The 1837-1838 Rebellions: A Comparison
When two events happen so close together in time and space one can only wonder about if and how they are linked. It is easy to assume that the relative similarity of the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada in 1837-38 would mean that they were linked in their cause and execution. This is especially true because of the communications between the leaders of each movement, as well as some common grievances put forward by both sides. However, looks can be deceiving, as there are aspects of each rebellion that make them distinct from each other. Lower Canada had a different standing with the British, and were concerned with their language and culture, as well as discrimination that was not present in Upper Canada. To lump these two rebellions together as a single entity does not do justice to the complexities of each situation. While some of the reasons for rebelling were similar in both colonies, the rebellions in Upper Canada and Lower Canada had little in common except for timing.
The citizens of Upper Canada had many reasons to rebel against the British. The British had tried to create a conservative society with as many safeguards as possible against popular democracy. There were concerns from government officials in Upper Canada and in Britain were worried about the attitude and number of Americans coming into the colony. The Alien Question, arising after the War of 1812 alienated many American settlers as colonial officers were determined to deny American immigrants land and the right to hold public office. The Family Compact, a close-knit group of people, held a large portion of the public offices in Upper Canada. The Family Compact also controlled a large portion of the Crown reserves of land, making it hard for people to settle in the countryside. The Anglican clergy controlled another large portion of the reserves, but other protestant clergies were not granted the same rights. The favorites that were granted large tracts of land were often free from taxes and regulations, while real settlers were subject to many restrictions and fees. These reserves also meant that people could not settle in groups, making the farms isolated and less efficient than if they were closer together. There was a pressing need for roads in the countryside of Upper Canada, but the resources of the colony went instead to the construction of the St. Lawrence and Welland canals, which helped to raise the profits of the merchants of York and Kingston. The non-Anglican ministries could not gain funding to set up schools, could not solemnize marriages or keep civil registries. During elections land patents, which conferred the right to vote, were only distributed to sympathetic voters so to guarantee Tory candidates winning. Government officials also tried to influence elections by demanding proof of citizenship from men well known to authorities as well as by offering sympathetic voters free alcohol. These were not the only matters pressing on the Upper Canadian population, but they are some of the more noteworthy.
Although they shared some of the same grievances, there were many more concerns at stake in Lower Canada. Many of these reasons were made public in the 92 Resolutions, which were issued in 1834. The Resolutions were aimed against the inadequacies of the Constitutional Act, namely the way that it structured power in Lower Canada. The leaders did not agree with the fact that this act allowed the Crown to select an entire branch of the legislature, which is the Legislative Council. There were also grievances against the Executive Council, which was secret from even the Parliament in not only its function, but in whom the members were. They were also against the fact that although there were 525,000 persons of French descent and only 75,000 of English or other origin, 157 public servants were of English or other descent and only 47 were of French descent. These positions were also concentrated in the hands of the Chateau Clique, an oligarchic group similar to the Family Compact in Upper Canada. They used these positions to extract large and illegal fees for public services, including but not limited to the judiciary. There were also a set of complaints directed at the elections of the Assembly, in which members of the Legislative Council as well as the army interfered with the voting process of citizens by force and by giving land to those who would vote the way that they were told. The final issue at stake was the appropriation of wastelands of the province by “Governors, Legislative and Executive Councilors, Judges and subordinate officers”. This was made possible by the way that the Constitutional Act allowed for the faulty systems which were followed in granting land (and thereby voting rights), and meant that many people were unable to settle in the countryside. These are most but not all of the grievances that were put forward by the Lower Canadian leaders. The rejection of the 92 Resolutions by Russell’s 10 resolutions solidified the fact in their minds that they had to use force if they wanted to see anything change.
There were also grievances amongst the habitants of the seigneurial system unique to Lower Canada as well as young professionals, which lent popular support to Papineau’s cause. Many of the wealthy British merchants bought out the French seigneurs as the price of wheat rose, and by 1837 nearly one half of all seigneuries were in British hands. These merchants, along with the French landowners who had come to resemble the British, viewed their new lands in terms of speculation. On new seigneuries they raised the rents, enforced half forgotten feudal obligations, introduced new methods of farming, and with their control of the court system the merchants were able to reduce the habitants to little more than day laborers. This left the tenants with little to feed themselves, while it made the predominantly British merchants tidy little sums. The young professionals trained from or immigrating to Lower Canada also found it difficult to scrap together a living. The medical and legal professions were dominated by old and powerful societies which were favored by the Crown and recruited sparingly from graduates from schools in London. This left little room for the learned sons of French habitants, who would join the rebellion in their frustration and idleness.
