Allan Greer

8/14/2019 Allan Greer

1/18

1837-38:Rebellion Reconsidered

ALLAN GREER

THEREWASA TIME when historians hought they understood theeventsof 1837-38.They did not much like he Rebellion,and theiraccounts f the event tselfwere often sketchyn the extreme, buttheyknewwhere t belongedn the broadsweep f Canadianhistory:theycouldexplainwhy t happened nd what t meant.For the gene-ration of academichistorianswriting before the delugeof the 1960s,the lesssaid about the illegal machinations f Louis-Josephapi-neau, William Lyon Mackenzie,and their followers he better. Andyet, curiously, he Rebellion ormed a major - I think it would be fairto say, hemajor - focal point in their writingsabout the pre-Con-ederafion century.Like the ghost of Hamlet's father, it broodedover a stage hat historians roceeded o furnishwith politicalback-grounds, ocial nd economic auses, nd imperialresults.Develop-ments converged n 1837,and then movedoff in novel directionsafter 1838, but the tumultuous urning-point tself did not seem aworthy object of research once its essentialcharacter had beenidentified.Donald Creightonsaw he Rebellionas the climacticepisode nthe long-termstruggleof 'commerce nd agriculture.2 Reformers,1 For the sakeof brevity, am confiningmy attentionhere to influentialworksbelonging o whatmightbe called he academicmainstream. issentingnter-pretations hat neverreceived he attention hey deservedncludeS.D. Clark,MovementsfPolitical rotestn Canada, 640-1840 Toronto:University fToronto Press 959),and StanleyB. Ryerson,Unequal nion:ConfederationndtheRoots f Conflictn theCanadas, 815-1873 Toronto:Progress ooks1973).

My own approachowesmuch to thesewriters,particularlyClark.2 Donald Creighton,TheEmpire f theSt.LawrenceToronto:Macmillan1956),255-320Canadian Historical Rev/ew,LXXVI, 1, 19950008-3755/95/0003-000101.25/0 Universityf TorontoPressncorporated


2/18

2 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

rebels,and patriotesepresenteda narrow-minded grarianismop-posed o the expansionist ommercialism f the Montreal merchantsand their Tory political allies.This second,capitalist/conservativecampwas he one that graspedCanada's otential or greatness, ro-motedeconomicdevelopment, nd, more or lessunconsciously,aidthe foundations of a transcontinental nation. Their conflict with thecarping adicals ame to a violent head in 1837,but, fortunately,things urned out for the best: ebellionwascrushed nd the empireof the St Lawrence gained a new lease on life. The defeat of therebels s hardlysurprising,or, in Creighton's ccount, hey had settheir facesagainst he forwardmarch of History tself.Creighton's liberal-minded contemporarieshad a somewhatdifferentviewof the subject? ympathetico moderate eformandcriticalof the colonialoligarchy, hey believed hat a few extremistshad temporarilyhijackeda perfectly egitimatepoliticalmovement.The ascendancy f Mackenzieand the radical patriotesad comeabout partly becauseof Tory intransigence, nd the result was arevolt misguided n its principlesand disastrousn its results.Theliberal historians, oo, had their view of the overarching hrust ofCanadianhistory. t wasa storyof the gradualand peacefuldevelop-ment of British liberty within a frameworkof growingcolonial au-tonomy.What wasso deplorableabout the rebelsof 1837 wasnotonly their violence but also their republicanism, heir failure toappreciate he wondersof the British constitution.And yet, in thegrand schemeof things, he role of the radicalsand their revoltwasultimatelypositive,or, by their foolishactions, heyunwittingly um-moned up a saviour n the form of Lord Durham. Durham set n mo-tion the liberalizingmachinery hat, in the fullnessof time, broughtforth ResponsibleGovernment, Confederation, and dominion au-tonomy. 'The Rebellions,'wrote A.R.M. Lower, 'were blessingsndisguise,he corner stones f Canadiannationhood.'4

While liberal and business/conservativenterpretationsheld swayin EnglishCanada,French-Canadian istoriography asdominatedby a Catholic nationalistschool best representedby Abb LionelGroulx. Papineauand the patrioteslike most Quebec historians

3 See, or example,A.R.M. Lower, ColonyoNation:A History f Canada Toronto:Longmans,Green 1946), 213-56;J.M.S.Careless,Canada:A Story f Challenge(Toronto:Macmillan1963), 164-87;KennethMcNaught,ThePelican istory fCanada Harmondsworth:Penguin 1969), 85-9.4 Lower,ColonyoNation,2565 Lionel Grou|x,Histoire u Canadafranqaisepuisa dcouverte,nd ed. 2 vols(Montreal:Fides1960), 2: 162-77.For an excellentoverview f the historiogo


3/18

REBELLION RECONSIDERED 3

then and now, Groulx had little to say about the Rebellion crisisoutside he bordersof Lower Canada) posedvexing problems orGroulx. Quite clearly, they were defendersof the nation, and thatrole gave hem a major claim on the sympathies f a historianwhosecentral preoccupationwas the struggleof his people to maintaintheir ever-threatened ultural dentity.But French Canadawas,at itscore, a Catholic and conservative ociety,as far as Groulx wascon-cerned, and it was difficult to ignore the democratic,anti-clerical,and, in the end, revolutionary haracterof the patriotemovement.Tosome extent, the historian contrived to reconcile his divided reac-tions by downplayinghe patriotes'adicalism nd by arguing that,strictlyspeaking, hey were innocentof the crime of rebellion sinceit was the government hat attacked hem. Yet, insofar as the 'mis-takes'of the insurgents ould not be ignored,Groulx wasquite pre-pared to condemn hem;consequently, is account eatureda moraldissection hereby eaderswereadvisedo admire he patriotes'oodpoints (their nationalism)and reject their bad points (their deismand republicanism). here are somestrikingaffinitieshere with theliberal anglophonehistorians.Groulx'spulpit-styleanguagemay bemore overtlyudgmental than theirs,but in both the liberal and theCatholicversions f the Rebellion, esistanceo constituted uthoritywasseenasan understandable,houghnonetheless gregious, rror.

