Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There wasn't any question who was going to win the vote. Conservative (Anti-confederation francophone) polling districts were closed for the slightest offenses, conservative representatives were kidnapped and as a result absent for the vote, conservative candidates were openly bought off, and the Catholic church threatened eternal damnation for anyone who voted against confederation.
The fact that so many Canadiens (Quebecois) still voted against confederation is amazing. In a clean democratic vote there is no question in my mind that they would have rejected confederation. The push for confederation in Nova Scotia was sketchy (hey, if they reject confederation, just vote again and this time it will somehow be clearly in favor!), but in Quebec it was just downright fraudulent even by the standards of the day.
Of course it was a fraudulent vote. They thought it would be a better way to get the same intended results as the Act of union of 1848. The results being the assimilation of French-Canadians.
I think it's clear that the current arrangement that has French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians sharing the same country was definitely born of a colonialist set-up where the francophone population was for a long time subjugated in a variety of ways.
The last 50-100-150 years has been a whole series of two-steps-forward-one-step-back, two-steps-forward-two-steps-back, two-steps-forward-three-steps-back historical periods where attempts were made towards making what was originally an entirely colonial rapport, a bit less colonial.
Some of the progress that has been achieved has been made hand-in-hand between francophones and anglophones, and a lot of it has been made by francophones forcing the hand of anglophones.
Quebec, or should I say "Canada" which once referred to today's Quebec, tried to opt for independence in 1838, but the British and their anglo Canadian cronies crushed them with military force.
To be fair, there was a simultaneous rebellion in upper Canada (the English part) that was also put down by the authorities. Both colonies were in rebellion because of the same dysfunctional political system and wanted "responsible government" ie. local democratic institutions. Independence would have been nice, but I don't think most people in Quebec at the time had any illusions about being able to maintain a strong independent state in the context of an expansionist US, a British Empire at the height of her power, and a world order full of other Europeans powers who'd have been happy and able to conquer her again. Most were just asking for reform as it is what was viewed as an actual, practical outcome. Independence rhetoric may have been more "ask for the moon" then a real goal.
To be fair, there was a simultaneous rebellion in upper Canada (the English part) that was also put down by the authorities. Both colonies were in rebellion because of the same dysfunctional political system and wanted "responsible government" ie. local democratic institutions. Independence would have been nice, but I don't think most people in Quebec at the time had any illusions about being able to maintain a strong independent state in the context of an expansionist US, a British Empire at the height of her power, and a world order full of other Europeans powers who'd have been happy and able to conquer her again. Most were just asking for reform as it is what was viewed as an actual, practical outcome. Independence rhetoric may have been more "ask for the moon" then a real goal.
The upper Canada rebellion only had 20 men or so IIRC, and were put down by other English Canadians, it isn't really comparable to Quebec's situation which was a massive popular movement. In Quebec it started as a peaceful movement that demanded political rights but this expanded to where these rights would have made them autonomous. The movement was so big that it couldn't be contained by English Canadian loyalists, the actual British army had to be sent to crush the people, which included a large number of American supporters.
There is a reason why Lord Durham suggested that the French-Canadians needed to be assimilated to erase "the problem" and Britain enforced the 1840 Act of Union. That way the British and English Canadian loyalists expected that they would erase the French Canadians as a distinct people and society.
It is good that BIMBAM brought up the rebellion in Upper Canada (Ontario) but it's also true that the one in Lower Canada (Quebec) was a much bigger deal than the other. It lasted a lot longer, involved more people, resulted in more deaths and destruction, and had greater support in the population.
Historically it is also much more remembered. I'd say if you asked most people in Ontario a "cold" question about the rebellion there most wouldn't even know about it, whereas in Quebec there would be a high level of familiarity.
There is tons of stuff named for the Patriotes (and also its notable leaders Papineau, De Lorimier and also the anglo Nelson brothers) in every city and town in Quebec.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
