Political, economic and social factors played a large part in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s.
It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as they could; for example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791 to try to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based they law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigneurial system. Also, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take.
However, we also have to think about the political system as well. Even with an elected assembly, the majority of the power was left to the elite Anglophones in both Upper and Lower Canada. The elite were also given large plots of land and had advantages that most people didn’t. In addition, they were able to keep their wealth by the booming timber trade that was caused by the Napoleonic Wars; this created a wider separation between the elite and the majority of people. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French. As for the Aboriginal, it appears the British didn’t do as well accommodating them as the some of the other groups of people. I believe the Indigenous people kept being pushed west of the colonies and if they chose to remain, found themselves being under the control of the British government system instead of their own. Plus with the British fear of the French Catholics in Lower Canada, and the Americans in Upper Canada, even though the British tried accommodating as many people as they could, they still couldn’t stop the tension between different groups and the fear of treason.
Many factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America. The British in many ways were less accommodating than the French toward the natives. The French learned the native traditions and customs, and kept up trade even when furs weren’t in demand, just to keep good relations. The British were not as accommodating, particularly towards the Métis, when the Governor of Assinaboia put up laws that went against their lifestyle. The factor here that limited their ability to be accommodating would be economics, as the governor wanted to maximize profits for his own people.
The British were somewhat accommodating towards the French. It was the British who had control of the land, but the majority of the settlers were French, and Catholic as well. The British desire to have the upper hand would have been a limiting factor in terms of accommodation. The Anglophones would have expected their mother land to take their side, and make sure they were well provided for ahead of the French. But they would have worried about possible separatist movements rising up if they did not give them some accommodations, and so some provisions were made to the French, such as dividing the colonies into Upper and Lower Canada, and giving them the right to vote and hold office.
The biggest limiting factor of accommodation however, is most likely greed. Governments always want the support of the wealthy, and so many provisions were given to the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact, namely large land grants. Things were not so good for you, whether you were a French or English farmer. Both groups had the right to vote, but their votes were essentially useless as the elected assembly could do nothing against the will of the executive legislature. Just like we learned in lectures, ordered liberty can only work with inequality.
You’re right that the British and French accommodated themselves to different groups, but why? What did they gain by doing so? And were they always accommodating? What factors affected how far they were willing to go?
Tarah, I think you’re right that the British did try to accommodate different kinds of people in their empire, but why did they do so? Because they were nice? 🙂 Or did they have particular motives for doing so? Why was it that certain people – like Indigenous people – were accommodated and then weren’t?
It seems from what we’ve learned so far that the British were willing to accommodate almost everything politically, socially, and economically, that didn’t threaten the inherently British national character (or the attempt to create a British national character) of Upper and Lower Canada.
In Britain, there was a parliamentary political system that had been around for 100 years (since the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and was relatively stable. And so, the British assumed that a replica of the British system in North America, with a couple changes, would be the most stable system. However, they were wrong, and soon they realized that the national characters of Upper and Lower Canada were very different than that of Great Britain, filled with republican, radical, revolutionary, enlightenment and nationalist ideals that could not be fulfilled in the context of the straight British system.
In Upper Canada, Britain was less accommodating. They tried to create a hierarchy by giving large land grants and high government posts to the Loyalists who had just come from America. But, probably because they had just dealt with Americans in the Revolutionary War and were tired of American ideals, when this idea was rejected, the opposition was crushed (as shown by the story Joseph Willcocks, who was removed from office for espousing the idea of ministerial responsibility).
In Lower Canada, however, the British were slightly more accommodating. When the same “create a pseudo-aristocracy” idea was tried there, and the Parti Canadien was started in response to protest a lack of ministerial responsibility, there was no response of dissolving that political party. A possible reason for this seemingly hypocritical juxtaposition of actions from the British is that in Upper Canada, the Americans were arguing for ministerial responsibility with their American ideals, which were seen as threatening to the British national character, whereas in Lower Canada, Pierre Bedard used the rhetoric from the British Constitution in order to argue for the same thing.
The British took several different actions in attempting to adapt British North America to the diversity they were faced with. To begin, the British accepted those loyalists who fled from the America’s in search of some place safer. In moving to places such as Nova Scotia and Quebec, the loyalists ended up shaping the British colonies. Having to accommodate different types of groups, the British were forced to create imperial governance. Since the loyalists owned black slaves, they were forced to bring their property with them to British territory. In doing this, there was an influx of racism. Not only were the blacks a racial minority, but they were also given smaller areas of land than the whites. As a result, the blacks began to complain that Halifax was much too far from the area they were settled in and the loyalists voiced that they longed for an elective assembly. The British were then obliged to accommodate the black loyalist immigrants. In order to accommodate their demands, British in London, divided New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, into Upper and Lower Canada. By doing this, each colony would receive their own legislative council and consequently, the British would assure the “loyalists’” loyalty. Since the loyalists began to get their way, the Indigenous people felt as if they were displaced, ignored and betrayed because the blacks began to make their way through Indigenous land. Frederick Haldimand, the governor of Anishinabeg territory, was forced to accommodate his aboriginal peoples. Haldimand did this by making arrangements for attractive land to be set-aside for aboriginals. By accepting loyalists of both black and white, British North America was forced to acknowledge a domino affect that these diverse groups would bring to their colonies by accommodating three different races concurrently; blacks, whites and indigenous.
