In relation to lectures this week, we discussed the idea of loyalty between the British settlers and the French and how that limited them. Firstly, we discussed the idea of the conflicting religions. Most people belonging to one religion which limited the accommodation of British into North America, and created a religious divide despite the immense desire to all assimilate the other religious standing within their own religious group. They were limited by law of law, in the fact that civil law was still French, although new anglophones were beginning to populate the area. The emergence of the two parties, the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique which were a group of rich elitists, who desired to form an aristocracy within the government in order to gain the most benefit for large powerful and their friends. In accordance to new British North American settlers, this is certainly very constricting on the general political life and the overall “New World” experience as there is still much power within the French through the massive amounts of wealth being collected through the fur trade. Certainly with conflicting division of powers, this limits the power of British subjects being able to assert their full control over the area of Canada, as they couldn’t simply reign without the predominating power of France and the wealth they had accumulated through the fur trade. After these parties are formed, Willcox, as mentioned in lecture, makes a newspaper to bring up important points based on the rights of people and the need to diminish this aristocratic form of government between the Family Compact and Chateau Clique. In relation to this, I feel like American settlers coming in and critiquing the forms of government was a very serous delegitimization against the British Empire’s “control” in Canada. Essentially what the controlled was the “few” interests, and not the interests of the many, which when it comes down to it, is not the best way to form loyalty of the people in a British government. All these factors played a role in limiting the actual control the British had, which interfered with the accommodation of not only the new settlers had to deal with, but also challenged the accommodation of a British rule within Canada.
The British desire to see their hold on territory maintained in British North America would be a very limiting factor in terms of accommodation of the local populations. While the circumstances which led America to revolt and gain independence were not similarly represented in Canada, the presence of a large non-loyalist (ie not British) population, the Canadiens, would cause the British to take care not to alienate the population due much (especially due to their size relative to the British aligned population).
To maintain nominal control, the British were prepared to accommodate the francophone population through the process of permitting them their own constitutional rule. Ideally, had the Francophone population not been what it was, the British would;ve most likely been quite happy to bring the Canadien’s under their constitutional administrations, however due to relative population sizes such accommodation was necessary to keeping the peace.
Of course these accommodations were not shared with the native peoples, even those who had worked & fought on the side of British. A lack of accommodation for these people illustrates the very British notion that the territory conquered during the conflicts was now of ‘British control and property” implying that only British interests will be represented. The Francophones (while being somewhat belligerent) were also considered of “European stock” and therefore entitled to civilized accommodation as fellow men. The natives were still considered as savages, implying that while they were an effective tool utilized during the conflicts, they had little claim if any at all to the territory of British North America, “un-civilized:” as they were. This condition does show British accommodation however (if it can be called that through the lens of history) in regards to providing limited but preserved ‘Native Reserves’ where Native culture and self rule could be perpetuated (in a perfect world) The pressure of needing to show some reward/regard for the efforts of the Native populations while not compromising European interests in the New World would prove somewhat limiting on British policies of the time.
British North America in the early 18th century had a difficult time managing the different Loyalists, so the Constitutional Act divided the land into two: Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada consisted of Francophones where French civil law persisted, and Upper Canada consisted of Anglophones where British law was exercised. However, there were also indigenous peoples that resided in both these areas. With this diversity, Britain had to attempt to accommodate these different groups. One of these accommodation was to give both Lower and Upper Canada its own elected assembly, but with limited powers because despite Britain wanting the colonies to run themselves, they also wanted to keep them in check to ensure stability and keep their Loyalists loyal. They were able to achieve this through the authoritative position of the monarch representative, the Governor. The Governor had immense power in the Legislative Assembly and could hold off laws getting passed for a long period of time. Greed and corruption to a certain degree were not uncommon practices of the Governor because of this power. Nevertheless, they still made exceptions: Francophones were allowed to keep using the French civil law and their own land system, as well as the oath of allegiance was devised to accommodate their Catholic religion. However, the Anglophones despised the special considerations that were given to the Francophones and created a newspaper that propagated against how the French will always be French, which suggested that they may still be loyal to France, and thus spies. In spite of this, a man named Pierre who advocated for Francophones created the first political party in Canada called Parti Canadien, as well as created a newspaper, which demanded for greater power in the Legislative Assembly. But, Britain and the Governor had a limit on how far they were willing to accommodate this type of thinking, especially in the Legislative Assembly and circulated in print, hence forced Pierre out of the Assembly and thrown into jail. As a result, British North America, specifically Britain and those in authoritative positions, were able to manage the rest of the population by maintaining a balanced constitution, but if the line drawn was passed, such as the then radical thinking of increasing the Legislative Assembly’s power, then those who passed the line would be brought back and punished for all to see.