All these nterpretiveschemeshat dominatedCanadianhistori-cal writing through the middle decadesof the twentiethcenturywere built on the assumptionhat historyhad a discernible irectionand flow. Canadawasmoving owards goal in the nineteenth cen-tury; whether this end point was the constructionof a transcon-tinental, commercial, and political union, the development ofparliamentary overnment,or the preservation nd resurrectionofFrench Canada, t was certainlya Good Thing. Thus the rebels of1837were quite literallyon the wrong track.They lostbecause heyhad to lose;. hey were not simplyoverwhelmed y superior orce,they were justly chastisedby the god of History. (The narrativestructure n theseolder accounts esembleshe revolutionary rium-phalism hen prevalent n American,French, and Soviethistoriog-raphy, though, in the Canadiancase,the form is inverted.) TheRebellionwas he necessary nomaly n this providentialaccountof

raphyof the Rebellion n LowerCanada,see ean-PaulBernard, L'(volutiondel'historiographie epuis les (v(mements1837-1982),' in Les Rkbellionse1837-1838: es atriotesu Bas-Canadaans a mbrnoireollectivet chezeshistoriens(Montreal: Bor(al1983), 17-61.


4/18


the past, he sorry ate of the insurgents ervingo validate he largerpattern, as well as providing Canadianswith powerful moral andpolitical lessons.These teleologicalmodes of explanation continue to resounddown to the present day, even though historians ong ago aban-doned the confidentoverview enre favouredby Creighton,Groulx,and the rest. Original scholarshipn the last ew decadeshasveeredin the oppositedirection, away rom overarching hemesand to-wards specialized esearchon down-to-earthparticulars.Moreover,sinceconflictand violencehaveceased o be taboosubjects, mpiri-cal researchon the Rebellion tselfhasmade great strides ince he1960s.Military specialistsave told us about troop movements ndcasualties;mperialhistorians aveshownus howWhitehallviewedthe affair. Meanwhile,esearch n the economy asrevealed hefinancialand agrariandistresshat helped o poison he atmosphereof the times. A rich social-historyiteraturehasconcentrated tten-tion, asneverbefore,on the ordinarypeoplewho formedthe greatmajorityof thosecaughtup in the Rebellion; even the religious

6 Elinor KyteSenior,RedcoatsndPatriotes:heRebellionsn Lower anada, 837- 38(Ottawa:Canada'sWings 1985); Mary BeacockFryer, Volunteersnd Redboats,Rebels nd Raiders Toronto: Dundurn 1987). Pleasenote that, in this note, andin thosewhich ollow,onlya fewof the moresignificantecentlypublished ooksare included.This s not a comprehensiveibliographic ssay.7 Peter Burroughs,The CanadianCrisisand BritishColonialPolicy,1828-1841(Toronto: Macmillan 1972); Phillip A. Buckner, The Transitiono ResponsibleGovernment:ritishPolicyn BritishNorthAmerica, 815-1850 (Westport,Conn.:Greenwood 985),205-49. mperialhistory f a differentsortcan be found nGeorgeRude, Protestnd Punishment:heStory f theSocial nd Political rytesters'lYanspartedoAustrzzlia,788-1868Oxford:Clarendon ress 978).8 The relevant iterature s vast,but the worksof FernandOuellet are particularlynoteworthy:Economicnd SocialHistoryof Quebec,760-1850:StructuresndConjuncturesToronto:Macmillan1980), and LowerCanada 791-1840:SodalChange nd Nationalism,ranslated y PatriciaClaxton (Toronto:McClelland&Stewart1980). See also he highly perceptivediscussion y DouglasMcCalla inPlanting hePrwince: heEconomicistory f Upper anada, 784-1870 Toronto:University f TorontoPress 993),187-93.9 In addition o the worksby Ouellet citedabove, eeLeo A. Johnson,History f theCounty f Ontario, 615-1875 Whitby:Countyof Ontario 1973),95-127;ColinRead,TheRisingn Westernpper anada, 837-87:TheDuncombeevolt ndAfter(Toronto:University f Toronto Press 982);BryanPalmer,Working-Classxpe-

rience: ethinkingheHistory f Canadian abour; 800-1991 Toronto:McClelland& Stewart1992), 69-75; Allan Greer, ThePatriots nd thePeople: heRebellionf1837 n RuralLower anada Toronto:University f Toronto Press 993).


