The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774

by Pierre Beaudry, 7/4/2007

Introduction.

From the standpoint of American military strategy, the invasion of Canada, a year before the Declaration of Independence, had two definite goals. Firstly, the purpose was to defeat the British army and make Canada the 14th colony of the United States and secondly, to preempt a British invasion of the American colonies from the north. George Washington had been explicit in his orders to Major General Richard Montgomery, the American leader of the Canada expedition. This mission was to take the two main cities of Montreal and of Quebec City and put them under the banner of the American colonies.

The first objective of the invasion failed and the tragic consequences of not having given the Canadians a true liberation are still being felt to this day. The reason for the failure is not to be found entirely in the treasonous activities of a few Americans, but primarily, in the Quebec Act of 1774, an “Intolerable Act as the Americans stated it in their own Declaration of Independence. The evil of this Quebec Act succeeded in turning the French Canadians into a little people that preferred to support the continued rule of the British oligarchy and their deeply rooted moral corruption.

The Intolerable Acts.

American revolutionaries considered the Quebec Act as an Intolerable Act because it was part of a series of coercive or punitive measures that the British Parliament had taken up, at the instigation of the British East India Company, during the period following the Treaty of Paris of 1763, for the purpose of provoking war against the thirteen American colonies. It is essential that the Quebec Act of 1774 be understood in the context of a whole series of Acts pronounced by the Parliament of Britain against the American colonies during that same year.

For example, on March 31, 1774, the Parliament of Great Britain passed a measure in response to the Boston Tea Party called the American Boston Port Act, outlawing the use of the Port of Boston, as a punitive measure against the colonists of Massachusetts. As the port of Boston served as a major business facility for all shipping goods all the way to South Carolina, the closing of its trade became one of the causes that unified the thirteen colonies. Then, the British Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, on May 20, 1774, for the purpose of stopping the revolutionary ferment in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, by giving the British the right to nominate a governor of their choice. Other intolerable Acts were passed such as the Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774) also giving the British the right to replace the local American judicial system by British law. The Quartering Act, passed earlier on March 14, 1765, required that Americans let British soldiers stay in their homes.

The Quebec Act of 1774, in apparence unrelated to the American colonies, gave the British the right to expand the territory of Quebec into Ontario and Indian territories, as well as into lands that included Illinois, Indiana, Michighan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota. Such an “Intolerable Act” represented not only a strategic danger for the thirteen colonies but was instrumental in leading them to institute their first Continental Congress and make their Declaration of Independence. In point of fact, the American Declaration of Independence referenced all of these “Intolerable Acts” including the Quebec Act, itself, as being the fundamental reason to “dissolve their political bands” with Britain on July 4, 1776.

In the case of Quebec, the Declaration explicitly denounced Britain “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.[1] This section of the Declaration of Independence was made in direct reference to the Quebec Act of 1774.

The Aftermath of the Treaty of Paris of 1763.

From the same strategic standpoint, the British Empire knew they were going to have a war against the American colonies at least as early as 1745, after the siege of Louisburg and, therefore, had to secure the continent of America well before 1776. The necessity to prepare for the inevitable was the true motive behind the Seven-Years War with France and Spain. The British aim was to seize Canada from the French and Florida from the Spanish, and establish the British East India Company under Prince Rupert’s authority in Canada. To this day, historians of the Treaty of Paris of 1763 wonder why the British chose to negotiate Canada instead of the French West Indies. This silly shortsightedness was caused by comparing the uneven commercial values between fur and rum. When Canada is viewed strategically as a flank against the United States, then, the choice becomes clear. So, it was only at the end of the Seven-Years War, in 1763, that the British East India Company considered they were ready for a war against the American colonies, and not before. And that is the reason why the British instituted systematically a series of Intolerable Acts against the Americans from that moment on.

The Treaty of Paris of 1763, which ended the Seven-Years war among the British, the French, and the Spanish, also put an end to the French-Indian Wars in America. As a result, the British East India Company, including the Hudson’s Bay Company, became the world’s No.1 colonial empire and claimed a great part of North America as its private property. Add to this the fact that the French ceded Canada and all of its claims east of the Mississipi River (most of present-day central United States), including East Louisiana. Spain ceded Florida to Britain and received West Louisiana and New Orleans from France. This established the authority of the Husdon’s Bay company (The Gentlemen Adventurers) in the Rupert Territories of Canada, and the British East India Company as sole master of North America and the Seven Seas. The Gentlemen Adventurers of the British East India Company has been deep in the flank of the United States up until the nineteenth century.