Considering that many different groups of people inhabited British North America, it became necessary to accommodate for these groups of people so as to prevent tensions between these groups and the state that could compromise the hold that Britain had over the territories in North America. The state went as far as accommodating for many loyalists that had fled America during and after the American Revolution to the British colonies by giving them land to live on, which in turn, displaced many of the indigenous peoples that had lived on that land since the beginning. As well, in order to accommodate the Loyalists demands for an elected assembly and more representation, the British government go as far as splitting Quebec up into Upper and Lower Canada, where English speaking loyalists resided in Upper Canada and french speaking people resided in Lower Canada. Both colonies had an elected assembly and an appointed legislative council; however, the British still exercised some power over the elected assembly and the legislative council by keeping the power that they had in check. The governor still had the power to dissolve the assembly and withhold consent to bills. Therefore, the limits of accommodation were shaped by the amount of power that was to be granted to the people living in these colonies. Yes, there was to be a balance of power but to some extent. If any ordinary citizen was to try to increase the power of the people or the power of the elected and legislative assembly, such as Pierre Badard had done in the face of the emergence of the Chateau clique, then they would face the consequences.
During that period of time, the influx of the loyalists, the presence of Aboriginal people, and a large French and Catholic population forced the British government to reevaluate their colonial systems and strategies to establish a balance between freedom and stability. However, as we learned in our lectures, the effectiveness of their governing strategies were not only limited by imperial laws at the time, but were also challenged by numerous other factors such as racial and ethic diversity, political, social and religious differences and language barriers.
The Loyalist group that came into Canada was a very culturally and ethically diverse group of people with different religious beliefs and socioeconomic classes. The Constitutional law employed by the British at the time was first drafted to govern a more homogenous group of subjects, and had shown to be insufficient to apply to such a diverse group of people. The definition of being a British subject was challenged in many ways. The Constitutional Act, which divided the colonies into two distinct colonies, was definitely an attempt to accommodate the new situation and established a “balanced constitution”. Prior to the war, the British government had made several attempts to stabilize their relationship with the indigenous population and “accommodate” through contacts on landownership and gifts giving. However, the threat of war and the need to address to the loyalist settlers influx in the early 1800s took precedent over the indigenous relationship and added another layer of limitation to their policy of accommodation.
In the early 1800s, the British had to deal with 3 groups of people who were not British immigrants or loyalists: the native population, the canadiens (French) and the Americans. Britain wrote the Constitutional Act of 1791 splitting the province of Quebec into two: Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
In Lower Canada, the governors were comprised of Anglophone elites of the “Chateau Clique”, many of whom were merchants, to sustain the power of the Anglophone minority. The British, however, accepted that the French would stay deeply devoted to France and because they were the majority of the population, they were given a voice. French landholders and merchants were allowed to vote for the elected Assembly. The British hated French Civil Law and the seigneurial system but allowed them both to stay in place for the sake of appeasing the majority.
In Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe was the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada whose tactic to increase American immigration was to award Loyalists with land. His group of friends who he appointed to higher governmental positions was the elite group known as the “Family Compact”, and together they wanted to create an aristocracy. In this province the majority of citizens were American, and the British felt that they needed to be assimilated for British loyalty.
Objections over the fairness of the government started to rise in both provinces by representatives of the majority populations, but noticeably voiceless were the indigenous people of Canada. They believed that their land was being lent to the British, when it was actually taken away by the Crown. In both Upper and Lower Canada, accommodations weren’t being made for the natives at all as they were pushed off their land, and the tension between them and the Anglophones continued to grow.
In the early 1800’s there were ample factors that shaped the relationship between the French, British, American, and Indigenous peoples. The province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada with the hopes of keeping relations cordial. Lower Canada, the predominantly Francophone area was given the opportunity to continue to speak their language, operate under the French Civil Code, and practice Roman Catholicism. In Upper Canada, a predominantly Anglophone area, British Common Law was practiced along with Protestantism. In order to adhere to common longing for the government to be responsible to the people, a Legislative Assembly was created in both areas, but the power of the people was limited as the governor was still appointed by the crown. Also, the governors frequently acted undemocratic in holding off the passing of a law, or using their veto power all together. Further, both areas came to have an elite group of people who formed an oligarchy. The Chateau Clique in Lower Canada, and the Family Compact in Upper Canada were groups of men, who exercised most of the political and economic power in these two provinces despite the apparent responsible government. They were opposed to democracy, which ultimately caused their downfall, but not before having a great impact on the Canadas.