The citizens of Lower Canada also had to struggle more against the tides of immigrants, being the port which ships sailed in to, than Upper Canada did. With these immigrants came many diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhus. A quarantine station was set up in 1832 at Grosse Ile, but it hardly stemmed the tide of disease as captains dropped passengers on riverbanks to avoid paying immigration head taxes and waiting to unload the sick. 52,000 immigrants landed at Grosse Ile with 24,000 reported sick, and over the summer of 1832 3,800 died in Quebec, 4,000 in Montreal, and 2,500 in York along with thousands of others along the banks of the St. Lawrence and on Grosse Ile itself. Cholera would return two years later with agricultural problems on the seigneuries. Poor farming practices paired with success by newer farmers with newer technologies and failed harvests in 1833 and 1836 left many hungry, sick and too poor to do anything about it.
Although each rebellion stemmed from a different set of grievances, they were enflamed by a similar set of events, that is, the economic downturn of 1837. The first quarter of the 19th century saw the beginnings of a struggle between agriculture and commerce, two areas that were dominated by very different groups of people. The Napoleonic Wars had put a premium on wheat, and British North America had been primed to supply Europe. There were slumps in its importance, but the growing dominance of farming was not matched by an increase in political power. These farmers were more than likely new settlers from either Britain or the United States, or in Lower Canada the French. The older plots of land were exhausted, since the French Canadians did not know to rotate their crops. In 1833 crop harvests in the area below Quebec failed completely, adding to the hardship that already existed with immigrants bringing diseases to the colony. This, and the lack of money flowing into the merchants’ hands, agitated the population. Shortages of food in the spring and summer of 1837 affected the townsfolk, newer farmers, and those in particularly hard hit areas. Commerce was controlled by the early settlers, the Family Compact or Chateau Clique, and prosperous American immigrants.
It then came in 1837 that the American economy took a downturn. This in its course greatly affected the British colonies who had been widely engaged in exporting raw materials such as timber and wheat to Britain. There had also been wild speculation and borrowing in the United States for roads, canals and railways, which pushed many into bankruptcy. As well, even as construction of these public works ceased and unemployment rose, costs continued as much of the work had been financed on borrowed money. The provincial banks asked and were granted permission to suspend specie payments in order to prevent the banks from losing all of their reserve currency. The shortage of hard currency made it difficult to conduct business throughout the colony. Many of the reformers felt that the bank crisis, deficient crops, and rising interest rates were all connected, coming from the policies of the Family Compact. The economic downturn exacerbated the underlying tensions in the colonies, pushing them individually towards rebellion.
The reform movements in Upper and Lower Canada were composed very differently. The Upper Canadian movement was mainly made up of tradesmen, teachers, lawyers, doctors, merchants, artists and two preachers. There were also many farmers and laborers involved, but the leadership of the rebellion was mainly from the Radical Reformers who had been part of the Assembly, such as Mackenzie. Most of the Upper Canadian reform movement rejected Mackenzie’s call to arms, and saw him as a disgrace to the movement itself. The people in Upper Canada did not respond as favorably as Mackenzie had thought they would, and the movement in that colony was powered by his steam and not that of the population. The Partie Patriote was more of a grassroots movement, with many people from the rural parts of Lower Canada becoming involved in the rebellion. The habitants and other agriculturalists could no longer support their families with their lands and efforts. These farmers, along with the educated sons of habitants, provided much of the support and bodies in the Lower Canadian movement. In a way it seems like the patriotes pushed the armed rebellion forwards, much farther than Papineau ever wanted it to go.
Before the rebellions started in Lower Canada the reformers attempted every way they could conceive to bring about changes through due process. This led to the Assembly coming to a standstill many times in the years preceding the rebellions. From 1810 on the Civil List, the fund that paid the salaries of officials, and the King’s Prerogative, the revenue from Crown lands, were both under attack from the Assembly. The Assembly wanted to control every source of revenue for the government. They won some of these points, although a much whittled down Civil List remained out of their grasp. As the stagnation went on, the Assembly refused to vote funds for public works such as those being built in Upper Canada. Thus there were no canals or roads built to aid the growing commerce of the colony. The Tories tried to appeal to the British, but were blocked by the majority. Because of these advancements made through due process, Papineau wanted to stick to working through the Assembly to make changes, even if it took many years to accomplish the goals of the reformers.
