Free Waves on the Saint Lawrence River: Early Canadian History and the “Forgotten” 1837 Uprising — A Critique of the “British Concession Policy” Theory
\n> Marxist Philosophy Group of the Proletarian Liberation Fight Association
\nIn the late 15th century, European colonizers set foot on the rich yet sparsely populated land of Canada. They slaughtered Indigenous peoples, established feudal systems in Canada, and turned Canada into a colony that supplied cheap raw materials to the mother country. From the very beginning, Canada’s history has been “recorded in the chronicles of humanity with blood and fire.” Besides enslaving Indigenous peoples, European colonizers grew wealthy through unequal trade and outright robbery, and also used coercion and inducements to bring many impoverished European laborers to Canada. Despite crossing the ocean, the European settlers on this new land could not escape exploitation by the ruling classes; they established reactionary large landholdings, restricting immigrants to manors, turning the “new life” in the “New World” they dreamed of into a mirage. However, where there is oppression, there is resistance. From the moment Europeans set foot on Canadian soil, the working people of Canada fought bravely and continuously, violently challenging the decayed feudal system and the colonial order brought by European colonizers. In this process, the Canadian people not only created their own history but also forged their modern national identity — the modern Canadian nation. Only through the relentless struggle of the Canadian people could capitalism in Canada develop, the modern Canadian nation be formed, and the Canadian bourgeoisie rise to the stage of history, leading the revolution. It can be said that Canada’s history is the history of its people participating in revolution.
\nOn the question of achieving national independence, Canadian revisionists attempt to spread rumors of peaceful transition by exploiting the uniqueness of Canadian history. They falsely claim that Canada’s independence was formally “approved” by British colonizers, promoting the idea of a peaceful transition, and portray Canada’s independence movement as a history of Britain’s “concession policies” — thus asserting that even modern capitalist Canada could achieve “peaceful entry into socialism” through the “concession policies” of the ruling class. This not only contradicts the general laws of Marxist violent revolution but also distorts the historical facts of the Canadian people’s persistent revolutionary struggle towards independence. Canada’s development does not defy the general laws of social progress; by examining Canada’s tumultuous independence movement, we see clearly that Canada’s independence relied not on colonial concessions but on the unwavering struggle of its people.
\n# 1. The French Colonial Period — The Germination of Capitalism in Canada
The first state to establish colonial rule in Canada was France. In the 17th century, France ended feudal chaos and external wars, forming an autocratic monarchy based on small and medium feudal lords and emerging bourgeoisie, initially capable of external expansion. To increase fiscal revenue, satisfy the luxury needs of feudal landlords, and serve the primitive accumulation of capital by the emerging bourgeoisie, France implemented mercantilist policies that restricted imports and increased exports, emphasizing the role of colonies, and actively developing overseas raw material sources and markets for goods. French colonizers quickly targeted Canada, rich in animal pelts, aiming to turn this vast land into a base for fur trade and supplying their domestic luxury goods industry. Driven by greed, they established settlements along the St. Lawrence River, notably Quebec, which, along with Newfoundland and Acadia (Nova Scotia), formed New France.
When the French colonists arrived in North America, they also brought their reactionary feudal lord system. Under this system, all land in Canada nominally belonged to the French king, who parceled it out to lords, who in turn subdivided or leased it to smaller lords or tenant farmers. The Catholic Church owned the largest landholdings and was the most reactionary economic and political force. Due to various reasons, the feudal relations introduced by the French persisted for a long time, profoundly impacting Canadian social and historical development.
The secular and Catholic lords exploited and oppressed the tenant farmers cruelly: tenants paid rent and also a tax amounting to one-twelfth of their harvest; they paid a proportion of fourteen to one for grinding grain at the lord’s mill; the church levied a thirteenth tax on income annually; from the early 17th to the 18th century, the peasants’ annual labor service increased from six to thirty days; lords directly claimed one-tenth of the fish catch and had hunting rights on tenant land. Additionally, lords held judicial authority over peasants, and the dependence of peasants on their lords was severe. Under the obstacle of French feudalism, Canada’s development was extremely slow.
Reactionary feudal forces extracted every ounce of blood and marrow from the peasants, who refused to be submissive lambs. They often fled to the mountains and forests to hunt with Indigenous peoples and engaged in illegal fur trade, with recorded escapees exceeding 15,000. By 1763, the population of New France was only about 60,000. In the early 18th century, peasants staged large protests against corvée (forced labor), even prompting the French government to suspend corvée in the colonies. The struggle against taxation forced the church to lower the thirteenth tax on grain harvests from one-twelfth to one-twenty-sixth; when Louis XIV demanded a land tax in 1704, the governor and superintendent repeatedly declared it “impractical” due to popular resistance. Colonial officials called the colonists “dissolute” and “showing strong contempt for legitimate rulers,” akin to true republicans who did not recognize royal or judicial authority. It was through these struggles — production and class struggles — that the relations of production in New France gradually adjusted, allowing slow economic development without regression or destruction. The peasants’ flight and resistance to corvée loosened feudal personal dependence; their struggles against heavy taxes enabled them to accumulate surplus products for the market, and under the influence of commodity and monetary relations, social differentiation rapidly emerged. These struggles fostered the embryonic seeds of capitalism.
