19th Century U.S. Political Unrest Sparks Anxiety in Canada

Article Rewrite

Ottawa Protest and Canada's Policing Approach: A Look into Canadian Political Mindset

By Dr. Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Associate Teaching Professor, Miami University

Introduction

Recent events have prompted Canadians to employ emergency measures, arresting hundreds of protesters and seizing numerous vehicles to end the truckers' protest in Ottawa, the capital city. This action underscores a deep-rooted Canadian political mindset: one that prizes collective order and governmental authority over individual freedom, as opposed to the more independence-focused approach taken by their neighbors to the south.

As early as the 1860s, the founding principles of the Canadian government had a contrasting outlook compared to their American counterpart, with Canada's goal being the pursuit of "Peace, Order, and good Government," rather than "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as declared in the United States' Declaration of Independence.

As an expert in North American culture, it's evident that Canadians have historically been skeptical of mob rule, which has been a recurring issue in U.S. politics.

Adopting a Cautious Stance

In the mid-1800s, Canada was still a collection of British colonies, deliberating its own destiny. The possibilities seemed straightforward: join the empire as a self-governing nation subject to the British monarch or aim for independence and potentially be engulfed by the United States.

To some, the U.S. symbolized success, boasting a robust economy, burgeoning cities, and a rapidly growing population. But to others, it provided a cautionary tale about weak institutions and rule by the unruly masses.

Mid-19th century America faced logistical challenges and societal division, with deep rifts surfacing over race and slavery. A massive influx of immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s sparked social unrest, as newcomers faced hostility from locals. Fundamental institutions like law and order seemed insufficient to deal with the influx of newcomers and the tensions they stirred up.

These developments were met with close observation and concern by Canadians, who watched the unfolding crisis in the U.S. with trepidation. In May 1861, the Toronto-based newspaper The Globe reported, "While we admire the devotedness to the Union of the people of the Northern United States, we are glad we are not them; we are glad that we do not belong to a country torn by internal divisions."

A Different Idea of Liberty

Canadians and Americans held different perspectives on liberty and the role of the government. U.S. institutions were established to protect individual freedoms from excessive government intervention. In Canada, liberty was seen as a collective right that the government had a responsibility to protect to ensure social harmony and a stable community.

This view held that not everyone should participate in politics directly and recognized the presence of both social and imperial hierarchies. It represented a compromise between unfettered individual freedom and social stability, which Canadians seemed willing to accept.

Many in the U.S. held the belief that violent action was an essential aspect of political expression or a revolutionary means of achieving democratic ends. Big cities, such as New York or Philadelphia, were frequently the setting for street riots, some of which lasted for days and involved hundreds of people.

To Canadians, American institutions appeared incapable of protecting individual liberties in the face of populism or demagogues. Whenever voter rights were expanded or under review, social instability, unrest, and violence often followed. One example is the 1854 Bloody Monday rioting in Louisville, Kentucky, where mobs attacked immigrants' homes, churches, and prevented them from voting, leaving 22 dead and countless injured.

The key vulnerability of the U.S., as seen by 19th-century Canadians, was its lack of central power. They feared that the constant delegation of authority and law to the popular will at the local level could lead to social disorder and political instability. They also worried about the stability of a system in which policies and laws could be reversed at any moment by a mob.

Thomas Heath Haviland, a politician from Prince Edward Island, put it bluntly in 1864: "The despotism now prevailing over our border was greater than even that of Russia. ... Liberty in the States was altogether a delusion, a mockery and a snare. No man there could express an opinion unless he agreed with the opinion of the majority."

A Distinctly Canadian Experiment

In the end, Canada chose to form a strong federal union under the British crown, becoming a parliamentary liberal democracy. Unlike the U.S., where the president serves as both head of state and head of government, independent from the legislative body, in Canada, the head of government (the prime minister) is responsible to Parliament, while the head of state is the queen.

At the opening of the confederation debates in 1865, the man who was about to become Canada's first prime minister, John A. Macdonald, expressed his aspirations for the country: "We will enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom – we will have the rights of the minority respected."

Another Canadian founding father, Georges-Etienne Cartier, reflected on the significance of creating a Canadian confederation in 1864: "We had the benefit of being able to contemplate republicanism in action during a period of eighty years, saw its defects, and felt convinced that purely democratic institutions could not be conducive to the peace and prosperity of nations."

Originally published by The Conversation, 03.08.2022, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution/No derivatives license.

Enrichment Data:

Evolution and Historical Context: Canadian Confederation was an effort to bring together previously autonomous British North American colonies, which had been experiencing tensions, with the aim of creating a strong federal union. Central to this process was the British North America Act of 1867, which laid the foundation for Canada's system of government.
Constitutional and Political Differences: The key constitutional document of Canada, the British North America Act, emphasizes the collective good and centralized government, as opposed to the individual freedoms and limited government emphasized in the U.S. Constitution.
Socio-Political Factors: Key socio-political factors in the United States, such as immigration, race, and slavery, have shaped the country's political landscape, often leading to social unrest, demonstrations, and even violence. Canadians have generally adopted a more pragmatic approach to these issues, focusing on maintaining order, fostering unity, and ensuring effective administration for the common good.
Lessons from the Past: Canadians have historically observed the developments in the United States and used the lessons learned to create a political system that placed a higher emphasis on maintaining central authority and order, as they believed these aspects were essential for social stability and the smooth functioning of government.

In light of the Canadian political mindset, which emphasizes collective order and governmental authority, the police approach to ending the truckers' protest in Ottawa can be seen as reflecting this bias towards maintaining social stability over individual freedom.
The caution taken by Canadians in the 1800s, as they watched the unfolding crisis in the United States, underscores their skepticism towards rule by the unruly masses, a contrast to the American perspective on self-governance and individual liberties.