The reformers of Upper Canada grouped together in a political party during the 1828 elections, and made up the majority elected to the Assembly that year. After years of slapdash politics, small victories in 1828-1830 and 1834-1836, and a split in the reform party, the Radical Reformers (i.e. Mackenzie) felt that they had run out of peaceful options. Mass rallies were attempted to be held throughout the province during the summer and fall of 1837, along with small societies that had been set up secretly by William Lyon Mackenzie, although it did not work out well. When all of the British troops went to Lower Canada to deal with the insurrection there, they left a huge store of new muskets undefended. However, Mackenzie could not rally the reformers to take up arms at this golden opportunity. He would rally them at another meeting a short time later in preparation for the Battle of Toronto which took place in December 1837. Mackenzie’s men were less than subtle, and by the time they had mustered at Montegomery’s Tavern the authorities had been warned about the rebels’ actions. The lieutenant-governor paid little heed, and when the first shots were fired the militias and troops were in as much disarray as the rebels. The rebels tried to march on Toronto but were scared off by what they thought was a cannon, and negotiations came to a halt between the parties when Head realized the true lack of strength behind the rebels. Dr. Charles Duncombe had intended to incite rebellion, and by December 13th he had gathered approximately 500 men. Anticipating a rising in the West after Mackenzie’s in Toronto, Allan MacNab’s troops were deployed to quell the Duncombe’s forces, and did so with few shots fired. Duncombe’s uprising was over almost before it began. Mackenzie, Duncombe and other leaders fled to the United States, although some were captured. The action in Upper Canada was smaller and short lived in comparison to the uprising that occurred in Lower Canada at the same time.
In Lower Canada there were two distinct and widespread rebellions, which mark the difference from Upper Canada. These rebellions stretched from below Montreal at Chateauguay to Quebec City (281kms), as far east as St. Benoit, and down the Richelieu river through Saint-Ours, St.-Denis, St.-Charles, and St.-Hyacinthe. In addition to the confrontations at the end of 1837 there was also an armed invasion from the United States in the fall of 1838 supported by another popular uprising. Continuously enflamed by the actions of Governor Gosford at the behest of the Colonial Office in Britain propaganda meetings were held first at Saint-Ours and then Saint-Laurent, Saint-Marc, Sainte-Scholastique, Saint-Hyacinthe, Sainte-Rose and elsewhere. Some newspapers also took up the cause, publicizing the Russell Resolutions and lamenting on the lack of justice coming from Britain. Organizers pushed a boycott of British goods that were subject to customs to lower revenues for the government, as well as tried to establish steering committees for each county and a convention of elected officials and sympathetic members of the Legislative Council. Military drills were held by the Fils de la Liberte, and public rallies continued despite government orders to militias and justices of the peace to maintain order and deal severely with political agitators. After street fights broke out on 6 November 1837 in Montreal the Governor allowed groups of armed loyal volunteers to drill with army commander Sir John Colborne, alongside the establishment of the Royal Montreal Calvary. Many of the leaders of the Patriotes, fearing the warrants out for their arrest, fled into the surrounding countryside or to the United States. Armed conflict occurred for the first time as Colonel Charles Gore’s troops marched on Saint-Denis, where they were defeated. The rebels’ luck did not hold and before long they were dispersed, captured or killed by the movements of the army and armed government supporters. Many fled to the United States where, as political refugees, they attempted to drum up support, money and arms. The rebel camp split, as some preferred border raids and immediate armed action to diplomatic lobbying. Raids continued, but the rebels could not get official support from American officials. With the arrival of more British troops from the Maritimes and Great Britain the Patriotes continued to plan for an armed insurrection in the fall of 1838.
There were some things that were similar about both rebellions, which are underscored by the fact that the leaders of each movement were in communication both before and after the fighting took place. There was also some thought put toward uniting the two causes to weaken the British, and had the Upper Canadian rebels acted when the British troops all went to suppress the movement in Lower Canada it is possible that they would have succeeded in doing so. It is possible that if they had worked together, even if they were working for different ends, that the rebellions would have been larger and more successful. Mackenzie wanted an armed rebellion and had trouble mustering and committing forces to such. His charisma was the driving force behind the armed rebellion – the population was not fueled by as much anger as they were in Lower Canada. Papineau did not want an armed rebellion, and yet the people of Lower Canada seemed determined to march in his name.