Jessica, you’ve got some good examples here of how the British tried to accommodate different groups. But the question is why? And why did they stop trying to accommodate certain groups, like Indigenous peoples?
British North America made attempts to accommodate loyalists during the American Revolution, including slave populations. To make room for this large growth in refugee population Nova Scotia was settled greatly and expansion westwards was made inevitable. This caused some dissonance amongst settlers because land promises to loyalists grew smaller in the later years of the Revolution. Those who arrived after would receive smaller parcels than those who came earlier, leading them to argue their loyalty was not as valued by the British. This came into conflict with land promises made to aboriginal people and resulted in additional treaties being made to appease them.
There was also anger because of the growing contact between Anglophone settlers and the black ex-slaves that sought sanctuary in Canada, and with the French Canadian peoples too. The British white elite were unhappy with this contact and effectively segregated the French. Resulting in Lower Canada and Upper Canada being created in 1791. This is a prime example of how British North America stopped accommodating challenges to their governance. This action was repeated when French elites attempted to secure political representation for themselves by creating an assembly and populated it by election, they dismantled their assembly and enforced stricter political restrictions on Lower Canada bringing them under the control of the executive branch of legislature.
Elizabeth, you’re right that one of the ways that the British accommodated diversity was to divide Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, and that there were limits to how far they would go in the examples of what happened to former Black slaves and freemen as well as Indigenous people – they were accommodated but in a limited way, and the extent of accommodation changed over time. What you need to think about is why; i.e. what was the context in which the British accommodated and then stopped accommodating?
A well-known idiom states, “You just can’t please everyone.” The act of redefining British North America (BNA) in the early 1800s is an excellent example of this. Following the American Revolution, immigration by a large number of Loyalists triggered what would be a series of major changes to the strategy of governance within BNA. While the British went to great lengths to accommodate themselves, not everyone around them was treated as well as. A number of factors shaped the limits of this accommodation, leading to a situation in which the British just couldn’t please everyone.
After the Constitutional Act was enacted in 1791, BNA was split into Upper Canada (UC) and Lower Canada (LC). This split allowed for a divide in the prevailing systems of law, land-holding, and so forth. Both the Anglophone majority in UC and the Francophone majority of LC were appeased in this way; both areas were represented by their own bicameral legislature. Unfortunately, in the early 1800s, seemingly arbitrary hierarchies developed, causing controversy and an upset to the balanced constitution.
Anglophone elite – known as the Chateau Clique – came to dominate both the appointed legislative and executive councils. Their growing wealth bought them most of the available land, giving them more power to vote. As their power grew, they posed a larger threat to Francophone identity. In UC, Loyalists – especially the Family Compact – were also favoured in order to create a “model British colony.” In these ways, the constitution which was supposed to create balance ended up strongly disfavouring the Francophones.
Furthermore, while the focus was centred heavily on loyalty issues between the British and the French in BNA, the interests of the Natives were largely overlooked. Even after the Aboriginal population supported BNA against Americans, the common enemy, their attempt at regaining their previous level of independence was ignored. The British did little to accommodate this group, showing a massive change in priorities from earlier centuries.
Because of the growing variety of cultures present in BNA, it is likely that it would have been impossible to accommodate all groups. However, despite the fact that the British seemingly went to greater lengths to accommodate themselves than others, the situation led to a number of positive outcomes, the most significant of which being the rise of modern-day nationalism.
Amanda, You’re right that the British accommodated Americans – and then stopped doing so. You’re also right that they accommodated French and English differences in Quebec by splitting the colony into Upper and Lower Canada. There are other examples too, but what you need to think about is why the British did so – and why they stopped.
The limits of accommodation by the British Governments were affected by the three major factors, the Indigenous First Nations, Loyalist immigrations and the original French Colonists. In order to get their house in order, the British Government had to make concessions, the most influential were the Haldimand proclamation of 1784 and the Constitution Act of 1791. The British knew that anarchy would prevail if they didn’t act to recognize the distinct nature of different cultures in their new territories. The creation of the upper and lower colonies of Canada accommodated the needs the English and French speaking citizens by giving a voice to Political autonomy. This being said, the British Government accomodation were limited by the hierarchy that it created.
Though divided by language and a new border, the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly were still controlled by the wealthy landowners who occupied the seats. In order to facilitate ongoing loyalty of the Six Nations, the Haldimand Proclamation satisfied the interests of the Mohawk Nation but ignored the Anishinabeg peoples to the west. The British Government could not answer every petition placed before them however British Sovereignty was always the cornerstone of any concessions granted.
Richard, you’ve given some good examples of accommodation and how their willingness to accommodate changed over time. But remember that the British didn’t just accommodate Indigenous peoples. They were willing to accommodate Catholics (in Acadia and Quebec) and Americans as well as former slaves and Black freemen, and they dealt with differences between French and English by creating the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada from the larger colony of Quebec. They also carved out New Brunswick from Nova Scotia in response to demands from Loyalists for more responsive government institutions.