01-01

Figure 1. The Hudson Bay Company was the owner of Rupert’s Land which covered an area of 3.9 million square kilometers (1.5 million square miles), that is one-third of the total area of Canada.

The point to be made, here, is that this British operation was not a victory for King George III, but a victory for the Private British East India Company whose main nightmare was the lost potential of the American Colonies, sometimes down the road. So, when you look at the so-called “war of words” that went on between Britain and America during the period of 1763 to 1776, you have to consider that it was the “nabobs” of the East India Company who ran the British Parliament and the King, and not the other way around. This “war of words” was the prolegomena to the War of Independence.

Recall, for example, some of the misunderstandings around the Stamp Act of 1765. That Act had nothing to do with taxation of the colonies per se. Its purpose was to impose the right of the British East India Company’s Parliament upon the Colonies. Its political implications were as clear to the British as they were to the colonists. This meant economic independence or servitude for American commerce and industry.

For instance, recast the memorable speech that William Pitt, Lord Chatham, made in Parliament against the Stamp Act, on January 14, 1766. In response to the Repeal of the Stamp Act by the Americans, Pitt shocked everyone by saying: I rejoice that America has resisted.” Moreover, it is not surprising that in 1770, a statue of William Pitt was erected on Wall Street, commemorating his promotion of the Repeal of the Stamp Act. However, people who thought that Pitt was favorable to the Americans when he made that statement have misunderstood completely his intention. Pitt understood, at that point, that the Americans were willing to go to war in order to prevent the British East India Company’s Parliament from dictating their laws. This is what Pitt agreed with: war! In the same speech, Pitt added that the power of Parliament must now be absolutely firm and “that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pocket without their consent.

Thus, the British gloated, as did the chairman of the board of the British Library: “After 1763, successive ministries determined to control the American continent more effectively, and to raise money in the colonies by a series of measures considered novel and provocative by their opponents. The Stamp Act (1765), Townshend’s Duties, the setting up of a Board of Customs Commissioners (1767), and finally the Tea Act (1773), all cause resistance and riot in America and contributed to the steady accumulation of distrust and antagonism between Great Britain and the colonies. By the end of 1774, the two sides were set rigidly against each other.”[2]

How Canadians Got [enfirouapés] into a Poisoned Gift.

 From the standpoint of Canadian politics, the creation of the Province of Quebec, as a colonial entity, was a British invention under the guise of a political fallacy of composition. This British sophistry is an important piece of the puzzle of universal history, such as Friedrich Schiller understood it, because the present history of Canada can only be understood from the standpoint of this past event, which has caused that nation to become politically debilitated up until today. In 1774, when the British decided to unilaterally replace Canada by Quebec, they also intended to use Quebec as a colonial stepping-stone for attacking the United States. From that strategic standpoint, the Quebec Act was the original War Measures Act against the coming American Revolution.

In point of fact, it is quite an irony of universal history that from the moment the British had actually created the Province of Quebec, under that name, any French subject that adopted the name of “Québécois” instead of “Canadien” had been made to believe he was secure in the comfort zone of a protected French enclave, while, in fact, he was actually being short-changed by being given a British identity!

There is, in french-canadian parlance, a curious British verbal expression, which was created during that period and which is a perfect description of this tragic moment of history. The expression translated into Québécois is: se faire enfirouaper. The Québécois think they are the proud creators of this expression. They are not. This verbal action is a very interesting metaphor which means “getting screwed,” or “being taken in,” that is, in the original polite British language of the 18th century: “getting in fur wrapped.” It also means being protected in warm blankets. Getting enfirouaper was precisely what has happened politically and historically to the Canadian population over two hundred years ago with the Quebec Act. They got royally screwed.

In 1774, the ruling representative of British Canada, Guy Carleton, “Captain-general and Governor in and over the Province of Quebec, and the Territories depending thereon in America,” had the Parliament of London pass the Quebec Act, under his hand, which rendered null and void the conditions established by the 1763 Treaty of Paris, and gave to the province of Quebec its name along with its current political and legal status.

