British North America in the early 1800s was a period when the relationships and ties between the English and the French were unfolding, and so multiculturalism was not the main goal of residents. One of the key issues from the 1790s to about 1815 was the question of loyalties. The peoples of Upper Canada and Lower Canada had to decide where their loyalties resided.
In Upper Canada, there was a huge influx of loyalist settlers who chose to flee from America and declared their loyalty to the British. Also, in Lower Canada there existed a similar situation with its primarily Francophone inhabitants that started to define themselves as ‘separate people’ moving towards a liberal-based idea that a notion is something made by the people of the place coming together to create common institutions. The ‘Family Compact’ in Upper Canada and the ‘Chateau Clique ‘ in Lower Canada were the small, privileged groups of individuals, or aristocrats, that governed these two colonies and made many decisions regarding the distribution and development of land in the colonies, among other things. This resulted in one of many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s as the tension increased between these two groups and each defended its own interests.
The emergence of the two parties, struggle for power, religious conflicts, and a non-representative form of government combined with little attention to the rights or interests of the populations severely limited the move for more accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s which resulted in the rebellions of 1837 and 1838.
By the British adopting to several diversities, they established institutions. To Bedard, the colonial administration made the Constitution unequal b/c it favoured the English minority. As a result, he used British political theory to make things equal, and so people could have a place in Canada. With the “Family Compact” Simcoe decided to offer land and govt jobs to people. factors such as culture, religion, different ways of governing all caused conflict. for example, when the Aboriginal people helped Tecumseh, their privileges and possessions they had prior to the war were ignored. not only that, they were forced westward, and came under control of a different govt. There are always questions of loyalty when it comes to institution building, such as self interest, war, short/long term interest etc.
The British, in taking the North American colonies from the French, had to accommodate the French peoples that were already living there. The British were bringing in their own settler, but in the early 1800s, they were the minority, and the French settlers were the majority. The want for fair and responsible government by the French people, and the English in both Upper and Lower Canada greatly influenced the way that Britain approached managing the system of governance in the colony of British North America.
The fear of those who were not loyal to the British crown was also a factor in shaping the limits accommodation of British North America. The tensions between the French and the English colonists and the Irish and the English colonists needed to be lessened, so ensuring that peoples had a chance to have some sort of representation in the assembly was important, and ensuring that they did not need to change religions to do so. Although this would sometimes not be enough to relieve these tensions, and there would be people against the British crown, and there would be different ideas on how to run British North America. The most important event that happened in the early 1800s in relation to British loyalty was the War of 1812, and this was considered to be another stress point of loyalty in the colonies. Up to this point, threatening those who considered treason, and punishing those people as well, was a way to ensure loyalty, but the actual war, was a time to see who actually would be loyal to the crown and the colonies. Ensuring there was decent government representation for the settlers, and that people could practice their own religion, while becoming British subjects, was how Britain attempted to accommodate the previous settlers, while still trying to keep them loyal to the British crown.
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
The major conflict which the British colonial government in British North America encountered in the early 1800s was the need to maintain supreme authority over the colony, yet at the same time, to make sure no rebellions arose. That is, the British government could not successfully maintain their power over the colony by simply forcefully imposing and enforcing their rule. Within the context of the time, the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution stirred British North America; the threat of revolution caused much fear and anxiety felt by the colonial government.
Indeed, while British North America may have appeared very progressive in trying to accommodate the various culture groups making up the population, the fact that the government still maintained a strong hold on political authority greatly undermined this notion. For example, while the British colonial government extended support to the abolition of slavery by welcoming black loyalists with free land, however, if we look closer at the particular land they received, we can notice that they ended up with considerably smaller and less desirable land than white loyalists. As well, by bringing in loyalists, the indigenous peoples were very much disregarded. The actual political structure of the colonial government was also extremely questionable. While the colony was split into Upper and Lower Canada, each having English Common Law and French Civil Law implemented respectively, British rule was still dominant. In other words, despite the fact that the Constitution Act of 1791 created legislation assemblies with the notion that the colonial government was finally recognizing the voices of the masses, the British elite who made up the executive councils still had the final say.
With the threat of war and revolution, the British aristocracy (Chateau Clique and Family Compact) was mainly interested in consolidating their power through assimilation rather than accommodation. The issue in Lower Canada was the French majority, and in Upper Canada, the majority of the settlers were American. The War of 1812 further tested the loyalties of these cultural groups to the British crown. In these aspects, the colonial governments could not afford to accommodate each group’s particular interests to the extent that they might increasingly gain power and as a result, possibly overthrow British rule.
