War of 1812

The US were clearly anti-Catholic in their culture. While it's true that the british were as well, the canadiens had legislative guarantees of it's protection.

The Brit's and Americans were both anti-Catholic. The difference was that Britain had anti-catholic laws that it didn't apply to it's colonies and that America had theoretical pro-catholic laws (as in the first amendment) that it ignored. For how the US would have treated the French Canadians see how they treated the Catholics arriving in their country 50 years later.

As is said above, the Canadians went with the devil they knew, rather than becoming an unloved minority within the US.
 
ITT: North Korea and East Germany being submitted as solid evidence that the US, the First Amendment being pure snake oil, will be far more oppressive to the state of Quebec than a foreign empire, whose monarch cannot be a Catholic to this day. Furthermore, the US in general, and Andrew Jackson in particular, would destroy Quebec's civil law, like in Louisiana. Oh, wait, which President appointed the first Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court? What state operates on civil law to this day?

:rolleyes:
 
With all due respect, these people are explaining why the people of Quebec thought the way they did. The Quebecois of 1812 weren't aware that Andrew Jackson would appoint a Catholic to the Supreme Court in 1836; they didn't know that the First Amendment, which had been in place less than a generation, wasn't going to be revoked or would offer religious tolerance to anything other than Protestant worshippers. They did, on the other hand, know how the colonists had reacted against the 1774 Quebec act's tolerance of Catholicism:

10. That the late act of parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion and the French laws in that extensive country, now called Canada, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and, therefore, as men and Protestant Christians, we are indispensubly obliged to take all proper measures for our security. (Suffolk Resolves, 1774).

As has been stated many times in this thread- though you and a few others don't seem to appreciate the subtleties of the argument- the Quebecois were offered a choice between an existing government which had shown no intention of interfering with their religion and an unknown quantity, which had previously inveighed against their beliefs and whose supposed religious tolerance was not guaranteed to work on their behalf in practice.
 
With all due respect, these people are explaining why the people of Quebec thought the way they did. The Quebecois of 1812 weren't aware that Andrew Jackson would appoint a Catholic to the Supreme Court in 1836; they didn't know that the First Amendment, which had been in place less than a generation, wasn't going to be revoked or would offer religious tolerance to anything other than Protestant worshippers. They did, on the other hand, know how the colonists had reacted against the 1774 Quebec act's tolerance of Catholicism:

10. That the late act of parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion and the French laws in that extensive country, now called Canada, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and, therefore, as men and Protestant Christians, we are indispensubly obliged to take all proper measures for our security. (Suffolk Resolves, 1774).

As has been stated many times in this thread- though you and a few others don't seem to appreciate the subtleties of the argument- the Quebecois were offered a choice between an existing government which had shown no intention of interfering with their religion and an unknown quantity, which had previously inveighed against their beliefs and whose supposed religious tolerance was not guaranteed to work on their behalf in practice.

The Quebec Act was one of the Intolerable Acts because it gave away the Old Northwest to Quebec. It is possible that the people of Quebec were as misled about the reason for the hatred of the Quebec Act as members of this forum, though. Anti-Catholicism deepened opposition to the Act, certainly, but it was not the central feature.
 
Anti-Catholicism deepened opposition to the Act, certainly, but it was not the central feature.
Really?

by another Act the dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices, that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholick emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to Administration, so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and, on occasion, be fit instruments in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient, free, Protestant Colonies to the same state of slavery with themselves.

This was evidently the object of the Act; and in this view being extremely dangerous to our liberty and quiet, we cannot forbear complaining of it as hostile to British America. Superadded to these considerations, we cannot help deploring the unhappy condition to which it has reduced the many English settlers, who, encouraged by the Royal Proclamation, promising the enjoyment of all their rights, have purchased estates in that country. They are now the subjects of an arbitrary Government, deprived of trial by jury, and when imprisoned, cannot claim the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act, that great bulwark and palladium of English Liberty. Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a Religion that has deluged your Island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion, through every part of the world. (Address to the People of Great Britain, 21 October 1774)

As an inhabitant of Quebec, what message would you take away from this about how the Continental Congress saw your religion?
 
Last edited:
Do you believe everything that you read. People saying things and their actions don't always match up.

And at what point did I say anything even remotely close to that? Please don't do that.

If they stuck to it there wouldn't be in god we trust on the money

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also, you might want to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

or the Anti Catholic Bias even present today.

The bias that got one elected president, you mean?
 
The bias that got one elected president, you mean?
If a candidate has to say that "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me", it's fair to say that they got elected despite their faith and not because of it, as you imply.

And at what point did I say anything even remotely close to that? Please don't do that.
You said that the Quebecois should have believed wholeheartedly that the First Amendment would protect their religion. But what does it take to turn this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
into this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of the Protestant religion...
A civil war? Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states? No, it needs four of the Protestant judges on the Supreme Court to decide that this was what the Founding Fathers (who thought "much more is to be dreaded from the growth of Popery in America than from the Stamp Act") meant all along. That didn't happen historically; had the US absorbed a large and concentrated Catholic minority in the form of Quebec, it might have done.
 
ITT: North Korea and East Germany being submitted as solid evidence that the US, the First Amendment being pure snake oil, will be far more oppressive to the state of Quebec than a foreign empire, whose monarch cannot be a Catholic to this day. Furthermore, the US in general, and Andrew Jackson in particular, would destroy Quebec's civil law, like in Louisiana. Oh, wait, which President appointed the first Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court? What state operates on civil law to this day?

:rolleyes:

I think you REALLY misunderstood my point. My mention of East Germany was simply that something being said by a government cannot always be taken at face value whether it's meant or not.

You also seem to assume that somehow the canadiens had the gift of seeing the future (a rare gift among my people). All that the canadiens had to go for at the time was that the British had promised to protect their religion and culture and had so far done so while the US where the ones who had taken up arms against their government over said protection. So all in all, it probably felt safer to go for the sure thing.
 
Top