more “responsible government,” while the Family Compact believes they are already responsible. The radical reformers, who are in favor of the Tory’s, launched an attack on the Family Compact while voicing their belief that there is corruption in Upper Canada. This forces the British to replace their governor with Bond Head who creates a new executive council and calls for an election more favorable to him. As a result, the Family Compact and Tory’s try to push through the land, which eventually brings them back into power. Consequently, Mackenzie publishes a constitution for an independent Upper Canada in hopes of change, and attempts to overthrow the government. This should be seen as revolutionary because it displays the controversy over how far the Family Compact was willing to go to protect their colony and how far the Tory’s were willing to go to promote some kind of change.
tazizi 1:50 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Even though there was no real rebellion in the Atlantic region like that of the Canadas, the dissent expressed by Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came from similar causes. More specifically, both regions were upset with the economic and political power granted to those in the small group of elite. Like both of the Canadas, the Atlantic region was skeptical of the British control and government; they wanted a group to govern that would be responsive to the majority of the people and a government that would not only benefit the elite.
In Upper Canada, the “Alien Question” played a large part in the rebellion. The central conflict of land ownership, resulting in having the ability to participate in politics, was similar to that of Prince Edward Island. While in Upper Canada, the concern was based on making sure the Americans could not vote, in PEI, the Highland Scots were being kept from participating in the political system. In both regions, the elite (Family Compact in Upper Canada and Proprietors in the Atlantic) were able to use their power to influence who was gaining the ability to vote.
In addition, in the Canadas and in the Atlantic region, the majority of the people felt like elected assemblies (if there was one) did not actually hold any power compared to the appointed governors and council. What people in both regions really wanted was a responsible government who responded to the best interest of all the citizens.
The 1830s was definitely an age of revolution in British North America. We begin to see people taking a stand for what they want and believe, whether that is through newspapers, elected assemblies, or brining the government to a money halt. From this, we saw a significant change in the political system that was used to regulate British North America.
ecopeland 9:26 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The insurrections of Upper and Lower Canada were direct results of the oligarchical undemocratic rule that had disenfranchised much of the population for many years. This reflects the same rise to rebellion that many Atlantic-bordering nations experienced in the surrounding decades. This includes the United States, France, Spanish America and Ireland and it was these examples that led Upper and Lower Canadian governments to become more oppressive in their handling, for fear the ‘republicanism’ might spread to Canada.
The rebellion of Lower Canada in 1837, which was raised earlier in the political sphere by James Stuart and Louis-Joseph Papineau, represented the desires of the French-speaking populace who were dominate by the small group of elite, the Chateau Clique. Their domination over trade, politics and religious regulation was challenged by the Parti Patriote. However this political rivalry failed to affect any change of consequence when it was undermined continuously by the larger political faction. This led to armed rebellion in the Spring of 1837, led by Papineau, bringing together both Quebecers and citizens of the newly formed United States, in the Patriot Wars of 1837-1838. It sparked a similar situation in Upper Canada, whose primarily English-speaking working class were dominated by the Family Compact. Reformer movements sought to bring an end to the feudalistic society. Upper Canada didn’t see the same level of armed rebellion as Lower Canada, nor some could argue, the same degree of challenge to British forces that quashed riots quickly.
Regardless of the fact that both cases resulted in continued civil oppression and directly caused the unification of the territories into the Province of Canada by the British Parliament, the 1830’s can most definitely be seen as an age of revolution, a revolution of ideology, if not in political representation.
tyler5 10:21 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The rebellions that took place in the Atlantic colonies, Upper, and Lower Canada, were a result of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers. The proprietors, Family Compact and the Chateau Clique were in control of power, and it was a widely held understanding that the current elected members had little to no power or influence. In each region, there were key aspects of politics and the economy that settlers felt decisions should be made by a responsible accountable elected legislature. However, this was not the case.
Power and land were interchangeable in this era. This being so, land claims were a major issue that caused unsettling feelings of hostility amongst the settlers towards the unaccountable elite. Settlers were not pleased with the fact that land was being granted to friends of the elites, or in the Atlantic region, people with whom the British owed favours. Furthermore, American settlers found it impossible to claim land without pledging allegiance to the King, and their status was highly questioned. American’s were not the only non-British settlers that found it difficult to be treated respectfully, or given political rights in the British North American colonies. It was a widespread issue.