I don’t expect people to include all these examples, mind you. But what I did want people to do was to think about the contexts in which accommodation occurred because as you point out, the willingness on the part of the British to do so changed over time. Why? In other words, what factor shaped their willingness to accommodate different groups of people?
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
According to the Canadian history, politics, economic and social factors had an important role in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s. People who were there were the People of BNA, French people majority in Canada East, British people majority in Canada West and Maritime, First Nations and Metis majority in the Prairies, British and Americans majority in British Columbia. In addition to that The Great Migration attracted settlers. Many people moved from Europe in the 1830s and 1840 due to poverty and food shortages forced them to emigrate. Especially Newfound Diversity has a history of People from Netherlands, Germany and Ireland now part of Canada, and Irish came because of Potato Famine. It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as possible. For example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791, and tried to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based their law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigniorial system. Most importantly, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, people weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French.
The life in BNA was based on gender roles. For instance, women were responsible for domestic chores, men responsible for outside tasks, everyone helped with big jobs. The sad part of the history was the Social Characteristics, because Canada East was mostly French and Roman Catholic, West was mostly English and Protestant, the black communities in Nova Scotia, and in West First Nation people were apart from Europeans due to their distinct class divisions. Therefore, constant movement caused
people always looking to improve their quality of lives. Last but not least, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island united in 1866. Traditional British government system American influenced it for gold rush. There were thought it should join America, than being a British colony.
Friba, You’re right that the British tried to accommodate many different groups of people, but remember that their willingness to do so changed over time. To take one example, Indigenous people were accommodated through the Proclamation of 1763, but it wasn’t too long afterwards that they were placed on reserves. What was the context – in other words, what were the circumstances – that made the British more or less willing to accommodate different groups of people?
The British went to great lengths to accommodate the different groups of people in North America during the early 1800s. With the creation of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, each respectively dominated by Francophones or Anglophones, the British were able to adapt laws to suit each group best. In particular the French in Upper Canada were permitted to follow their own laws, such as the landholding system they followed was the seigneurial system despite being under British rule. Furthermore Britain was aware of the English minority that would be living in Lower Canada as well and thus still allowed to accommodate them according to British law. Furthermore, though the British were predominately protestant, they allowed for catholic representation in the government, in that they were allowed the right to vote. What was strictly to remain under British rule was the criminal law however. The British would tolerate only so much, but when it came to the court and punishment the British knew they had to be in control in order to keep the country in order.
Much accommodation was made for the Loyalist settlers coming from the States as well. As more and more Loyalists came they began to disperse further than Nova Scotia, many settling in Upper Canada. In Upper Canada concessions were made for the Loyalists as Britain knew it was important to have their support. But trying to settle these new groups of people resulted in a lack of accommodation for the native people. Natives were constantly being pushed off their lands and although they were granted reserves, they often weren’t large and also not as good of a quality of land as the settlers received.]
Overall, the British did do a lot in the way of accommodation as has not been done in the past. Factors for this were not only due to the increasing white settler population but also the need to have the majority backing the British in order for them to keep control of British North America. In the end to accommodate some groups meant that others would be left out. Therefore, Britain’s accommodation was limited to the groups that thy felt were the most vital to have support from.
YES! You are one of the few people to get to the heart of the matter, to address why the British were more or less willing at different times to accommodate different groups. It’s in your last sentence – I would have liked a little elaboration of this part and less of the description of accommodation, but great job!
The British implemented many factors into accommodating new settlers. Factors such as political, economic and social advances that adapted in to problems. The problem is that these factors didn’t always accommodate settlers and especially the indigeneous peoples. New settlers were often promised large parcels of land that would be granted to them in hopes of cultivating it and thriving economically. Later on this land continued to diminish for settlers which created social problems for the settlers. For the native peoples it was not very beneficial, they continued to not get respect from the new British colonists and were socially crippled by the British in an attempt to increase settlement population.
Dallas, can you elaborate on what you mean by political, economic, and social advances? I do think the political, economic, and social contexts shaped how and how much the British accommodated other people but it’s not entirely clear what you mean from this. Also, you’re right to point out that people who were accommodated at one time weren’t accommodated at other times, the best example being Indigenous peoples. So what made the difference?
From what we have learned so far the British in the early 1800’s were faced with a large amount of diversity, allowing them to accommodate anything that wasn’t a threat to British National character of upper and lower Canada. The British were significantly less accommodating towards the Native than the French were. This was evident through the French’s actions such as learning the culture and customs of the Natives and doing trade with them. Quebec was separated into two in order to please both the French and English. They based the law off the majority of people living there, and voting was changed through the special oath Catholic men could take.
Throughout time there has been a quite sufficient parliamentary political system already installed in Britain. They thought that this government would be fine to install with Upper and Lower Canada however this did not work out , they soon noticed that the national characters of Upper and lower Canada were different than Great Britain.
The Native peoples suffered essentially because of the British not wanting to accept them. They kicked the natives while they were down and did not let them get back up. Social problems like these occurred which significantly lowered their acceptance with natives.
Kyle, you’re right to say that the British viewed different groups differently with respect to how far they’d go to accommodate them. But what made the difference? Indigenous peoples were accommodated (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example), but later on they were not. What contexts shaped accommodation?