In commerce, to maximize profits from fur trade and serve national capital accumulation and the development of bourgeois handicrafts, colonizers recruited major domestic merchants, royal confidants, feudal aristocrats, and upper-class fur traders into trade monopolies, issuing exclusive charters only to these companies. However, Canadian national capital still developed through smuggling and other clandestine means. In 1717, the then-governor of Canada, Beauharnois, lamented that annually, fur worth 50,000 livres was smuggled into Britain, accounting for a quarter of all Canadian fur trade.
In handicrafts, under mercantilist policies, France forbade colonies from developing industries that could compete with the mother country. Later, driven by colonial rivalry and the need for fiscal revenue, France allowed some industries in Canada that served colonial plunder — distilleries producing brandy exchanged with Indigenous peoples for furs, shipbuilding sawmills, rope factories, tar factories, and tanneries for leather goods shipped to France. Canada’s comprador capitalism thus developed, with the largest workshops producing nearly 350 workers. Although mainly a comprador economy at this stage, the development of commodity and monetary relations created conditions for the embryonic rise of Canadian bourgeois capitalism. In 1687, two merchants from La Rochelle and one from Quebec established several large double sawmills in Laramie Bay, employing thirty workers and producing about 30,000 planks, 800 beams, and over 100 masts annually. Investment in factories and participation of commercial capital in industry marked the formation of Canadian national capitalism and bourgeoisie. Subsequently, Canada’s national capitalism slowly developed amid feudalism and colonialism.
Economic changes naturally manifested politically. As the bourgeoisie’s strength grew, they demanded participation in governance. In 1732, the bourgeoisie of New France proposed that local merchants form a chamber of commerce to directly participate in economic policy discussions, including fur trade, maritime taxes, and tariffs on agriculture. In 1735, a collective petition by commercial bourgeois demanded tax reductions and greater involvement in economic decision-making. By the 1750s, they further demanded the formation of autonomous councils to control more fiscal and military powers.
During the Seven Years’ War, Britain, representing capitalist Europe, defeated feudal France in North America. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, France was forced to cede New France to Britain, marking the beginning of British colonial rule in Canada.
2. Early British Colonial Rule
After the Seven Years’ War, Britain seized New France from France, establishing its new colonial government in Canada. The Canadian people bid farewell to French colonizers and welcomed the reactionary rule of the British colonizers. Under British rule, the Canadian people suffered brutal colonial plunder, and the weak development of capitalism was severely restricted. The entire country became a raw material base and a market for British capitalism. However, the struggle for independence, national liberation, and revolution persisted. The Canadian people continued their fight against British colonial rule, striking heavy blows that gradually made British domination in Canada unmanageable. The class struggle of the Canadian people also contributed to the formation of the Canadian nation, eliminating ethnic barriers between the Anglo- and Franco-Canadians, making both part of the Canadian nation. The Canadian people are the true creators of the Canadian nation.
From the very day the British colonists arrived, they brought brutal oppression. In Acadie (including present-day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island), about 14,000 French-speaking farmers lived. They worked hard, cultivated the land, and maintained friendly relations with the Indigenous peoples, refusing to support either British or French rule. However, the ruthless British colonizers, aiming to loot their land and wealth, falsely claimed they were “people threatened by war,” and from 1755, launched a bloody massacre against these unarmed laborers. British troops occupied houses, seized livestock, and used various tortures to brutalize the local population. The Acadians organized militias and bravely fought back. One militia leader, Joseph Alexandre Goudin, was captured and tortured in front of his daughter and three grandchildren, yet he refused to swear allegiance to the British, facing death without flinching. During this war, about 11,000 Acadians were crammed into overcrowded, dilapidated ships, and all who resisted were executed or imprisoned, with over 5,000 dying from disease, starvation, or shipwreck.
Indigenous peoples in the region also suffered from British brutality. Even before the war, British colonizers traded with Indigenous peoples at extremely low prices for costly beaver pelts, often using cheap alcohol and firearms as trade goods. Unfair trade drained Indigenous resources, and large quantities of alcohol led to widespread alcoholism among the simple tribes. The introduced diseases devastated many tribes, and firearms fueled intertribal conflicts over fur territories. As the war expanded, British colonizers plundered land, displacing Indigenous peoples. Faced with ruthless British invaders, the Indigenous peoples, who had long been unfamiliar with private property, could no longer endure. On May 7, 1763, under the leadership of Pontiac, tribes launched a massive uprising. Within months, all tribes in the western Americas rose up, capturing nine British forts and continuing the uprising until 1766, killing over 400 British soldiers and expelling thousands of colonists. The prolonged uprising dealt a heavy blow to British rule.
