 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
|
|
The French Canadians and the Birth of Confederation |
Jean
Charles Bonenfant is a well-known historian for his
thorough and in-depth accounts of French-Canadian history. The in depth writing that Bonenfant excels in writing is perhaps most noticeable in
such articles as: “Thomas Chapasis, textes choisis” (1957), and
“La Naissance de la Confédération”
(1969). There are also several of
his writings that have been translated and published in such Historical
Journals as the Canadian Historical Review. Most of Bonenfant’s
writings tend to focus on the time around Canadian Confederation. This interest in the Confederation era
may be due to the fact of his interest in the study of law. Bonenfant’s
writings tend to focus on the legal repercussions on what aspects the British
North America Act would have on both the federal and provincial governments in
regards to the division of powers. Bonenfant’s writing is further strengthened by the
fact that he studied law at
Jean Charles Bonenfant’s
article, “The French Canadians and the Birth of Confederation”,
continues the tradition of in-depth investigative writing that Bonenfant is known for. The article, published in booklet format
by the Canadian Historical Association, explores the French-Canadian reactions
to the events leading up to Canadian Confederation. This article is especially important to Bonenfant’s career considering he is one of the first
to investigate, in article form, the often neglected area of the
French-Canadian version of the events leading up to Canadian
Confederation. There are thousands
of articles and books on the movements of English-Canadians[1] leading up to
Confederation, but very little has been written on the French-Canadians
feelings towards the idea of Confederation. Bonenfant
even recognizes the lack of French-Canadian interest in Confederation in his
bibliographic notes of his article by writing:
The historians who have written
about the birth of Confederation have taken into account the participation of
the French Canadians in the events and have briefly analysed their attitudes,
but no thorough study has been devoted to his subject as a whole. French-Canadian historians have also neglected
the study of this period. The only
work on the subject written by a French Canadian is La Confédération
canadienne (
Bonenfant’s
attempt at being one of the first French-Canadian writers to write on the topic
of Confederation is done in true Bonenfant form. The article provides a thorough in-depth
chronological explanation about the feelings of both Liberal and Conservative
minded French-Canadians from before 1864 until after the institution of
Confederation on
However,
Bonenfant fails to meet one of the priorities of the Canadian
Historical Association. The
Canadian Historical Association, when choosing the articles for their booklet
series, seeks to convey to the average Canadian the events that have helped to
shape the current Canadian nation state.
However, Bonenfant’s article, despite
being a good in-depth article, somewhat fails to meet the Association’s
objective of being easy to understand and comprehend by the average
Canadian. Bonenfant
uses some heavy historical jargon from both the Union Period and post-confederation
eras. An example of this jargon can
easily be found in the references to the positions held by some politicians
such as “Upper Canadian Liberal leader George Brown”.[3] The
reader is left wondering why there is a necessity for the an Upper Canadian Liberal
leader since the Canadian colonies had supposedly been unified in 1840 after
Lord Durham’s report. Perhaps
in this case a short explanatory footnote explaining how George Brown could be
the Upper Canadian Liberal leader in relation to the political structure of the
government of the United Province of Canada.
Another
instance of the use of jargon that would confuse the reader is the demand for
an ‘Upper House’ in
Bonenfant explains his main question, “what would be
their reactions when faced with the events which would take place from June
1864 to 1 July 1867, and which would constitute the genesis of
Confederation”, by breaking his argument down into twelve explainable
sections. Bonenfant
breaks his presents the answer to his question this way in order that the
reader is better able to grasp the different concepts that are found in the
French-Canadian response to Confederation.
However, there are basically four main points to his argument that can
be found if each Bonenfant’s twelve sections
are combined into the three different time periods. The resulting fourth point is the
involvement of the Catholic clergy requires its own point because the
Church’s ideologies on Confederation are better studied as a whole and
not in sections.
Bonenfants
first point of argument is based on the narrative of the events that lead up to
the discussion on Confederation.
This section takes place before 1864 and in 1865 and shows where the
idea of federalism began. Bonenfant achieves this task by pointing to the writings of
Joseph-Charles Taché from 1858, the demands
that Alexander T. Galt had made “before he would enter the
Cartier-Macdonald ministry”[4], and
Dorian’s Manifesto. Within this section the reader learns who were some
of the first writers to propose federalism and how some of these writers’
ideas became incorporated into the idea of Canadian Confederation.
