The Political and Social Conflicts Between the French and the English Essay

Introduction

This paper examines the history of the political and social conflicts between the English and French Canadians. Social and political conflicts between the two groups are often linked to trade competition in fur and the changes in political authority arising from battles between the two powers. The differences in the value that the English and the French attached to land and industry also contributed partly to the conflicts. The two powers also differed on the perceptions of the natives and their roles in society. Arco (2002, 100) supports this argument pointing out that the disputes also appeared in other “events like; the proclamation of 1763, the Quebec act and the constitutional act of 1791.”

The History of the French-English Conflict in Canada

Political and social conflicts between the French and English Canadians date way back to the mid of the 17th century. At this time, the French invested in explorations across Canada and other parts of North America. Arco (2002, 99) indicates that at the same time, “the Hudson Bay Company, an English trade company made entry into the same region and became a major competitor to the French companies in the fur trade.” By 1680, the French-British conflicts intensified and spread out to other parts of the world. Battles between the French and British troops increased as either side sought to secure more trade territory.

The first of these battles referred to as King William’s war was fought from1690 and lasted for nearly a decade. This was later followed by the “Queen Anne’s war in 1702” Levi (1997, 66) Effects of Queen Anne’s war forced the French side to relinquish part of the trade blocs they had amassed for themselves (Arco 2002, 100). Years after the war were full of tension and suspicion from either side but peace prevailed. The French however continued with the expansion of trade blocs, fur business, and developing a cordial relationship with the native people.

In 1754, another war broke out again between the two powers. More natives supported the French during the war than the British. The British emerged victorious at the end of the war in 1763 and forced the French to give up more of their territories. The British at this time realized the importance of developing a mutual relationship with the local people. They embraced the Canadian natives and signed various treaties with them. The treaties were meant to govern how they interact and carry out their business.

The Social and Political Causes of Conflicts

The early British rule was characterized by forcing the natives to take on “the British rules and customs” Linteau, Durocher, and Robert (1979, 279). This style of government was fiercely resisted by the Canadian French who were opposed to the introduction of the British customs and government style. In 1774, the Quebec Act was signed, in which Levi (1997, 67) observes that the act required the British to allow the use of “the French laws, customs and the practice of Catholicism.” The signing of the Act eased tension between the French and the British, part of the land that the British had seized from the natives was returned. This marked the end of conflicts and the British troops started walking out of Canada.

The exit of the British troops however brought more trouble to the “British colonies especially those along the Atlantic” (Levi 1997, 66). The thirteen colonies revolted against British rule and waged another war against the British from 1775. McInnis (2007, 226) points out that the British loyalists during the war were given land and financial support as an incentive for their support during the war. The loyalists however found themselves at crossroads with the French customs and style of government. The British were forced to use the divide and rule strategy by dividing Quebec into two regions that were governed independently.

Religion was another prominent source of conflict between the French and the Britons. Packman and Levin (1983) list three ways through which religion contributed to conflicts between the French and the British. They observed that the governor of Canada worked under the direction of the religious priests who in turn were under the control of the Bishop of Quebec. The religious leaders were inclined towards reducing the “Canadian province to a French crown and dominate over the Indians of Nova Scotia” (Packman and Levin 1983, 826). By doing this, the priests aimed at protecting the Canadian province from non-French inhabitants.

The Roman Catholics on the other hand banned intermarriages between the French and the English. Packman and Levin (1983, 827) observe that the roman faithful who went against this provision were excommunicated from the movement. Linteau, Durocher, and Robert (1979, 278) indicate that under the Utrecht treaty, the majesty is “not obligated to allow the French inhabitants to practice Catholicism as a faith.” In this case, the catholic religion was only to be a faith of the British. This exclusion was a source of tension between the two groups. One could expect religion to be used as a tool to unite the two groups by bringing them together to worship one God but this was not the case.

Language too was a source of conflict between the French and the British Canadians. The French Canadian were largely objected to adopting English as a common language for them at the expense of their mother tongue. To achieve this, the French leaders advocated for an exclusive place within the colonies for the French speakers to avoid losing out on their traditions, language, and other cultural values. Larrivée (2003, 65) traced the agitation of the French Canadians to use their language without the interference of the British to 1772 after the election of Jeanne- Antoine patent as the president. Larrivée points out that patent made his first speech in French contrary to the demand of the British.