As Mao Zedong pointed out in discussing China’s modern history, “Imperialist powers did not invade China to turn feudal China into capitalist China. Their goal was the opposite — to turn China into their semi-colony and colony.” This also applies to Britain’s role in Canada. Before and during the Seven Years’ War, the Canadian bourgeoisie used the war to develop industry and commerce. To turn Canada into a raw material base for British capitalism, the British government set up special courts, increased patrols, and persecuted local “smugglers,” banning trade with foreign countries, importing new machinery, and expanding smelting facilities, severely damaging Canadian national capital. In response to the rising anti-invasion and anti-colonial struggles, Britain sought to stabilize its rule by co-opting French feudal landlords, keeping local feudal rulers — small officials, large landowners, bishops, and comprador merchants — in power. Under British counteroffensive, the composition of Canada’s comprador bourgeoisie changed: some came from old French fur traders and French landlords who switched allegiance to Britain, some from merchants who supplied military needs during the war, and a few from the colonial military and bureaucratic officials loyal to Britain. Meanwhile, Britain, claiming to bring “freedom” to the Indigenous peoples, issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which falsely declared the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains as “Indian territory,” prohibiting private settlement. However, “private” here referred to French farmers who had cultivated the land but, unable to withstand landlord exploitation, fled and cleared new land. The Proclamation deprived these farmers of their land, forcing them back under feudal dependency. It also banned private land reclamation but granted the British colonial government the right to purchase Indian lands, enabling officials and soldiers to claim large tracts and monopolize fur trade rights in the West. During the war, Britain promised to establish representative government in Canada but quickly abandoned this promise after gaining control, establishing harsh military rule under the pretext of suppressing rebellion. Later, they enacted laws like the Stamp Act to increase exploitation. Britain’s arrival further turned Canada into a colony, severely damaging its development and worsening the plight of workers. Discontent grew, brewing a colonial uprising across North America.
The more developed Thirteen Colonies were the first to mature for revolution. Workers broke through the boundaries of the Royal Proclamation, moved westward, held gatherings, and organized committees. Citizens of Boston even boarded British tea ships and dumped the tea into the sea in protest of British cheap imports. A grand independence war was imminent. Shocked, Britain issued the unprecedented reactionary Quebec Act in 1774 to suppress the revolution. It officially recognized Quebec’s feudal estate system, preserved the Catholic landowning aristocracy holding over 2 million acres, and restored the thirteenth tax, bishopric, and even the abolished French feudal civil law. Britain also established a colonial government in Quebec, completely rejecting the promise of a parliament made in 1763, extending its territory into the northwest Great Lakes region, forcibly seizing land cultivated by colonists, and forcing them to continue obeying the landowners. The Quebec Act greatly strengthened feudal dependence of farmers on landlords, and the landlords, backed by the British government, used feudal laws to conscript soldiers, oppress progressive forces advocating democracy, and even threaten farmers: those who refused to participate in suppressing the Thirteen Colonies would be expelled from church and driven from church lands. Britain believed that such repression would crush Canadian resistance. As a British historian boasted, “If Britain’s injustice to Quebec is only half of its injustice to New England, then American territory would extend to the Arctic Circle!”
However, reactionaries “overestimate their strength and underestimate the strength of the people” — [19]. Canada did not obediently become a base for suppressing the American Revolution. On the contrary, angry Canadians fought back vigorously. In rural areas, British conscription and brutalities sparked immense discontent among farmers. They took up arms, refused military service, women organized protests exposing British reactionary nature. In some regions, farmers even expelled landlords and launched land seizures. British troops responded with brutal repression. After a year of fierce suppression, Britain’s recruitment target of 6,000 was barely achieved. In April 1775, the American Revolution broke out; the Continental Army received widespread support from Canadian workers and advanced triumphantly. When General Montgomery marched into Montreal, Canadians opened the city gates to welcome the revolutionaries, causing British commanders to flee in panic. The workers and revolutionaries swore to establish “equal power, proportional contribution, sincere union, and lasting peace,” and some Canadians even joined the Continental Army. In Nova Scotia, where capitalism was relatively developed, small guerrilla groups and revolutionary bourgeois-led armed uprisings appeared. Confronted with widespread unrest, Britain was both fearful and resentful, worried about a revolution in Canada similar to that in the US, and thus retreated temporarily to Quebec City. There, they learned from Montreal’s experience, persecuted and expelled 170 pro-American sympathizers, and adopted brutal repression. They hurriedly dispatched troops from overseas to stabilize their position. In Nova Scotia, Jonathan Eddy’s Cumberland uprising also gained local support, with many locals joining the uprising, swelling the ranks by 1.5 times. When British troops tried to repair Cumberland Fort, locals refused to supply food, assist in repairs, or even warned the troops to defect and join the uprising. The reactionary officers, like Golem, had to summon militia hastily, even conscripting wounded soldiers. However, as the war turned against them, the uprising split, and local bourgeoisie, dependent on British orders and fearing disruption of shipping and strikes, collaborated with the British to oppose the uprising, enabling Britain to quickly mobilize superior forces to crush it. After more than a year of brutal suppression, Britain finally subdued the Canadian resistance at great cost.