5/18


backgroundo 1837hasbeenexplored.0The resulthasbeena greatadvance in empirical knowledge:myths have been punctured,generalizations avebeen qualified,and a wealthof factualdata hasbeen accumulated.However, eflection t the conceptualevelhasnot kept pacewiththe progress f empiricaland microscopicesearch.One can onlypity the poor studentor non-specialisteaderwho wanders nto thishistoriographicalerrain n search f answerso fairlybasicquestionsabout the Rebellion:What exactlywas t?Was his a singlephenome-non with variousaspects nd phases the Rebellion - or were theretwoor more distinct ebellions?Why did it (they) occurand whydidit turn out as it did? Was it a minor disturbanceor an importantevent with lasting consequences?he student or reader will en-

counter a literature that seemsmore concernedwith interpretivefine points han fundamental ssues. ata aboundon the rebels thenumber who were Methodists, r the percentagewho owned morethan four cows but what exactly makes someonea rebel? Booksand articlesenumerate the regiments nvolved n the battlesof StDenis and St Eustache,but they say ittle about the effectsof theBritishmilitarypresenceon Lower Canadianpolitics.This is not to say hat the recentworks ack conclusions, nly thatlittle thought seems o have gone into them. When it comes ime tosumup, the discussionecomes rude and schematic;n manycases,historians all back on the shopworn ormulae of the traditionalaccounts. ven more pervasives the 'police officer's'conceptionofjust what constitutes ebellion: t is essentially crime, according oconservative istorians, n illegal deed concerted n advanceby ill-disposed raitors. More modern, liberal-mindedwriters try to avoidloaded vocabularyand strive to bring out the mitigating circum-stances,but they still portray the revolt as a simple, unilateral act,something that rebels did - for whatever combination of social,economic,and political reasons. he behaviourof the governmentand of other actors s, in most accounts though not those of theFrench-Canadian ationalists),merely reactive:normal, unremark-able, unproblematic.This police officer'sview of the subjectunderliesmany of theimplicit definitionsof rebellion currently avoured n the literature.10 RichardChabot, Le curb ecampagreet a contestationocale u Qubbece1791 auxtvubles e 1837-38 (Montreal: Hurtubise 1975); Gilles Chauss6, ean-Jacques

Lartigue, remier vque e Montreal Montreal: Fides 1980); Albert Schrauwers,Awaiting heMillennium: heChildren f Peace nd theVillage f Hope,1812-1889(Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press1993)


6/18

6 THE CANADIAN HISTORICkL REVIEW

For many historians,particularly hosewho concentrateon UpperCanada and on Mackenzie, a rebellion seems to be a sudden andforcible attempt to unseat a government, somethingvirtually ndis-tinguishablerom a coup tat. But if Mackenzie's ttackon Torontois the Rebellion,what term do we apply o the all-importantcontextfthat exploit, a situation n which Upper Canadianradicalsbelievedlegitimate governmenthad alreadyceased o exist?Violence seemsto be a defining feature of rebellion in many accounts,and it isusuallyassociatedwith the rebels, even though the violenceof thegovernmentand its supporterswas ar more extensive nd deadly.There is evena tendency o assimilatehe fightingof 1837-38withthe various riots and brawls that punctuated the history of pre-Confederation Canada. Conservative commentators thus find confir-mation of their view hat the Rebellionwassimply he mostdramaticof many casesof lower-class ell-raising,while writers on the left,seduced y a visionof the toilingmassesn arms, ind thisa cheeringinstance of popular resistance. Resistance o what? to whom?)Missing again is an appreciationof context, of the exceptionalpolitical circumstances hich brought conflict to a bloody climax,and which gave he fightingan importancequite different rom thatof a canalworkers' iot or an Orange-Greenbrawl.The time hascome, believe, or somebasic ethinkingabout heRebellionof 1837-38, nd will suggestineson whichsuch recon-siderationmight proceed. n my view,we shouldpause n the searchfor causesand effectsand concentrate irst on identifying moreclearly the phenomenon hat is to be explained. Surely he 'what'question s prior to the 'why' question.We can best approach hisdefinitional problem, would argue, by looking more closely t thecrisisof 1837-38as a complexseriesof events, ne involvingheactions nd interactions f several arties,not ust those dentifiedasrebels.Rather than focusingon a one-dimensional ct of revolt,weshould recognize he contingencyof events.Choiceswere made,actions aken, not as he inevitable esultof metaphysicalorcesor ofrigidly determining structures, ut in response o rapidly changingcircumstances. lacing the accent on complexityand contingencymay seema recipe for chaos ather than definitionalclarity;never-theless,as I hope to show, his is the only way to achievean inte-gratedviewof the Rebellionand to grasp ts essential ature.Two major obstacles tand n the wayof any syntheticnitiatives fthe sort outlined above: the comparative isolation of Canadianhistoriographyrom larger internationalcurrents,and the yawningchasm separatingstudiesof Lower Canada and works on UpperCanada.The historiography f this country, strong n many other


7/18


areas, ackspreciselyhe language nd conceptualoolsneeded omake sense f revolutionarymatters.GivenCanada's istory,aswellas the historiographicraditionsmentionedearlier, this s hardly acause for wonder; what is surprising s the failure of Rebellionspecialistso make uller useof the enormousiterature,empiricaland theoretical,on revolutionary pisodesn Europe and the Ameri-cas n the ateeighteenthndearlynineteenth enturies.M ot thatthe Canadashad the same experienceas Belgium and Poland in1830,or asArgentinaand Venezuela n 1808.Naturally, here werenumerouspoints of contrast,as well as similarities, ut we cannoteven begin to identifyelements hat are peculiarlyand specificallyCanadian in the absenceof a comparative ramework. Indeed, wecan hardly ind the words o describehe events f 1837-38withoutdrawingon the histories f other revolutionary utbreaks.While a broader nternational iewmight provideusefulconceptsand points of comparison, ny attempt to constructan integratedaccountof the CanadianRebellion s still bedevilledby a particularlyadvanced aseof historiographicalpartheid.Creightonwasquiteprepared o encompasspper and LowerCanada n hisclassic ork,but since his time, researchers on the two sides of the Ottawa Riverhavebeen pursuingdifferent ssues singdifferentmethods nd, onthe whole, gnoringone another. 2 he CanadianHistorical ssocia-tion, following he prevailing rendsbut alsoawarding hem a sortofofficialstampof approval, ommissionedwo HistoricalBookletsonthe Rebellion: one devoted to Upper Canada, the other to LowerCanada.This gap, mirroring the separation f French-and English-Canadian historiographies, reatly magnifies he effects of frag-mented viewsand specialized esearch a situation prevailing inalmost all fields of history- and makes considerationof largerquestions articularlydifficult. Above all, it tends to obscure helinksconnecting evelopmentsn the two provinces.

