Document Information

Date: 1866-08-27
By: Perth Courier
Citation: “Confederation”, Perth Courier (27 August, 1866)
Other formats: TBA

CONFEDERATION.

A few words more and we shall be done. An idea is prevalent that the measure will increase our facilities for defence; that is, being bound together in one common interest, the Provinces of British North America will be better able to repel any attack on their liberties. Will a constitution binding each member of the Confederation effect this? Why, of course, by the very fact of coalition, for “union is strength.” Of all the absurdities the scheme has produced this certainly surpasses them. What makes a country strong and equal to herself when the supreme moment arrives when she must defend her very existence and liberties? It is in a union of principle and sentiment her safety lies. Now these Provinces have always been governed by British principles, and a constitution can never increase the adhesion of all the British American Colonists to such principles.—Not only will that constitution not increase the adhesion, but it will destroy it, as we have before remarked: and as a further proof of this let us take a case in point. We all know what magnificent things were promised to us from the act of union between Upper and Lower Canada; well, what was the result? Why years and years of bickering, of animosity and of sectional hatred. The time of each session was spent in a furious war of words—the advancement of the country was paralyzed, and the people saw with disgust their hard earned money swallowed up by a set of greedy cormorants whose course was detrimental to the best interests of the masses. Why was this? Simply because there was a union in theory but a bitter disunion in fact. For a loose legislative enactment cannot hold together opinions and principles essentially opposed to one another; and if this were the case between Upper and Lower Canada, do you imagine the same thing would not occur between the different members of the Confederation?—What do we know, here in Canada, of the Lower Provinces? Why, it is only since this scheme originated in the brains of a few ambitious politicians that the people ever bothered their heads about the insignificant islands and territories down below. So there is nothing in common between us and them except the one fundamental principle of attachment to Great Britain. But it is not general principles that create revolutions; they arise from questions affecting local interests. Now, the Lower Provinces can find a market anywhere for their surplus produce, and so can we; but if, in seeking that market, we infringe in the least on the Lower Colonies, they will become, on the instant, our most bitter enemies; and as this will surely be the case, what effect will John A.’s constitution have in warding off the tendency to dissolution? And yet, considering all this, these men have the hardihood to affirm that the defence of the country—the safety of British North America—will be ensured by Confederation!

If we were neighbors to a state other than the colossus beside us, we might hope that a general constitution would present a more favorable aspect, but what would confederation do for us to-morrow if the United States wished to attack us? Why it would keep us together, say some. Keep us together! and if sterling British principles cannot keep us together, what will unite us? Is there any question of the one great fact, that British connection must be preserved? None whatever; the Provinces are perfectly agreed on this matter. Then, will a foolish constitution add to our security? The only security it will give us is simply this, that the Jacobin Government of the United States will smile on and tolerate us for a while because it shrewdly guesses that confederation is but a treasonable bid for its questionable favors. Oh, but say the friends of the scheme, the Foreign Office favors us; and what if it does? What does the Foreign Office know of our affairs? Who gave it authority to dictate to us the policy we should pursue? The people of Canada understand perfectly their own affairs, and need not the dictation of the Foreign Office. Mean, despicable and degraded is the Canadian who takes his cue from the Foreign Office; for, has it not told us in words that can never be forgotten, that our country is a drag on England, and a useless appendage to the British Crown. We want no democracy here, but we emphatically declare that sooner than be a slave to English opinion we would place our necks under the feet of democracy, the most rabid that can be conceived. We were happy and contented—we controlled our own affairs—the future of our country was in our own hands before this rascally measure of confederation was spoken of.—But now, forsooth, we must sacrifice the best interests of our country to Tom, Dick and Harry, whose only claim on us is, that they are needy and poor; and yet, by this measure our protection will be ensured!—Oh, yes,—certainly: a wordy constitution will defend most admirably three or four millions of people against the thirty or forty millions at our door. And the constitution would bring us out of such a conflict with British ideas and liberties intact. Of course it would, because John A., and D’Arcy McGee, and McDougall say so; but neither John A.’s speeches, nor D’Arcy orations, nor McDougall’s twaddle can stuff such nonsense down the throats of sensible men. They have judgment and can put things together; they can form impartial conclusions, unbiassed by party considerations or yearnings after government patronage; [and?] [their?] [conclusion?] is this, that as a [measure?] [of?] [security—?] of defence—confederation may be termed expressively but vulgarly—a humbug.