Although the American Revolution briefly ignited some sparks in Canada, it could not turn into a blazing fire to burn down British colonial rule. Compared to the Thirteen Colonies, Canada’s bourgeoisie was only just shaken by Britain and still heavily hindered by feudalism. Their strength was weak, and they had deep ties to British capitalists, making them hesitant to revolt. Instead, they often chose compromise and reform. Revolutionary factions overly relied on individual strength, believing that they could rally the masses without thorough preparation or broad unity, leading to failure. The proletariat, hindered by underdeveloped capitalism, was scattered and unable to form a united force. Even the American bourgeois revolutionaries hesitated when facing Canadians, offering only vague promises or vague programs when defeat was imminent, failing to meet workers’ demands. Some mercenaries infiltrated the uprising, robbing Canadians and damaging the revolutionary reputation, thus missing the golden opportunity for revolution.
Nevertheless, the struggles of the Canadian masses struck heavy blows against British colonizers:
- Their anti-conscription fights thwarted Britain’s plan to quickly mobilize troops, forcing Britain to send forces across the ocean, buying time for the American revolutionaries.
- Canadian people fought on the rear, collaborating with revolutionaries to seize cities, tying down nearly half of British forces and protecting the core of the revolution in Washington, D.C., greatly weakening Britain’s power in North America.
- Canadians gained some democratic rights, electing militia officers and forcing the returning British troops to recognize this fact.
- The widespread struggles laid the ideological foundation for democratic ideas among Canadians and sparked reform movements of the Canadian bourgeoisie.The British government’s attempt to suppress the American Revolution failed. However, the reactionary classes in history would never choose to make concessions to the workers simply because of their failures. Britain was forced to withdraw from the occupied western territories of the United States but did not abolish the Quebec Act. The landlord class, in addition to the original rent, also demanded various tenant fees, miscellaneous service fees, accommodation fees, rent, fishing fees, and hunting fees from farmers. Even after regaining the legal right to collect the tithe, the Catholic Church was still not satisfied, imposing taxes under the guise of mass fees, baptism fees, wedding fees, funeral fees, donations, repairs, and new church constructions, and even taxing church seating. Local British and French merchants, taking advantage of agricultural bumper harvests, hoarded goods, while usury capitalists also eyed the farmers greedily. The alliance between the landlord class and British colonists was unprecedentedly strengthened. However, feudal economy ultimately hindered British merchants from expanding markets, and their obstruction of production also limited Britain’s ability to exploit more surplus products. Therefore, British colonists still needed to seek a more suitable foundation for rule. During the American Revolution, a group of pro-royalist aristocrats, large merchants, slaveholders, clergy, and officials closely connected with Britain, known as the “Loyalists,” acted as spies and executioners for Britain. After the victory, to escape revolutionary reckoning and confiscation of their property, they fled to Canada with luxury and slaves. The British government favored this loyalist counter-revolutionary group, offering them generous treatment, declaring that each officer and household head among them could receive thousands of acres of land and a large sum of cash from the British government (all Loyalists received over 3 million pounds in cash)[[23]]. As a result, a large number of upper-class Loyalists flooded into present-day Upper Canada and Nova Scotia, sharing 26% of the most fertile land with the original British colonial rulers[[24]]. Most of them did not engage in agriculture at all; some did not even live in Canada but used their privileges to acquire and plunder large tracts of land, inflate land prices and rents, becoming land aristocrats and speculators. These parasites quickly colluded with local fur traders, forming the most corrupt ruling group in Upper Canada—the Family Compact. Another group, composed of wealthy farmers, middle merchants, and estate owners who lacked political privileges in the past, received relatively less land but still considerable. After arriving in Canada, they gradually differentiated, giving rise to a new local bourgeoisie. They hired farmers in the upper St. Lawrence River region (future Upper Canada) to grow wheat and grind flour, and established fishing companies and small sawmills in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. However, they either sold goods to local British garrisons or exported to Britain, heavily dependent on British colonialists. Some impoverished farmers and slaves, who escaped from manor control and were deceived into joining the Loyalists, also came to Canada with the Loyalist army. The British government deceived them into believing they would be granted equal land, but in reality, the land granted was small, remote, and poor in soil. Moreover, the British government deliberately set extremely strict and lengthy procedures for land approval, sometimes making it impossible for them to obtain land at all, forcing them to work for capitalists or rent land from landlords. They suffered brutal oppression alongside local people, joining the struggle through petitions, rent protests, tax protests, donation protests, and resistance to forced labor, opposing high rents and corvée, demanding boundary demarcation, returning land seized by landlords, and urging the government to fulfill its promise of free land. Some farmers even resorted to violence, illegally occupying unallocated government land for cultivation. After 1783, many American workers also went to Canada to cultivate wasteland, becoming local smallholders and greatly developing agriculture. They loved freedom and refused to accept colonial government exactions, maintaining close ties with local workers, which intensified the struggle. Therefore, British rule was very unstable; by 1785, a British Secretary of State even admitted in a letter: “Quebec is a very unstable province for Great Britain”[[25]].