Although the French withdrew from their colonies in Canada after the British took over, many French-speaking settlers remained. Moreover, a large number of British loyalists went to Canada after the US revolution. Therefore, British officials had to deal with different cultural groups to maintain their authority in North America and consequently had to reshape their governance system. They tried to accommodate the different waves of immigrants by giving them lands to settle, but even within the loyalists inequality was seen between white and black people, those last being offered smaller and less desirable lands. It also affected Indigenous people who were moved from their own land and put in reservations (Haldimand Proclamation, 1784), aboriginal sovereignty was ignored.
Soon the British loyalists and the Canadiens demanded more representation of common people in the government, they wanted an elected constituent assembly. Their demand led to the division of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in 1791 with the Constitutional Act. Even though Lower Canada was governed under French Civil Law, the British elite of Chateau Clique was still in power. In Upper Canada the British aristocracy of the Family Compact still hold the executive power despite the creation of Houses of Assembly in 1791.
Consequently, in the early 1800s the situation in British North America implied questions of loyalties of the different cultural groups towards the British monarchy, attempts to accommodate these groups in order to avoid a revolution (great fear after the French Revolution), but also limits to accommodation because the British colonial government wanted to enforce its political system and treated severely those who were considered traitors.
There were many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800’s. The first to consider is that the French population in Lower Canada had obvious ties with France and the French crown. This forced almost an awkward “switch,” of crowns from the homeland crown of France to the current crown in power, Britain. You can imagine how this went over to the very high population in Lower Canada. Secondly, you must consider the high population of American settlers in Upper Canada. This made the very interesting array of settlers question what everyone motifs and beliefs are. Are the Americans loyal to the crown? Thirdly, how were decisions and governmental like organizations going about? How did the young Canada function and make decisions? Upper Canada had the ‘Family Compact’ while Lower Canada had ‘Chateau Clique’. Both had very different interests that eventually lead to rebellions in 1837 and 1838.
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.
Wesley Livermore, 
Pierre-Marie B., and 4 others are discussing.
Nadir Surani 5:07 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
British North America in the early 1800s was a period when the relationships and ties between the English and the French were unfolding, and so multiculturalism was not the main goal of residents. One of the key issues from the 1790s to about 1815 was the question of loyalties. The peoples of Upper Canada and Lower Canada had to decide where their loyalties resided.
In Upper Canada, there was a huge influx of loyalist settlers who chose to flee from America and declared their loyalty to the British. Also, in Lower Canada there existed a similar situation with its primarily Francophone inhabitants that started to define themselves as ‘separate people’ moving towards a liberal-based idea that a notion is something made by the people of the place coming together to create common institutions. The ‘Family Compact’ in Upper Canada and the ‘Chateau Clique ‘ in Lower Canada were the small, privileged groups of individuals, or aristocrats, that governed these two colonies and made many decisions regarding the distribution and development of land in the colonies, among other things. This resulted in one of many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s as the tension increased between these two groups and each defended its own interests.
The emergence of the two parties, struggle for power, religious conflicts, and a non-representative form of government combined with little attention to the rights or interests of the populations severely limited the move for more accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s which resulted in the rebellions of 1837 and 1838.
Susanna Chan 12:05 am on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
By the British adopting to several diversities, they established institutions. To Bedard, the colonial administration made the Constitution unequal b/c it favoured the English minority. As a result, he used British political theory to make things equal, and so people could have a place in Canada. With the “Family Compact” Simcoe decided to offer land and govt jobs to people. factors such as culture, religion, different ways of governing all caused conflict. for example, when the Aboriginal people helped Tecumseh, their privileges and possessions they had prior to the war were ignored. not only that, they were forced westward, and came under control of a different govt. There are always questions of loyalty when it comes to institution building, such as self interest, war, short/long term interest etc.
lindseyaw 2:06 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British, in taking the North American colonies from the French, had to accommodate the French peoples that were already living there. The British were bringing in their own settler, but in the early 1800s, they were the minority, and the French settlers were the majority. The want for fair and responsible government by the French people, and the English in both Upper and Lower Canada greatly influenced the way that Britain approached managing the system of governance in the colony of British North America.
