Chapter 10: Canada Part 1
Canada: Part 1 (1783-1836)
In 1784, the British created a new colony called New Brunswick in Canada primarily due to the influx of Loyalists (fleeing the American Revolution). They settled along the shores of the St. John River. In 1791, the Constitutional Act replaced the Quebec Act and divided Quebec into two pieces, forming Upper and Lower Canada. Why did Britain do this? One reason was establishing consistent administrative structure in all the “Canadian” colonies of British North America; the construction of colonies of New Brunswick and Cape Breton in 1784 helped provide a model for this purpose. Consistency in the British Parliamentary system as a further model for colonialism and imperialism to spread to other areas of the globe was also an important goal. The development of Canada was not just learning from the American Revolution, though. The British wanted to have a colony or set of colonies that would provide benefits to the British Empire. This desire to make Canada productive would shape its economic growth for a long period of time. The Coalition War in Europe, which was inconclusive and led primarily to the suppression of reforms in most European countries such as Spain, Austria, and Prussia (except for France, where they started), had allowed many Canadians to find jobs with war industries. These included building war materials, making sails, winding ropes, constructing ships, casting cannons, and providing food and other resources to the British Army and their allies (which largely wanted to minimize the number of drastic changes in Europe, as opposed to the French, who wanted to spread their reforms.) The end of the Coalition War was an uncomfortable transition for many Canadians since most of the "war jobs" disappeared.
Cutting costs by letting the local governments raise funds for local projects was also critical for the Constitutional Act. The British now wanted colonies that were relatively self-sustaining but still beholden to the mother country. The British also wanted to make sure the executive (governor) had more power than the elected representatives. The governor’s powers actually increased at the head of an appointed executive council. The elected legislative council of a colony was allowed to draft legislation and recommend action, but the executive made key decisions. This Constitutional Act was perhaps a response to the American Revolution, but it had its own problems, and was criticized as soon as a decade after its completion. Perhaps most tellingly, there would be less autonomy to colonial governments in Canada, not more. In addition, the Constitutional Act would be criticized for favoring the Anglican elite in both colonies. These complaints would boil over until the 1830s, where they would explode in dramatic fashion.
Lower Canada and Upper Canada actually had different cultures. Upper Canada was influenced strongly by the Church of England, and it was more similar to the other colonies in Canada than Lower Canada was. Lower Canada was the heartland of the old Quebec and was predominantly Catholic and francophone. These different cultures often disagreed with each other, and had different economic structures. The expense of administering both colonies grew in the 1820s, and various plans existed to try and reduce the cost of administering both colonies. There was a plan of unifying Upper and Lower Canada in 1822, but it was rejected. Smaller scale reforms like adjusting the customs duties to provide Upper Canada (which did not have a port with the Atlantic Ocean) with a larger share of revenue, also had few results. Those failures would cause many Canadian reformers to distrust the British authorities.
However, both groups had a similar problem. They were run by tight small groups referred to disparagingly as the Chateau Clique for the former (named because it ran the colony from the governor’s residence) and the Family Compact for the latter. In the case of Lower Canada, several attempts existed to expand the influence of its assembly. Many of the assemblymen wanted trade-offs that would limit the executive authority. Some reforms did happen by 1830, but for many reformers, it was too little, too late. There was also a great suspicion that the southern colonies in “British Columbia” and the Caribbean were given preferential treatment, and this rankled in the brains of many Canadians. The southern colonies were not exactly given "preferential treatment"--but many Canadians felt like it.
Economic development of Canada was going apace, but many in Britain saw Canada primarily as a source of raw materials to be brought for refinement back in the mother country. A canal-building project similar to the ones in the United States of America, along with railway projects, were successful. In Upper Canada, there were large land sales and the speculation in land value that caused a large revenue source. The rapid growth of the British population up until around 1817 needed feeding, so the surplus of wheat in Canada could produce a source of wealth. However, economic uncertainty started to arise after the end of the Coalition War, which wa costly and inconclusive. Increased production of wheat in Upper Canada also led to increased competition in a reduced market size, and it led to more economic uncertainty. The formation of a colonial merchant class there that specialized in the wheat business also led to more economic improvements since the merchants usually supported infrastructure improvements that benefited their profits. This typically led to more storage facilities, docks canals, and roads.
By the 1830s, several reformers were speaking actively against the tight small groups called the Chateau Clique and Family Compact. The other Canadian colonies were also facing mismanagement issues similar to those of Upper and Lower Canada, but slightly less severe. As such, a Canada-wide movement started to form. The main issue with these reformers was that they agreed on little besides the need for change. However, all agreed that something needed to budge, and the British government was unwilling to grant it. Many of these reformers were also thinking bigger than mere change. Some wanted independence, but knew that would be a difficult process.