The British were at first not accommodating of the French Canadians, whom they tried to assimilate. However, they soon learnt that it was in their interests to be accommodating of them, for British immigration was not important enough to assimilate them. This led to the creation of Upper and Lower Canada, with a tolerance of French politics and law.
Similarly, accommodations were made for American Loyalists.
On the contrary, the British were a more less accommodating of the Natives than the French were. While the French conducted trade, going as far as to adopt some of the Natives’ custom in trade, with no intention of taking over Aboriginal land, the British did not understand this agreement and proceeded to take over lands they consider not to be properly exploited.
Vinciane, I think you are right to say the British acted differently towards different groups, but why? And was it not also the case that their attitudes towards a single group changed over time? Indigenous peoples are a good example: they were accommodated in the Proclamation of 1763 but pushed aside later. Why?
During this period of time there were a few different groups in Canada which led to some tensions. The aboriginals, the Americans, the Loyalist and the French populations. It must have been somehow strange since the size of the population didn’t represent the power.
I believe that when every country experience this situations, they try to please all groups in order to avoid aggravation and to much tensions. However, in Canada it seems like they went pretty far. The Quebec act in 1774 enabled for both English criminal law to be applied alongside French Civil Law. The Quebec act also recognized the Catholic church which aggravated the Americans. The Constitutional act divided Quebec and made an English speaking part. Although you could say that this is relative large changes that was approved, it didn’t seem to be enough to please everybody
What happened was that they tried to compromise in order to keep the different groups calm, in order to maintain the power of the colony. However, the diversity was to big, and the way I see it, the situation could be compared to a “triangle-drama”. The economical, social and political differences between the groups became limits that arose during their attempts to accommodate all the groups.
Karin, I think you are right that the British tried to accommodate different groups in order to be able to govern their colonies. But can you say more about why they stopped accommodating certain groups? For instance, they accommodated Indigenous peoples (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example of this) but later on they pushed them onto reserves. Why? Similarly, they welcomed Americans who were fleeing the American Revolution, but later they tried to take political rights away from them. Why?
When the large influx of loyalists came into Canada after te American revolution, which consisted of a diverse array of people in terms of gender, ethnicity, class and religion, the British accommodated the loyalists and indigenous peoples by making the Treaty of Paris, the haldimand proclamation, and the constitutional act. The treat of Paris in 1783 the British made caused the Mohawks to feel betrayed because of how little they got in return for what they had for the British, so in 1784, the British made the Haldimand Proclamation. This allowed the mohawks to settle near the Grand River. Seven years later, the british made the the constitutional act in 1791 to prevent many of the people from being swept away by republican notions. This act was mainlyfor the aforementioned reason, but also for the loyalists and to further accommodate the loyalists, the british ended up dividing Quebec into upper and lower Canada since the loyalists had petitioned for a representative government of the type they were used to. In short, the British made many special accommodations for the people of British North America.
Amrita, Yes, the British did try to accommodate people as you illustrate with your examples but why? What factors shaped their willingness to do so and what factors shaped their decision not to?
The British took it upon themselves to accommodate some of the numerous groups that resided and immigrated to British North America, such as the First Nations, the Francophone Canadiens, the American settlers, the black slaves who were deemed free when coming to British North America, and the loyalists who escaped from America to BNA due to their prosecution. One of the main accommodations the British made was establishing Upper and Lower Canada, where the Anglophones and Francophones resided respectfully. This territorial division aided in the process of mitigating any tensions between the groups and allowed the francophones to practice their laws, civil law, and seigneurial land-holding system that fundamentally differed from the the laws (i.e. common law) and landholding patterns of the Anglophones. As well, the British accommodated the loyalists by granting them complimentary land in Nova Scotia in promote growth in the province and also provide them with concessions to ensure their loyalty and repay them for their loyalty while they were in America. The British were rather fond of the loyalists for their patriotism and loyalty to Britain, but in doing so the aboriginals whose land was being handed over to the loyalists were put at disadvantage, as their land was being stripped from them. That being said, although the British did seek to accommodate those in British North America, they failed to maintain the relations that they had earlier with the Aboriginals, thus showing that their accommodation efforts were only directed to those of whom they considered important.
Aviaah, Your examples of accommodation are good, but you need to think about why the British did this? What led them to accommodate different people? Was it just because they were nice? And why did certain groups who were accommodated cease to be at other times? Indigenous peoples were accommodated by the British but later on they were put on reserves. What social, economic, and political contexts shaped how far the British were willing to go in accommodating diversity?
General comments on Week 7:
Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.
Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.
The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?
In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.
Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.
aviaah, 
amrita, and 13 others are discussing.
tazizi 1:40 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Political, economic and social factors played a large part in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s.
It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as they could; for example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791 to try to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based they law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigneurial system. Also, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take.