The Quebec Act of 1774, composed between May 10 and May 13, 1774, gave the French Canadians the right to practice their own religion (100 years before such a right was legitimized in England), the right to have their own judges, and apply the French Civil Code in all of their daily activities, as well as the right for the Seigneurs (Lords) to raise taxes throughout the province. Remember that the British legislated, in the same spirit, the intolerable Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774) against the American colonists precisely 7 days after having formulated the Quebec Act, but exactly to the opposite effect. This connection between Canadians and the Americans shows the reason why there existed no specific Canadian circumstance that warranted such a sudden change of policy and why nothing, in the annals of Canada, could be found that would explain the bounty of such a gratuitous gift as Quebec to the French colonists. Only the reference to the American Revolution can explain why the French colonial and the American colonials, each in a different way, were treated as animals. The one was enfirouapé; the other was tarred and feathered. Such is British justice.

Accompanying this generous British action in Canada, there were two infinitesimal details that remained unchanged and were considered so insignificant as not to cause the British controllers any serious concern: the Québécois had no right to have their own government and had to swear an oath of allegiance to a British king instead of a French king. And, Bob’s your uncle! However, those two insignificant details stood out like sore thumbs pointing to the significance of making the difference between man and animal. In political human terms, this infinitesimal change was the difference between the Leibnizian calculus and the Newtonian bowdlerization of the same calculus: the difference between a true change in the universe and a linear fallacy of composition faking a change. Yet, not one Canadian historian ever noticed that there existed that difference between what the Québécois were getting from the British and what the Americans were about to offer them.

Similarly, since pronouncing the name of Georges Trois appeared to be the same as saying Louis Seize, there were no objections to change allegiance as long as the Québécois colonials saw the restoration of the same French feudal rights as before 1763. Besides, the Treaty of Paris of 1763 had already dubbed Georges III king of France. This is what Carleton considered to be the essential condition to maintain the Québécois enfirouapés within their apparently fixed boundary conditions. And Carleton was convinced that such an Act, as tolerable as it could be made, would maintain the French people as contented cows. Thus, the French population was denied the right to have its own government and was given warm blankets, instead. The Québécois had discovered the British Principle of Happiness.

The Jesuit dominated Catholic Church took care of maintaining the status quo in the parishes, which was guaranteed by the bishops of Montreal and of Quebec while Carleton instituted a Governorship with a Council to rule the new province of Quebec. Tout va bien! The Council, located in Quebec City, had no less that 17 and no more than 23 members nominated by the Privy Council of the British Crown. In a word, the British had given the French Canadians the poisoned gift of their apparent autonomous territorial, linguistic, and religious sovereignty: the right and the ability to go along to get along.

01-02-only pic- quebec act

Figure 2. “Scene depicted by Charles W. Simpson of the first meeting of the expanded Council following the adoption of the Quebec Act”[3]

Now, this raises the question: Did any leaders of the French community see through that charade, and did any of them stand up for the unalienable rights of man? The answer to this question is fortunately yes! That leader’s name was Clement Gosselin, from La Pocatiere east of the Isle of Orleans, near Quebec City. Gosselin recruited several hundred French Canadians to the revolutionary war. The contingent of Canadian patriots and revolutionaries preferred to risk being excommunicated rather than to miss this world historical moment. The Gosselin story will be told in a forthcoming report.

According to the great grandson of this French Canadian patriot, the American historian, Henry Gosselin, his relative defied the excommunication threat by the Bishop of Quebec City, Monsignor Olivier Briand, and became the main French Canadian spy for George Washington. Gosselin added:

Despite his pastor’s warning, Clement continued to recruit other French Canadians to support the American assault on Quebec, Dec. 31, 1775. He went on to serve as a spy in Canada for General George Washington. And at Yorktown, Virginia, he was wounded while commanding an artillery unit less than 300 yards from the British in the final battle of the American Revolution. He was given 1,000 acres of land on the west bank of Lake Champlain in upstate New York by a grateful Congress. But his heart was always in the land of his birth – the Isle of Orleans in Quebec.”