In response to the oligarchical control exercised by colonial elites, settlers in all regions were calling for constitutional change in the form of responsible government. This was their overriding objective. Responsible government would ensure accountability, keep the executive in check, and give elected members far more influence.
The 1830’s served as an age of revolution in British North America. There was an overriding desire for change across all colonies, and cries for revolution were widespread. Settlers had grown tired of oligarchical rule, and felt it was time to progress. Mackenzie and Papineau’s rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada reflected this sentiment, as did the dissent expressed to London by the Atlantic regions. In other words, this period saw real action taken by settlers who felt that there was need for change; and change would ensue.
liorbarel 10:43 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
The rebellions of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Atlantic region are similar in that they all involved the post-Enlightenment republican and nationalistic idea of the power of the individual. The right to be represented by your government comes from the feeling that you are part of the nation in which you reside, and therefore it should at least partially reflect you and your opinions. So, the rebellions can be seen as outbursts of these ideals, in response to a lack of their being fulfilled – a lack of ministerial responsibility and responsiveness to the political/economic wills and weal of the people.
To me, the difference between an “age of revolution” and a rebellion is the level of involvement of the people, at least in its spirit if not physically. And from the lectures, insofar as it is possible, this kind of “spirit” does seem to be the case; that each rebellion was not isolated in itself, but that each was interconnected in its ideologies and built off of the others.
However, I would also like to point out that this age of revolution engendered a societal evolution, not revolution; that in many ways, what the colonists were protesting for was a nicer looking version of the system they were in – not a new one. So, perhaps I would argue that the 1830s should be considered an age of evolution, created by sometimes violent societal participation, and not a full-on “age of revolution”.
Tina Loo 2:32 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Fantastic Lior!
aviaah 12:18 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This dissatisfaction among the colonists that led to rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies was fuelled by the friction between the ruling classes and the middle class colonists themselves. In Upper Canada, social and cultural tensions were at its utmost peak between the British Loyalists of the Family Compact and those of the colonists, many of whom were American immigrants. Social and cultural tensions also prevailed within Lower Canada between anglophone merchants that formed the the Chateau Clique and the francophone middle class. As well, in Upper Canada, economic discontent among the colonists brewed from land policies implemented by the Family compact, and also from the fact that land was being granted to their supporters. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system was sparking tension with American settlers who were used to free-holding land. This widespread dissatisfaction within the two Canadas provided a platform for rebellion, a call for change to the government and political system, and a greater focus on individual participation and representation of ideas in government and politics. Such can be seen when looking at the rebellion in the Atlantic colonies, as discontent stemmed from the middle classes against those who held power. The ruling classes tried to stifle the middle class’s push towards political freedom, much like the the two Canadas, and in certain colonies, like Prince Edward Island, land holding was an a large issue as well, as William Copper sought to extract the land from Proprietors and rightfully pass it into the hands of the tenant farmers. Thus, political freedom and land ownership, propelled by the widespread dissatisfaction of the colonists and middle classes are among the primary similarities between the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies.
The 1830s can be considered an age of revolution in British North America, as the rebellions of this time marked as an push for change. People sought to be represented within the government and the political sphere, as they felt that their needs were considered subsidiary to those of the elites, who basically shaped laws and policies to their own benefit. As well, this time period further brought about an enlightened understanding of responsibility. The middle class colonists wanted the government to be responsible to them, the citizens, for nothing at that point was holding the governmental and political officials accountable to those they were governing. Thus exploitation and disregard for the populations was rampant. The rebellions sought to bring about a new age through reform politics and further the pursuits of the colonists and middle class people in establishing personal individuality, personal freedom, and political representation, thus characterizing this reformation period as an age of revolution.
lindswong 3:23 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Colonies in the Canadas and the Atlantic region had very similar uprisings in terms of reason and catalysts that lead to dissent among the general population. In both the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies there were issues in the landholding system in which an oligarchy took control of general affairs in the colonies and, in particular, would hand out lands based on favouritism. In Britain’s attempt to fix this situation the governors were replaced. However the new governors acted contrary to what the the general people wanted thus furthering the discontent in the colonies. The discontent in the colonies was expressed through key people: Gourlay in Upper Canada, Papineau in Lower Canada and a vocal middle class in the Atlantic colonies, in particular Joseph Howe. Though these people were tried for expressing their dissatisfaction with the government, the situation continued to escalate until in was the brink of full rebellion. These colonies’ rebellion was largely spurred on by the ideals brought about through the revolution in France and in the newly formed States.