However, we also have to think about the political system as well. Even with an elected assembly, the majority of the power was left to the elite Anglophones in both Upper and Lower Canada. The elite were also given large plots of land and had advantages that most people didn’t. In addition, they were able to keep their wealth by the booming timber trade that was caused by the Napoleonic Wars; this created a wider separation between the elite and the majority of people. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French. As for the Aboriginal, it appears the British didn’t do as well accommodating them as the some of the other groups of people. I believe the Indigenous people kept being pushed west of the colonies and if they chose to remain, found themselves being under the control of the British government system instead of their own. Plus with the British fear of the French Catholics in Lower Canada, and the Americans in Upper Canada, even though the British tried accommodating as many people as they could, they still couldn’t stop the tension between different groups and the fear of treason.
chliane 2:20 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Many factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America. The British in many ways were less accommodating than the French toward the natives. The French learned the native traditions and customs, and kept up trade even when furs weren’t in demand, just to keep good relations. The British were not as accommodating, particularly towards the Métis, when the Governor of Assinaboia put up laws that went against their lifestyle. The factor here that limited their ability to be accommodating would be economics, as the governor wanted to maximize profits for his own people.
The British were somewhat accommodating towards the French. It was the British who had control of the land, but the majority of the settlers were French, and Catholic as well. The British desire to have the upper hand would have been a limiting factor in terms of accommodation. The Anglophones would have expected their mother land to take their side, and make sure they were well provided for ahead of the French. But they would have worried about possible separatist movements rising up if they did not give them some accommodations, and so some provisions were made to the French, such as dividing the colonies into Upper and Lower Canada, and giving them the right to vote and hold office.
The biggest limiting factor of accommodation however, is most likely greed. Governments always want the support of the wealthy, and so many provisions were given to the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact, namely large land grants. Things were not so good for you, whether you were a French or English farmer. Both groups had the right to vote, but their votes were essentially useless as the elected assembly could do nothing against the will of the executive legislature. Just like we learned in lectures, ordered liberty can only work with inequality.
Tina Loo 2:32 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You’re right that the British and French accommodated themselves to different groups, but why? What did they gain by doing so? And were they always accommodating? What factors affected how far they were willing to go?
Tina Loo 2:29 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Tarah, I think you’re right that the British did try to accommodate different kinds of people in their empire, but why did they do so? Because they were nice? 🙂 Or did they have particular motives for doing so? Why was it that certain people – like Indigenous people – were accommodated and then weren’t?
liorbarel 2:43 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems from what we’ve learned so far that the British were willing to accommodate almost everything politically, socially, and economically, that didn’t threaten the inherently British national character (or the attempt to create a British national character) of Upper and Lower Canada.
In Britain, there was a parliamentary political system that had been around for 100 years (since the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and was relatively stable. And so, the British assumed that a replica of the British system in North America, with a couple changes, would be the most stable system. However, they were wrong, and soon they realized that the national characters of Upper and Lower Canada were very different than that of Great Britain, filled with republican, radical, revolutionary, enlightenment and nationalist ideals that could not be fulfilled in the context of the straight British system.
In Upper Canada, Britain was less accommodating. They tried to create a hierarchy by giving large land grants and high government posts to the Loyalists who had just come from America. But, probably because they had just dealt with Americans in the Revolutionary War and were tired of American ideals, when this idea was rejected, the opposition was crushed (as shown by the story Joseph Willcocks, who was removed from office for espousing the idea of ministerial responsibility).
In Lower Canada, however, the British were slightly more accommodating. When the same “create a pseudo-aristocracy” idea was tried there, and the Parti Canadien was started in response to protest a lack of ministerial responsibility, there was no response of dissolving that political party. A possible reason for this seemingly hypocritical juxtaposition of actions from the British is that in Upper Canada, the Americans were arguing for ministerial responsibility with their American ideals, which were seen as threatening to the British national character, whereas in Lower Canada, Pierre Bedard used the rhetoric from the British Constitution in order to argue for the same thing.
Tina Loo 2:33 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Lior, I like the idea that the British accommodated people when it was in their self-interest to do so. What was that self-interest, exactly?
jpellegrino 4:05 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British took several different actions in attempting to adapt British North America to the diversity they were faced with. To begin, the British accepted those loyalists who fled from the America’s in search of some place safer. In moving to places such as Nova Scotia and Quebec, the loyalists ended up shaping the British colonies. Having to accommodate different types of groups, the British were forced to create imperial governance. Since the loyalists owned black slaves, they were forced to bring their property with them to British territory. In doing this, there was an influx of racism. Not only were the blacks a racial minority, but they were also given smaller areas of land than the whites. As a result, the blacks began to complain that Halifax was much too far from the area they were settled in and the loyalists voiced that they longed for an elective assembly. The British were then obliged to accommodate the black loyalist immigrants. In order to accommodate their demands, British in London, divided New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, into Upper and Lower Canada. By doing this, each colony would receive their own legislative council and consequently, the British would assure the “loyalists’” loyalty. Since the loyalists began to get their way, the Indigenous people felt as if they were displaced, ignored and betrayed because the blacks began to make their way through Indigenous land. Frederick Haldimand, the governor of Anishinabeg territory, was forced to accommodate his aboriginal peoples. Haldimand did this by making arrangements for attractive land to be set-aside for aboriginals. By accepting loyalists of both black and white, British North America was forced to acknowledge a domino affect that these diverse groups would bring to their colonies by accommodating three different races concurrently; blacks, whites and indigenous.
