The U. S. Constitution and Canadian History and Culture

Top 3. Nov 23, 2001 4:40 PM

» Mugwump53 - A Late Arrival

I just visited your excellent site for the first time, and having my degree in American Government and History, I was drawn immediately to this article.

While it is a good analysis in a concise form, I do have several points I would like to make. (I, unfortunately, sometimes have trouble being concise, so please bear with me.)

Certainly, Canada's history is closely linked to the U.S. As to the "my way or highway" mentality, I beg to differ. Just today, I was listening to yet another major celebrity (defined as star, columnist/newsman, politician) speaking out is dissidence agaisnt our current policies.

Certainly, after the Revolution, many "loyalists" fled to Canada. I remind you of your own rebellions or uprisings in 1837-1838. Those who fight against a government often leave it for safety if they lose. As to oppression of dissidence, an encyclopedia desribed the "suppression" of the rebellion as being "particularly severe in Lower (French) Canada." I maintain that both nations have had their problems with this, and that both fight to preserve themselves from violent disolution.

The American Civil War was fought to prevent dissolution by force. The Confederate States of America was established almost a year before the war began, and the war began only when the CSA fired upon an American fort while the federal governement was still trying to establish negotiations.

Just as in Canada, "rep by pop" is combined with "regional representation" in the House of Representatives )rep by pop) and the Senate (regional representation). Also, our states have the same right to tax and pay for state services that your provinces have. Just ask any American taxpayer! We have a very specifically delineated division of powers, which is the main part of the Constitution.

I would maintain that the government of Canada was not suddenly created in reaction to the U.S. Constitution, but the result of centuries of democratic evolution. Indeed, it is merely a continuation of the British form, with the Governor General substituted for the Monarch.

I was a bit confused about the taking of basic liberties or rights with "due process of law." You say any such law in Cnada would be illegal. Well, the same is true in the U.S. Any alw violating the basic right outlined in the Bill of Rights is declared uncontitutional by the federal courts. Any specific wrongs you might point out are the results of the imperfection of man, not of the system, and can be found in all nations, including not only the U.S. but Canada and Great Britain as well.

You use of execution as the prime example is not really valid, since the issue there is whether to have capital punishment. In the U.S., that is determined state by state, with the majority of states not having capital punishment.

I have long admired the parlimentary system of government as practiced in Great Britian and Canada. (Of course, I admire our federal system of government even more!)

I am sorry if I have been long-winded. I find this subject one of great interest. If this reply provokes further discussion, all the better.

Now that I have discovered this wonderful sight, I intend to be a regular visitor.

-- posted by Mugwump53

Top 4. Nov 30, 2001 10:21 AM

» bridget1 - Re: A Late Arrival

In response to message posted by Mugwump53:

Dear John: Thank you for finding me (I didn't even realize I was lost) and for adding to the discussion here. I have been pondering for some days as you make so many points. So I shall try to respond to only one or two at a time. I personally admire the American system a great deal and my comparisons are not meant as criticisms but rather as alternate ways of looking at what happened, especially from an outsider's perspective from "up here" north of our powerful neighbour.

It does seem to me that American history, at least the texts that I have, places very little emphasis on dissident groups. 100,000 "voting with their feet" after the Revolution seems like a huge number to me. They felt forced to leave; then their lands were confiscated. I tried to find what percentage of the total population this would be. Is it right to say that in the first census, 1790, there were about 3,500,000 citizens? I will have to do more research to find estimates of the number of African-Americans who came via the underground, and of the number of anti-war protesters. I'll get back to you on that.

The example of "my way or the highway" that I didn't mention was of course the McCarthy era and the blacklist. The fact that today citizens are free to comment and question is true; I watch CNN myself. But the issue that is more relevant here I think are the thousands of "unnamed" people, citizens, students, visitors,who knows?, who have been arrested and detained since September 11. I understand the risks; my point is, "rights" seem a bit fluid, and who has "rights" seems less clear for people in minority groups, whether that group is defined by race, religion, country of origin, or political opinion. And I'm not saying Canada is any better. People have been arrested here too. And they are still in custody; we don't necessarily know who or how many. "Land of the Free" is one of those catch-phrases that comfort but don't necessarily apply to all. The same applies to us: "the True North strong and free," we tell ourselves. It's more of a goal than a reality.