The fear of those who were not loyal to the British crown was also a factor in shaping the limits accommodation of British North America. The tensions between the French and the English colonists and the Irish and the English colonists needed to be lessened, so ensuring that peoples had a chance to have some sort of representation in the assembly was important, and ensuring that they did not need to change religions to do so. Although this would sometimes not be enough to relieve these tensions, and there would be people against the British crown, and there would be different ideas on how to run British North America. The most important event that happened in the early 1800s in relation to British loyalty was the War of 1812, and this was considered to be another stress point of loyalty in the colonies. Up to this point, threatening those who considered treason, and punishing those people as well, was a way to ensure loyalty, but the actual war, was a time to see who actually would be loyal to the crown and the colonies. Ensuring there was decent government representation for the settlers, and that people could practice their own religion, while becoming British subjects, was how Britain attempted to accommodate the previous settlers, while still trying to keep them loyal to the British crown.
geenalee 4:11 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
The major conflict which the British colonial government in British North America encountered in the early 1800s was the need to maintain supreme authority over the colony, yet at the same time, to make sure no rebellions arose. That is, the British government could not successfully maintain their power over the colony by simply forcefully imposing and enforcing their rule. Within the context of the time, the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution stirred British North America; the threat of revolution caused much fear and anxiety felt by the colonial government.
Indeed, while British North America may have appeared very progressive in trying to accommodate the various culture groups making up the population, the fact that the government still maintained a strong hold on political authority greatly undermined this notion. For example, while the British colonial government extended support to the abolition of slavery by welcoming black loyalists with free land, however, if we look closer at the particular land they received, we can notice that they ended up with considerably smaller and less desirable land than white loyalists. As well, by bringing in loyalists, the indigenous peoples were very much disregarded. The actual political structure of the colonial government was also extremely questionable. While the colony was split into Upper and Lower Canada, each having English Common Law and French Civil Law implemented respectively, British rule was still dominant. In other words, despite the fact that the Constitution Act of 1791 created legislation assemblies with the notion that the colonial government was finally recognizing the voices of the masses, the British elite who made up the executive councils still had the final say.
With the threat of war and revolution, the British aristocracy (Chateau Clique and Family Compact) was mainly interested in consolidating their power through assimilation rather than accommodation. The issue in Lower Canada was the French majority, and in Upper Canada, the majority of the settlers were American. The War of 1812 further tested the loyalties of these cultural groups to the British crown. In these aspects, the colonial governments could not afford to accommodate each group’s particular interests to the extent that they might increasingly gain power and as a result, possibly overthrow British rule.
Pierre-Marie B. 5:01 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Although the French withdrew from their colonies in Canada after the British took over, many French-speaking settlers remained. Moreover, a large number of British loyalists went to Canada after the US revolution. Therefore, British officials had to deal with different cultural groups to maintain their authority in North America and consequently had to reshape their governance system. They tried to accommodate the different waves of immigrants by giving them lands to settle, but even within the loyalists inequality was seen between white and black people, those last being offered smaller and less desirable lands. It also affected Indigenous people who were moved from their own land and put in reservations (Haldimand Proclamation, 1784), aboriginal sovereignty was ignored.
Soon the British loyalists and the Canadiens demanded more representation of common people in the government, they wanted an elected constituent assembly. Their demand led to the division of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in 1791 with the Constitutional Act. Even though Lower Canada was governed under French Civil Law, the British elite of Chateau Clique was still in power. In Upper Canada the British aristocracy of the Family Compact still hold the executive power despite the creation of Houses of Assembly in 1791.
Consequently, in the early 1800s the situation in British North America implied questions of loyalties of the different cultural groups towards the British monarchy, attempts to accommodate these groups in order to avoid a revolution (great fear after the French Revolution), but also limits to accommodation because the British colonial government wanted to enforce its political system and treated severely those who were considered traitors.
Wesley Livermore 10:08 am on October 19, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There were many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800’s. The first to consider is that the French population in Lower Canada had obvious ties with France and the French crown. This forced almost an awkward “switch,” of crowns from the homeland crown of France to the current crown in power, Britain. You can imagine how this went over to the very high population in Lower Canada. Secondly, you must consider the high population of American settlers in Upper Canada. This made the very interesting array of settlers question what everyone motifs and beliefs are. Are the Americans loyal to the crown? Thirdly, how were decisions and governmental like organizations going about? How did the young Canada function and make decisions? Upper Canada had the ‘Family Compact’ while Lower Canada had ‘Chateau Clique’. Both had very different interests that eventually lead to rebellions in 1837 and 1838.
Tina Loo 7:34 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.