Unconsciously, the French found themselves borrowing heavily from the English language as the two groups continued to interact through politics, trade, and social forums. This process led to the assimilation of the French into English culture, Larrivée (2003, 67) observes that the French and the English went to the same “clubs, ate the same food, and used handshakes as a mode of greeting rather than their usual way of kissing the cheeks.” The assimilation however was not taken positively by the French Canadians. They continued to resist the practice in large numbers, the English masters were not happy with the French effort to oppose the assimilation process. The opposition was viewed as a stumbling stone to economic growth and social unity in the protectorate.

Differences in how the two powers perceived the original inhabitants of the colonies also contributed to the conflicts. As discussed earlier in this essay, both the French and British companies competed for fur trade in the region. The native people were involved in hunting for the fur to sell it to either the British or the French companies. The French for example offered similar privileges to both the Indian inhabitants and the French. This was prevalent especially in the rights to land ownership, farming rights, and governance. Nichols (1998, 127) points out that the French granted such rights to the Indians living along the “Saint Lawrence River and the Great Lakes region.”

The English on the other hand did not grant land rights and autonomy to the Indians. Indians living in Louisiana for example were subjected to slavery and denied the right to use land. The English emphasized their need to use the land for economic development. Nichols (1998, 128) reports that the English refused to lead the Indian’s resettle on the land that had been left by the French in the parts of Delaware after the war as had been promised in the. The British troops instead allowed the English settlers to take over the land that was previously owned by the Indians.

The attitude and practice of the European s as far as land was concerned did not favor the Indians like the French. Larrivée (2003, 68) asserts that the Europeans claimed dominion over the tribal lands as well as the inhabitants. This practice undermined the efforts of the Indians to use the land for economic purposes. Nichols (1998, 130) observes that the European’s interference on the Indians’ right to the owner and use of land resulted in the Pontiac rebellion. The Indians continued mounting pressure against the British over the land issue. The Indians did not understand why the British should force them not to utilize God’s given land.

The British aimed at expanding their territories and influencing the natives to adopt their customs, language, and the general way of life. On the other hand, the French leaders struggled to ensure that their people maintain a pure French culture even with the expansion of the British. The attempt by the French to resist the efforts of the British influence did was not received politely by the British leaders. Trigger and Washburn (1996, 91) observe that because of this the British assigned the native people degrading roles in society. The life of the native people under the reign of the British was characterized by massacres and untold mistreatments, unlike the French. As a result of the differences in the treatment the French and the British accorded the natives, the natives favored the approach of the French more than the British. They were more rebellious to the French than the British, Trigger and Washburn (1996, 91) observe that more natives supported the French during the battles than the British.

Many commentators on the conflict between the two powers point out that it is a case of two races going against each other. Each of the two powers sought to dominate the other, McInnis (2007, 226) observes that the French used their “majority status in the assembly to create influence were as the British used their powers to ensure dominion.”

Conclusion

This paper has traced the history of the political and social conflicts between the French and the British Canadians. The paper established that the main causes of conflict between the two powers emanated from competition for the fur trade, religious differences, resistance by the French to be assimilated to the British customs, and the different perceptions that each of the groups had towards the native people.

Reference List

1. Arco. 2002. Master the GED Social Studies. New York: Peterson’s.
2. Larrivée, Pierre. 2003. Linguistic Conflict and Language Laws: Understanding the Quebec Question. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Levi, Margaret. 1997. Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Linteau, Paul, Durocher, Rene and Robert, Jean-Claude.1979. Quebec, a history, 1867- 1929. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company Publishers.
5. McInnis, Edgar. 2007. Canada – A Political and Social History. Westminster: Read books.
6. Nichols, Roger L. 1998. Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
7. Parkman, Francis, and Levin David.1983. France and England in North America: Count Frontenac and New France under Louis xiv. New York: the Literary Classics of the US, Inc.
8. Trigger, Bruce, G. and Washburn Wilcomb. 1996. The Cambridge history of the native peoples of the Americas: North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.