I enjoyed reading about our symbolism and heraldry. I agree, Quebec is integral to Canada. I'm old enough to recall school teachers explaining Canada as if "Britian and France had a baby."
I feel we must deeply tie our British and French heritages together, in everyway possible, to reignite our cultural flame.
"This relative harmony between Anglo and French Canadians continued with the formation of the modern Canadian state in 1867 during Confederation. Sir John A. Macdonald deliberately chose George-Étienne Cartier as his second-in-command." I would put this a little differently. Macdonald was the leader of the Conservative Tories in Canada West and Cartier was the leader of the Conservative Bleus in Canada East, which made them natural allies in the fractious assembly of the Province of Canada against the George Brown-led Clear Grits and the Dorion-led Rouge. After Confederation, Macdonald was the obvious choice as PM, having had extensive experience as PM in the Province of Canada, his leadership of the English Conservative majority in Canada, and his alliance with Cartier, the leader of the Conservative Bleus. So, I don't think it's entirely accurate, and somewhat anachronistic, to say that Macdonald "chose Cartier as his second-in-command." Rather, Cartier and Macdonald were political allies, as well as good friends, with Macdonald as the first-among-equals PM. Given how powerful Canadian Prime Ministers have become, it's easy to project that power back in time, when in reality, Macdonald was far weaker than modern PMs. It may seem that I'm quibbling here, but if we could go back in time and ask them if Macdonald had chosen Cartier as his second-in-command, I don't think that that is how they'd have seen it.
Also worth mentioning in terms of political collaboration between British (not English since Macdonald was a Scot) and French was the alliance between Baldwin and Lafontaine in the 1840s, which helped lead to the granting of responsible government by Governor General Elgin in 1849.
Excellent! And if I may add, I have long been convinced that the tension of Quebec's awareness of being a minority culture, has driven it to special defiant heights, which embarrass the Anglo side into putting up a better show against the yanks culturally, than we might otherwise (in this commercialized era, especially).
Not exactly Nietzschean struggle stuff - but adjacent, culture-functionally.
I am hopeful that recent American bellicosity might actually be a similar goad to a renewed sense of identity on the part of all Canadians, in distinction (as all Canadians know we absolutely are) to their less principled principles!
A bit of CGTOW (Canada Going Their Own Way) is LONG OVERDUE (and though this might pre-date your memory, I swear there was an easier linkage between left and right on this sort of distinct national consciousness, as recently as the 80s - before "Free Trade" put us in a state of capitulataion in advance, for all these decades. Which is not to dispute your observations about recent dissolution, only to say I am convinced the unity ingredients remain - the trick is to blend right, then (with some extra-national thermal help) bake into a coherent whole, once again.
(Still struggling, as an old long exiled leftie, to find complementary terms to your own, which might reach, and then help bring some of those now dogma-addled, back to consensus sanity, and with that - usefulness!)
Cheers for what you do, good sir! Always appreciated.
Excellent summary. You forgot to mention the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada, more easily suppressed with Loyalist militias playing an important role, with the rebellion's greatest support being from recent American & Irish Catholic immigrants; the elites in that province being termed the "Family Compact". The dual-language leadership of the "Liberal-Conservative Party" started with the merger of anglophone Tories and francophone Bleus, plus some moderate Reformers, in 1854. The Reformers and Rouges in the United Province of Canada were unable to unite until the formation of the Dominion in 1867, becoming the "National Liberal Party". The dual party leadership shared between anglophones & francophones, became less common with the Conservatives, and more common with the Liberals, because of the flipping of Quebec from being largely Conservative supporting to largely Liberal supporting and also because of the declining proportion of the Canadian population that was francophone. There aren't reliable language statistics before 1901, but in that year mother-tongue anglophones were 62% and mother-tongue francophones were 30%; this declined to 55% and 20% in 2021. Most immigrants have already been able to speak English, or have learned English after arrival.
