I’m not entirely clear what the British stance was on the Confederation of Canada. It seems strange to me that they seem to have let Canada go without much debate. Am I misinterpreting history or was there a specific reason why Britain was more willing to let Canada go than it had been before with the US and would be later with Ireland, Kenya and India?
We had the political, economic, and social circumstances to reasonably press for responsible government (as in government responsible to the people).
Confederation was a milepost in a very long road to full self-governance. Provincial legislatures had been operating long before Confederation, and complete independence only came over a hundred years after Confederation.
“The next big step was a period of colonization, primarily in the Maritimes, and then up through Upper and Lower Canada (today’s Ontario and Quebec). That took a couple of hundred years of fighting and trading with France. Along the way, the colonies each developed greater or lesser degrees of legislative and judicial self-determination. The Maritimes developed representative government early on through legislative assemblies: Nova Scotia in 1758, Prince Edward Island in 1773, and in New Brunswick in 1786. Quebec obtained representative government later in 1791, for it’s political development had been hampered by the Quebec Act (G.B., 1774) after Great Britain won Quebec from France in the Seven Years War.”
“The impetus to bring representative government to Quebec was due to American refugees, who flooded across the border in and about 1783. Many were placed in the western wilderness of Nova Scotia, which was severed to form New Brunswick, and many were placed in the western wilderness of Quebec (in what is now southern Ontario). To tidy things up, Great Britain’s Constitution Act (G.B., 1791) split Quebec into Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec), granting representative government to both.”
“Even with representative government (elections), there were problems with Governors and their councils not doing what the elected representatives asked them to do, and further problems with the limits on who could vote (landowners rather than landless). Representative government was not necessarily responsible government, for the Governors were not responsible to the elected representatives. After the defeating the Americans in 1813, there was a booming economy and significant expansion into the wilderness through Crown land grants. Those who held the colonial Governors’ ears obtained land grants, and became ever more rich and powerful.”
“This led to struggles for responsible government in the early and mid-19th century. In Lower Canada, Louis Joseph Papineau led a revolt against le Chateau Compact in 1837, and shortly thereafter in Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie led a revolt against the Family Compact. The first colony to win responsible government was Nova Scotia in 1848, through the efforts of Joseph Howe, a poet, newspaper man, dueller, and politician, who took a more peaceful approach.”
“Responsible government meant that the Governors now had to be responsible to the elected representatives. The elected representatives now had the right to not only to be listened to by the Governors, but also to demand that the Governors put in place the laws they had passed.”
“The next big step was the Confederation of some of the colonies into the Dominion of Canada in 1867 through the United Kingdom’s British North America Act (U.K., 1867) (but now called the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867) following its recent incorporation by reference into Canada’s Constitution Act (Can., 1982) from is Schedule B to the United Kingdom’s Canada Act (U.K., 1982) – simple, huh? Don’t worry, well come back to it later).”
“This document (the British North America Act (U.K., 1867), now the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867) as part of the Constitution Act (Can., 1982)), is arguably Canada’s most important Constitutional Document, for it defined which powers the federal government holds and which powers the provinces hold. It set out that we should have a British style Parliament (thus no one bothered to actually specify a Prime Minister, simply because it was implied). It set out the role of the Governor General (and provincial Lieutenants General), who pretty much carried on as the colonial governors had done after responsible government had been variously instituted. The long and short of it is that through this act, the Monarch was confirmed as being the head of Canada’s government (s.9), was represented in Canada by the Governor General (s.10), was head of our Armed Forces (s.15), and most importantly, was responsible to the Canadian Parliament (s.12): “All Powers, Authorities, and Functions . . . shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised . . . be vested in and exerciseable [sic] by the Governor General . . . subject nevertheless . . . to be established or altered by the Parliament of Canada.” Since then, the role and powers of the Monarch have not changed that much.”
“You’re probably wondering why I inserted so many ellipses in the citation of s.12 of the British North America Act (U.K., 1867). That’s because despite having its own Constitution, Canada still was subject to laws which had been made in the United Kingdom, and which were yet to be made by the United Kingdom. In other words, although we had responsible government for all intents and purposes, the United Kingdom could still make laws which we would have to follow if they wanted us to. Our protection against the Crown was really just a reflection of the protections in the United Kingdom’s own Constitutional democracy, which by then had pulled the teeth of the Monarchy.”