The fact that the French were allowed to maintain so much of their original culture angered many Anglophones who believed that if the French were able to continue living as they were, they would never truly be loyal British subjects and they would always remain loyal to France. With this in mind, whenever someone was convicted of high treason, they were hung, quartered and then had their intestines removed in public in order to prove a point; whether the Francophones are able to practice their religion, and speak their language or not, it is still Britain that controls Canada and at the end of the day, allegiance to the British Crown is what is expected from all subjects.
As British North America grew, it needed to address the concerns of a growing diverse population that had individual priorities. It became essential for the British to ease tension as they had already lost their colonial ruling in the United States. The Constitutional Act of 1791 split Quebec into separate provinces: Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada would be English speaking and Lower Canada would remain French. The creation of Upper Canada accommodated for the influx of Americans moving north by providing settlers with freehold tenure land and free land. This action did have consequences though, as land for new immigrants was distributed from areas that had been previously inhabited by First Nations Peoples. Culturally, the British afforded further accommodation by offering some religious freedoms. In allowing the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its position in the province of Lower Canada, hostility that was sure to take place was ameliorated before it could begin. In Upper Canada, the Anglican Church shared some of its clergy reserves with the Presbyterian Church. As diversity grew though, other denominations appeared in the province; however, most of these were not afforded the same rights and remained peripheral. In the political sphere, British North America allowed for an elective Legislative Assembly in each of the Canadas as a result of the Constitutional Act of 1791. This allowed for some autonomy in terms of a voice for colonial needs as well as being able to raise funds for local needs. Aware of recent failures in the American colonies, there was a strong executive command lead by London appointed lieutenant governors. While British North America afforded accommodations in the colony in the 1800’s, they also set limits that reinforced their authority.
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.
mosachoff, 
alexwickett, and 6 others are discussing.
enorthwood 7:34 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In relation to lectures this week, we discussed the idea of loyalty between the British settlers and the French and how that limited them. Firstly, we discussed the idea of the conflicting religions. Most people belonging to one religion which limited the accommodation of British into North America, and created a religious divide despite the immense desire to all assimilate the other religious standing within their own religious group. They were limited by law of law, in the fact that civil law was still French, although new anglophones were beginning to populate the area. The emergence of the two parties, the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique which were a group of rich elitists, who desired to form an aristocracy within the government in order to gain the most benefit for large powerful and their friends. In accordance to new British North American settlers, this is certainly very constricting on the general political life and the overall “New World” experience as there is still much power within the French through the massive amounts of wealth being collected through the fur trade. Certainly with conflicting division of powers, this limits the power of British subjects being able to assert their full control over the area of Canada, as they couldn’t simply reign without the predominating power of France and the wealth they had accumulated through the fur trade. After these parties are formed, Willcox, as mentioned in lecture, makes a newspaper to bring up important points based on the rights of people and the need to diminish this aristocratic form of government between the Family Compact and Chateau Clique. In relation to this, I feel like American settlers coming in and critiquing the forms of government was a very serous delegitimization against the British Empire’s “control” in Canada. Essentially what the controlled was the “few” interests, and not the interests of the many, which when it comes down to it, is not the best way to form loyalty of the people in a British government. All these factors played a role in limiting the actual control the British had, which interfered with the accommodation of not only the new settlers had to deal with, but also challenged the accommodation of a British rule within Canada.
enorthwood 7:37 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
limited by law, is what I meant to say, not limited of law of law. Oops.
SteveMoody 1:25 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British desire to see their hold on territory maintained in British North America would be a very limiting factor in terms of accommodation of the local populations. While the circumstances which led America to revolt and gain independence were not similarly represented in Canada, the presence of a large non-loyalist (ie not British) population, the Canadiens, would cause the British to take care not to alienate the population due much (especially due to their size relative to the British aligned population).
To maintain nominal control, the British were prepared to accommodate the francophone population through the process of permitting them their own constitutional rule. Ideally, had the Francophone population not been what it was, the British would;ve most likely been quite happy to bring the Canadien’s under their constitutional administrations, however due to relative population sizes such accommodation was necessary to keeping the peace.