I enjoyed reading about our symbolism and heraldry. I agree, Quebec is integral to Canada. I'm old enough to recall school teachers explaining Canada as if "Britian and France had a baby."
I feel we must deeply tie our British and French heritages together, in everyway possible, to reignite our cultural flame.
It's crucial to remember and share this history. Well done!
"This relative harmony between Anglo and French Canadians continued with the formation of the modern Canadian state in 1867 during Confederation. Sir John A. Macdonald deliberately chose George-Étienne Cartier as his second-in-command." I would put this a little differently. Macdonald was the leader of the Conservative Tories in Canada West and Cartier was the leader of the Conservative Bleus in Canada East, which made them natural allies in the fractious assembly of the Province of Canada against the George Brown-led Clear Grits and the Dorion-led Rouge. After Confederation, Macdonald was the obvious choice as PM, having had extensive experience as PM in the Province of Canada, his leadership of the English Conservative majority in Canada, and his alliance with Cartier, the leader of the Conservative Bleus. So, I don't think it's entirely accurate, and somewhat anachronistic, to say that Macdonald "chose Cartier as his second-in-command." Rather, Cartier and Macdonald were political allies, as well as good friends, with Macdonald as the first-among-equals PM. Given how powerful Canadian Prime Ministers have become, it's easy to project that power back in time, when in reality, Macdonald was far weaker than modern PMs. It may seem that I'm quibbling here, but if we could go back in time and ask them if Macdonald had chosen Cartier as his second-in-command, I don't think that that is how they'd have seen it.
Also worth mentioning in terms of political collaboration between British (not English since Macdonald was a Scot) and French was the alliance between Baldwin and Lafontaine in the 1840s, which helped lead to the granting of responsible government by Governor General Elgin in 1849.
An excellent article overall though.
Excellent! And if I may add, I have long been convinced that the tension of Quebec's awareness of being a minority culture, has driven it to special defiant heights, which embarrass the Anglo side into putting up a better show against the yanks culturally, than we might otherwise (in this commercialized era, especially).
Not exactly Nietzschean struggle stuff - but adjacent, culture-functionally.
I am hopeful that recent American bellicosity might actually be a similar goad to a renewed sense of identity on the part of all Canadians, in distinction (as all Canadians know we absolutely are) to their less principled principles!
A bit of CGTOW (Canada Going Their Own Way) is LONG OVERDUE (and though this might pre-date your memory, I swear there was an easier linkage between left and right on this sort of distinct national consciousness, as recently as the 80s - before "Free Trade" put us in a state of capitulataion in advance, for all these decades. Which is not to dispute your observations about recent dissolution, only to say I am convinced the unity ingredients remain - the trick is to blend right, then (with some extra-national thermal help) bake into a coherent whole, once again.
(Still struggling, as an old long exiled leftie, to find complementary terms to your own, which might reach, and then help bring some of those now dogma-addled, back to consensus sanity, and with that - usefulness!)
Cheers for what you do, good sir! Always appreciated.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Excellent summary. You forgot to mention the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada, more easily suppressed with Loyalist militias playing an important role, with the rebellion's greatest support being from recent American & Irish Catholic immigrants; the elites in that province being termed the "Family Compact". The dual-language leadership of the "Liberal-Conservative Party" started with the merger of anglophone Tories and francophone Bleus, plus some moderate Reformers, in 1854. The Reformers and Rouges in the United Province of Canada were unable to unite until the formation of the Dominion in 1867, becoming the "National Liberal Party". The dual party leadership shared between anglophones & francophones, became less common with the Conservatives, and more common with the Liberals, because of the flipping of Quebec from being largely Conservative supporting to largely Liberal supporting and also because of the declining proportion of the Canadian population that was francophone. There aren't reliable language statistics before 1901, but in that year mother-tongue anglophones were 62% and mother-tongue francophones were 30%; this declined to 55% and 20% in 2021. Most immigrants have already been able to speak English, or have learned English after arrival.