We asked them nicely. Politeness is surprisingly effective and it doesn’t mess the place up.
Although I am now getting into IMHO territory, I think that a very significant factor in Canada being ripe for independence earlier than Ireland, Kenya or India was the significant degree of self-determination granted early on to Lower Canada (Quebec) that resulted in Canada developing out of two nations, English and French (aboriginals not being taken seriously at that time), rather than English ruling the French. At the same time, there was no sizable aboriginal population. Between the French more or less directing themselves, and there not being enough aboriginals to cause a stir, political, economic and social life was fairly stable. Out of this came the stability necessary for independence.
By contrast, Ireland was more a matter of Protestant English ruling Catholics, Kenya was more a matter of English whites ruling Africans, and India was more a matter of English whites ruling aisians. The lack of self-determination for the majority of the populace in these places led to the fear that independence would lead to a lack of stability upon the English relinquishing power.
I expect that if the French residing in Lower Canada (Quebec) had been ruled rather than brought in as equals, or if there had been a sizable aboriginal population, then Canada would not have been ripe for independence earlier than Ireland, Kenya or India, for it would then have faced the same problems.
The other possibility is that they simply forgot about us, and we slipped in our independence through a series of English housekeeping bills that passed through the Houses when the MPs and Lords were dozing.
Well, it was leading up to July first. Maybe that early summer was surprisingly hot in London and it made them sweepy.
Another interpretation is that the Empire was an economic and geo-political empire. The Canadian colonies were participating fully in the Empire without much need for direction out of England, and could function more efficiently as a united Canada within the Empire, so there was little reason for it to not be self-governing. Just wind her up and let her run, rather than be bothered micro-managing from across the sea.
The same could not be said for Ireland, Kenya or India, which if left to their own devices early on would not necessarily have maintened full integration in the Empire.
After a long winter without a bath or a change of long-johns, we smell sort of funky, so no sane Parliamentarian would debate letting us go after getting a whif.
Another factor was that in all the other cases you mentioned, there was no foreign power who could realistically takeover the old colonies. That wasn’t the case with Canada. Indeed, a major reason Confederation was carried out in 1867 was fear the U.S. would ask for part of Canada as compensation for damages done by Confederate raiders built by or sheltered by the British. Confederation would help coordinate defense.
Plus, Confederation was as much forced on Canada as asked for by its residents. Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick elected anti-Confederation assemblies after 1867, only to be told by the British they couldn’t go back. PEI took six years to join, British Columbia didn’t join until promised a transcontinental railroad, and Newfoundland didn’t join (very recluantly) until 1949.
Oh lordy, that post count deserves a mention.
I respectfully disagree with you Muffin. While it is true that French laws and Catholic emancipation were brought back to Canada in 1774, just 14 years after the Conquest, and while it is true that Lower Canada/Quebec has been a separate province for much of Canada’s history, French and English Canadians haven’t existed as two equal nations for most of Canada’s history, and I don’t think it’s had a strong effect on English Canadians’ desire for independence.
While an English Canadian identity separate from the British identity has existed since the first half of the 19[sup]th[/sup] century – see the English Canadian component of the rebellions of 1837, found in both the Upper Canada Rebellion and the Patriotes’ Rebellion – I believe it’s only in the 20[sup]th[/sup] century that this identity has really started to make its way among the majority of the population. I wouldn’t be surprised if, even today, you can still find a few very old Ontarians with a strong romantic attachment to Queen and Old Country.
During that time, French Canadians did have a distinct identity, but weren’t really recognized as a founding people. Following the rebellions mentioned above, both Canadas were united into a single province in order to pursue the goal of assimilating French Canadians. When this failed, Quebec was restored as a separate province following the Confederation, but the policy of assimilation continued in the other provinces. Even in Quebec, francophones weren’t economically equal to anglophones until the second half of the 20[sup]th[/sup] century. It seems to me that it’s only in the 60s or so that English Canadians discovered the theory of the two founding peoples, and at that time public opinion in Quebec was already moving past that.