Clement Gosselin had estimated that if the Americans had launched their attack on Quebec City 20 days earlier, Canada would have been in their hands. “Had the Americans arrived at Levis when Arnold hoped they would, there would have been almost nothing opposing the invaders. Quebec was a virtually defenseless city. Governor Carleton had sent two of his four regiments to defend Boston – which was precisely what the Americans wanted to prevent from happening again. And he had sent a third regiment to Montreal and Saint John. The garrison at Saint John had surrendered to General Montgomery on Nov. 2 – and the remainder of the British regulars was in Montreal, where Montgomery’s forces were currently conducting a siege. The two-pronged American invasion north had left the cities of Montreal and Quebec undermanned.”[4]

The Truth behind the British Sophistry.

According to official documents, the reason for the change in Canada was to create ”An Act for making more effectual Provisions for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America, […]” Now, what is wrong with that? Does a population not deserve provisions for their government? Yes, of course, but what kind of provisions? What is hidden in the form of language elaborated by Carleton? Why do I consider that statement as a conscious lie? It is only by reflecting back from the American Revolution that we can make conscious the fact that the British used such “Provisions” to justify their culling of the Québécois herd in order to maintain a control over them.

Next, imagine the document stating the truth, instead. That is, bringing the pre-conscious to the level of consciousness, you might say that the reason for the change was to create: “An act for making more effectual provisions in order to maintain “enfirouapée” the population of the Province of Quebec in North America and for preventing their joining the American Revolution, […]” Voila! This is the thought that was located, ontologically as Lyn would say, in a preconscious form within the previous lying statement. Of course this statement could not have been stated without subverting the entire intention of the document, but the truth emerges from it, nonetheless, as a testament to its false authenticity. Which is exactly my point. This preconscious formulation alone shows that the Quebec Act of 1774 is a historical fraud.

On the other hand, in France, a variation on the same paradox was being played by a British alliance with the Orleans French oligarchy of Philippe Egalité, the result of which made the French people captive to another British fallacy of composition that became known as the French Revolution. This was best exemplified by the neo-conservative ideology created by Martinist Synarchist and British agent, Joseph de Maistre, who succeeded in destroying the constitutional monarchy as formulated by Jean-Sylvain Bailly and Marquis de Lafayette at the Tennis Court Oath, on June 20th 1789. In other words, nowhere, since the Treaty of Paris of 1763, except for the brief moment of June 1789, did the French population succeed in rising above its littleness.

Now, the British did the same thing to the indigenous populations of Canada. They herded them into reservations out of which they have not come out to this day. Thus, it becomes clear that such an unnatural act of British subversion of Canada as a whole, and of the province of Quebec in particular, had never been instituted for the purpose of improving the condition of the French population, or for liberating them, but for the sole purpose of preventing 70,000 people of Canada from becoming the 14th colony of the United States a year before the beginning of the American War of Independence.

As a result of this sophistry, no French Canadian, except Clement Gosselin and his group, dared defy the new British rule and join the American revolutionaries. The Oath to King George III made it as an explicit threat against anyone who joined the American conspiracy, stating:  “I sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful, and bear true Allegiance to His Majesty King George, and him will defend to the utmost of my Power, against all treaterous Conspiracies, and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against His Person, Crown and Dignity; and I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His Heirs, and Successors, all Treasons, and treaterous Conspiracies, and Attempts, which I shall know to be against Him or any of Them…

All persons refusing to take the Oath were subject to penalties and fines, including death. In other words, not only were Gosselin and his patriots excommunicated from their Church, but they had become pariahs risking the death penalty. This was a high price to pay for not subscribing to an act, itself fallacious, that had created a synthetic entity that was to last for 233 years, with virtually no significant modifications. Today, the government of Quebec is still ruled under the unchanged “provisions” set by the fraudulent Quebec Act of 1774. Currently, the Quebec government is still controlled by the Privy Council of the British Queen, Elizabeth II.

Several American delegations, including Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, Charles Carroll, and his brother John Carroll were sent to Montreal by George Washington and the Continental Congress during the American Revolution. But, not one of them was able to change the tragic situation that had been quietly established with the lie of the Quebec Act of 1774.

Treason in Canada and the Two Failed American Invasions.

The invasion of Canada was an important part of the American Revolution strategy. The idea of transforming Canada into a 14th American colony was not just a nice idea, but was a creative preconscious thought that was slowly making its way into the consciousness of even British governors during the immediate pre-revolutionary period. Canada has been a weak flank for the potential subversion of the Constitutional Republic of the United States by the British ever since 1763 and has, since then, remained an essential concern for the security of the American continent as a whole.