Thesedays, t appears hat only the authorsof textbooksynthesesare forced to examine both rebellions. Drawing of necessityon abifurcated monographic iterature, thesewriters often seem, quiteunderstandably,t a lossas o how to integrate he diversematerialson the two provinces. hose writing in French tend to solve he

11 A qualification s in order: on particular themes,Rebellion specialists aveindeeddrawnon a comparativeiteraturecovering uchmatters sriots n eight-eenth-century ritainor the agrarian conomy n the eveof the FrenchRevolu-tion, but they haveshownhardlyany interest n revolutionary pisodes er seand in their integrity.12 Mea culpa


8/18


problem by simply ignoring Upper Canada altogether and con-centratingon the historical ncestor f the provinceof Quebec?English textbook writers do their best to present a pan-Canadianview of the Rebellion, but the resultsare still disjointed - in mostinstances he two rebellionsare covered n separatechapters andrather cockeyed wing to the effectsof an anglophoneand Ontariobias. n four recentlypublishedhistories f Canada, found roughlyequal space llotted o the Upper and LowerCanadianphases f theRebellion, n spiteof the fact that the crisis n Lower Canadawas ardeeper and, by any standard,much more significant. hree of thebooksplaced he Upper Canadian ising beforehe Lower Canadian,even though the chronologicaland logical order of eventswas ustthe opposite.M he remainingwork gets the sequence ight, butrecognizesno connection between the two rebellions, as if it werepure coincidencehat Mackenzieattacked oronto ust after fightingbrokeout in the Montreal egion.My own view,as shouldbe apparentby now, is that events n thetwo provinceswere indeed connected;n fact, believe hey can bestbe understood as various elements of a single phenomenon. It isquite true that conflict took different forms in Upper Canada andLower Canada, and that the populations nvolvedcame from dis-similarbackgrounds, ut the Canadas re not the only Britishposses-sionwhere revoltsoccurred n dispersedocationsand involvedpeo-ple of different eligions nd languages.he IrishRebellionof 1798sawrisings n variousareas of the north and the south; Protestantsand Catholics,English-speakersnd Irish-speakers,ll clashedwiththe existingorder (and with one another aswell) in a complicatederuption of violence? The Indian Rebellion of 1857 (formerlyknown as the Mutiny) was ust as multidimensional:here were ag-

13 An exceptions DenisVaug.oisandJacquesacoursire,ds,Canada-Qubbec:synthbseistoriqueMontreal:Editions u Renouveaudagogique 976),306-18,which integrates good, though very brief, accountof Upper Canadianeventsinto a chapterdevotedprimarily to the Rebellion n Lower Canada.14 R. DouglasFrancisand Donald B. Smith, Origins:CanadianHistory o Confedera-tion Toronto:Holt, Rinehartand Winston1988),227-31,249-53; DavidJ.Ber-cusonet al., Colonies: anada o 1867 (Toronto: McGraw-HillRyerson1992),219-24, 236-9; J.M. Bumsted, The Petrple f Canada:A Pre-Confederationistmy(Toronto:Oxford UniversityPress 992),248-5715 Margaret Conrad, Alvin Finkel, and CorneliusJaenen, Histmyof the CanadianPetrples,ol. 1: Beginningso 1867 Toronto:CoppClarkPitman1993),412-2416 Gearold O'Tuathaigh, relandbeforeheFamine,1798-1848 Dublin: Gill andMacmillan1972);ThomasPakenham,TheYear fLiberty: heSttn of heCa'eatrishRebellionf 1798(London:Hodder and Stoughton1969)


9/18


rarian insurrectionsas well as military revolts;various provinces,ethnicgroups,eligions, ndcastes ere nvolved.7And yet, n boththe Irish and the Indian cases, istoriansseemto have no difficultyapplying he singular erm 'rebellion' to events hat were actually armore plural than the Canadian risis.8 n otherwords, here s noreason o considerdispersal ver spaceand diversityn form to be,in themselves, rounds or denying he basicunity of a revolt.Althoughmy point is mainlyabout the integrityof the eventsof1837-38, might alsoobservehat the structural ntecedents f re-volt in the two Canadaswere not asdissimilar s hasoften been sup-posed.Both provinces ad essentiallyre-industrial conomies nd apreponderanceof independent arming families.Everywhere herewaswidespread nxietyaboutprocuringnew ands o settle he risinggeneration, and so governmentpolicies that threatened to restrictaccesso wildernessandswere naturallya matter of graveconcernin these settlements. ensionsbetween town and country were asmuch apparent n the Toronto region as n Montreal'shinterland,and, as a consequence,conflict tended to follow a rural-urbanpatternwhen ightingbrokeout in 1837.Seigneurialenure,on theother hand, wasunique to LowerCanada,and with it went landlord-habitant friction, a dynamic of rebellion in that colony. LowerCanadawas, n general, an older settlementwith a larger populationthat was n majorityFrench Canadian; n contrast, ts neighbourwasexpanding apidly, thanksto the effectsof agriculturalprosperityand massivemmigration rom the British Isles.Some immigrantsalsosettled n Lower Canada,with the result that a linguisticminor-ity of Britishorigin shared he provincewith the old-stock anadiens.According o Lord Durham and a long successionf historiansafter him, tensions etweenEnglishand French n LowerCanada ayat the root of the civil strife of 1837-38. The Rebellion in LowerCanada,we are often told, was racial' and, as a consequence,t wassharper han - indeed fundamentallydiftrent from - the milderstrife that disturbed English' Upper Canada. But, in fact, UpperCanada was also a divided societywith friction between Britishimmigrantsand older settlersof Canadianand American origin, as

