Talk:Quebec Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Explain the quotes
It would be great if someone could write up an explanation of the quotes. I would do it, but I'm having trouble understanding them myself. Paap (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HELP DESPERATELY NEEDED!!
I have to debate on the Quebec Act, but I am on the American side! Does anyone have any helpful key facts or topics I can debate with with someone on the British side?? I have not been able to find much information about the American position and how to go about debating it.
[edit] Clarification requested
This article seems to have a major contradiction -- or at least it needs elaboration on a point. The article states (correctly, I think) that "the majority of the Canadian population chose to remain neutral" in the American Revolution, but it also asserts that "it is clear that the Quebec Act did much to secure the allegiance of the Canadians to the British."
Isn't that a contradiction? Were the Canadiens both neutral and allegiant? --Kevin Myers 14:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought... Perhaps this apparent contradiction is in timing. At the outset of the American Revolution, Canadiens (French-Canadians) chose to remain neutral - neither rebel (Patriot) nor actively supporting the British. Later, with the occupation of Montréal and the attack on Québec City, they began to view the British as perhaps less repugnant than the American occupiers. Thus (and perversely), the American invasion of the Canadiens homeland helped to gradually secure the latter's loyalty to the Crown. Also, if I remember correctly, there was a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in the American Colonies. (I seem to remember reading that Ben Franklin railed against Catholics being given the vote, but damned if I can remember where...) Thus, it could be that the Canadiens saw the American invasion as a threat to their newly gained (dare I say it) liberties. Conversely, they had no interest in helping the British crush the rebellion in other colonies, so (in that sense) they remained neutral. I short, the Canadiens were looking after their own interests (as were the British and the 13 Colonies). Just a few random thoughts. Did they make any sense at all? Esseh 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Mason Wade says mant Quebecers supported the US and joined its forces.--probably more than joined the brits. Wade vol 1 p.68-9: "Crown Point and St. Johns. As Carillon, Fort Frédéric, and Saint-Jean, these bastions of the traditional invasion route were all too well known in Canada, and their fall did much to increase American sympathies among the realistic French Canadians." ... "the majority of old subjects at Montreal refused to enroll in the militia" ... "the whole district south of Montreal fell at once into American hands. Its congrèssiste sympathies were soon evidenced by the raising of one French-Canadian regiment under James Livingston, and later of a second under Moses Hazen, another American settler on the Richelieu. Sizeable groups in Montreal and Quebec were loyalist, while on the other hand the militia of the Trois-Rivières flatly refused to march against the Americans. The Ile d'Orléans and the region south of the river below Quebec were also disaffected. The majority of the habitants tried to reserve a neutrality whose bias was influenced by the shifting fortunes of the contending parties. Bishop Briand bears witness that no more than 500 joined the American forces, though nearly all desired the capture of Quebec. 54 There were many factors involved in this situation: at the base of it was the fact that the French Canadians were a people worn out by a century of border warfare against heavy odds, and by the long effort to explore a continent and carry on a continental trade with a minimum of manpower. The greater number had become sedentary folk, deeply attached to their land, and wishing only to dwell on it undisturbed by war." Rjensen 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well put, Rjensen. The French élite mostly moved out after the conquest, and the only ones left were definitely tired of war and very attached to what they viewed as their land. In fact, they were the first to become called, and call themselves, Canadiens (Canadians by the British). Largely, they did remain neutral during the revolution. While they didn't particularly like their British overseers, most didn't particularly want American overseers, either. So, minorities fought for either side, but the majority just didn't care, as long as they were not personally threatened Esseh 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Afterthought - see below as well, bearing in mind that Louis-Joseph Papineau was himself the disaffected leader of the Lower Canada rebellion of 1837 - which failed largely due to the lack of widespread popular support (as it did in Upper Canada). Esseh 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More precision is indeed required
In 1784, this is indeed a contradiction. The assertion that "the Quebec Act did much to secure the allegiance of the Canadians to the British" is not entirely false however. It is pretty clear that the Catholic clergy, the business people involved in the fur trade and the land owners were mostly pleased with it at first. I think it would be more accurate to assert that "some elements of the Quebec Act secured the allegiance of the Catholic clergy and a great portion of the elite." The habitants had no clue what was going on in the country at the time and according to Louis-Joseph Papineau, it is only later that the educated Canadiens came to understand what the American Revolution was all about and how it would help them.
