Talk:Lower Canada Rebellion

Street fight

I remember seeing on TV (CBC, I think) that the physical disturbance began with a street fight (or a series of fights, as this chronology indicates). How does this fit into the pre-emptive strike of Gosford -- whose purpose seems to be prevent a planned Patriote attack and not to supress the street fight or arrest the culprit of fight (traces back to Papineau, presumably)? --Menchi 00:33, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Les Patriotes & Les Fils de la Liberté

Are Les Fils de la Liberté a subgroup of Les Patriotes? I get the impression from reading this article that they are the same thing. --Menchi 00:33, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Probably the street fight led to the pre-emptive arrests...there was probably some violence going on that may have only been remotely connected to the Patriote party, even before 1837. I don't know who the Les Fils are though. (I really only know details from the Upper Canada rebellion, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop 00:42, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bravo!

I was so impressed by this article! It is the first time in my life I read a mostly non-biased report of these events in English. Congratulations! I will try to feed you with all the information you need to make this article even more precise. I can't do it myself because English is not my first language an I don't write it well. Here are some links you will be interested in.

Speech of Louis-Joseph Papineau at the Institut Canadien

Do you read French? All the details are at :

Les Patriotes de 1837-1838

The Fils de la liberté were an organization with two branches: A civil one and a military one. The Fils de la liberté was set up in 1837 as the answer to the Doric Club, the reborn British Rifle Corp. For many months, the Doric Club tried to provoke the Fils de la liberté and other patriotes to break the law. The leader of the Doric Club was a Smith I think. He was the Editor of the Montreal Herald and the author of some racist junk known as The Anti-Gallic Letters. Papineau was the leader of the Patriot party, not the Fils de la liberté. Papineau organized a wide-scale boycott of all British products. At one point (can't remember the date exactly) Gosford orders the arrest of Papineau and other leaders for no good motives. He resigned pretty much at the same time and took a boat back to Britain. Also, it is good to remind readers that around that time, many other nations were freeing themselves from the colonial yoke. For example, many countries in South America and also Greece and Belgium in Europe. --Mathieugp

Bias

JillandJack, why did you insert the "bias" template on this page? What is the problem? Adam Bishop 07:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article is a deliberate distortion.

This article says:

• 1) Indeed, a first armed conflict occurred in 1837 when the 26 leaders of the Patriote movement chose to resist their arrest by the British army of John Colborne.
  • Q: What were they being arrested for?

• • A: The mendates of arrest were emitted by the Governor of the colony, Lord Gosford. Officially, they were arrested for something called "high treason". One little problem: Under British law, "high treason" meant attempting to kill the King (or Queen) of Great Britain. This is the heritage of the reign of King Eduard III. But, was Victoria in Lower Canada at the time? No. How could they have attempted to kill her in America? 108 men were prosecuted for a crime they could not possibly have committed.
    • Article could probably stand to mention the grounds of arrest. This isn't a POV issue, though, just "not enough information". Bearcat

• 2) These events are often misreported,
  • Q: How so and if so, by whom?

• • A: This is a vague statement. The events were and still are misreported by all those who have interest in seeing this period of history forgotten by the population of Quebec and the rest of Canada. The knowledge of these events stimulated Quebec nationalism and is therefore a threat to Canadian unity. Since it is quite a contentious subject to deal with, I suggest we simply remove it for now and work on a neutral way to present this reality.

• 3) and the unelected British executive and legislative bodies
  • Q: It then contradicts itsef by saying: Reformer Louis-Joseph Papineau was elected speaker of the colonial assembly in 1815. The assembly, while elected, had little power; its decisions could be vetoed by a legislative council and governor appointed by the British government.
  • A: The Legislative Assembly was elective. The Executive Council and the Legislative Council were not elective. This is an accurate statement.
    • Agreed with Mathieu, but perhaps the wording could be made a bit less ambiguous. Bearcat