I'll get to the Rebellions of 1837 later. (David-Marc Newman has written about these in his column Life in Canada.) I think to Canadians, these rebellions are seen as battles that were "lost" that helped ultimately to "win" the war for national identity and independence later, within 30 years.

Thanks for stopping by.
jmb (joan)

-- posted by bridget1

Top 5. Dec 3, 2001 10:17 AM

» bridget1 - Statistics Update

In response to message posted by bridget1:
Further to the discussion of American refugees fleeing to Canada: my Canadian Encyclopedia says: fifty thousand [of the 100,000 who left the colonies] came to Canada after 1776; thirty thousand [30,000] arrived in the twenty years between 1840 and 1860; thirty-two thousand [32,000] during the Vietnam War Era.

-- posted by bridget1

Top 6. Jan 10, 2002 7:56 AM

» Brian Tubbs - Well-written article

I am sorry to have been so long in visiting your site. I know too little - way too little - about my northern neighbor, Canada, so I have learned much from your work here, and am indebted to you.

Like John, this article drew my attention, given my strong interest in American history and government. Like John, I did respectfully disagree with a couple of the points you made, but he stole my fire in responding, leaving me really only one other comment to make.

Your article implies that the 50,000 plus refugees from the United States after 1776 represents a disconnect between the principles of the Constitution and the reality of the prejudice of the time. I have two problems with this.

First, the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 and not put into effect until 1789 with the election of the First Congress and President George Washington. The exodus of Loyalists from the United States - or the original 13 colonies that rebelled - to Canada had taken place by then, with but a few scattered exceptions.

The United States was governed according to the Articles of Confederation from the Revolutionary War until the Constitution replaced it. To the extent that Loyalists were denied certain rights or pressured to leave, that cannot be laid at the doorstep of the U.S. Constitution.

The second point I need to make is that it is really no surprise that the Loyalists left. Think about it. There had been a revolution - one that had all the resemblance of a civil war. The rebels won and the British, and their Loyalist supporters, lost. There was tremendous animosity on both sides, and let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the Loyalits would have treated the rebels any differently had the war turned out differently. In fact, I would argue that many of the rebels would have been swinging from the gallows had King George III triumphed.

In my opinion, the American Revolution stands up well in contrast to other revolutions in the world when it comes to how the losers were treated. For goodness sake, look at what happened in France just a decade later! The Loyalists in America suffered NOTHING like the losers did in the French Revolution, which was little more than an orgy of blood and destruction.

I'm not saying that the various states (and it was a state-by-state issue, primarily) treated the Loyalists as well as they should have. But we must keep the context and the emotion of the time in perspective.

I would also "ditto" John in his remarks about the U.S. protecting the basic rights of its citizens. No nation is perfect in this, but America really does bend over backwards in trying to maintain an open society where everyone's space and civil rights are respected. This is one reason why we were so vulnerable this past September. There is a tremendous - TREMENDOUS - amount of freedom still in the United States even AFTER 9/11/01. Our problem is that our citizens have taken so much of our liberty, prosperity, and convenience for granted, and now we're in a situation where things are having to be assessed and carefully weighed. It's a new era, and we're all having to adjust.

At any rate, thanks for the article. I'm sure you anticipated that at least a couple Americans might have some comments. :-)

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Top 7. Jan 12, 2002 1:06 PM

» gret - U.S. Constitution and Canadian History & Culture

Hi, Joan:
Just curious: has there been any exodus that you know of from Canada south to the U.S.?