This said, you’re right that the independence of Canada from Britain wasn’t a single event. As said earlier, French laws were reestablished in Quebec in 1774 due to threats from the impending American revolution. Upper Canada was created, and both provinces were given houses of assembly, in 1791 because of the influx of immigrants from the US. Responsible government was actually another recommendation of Lord Durham – who also recommended merging both Canadas in order to facilitate the assimilation of francophones – in order to prevent further unrest following the rebellions. It was finally introduced in Canada in 1848, and led to an angry Tory mob burning down the governor’s house, the premier’s house, and the Parliament in Montreal. (Who says Canada’s history is peaceful? :p) The failure of the Union Act, and the threat of annexation by the US led to Confederation in 1867. The last milestones in Canada’s independence from Britain happened in 1931, with the Statute of Westminster, and in 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution.
Oh, and from Muffin’s quoted text (which I believe is written by him):
I fail to see how reestablishing the French civil laws everyone was used to and allowing Catholics to hold public office in Quebec “hampered” the province’s development. :dubious:
Agreed. I submit that it was of great signifigance not for its effect, if any, on English Canadians, but rather that it was effective in keeping French Canadians in Lower Canada from rebelling to the point of forcing the Crown to clamp down permanently, and instead put in place a system that was workable enough that elected government was possible within twenty years. Had 1774 not treated French Canadians as well as it did, I expect that the region would not have been as stable, and the gradual move toward independence would have been slowed. It is one thing to have small uprisings that put sufficient pressure on a government to move it toward responsible government, but it is quite another to have so many uprisings as to result in chaos and force the government to permanently clamp down. 1774 hit on a a good balance in this respect.
Very true. For example, two generations back my family identified themselves as British Canadian despite having crossed the pond in the Restoration, my father’s earliest memory was of his mother directing him to kick a “dirty Catholic” priest into a pond in Montreal, and I attended what was essentially a British boys’ school complete with British teachers and British traditions in Oakville, Ontario.
Politically, however, 1867 established Quebec as a founding nation simply by virtue of the number of seats it held, and the constitutional embedding of its legal and linguistic traditions, the roots of which could be found in 1774. As you have noted, assimilation had failed. Again, what I think is of signifigance is that regardless of how (or how little) English Canadians thought of Quebec, the system put in place was stable enough to avoid French Canadians from causing instability that would have impeded overall Canadian independence.
Yes, I wrote it as an earlier SDMB post.
Those aspects of 1774 were certainly vital in Quebec’s development and vital in keeping things stable, but in my opinion did not go far enough. Where 1774 hampered things was that instituted an appointed legislative council that advised the governor, in a time when the other Canadian colonies were moving toward or had already achieved elected legislatures. It was not until the repeal of 1791 that Quebec caught up in this respect.
It would be hard to overestimate the effect of American resoponsible government and the American economy on the development of Canada.
It’s true that the Quebec Act didn’t establish an elected legislature, while the Constitutional Act of 1791 did. But it didn’t abolish the appointed legislative council either. I think it’s only in 1855 or 1856 that the Legislative Council of Canada became an elected body, and after Confederation both the Legislative Council of Quebec and the Senate of Canada were established as appointed houses. (I think the purpose of the Legislative Council of Quebec was to guarantee English speakers some representation in the legislature.) It’s only in 1968 that the unelected Legislative Council was finally abolished, and of course, the Senate still exists today.
The powerful were afraid of democracy at the time. Why did Canada get an assembly in 1791, but responsible government only in 1848? Even in Britain itself it’s only in the 1830s that the government really democratized itself.
Yes, while the relative stability of Canada might have helped, I think we can say that the main reason why Britain was willing to give Canada greater and greater independence was the threat, economic and political, posed by the giant next door.
Well, we pitted George III.
What is ‘pitted’ ?
Didn’t think of it in that context (strange American habit of turning nouns into verbs)
Oh, you mean verbing a noun. 
Yeah, the mistaking is easical.