The repercussions of the rebellion in Upper Canada were varied, depending on who was caught and when. Samuel Lount and Peter Matthews were both hanged after they were caught trying to escape the country, with a total of 20 people being hanged in connection with the rebellion. There was a price put on Mackenzie’s head of 1,000 pounds, although it was never claimed. In total 885 people were arrested or sought on charges connected to the rebellion, and those found were housed in horrible conditions pending trials. They were jammed together, given little food and some took sick, only for over 600 of them to be acquitted and more than 150 of them to be pardoned. 92 people were sent to penal colonies in Australia. Groups of government supporters, whether official or not, broke into houses, harassing people and stealing property in retaliation for the rebellion. Many people, fearing these reprisals, emigrated to the United States. As many as 25,000 people left, which was a massive drain on the small number of people present in the colony. Despite the small size of the rebellion in Upper Canada the repression of it was very severe, and not at all proportionate to the disturbance it caused.
In the wake of the rebellions in Lower Canada the reprisals were very similar to those in Upper Canada. 500 people were imprisoned following the activities in 1837 and 800 more were captured after the second rebellion in 1838. 66 rebels were exiled to Bermuda and Australia, with 12 being hanged in Montreal. As well, approximately 500 people sought refuge in the United States to evade arrest. Families were obligated to provide accommodation to soldiers free of charge, even as the troops looted and burned the houses of their neighbors who had led or fought in the rebellions. The Constitution Act, 1791 was suspended which resulted in the dismissal of the Assembly, and the army commander who had replaced Governor Gosford after he left the colony ruled by way of an enlarged Legislative Council and decrees. This was how the colony was left until Lord Durham arrived from Britain as both the Governor General of British North America and the President of the Commission of Inquiry on the situation in the North American colonies. Although the rebellions in Lower Canada were far more severe than that in Upper Canada, they were reacted to in a similar fashion and at a similar level, which makes the reaction in Upper Canada seem even more disproportionate.
Of course, the most lasting repercussion of the rebellions was the joining of the two Canadas at the insistence of Lord Durham in 1840. The Durham Report addressed some of the issues that were raised by the rebels, such as the need for responsible government in the colonies and for complete control of laws that pertain strictly to the colonies themselves. Durham recommended that responsible government be given to the British North American colonies with the governor general being a figurehead and an elected Assembly having a great deal of power concerning matters that strictly concerned the colonies. This of course was rejected by the British Parliament. Durham also thought that repealing the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 would create a more even field for both French and English throughout a united province. Worried that the Canadians were looking with envy at the freedom of government exercised in the United States, the British sought to keep any more colonies from going the way of America. By joining the two colonies the British would gain a slight advantage in numbers overall to deal with the growing French nationalism and increased immigration from Britain would also help to overwhelm the French. Durham also felt that many of the problems that arose in Upper Canada due to lack of money from financing canals could be remedied in the amalgamation by the surplus of unused monies that resided in Lower Canada. He also believed that the disputes about revenue sharing between the colonies would cease as they would have but one great state apparatus and the colonies would have more usable money as they would only have one state bureaucracy to pay for. Durham’s report made it seem like the causes of the rebellions were simply deficits that would be made up by pooling the resources of each colony together.
The real test to determine if these rebellions were a single entity or simply had in common timing and proximity is to consider if one half was missing, would the other remain. That is, if the rebellion had not occurred in Lower Canada, would one still have happened in Upper Canada, and vice versa? If the economic downturn had only affected one of the colonies, it is not guaranteed that the other would have been sufficiently agitated to offer armed rebellion. There was some communication between the two movements, but it does not appear that anything of significance was shared such as arms, men, information or advice. No planning was common between the rebellions. Each set of grievances, although stemming from similar places, was arrived at independently in each province. It is doubtful that the habitants of Lower Canada knew much about the political scene acting out in Upper Canada. Given the chance to coordinate their movements the rebellion in Lower Canada chose to ignore the actions of Mackenzie and continue on the path they had set themselves. The rebels in Lower Canada became an unstoppable tide that not even Papineau could stem. Mackenzie might have simply chosen to act at the same time hoping that it would fragment the British troops. It is possible that these rebellions occurred in the same way that the revolutions in the Middle East are today – close in proximity and reasoning, but organic in each case.
