Document Information

Date: 1866-08-03
By: Perth Courier
Citation: “Confederation”, Perth Courier (3 August, 1866)
Other formats: TBA

CONFEDERATION.

It may be out of place now that Confederation has become un fait accompli, to treat any more of a subject already worn out by discussion. But when we hear the jubilant cries of applause that now greet the successful issue of the measure, perhaps it will not be asking too much of these persons to pause awhile—to restrain their frantic demonstrations—and give a few moments to that most unusual of party occupations—thought.

Of course, it is a great thing to have the leading men of the country on one’s side. This is a great, decisive argument with a certain class of parish politicians; yet, with all due respect to those “leading” characters, let it be borne in mind that nations have been ruined by their “leading men,” and that if the majority of the calamities now afflicting the earth were carefully studied, a great deal of responsibility would be found on the shoulders of “leading men;” indeed, few, very few, occur without a decided criminality in these favored individuals. This is by way of digression. What we want to ask is this: Will Confederation increase the material prosperity of the country? Will it lessen taxation?—Will it afford greater facilities to the working man than now exist? Will it attract immigration? Will it favor, in any respect, British Connexion? We know well a thousand voices will answer yes to these questions, but if we say, “no,” let them answer us after giving our reasons for our assertion. Such an important question should not be approached in a party spirit, but rather with that gravity and impartiality which are ever the most effective means of arriving at a true solution of difficult state problems. We know that there are men who pooh, pooh, every opinion that clashes with their own—who imagine that a man is devoid of reason if he fail to see in their dicta the clearest, most rational view on every subject that interests the public. But even in the face of this terrible reality we emphatically pronounce Confederation an anti-British movement—a step towards Washington—a dereliction from the old principles that once governed public men in Canada—a sophistry in politics, and a great mistake.

“It will increase the prosperity of the country,” say the friends of the scheme.—In what manner? Is any man so silly as to imagine that the principle of consolidation—of centralization—ever added to the progress of any land? Does any one think that because Upper Canada is brought into political contact with such important provinces as Prince Edward’s Island, &c., that, therefore, either one or the other is benefitted by the change? In what way, in the name of common sense, can they be improved by a simple theoretical constitution? If Canada can find anything in Prince Edward Island that can elevate her more than at present, and which Confederation will ensure to her, let us hear what it is. Or, does Prince Edward’s Island imagine that she will be benefitted by such wise statesmanship as that lately presented in Mr. Galt’s admirable tariff? Is it possible that Confederation can change the natural facilities of the former, or add to the financial abilities of the latter? Then, how is it possible, from such worthless combinations that those magnificent results will follow which the advocates of the measure would lead us to believe must of a certainty arise out of this [hetreogenous?] union? It will not increase, one iota, the energy or enterprise of any of the Provinces—it will not add to their wealth in any particular—it will simply leave them in a position changed for the worse. That there will be an amelioration in the condition of some of the members of the Confederation, we believe; but it is the strong who will prosper at the expense of the weak; and this prosperity will not so much result from any increased energy, as from the utter powerlessness of the weaker states to contend against them. They will lose their individuality in spite of their local legislatures, and be quickly reduced to the degraded occupation of “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for their stronger brethren. It is all very well to laugh at such an argument as visionary—that cannot change its truth. Then, what shall we say for the patriotism of men who advocate this scheme, knowing at the same time that they are but planting the seeds of disruption and ruin, and laying the foundation of a second edition of the American Declaration of Independence.—For, does any one suppose that any member of the Confederation will quietly submit to spoliation and wrong? And as it is certain that their serfdom will commence with this measure, we shall have the splendid spectacle of British Provinces, that otherwise would have remained truly loyal to the British Crown, rushing into the arms of American democracy, and preferring absorption to slavery. We know well there are clever men who see in Confederation a realization of the long mythical Utopia, but we rather think Self will never be an unknown god in this Utopia. Men of sterling principle like “John A.”—men of consistent loyalty and monarchical aspirations like that soul of Saxon truth, T. D’Arcy McGee, are desperately eager for the consummation of Confederation. This simply means that John A.’s peculiar management, and T. D.’s brilliant “gab” will burst from the chrysalis state of Provincial obscurity into the extended limits of British American fame the day that Confederation becomes a fact. This is all very well—it accounts for their special pleading anent the measure, but we imagine Confederation is for the whole country, and not for “Jack-in-office” alone; and if the measure favor a few and injure many, we are of opinion that the sooner we know it the better. The taxation of the country will be increased under the new order of things. Goodness knows, we find it difficult enough to endure the reckless expenditure of our present political system, but what will it be when instead of one legislature, we shall have a dozen or so tugging at the people’s purse? Of course, we have loud professions of the rigid system of economy about to be introduced, but a certain unmentionable locality is paved with good intentions; and from the specimen of retrenchment afforded us in a contracted sphere, we may easily imagine what will be the condition of the country when larger facilities for “bleeding” the public are placed in the hands of our Canadian legislators: we say Canadian, for, of course, it is a Canadian scheme, and makes the other Provinces merely an extension of Canada—sattelites, in fact, in the Canadian orbit.

This whole undertaking is a manifest injustice as far as taxation is concerned, to the Lower Provinces. It is all very well to say: “They are the best judges of that; they have voluntarily accepted the yoke, and it is too much to dictate to men who understand their own interests.” This would be a proper and forcible objection under other circumstances, but we must remember that there has been a most unworthy pressure of Imperial opinion bro’t to bear on the settlement of the question.—We shall say no more on this point; we might say too much; but the fact is apparent to all honest men who value independence above red tapeism and the circumlocution office. The Lower Provinces in general have managed their affairs, not after the Galt style, but rather with a view to the prosperity of the whole. Of course, figures may be adduced to the contrary, and very wise reasoning advanced in support of the opposite opinion, but if our assertion be not true, why that strong opposition to Confederation so apparent in these Provinces until the aforesaid pressure was brought forward to coerce those to whom the scheme was objectionable from the moment it was first mooted? They understand perfectly their own affairs, and we repeat, their objection to the measure is not dead, but will, in some future day, sound the knell of British connexion in America.—Let the friends of Confederation laugh at such a conclusion if they will, but it should cause them to ponder deeply the expediency of a scheme fraught with the most deplorable consequences to all engaged. We have not far to go to find a sad parallel: the North and South furnish it; and yet these latter were less unlikely to differ—had more in common, depended upon each other more, than the Provinces of British North America. Mark this: the moment a measure be introduced which is hurtful to any one of the confederated states, that moment the signal for dissolution will be sounded; and then, what will be the consequence? Why, the South in miniature, a cobbled up constitution will be referred to as a sanction of the stronger to compel the weak to submission, and we shall have enacted here in Canada that beautiful necessity of constitutions—bloodshed. This whole matter has never proceeded from a real desire for the advancement of the country; it is purely personal—the mere hobby of ambitious men: real sterling principle is not at the bottom of it. They may succeed for a time, but it will end, as we have said, in disaster. Our words, of course, will not avert it; but, nevertheless, the end will come, and experience is a bitter, hard teacher.