17 ChristopherHibbert, TheGreatMutiny: ndia 1857 London:Penguin1978);EricStokes,7hePeasant rmed:The ndian Rebellionfi857 (Oxford: Clarendon 1986)18 I am on record as favouring he term revolutionary risis ather than rebellion(Greer, Patriots nd thePeople, ). I still think the former phraseapplies,butconsideration f the Irish and Indian casesmakesme more inclined o go alongwith the prevailingusagewhich prescribeshe word 'rebellion' for colonialrevolts hat do not culminate n the overthrow f the imperialregime.


10/18


anyone who has read Susanna Moodie can attest. Furthermore,researchby Ronald Staggand Colin Read reveals hat the NorthAmerican-bornand the recent immigrants ended to gravitate oopposing ampswhencivilstrifebrokeout in this racially'homoge-neouscolony.The language f race suits he purposes f thosewishing o emphasize istinctions etween he Upper and the LowerCanadian ebellions nd to denigrate he latter (a matter of preju-dices ather than principles),but it doessoby concealing n impor-tant similarity. he civilstrifeof 1837-38saw n ethnocultural olari-zation on both sidesof the OttawaRiver- long-establishedettlerstending to come to blowswith unassimilatednewcomers. he factthat immigrantswere, in relative erms,so much more numerous nUpper Canadagoesa long way o explaining he weakershowing finsurrection n that province.The constitutions f the two provinceswere identical, houghpolitics had developed along somewhatdifferent lines. Withoutdelving nto the complexparticulars f ideologies, rievances,ndprograms,we might simply note the existence n both Canadasofpolarizing tendencies hat produced, by the mid-1830s, wo basicpolitical camps: on one side, office-holdingoligarchies ooselyaffiliated o more broadlybased Tory parties,'composedmainlyofBritish mmigrants, nd, on the other, a 'Reform'opposition, riticalof existingpowerstructures. ecause f the largerproportionof im-migrantsn the Upper Canadianpopulation,Tories n that province,and not LowerCanada, njoyed onsiderablelectoral trength. hepatriote pposition n Lower Canadawasmarked by its originsas aFrench-Canadian thnic movement, hough ts nationalismwas arlessnarrowby 1837 han t hadbeenearlier.An outlook hat might,for shorthandpurposes, e labelled masculine-democratic-republi-can predominatedamong patriotes,heir rhetoric dwellingon therightsof the people (read propertied men), the dangersof corrup-tion, and the need to defend the independence nd prerogatives fthe colonialAssembly?Mackenziespoke or thosewho took asimilar radical ine in Upper Canada, though most Reform politi-cians n that province avoureda more moderateapproach.

19 RonaldJ. Stagg, The YongeStreetRebellionof 1837:ga Examinationof theSocialBackground nd a Reassessmentf the Events' PhD thesis,University fToronto 1976),chaps and 8; Read, TheRisingn Westernpper anada, 64-20420 Affinities n the rhetoric, actics, nd politicalstyles etween he colonial adicalsand analogous lements n Britain haveyet to be explored n depth. The term'reform' had rich and varied connotationsn the early 1830s, nd Mackenzie'suseof the term politicalunions'wouldhavehad powerfulOld-Country


11/18


This, very roughly,was he situation n the Canadason the eve ofthe Rebellion. I am quite aware that this compressed ketchof thesocialand political backgroundcould be debated in almost everyone of its particulars. ndeed, my hope is that brave soulswill some-day come forward o examine hese ssuesn somedepth and froman integratedpoint of viewencompassingoth Canadas.Meanwhile,I am anxiouso get on to the events f 1837-38.The pottedhistorythat followspaysparticularattention to the linkagesconnectingde-velopments n Upper Canadaand Lower Canada n an attempt togain a better graspof the essential ature of the Rebellioncrisisas awhole.

If we place ourselves t the beginningof 1837, almosta yearbeforearmed struggle rupted,we find the Canadas lreadyembroil-ed in a seriouspolitical crisis.The legislativebusiness f LowerCanadahad by then ground to a complete halt, owing to acute con-flict betweenthe electedand the appointed elementsof the legisla-ture. City councilsand schoolboardsno longer existedbecause hestatutes reating them had expired and could not be renewed.Nobudgetswere approved,and funds or routine stateoperationshadto be raisedby extraordinarymeans. n Upper Canada, he situationwas superficiallynormal; harmony reigned between the executiveand a Tory-dominatedAssembly.However,the legitimacyof thatAssemblywas by no meansuniversally ccepted; t was a matter ofnotoriety hat the 1836 electionhad been marked by poll violence,fraud, and gubernatorial nterference,and, whether or not thesefactors had truly determined the defeat of Reform, many UpperCanadians ertainly hought heyhad. The Toriesclearlyhad doubtsabout their popularity or, knowingthat the king did not have longto live and that consequently new electionwould have to be calledsoon, they passeda bill extending the life of the Assembly n dis-regard to the established racticeof dissolvinghe House upon thedeath of a monarch. Reform politiciansconcluded hat traditionalparliamentarypoliticswere at an end; the moderates mong themretired from public life, while Mackenzie used his newspaper opropound the view that the current Assemblywasnot simplyof thewrongpoliticalcomplexion,but was llegaland illegitimate.

resonances. ee.JohnBelcham, Republicanism, opularConstitutionalismndthe RadicalPlatform n EarlyNineteenth-CenturyEngland,' Social istory (,]an.1981): 1-32.