Of course these accommodations were not shared with the native peoples, even those who had worked & fought on the side of British. A lack of accommodation for these people illustrates the very British notion that the territory conquered during the conflicts was now of ‘British control and property” implying that only British interests will be represented. The Francophones (while being somewhat belligerent) were also considered of “European stock” and therefore entitled to civilized accommodation as fellow men. The natives were still considered as savages, implying that while they were an effective tool utilized during the conflicts, they had little claim if any at all to the territory of British North America, “un-civilized:” as they were. This condition does show British accommodation however (if it can be called that through the lens of history) in regards to providing limited but preserved ‘Native Reserves’ where Native culture and self rule could be perpetuated (in a perfect world) The pressure of needing to show some reward/regard for the efforts of the Native populations while not compromising European interests in the New World would prove somewhat limiting on British policies of the time.
millyzhu 11:22 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
British North America in the early 18th century had a difficult time managing the different Loyalists, so the Constitutional Act divided the land into two: Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada consisted of Francophones where French civil law persisted, and Upper Canada consisted of Anglophones where British law was exercised. However, there were also indigenous peoples that resided in both these areas. With this diversity, Britain had to attempt to accommodate these different groups. One of these accommodation was to give both Lower and Upper Canada its own elected assembly, but with limited powers because despite Britain wanting the colonies to run themselves, they also wanted to keep them in check to ensure stability and keep their Loyalists loyal. They were able to achieve this through the authoritative position of the monarch representative, the Governor. The Governor had immense power in the Legislative Assembly and could hold off laws getting passed for a long period of time. Greed and corruption to a certain degree were not uncommon practices of the Governor because of this power. Nevertheless, they still made exceptions: Francophones were allowed to keep using the French civil law and their own land system, as well as the oath of allegiance was devised to accommodate their Catholic religion. However, the Anglophones despised the special considerations that were given to the Francophones and created a newspaper that propagated against how the French will always be French, which suggested that they may still be loyal to France, and thus spies. In spite of this, a man named Pierre who advocated for Francophones created the first political party in Canada called Parti Canadien, as well as created a newspaper, which demanded for greater power in the Legislative Assembly. But, Britain and the Governor had a limit on how far they were willing to accommodate this type of thinking, especially in the Legislative Assembly and circulated in print, hence forced Pierre out of the Assembly and thrown into jail. As a result, British North America, specifically Britain and those in authoritative positions, were able to manage the rest of the population by maintaining a balanced constitution, but if the line drawn was passed, such as the then radical thinking of increasing the Legislative Assembly’s power, then those who passed the line would be brought back and punished for all to see.
nkular93 12:27 am on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Considering that many different groups of people inhabited British North America, it became necessary to accommodate for these groups of people so as to prevent tensions between these groups and the state that could compromise the hold that Britain had over the territories in North America. The state went as far as accommodating for many loyalists that had fled America during and after the American Revolution to the British colonies by giving them land to live on, which in turn, displaced many of the indigenous peoples that had lived on that land since the beginning. As well, in order to accommodate the Loyalists demands for an elected assembly and more representation, the British government go as far as splitting Quebec up into Upper and Lower Canada, where English speaking loyalists resided in Upper Canada and french speaking people resided in Lower Canada. Both colonies had an elected assembly and an appointed legislative council; however, the British still exercised some power over the elected assembly and the legislative council by keeping the power that they had in check. The governor still had the power to dissolve the assembly and withhold consent to bills. Therefore, the limits of accommodation were shaped by the amount of power that was to be granted to the people living in these colonies. Yes, there was to be a balance of power but to some extent. If any ordinary citizen was to try to increase the power of the people or the power of the elected and legislative assembly, such as Pierre Badard had done in the face of the emergence of the Chateau clique, then they would face the consequences.
angieL 1:35 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
During that period of time, the influx of the loyalists, the presence of Aboriginal people, and a large French and Catholic population forced the British government to reevaluate their colonial systems and strategies to establish a balance between freedom and stability. However, as we learned in our lectures, the effectiveness of their governing strategies were not only limited by imperial laws at the time, but were also challenged by numerous other factors such as racial and ethic diversity, political, social and religious differences and language barriers.