Although they were two separate rebellions the British Crown reacted to them as one. Lord Durham was sent to the colonies to figure out why the rebellions had occurred and what the British had to do to prevent another war of independence in North America. Because of the simplification of the rebellions in history books it is difficult to distinguish the nuances that separate the movements in Upper and Lower Canada. The rebellions of 1837-1838 occurred at the same time and in close proximity, that is true. They also erupted out of many similar grievances and circumstances. However, the two origins of rebellion along with the fact that each rebellion would have occurred regardless of the other leads one to believe that there were two separate rebellions in British North America in 1837.
The citizens of Upper Canada had many reasons to rebel against the British. The British had tried to create a conservative society with as many safeguards as possible against popular democracy. There were concerns from government officials in Upper Canada and in Britain were worried about the attitude and number of Americans coming into the colony. The Alien Question, arising after the War of 1812 alienated many American settlers as colonial officers were determined to deny American immigrants land and the right to hold public office. The Family Compact, a close-knit group of people, held a large portion of the public offices in Upper Canada. The Family Compact also controlled a large portion of the Crown reserves of land, making it hard for people to settle in the countryside. The Anglican clergy controlled another large portion of the reserves, but other protestant clergies were not granted the same rights. The favorites that were granted large tracts of land were often free from taxes and regulations, while real settlers were subject to many restrictions and fees. These reserves also meant that people could not settle in groups, making the farms isolated and less efficient than if they were closer together. There was a pressing need for roads in the countryside of Upper Canada, but the resources of the colony went instead to the construction of the St. Lawrence and Welland canals, which helped to raise the profits of the merchants of York and Kingston. The non-Anglican ministries could not gain funding to set up schools, could not solemnize marriages or keep civil registries. During elections land patents, which conferred the right to vote, were only distributed to sympathetic voters so to guarantee Tory candidates winning. Government officials also tried to influence elections by demanding proof of citizenship from men well known to authorities as well as by offering sympathetic voters free alcohol. These were not the only matters pressing on the Upper Canadian population, but they are some of the more noteworthy.
Although they shared some of the same grievances, there were many more concerns at stake in Lower Canada. Many of these reasons were made public in the 92 Resolutions, which were issued in 1834. The Resolutions were aimed against the inadequacies of the Constitutional Act, namely the way that it structured power in Lower Canada. The leaders did not agree with the fact that this act allowed the Crown to select an entire branch of the legislature, which is the Legislative Council. There were also grievances against the Executive Council, which was secret from even the Parliament in not only its function, but in whom the members were. They were also against the fact that although there were 525,000 persons of French descent and only 75,000 of English or other origin, 157 public servants were of English or other descent and only 47 were of French descent. These positions were also concentrated in the hands of the Chateau Clique, an oligarchic group similar to the Family Compact in Upper Canada. They used these positions to extract large and illegal fees for public services, including but not limited to the judiciary. There were also a set of complaints directed at the elections of the Assembly, in which members of the Legislative Council as well as the army interfered with the voting process of citizens by force and by giving land to those who would vote the way that they were told. The final issue at stake was the appropriation of wastelands of the province by “Governors, Legislative and Executive Councilors, Judges and subordinate officers”. This was made possible by the way that the Constitutional Act allowed for the faulty systems which were followed in granting land (and thereby voting rights), and meant that many people were unable to settle in the countryside. These are most but not all of the grievances that were put forward by the Lower Canadian leaders. The rejection of the 92 Resolutions by Russell’s 10 resolutions solidified the fact in their minds that they had to use force if they wanted to see anything change.
There were also grievances amongst the habitants of the seigneurial system unique to Lower Canada as well as young professionals, which lent popular support to Papineau’s cause. Many of the wealthy British merchants bought out the French seigneurs as the price of wheat rose, and by 1837 nearly one half of all seigneuries were in British hands. These merchants, along with the French landowners who had come to resemble the British, viewed their new lands in terms of speculation. On new seigneuries they raised the rents, enforced half forgotten feudal obligations, introduced new methods of farming, and with their control of the court system the merchants were able to reduce the habitants to little more than day laborers. This left the tenants with little to feed themselves, while it made the predominantly British merchants tidy little sums. The young professionals trained from or immigrating to Lower Canada also found it difficult to scrap together a living. The medical and legal professions were dominated by old and powerful societies which were favored by the Crown and recruited sparingly from graduates from schools in London. This left little room for the learned sons of French habitants, who would join the rebellion in their frustration and idleness.