Here is what Papineau tells us in 1867 at the age of 81 years old (in a bad translation from French to English) :
"But our fathers did not think that way. All the Canadian nobility and the pupils of our colleges gathered around governor Carleton, determined to make the greatest of efforts with him for the defense of the country, and all of the clergy decided to make sermons of circumstance, to get the people of the country to take arm for the same reasons. This people had the good idea of saying: "Our purpose is to grow wheat and sell it for a good price." It succeeded surprisingly well and repaired, from '75 to '83, the distress of '59 to '63.
Of the thousand or twelve hundred English that there were in all of Canada, the nine-tenth of those who were in Quebec City had the good idea of leaving the day before the siege to go fetch some goods in England, sure that they would resell them for an enormous profit. The majority, and with perfect reason, were saying: "The metropolis is doing an impious war to its children. They (the Americains) have for themselves the forests of their country, where, the (opposing) armies will be encircled, famished and captured. The justice of the good cause will end up prevailing.". Fortunately, the prophecy was accomplished.
Not long after the fight, the marvelously fast progress of the new United States rendered them the object of astonishment and received the benevolence of all the great writers of the European continent.
Later, when in Canada some began to learn English, they became impassioned precisely for the sublime speeches of Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke in favour of the just American cause.
Those in this country who had best fought for England must then have started to doubt that they had done good by fighting for a caste, against a people.
When I asked them "even if the English had done better than in 1774, back then you knew them only for the injustices and the insults they poured on you by torrents. Colonial Englishmen explained you the wrongs of the metropolis and stayed with their arms crossed. Why did you not do the same?" - one answered me: "the older ones among us had taken part in the battle of Monongahela (invariably known as Malengueulée), of Chouaguen (Oswego), of Carillon, of Québec, and a lot of others."
To take the arms back reminded them of the beautiful days of their youth. They had enjoyed the plenitude of an adventurous life, voyages, and camps. It had been followed by fifteen years of lethargic numbness. The nearest and first side ready to draft them was sure to have them.
To fight, such was the life of a gentleman - it is all there.
For the young people of the colleges, the king was everything. There were still only French theology and philosophy tutors and precepts. These ones adored George III, with more reason than they had had when, taking their French doctor bonnets, they had had the naivety of believing in a fiction such as the virtues of Louis XV and of the holy ampoule, brought from heaven, oil and flask, to ensure the perpetuity of the monarchy. A sovereignty separated with any other authority than that of the king, was for them a monstrosity. It was this new and impious sovereignty, that was setting fire and spilling blood in the country of our unfortunate neighbors.
"How the king of England is good, were they saying! He comes to restore the payment of the tithe. Fight for him noble schoolboys! By doing it you are sure not to sin. By not doing it, we are sure that you would sin." -- Mathieugp 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Shouldn't it be Québec Act instead of Quebec Act? Fredil Yupigo's IP (69.158.65.32) on 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- It depends on whether the accent was used in the official title of the Act. Road Wizard 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's Quebec article is not accented, and the discussion at Talk:Quebec#Why not Québec? suggests Quebec is English for Québec. Kurando | ^_^ 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
... and both are from the Native meaning "place where the waters narrow". Thus, in English, this would be "Strait" or "Narrows", and in French... "Détroit"! Esseh 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funky edit boxes
Quick question: Does anyone know why, when I click on a section [Edit] box, I end up in the section below the one I intended to edit (and the last section says "no section to edit)? Very curious. Esseh 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thirteen Colonies
I have taken the liberty of adding some citations needed into the section on the Thirteen Colonies. The title of this section istelf needs to be reworded - Canada (and Acadia) were colonies at that time, too. Other than the fact the lower 13 rebelled later, how does that make them different? I have left hidden comments before and/or after each of the "citations needed" with my rationale. Remove them as citations added. Esseh 00:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- To answer your first point: no rewording is needed, since "Thirteen Colonies" is a proper noun. The 13 were different because they were not former French colonies, which is really the point of the section.
- Adding "citations needed" tags is fine, though they're a bit odd in articles which don't have any citations in the first place -- better I think to add {{unreferenced}} to problem sections. Ironically, there is only one sentence in that section which contains glaring factual errors ("Many of the leaders of the American Revolution..."), but you didn't tag it because it has a external footnote, which gives it the superficial appearance of being true. Such is the downside of footnotes. —Kevin Myers 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