• 4) The movement for reform took shape in a period of economic disenfranchisement of the French-speaking majority. In banking, the timber trade, and transportation, Anglophones were disproportionately represented (for example, Anglophones accounted for 5% of the population of Rimouski in 1842, but 50% of the businessmen).
  • Q:Really? If true, why? -- This is an opinion, an encyclopedia is supposed to provide facts. The population of Rimouski in 1842 was how many? How is this example relevant to anything? Statements like this sound eerily familiar from 1933-1945 about another group of people who "owned" everything.
  • A: You say why? Because the goverment policies in place at the time shamelessly favored the development of the British minority in Lower Canada. It is a relevant example (although admitedly we need more such examples and ideally province-wide stats) because it illustrates the inequality between the two groups. Your assertion that this statement sounds like a common negative perception of the Jews during 1933-1945 is absolutely unfounded. The British in Canada were a colonizing force: they were using the power of their state and their laws to control the destiny of Lower and Upper Canada. They were in a situation of power (unlike the Jews in Europe who were stateless).
    • The fact that Anglo-Quebecers were disproportionately represented in Lower Canada's elite over French Canadians is an undisputed matter of historical record. This didn't fundamentally change until the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s. Bearcat

• 5) At the same time, many among the increasingly Anglophone business elite were pushing for a union of Upper and Lower Canada, a plan favoured by the British-appointed governor, George Ramsey, Earl of Dalhousie.
  • Q:Today, this is called lobbying and the business “elite” pays professionals millions of dollars a year to promote their interest with the government.
  • A: Some things have not changed...
    • Lobbying, pushing for, tomato, tomahto. Not POV, just difference in word choice. Bearcat

• 6) However, Papineau continued to push for reform. He petitioned the British government to bring about reform, but in March of 1837 the government of Lord Russell rejected all of Papineau's requests.
  • Q: What requests? - And why were they rejected?
  • A: The requests are in the 92 resolutions. In short, the Parti patriote demanded that Lower Canada get the same kind of political institutions that Great Britain had. The official reasons for their rejection are in the Russell's resolutions.
    • Could be made clearer. Again, though, more "not enough information" than POV, per se. Bearcat

Fact: Historical records show Paineau was mentally unstable: Quote a French history professor from the link herewith ([1]) to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online : "The thinking of a man so unstable as Papineau, and a politician into the bargain, is not easy to describe."

• Not fact: Your assertion that your quote is 1) a historical record and 2) a proof that Papineau was mentally unstable is a logical fallacy. Please read Logical Fallacy and especially Appeal to authority. Historian Fernand Ouellette's contribution to Quebec historiography is important, but his opinion of Papineau is not the only one. Historian Robert Rumilly made a famous bio of him and more recently, Papineau's political thought was analyzed by Claude Corbo and Yvan Lamonde. Reading and understanding Papineau is a lot more difficult than just point out the fact that his opinions changed over time.

• • Even if Papineau was mentally unstable (and JillandJack's quote only proves that some people believe he was), I don't see how it's relevant to the matter at hand. Bearcat

• 7) In November of 1837, Lord Gosford, governor of Lower Canada, ordered the arrest of 26 Patriote leaders. This marked the beginning of the armed rebellion as many leaders chose to resist arrest or try to escape by crossing the US border.
  • Q: Why did he order their arrest?
  • A: You want the real answer or the official reason of the government? The government ordered the arrest of all the Patriote leaders who organized the boycotts and the protests. The government wanted to avoid loosing the two Canadas the way they had lost the colonies of the south. They decided not to wait for the people to be ready for war this time.
    • Yet again, not NPOV, just "not enough information". Could be made more clear. Bearcat

• 8) The rebellion of the Patriotes Canadiens of Lower Canada is often seen as the example of what could have happened to America if the American Revolutionary War had failed.
  • Q:Really? How so? And, based on what facts does this get included in an Encyclopedia?
  • A: Is it that difficult to see a parallel between a the American Revolutionary War and the Lower Canada Rebellion?
    • Can a reference be provided? Bearcat