Tina Loo 2:34 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Jessica, you’ve got some good examples here of how the British tried to accommodate different groups. But the question is why? And why did they stop trying to accommodate certain groups, like Indigenous peoples?
ecopeland 7:54 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
British North America made attempts to accommodate loyalists during the American Revolution, including slave populations. To make room for this large growth in refugee population Nova Scotia was settled greatly and expansion westwards was made inevitable. This caused some dissonance amongst settlers because land promises to loyalists grew smaller in the later years of the Revolution. Those who arrived after would receive smaller parcels than those who came earlier, leading them to argue their loyalty was not as valued by the British. This came into conflict with land promises made to aboriginal people and resulted in additional treaties being made to appease them.
There was also anger because of the growing contact between Anglophone settlers and the black ex-slaves that sought sanctuary in Canada, and with the French Canadian peoples too. The British white elite were unhappy with this contact and effectively segregated the French. Resulting in Lower Canada and Upper Canada being created in 1791. This is a prime example of how British North America stopped accommodating challenges to their governance. This action was repeated when French elites attempted to secure political representation for themselves by creating an assembly and populated it by election, they dismantled their assembly and enforced stricter political restrictions on Lower Canada bringing them under the control of the executive branch of legislature.
Tina Loo 8:31 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Elizabeth, you’re right that one of the ways that the British accommodated diversity was to divide Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, and that there were limits to how far they would go in the examples of what happened to former Black slaves and freemen as well as Indigenous people – they were accommodated but in a limited way, and the extent of accommodation changed over time. What you need to think about is why; i.e. what was the context in which the British accommodated and then stopped accommodating?
amandawoodland 10:37 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
A well-known idiom states, “You just can’t please everyone.” The act of redefining British North America (BNA) in the early 1800s is an excellent example of this. Following the American Revolution, immigration by a large number of Loyalists triggered what would be a series of major changes to the strategy of governance within BNA. While the British went to great lengths to accommodate themselves, not everyone around them was treated as well as. A number of factors shaped the limits of this accommodation, leading to a situation in which the British just couldn’t please everyone.
After the Constitutional Act was enacted in 1791, BNA was split into Upper Canada (UC) and Lower Canada (LC). This split allowed for a divide in the prevailing systems of law, land-holding, and so forth. Both the Anglophone majority in UC and the Francophone majority of LC were appeased in this way; both areas were represented by their own bicameral legislature. Unfortunately, in the early 1800s, seemingly arbitrary hierarchies developed, causing controversy and an upset to the balanced constitution.
Anglophone elite – known as the Chateau Clique – came to dominate both the appointed legislative and executive councils. Their growing wealth bought them most of the available land, giving them more power to vote. As their power grew, they posed a larger threat to Francophone identity. In UC, Loyalists – especially the Family Compact – were also favoured in order to create a “model British colony.” In these ways, the constitution which was supposed to create balance ended up strongly disfavouring the Francophones.
Furthermore, while the focus was centred heavily on loyalty issues between the British and the French in BNA, the interests of the Natives were largely overlooked. Even after the Aboriginal population supported BNA against Americans, the common enemy, their attempt at regaining their previous level of independence was ignored. The British did little to accommodate this group, showing a massive change in priorities from earlier centuries.
Because of the growing variety of cultures present in BNA, it is likely that it would have been impossible to accommodate all groups. However, despite the fact that the British seemingly went to greater lengths to accommodate themselves than others, the situation led to a number of positive outcomes, the most significant of which being the rise of modern-day nationalism.
Tina Loo 8:33 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Amanda, You’re right that the British accommodated Americans – and then stopped doing so. You’re also right that they accommodated French and English differences in Quebec by splitting the colony into Upper and Lower Canada. There are other examples too, but what you need to think about is why the British did so – and why they stopped.
richardj 12:51 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The limits of accommodation by the British Governments were affected by the three major factors, the Indigenous First Nations, Loyalist immigrations and the original French Colonists. In order to get their house in order, the British Government had to make concessions, the most influential were the Haldimand proclamation of 1784 and the Constitution Act of 1791. The British knew that anarchy would prevail if they didn’t act to recognize the distinct nature of different cultures in their new territories. The creation of the upper and lower colonies of Canada accommodated the needs the English and French speaking citizens by giving a voice to Political autonomy. This being said, the British Government accomodation were limited by the hierarchy that it created.
richardj 1:16 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Though divided by language and a new border, the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly were still controlled by the wealthy landowners who occupied the seats. In order to facilitate ongoing loyalty of the Six Nations, the Haldimand Proclamation satisfied the interests of the Mohawk Nation but ignored the Anishinabeg peoples to the west. The British Government could not answer every petition placed before them however British Sovereignty was always the cornerstone of any concessions granted.
Tina Loo 8:47 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Richard, you’ve given some good examples of accommodation and how their willingness to accommodate changed over time. But remember that the British didn’t just accommodate Indigenous peoples. They were willing to accommodate Catholics (in Acadia and Quebec) and Americans as well as former slaves and Black freemen, and they dealt with differences between French and English by creating the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada from the larger colony of Quebec. They also carved out New Brunswick from Nova Scotia in response to demands from Loyalists for more responsive government institutions.