For example, the first American preparations for an invasion of Canada occurred in May of 1746 when, during the French and Indian War, British Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, William Shirley, called on other governors and on the British Military for their assistance in this operation. It was then that the British-American Governors realized that their enemy was not only France but also Britain. Shirley did not wish to invade Canada because he wanted to liberate the French population on behalf of the American Independence. He was British-born and did not like the French, but he saw Canada as a permanent danger in the flank of America.

As a matter of fact, Shirley was quite nasty with the French Canadians. He was the commander-in-chief of the Great Expulsion that forced the deportation of more than 12,000 Acadians from Nova Scotia beginning 1755 until 1763.  The Acadians had resisted the British more seriously than the Quebecois did. They did not accept the injust conditions the British imposed on them after the Treaty of Utrecht of 1714, when France lost New Foundland, Nova Scotia, and the Husdon Bay territories to the British.

However, as a British Governor and not as an American revolutionary, Shirley had realized the power the American colonists might have if Canada ever fell into their hands. That is why early that summer of 1746, Shirley had requested from London the authorization for his Canada expedition, explaining to the British Minister of War, the Duke of Newcastle, that the governors of the colonies were willing to raise troops and take Canada from the French. These were all American Red Coats under British command. The Duke accepted the proposal. As reported by Graham Lowry: “Massachusetts voted to raise 3,500 men; Connecticut 1,000; New Hampshire, 500; and Rhode Island 300. The Duke of New Castle, now chief minister, had promised to send a squadron with eight battalions of British regulars, to join the New England troops at Louisburg, for an attack up the St. Lawrence against Quebec. Like the expedition of 1711, the plan called for a simultaneous assault by land on Montreal, from northern New York. For this second army, New York raised 1,600 men. New Jersey 500, and Maryland 300.  Virginia managed 100 more, despite the decided lack of enthusiasm on the part of Governor Gooch. Gooch’s attitude did not bode well, since the ministry had designated him Major general, to command the American attack on Montreal.”[5]

By July, the news had reached the Americans that the British contingent was not coming from Britain and the American invasion of Canada fell apart. Through British intelligence machinations, the French got wind of the invasion plan and sent 3,150 veteran troops to retake Louisburg immediately, thus, obliterating any American attempt at taking Canada. Meanwhile, the British had cancelled their own military expedition and the Duke of Newcastle waited another four months before ordering the American regiments to disband before winter came. The British obviously never intended to take Canada for the benefit of the Americans. This treasonous alliance of 1746 between the French and the British oligarchies was still a living memory when, in 1775, a second American attempt was made to take Canada, this time, by soliciting its people in joining the American Revolution.

On September 16, 1775, Major General Richard Montgomery was ordered by General Washington to march north from Fort Ticonderoga with 1,700 troops in an attempt to capture Montreal. According to American historian Michael P. Gabriel, who wrote the monography Major General Richard Montgomery: the Making of an American Hero, Montgomery was born of Irish gentry with an inbred “noblesse oblige” military outlook. But, however determined Montgomery might have been, there was already a sabotage operation underway. There was another operation that beat him to the punch by attacking Montreal before he got there.

When On September 25, out of his own initiative, Ethan Allen and his renegade Green Mountain Boys attacked Montreal and lost against Carleton, Allen was made prisoner of war. What happened to Allen’s troops remains uncertain, but Allen, himself, was reportedly later shipped to prison in England and returned to America in exchange for a British prisoner two years later. On November 13, Montgomery took Montreal without difficulty, but was unable to capture the Governor of Canada, General Guy Carleton, who made his escape to Quebec City with his British troops. The reason for the escape of Carleton is obscure and remains a mystery.

This is how the website of Americans.net The Invasion of Canada and the Fall of Boston  described the invasion of Canada.