In 1784, the British created a new colony called New Brunswick in Canada primarily due to the influx of Loyalists (fleeing the American Revolution). They settled along the shores of the St. John River. In 1791, the Constitutional Act replaced the Quebec Act and divided Quebec into two pieces, forming Upper and Lower Canada. Why did Britain do this? One reason was establishing consistent administrative structure in all the “Canadian” colonies of British North America; the construction of colonies of New Brunswick and Cape Breton in 1784 helped provide a model for this purpose. Consistency in the British Parliamentary system as a further model for colonialism and imperialism to spread to other areas of the globe was also an important goal. The development of Canada was not just learning from the American Revolution, though. The British wanted to have a colony or set of colonies that would provide benefits to the British Empire. This desire to make Canada productive would shape its economic growth for a long period of time. The Coalition War in Europe, which was inconclusive and led primarily to the suppression of reforms in most European countries such as Spain, Austria, and Prussia (except for France, where they started), had allowed many Canadians to find jobs with war industries. These included building war materials, making sails, winding ropes, constructing ships, casting cannons, and providing food and other resources to the British Army and their allies (which largely wanted to minimize the number of drastic changes in Europe, as opposed to the French, who wanted to spread their reforms.) The end of the Coalition War was an uncomfortable transition for many Canadians since most of the "war jobs" disappeared.
Cutting costs by letting the local governments raise funds for local projects was also critical for the Constitutional Act. The British now wanted colonies that were relatively self-sustaining but still beholden to the mother country. The British also wanted to make sure the executive (governor) had more power than the elected representatives. The governor’s powers actually increased at the head of an appointed executive council. The elected legislative council of a colony was allowed to draft legislation and recommend action, but the executive made key decisions. This Constitutional Act was perhaps a response to the American Revolution, but it had its own problems, and was criticized as soon as a decade after its completion. Perhaps most tellingly, there would be less autonomy to colonial governments in Canada, not more. In addition, the Constitutional Act would be criticized for favoring the Anglican elite in both colonies. These complaints would boil over until the 1830s, where they would explode in dramatic fashion.
Lower Canada and Upper Canada actually had different cultures. Upper Canada was influenced strongly by the Church of England, and it was more similar to the other colonies in Canada than Lower Canada was. Lower Canada was the heartland of the old Quebec and was predominantly Catholic and francophone. These different cultures often disagreed with each other, and had different economic structures. The expense of administering both colonies grew in the 1820s, and various plans existed to try and reduce the cost of administering both colonies. There was a plan of unifying Upper and Lower Canada in 1822, but it was rejected. Smaller scale reforms like adjusting the customs duties to provide Upper Canada (which did not have a port with the Atlantic Ocean) with a larger share of revenue, also had few results. Those failures would cause many Canadian reformers to distrust the British authorities.
However, both groups had a similar problem. They were run by tight small groups referred to disparagingly as the Chateau Clique for the former (named because it ran the colony from the governor’s residence) and the Family Compact for the latter. In the case of Lower Canada, several attempts existed to expand the influence of its assembly. Many of the assemblymen wanted trade-offs that would limit the executive authority. Some reforms did happen by 1830, but for many reformers, it was too little, too late. There was also a great suspicion that the southern colonies in “British Columbia” and the Caribbean were given preferential treatment, and this rankled in the brains of many Canadians. The southern colonies were not exactly given "preferential treatment"--but many Canadians felt like it.
Economic development of Canada was going apace, but many in Britain saw Canada primarily as a source of raw materials to be brought for refinement back in the mother country. A canal-building project similar to the ones in the United States of America, along with railway projects, were successful. In Upper Canada, there were large land sales and the speculation in land value that caused a large revenue source. The rapid growth of the British population up until around 1817 needed feeding, so the surplus of wheat in Canada could produce a source of wealth. However, economic uncertainty started to arise after the end of the Coalition War, which wa costly and inconclusive. Increased production of wheat in Upper Canada also led to increased competition in a reduced market size, and it led to more economic uncertainty. The formation of a colonial merchant class there that specialized in the wheat business also led to more economic improvements since the merchants usually supported infrastructure improvements that benefited their profits. This typically led to more storage facilities, docks canals, and roads.
By the 1830s, several reformers were speaking actively against the tight small groups called the Chateau Clique and Family Compact. The other Canadian colonies were also facing mismanagement issues similar to those of Upper and Lower Canada, but slightly less severe. As such, a Canada-wide movement started to form. The main issue with these reformers was that they agreed on little besides the need for change. However, all agreed that something needed to budge, and the British government was unwilling to grant it. Many of these reformers were also thinking bigger than mere change. Some wanted independence, but knew that would be a difficult process.
Last edited:
Seriously though, what is the Canadians' opinion of the Southron rebels?