Also, does Canada have a written constitution? Does England? I had heard lately that England does not. But the U.S. based its laws on the English laws, for the most part, no? And some of that was from the Roman methods? Hey - don't laugh, please... I'm an artist, you know, not a political scientist. smile But I want to know about everything! My husband was just saying that the Loyalists also split to the Caribbean islands; I had thought that the Carib Is. were colonized directly from the Olde Sodd.

Any thoughts?
TIA.

-- posted by gret

Top 8. Jan 16, 2002 10:58 AM

» bridget1 - Re: Well-written article

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:
Great to see you here too Brian. Yes, of course, without being deliberately antagonistic, I hoped to tweak some debate. Generalizations in the short article are so easily mis-leading. However, so are a strict adherence to dates. The constitution took years to finalize but it must have begun as a way to formalize the ideals in the Declaration of Independence combined with the realities of military campaigns,articles of confederation, etc. "We the People" became ultimately "We, the non-Loyal People."

It is interesting that you mentioned the French Revolution. I just finished re-reading A Tale of Two Cities. The blood bath in France sounds similar to those we hear of in many African nations in the late 20th century. It does seem to me that the difference between America and France in 1789 was the difference in class distinctions. While I'm sure there were some upper, middle, and lower classes already in the colonies at that time, in reality the revolt was against an Upper Class abuse of power and control. And because that Upper Class (royal and noble) lived for the most part in England, it made it easier for the colonies to rebel and it meant that there was less actual physical retaliation against that class compared to what we saw in France. We don't like to talk about "classes," but in reality, although both revolutions focused on "monarchy" as the symbols, they were about class warfare, about unjust impositions by one class upon another.

-- posted by bridget1

Top 9. Jan 16, 2002 11:37 AM

» bridget1 - Re: U.S. Constitution and Canadian History & Culture

In response to message posted by gret:

Hi, Gretchen. Welcome. And such revealing questions! Yes, of course, there has been more than one exodus. The one John mentioned, rebels fleeing retribution after the failed rebellions of 1837, were small in number and were most often disaffected US immigrants who hated the conservative atmosphere and too slow changes "across the line." You probably already know about the exodus of "snowbirds" to warm places like Florida and Arizona. I think we have to call these people seeking the sun as "seasonal" or "climatic" refugees. There are also large colonies of "economic refugees." The large French-Canadian communities (home to Jack Kerouac) in northern New England started as people crossing the line to seek work. So too for the large Canadian community (with its own ambassador and foreign office) in Los Angeles, composed of talented creative people seeking work in the centre of the film and television industries. This started with Mary Pickford and continues today with talented actors, comedians, directors such as Norman Jewison and James Cameron being only the tip of the iceberg. I have to confess, even one of my own brothers has become an American citizen. I think one of our greatest fears "up here" after 9 / 11 is that it means the end of the border, the end of our sovereignty, and the beginning of our all becoming "American." Most of us do not want that, but we can see the realities, the changes and encroachments have begun.

Your second question, about a written constitution. You are right. In Great Britain, the constitution is evolving and is composed of all the laws and "common law" past and present. Thus when King John was convinced by the nobels in the 1200s to sign the Magna Carta, that document became part of the British constitution outlining the proper legal relationship between monarch and nobles, and as such is part of the Canadian constitution. And every tradition accepted by the people and every judicial decision made in British courts became part of that law which is the constitution. When Canada was created, it was created legally in 1867 by the British North America Act, a law passed by the British parliament. So that written document became our first "written" constitution. Changes to that act are changes to our constitution--most significantly, in the 1920s, British legal decisions and Statutes granted Canada control of our own international relations and confirmed the women in Canada were Persons. The most significant recent change happened with Prime Minister Trudeau in the early 1980s when the Consitituion Act brought home to Canada our right to make our own constitutional changes and our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At this time of the Constitution Act of 1982, the British North America Act was re-named to be the Constitution Act of 1867. Sounds confusing but the short answer is Canada has both a written and unwritten constitution, the unwritten being the British systems and common law we inherited and used as the basis of our own institutions. Any Canadian Constitutional experts -- please make corrections here as needed. And Gretchen, I'm an artist too. For the life of me I can't think how the British laws came from the "Roman methods" but I'm sure there must be some connection. The Romans built London and most of the roads in England, but they were gone for quite some time before 1066 and all that. Cheers.