SEE: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39325&query=Papineau

JillandJack 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Mathieugp 18:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FOR: User:Oven Fresh You have removed my NPOV label three times. Do not do it again. The purpose of an NPOV notice is to effect change of an article with actual facts, not an argument on its talk page. Please refrain from your actions and abide by Wikipedia policy and good manners. If not, we can take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution -- JillandJack 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An "argument" on the talk page is the mechanism for discussing and resolving NPOV concerns. Wikipedia quite explicitly has a policy against people flagging an article for NPOV and then refusing to discuss their concerns on the talk page; an NPOV notice can be removed from the article if you refuse to discuss the matter. You also cannot pick and choose who you'll discuss it with; you must engage in constructive, civil discussion with all parties who express interest in the discussion whether they "perpetrated" the POV or not. Furthermore, repeated NPOV tagging without discussion is considered a form of vandalism. Bearcat 19:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most of the items on the list above do not seem to be POV issues, and certainly not "deliberate distortions." I would suggest: 1. This is not a POV issue. If you want to add more information, please do so. 2. This statement is vague, not POV, and should be expanded or deleted. 3. No contradiction. Besides, contradictions do not in themselves constitute a POV. 4. If you doubt the stastistic, you should ask for a source, rather than comparing the author's contribution with anti-Semitism. 5. Call it "lobbying" if you want. Call it "pushing for" something. Neither choice of words violates the NPOV guidelines. 6. Again, if you want more information, add it. Don't label the entire article as violating the NPOV guidelines. 7. Ditto. 8. This is a silly bit of historical speculation that should just be deleted. In summary, I think the POV tag is overkill. There are problems with the article, but few of them are "deliberate distortions," a phrase that violates the Wikipedia guideline that say we should assume good faith on the part of our fellow contributors. HistoryBA 00:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

I'm giving this a B-class mark just to remain consistent with how it's already been assessed by the Canadian workgroup; it does, however, need a military conflict infobox. Looks kinda bare and empty to my eye without it. LordAmeth 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an infobox, although some information (esp. Patriote strength) is an estimate, taken by adding the known strength of all documented Patriote formations. 67th Tigers 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

US involvement?

Not a word of the alledged 40,000 men that participated in the fight. Whats up, are we too ashamed that there was a defeat here or what?Tourskin (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who would be ashamed, Americans? I suspect they just don't know about it. I've never heard of it and we relish American defeats! Also, if it is "alleged", perhaps it is not true? Do you have any info about it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look back in the article history at the edit war between RepublicanJacobite and an IP. The number appears to come from the high-end estimate of the Patriot Hunter's Lodge membership. Whether the entire membership of the US lodges should be factored into the combat strength of the rebellion I leave for others to discuss. Choess (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was me, and the ref was the first supporting *internet* reference I could find. 67th Tigers (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I found in French concerning the enrolment in the Frères chasseurs:

"Le nombre exact de personnes impliquées dans l’Association reste problématique : Colborne parle de 200 000 membres, ce qui est certes un chiffre exagéré , alors que dans sa déposition, Loop Odell affirme que Côté lui aurait dit que 40 000 personnes avaient prêté le serment chasseur (FORTIN, 1988 : 58; STATE TRIALS, vol. 2 : 54)."

Which translates to:

"The exact number of people involved in the Association remains problematic: Colborne speaks of 200,000 members, which is a rather exaggerated figure, while during his deposition, Loop Odell asserted that Côté would have told him that 40,000 people had sworn in (FORTIN, 1988 : 58; STATE TRIALS, vol. 2 : 54)"

I doubt very much that 40,000 is even remotely close to the number of people who participated in the actual gun fights. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just a little confused: if the US government itself was not involved but rather individual Americans, why is the US listed as a belligerent? Wouldn't that be the same as listing the US as a belligerent in the Spanish Civil War, when there were only American volunteers in the International Brigades?--69.123.112.18 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

I undid the revert commented with "Rv; no reason given for wholesale removal of relevant material." because in fact no relevant material was removed: it was simply moved:

• Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada

Consequently, I replaced the rather incomplete (and arguably partial) bibliography I had introduced in the article with a neutral list of all the main English-language works that exist on the subject. The rest can still be consulted in the bibliography page. I am happy that so many of the key documents are readable online. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

I am absolutely astounded by the amount of revisionism in this articles and those related to it. As discussed above in the talk page, the first armed conflict was an act of self-defense from unwarranted accusations. The entire first rebellion was nothing short of the English settlers attacking the French population after the colonial military leader baselessly accused the members of the legislative assembly of treason after the governor's resignation. There was no organized rebellion being prepared, there was no plan to expel the English, there was not even a thought about firing a weapon towards anyone from the "Patriotes" until they had to defend themselves from hysterical mobs and soldiers. It's in fact why Papineau was simply exiled instead of being executed: They never managed to prove he did anything wrong, and god knows they tried to find something.

The entire thing needs to be rewritten. There are plenty of historical sources explaining what happened, from both sides of the coin. This current version is nothing but a disgusting whitewash attempt. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Canada Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033836/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)