CHAPTER 24
1663-1763.  

CANADIAN ABSOLUTISM.

NOT institutions alone, but geographical position, climate, and many other conditions unite to form the educational influences that, acting through successive generations, shape the character of nations and communities.

It is easy to see the nature of the education, past and present, which wrought on the Canadians and made them what they were.  An ignorant population, sprung from a brave and active race, but trained to subjection and dependence through centuries of feudal and monarchical despotism, was planted in the wilderness by the hand of authority, and told to grow and flourish.  Artificial stimulants were applied, but freedom was withheld.  Perpetual intervention of government,  regulations, restrictions, encouragements sometimes more mischievous than restrictions, a constant uncertainty what the authorities would do next, the fate of each man resting less with himself than with another, volition enfeebled, self reliance paralyzed,  the condition, in short, of a child held always under the rule of a father, in the main well meaning and kind, sometimes generous, sometimes neglectful, often capricious, and rarely very wise,  such were the influences under which Canada grew up.  If she had prospered, it would have been sheer miracle.  A man, to be a man, must feel that he holds his fate, in some good measure, in his own hands.

But this was not all.  Against absolute authority there was a counter influence, rudely and wildly antagonistic.  Canada was at the very portal of the great interior wilderness.  The Saint Lawrence and the Lakes were the highway to that domain of savage freedom; and thither the disfranchised, half starved seignior, and the discouraged habitant who could find no market for his produce naturally enough betook themselves.  Their lesson of savagery was well learned, and for many a year a boundless license and a stiff handed authority battled for the control of Canada.  Nor, to the last, were Church and State fairly masters of the field.  The French rule was drawing towards its close when the intendant complained that though twenty-eight companies of regular troops were quartered in the colony, there were not soldiers enough to keep the people in order.  One cannot but remember that in a neighboring colony, far more populous, perfect order prevailed, with no other guardians than a few constables chosen by the people themselves.

Whence arose this difference, and other differences equally striking, between the rival colonies? It is easy to ascribe them to a difference of political and religious institutions; but the explanation does not cover the ground.  The institutions of New England were utterly inapplicable to the population of New France, and the attempt to apply them would have wrought nothing but mischief.  There are no political panaceas, except in the imagination of political quacks.  To each degree and each variety of public development there are corresponding institutions, best answering the public needs; and what is meat to one is poison to another.  Freedom is for those who are fit for it; the rest will lose it, or turn it to corruption.  Church and State were right in exercising authority over a people which had not learned the first rudiments of self government.  Their fault was not that they exercised authority, but that they exercised too much of it, and, instead of weaning the child to go alone, kept him in perpetual leading strings, making him, if possible, more and more dependent, and less and less fit for freedom.

In the building up of colonies, England succeeded and France failed.  The cause lies chiefly in the vast advantage drawn by England from the historical training of her people in habits of reflection, forecast, industry, and self reliance,  a training which enabled them to adopt and maintain an invigorating system of self rule, totally inapplicable to their rivals.

The New England colonists were far less fugitives from oppression than voluntary exiles seeking the realization of an idea.  They were neither peasants nor soldiers, but a substantial Puritan yeomanry, led by Puritan gentlemen and divines in thorough sympathy with them.  They were neither sent out by the King, governed by him, nor helped by him.  They grew up in utter neglect, and continued neglect was the only boon they asked.  Till their increasing strength roused the jealousy of the Crown, they were virtually independent,  a republic, but by no means a democracy.  They chose their governor and all their rulers from among themselves, made their own government and paid for it, supported their own clergy, defended themselves, and educated themselves.  Under the hard and repellent surface of New England society lay the true foundations of a stable freedom,  conscience, reflection, faith, patience, and public spirit.  The cement of common interests, hopes, and duties compacted the whole people like a rock of conglomerate; while the people of New France remained in a state of political segregation, like a basket of pebbles held together by the enclosure that surrounds them.

It may be that the difference of historical antecedents would alone explain the difference of character between the rival colonies; but there are deeper causes, the influence of which went far to determine the antecedents themselves.  The Germanic race, and especially the Anglo Saxon branch of it, is peculiarly masculine, and, therefore, peculiarly fitted for self government.  It submits its action habitually to the guidance of reason, and has the judicial faculty of seeing both sides of a question.  The French Celt is cast in a different mould.  He sees the end distinctly, and reasons about it with an admirable clearness; but his own impulses and passions continually turn him away from it.  Opposition excites him; he is impatient of delay, is impelled always to extremes, and does not readily sacrifice a present inclination to an ultimate good.  He delights in abstractions and generalizations, cuts loose from unpleasing facts, and roams through an ocean of desires and theories.

