Quebec Election Thread

[Barrister]

Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés

CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise.  Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.

The liberals finished in 2nd.  There is no provincial Conservative party.

[Malthus]

Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.

The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.

Interesting, I did not know that. 

The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.

Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.

[Grey Fox]

Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés

CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise.  Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.

The liberals finished in 2nd.  There is no provincial Conservative party.

No, there's one. It's lead by Luc Harvey, he was a Federal PC member back in '08.

[Barrister]

Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés

CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise.  Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.

The liberals finished in 2nd.  There is no provincial Conservative party.

No, there's one. It's lead by Luc Harvey, he was a Federal PC member back in '08.

Well it's not affiliated with the federal party.  No provincial party is.

[Valmy]

The liberals finished in 2nd.  There is no provincial Conservative party.

Really?  Is that the Conservative spirit?  Just give up and let the Commies take over?  Bah.

[Valmy]

The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.

Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.

You have to remember our army consisted almost entirely of untrained militia men.  One of my wife's ancestors was in the Kentucky militia that fought in the Battle of the Thames and they came home crowing about having killed many 'Tories, Frenchmen, and Indians' so if the plan was to treat the Canadians as countrymen and get them to rise up against the British they clearly forgot to tell the troops.  As far as these guys were concerned the Canadians were foreigners and/or traitors.

[Barrister]

The liberals finished in 2nd.  There is no provincial Conservative party.

Really?  Is that the Conservative spirit?  Just give up and let the Commies take over?  Bah.

You have to remember the fairly tortured recent history of the federal Conservative Party, which formed from the uneasy merger of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) parties.  It was just easier to not try and go around forming provincial wings, since there were all-ready pre-existing successful provincial Progressive Conservative parties, or other parties covered the field for right-wing politics (BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Party).

The last Alberta election was fought between two parties that both could have arguably been the provincial wing of the federal Conservative Party.  So it's just easier to keep the politics separate.

[Malthus]

The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.

Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.

You have to remember our army consisted almost entirely of untrained militia men.  One of my wife's ancestors was in the Kentucky militia that fought in the Battle of the Thames and they came home crowing about having killed many 'Tories, Frenchmen, and Indians' so if the plan was to treat the Canadians as countrymen and get them to rise up against the British they clearly forgot to tell the troops.  As far as these guys were concerned the Canadians were foreigners and/or traitors.

I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.

Many in the local population were distrustful of the British authorities and sympathetic to republican ideals, and so it was reasonable to expect that they would side with the Yank invaders. Unfortunately, as you say, the actual experience of being invaded soon put paid to that!

[viper37]

Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.

check the link I posted.  It's the general tone of the documentary that I disagree with.  It's such a minor event in the war, and it's interpretation is dubious.  The British regularly burnt houses&stables on conquered territory (1759 and 1839 in Canada, even burning people in a church, and many such incidents happenned during the American Revolution IIRC (no burning churches though).  The Americans were no more savages than the British were.  During the war of 1812, the British didn't burn civilians houses because they mostly stayed away from "civilized" area.  Afaik, they intended to burn other buildings but they were forced to retreat by heavy rain and an hurricane.

[crazy canuck]

Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.

The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.

Interesting, I did not know that. 

Yeah, Malthus did a good job summing up the prevailing historical view.  Canada was there for the taking if the Americans hadnt treated the locals so poorly.  If you are into podcasts there is a great show on this topic on CBCradio.ca Ideas which interviewed American and Canadian historians on the subject.

[Valmy]

I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.

So the British were concerned by the precendent established by things that happened 20+ years into the future?  Anyway if the British had denied the locals local rule and tried to overturn the Constitution like the Mexicans did indeed things might have gone that way.

[Valmy]

The Americans were no more savages than the British were.

At least they had a proper congressional vote on burning down the Capitol.  No move to burn down York was not made, seconded, or carried

[Malthus]

Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.

check the link I posted.  It's the general tone of the documentary that I disagree with.  It's such a minor event in the war, and it's interpretation is dubious.  The British regularly burnt houses&stables on conquered territory (1759 and 1839 in Canada, even burning people in a church, and many such incidents happenned during the American Revolution IIRC (no burning churches though).  The Americans were no more savages than the British were.  During the war of 1812, the British didn't burn civilians houses because they mostly stayed away from "civilized" area.  Afaik, they intended to burn other buildings but they were forced to retreat by heavy rain and an hurricane.

I tried, and your links did not work. 

Anyway, if I understand the precis of the documentary, the interpretation is only dubious in this respect - that it, as it were, blows that specific event (  ) out of proportion; that rather it was the cumulation of several such events that turned the tide of opinion against the Yanks.

It is quite irrelevant whether or not the Brits behaved equally badly (they did - for example, they famously burned down Washington - though question whether 'they started it' is a good excuse). The reason it is irrelevant is that the Brits had no serious intention of conquest in the US dependant on obtaining Yank goodwill against their own governement - while the Yanks were attempting the conquest of Canada, and local goodwill was possible for them to obtain.

In other words, arousing local hostility was a loss of an opportunity for the Yanks that did not exist for the Brits. 

[Malthus]

I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.

So the British were concerned by the precendent established by things that happened 20+ years into the future?  Anyway if the British had denied the locals local rule and tried to overturn the Constitution like the Mexicans did indeed things might have gone that way.

No, events 20 years in the future demonstrated that contemporary British concerns at the time were not without foundation.

[alfred russel]

This is more of a side comment, but I think part of the problem was that many Americans didn't see themselves as trying to "conquer" Canada. After the Revolution, the American mindset naturally shifted toward viewing the British as horrible tyrants (especially with loyalist migration to places such as Canada). There was a mentality that it would be easy to take Canada over because there woudl be lots of local support. For those with that mentality that ended up encountering loyal Canadians, a combination of anger, fustration, and perhaps viewing them as a sort of traitor to their country conspired to less than ideal outcomes.