Where the colonies differ is that this growing discontent turned into a full rebellion in the Canadas, but not in the Atlantic colonies. The British government was able to more effectively deal with the situation in the Atlantic colonies partly due to the fear of having to deal with the same situation as was happening in the Canadas. The British were also able to quench the rebellion in the Canadas, but the legacy of the uprising remained.
To a great extent the 1830s in British North America could be considered an age of rebellion. Or better, an age of revolution. With new ideals as a result of the Napoleonic War and the War of Independence, the people in the colonies in British North America became more aware of the corruption in their current colonies. This realization, carried out through key people, resulted in the rebellions. However the rebellions were short-lived. Britian was better prepared to deal with the rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies mainly due to their prior loss in the American Revolutionary War. Britain also realized the need to keep British North America on their side, thus making more concessions in favour of the majority in these colonies than they had done in the past. Therefore, this age of rebellion, had a much different outcome than prior rebellions had in the past.
chliane 3:27 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The similarity between the rebellions in the two regions is mainly that they originated with dissent against the elites, who had much more that the lower classes while doing very little. For example, the seigneurs in Lower Canada who owned all the land, which was very much like the land holding system in PEI. There was also a lot of dissent against the political policies that were put in place, such as the Naturalization Act in in Upper Canada, and the taxes and restrictions placed on the logging industry that made people very upset. Most of all, the settlers all wanted a government that was responsible to the people. Upper and Lower Canada Had elected assemblies, but they had very little power and were controlled by the executive council. Several of the Atlantic colonies did not have and form of elected government.
General resentment towards the economy was also a factor that lead to the rising idea of rebellion in the colonies. Land was becoming scarce and the quality was bad in Lower Canada, and the farmers could not yield as many crops. The Americans in Upper Canada had their land rights taken away in 1818, which meant they could not make a living. The Atlantic colonies were also suffering in their economies as well, as most of their industry had been in supplying the British troops with timber, and building their ships. After the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the Atlantic colonies were no longer needed to provide large quantities of material, and they had no more ships to privateer, and so their economy fell, and the people became unhappy.
The 1830s could be seen as an Age of Revolution in British North America, although very little rebelling actually happened. I believe An Age of Revolution is when the majority of people have a need for change stirring in their minds, and this was definitely demonstrated by the lower and middle classes. Rebellions did not break out in the Atlantic colonies, but the masses recognized a need for change in the political system. They were very lucky that the British government recognized this need and made changes before and one was hurt. Revolution can also refer to change, which did happen, and so the Age of Revolution would be an acceptable term for the 1830s.
amandawoodland 4:39 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Similarities between the “rebellions” in the Atlantic region and Upper and Lower Canada stem from a common dissatisfaction amongst the people in regard to the distribution of power. In Upper and Lower Canada, the Family Compact and Chateau Clique (respectively) dominated the communities through abuse of land-holding and political rights. In LC, differing political opinions of the Anglophone and Candien groups caused controversy among the people. In UC matters were made worse by tension involving the large number of American immigrants as well as blatant favouritism of the British. Since the Atlantic regions adopted similar styles of government, similar issues of abuse of power – especially in regards to landholding – were bound to arise, and a similar goal of accountability for those in power was bound to develop.
The 1830s was certainly a decade in which change was desired, but when the lack of radical change is considered, labelling these years an age of revolution may be too strong. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the 1830s can be seen as a time of obvious desire for change. Political, social-cultural, and economic changes were desired in the various colonies, and the people were prepared to act in order to have their desires heard. Reformers such as William Lyon Mackenzie and the Baldwins made considerable arguments in UC while a change from Parti canadien to Parti patriote in LC drew much attention to the need for reform. Despite all of this, there was little action that can be strongly labelled as rebellion, least of all (it seems) in the Atlantic regions.
Tina Loo 2:34 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.
The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).