The Canadian POV

[D-Day_Dodger]

I've read some very interesting posts on this subject and its informative to see how nationality affects the overall POV. As a Canadian, I think I can safely say that the American War of Independence has had a profound influence upon Canada and that its effects are still felt to this day.

There exists today in Canada, like it or not, a strong strane of Anti-Americanism which finds its roots in the War of Independence. To begin with, the vast majority of American Loyalists who fled the American colonies came to Canada and settled mostly in Upper Canada (now Southern Ontario) and in Nova Scotia. Their antagonism towards the United States only increased after repeated invasions in the War of 1812 and the Fenian Raids. Their mistrust towards their southern neighbour was passed down to future generations and, as I said earlier, remains a strong force in Canadian society today. Of course there are other irritants in the relations between the two countris that contribute to this, but fundamentally I believe they can be traced back to 1776 and 1812.

I've heard it argued that in Canada's maritime province of Nova Scotia, the American's missed an opportunity to enlist another partner in their revolt, as there were close relations between them and the New England colonies. There was also was sympathy in Nova Scotia for many of the American's grievances. The loss of Nova Scotia and the fortified harbours at Halifax and Louisbourg would have severed the link between Britain and her Canadian colonies. The only port of any consequence to left to the British in the Northern Hemisphere would have been St John's harbour in Newfoundland which was not fortified and did not have the capacity to service the English fleet.

However, any such opportunity was lost when American privateers began preying upon Canadian merchantmen and vice versa. (give a listen to Stan Roger's "Barrett's Privateers"). And once you go to war with a neighbour you never tend to look at him the same way again. Now, I'm not an expert on this particular aspect of Canadian history so I don't know if it is realistic to think that with sufficient agitiation that the population of Nova Scotia could have turned against the crown. To be sure, there was a difference of circumstances between the Canadian and American colonies, but as was shown in the southern colonies, you did not need a majority to start or win a revolution.

Another perplexing question arising from the war is the failure of the American high command to anticipate the French Canadian population's unwillingness to embrace the American cause, despite having been conquered by the British less than two decades earlier. In fact they took up arms against the Americans in this war and a generation later in the War of 1812. It should not in fact have come as a big surprise. The approach taken by the average French Canadian was that the British were the lesser of two evils. The British had let them keep their religion, language and culture and the British had the support of the Catholic church which was echoed at the pulpit. The British were also quick to clamp down on any publications they considered seditious. As a result the Americans were totally unable to counter the propaganda that the British and the Church fed to the average citizen or to promote the advantages of allying themselves with the rebel cause.

This being the case I wonder what made the American high command think that they could conquer Lower Canada without the support of the local population. What were the American's long term strategy if Montgomery and Arnolds campaign against Quebec City had succeeded? What information were they acting upon? Did they think they would receive a warm reception from the locals? If so, why? How did they think they could survive in a hostile environment with few troops and an incredibly long and difficult line of communications?

Consider also that the French Canadian peasant, at the drop of a hat, could become one of the best guerilla fighters in the world. Now this may seem like an exaggeration, but consider the advantages that he had. His descendants over many generations had worked the same land, had an intimate knowledge of the country and had always had a rifle ready to defend their homes against Indians, the British or whomever else may have threatened them. He learned to be a good shot as powder and ball were expensive. Ever since the early days of the fur trade French Canadians befriended and lived with the indians, to a much greater degree than their British counter-parts, learning their customs and woodcraft and exploring most of the continent. These skills, passed down through generations, gave him a great advantage in fighting in heavily forested terrain. He was also better adapted to surviving the harsh winter conditions than the Americans or British.

For instance, during the Seven Years War in North America, French irregulars and their indian allies continually conducted raids against towns across the border, especially during the winter, with terrifying and usually barbaric results for the inhabitants (of which the French were guilty of their share). There was no way of knowing when they would strike and no way of defending against them. They were truly a fearsome opponent.

Yet the paradox of the French Canadian was that he was a person who prefered to stick close to home and tend to his fields. Fighting was a last resort and he needed a darn good reason before he would pick up his gun. The conscription crisis in Quebec in both world wars were proof of this. Even today, Quebec is considered to be the most pacifistic province in Canada and yet is the most anti-American. I can not account for this in historical terms as they did not suffer any considerable depradations at the hands of invading American armies (they weren't ususally around long enough to do much damage). But the Quebecois are second only to the Chinese in inscrutability.