12/18


Many patriotesnd radicalReformersseem o have ooked orwardto the day when Canadawould be free of the 'baneful domination'of Great Britain. However, hiswasa blessinghey expected n thedistant uture;meanwhile,he threatof secessionouldbe employ-ed to extract concessions from the Colonial Office. Historians arequick to warn us that, at this stage,and even later when the crisisdeepened,mostUpper Canadians id not want a revolution. nsofaras revolution was associated with lawlessnessand bloodshed, thisobservations of courseperfectlycorrect,and it applies o LowerCanadians s well. But they did not want tyranny,oppression, ndinjusticeeither. The fact that mostCanadiansackedwhat might becalleda revolutionaryonsciousnessn 1837 s quite unremarkable;it simplyputs hem in the samecategory smostFrenchpeople nthespring f 1789,mostRussiansn early1917, ndmostEuropeansat the beginning of 1848. Revolutions re almostnever launched nconsequenceof some prior shift of public opinion in favour ofrevolt. Of course, he developmentof widespreadalienation fromthe existingorder does requentlyplaya role in precipitating crisisof government,but the populaceneed not have nsurrectionon itsmind at the outset. t is when the authorities re unable o co-opt,channel, or crush opposition,or when they are overwhelmed yfinancialcollapse France,1788) or military ailure (Russia, 905and 1917), hat the situation ecomesxplosive.n otherwords, e-volutionsoccurwhen governmentsind themselves nableto gov-ern, and thiswasust the situationacing he colonialadministrationof the Canadas s he springof 1837approached.Dangerous oliticalgridlockcouldnot be allowed o endure nde-finitely; His Majesty'sgovernment,claiming ultimate authority overBritish North America, therefore had to find a way out of the im-passe.After yearsof vacillationand repeatedattempts o conciliateirreconcilablecolonial parties, he cabinet now opted for a crack-down on the Lower Canadianpatriotes.ord John Russell's en Reso-lutionswere not exactlydraconian n their specificprovisions, utthey did constitutea clear rejectionofpatriotedemands or democra-tic constitutional eform. Furthermore, they allowed the colonialgovernorpower to spendfunds without the approvalof the Assem-bly, and this violated the sacredprinciple of 'no taxationwithoutrepresentation'proclaimedsince he time of the American Revolu-tion. In the strained atmosphereof the day, these measureswerebound to provokeangry reactions; he Colonial Office understoodthis clearly and immediatelyordered additional troops to LowerCanada.Sure enough, as soon as newsof the provocativeRussell


13/18


ResolutionseachedQuebec, adicalnewspaperseganhowlingwithindignationabout despotism' nd 'robbery'of the public purse.Only the lowerprovincewasdirectly mplicated n thesedevelop-ments, but Upper Canadiansof all political stripes ollowed themwith the closest ttention. n LowerCanada's ngoingcrisis, heynotonly sawa more vividand starklydrawnversionof their own debatesand conflicts,but they discerned unmistakableportents for thefuture of their corner of British North America. Thus, in the furoreover the RussellResolutions,Upper Canadian Tories fulminatedagainst treason'and 'French republicanism,'while an increasinglyanti-British Mackenzie sounded more and more like the leader of aLower Canadasolidaritycampaign.ParanoidTory fantasies otwith-standing, hiswasnot the product of any interprovincial evolution-ary conspiracy. ndeed, communicationswith the patrioteswerelimited, and personal elationsbetweenMackenzieand Papineauwere less than cordial, but when the British moved to provoke aconfrontationwith their neighbours,Upper Canadian adicalsknewthat their own future was hanging in the balance. The famousdeclaration 28 July) of the Toronto Friendsof Reform put it thisway: The Reformersof Upper Canadaare calledupon by every ieof feeling, interest, and duty, to make common causewith theirfellow citizens of Lower Canada, whose successful coercion woulddoubtlesse in timevisited ponus. 31Meanwhile, the patriotes ere mobilizing a wider public for amassive ampaignof protest.Localcommitteeswere established nd,betweenMay and September, allieswere held in townsand villagesacross owerCanada.Upper Canada ollowedsuitbeginning n July.Mackenziewas he driving orce, using he pagesof his newspaperourge the creationof local politicalunions'and touring the outlyingsettlementso rouseaudienceswith his fiery oratory.The speechesand the resolutions assed t theseUpper Canadianmeetingsnatu-rallydwelton the familiar itanyof FamilyCompactabuses nd othergrievances f strictly ocal interest.The occasionof the campaign,unprecedented n its intensity,was neverthelesshe confrontationbetweenthe Lower Canadianpatriotemovementand the govern-ment of the British empire. 'We earnestly ecommend every town-ship o form politicalunions,'editorializedhe StThomasLiberal,to

21 Colin Read and RonaldJ. Stagg,eds, TheRebellionf 1837 in UpperCanada:ACollectionfDocumentsOttawa:CarletonUniversity ress 985),54. Compare 2,70, 77, 87, 104, 105, 107, 316.