-- posted by bridget1

Top 10. Jan 17, 2002 2:37 PM

» Brian Tubbs - Class in the American Revolution

In response to message posted by bridget1:

You're right that class differences and animosities played a role in both the French and American Revolutions. However, I would argue that your comments apply more toward the French situation than what occurred in North America.

In France, you could argue that the nobility and upper class were on one side of the conflict with the masses on the other. While there were some exceptions to this, it is a generally fair way to view the French Revolution. That is not the case with the America's War for Independence.

For one thing, most of the leaders of the American Revolution were very well-to-do. George Mason and George Washington were the two richest landowners in Virginia. John Hancock was at the top of a large and fairly lucrative shipping empire (that benefited from more than a little illegal smuggling). Sam Adams, while he failed himself in business, was the son of a very successful Boston businessman. Benjamin Franklin, by the time of the American Revolution, had risen to a situation of financial security and independence. He was so wealthy in fact that, in pursuit of easing tensions, he offered to personally cover the cost of the tea that had been thrown into Boston Harbor.

Not all of America's Founding Fathers were wealthy, and certainly most of those that actually took up arms in the Revolution were not. But the leadership of the American Revolutionary movement was dominated by wealthy men (either measured by liquidity or property).

The more cynical view of the American Revolution, advanced by the likes of Howard Zinn, is that the American Revolution was all about money in that the wealthy exploited the poor and the masses by turning them against the British Empire for their (the upper class's) own nefarious purposes. It is true that the upper class influenced the poor and middle classes. But it's equally true that the lower classes were genuinely upset (of their own accord) at some of the tax burdens imposed by Britain, namely and most especially the proposed Stamp Tax of 1765.

In a very long-winded way, I guess what I'm saying is that class played a big role in the emotions and tumult of the 1760s and 1770s that led to war with Britain, BUT it was not the defining factor that it was in France in the 1780s and 90s.

The second point I'd make is that the two revolutions were fought with different objectives in mind. The French Revolution was a revolution in every sense of the word. It was about completely eradicating the status quo and building a whole new society - or at least that's what it became. By contrast, the American Revolution was about clearly stated objections to British authority and was defined according to stated aims that eventually were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The French Revolution was like a wildfire spreading out of control, whereas the American Revolution was very focused and disciplined by contrast.

Lastly, the American Revolution wasn't designed to overturn the social order, although (as historians like Gordon Wood have pointed out) changes in the social order DID occur. Rather, it was about defending the political and civic order that the colonists had grown to realize and embrace. From their vantage point, THEY were the ones fighting to uphold the principles of the British Constitution, not King George III and Parliament. By contrast, the French Revolutionaries made no pretense of trying to defend the social or civic order.

Just a few thoughts. Sorry for the long-winded message.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Top 11. Jan 18, 2002 10:37 AM

» bridget1 - Re: Class in the American Revolution

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:
Most interesting as usual, Brian. There were many differences of course. Lady Liberty was percieved differently. George Washington was different from Napoleon. However, just from a quick reading of the facts as you have provided them, although the American rhetoric said they were fighting for democracy and political freedoms, the instigation crises were both about money--taxation without representation and unfair taxes (Stamp Act).

Another challenge I would make to your argument is the equation of wealth with class. In England then (and probably still today), people who worked to make their money were not considered upper class. Upper class meant inherited wealth. Perhaps the upwardly mobile middle class in America were interested in creating a new world order where their greater wealth meant greater status than they were accorded by the "old money" more condescending upper classes in England. Even if this were not their intent, it is a result. There is no more king and there is no House of Lords in Washington, DC. Anyone born in the USA can become president; anyone with money has power. I think this tension between ideals and realities is an important unexplored theme in America. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

-- posted by bridget1