The bourgeoisie in the colonies also demanded change. Farmers’ poverty led to a small domestic market, and the Canadian agricultural bourgeoisie urgently needed an overseas market to absorb the increased grain production from land reclamation by immigrants. However, the Shipping Act prohibited Canadian exports to non-British regions, and the Grain Act imposed high tariffs on Canadian grains. This dual control made Canadian grain exports very unstable, hindering the growth of the flour industry. Canada’s industrial backbone—timber processing—faced similar issues. Most Canadian timber exports could only go to the West Indies, which was also controlled by reactionary plantation owners, leading to slow construction of new facilities and limited sales, heavily relying on military orders from the domestic shipbuilding industry. Due to dispersed land ownership among large landlords and poor transportation infrastructure, distant timber sources were difficult to transport to markets, blocking timber supply. Consequently, Canada’s timber industry was sluggish. Additionally, the traditional fur trade grew at less than 1% annually, and industries serving the fur trade, such as distilleries and tanneries, stagnated. The only heavy industry in the colony—iron smelting—developed sporadically during the American War of Independence for weapon manufacturing but quickly fell into silence. Without fighting or eliminating feudalism and colonialism, Canada’s national industry could not develop.
Chairman Mao pointed out: “Whenever you want to overthrow a regime, you must first create public opinion and do ideological work. This is true for the revolutionary classes, and also for the counter-revolutionary classes.”[[26]] The Canadian bourgeoisie looked toward revolutionary France, which was gradually forming, attempting to use French revolutionary theory to find a direction for their own capitalist development. In 1778, influenced by the American War of Independence, a group of Voltaire’s disciples founded the Literary Gazette in Montreal as their official publication, propagating the ideas of French bourgeois theorists Rousseau, Voltaire, and others, which led to fierce attacks from local church colleges. After 1783, books by French bourgeois thinkers were more widely transported into Canada and quickly spread across the region. One local bishop reflected on this: “Around 1800, many people in the country did not believe, but I believe that the evil books of Voltaire and others were widely circulated”[[27]]. The British colonial government and its Catholic Church allies were greatly alarmed, but even their widespread confiscation and destruction of these revolutionary books could not stop their proliferation.
At this time, the lower ranks of the Canadian bourgeoisie were still very weak and lacked the strength to directly overthrow British colonial rule. Therefore, the movement was initially led by the upper bourgeoisie of Canada. Due to feudal civil law and autocratic systems limiting free land transactions and free flow of commodities, hindering bourgeois speculative activities and industrial and commercial development, they demanded the establishment of parliamentary institutions, sharing some political power, and developing capitalist industry. However, because they relied heavily on the British colonial market and needed colonial government protection for their large land holdings, their demands for parliamentary systems included high property thresholds, hoping to avoid fundamental changes to the old ruling class and keep the movement within legal petitions. In 1783, a group of Loyalists petitioned the British government against the Quebec Act’s protection of feudal systems, with leader Powell William Dummer constantly “instilling silence and obedience”[[28]], resulting in only minor amendments related to juries and other insignificant institutions. On November 24, 1784, the Canadian bourgeois collected 2,300 signatures for another petition demanding protection of commercial freedom. But landlords quickly countered with a “Counter-Petition” signed by 2,400 people. After the failure of these petitions, the bourgeois who participated wrote to London, claiming they would “spare no effort” for freedom, blaming the failure on the shortsightedness of a few nobles, and vowed to prove their loyalty again through new petitions. The upper bourgeoisie in Canada only sought some social reforms and was extremely afraid of revolutionary upheaval. They “always tried to stall during revolutionary peaks and make compromises with the old regime,” and their remaining revolutionary spirit would turn reactionary. This moment soon arrived in Canada.
