Document Information

Date: 1867-01-07
By: The Montreal Herald
Citation: “No title”, The Montreal Herald (7 January, 1867)
Other formats: TBA

To the Editor of the MONTREAL HERALD.

SIR,—I observe that some of your contemporaries who support Confederation are again attempting to raise the cry of disloyalty—of hostility to British connection—against the opponents of that measure, and I propose, by your leave, to consider briefly the issue thus raised between the opposing parties. In all political struggles with which I am acquainted, it is the advocates of change—the innovators who have been regarded as revolutionists, as desiring to uproot the existing order of things, as being disloyal, if the word can be fitly applied to any party. Here, however, it is pretended that the men who cling to our present condition, and oppose a change which was not seriously advocated by any political party in the country three years ago, are revolutionists—enemies of British connection— annexationists, and, from the persistency with which this preposterous cry is reiterated, there would seem to be some who believe in its efficacy as a weapon of party warfare, though it is impossible to imagine that men of ordinary intelligence can be deluded by it. The antecedents of some of the public men who now oppose a change which is in fact a revolution, are sometimes referred to as justifying the assumption that they are actuated by other motives than those they choose to avow ; but whatever value attaches to this argument, unfortunately for those by whom it is employed, it has at least as keen an edge for them as for their opponents. I would not reproach Messrs. Cartier, McGee, Galt and Rose for their antecedents, but it would be quite as fair to assume that those antecedents represent their real aims now, as that the similar antecedents of certain of their opponents represent the present aspirations of the latter ; and it would be far more logical since the gentlemen I have named are engaged in the advancing of a policy, that contemplates the establishment of a “new nationality” and by necessary consequence the disruption of the old, while their opponents cling to the old flag and would adhere to the old and well tried ways of the British constitution. In point of fact there is no disaffected, no disloyal party in this country, and those who, for paltry party purposes, assert so glibly that there is, are the worst enemies of their country. The misrepresentation is accepted as truth by those who can not be expected to be conversant with provincial politics, and the result is we are believed to be a divided people on the vital question of allegiance, among whom a rebellion may break out any day. Impressions of this nature can not fail to act prejudicially on every interest in the Province, and one has only to glance at the relative position of our Securities in the London share list compared with the Securities of say, the Australian colonies, to satisfy himself of the mischief wrought by unscrupulous local partisanship. The grounds on which Confederation is opposed may be insufficient but they are at least intelligible, and worthy of being met with something like argument, instead of the senseless cry of disloyalty, which seems to be the sole intellectual resource of a numerous class of public writers among us Those grounds may be briefly stated.

1. There is no community of interest, no intimate social or commercial intercourse between the Provinces proposed to be confederated, requiring a closer political union between them than that which already exists, arising out of a common allegiance, and that in the absence of these essential conditions there is infinite danger that the scheme of Union, if consummated, would instead of settling our present sectional difficulties, beget new and much more extraordinary sectional difficulties than any we have hitherto known.
2. That it is a misnomer to designate as a plan of union a project that begins by dissolving a close Legislative union between the two Canadas, embracing four fifths of the territory and population of the proposed Confederation, in order to reunite them by a slender federal tie.
3. The direct cost of government, to say nothing of the expense and unproductive undertakings which form part of the scheme, and others sure to follow in their train, would be greatly increased, probably doubled.
4. Confederation means the estabalishment of a “New Nationality,” Independence in fact, Now the opponents of Confederation do not believe that the people of these Provinces desire to sever their connection with the Empire, that they are prepared to assume the burdens of Independence, or that they could, with their own unaided strength, in the present undeveloped condition of their resources, maintain their independence if they should achieve or accept that status.

These, as I have stated, are intelligible propositions, and are, I believe, plainly stated. Would it not be better to controvert these than to call names ?

ANTI-CONFEDERATE.

Jan. 5th, 1867.