Montgomery, advancing along the route via Lake George, Lake Champlain, and the Richelieu River, was seriously delayed by the British fort at St. Johns but managed to capture Montreal on November 13. Arnold meanwhile had arrived opposite Quebec on November 8, after one of the most rugged marches in history. One part of his force had turned back and others were lost by starvation, sickness, drowning, and desertion. Only 600 men crossed the St. Lawrence on November 13, and in imitation of Wolfe scaled the cliffs and encamped on the Plains of Abraham. It was a magnificent feat, but the force was too small to prevail even against the scattered Canadian militia and British Regulars who, unlike Montcalm, shut themselves up in the city and refused battle in the open. Arnold’s men were finally forced to withdraw to Point aux Trembles, where they were joined by Montgomery with all the men he could spare from the defense of Montreal a total of 300. Nowhere did the Canadians show much inclination to rally to the American cause; the French habitants remained indifferent, and the small British population gave its loyalty to the governor general. With the enlistments of about half their men expiring by the New Year, Arnold and Montgomery undertook a desperate assault on the city during the night of December 30 in the middle of a raging blizzard. The Americans were outnumbered by the defenders, and the attack was a failure. Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded.

What is not clear is how Montgomery managed to take Montreal on November 13 after Ethan Allen had failed in his premature attack on September 25. The idea was to take Canada before the winter sets in, however, by December, Montgomery had not yet secured his victory and had to launch a second expedition with Colonel Benedict Arnold in Quebec City. But Arnold had been in the sight of the enemy in Quebec since November. What was he waiting for? Several things remain to be clarified with respect to this attack of the Citadel of Quebec City in the middle of a raging snowstorm. Was that a suicidal mission, some sort of Wintry Charge of the Light Brigade? Why would the Americans attack under such incredible odds? The true roles of Carleton, Allen, and Arnold remain to be further investigated. Michael Gabriel made the following revealing statement about the tragic end of Richard Montgomery.

“Spending fifteen years in the British army, Montgomery saw extensive action during the French and Indian War at such places as Fortress Louisburg and Fort Ticonderoga. However, he was heavily influenced by opposition ideology, grew disillusioned with Britain, and permanently immigrated to America in 1772, where he became a gentleman farmer. Marrying into a powerful New York Livingston family, Montgomery reluctantly embraced the American cause as the imperial crisis deepened, as he still felt ties for Britain and his old regiment. He served first as a delegate in the New York Provincial Congress and then as a brigadier general in the Continental Army. On the night of December 30-31, 1775, faced with expiring enlistments, Montgomery launched a disastrous assault on Quebec, which cost him his life and effectively ended the American bid to seize Canada.”[6]

After Montgomery had been killed, it remained unclear as to what happened to the remaining American troops. How did they spend the rest of the rough Canadian winter? Were they in hiding? Were they trapped and forced to surrender? Did Benedict Arnold make a deal with Carleton? Montgomery had only brought to Quebec City 300 men from an initial 1,700 troops and Arnold only had 650 men left out of an initial army of 1,150 men. That is a lot of people to lose along the way. One report indicated that 100 Americans had fallen in the attack on Quebec, and 400 were made prisoners.

Captain Daniel Morgan, who became the Commanding officer after the wounding of Arnold, was made prisoner along with 372 men captured. Morgan was released in January 1777. However, another story claims that the remains of the American army managed to stay in the surroundings of Quebec City for the rest of the winter (during four entire months) before withdrawing to Lake Champlain by spring of 1776. Another report says that Carleton drove the Americans past Trois Rivieres in June of 1776. There are a lot of conflicting accounts. What kind of agreement was made between Carleton and Arnold to assure the safe conduit of the last 400 American troops back to the American colonies? It is well known that Carleton did not launch a counterattack against Arnold until October of 1776, defeating him at the Battle of Valcourt Island on Lake Champlain. It was then that Arnold retreated to Fort Ticonderoga, which had been the initial staging ground for the Canadian invasion in the first place.

I raise all of these questions because the treasons of Ethan Allen and of Benedict Arnold warrant such an investigation. It is not an accident that Benedict Arnold would begin his military career by first teaming up with Ethan Allen at Fort Ticonderoga, which is the place where the invasion of Canada took its roots. Moreover, this second invasion of Canada turned out to be a major defeat for the Americans, yet the efforts of Arnold and Allen have been played by historians as being helpful in delaying a full-scale British offensive from the north until 1777. Was that really the case? Did Benedict Arnold begin his treason as early as 1775 in Ticonderoga or Quebec City? What was the true relationship between the two traitors, Allen and Arnold? Here are a few leads that I think should be pursued.