On July 14, 1789, the French Revolution erupted in a storm of upheaval. The heroic deeds of the Parisian people became a beacon for workers and reform-seeking bourgeoisie worldwide, and the slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” spread rapidly in Canada, pushing the revolutionary movement to new heights. Although the British colonists were terrified, they issued a series of reactionary decrees, threatening to classify all acts of resistance against the monarchy as treason, arresting pro-revolution Americans and sympathizers, banning revolutionary publications and gatherings, and forbidding discussions, criticisms, and protests against the government. They even sent more troops to guard various regions, but these measures could not stop the spread of revolutionary ideas. The helplessness of the British colonial government in face of the revolutionary tide led the Governor-General of Quebec to exclaim: “I have every reason to believe that the Canadians are now closer to France than before the revolution; this change is undoubtedly caused by (French) secret agents, who, despite all my vigilance, are trying to introduce their poison into the Canadians”[[29]]. They intensified counter-revolutionary tactics, implementing a White Terror and employing divide-and-conquer strategies. In 1791, the British colonists promulgated the so-called Constitution of 1791 (hereafter the Constitution). This constitution first divided Canada into two separate regions: Upper Canada (located in the southern part along the upper St. Lawrence River, now Ontario) where English was dominant, and Lower Canada (near the sea entrance in the north, now Quebec) where French was dominant, each with its own governor. The British government claimed that the Constitution was a great gift to Canadians, protecting the rights of French speakers and granting the Anglophone population in Upper Canada the benefits of British commercial law. In reality, it continued to uphold the feudal system in the French-speaking regions, even granting one-seventh of the land in both regions to the church, serving mainly as a tool for Britain to win over landlords and churches and maintain its ideological and political dominance[[30]]. British law was only enforced in Upper Canada because local workers fought fierce battles through rent protests, tax protests, and forced relocations, making feudal exploitation unsustainable. At the same time, Britain relaxed commercial restrictions, facilitating the co-optation of local bourgeoisie. More deceptively, the Constitution also stipulated the establishment of a “Legislative Assembly” in both regions, seemingly fulfilling the promise of representative government. However, it limited the Assembly’s fiscal powers, and its laws required approval from a legislative council, executive council, and governor composed of nobles, rendering it a powerless body. Furthermore, in the first election, all elected members were landlords and big capitalists, forming a noble-dominated parliament. A British colonial minister admitted: “We are willing to make these concessions when they might be seen as favors, and we have the ability to control and guide their implementation, rather than wait until they are imposed on us”[[31]]. Clearly, the Constitution and the parliament were not “gifts,” but tools devised by the colonial government from above to deceive the people, win over big landlords and bourgeoisie, and expand reactionary rule.
However, later revisionists shamelessly repeated the old British colonial “gift theory,” claiming that the Constitution of 1791 was a concession policy by the British colonial government to the Canadian people, even praising the reactionary Quebec Act as a sign of Britain respecting French Canadians. They regarded Canada as a “peaceful transition” model, attempting to use this to justify the illusion that peaceful transition could be achieved in Canada and worldwide today. They forgot that “the people, only the people, are the driving force of history”[[32]], ignoring that it was the continuous revolutionary struggles of the Canadian people that struck at feudalism, allowed capitalism to develop slowly, and spread revolutionary ideas. The so-called Constitution of 1791 is merely evidence of British colonial efforts to counterattack and obstruct Canadian independence. After its promulgation, Canada still retained its semi-feudal, semi-colonial social nature. The fundamental contradiction in Canadian society remained between the Canadian working people, mainly farmers, and the British colonists and their comprador landlords and capitalists. The democratic revolution in Canada had only just begun.
3. From Reform to Revolution (1791—1837)
After 1791, the upper bourgeoisie in parliament fully revealed their reactionary nature, passing numerous reactionary laws such as the Militia Act and Road Act, which enforced conscription. Many workers awakened, abandoning the misguided path of petitions, and instead rising in uprisings to seize land and resist taxes and rent. Their struggles dealt heavy blows to feudalism and the bourgeoisie, expanding small private landholdings. Meanwhile, many American workers came to Canada, cultivating wasteland and developing production. By 1798, wheat output in most Canadian districts increased by 115% compared to 1784[[33]]. In 1794, wheat from Upper Canada began exporting to Lower Montreal, quickly becoming a pillar of the local economy. At the same time, due to Britain’s urgent need for timber and military supplies during the anti-French wars, Lower Canada received large export orders. The timber and flour industries rapidly surpassed the fur trade; by 1810, timber exports from Lower Canada accounted for 74.5% of total exports, agricultural products 14.7%, and furs only 9.2%. British financial oligarchs often set up branches locally, providing small loans to small producers for logging and processing. These logging enterprises could only sell to British companies, which charged high freight and commissions, limiting local capital accumulation. The middle and small industrial bourgeoisie in Lower Canada was the first to develop, driven by feudal restrictions, British exclusion, and comprador deductions. They took the lead in advocating for reform. In 1805, the government imposed an additional land tax. Large landlords could easily transfer it to farmers, but the French industrial bourgeoisie, which relied on contracting forests and had little land, faced even worse conditions. To protest this policy, led by Pierre Bédard, the Canadian Party was formed, publishing The Canadian newspaper, rallying farmers protesting land taxes and corvée, and demanding responsible government. The governor-general despised the reformers, repeatedly dissolving parliament, dismissing officials, seizing newspapers, and arresting leaders. However, repression only strengthened the reformers’ mass base, and in subsequent elections, they scored major victories. In 1812, Britain was preparing for war with the United States, fearing that reformers might lead a joint uprising with the Americans, so they used cunning tactics: restoring the reputation of reform officials and promoting them to official positions. Pierre Bédard, after obtaining a judge’s post, was satisfied and quickly withdrew from politics, damaging the reputation of the Canadian Party. Support for the party plummeted, and parliamentary struggles waned. Britain thought it could then bind Canada to its war efforts, but revolutionary ideas had already spread among the Canadian people. War only intensified their resistance.