The citizens of Lower Canada also had to struggle more against the tides of immigrants, being the port which ships sailed in to, than Upper Canada did. With these immigrants came many diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhus. A quarantine station was set up in 1832 at Grosse Ile, but it hardly stemmed the tide of disease as captains dropped passengers on riverbanks to avoid paying immigration head taxes and waiting to unload the sick. 52,000 immigrants landed at Grosse Ile with 24,000 reported sick, and over the summer of 1832 3,800 died in Quebec, 4,000 in Montreal, and 2,500 in York along with thousands of others along the banks of the St. Lawrence and on Grosse Ile itself. Cholera would return two years later with agricultural problems on the seigneuries. Poor farming practices paired with success by newer farmers with newer technologies and failed harvests in 1833 and 1836 left many hungry, sick and too poor to do anything about it.
Although each rebellion stemmed from a different set of grievances, they were enflamed by a similar set of events, that is, the economic downturn of 1837. The first quarter of the 19th century saw the beginnings of a struggle between agriculture and commerce, two areas that were dominated by very different groups of people. The Napoleonic Wars had put a premium on wheat, and British North America had been primed to supply Europe. There were slumps in its importance, but the growing dominance of farming was not matched by an increase in political power. These farmers were more than likely new settlers from either Britain or the United States, or in Lower Canada the French. The older plots of land were exhausted, since the French Canadians did not know to rotate their crops. In 1833 crop harvests in the area below Quebec failed completely, adding to the hardship that already existed with immigrants bringing diseases to the colony. This, and the lack of money flowing into the merchants’ hands, agitated the population. Shortages of food in the spring and summer of 1837 affected the townsfolk, newer farmers, and those in particularly hard hit areas. Commerce was controlled by the early settlers, the Family Compact or Chateau Clique, and prosperous American immigrants.
It then came in 1837 that the American economy took a downturn. This in its course greatly affected the British colonies who had been widely engaged in exporting raw materials such as timber and wheat to Britain. There had also been wild speculation and borrowing in the United States for roads, canals and railways, which pushed many into bankruptcy. As well, even as construction of these public works ceased and unemployment rose, costs continued as much of the work had been financed on borrowed money. The provincial banks asked and were granted permission to suspend specie payments in order to prevent the banks from losing all of their reserve currency. The shortage of hard currency made it difficult to conduct business throughout the colony. Many of the reformers felt that the bank crisis, deficient crops, and rising interest rates were all connected, coming from the policies of the Family Compact. The economic downturn exacerbated the underlying tensions in the colonies, pushing them individually towards rebellion.
The reform movements in Upper and Lower Canada were composed very differently. The Upper Canadian movement was mainly made up of tradesmen, teachers, lawyers, doctors, merchants, artists and two preachers. There were also many farmers and laborers involved, but the leadership of the rebellion was mainly from the Radical Reformers who had been part of the Assembly, such as Mackenzie. Most of the Upper Canadian reform movement rejected Mackenzie’s call to arms, and saw him as a disgrace to the movement itself. The people in Upper Canada did not respond as favorably as Mackenzie had thought they would, and the movement in that colony was powered by his steam and not that of the population. The Partie Patriote was more of a grassroots movement, with many people from the rural parts of Lower Canada becoming involved in the rebellion. The habitants and other agriculturalists could no longer support their families with their lands and efforts. These farmers, along with the educated sons of habitants, provided much of the support and bodies in the Lower Canadian movement. In a way it seems like the patriotes pushed the armed rebellion forwards, much farther than Papineau ever wanted it to go.
Before the rebellions started in Lower Canada the reformers attempted every way they could conceive to bring about changes through due process. This led to the Assembly coming to a standstill many times in the years preceding the rebellions. From 1810 on the Civil List, the fund that paid the salaries of officials, and the King’s Prerogative, the revenue from Crown lands, were both under attack from the Assembly. The Assembly wanted to control every source of revenue for the government. They won some of these points, although a much whittled down Civil List remained out of their grasp. As the stagnation went on, the Assembly refused to vote funds for public works such as those being built in Upper Canada. Thus there were no canals or roads built to aid the growing commerce of the colony. The Tories tried to appeal to the British, but were blocked by the majority. Because of these advancements made through due process, Papineau wanted to stick to working through the Assembly to make changes, even if it took many years to accomplish the goals of the reformers.
