![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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) :
Mathieugp 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
The paragraph titled 'background' is a little unclear to me in this regard. It first refers to the entire area of New France meaning all French continental territory east of the Mississippi. Then it refers to 'the territory located along the St. Lawrence River, called Canada by the French, (which) was renamed Quebec by the British'. Then it goes to 'administration of the territories acquired in the war', which seems to imply all the territory. So my first question is 'is it correct to refer to the inhabitants of the area conquered by the British as Canadians in 1763? Or were the Canadians only those "along the St Lawrence River"?'
And my second question is, I usually see the word spelled Canadiens when referring to the inhabitants of New France, in English. In other words the word is not translated. I don't know what is standard. The hyperlink at the 3rd or 4th time the word appears does not lead to anything having to do with the particular 'Canadien' identity which some historians describe as having developed among these people. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
i'm not sure the jesuits were "allowed back in", as the article states. please double check. my understanding is that the british crown seized jesuit property in quebec, and though the new government allowed the jesuits present at the time of the conquest to remain, they could not add to their numbers. the plan was to let them die out in a generation.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The section entitled "Participation of the Canadiens" suggests that the Act did not succeed in attracting support from the Canadiens, and gives three lengthy quotations from correspondence. However, those extracts are all cited to Shortt, and that text is a reproduction of the documents, without any analysis. The conclusion that the Act did not attract support from the Canadiens therefore strikes me as original research/synthesis. Need reliable sources (secondary) to support the statements in this section of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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) :
Mathieugp 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
The paragraph titled 'background' is a little unclear to me in this regard. It first refers to the entire area of New France meaning all French continental territory east of the Mississippi. Then it refers to 'the territory located along the St. Lawrence River, called Canada by the French, (which) was renamed Quebec by the British'. Then it goes to 'administration of the territories acquired in the war', which seems to imply all the territory. So my first question is 'is it correct to refer to the inhabitants of the area conquered by the British as Canadians in 1763? Or were the Canadians only those "along the St Lawrence River"?'
And my second question is, I usually see the word spelled Canadiens when referring to the inhabitants of New France, in English. In other words the word is not translated. I don't know what is standard. The hyperlink at the 3rd or 4th time the word appears does not lead to anything having to do with the particular 'Canadien' identity which some historians describe as having developed among these people. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
i'm not sure the jesuits were "allowed back in", as the article states. please double check. my understanding is that the british crown seized jesuit property in quebec, and though the new government allowed the jesuits present at the time of the conquest to remain, they could not add to their numbers. the plan was to let them die out in a generation.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The section entitled "Participation of the Canadiens" suggests that the Act did not succeed in attracting support from the Canadiens, and gives three lengthy quotations from correspondence. However, those extracts are all cited to Shortt, and that text is a reproduction of the documents, without any analysis. The conclusion that the Act did not attract support from the Canadiens therefore strikes me as original research/synthesis. Need reliable sources (secondary) to support the statements in this section of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)