While New England prospered and Canada did not prosper, the French system had at least one great advantage.  It favored military efficiency.  The Canadian population sprang in great part from soldiers, and was to the last systematically reinforced by disbanded soldiers.  Its chief occupation was a continual training for forest war; it had little or nothing to lose, and little to do but fight and range the woods.  This was not all.  The Canadian government was essentially military.  At its head was a soldier nobleman, often an old and able commander; and those beneath him caught his spirit and emulated his example.  In spite of its political nothingness, in spite of poverty and hardship, and in spite even of trade,  the upper stratum of Canadian society was  animated by the pride and fire of that gallant noblesse which held war as its only worthy calling, and prized honor more than life.  As for the habitant, the forest, lake, and river were his true school; and here, at least, he was an apt scholar.  A skilful woodsman, a bold and adroit canoe man, a willing fighter in time of need, often serving without pay, and receiving from government only his provisions and his canoe, he was more than ready at any time for any hardy enterprise; and in the forest warfare of skirmish and surprise there were few to match him.  An absolute government used him at will, and experienced leaders guided his rugged valor to the best account.

The New England man ' was precisely the same material with that of which Cromwell formed his invincible "Ironsides;" but he had very little forest experience.  His geographical position cut him off completely from the great wilderness of the interior.  The sea was his field of action.  Without the aid of government, and in spite of its restrictions, he built up a prosperous commerce, and enriched himself by distant fisheries, neglected by the rivals before whose doors they lay.  He knew every ocean from Greenland to Cape Horn, and the whales of the north and of the south had no more dangerous foe.  But he was too busy to fight without good cause; and when he turned his hand to soldiering, it was only to meet some pressing need of the hour.  The New England troops in the early wars were bands of raw fishermen and farmers, led by civilians, decorated with military titles, and subject to the slow and uncertain action of legislative bodies.  The officers had not learned to command, nor the men to obey.  The remarkable exploit of the capture of Louisburg, the strongest fortress in America, was the result of mere audacity and hardihood, backed by the rarest good luck.

One great fact stands out conspicuous in Canadian history, the Church of Rome.  More even than the royal power, she shaped the character and the destinies of the colony.  She was its nurse and almost its mother; and, wayward and headstrong as it was, it never broke the ties of faith that held it to her.  It was these ties which, in the absence of political franchises, formed under the old regime the only vital coherence in the population.  The royal government was transient; the Church was permanent.  The English conquest shattered the whole apparatus of civil administration at a blow, but it left her untouched.  Governors, intendants, councils, and commandants, all were gone; the principal seigniors fled the colony; and a people who had never learned to control themselves or help themselves were suddenly left to their own devices.  Confusion, if not anarchy, would have followed but for the parish priests, who, in a character of double paternity, half spiritual and half temporal, became more than ever the guardians of order throughout Canada.

This English conquest was the grand crisis of Canadian history.  It was the beginning of a new life.  With England came Protestantism, and the Canadian Church grew purer and better in the presence of an adverse faith.  Material growth; an increased mental activity; an education, real though fenced and guarded; a warm and genuine patriotism, all date from the peace of 1763.     England imposed by the sword on reluctant Canada the boon of rational and ordered liberty.     Through centuries of striving she had advanced from stage to stage of progress, deliberate and calm,  never breaking with her past, but making each fresh gain the base of a new success, enlarging popular liberties while bating nothing of that height   and  force   of   individual  development which is the brain and heart of civilization; and now, through a hard earned victory, she taught the con quered colony to share the blessings she had won.  A happier calamity never befell a people than the conquest of Canada by the British arms.

The End OLD  REGIME  IN CANADA.
FRANCE AND ENGLAND IN NORTH AMERICA.

TR AMERICAN PATRIOT hopes you enjoy our books.     Theodore Roosevelt lived his life in a manner that made government responsive to the people.     He has written how to make meaningful reform possible not only for his generation but for future generations, if we read what he has said.  

Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest gift to this country is before us.     It is not in the past, if we as Americans recognize that his message is not just a story from American history pages.     His message is an example, clearly defined.     It details actions that are required if we desire to do something meaningful for our country.     Join the good fight today by becoming a member of our web site.   

David Boyd, repeating what he had read, once said, “The person we become is because of our experiences in life, the people we meet, and the books we read.      Dare to help make Theodore Roosevelt the standard and not the exception.     America needs to adopt a wise, fearless and honest role model as the standard we revere, so that our public servants know what we expect.     The first step to honest government is no harder than setting proper standards of conduct for our public servants through the use of a proper role model.     Can you find one quality in Theodore Roosevelt that is not right in a public servant?  If you think you can, I bet your conjecture is based upon something other than truth and honest reasoning and this American would love an opportunity to debate any such conjecture.