Here are some initial questions that I have been thinking about.

1. Was it successful?

2. Is Canada ready for another uprising?

3. Is this part of Canadian history taught in school still? Should it be taught?

Regular rabble contributor Rick Salutin wrote a play with 1837 as the subject.

[ 13 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

There were a few soldiers from my hometown that were part of Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

And there was a good deal of discussion about the causes of the rebellion in Upper Canada, ( Not so much about Lower Canada) about Mackenzie, his press, and the rather pathetic attempt at armed rebellion that was quashed quite handily.

What is interesting was what wasn't taught at the time. Specifically, the reign of terror against not only bona fide rebels, but anyone who expressed a fondness for democracy.

The leader of the reign of terror was Sir Francis Bond Head. And while it seems on first glance that Elgin's reforms-- the basic legislatures that we know today here in Canada, but which were also the template for all English Colonies-- were in response to the rebellion, the in fact were not.

Elgin's reforms were a response to the tory reign of terror, that Elgin perhaps correctly, saw as leading to another and bloodier rebellion that might have seen Upper Canada adopt a repulican system.

It was lost on no one that there was a very good and robust example just a few miles to the south, that was proving in practice Thomas Paine's demolition of Burke's defense of the British system.

And that's what we are left with today, a system that does it's best to for stall rebellion, while maintaining the select interests of a chosen few for as long as possible.

Is Canada ready for another uprising? I really don't think so. Certainly not in terms of armed rebellion. Such things are actually decided by the people in power, and while past and current history attests the their ruthlessness, fact of the matter is that those in a position to rebel have not even begun to exhaust all other avenues.

Is it taught in schools today?

I'm not sure. Wait a sec, here comes my daughter... She answers in the negative. It strikes me that when my two older daughters took history in elementary school ( I believe they avoided it in high school-- and the fact they were not disowned by me on that account alone attests to the broadness of my love and forgiveness of them) it was quite disjointed and disorganized. Utterly useless is another phrase I'd use.

And certainly it should be taught. When it comes to history, the current curriculum should be taught based on what wasn't taught before. The lies in education aren't in what is taught, but in what is left out.

Was the rebellion good for Canada?

Well, that's still up to us, isn't it?

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I always used to love it, when I worked near Yonge and Eglinton, when I saw these spoiled little queens canvassing among the plebes in the subway for donations for food banks or the homeless or whatever disease of the month it happened to be. I always wanted to say to them, "Get your rich daddy to put in my share, thanks."

---

Revolution in Upper Canada

quote:

---

ONE MIGHT EXPECT that in the autumn of 1837 the fires of revolutionary America had all but expired and that popular energies were entirely focused on the westward movement or the raging depression. Indeed, for most Americans these were the major preoccupations of the day. However, for inhabitants on the northern frontier, which stretched from Maine along the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes to Wisconsin, the fight for land and liberty, and hatred of British colonial oppression, remained burning issues as well. The focus of their concerns was the ensuing rebellions against British Crown rule to the North, led first by Louis-Joseph Papineau in Montréal, Lower Canada (LC), and shortly thereafter by William Lyon Mackenzie in Toronto, Upper Canada (UC). Nearly two decades of fruitless reform struggle against the intransigent rule of the Family Compact in UC and the Chateau Clique in LC had made it a relatively foregone conclusion that the reformers would be pushed to the barricades. These two hereditary oligarchies held a monopoly on land, maintained a political choke-hold on legal and political institutions, stifled religious liberty, retarded the spread of public education, and thus ruled, in the colourful words of Mackenzie, as a "venal tribe, who ... are now fattening on the spoils of this country." The uprisings had been widely anticipated on both sides of the United States/Canada border for months. Ill-prepared for their first attempts, Papineau and Mackenzie, along with hundreds of their troops, were quickly routed and forced to flee south to the US where they were welcomed with open arms by the vast majority of Americans. Allied with their Canadian brethren, Americans on the northern border eagerly joined what they called the Patriot movement to sweep British tyranny from the continent. Until late 1838 this movement engulfed the northern frontier of the US involving many thousands of Americans in military efforts to replace British "thralldom" in Canada with a radical republican form of government.

---

The discussion of American support for Canadian democratic demands and the Canada-US Patriot movement is particularly interesting.

quote:

---

The US Patriot movement had far-reaching ramifications that merit a recognition they have not generally received by historians. As part of a bi-national Patriot movement, US Patriots presented a major military presence, though widely dispersed and poorly led, which, according to historian Allan Greer, threatened British sovereign rule in the Canadas. Combined with other simmering border disputes in the northeast, periodic Patriot filibustering posed the question of war between the US and Britain, ultimately compelling the two nations to coordinate diplomatic and military efforts to suppress the movement. .... Normally, developments of this magnitude would qualify for extensive coverage, but aside from a few notable scholarly works devoted to the Canada-US Patriot movement, US historians have been all but silent in their recognition of it.

---

The depression of 1837 and the mass unemployment associated with it helped swell the ranks of men (and (some) women as well) looking for work as Patriot soldiers. The working class as a social group was starting to exert its social views on the tone of public debates not just in Europe but also in the New World. Our class, the working class, was beginning to flex its muscles and make demands for a just society instead of the rule of the banks, Family Compacts, and bandits (Tories). That struggle remains unfinished but not forgotten. Hooray for our side and honour to those who fought, win or lose.

The author notes that the Canadian rebels were more enlightened that their American supporters in one very important way:

quote:

---

Racism was the Achilles heel of radical Democracy in the US. US blacks were largely absent from the Patriot ranks despite Point Seven of Mackenzie's draft program, which specifically entitled "People of Colour ... to all the rights of native Canadians." The same is true for Canadian blacks who served the Crown in large numbers to put down the rebellion.

---

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Now in realistic terms the rebellion was started in Lower Canada by the ongoing turmoil by the French in Quebec being underrepresented in government (a very true statement at the time. It only spilled over into Upper Canada due to failed crops and government corruption under the Family Compact (point made by Tommy about the disgusting amount of streets, schools, and offices named after these racist WASPS).

It's important to note that despite our thoughts that the American hegemony started after World War 2, the Monroe Doctrine had been proclaimed in 1823. The Americans wanted no one else to interfere with revolutions in the Americas (as Bolivar was tromping through State after state overthrowing Spanish rule) and they were fermenting revolution everywhere, and in fact sent resources and men to the Lower Canadian Rebellion to help vs the British.

This is a very important point as you can imagine what would have happened with a newly freed from colonial rule Canada might have done with a free and republic neighbour. We may be dealing with Natfa and SPP today, but I can almost guarantee that it would have led to States number 51 and 52 back in 1938 (I'm sure they would have given us two states to work with, not just one 'Canada').

So if we're happy we're not american, it's good that it failed, however it did lead to a continuation of the Family Compact and british control of Canada.

To answer the questions

Was it successful? Not in it's stated Goals

Is Canada ready for another uprising? I see no reason why not.

Is this part of Canadian history taught in school still? Should it be taught? If it is, barely, and yes it should be, along with a lot of other history that gets glossed over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1weasel:
That (Yonge/Eglinton) is also near the site of Montgomery's Tavern. Wasn't it a little west of the present subway station, around the park on the north side of Eglinton?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

I was locked up in there one night, and taken for questioning a few times for one minor matter or another.

---