Bonenfant then points out how the idea of a federation of
the colonies of
The
second point of Bonenfant’s answer to his
question begins with the debate over the Quebec Resolutions and ends with the
achievement of Confederation. In
this point Bonenfant introduces the reader to the
process that the idea of Confederation took in the political process as well as
in sphere of public opinion. Bonenfant achieves this
task by showing the positions taken by such pro-Confederation politicians as
George-Etienne Cartier and Hector Langevin as well as
updating the reader on what actions the anti-Confederation politicians were
doing. These different ideas
found in this section show how Bonenfant presents a
balanced approach of presenting the facts.
Also,
in the political realm, Bonenfant presents the
results of the vote counts based on several cross-references of the
numbers. These vote counts and the
various cross-references show the reader how the politicians between the two
former colonies voted, how the French-Canadian politicians voted, and overall
what percentage of the entire Province of the United Canada felt on the issue
of Confederation. These vote counts
are of the utmost significance to Bonenfant’s
answer to his question because these vote counts shows the various attitudes
towards Confederation within several traditional categorical groupings.
The
public reaction to the idea of Confederation is presented through the various
newspaper reports on the issue. Bonenfant has selected a good cross-reference of the
political ideologies in order to maintain a balanced answer to his initial
question. For example, Bonenfant quotes from the Liberal newspaper, Le Pays,
and the Conservative newspaper, La Minerve, in
order to present the ideologies that the public thought were important in their
positions as either pro-Confederationists or anti-Confederationists.
Again, Bonenfant notices that a well-balanced
argument will further strengthen his answer to the original answer.
The
third point of Bonenfant’s article shows the
reader what the results of Confederation were and how each the
pro-Confederation and anti-Confederation members continued to do after Canadian
Confederation had been achieved. Bonenfant does this by presenting the reaction of
French-Canadians on the first day of the existence of the new Dominion of
Canada and how Confederation seemed to solve the problems of the time. The author accomplishes this task by
presenting the reader with the anti-Confederationist
view of the birth of Confederation from the Courrier
du Canada newspaper and the pro-Confederationists’ view of the problems that were
solved with the creation of Confederation.
The pro-Confederationists’ view of the
problems that were solved included the railway question, the loss of reciprocity
with the
Bonenfant’s fourth and final point is the involvement
of the Catholic clergy of
Bonenfant provides a believable answer to his initial
question which is backed up both with primary documents (i.e. the newspaper
reports) and his twelve sections. The fact that Bonenfant
seems to lack a thesis statement is not really a matter that should be
questioned because of the fact that Bonenfant is
writing to provide a balanced argument from a French-Canadian point of
view. A thesis statement would
destroy the author’s attempt in writing a balanced article because of the
fact that thesis statements tend to lead a writer to take a stand on an
issue. However, Bonenfant
wished to avoid taking a stand on the issue in order to produce a balanced
approach. Therefore, Bonenfant chose to present a simple question and provide an
in-depth historical investigation that presents the views and biases for both
sides of the argument over Confederation.
This type of writing allows the reader to decide for themselves what
position they want to take on the issue instead of the author attempting to
convince the reader of his or her own argument.
Overall,
the article presents a good answer to the question of how the French-Canadians
felt over the idea and the process leading up to Confederation. However, Bonenfant uses some terms that may be unfamiliar to his
audience. Considering this use of
historical and political jargon, perhaps when the article is reproduced again,
someone should consider including a glossary of terms. The inclusion of a glossary of terms
would help simplify for the reader the historical and political jargon for both
history students and the general public.
Bonenfant, Jean Charles. The French Canadians and the Birth of
Confederation. Ottawa,
Canadian Historical
Association, 1996.
[1]There is a vast collection of articles and books on the likes of Sir John A. Macdonald, George Brown, D’arcy Magee, and many others.
[2]Jean Charles Bonenfant. The French
Canadians and the Birth of Confederation.
[3]Bonenfant 4.
[4]Bonenfant 4.