In 1812, the U.S. military invaded Canada under the pretext of Britain influencing its trade. Canadians organized militias to defend against invasion. However, Britain only wanted to ally with reactionary forces as “reliable allies” to extract more benefits from the people. Under government incitement, Archbishop Plessis issued a circular to all parish priests, requiring them to mobilize residents not conscripted into the army to help sow landlords’ fields and ensure harvests, causing stagnation in industry and severe damage to peasant production, resulting in poor harvests. The sluggish economy and insufficient exports caused serious financial difficulties for the government, which resorted to issuing paper money—war bonds—to raise funds, leading to severe inflation. The Canadian workers, farmers, soldiers, and conscripts could no longer bear it; protests erupted across the country against war taxes, corvée, and forced conscription, demanding better treatment. As the U.S. tide receded, Britain attempted to turn the anti-invasion war into an invasion of the U.S., but this heinous act was fiercely resisted by the American people. Canadian militias refused to cooperate with the invasion order. The thousands of British troops dispatched from afar found themselves isolated and had to retreat into Canada. Under the anti-war appeals of workers from Canada, Britain, and the U.S., Britain and the U.S. signed an equal treaty, ending the war. The bourgeoisie of both countries, which had used the war to ease internal contradictions, was thoroughly discredited, but the workers of all three countries strengthened their friendship through the common anti-invasion struggle. The close economic ties and mutual resistance among workers in Upper and Lower Canada during the war laid the foundation for the 1837 uprisings.
After 1815, Canada’s economy plunged into depression. During this period, feudalism, the upper bourgeoisie, and British colonial rule increasingly hindered development:
First, Britain’s reinforcement of mercantilist policies narrowed the colonial market further. The “war-time prosperity” provided by British military orders disappeared. In 1815, the British land aristocracy enacted new Grain Laws to protect their interests, prohibiting Canadian grain exports outside the British Empire, and banning imports if British grain prices fell below a high threshold. This severely restricted Canadian grain exports, and other industries also suffered under mercantilist constraints. In 1816, wheat and timber exports from Canada fell by 40% compared to 1814, and industrial output decreased by 30%. Many small and medium bourgeoisie went bankrupt, and capital rapidly concentrated into large bourgeoisie hands.
Second, the malignant expansion of large landownership and land speculation worsened. In Upper Canada, out of 17 million acres of surveyed land by 1834, only 700,000 acres remained unallocated. Most land was granted to large landlords, with the church alone receiving 3.5 million acres. Over 90% of the land seized was left idle for speculation, inflating land prices. The largest land speculator—British colonizer the Canada Land Company—acquired 1.1 million acres in the Huron region in 1826 at £1 per acre, reselling at up to £8 per acre. Neither workers nor weaker capitalists could afford such prices. Farmers, unable to pay cash, took on heavy high-interest debt, often paying interest first and principal later, leading to debt spirals and land confiscation when unable to repay. Debt-ridden farmers caused the market to shrink, worsening the crisis. Speculators, seeking quick profits, showed no interest in developing industry or agriculture. Their vast, barren lands blocked transportation and water projects, making it difficult to bring timber to markets, thus restricting timber sources. As a result, Canada’s timber industry stagnated. The traditional fur trade grew less than 1% annually, and industries supporting it, like distilleries and tanneries, also stagnated. The only heavy industry—iron smelting—developed sporadically during the American War of Independence but soon fell silent. Without fighting feudalism and colonialism, Canada’s national industry could not develop.
Third, large landowners exploited land acquisition for repeated cultivation, exhausting soil fertility. In the 18th century, average land yield was 6 to 12 bushels per acre; by 1832, it had fallen to only 3 bushels. Wheat quality was poor, with yellowed flour unfit for export. Agricultural decline led to soaring prices for farm products, raising costs for labor reproduction and prompting farmers to revert to subsistence farming—growing hemp and raising sheep—causing a severe decline in commodity economy.