I don’t expect people to include all these examples, mind you. But what I did want people to do was to think about the contexts in which accommodation occurred because as you point out, the willingness on the part of the British to do so changed over time. Why? In other words, what factor shaped their willingness to accommodate different groups of people?
FribaRezayee235 1:14 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Blog Week Seven
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
According to the Canadian history, politics, economic and social factors had an important role in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s. People who were there were the People of BNA, French people majority in Canada East, British people majority in Canada West and Maritime, First Nations and Metis majority in the Prairies, British and Americans majority in British Columbia. In addition to that The Great Migration attracted settlers. Many people moved from Europe in the 1830s and 1840 due to poverty and food shortages forced them to emigrate. Especially Newfound Diversity has a history of People from Netherlands, Germany and Ireland now part of Canada, and Irish came because of Potato Famine. It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as possible. For example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791, and tried to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based their law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigniorial system. Most importantly, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, people weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French.
The life in BNA was based on gender roles. For instance, women were responsible for domestic chores, men responsible for outside tasks, everyone helped with big jobs. The sad part of the history was the Social Characteristics, because Canada East was mostly French and Roman Catholic, West was mostly English and Protestant, the black communities in Nova Scotia, and in West First Nation people were apart from Europeans due to their distinct class divisions. Therefore, constant movement caused
people always looking to improve their quality of lives. Last but not least, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island united in 1866. Traditional British government system American influenced it for gold rush. There were thought it should join America, than being a British colony.
Tina Loo 8:51 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Friba, You’re right that the British tried to accommodate many different groups of people, but remember that their willingness to do so changed over time. To take one example, Indigenous people were accommodated through the Proclamation of 1763, but it wasn’t too long afterwards that they were placed on reserves. What was the context – in other words, what were the circumstances – that made the British more or less willing to accommodate different groups of people?
lindswong 2:41 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British went to great lengths to accommodate the different groups of people in North America during the early 1800s. With the creation of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, each respectively dominated by Francophones or Anglophones, the British were able to adapt laws to suit each group best. In particular the French in Upper Canada were permitted to follow their own laws, such as the landholding system they followed was the seigneurial system despite being under British rule. Furthermore Britain was aware of the English minority that would be living in Lower Canada as well and thus still allowed to accommodate them according to British law. Furthermore, though the British were predominately protestant, they allowed for catholic representation in the government, in that they were allowed the right to vote. What was strictly to remain under British rule was the criminal law however. The British would tolerate only so much, but when it came to the court and punishment the British knew they had to be in control in order to keep the country in order.
Much accommodation was made for the Loyalist settlers coming from the States as well. As more and more Loyalists came they began to disperse further than Nova Scotia, many settling in Upper Canada. In Upper Canada concessions were made for the Loyalists as Britain knew it was important to have their support. But trying to settle these new groups of people resulted in a lack of accommodation for the native people. Natives were constantly being pushed off their lands and although they were granted reserves, they often weren’t large and also not as good of a quality of land as the settlers received.]
Overall, the British did do a lot in the way of accommodation as has not been done in the past. Factors for this were not only due to the increasing white settler population but also the need to have the majority backing the British in order for them to keep control of British North America. In the end to accommodate some groups meant that others would be left out. Therefore, Britain’s accommodation was limited to the groups that thy felt were the most vital to have support from.
Tina Loo 8:53 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
YES! You are one of the few people to get to the heart of the matter, to address why the British were more or less willing at different times to accommodate different groups. It’s in your last sentence – I would have liked a little elaboration of this part and less of the description of accommodation, but great job!
dallasyassinsky 3:03 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British implemented many factors into accommodating new settlers. Factors such as political, economic and social advances that adapted in to problems. The problem is that these factors didn’t always accommodate settlers and especially the indigeneous peoples. New settlers were often promised large parcels of land that would be granted to them in hopes of cultivating it and thriving economically. Later on this land continued to diminish for settlers which created social problems for the settlers. For the native peoples it was not very beneficial, they continued to not get respect from the new British colonists and were socially crippled by the British in an attempt to increase settlement population.
Tina Loo 12:50 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Dallas, can you elaborate on what you mean by political, economic, and social advances? I do think the political, economic, and social contexts shaped how and how much the British accommodated other people but it’s not entirely clear what you mean from this. Also, you’re right to point out that people who were accommodated at one time weren’t accommodated at other times, the best example being Indigenous peoples. So what made the difference?
madden34 3:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
From what we have learned so far the British in the early 1800’s were faced with a large amount of diversity, allowing them to accommodate anything that wasn’t a threat to British National character of upper and lower Canada. The British were significantly less accommodating towards the Native than the French were. This was evident through the French’s actions such as learning the culture and customs of the Natives and doing trade with them. Quebec was separated into two in order to please both the French and English. They based the law off the majority of people living there, and voting was changed through the special oath Catholic men could take.
Throughout time there has been a quite sufficient parliamentary political system already installed in Britain. They thought that this government would be fine to install with Upper and Lower Canada however this did not work out , they soon noticed that the national characters of Upper and lower Canada were different than Great Britain.