The Loyalist group that came into Canada was a very culturally and ethically diverse group of people with different religious beliefs and socioeconomic classes. The Constitutional law employed by the British at the time was first drafted to govern a more homogenous group of subjects, and had shown to be insufficient to apply to such a diverse group of people. The definition of being a British subject was challenged in many ways. The Constitutional Act, which divided the colonies into two distinct colonies, was definitely an attempt to accommodate the new situation and established a “balanced constitution”. Prior to the war, the British government had made several attempts to stabilize their relationship with the indigenous population and “accommodate” through contacts on landownership and gifts giving. However, the threat of war and the need to address to the loyalist settlers influx in the early 1800s took precedent over the indigenous relationship and added another layer of limitation to their policy of accommodation.
cprimus 1:40 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In the early 1800s, the British had to deal with 3 groups of people who were not British immigrants or loyalists: the native population, the canadiens (French) and the Americans. Britain wrote the Constitutional Act of 1791 splitting the province of Quebec into two: Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
In Lower Canada, the governors were comprised of Anglophone elites of the “Chateau Clique”, many of whom were merchants, to sustain the power of the Anglophone minority. The British, however, accepted that the French would stay deeply devoted to France and because they were the majority of the population, they were given a voice. French landholders and merchants were allowed to vote for the elected Assembly. The British hated French Civil Law and the seigneurial system but allowed them both to stay in place for the sake of appeasing the majority.
In Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe was the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada whose tactic to increase American immigration was to award Loyalists with land. His group of friends who he appointed to higher governmental positions was the elite group known as the “Family Compact”, and together they wanted to create an aristocracy. In this province the majority of citizens were American, and the British felt that they needed to be assimilated for British loyalty.
Objections over the fairness of the government started to rise in both provinces by representatives of the majority populations, but noticeably voiceless were the indigenous people of Canada. They believed that their land was being lent to the British, when it was actually taken away by the Crown. In both Upper and Lower Canada, accommodations weren’t being made for the natives at all as they were pushed off their land, and the tension between them and the Anglophones continued to grow.
alexwickett 2:20 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In the early 1800’s there were ample factors that shaped the relationship between the French, British, American, and Indigenous peoples. The province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada with the hopes of keeping relations cordial. Lower Canada, the predominantly Francophone area was given the opportunity to continue to speak their language, operate under the French Civil Code, and practice Roman Catholicism. In Upper Canada, a predominantly Anglophone area, British Common Law was practiced along with Protestantism. In order to adhere to common longing for the government to be responsible to the people, a Legislative Assembly was created in both areas, but the power of the people was limited as the governor was still appointed by the crown. Also, the governors frequently acted undemocratic in holding off the passing of a law, or using their veto power all together. Further, both areas came to have an elite group of people who formed an oligarchy. The Chateau Clique in Lower Canada, and the Family Compact in Upper Canada were groups of men, who exercised most of the political and economic power in these two provinces despite the apparent responsible government. They were opposed to democracy, which ultimately caused their downfall, but not before having a great impact on the Canadas.
The fact that the French were allowed to maintain so much of their original culture angered many Anglophones who believed that if the French were able to continue living as they were, they would never truly be loyal British subjects and they would always remain loyal to France. With this in mind, whenever someone was convicted of high treason, they were hung, quartered and then had their intestines removed in public in order to prove a point; whether the Francophones are able to practice their religion, and speak their language or not, it is still Britain that controls Canada and at the end of the day, allegiance to the British Crown is what is expected from all subjects.
mosachoff 4:50 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As British North America grew, it needed to address the concerns of a growing diverse population that had individual priorities. It became essential for the British to ease tension as they had already lost their colonial ruling in the United States. The Constitutional Act of 1791 split Quebec into separate provinces: Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada would be English speaking and Lower Canada would remain French. The creation of Upper Canada accommodated for the influx of Americans moving north by providing settlers with freehold tenure land and free land. This action did have consequences though, as land for new immigrants was distributed from areas that had been previously inhabited by First Nations Peoples. Culturally, the British afforded further accommodation by offering some religious freedoms. In allowing the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its position in the province of Lower Canada, hostility that was sure to take place was ameliorated before it could begin. In Upper Canada, the Anglican Church shared some of its clergy reserves with the Presbyterian Church. As diversity grew though, other denominations appeared in the province; however, most of these were not afforded the same rights and remained peripheral. In the political sphere, British North America allowed for an elective Legislative Assembly in each of the Canadas as a result of the Constitutional Act of 1791. This allowed for some autonomy in terms of a voice for colonial needs as well as being able to raise funds for local needs. Aware of recent failures in the American colonies, there was a strong executive command lead by London appointed lieutenant governors. While British North America afforded accommodations in the colony in the 1800’s, they also set limits that reinforced their authority.
Tina Loo 7:39 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.