Fourth, most profits in industries like logging and shipping were plundered by colonists and funneled back to Britain, benefiting neither the colony’s development nor the people. For example, all transportation and sales in logging were controlled by colonists. Most ships built by Canadian shipyards were sold to British traders, with few Canadians participating in overseas trade. Consequently, local capital accumulation was very slow, and without loans from colonists, development was even more difficult.During a severe economic downturn, many working people who went bankrupt in the British economic crisis crossed the ocean to America in search of a way out. For the industrial bourgeoisie, they were an excellent source of cheap labor. However, Canada’s impoverished industry could hardly absorb these immigrants, and Canada’s bourgeoisie watched as they arrived by ship, batch after batch heading to the United States, all feeling anxious and demanding reforms. The division between the large bourgeoisie and the small and medium bourgeoisie in society was reflected in Parliament. Faced with the threat of bankruptcy, the small and medium bourgeoisie proposed more radical demands in parliamentary struggles. At the same time, they began to realize gradually that the parliamentary route could not achieve their goal of controlling a unified national market, and thus started to attempt to use violent revolution to break the shackles of feudalism and colonial rule. In Lower Canada, the reformers led by Papino first demanded control over the budget and fiscal powers to hold the authority to support the small and medium national bourgeoisie. They also demanded the right to decide officials’ salaries, aiming to weaken their parasitic consumption and economic power by lowering the salaries of conservative bureaucrats. However, their proposals were immediately rejected, the parliament was threatened with dissolution, and even Papino himself was removed from the speakership. This news quickly aroused the anger of the people of Lower Canada, who demanded the restoration of his position. Only then did the government have to allow the parliament to control fiscal powers and the authority to set government officials’ salaries. However, the reformers clearly understood that giving parliament some powers did not change the fact that the two committees could easily veto proposals or even dissolve parliament. Therefore, they went further, demanding the establishment of a legislative council elected by ballot, and in 1834, the “Ninety-Two Resolutions” were passed by Parliament, listing all the reformers’ grievances and demands, including control over finances, the establishment of an elected legislative council, maintaining land rents, and abolishing the British North American Land Company. The situation in Upper Canada was quite similar; the small and medium industrial bourgeoisie was represented by Mackenzie, who founded the “Colonial Advocate” newspaper, promoting ideas against noble aristocracy and calling for political reform. As a result, the aristocrats hired thugs to storm the newspaper office and smash everything. In Parliament, Mackenzie’s reform faction was expelled four times by the aristocrats and four times readmitted with popular support. In the 1834 elections, the reformers again achieved victory. Mackenzie and the reformers immediately used this to propose the “Seventeen Points Report,” which summarized dissatisfaction with the existing system and policies, mainly criticizing the clergy’s land, the fiscal system, various economic chaos, and administrative committees. The direct demands included establishing an elected judicial committee and responsible government. The focus of these proposals was on establishing elected legislative and administrative committees, aiming to control the real power departments, and to seize some of the power held by British colonizers, large merchants, and bourgeoisie. However, British colonizers would never voluntarily relinquish their rule. The reforms had already touched the core interests of the colonial government; further steps would lead to bloody conflict. A revolution was imminent.[16] Mao Zedong: “Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party.” In: Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 1967, p. 591.
[17] Stanley B. Ryerson, “1837: The Birth of Canadian Democracy,” 29.
[18] Vincent T. Harlow, “The Founding of the Second British Empire 1763-1793 Vol.1 Discovery And Revolution,” 113.
[19] Mao Zedong: “The Chiang Kai-shek Government Is Already Surrounded by the Whole People.” In: Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 1960, p. 1120.
[20] Stanley B. Ryerson, “The Founding Of Canada: Beginnings To 1815,” 211 (1972).
[21] Ibid., 212.
[22] Ibid., 213.
[23] Zhang Youlun: “A Brief History of Canada,” Nankai University Press, 1994, p. 48.
[24] Patricia Claxton, “Lower Canada, 1791-1840: Social Change and Nationalism,” 4 (2016).
[25] Stanley B. Ryerson, “The Founding Of Canada: Beginnings To 1815,” 225 (1972).
[26] Mao Zedong: “Speech at the Eighth Plenary Session of the Tenth Central Committee.”
[27] Stanley B. Ryerson, “1837: The Birth of Canadian Democracy,” 24.
[28] S. R. Mealing, “Powell, William Dummer.”
[29] Fernand Ouellet, “Lower Canada, 1791-1840: Social Change and Nationalism,” 55.
[30] Zhang Youlun: “A Brief History of Canada,” Nankai University Press, 1994, p. 51.
[31] Stanley B. Ryerson, “The Founding Of Canada: Beginnings To 1815,” 225 (1972).
[32] Mao Zedong: “On the United Government.” In: Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1966, p. 932.
[33] Fernand Ouellet, “Lower Canada, 1791-1840: Social Change and Nationalism.”
[34] Engels: “Anti-Dühring.” In: Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1972, p. 223.
[35] Stanley B. Ryerson, “1837: The Birth of Canadian Democracy,” 91.
[36] Christian Desjardins, “October 23 and 24, 1837 - The Assembly of the Six Counties at Saint-Charles.”
[37] Jean-Paul Bernard, “Public Assemblies, Resolutions, and Declarations of 1837-1838,” 304 (1988).
[38] Stanley B. Ryerson, “1837: The Birth of Canadian Democracy,” 108-109.
[39] Stanley B. Ryerson, “1837: The Birth of Canadian Democracy,” 125-126.
[40] Engels: “Letter to Konrad Schmidt (August 5, 1890).” In: Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 37, People’s Publishing House, 1971, p. 432.