The Native peoples suffered essentially because of the British not wanting to accept them. They kicked the natives while they were down and did not let them get back up. Social problems like these occurred which significantly lowered their acceptance with natives.
Tina Loo 12:51 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Kyle, you’re right to say that the British viewed different groups differently with respect to how far they’d go to accommodate them. But what made the difference? Indigenous peoples were accommodated (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example), but later on they were not. What contexts shaped accommodation?
Vinciane Boisson 4:17 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British were at first not accommodating of the French Canadians, whom they tried to assimilate. However, they soon learnt that it was in their interests to be accommodating of them, for British immigration was not important enough to assimilate them. This led to the creation of Upper and Lower Canada, with a tolerance of French politics and law.
Similarly, accommodations were made for American Loyalists.
On the contrary, the British were a more less accommodating of the Natives than the French were. While the French conducted trade, going as far as to adopt some of the Natives’ custom in trade, with no intention of taking over Aboriginal land, the British did not understand this agreement and proceeded to take over lands they consider not to be properly exploited.
Tina Loo 12:53 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Vinciane, I think you are right to say the British acted differently towards different groups, but why? And was it not also the case that their attitudes towards a single group changed over time? Indigenous peoples are a good example: they were accommodated in the Proclamation of 1763 but pushed aside later. Why?
karinbjorkdahl 4:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
During this period of time there were a few different groups in Canada which led to some tensions. The aboriginals, the Americans, the Loyalist and the French populations. It must have been somehow strange since the size of the population didn’t represent the power.
I believe that when every country experience this situations, they try to please all groups in order to avoid aggravation and to much tensions. However, in Canada it seems like they went pretty far. The Quebec act in 1774 enabled for both English criminal law to be applied alongside French Civil Law. The Quebec act also recognized the Catholic church which aggravated the Americans. The Constitutional act divided Quebec and made an English speaking part. Although you could say that this is relative large changes that was approved, it didn’t seem to be enough to please everybody
What happened was that they tried to compromise in order to keep the different groups calm, in order to maintain the power of the colony. However, the diversity was to big, and the way I see it, the situation could be compared to a “triangle-drama”. The economical, social and political differences between the groups became limits that arose during their attempts to accommodate all the groups.
Tina Loo 12:55 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Karin, I think you are right that the British tried to accommodate different groups in order to be able to govern their colonies. But can you say more about why they stopped accommodating certain groups? For instance, they accommodated Indigenous peoples (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example of this) but later on they pushed them onto reserves. Why? Similarly, they welcomed Americans who were fleeing the American Revolution, but later they tried to take political rights away from them. Why?
amrita 4:55 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
When the large influx of loyalists came into Canada after te American revolution, which consisted of a diverse array of people in terms of gender, ethnicity, class and religion, the British accommodated the loyalists and indigenous peoples by making the Treaty of Paris, the haldimand proclamation, and the constitutional act. The treat of Paris in 1783 the British made caused the Mohawks to feel betrayed because of how little they got in return for what they had for the British, so in 1784, the British made the Haldimand Proclamation. This allowed the mohawks to settle near the Grand River. Seven years later, the british made the the constitutional act in 1791 to prevent many of the people from being swept away by republican notions. This act was mainlyfor the aforementioned reason, but also for the loyalists and to further accommodate the loyalists, the british ended up dividing Quebec into upper and lower Canada since the loyalists had petitioned for a representative government of the type they were used to. In short, the British made many special accommodations for the people of British North America.
Tina Loo 12:57 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Amrita, Yes, the British did try to accommodate people as you illustrate with your examples but why? What factors shaped their willingness to do so and what factors shaped their decision not to?
aviaah 5:01 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British took it upon themselves to accommodate some of the numerous groups that resided and immigrated to British North America, such as the First Nations, the Francophone Canadiens, the American settlers, the black slaves who were deemed free when coming to British North America, and the loyalists who escaped from America to BNA due to their prosecution. One of the main accommodations the British made was establishing Upper and Lower Canada, where the Anglophones and Francophones resided respectfully. This territorial division aided in the process of mitigating any tensions between the groups and allowed the francophones to practice their laws, civil law, and seigneurial land-holding system that fundamentally differed from the the laws (i.e. common law) and landholding patterns of the Anglophones. As well, the British accommodated the loyalists by granting them complimentary land in Nova Scotia in promote growth in the province and also provide them with concessions to ensure their loyalty and repay them for their loyalty while they were in America. The British were rather fond of the loyalists for their patriotism and loyalty to Britain, but in doing so the aboriginals whose land was being handed over to the loyalists were put at disadvantage, as their land was being stripped from them. That being said, although the British did seek to accommodate those in British North America, they failed to maintain the relations that they had earlier with the Aboriginals, thus showing that their accommodation efforts were only directed to those of whom they considered important.
Tina Loo 12:59 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Aviaah, Your examples of accommodation are good, but you need to think about why the British did this? What led them to accommodate different people? Was it just because they were nice? And why did certain groups who were accommodated cease to be at other times? Indigenous peoples were accommodated by the British but later on they were put on reserves. What social, economic, and political contexts shaped how far the British were willing to go in accommodating diversity?
Tina Loo 1:06 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General comments on Week 7:
Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.
Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.
The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?
In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.
Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.