Ethan Allen was the leader of a sort of vigilante group called the Green Mountain Boys. On May 10, 1775, five months before initiating the invasion of Canada, Ethan Allen and his renegade type of Green Mountain Boys were getting ready to capture Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain when, “out of the blue,” Benedict Arnold showed up and presented himself to Allen with “official papers” giving him command of the same expedition. Reportedly, after a first moment of friction between the two, Allen and Arnold finally agreed to work together.

They took Fort Ticonderoga by complete surprise in the middle of the night and captured its 50 or so soldiers without firing a shot. The British fort commander was unaware that the historical shot had been fired at Concord. Both Allen and Arnold went on to capture, together again, fortifications at Crown Point, Fort St John, on the Richelieu River, and Fort Ann on Isle La Motte. This should have cleared the way for Montgomery. So, why was he delayed at fort St. John before taking Montreal in November?

Both Allen and Arnold were malcontent and ambitious military men who became traitors to the Revolution. Arnold was not a man of principle and he wanted to get recognition from the Continental Congress. As a result of his discontent, in his capacity of Commandant of West Point, Arnold wrote the following letter to British General Henry Clinton: “If I point out a plan of cooperation, Sir Henry shall be the master of West Point. 20 000-pound sterling will be a cheap purchase for an object of so much importance. I expect a full and explicit answer.”  That treasonous statement was found in the possession of Arnold’s friend, the aide de camp of General Clinton, Major John Andre, on the day he was arrested near West Point, September 21, 1780. That same night, Benedict Arnold made his escape from West Point to join the British ship, The Vulture, on the Hudson River.

On the other hand, in 1778, Ethan Allen was appointed general in the Army of Vermont, when he petitioned the Continental Congress on behalf of the statehood of Vermont against the claims of New Hampshire and New York states. After the Congress rejected Allen’s proposal, he turned to the enemy side and began negotiating for establishing of Vermont as a British appendage to the Province of Quebec with the same Governor, Guy Carleton, who had made him a prisoner of war in Montreal three years earlier. At that point, the Continental Congress charged Allen with treason but, for reasons that remain to be clarified, the charge was never carried through.

What is interesting, in all of this, is that every time the Americans attempt to take over Canada, the operations are always fraught with treason.

Repeal the Quebec Act of 1774 and Bring the Principle of Westphalia to Canada.

If this subversive Quebec Act of 1774, has had the historical effect of isolating the French population of Quebec from the rest of Canada, it also had also wronged the rest of Canadians, proportionately, to the effect of making them dependent on an artificial form of religious, political, and linguistic exceptionalism. This explains why Canada has been reduced to a state of tragic political impotence for such a long period of time. The tragedy is that Canada has been established on a false protectionist pretense and nothing but the repudiation of this historical fallacy can begin repairing the wrong that has been done to the people of that nation for over two centuries.

Canada will never be able to restore its dignity as a sovereign nation-state until the Act of Quebec is repealed, and the status of sovereign dignity of equal partnership between all of the minorities of Canada, including its autochthonous peoples, is fully restored in accordance with the truthful community of principle common to sovereign nation-states. It is the truth of universal history that demands that this act of injustice be forcefully corrected, now, before the court of history and for the sake of future generations.

The time has come for a bold and generous action that will bring the Mazarin and Colbert spirit of the Peace of Westphalia to Canada. It is time that the principle of concern for other peoples should take precedence over one’s own personal interest. It is time to reunite all of the peoples of the province of Quebec properly within a sovereign constitutional federation of Canada based on the principle of the Advantage of the Other. It is time for all of the minorities of Canada, as one indivisible sovereign nation-state, to break with that fallacy of territorial reservation known as the Quebec Act of 1774, and to sever ties with the British oligarchy that invented such a fallacy of composition, which led to 233 years of ruinous effects. Once this is done, Canada can again participate honestly and truthfully in the community of sovereign nation-states.

[1] American Declaration of Independence.

[2] The American War of Independence, 1775-1783, The British Library, 1975, p.13.

[3] From Claude Bélanger, Department of History, Marianopolis College.

[4] Henry Gosselin, George Washington’s French Canadian Spy, J.H. French Printing, Inc., Brunswick Me, 1998, p. 78.

[5] Graham Lowry, How The Nation Was Won, EIR, 1988, p. 440.

[6] Michael P. Gabriel, Major General Richard Montgomery: the Making of an American Hero, FDU Press.