The reformers of Upper Canada grouped together in a political party during the 1828 elections, and made up the majority elected to the Assembly that year. After years of slapdash politics, small victories in 1828-1830 and 1834-1836, and a split in the reform party, the Radical Reformers (i.e. Mackenzie) felt that they had run out of peaceful options. Mass rallies were attempted to be held throughout the province during the summer and fall of 1837, along with small societies that had been set up secretly by William Lyon Mackenzie, although it did not work out well. When all of the British troops went to Lower Canada to deal with the insurrection there, they left a huge store of new muskets undefended. However, Mackenzie could not rally the reformers to take up arms at this golden opportunity. He would rally them at another meeting a short time later in preparation for the Battle of Toronto which took place in December 1837. Mackenzie’s men were less than subtle, and by the time they had mustered at Montegomery’s Tavern the authorities had been warned about the rebels’ actions. The lieutenant-governor paid little heed, and when the first shots were fired the militias and troops were in as much disarray as the rebels. The rebels tried to march on Toronto but were scared off by what they thought was a cannon, and negotiations came to a halt between the parties when Head realized the true lack of strength behind the rebels. Dr. Charles Duncombe had intended to incite rebellion, and by December 13th he had gathered approximately 500 men. Anticipating a rising in the West after Mackenzie’s in Toronto, Allan MacNab’s troops were deployed to quell the Duncombe’s forces, and did so with few shots fired. Duncombe’s uprising was over almost before it began. Mackenzie, Duncombe and other leaders fled to the United States, although some were captured. The action in Upper Canada was smaller and short lived in comparison to the uprising that occurred in Lower Canada at the same time.
In Lower Canada there were two distinct and widespread rebellions, which mark the difference from Upper Canada. These rebellions stretched from below Montreal at Chateauguay to Quebec City (281kms), as far east as St. Benoit, and down the Richelieu river through Saint-Ours, St.-Denis, St.-Charles, and St.-Hyacinthe. In addition to the confrontations at the end of 1837 there was also an armed invasion from the United States in the fall of 1838 supported by another popular uprising. Continuously enflamed by the actions of Governor Gosford at the behest of the Colonial Office in Britain propaganda meetings were held first at Saint-Ours and then Saint-Laurent, Saint-Marc, Sainte-Scholastique, Saint-Hyacinthe, Sainte-Rose and elsewhere. Some newspapers also took up the cause, publicizing the Russell Resolutions and lamenting on the lack of justice coming from Britain. Organizers pushed a boycott of British goods that were subject to customs to lower revenues for the government, as well as tried to establish steering committees for each county and a convention of elected officials and sympathetic members of the Legislative Council. Military drills were held by the Fils de la Liberte, and public rallies continued despite government orders to militias and justices of the peace to maintain order and deal severely with political agitators. After street fights broke out on 6 November 1837 in Montreal the Governor allowed groups of armed loyal volunteers to drill with army commander Sir John Colborne, alongside the establishment of the Royal Montreal Calvary. Many of the leaders of the Patriotes, fearing the warrants out for their arrest, fled into the surrounding countryside or to the United States. Armed conflict occurred for the first time as Colonel Charles Gore’s troops marched on Saint-Denis, where they were defeated. The rebels’ luck did not hold and before long they were dispersed, captured or killed by the movements of the army and armed government supporters. Many fled to the United States where, as political refugees, they attempted to drum up support, money and arms. The rebel camp split, as some preferred border raids and immediate armed action to diplomatic lobbying. Raids continued, but the rebels could not get official support from American officials. With the arrival of more British troops from the Maritimes and Great Britain the Patriotes continued to plan for an armed insurrection in the fall of 1838.
There were some things that were similar about both rebellions, which are underscored by the fact that the leaders of each movement were in communication both before and after the fighting took place. There was also some thought put toward uniting the two causes to weaken the British, and had the Upper Canadian rebels acted when the British troops all went to suppress the movement in Lower Canada it is possible that they would have succeeded in doing so. It is possible that if they had worked together, even if they were working for different ends, that the rebellions would have been larger and more successful. Mackenzie wanted an armed rebellion and had trouble mustering and committing forces to such. His charisma was the driving force behind the armed rebellion – the population was not fueled by as much anger as they were in Lower Canada. Papineau did not want an armed rebellion, and yet the people of Lower Canada seemed determined to march in his name.