14/18


hold meetings nd to express oldly and aboveboard their deter-mination to rise or fall with their brethren in Lower Canada. '22Through the summer and fall, conflict in Lower Canada only

intensified.The governor, n a vain attempt o stem he agitation,had outlawed 'seditiousassemblies'n June; they continued un-abated, n spiteof government fforts o get localofficials o enforcethe ban. The administration's ext recoursewas o dismissdisloyal'militia officersandJustices f the Peace,but this actionpoliticizedlocal governmentand precipitatedpatriote ountermoves gainst'loyal' magistratesnd officers.The upshotwasthat, by late Oc-tober-earlyNovember, arge sections f the rural Districtof Mont-real had setup theirown evolutionizedocal egimes.3Sucha stateof affairs constituteda clear challengeto the sovereignty f theBritishEmpireand so,with ever argernumbers f soldiers rrivingin Montreal, t becamencreasinglypparent hatarmed orcewouldsoonbe usedagainst he patriotes.These new and graver developments ad a double impact onUpper Canada. irstof all, theyprovided n opportunityor actionby strippinghe province f British roops. he military uild-up nthe Districtof Montreal ook placeat the expense f other colonialgarrisons iththe effect hat,byearlyNovember, ot a single oldierremained n Upper Canada.Power elations ccordinglyilted infavourof the anti-governmentorces, houghnot to the degree hatMackenzie, reatly nderestimatinghe loyalistmilitia, hought.TheLowerCanadiandrift towards ar provided n impulse, swell asanopportunity,o Upper Canadian adicals. acinga major militaryonslaught,he patriotestood n obvious eed of support: ot justsupport n the customaryorm of speechesnd encouragingesolu-tions,but substantialiversionaryction. Let me advise very riendof the people,'Mackenzie roteon the eveof the Battleof StDenis,'to providehimselfwith a rifle, or a musket r gun ... keepoureyes nLowerCanada.4 n earlyDecember, hortly fter newswouldhavereachedUpper Canadaof the outbreakof armedconflict n theDistrictof Montreal, nsurgents archeddownYongeStreet n theirill-fatedattempt o captureToronto.Word quickly preadwestward

22 ReadandStagg, ds,1837 n Upper anada,5. Mackenzievenannouncedisinitial plans o organize n extra-parliamentaryetworkhalfwayhroughanarticle describinghe progress f the anti-governmentampaignn LowerCanada.Clark,MovementsfPoliticalrotest,7523 For flirther detailsseeGreet, ThePatriots nd thePeople,19-26.24 ?heConstitution,2Nov.1837, uotedn AnthonyW. Rasporich,d.,William yonMackenzieToronto:Holt, RinehartandWinston1972),69 (emphasisn original)


15/18


to the London District and there, in a tertiary reaction, radical forcesassembledn supportof their colleagues ut dispersedwithout firinga shotwhen it becameclear that the gamewasup and that resistancewas utile. The fighting n 1837 had been far more extensive ndintense n Lower than in Upper Canada; he casualtyigures eflectthe disparity:about 250 men killed in battle in the former, four inthe latter? Yet it was only a matter of weeks rom the time thebullets began to fly until the governmentand its supportershadtriumpheddecisivelyn both provinces.The crisiswasby no meansat an end, however.Hundreds, per-haps housands, f refugeesled to the United States n the wake ofthe first round of fightingand, in the process,hey helped to keepthe revolutionalivewhile widening ts geographicscope.There wastremendous ublicsupport or the Canadian ebels,especiallyn theborderlandsof northern Vermont, New York, Ohio, and Michigan.However, the United Statesgovernment,a major actor in the crisisof 1837-38, decided to preservepeace with Great Britain at theexpenseof revolution n the Canadas, nd this decisioneventuallysealed he fate of the latter. Yet, for a time, the federal governmenthad difficulty imposing ts will on the turbulent northern frontier.'Patriots,'Americanaswell asFrench-and English-Canadian,aunch-ed a series of border raids in 1838; these culminated in November ofthat year in a comparativelyarge-scalenvasionof Lower Canada,coupledwith a risingof LowerCanadian ebels.Cross-borderctionsagainstUpper Canada ended ncreasinglyo be the work of USciti-zens, ockednow n conflictnot onlywith the Britishcolonial gimebut also with their own government,which quickly expanded itsarmy by about 50 per cent in order to take activemeasureso pre-serveAmericanneutrality nd bring northernPatriots o heel. 6By the end of 1838, he colonial egimehad completelymasteredthe situation rom a militarypoint of view;politically, ar-reaching25 Senior,RedcoatsndPatriotes,13;G.M. Craig, UpperCanada: heFormative ears,1784-1841Toronto:McClelland Stewart 963),247-8.Note that hese iguresapply o the first phaseof the Rebellioncrisisonly. My thanks o Colin Read forguidanceon thissubject.26 See especiallyAlbert B. Corey, The Crisisof 1830-1842 n Canadian-AmericanRelationsNew Haven: Yale UniversityPress 1941), 44-69, but also Oscar A.Kinchen, TheRise ndFall of hePatriotHunters New York:Bookman1956);OrrinEdwardTiffany, The Relationsf the UnitedStateso the CanadianRebellionf1837-1838 Buffalo1905);EdwinC. Guillet, TheLives nd Times f thePatriots

(Toronto:University f TorontoPress 968);JohnDuffyand H. NicholasMuller,'The Great Wolf Hunt: The Popular Response n Vermont to the PatrioteUprisingof 1837,' ournal fAmericantudies (Aug.1974):153-69.