What do these men mean when they say that confederation will strengthen the country? Are they doubtful of the loyalty of the Provinces in a separate state? No, no, they will answer. Then, if that loyalty really exist, will not a blow at one be an attack on the rest? Will not each rush to arms at the first indication of hostility on the part of the United States? Will one Province stand by and see British opinion and connection crushed, and merely treat the affair with a sardonic grin? We certainly think not. Then where is the necessity for confederation in this respect?—The inhabitants of every one of the Provinces are resolved that no power on earth shall ever sever them from the glorious history of England and her noble constitution. The man who would dare hint the contrary would be driven in disgrace from our land; consequently, we ask again, where is the necessity for this battered-up constitution? Where is the necessity of this confederation of disordered elements?

We would be very sorry to throw cold water on any scheme having for its object the amelioration of British America. We love the country in which we have spent the happiest days of our life, but we love it reasonably, and hence we would not like to see her sacrificed to suit the ignoble ends of personal ambition. We know well there are honest men who advocate strenuously this measure, but honest men are often mistaken, and we think, in this case, they are mistaken. If Canada ever become a prosperous nation it must come from herself; an aggregation of discordant elements will simply destroy her. Canada is, and ever will be, our home, and therefore, we would like to see her great and prosperous. But we would blush for our country if she attained prosperity at the expense of one of the least of the British American Colonies; and under the new system her progress will merely be a progress moving heartlessly over the ruins of the interests of the other Provinces.

We shall now conclude. It is with serious misgivings that we view the future of British America—that future which once looked so bright and promising. Ten years after this we shall hear the revolutionary strains of the “Star Spangled Banner” in the Citadel of Quebec. We shall see the same irrepressible piece of bunting flaunting over a defeated, degraded, betrayed people. We shall have elected pettifoggers dispensing justice in the halls where a Robinson, a Lafontaine and a Baldwin once sat. We shall have that beautiful necessity of democracy—mob-law,—dictating to a nation of slaves the manner in which they must cast their votes. We shall have such nice legislators as Banks of Massachusetts, and that consummate ass of democracy, Thad. Stephens of Pennsylvania, giving us laws and putting a cent stamp on every box of matches we buy, and we shall have Thanksgiving turkeys, and Fourth of July orations, fire-crackers and buncomb, spread-eagle eloquence and torch-light processions, New England philanthropy and negrophobia, wooden nutmegs and the admirable dispensation of basswood hams, dried snow for salt and Peter Funk auctioneers, Free Loveism, Mormonism, and devilism in general, and last but not least, the New York Herald. What a splendid idea, this confederation! What blessings it will confer upon us. We are of opinion that they will be like Virgil’s sailors, after the wreck:

“Rari apparent nantes in gurgite vasto..”

Very few blessings will be perceptible amid the wreck and ruin that this measure will surely bring upon us; and to think that we have been brought to this condition by a few contemptible, ambitious politicians for their own ends! What a shower of Solons the gods have blessed us with now-a-days! Just imagine that Bacon of British America, John A., beating his honest brains in order to extract a certain quantum suff. of “be it resolved’s,” “know ye’s,” &c., &c., for this chateau en espagne of a constitution he is building for us. If any people on earth have cause to be grateful it is the British North Americans; “Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat,” or, if we put the axiom in prosy English according with the pagan mythology:— “The gods make fools of those whom they wish to destroy,” and certainly, if those visionary deities ever made fools of any persons, they have done it with respect to our blessed rulers of the present day. They have placed them in such a position that they afford us another illustration, modern but to the point, of the very imprudent and short-sighted dog that threw away the substantial bone for its shadowy reflection.—We would not, for the world, make odious comparisons, but, in truth, the old fable appears so logically applicable to our present circumstances that we cannot refrain from noticing it. If our legislators will run parallel to such odd lines they must blame themselves, not us.

We would like very much to fall into a “fine phrenzy,” after the manner of Thos. D’Arcy McGee, on the future that awaits confederated British North America, but the truth is we are none of the soaring sort. Every orator, on emergencies like the present, loves to ape Cicero in his magnificent word painting of Rome in flames and the pleasant homes of a happy people crushed beneath the ruthless heel of Catiline. We may talk of Mackenzie River, of Hudson’s Bay Territory, not forgetting the majestic St. Lawrence, in a single sentence; this is effective with the mob—reasoning men cannot be deceived by these “jingling generalities;” and this is their conclusion— British America is doomed.