The repercussions of the rebellion in Upper Canada were varied, depending on who was caught and when. Samuel Lount and Peter Matthews were both hanged after they were caught trying to escape the country, with a total of 20 people being hanged in connection with the rebellion. There was a price put on Mackenzie’s head of 1,000 pounds, although it was never claimed. In total 885 people were arrested or sought on charges connected to the rebellion, and those found were housed in horrible conditions pending trials. They were jammed together, given little food and some took sick, only for over 600 of them to be acquitted and more than 150 of them to be pardoned. 92 people were sent to penal colonies in Australia. Groups of government supporters, whether official or not, broke into houses, harassing people and stealing property in retaliation for the rebellion. Many people, fearing these reprisals, emigrated to the United States. As many as 25,000 people left, which was a massive drain on the small number of people present in the colony. Despite the small size of the rebellion in Upper Canada the repression of it was very severe, and not at all proportionate to the disturbance it caused.
In the wake of the rebellions in Lower Canada the reprisals were very similar to those in Upper Canada. 500 people were imprisoned following the activities in 1837 and 800 more were captured after the second rebellion in 1838. 66 rebels were exiled to Bermuda and Australia, with 12 being hanged in Montreal. As well, approximately 500 people sought refuge in the United States to evade arrest. Families were obligated to provide accommodation to soldiers free of charge, even as the troops looted and burned the houses of their neighbors who had led or fought in the rebellions. The Constitution Act, 1791 was suspended which resulted in the dismissal of the Assembly, and the army commander who had replaced Governor Gosford after he left the colony ruled by way of an enlarged Legislative Council and decrees. This was how the colony was left until Lord Durham arrived from Britain as both the Governor General of British North America and the President of the Commission of Inquiry on the situation in the North American colonies. Although the rebellions in Lower Canada were far more severe than that in Upper Canada, they were reacted to in a similar fashion and at a similar level, which makes the reaction in Upper Canada seem even more disproportionate.
Of course, the most lasting repercussion of the rebellions was the joining of the two Canadas at the insistence of Lord Durham in 1840. The Durham Report addressed some of the issues that were raised by the rebels, such as the need for responsible government in the colonies and for complete control of laws that pertain strictly to the colonies themselves. Durham recommended that responsible government be given to the British North American colonies with the governor general being a figurehead and an elected Assembly having a great deal of power concerning matters that strictly concerned the colonies. This of course was rejected by the British Parliament. Durham also thought that repealing the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 would create a more even field for both French and English throughout a united province. Worried that the Canadians were looking with envy at the freedom of government exercised in the United States, the British sought to keep any more colonies from going the way of America. By joining the two colonies the British would gain a slight advantage in numbers overall to deal with the growing French nationalism and increased immigration from Britain would also help to overwhelm the French. Durham also felt that many of the problems that arose in Upper Canada due to lack of money from financing canals could be remedied in the amalgamation by the surplus of unused monies that resided in Lower Canada. He also believed that the disputes about revenue sharing between the colonies would cease as they would have but one great state apparatus and the colonies would have more usable money as they would only have one state bureaucracy to pay for. Durham’s report made it seem like the causes of the rebellions were simply deficits that would be made up by pooling the resources of each colony together.
The real test to determine if these rebellions were a single entity or simply had in common timing and proximity is to consider if one half was missing, would the other remain. That is, if the rebellion had not occurred in Lower Canada, would one still have happened in Upper Canada, and vice versa? If the economic downturn had only affected one of the colonies, it is not guaranteed that the other would have been sufficiently agitated to offer armed rebellion. There was some communication between the two movements, but it does not appear that anything of significance was shared such as arms, men, information or advice. No planning was common between the rebellions. Each set of grievances, although stemming from similar places, was arrived at independently in each province. It is doubtful that the habitants of Lower Canada knew much about the political scene acting out in Upper Canada. Given the chance to coordinate their movements the rebellion in Lower Canada chose to ignore the actions of Mackenzie and continue on the path they had set themselves. The rebels in Lower Canada became an unstoppable tide that not even Papineau could stem. Mackenzie might have simply chosen to act at the same time hoping that it would fragment the British troops. It is possible that these rebellions occurred in the same way that the revolutions in the Middle East are today – close in proximity and reasoning, but organic in each case.
Although they were two separate rebellions the British Crown reacted to them as one. Lord Durham was sent to the colonies to figure out why the rebellions had occurred and what the British had to do to prevent another war of independence in North America. Because of the simplification of the rebellions in history books it is difficult to distinguish the nuances that separate the movements in Upper and Lower Canada. The rebellions of 1837-1838 occurred at the same time and in close proximity, that is true. They also erupted out of many similar grievances and circumstances. However, the two origins of rebellion along with the fact that each rebellion would have occurred regardless of the other leads one to believe that there were two separate rebellions in British North America in 1837.