16/18


changeswere under way,all designed o consolidate he victoryandstrengthengovernment.For the Rebellionwasnot exclusively orevenprimarily a militaryaffair, nor was t only the work of 'rebels.'The seriousness f the crisiscan be gauged not only in the far-reachingchallengeso the existingorder, but also n the extraordi-nary measures aken to preserveBritishrule. In addition to mount-ing militaryassaults gainst tsLowerCanadian oes, he governmentalsoeffectedan unprecedenteduridical revolution o guarantee tsvictory. Martial law was imposed, habeas corpus suspended, ndarrests were carried out on a massivescale and largely withoutchargesbeing laid. Legal surgerywas ess adical n Upper Canadawhere the revolutionary hreat was essserious,but even here theright of habeascorpuswas abridged:an unorthodox systemwasestablished f summaryconviction nd attainder of prisonerswhopetitioned for pardons.Finally, egislationpassed n March 1838gave mmunity from prosecution o loyalistswho may havebrokenthe law n apprehendingebels?This astprovision ointsus n thedirectionof the unofficialbut veryreal actions aken againstoppo-nents of government n the Rebellion years.Both Canadianprov-incesprovidedozensof instances f assault,heft and destruction fproperty,and arbitraryarrestcommittedby oyalist orces.Of course,such irregularities are almost inevitable n times of civil strife, butthey do constitutean additional dimension o the abandonmentofthe rule of law.

In the years ollowing he fighting, he Britishcolonial egimewasnot so much restored as reconstituted. The state, in its administrativeand executive spects, rewenormouslyn size,scope, nd power. nthe short run, soldiersand police proliferated,but, before long,more peacefulagencies f regulationcame to predominate: chools,prisons,asylums, nd aboveall, bureaucracies. By the end of the1840s n arrangementknownasResponsible overnmenthad beenworked out to help coordinate executive, egislature,and elec-torate.) The provincial Assemblyof Lower Canada was gone forgood; n its place, an appointedSpecialCouncil (1838-41) was reeto passunpopular measuresn fieldssuchas the law, property,andmunicipalgovernment?The two Canadaswere united, as is wellknown, n order to allow he resumptionof the parliamentary ystem27 Readand Stagg,TheRebellionf 1837 n Upper anada,xxxvii-viii28 Brian Young, PositiveLaw, PositiveState:ClassRealignmentand the Transfor-

mation of Lower Canada, 1815-1866,' in Allan Greer and Ian Radforth, eds,ColonialLeviathan:StateFormationn Mid-Nineteenth enturyCanada (Toronto:Universityof Toronto Press1992), 50-63


17/18


without etting the FrenchCanadians ave he degreeof power heirnumberswould otherwiseentitle them to. A punitive forced mar-riage, the Act of Union attempted to solvethe 'French-Canadianproblem' throughrepression, nd, assuch, t represented he nega-tion of the insurgent piritof 1837-38with its mplicitcommitmentto self-determinationnd mutualsupport. Successoregimeswouldbe paying he price for that authoritariansolution or manyyears ocome ) All in all, the decisivedefeat of republicanopposition n theCanadas aved he way or a major transformation f imperial rule.No matter how paltry the militarycontests f the Rebellionmayseem, his had been a political urning-pointof the first magnitude.From the summerof 1837until the end of 1838, he central part ofBritish North America underwenta thoroughgoingcrisisof sover-eignty,one in which he very rameworkof statepowerwas n dangerof collapse. undamental uestions ame o the fore, not asabstractdebatingpoints but as real problems equiring immediate answers:Who would rule the Canadas? How would that rule be carried out?Its legitimacycontested n theory and challenged n practice, thestatecould hardly carryout its normal function as ultimate arbiter;insteadof containingand channellingpolitical contention, t wasnow the actual object of conflict.Wherever there are parties andfactionsone finds competition or power and influence, and, inparliamentary ystems,or the right to form a government; ut, in1837-38, he actual rameworkof politicswasat stake: hat is whatmade this a revolutionary risis.Much hasof necessity een left out of thiscompressed ccountofthe crisisof 1837-38.However, hope that its inadequaciesan beoverlookedn keepingwith the spiritof the exercise. have ried tobring out the contingency f events nd to dispensewith the meta-physicalorcesof Fate,Destiny, nd capital-hHistory; lsoabsent remaster-plotterscripting heir revolutionary cenariosn advance fevents.Almosteveryaction,whether by rebels, oyalists, r govern-ment, wasalsoa reaction:developments ere interconnected ndreciprocal, epression nd resistance rovokingone another indialectical ashion. A spatial dynamic s also apparent, with theeffectsof conflict adiatingoutward rom an epicentre n the Districtof Montreal. Each succeeding olitical or military explosion heresentout shockwaveshat detonatedsecondary pheavals,irst in theToronto area, then around London, and finally acrossadjacentregions f the United States. lashesookdifferent orms n eachofthe widelydispersedreas ffected;moreover, he people nvolvednthe two Canadas nd in the United Statesspokedifferent languages,partookof differentpoliticalcultures, nd cherished varietyof


18/18


aspirations. et, for all its internal diversity,hiswasa singlehistorbcal phenomenon,and no phase of it can be fully understood nisolation from the whole?

29 Certainly the Rebellion was multifaceted an'd, as a consequence, istoriansofethnicity or of classstruggle,gender formation or popular violence, can findample material n 1837-38 or research nd reflection. hope it is understoodthat, far from disparagingnquiries f thissort, welcomehem.Similarly, hereis no reason o object to the studyof the Rebellion n the context of Ontariohistoryor Quebechistory, s ong asneitherprovinces treatedasa completelyself-contained ntity.The author wishes o thank an anonymousCanadianHistorical eview ssessororhelptiff comments,and the Social Scienceand Humanities ResearchCouncil ofCanada or research unding.