AMERICANISM VERSUS WILFRID LAURIER AND LIBERALISM

Christopher Richard Wade Dettling (2017–2018)

At present there is hardly any sign that Socialists understand the ideas which, in as far as they claim descent from Hegel, they profess to inherit.
Bernard Bosanquet, 1911¹

We unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we never reach. We dream of the highest good. Wilfrid Laurier, 1872²

I have always regarded Immanuel Kant not only as a very powerful thinker, but as the metaphysical father of the philosophy of positivism … undoubtedly the greatest and most positive advance that I have made following in the footsteps of Kant is the discovery of the evolution of human ideas according to the law of three stages, namely the theological, metaphysical and scientific phases: The Kantian philosophy in my opinion is the very basis of the three stages of positivism.
Auguste Comte, 1824³

The modern European political and economic struggles unchained by the Industrial and French revolutions ended in the 20th century with the rise of world civilization, the fountainhead of which is Americanism:

“The wars of the French Revolution marked the transition to the nation–state defined by common language and culture … [The United States] have never been nation–states in the European sense. America has succeeded in forming a distinct culture from a polyglot national composition.”⁴

The world historical clash between Global freedom, the rational conception of right found in The Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States of America, versus the last vestiges of European modernity (unchained in the political and economic strife between the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right and the conception of right found in The Magna Carta and Industrial revolution), as the strife between superior and inferior ruling classes, begins in the New World with the victories of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in the Civil Wars, as the rise of American Liberty in universal history and the collapse of the British Empire.

The bloodstained chapters of American Idealism in the Civil Wars are the birth pangs of Global freedom from out of the womb of world history, — as the sublation of modern freedom from out of the ashes of the Holy Roman Empire and the clash between old and new Christendom, in the strife of ruling classes unchained by the Industrial and French revolutions. The notion of the Global world, the highest conception of humanity, is therefore clothed in the immediacy of the flesh and blood of universal history: Henceforth the conception of universal freedom as the sublation of subjective and objective freedom in world history is no longer an abstraction: Absolute Liberty in the world of today is Americanism, the rise of Global rational political and economic order, as the supremacy of Washington in the 21st century.

In the realm of political and economic ideas, the 20th century world historical struggle between modern and Global freedom is advanced in the warfare between Kant and Hegel: This almighty clash between sophistry and philosophy plays out in the realm of modern European politics and economics in the power struggles between political parties, as the Left versus the Right. The world historical clash between Kantianism and Hegelianism in 20th century politics and economics separated modern Europeans into hostile camps. This clash of ideas, which exists even today in the mindset of European humanity, but without any Global historical political and economic significance whatsoever, is withering away under the floodtide of Americanism in the world: The substance of the conception vanishes as a stage of world history, and what remains is merely the empty husk, as the twilight of modernity. What exactly does this mean in the philosophy of American Idealism? The World Wars and collapse of European modernity is the result of the political and economic warfare between the Left and Right in the 20th century world historical struggle between modern and Global freedom, as advanced in the Kantian and Hegelian clash between superior and inferior ruling classes.

In North America these political and economic movements follow a less intense path, especially in Canada and Mexico: The disintegration of the British Empire and collapse of modern Europe as the center of world power entails the decline of British and European influence in the New World. The historical struggle for world supremacy does not end in the ruins of Berlin, but continues into the Cold War: Therefore the last remnants of European modernity linger for another half century, until the collapse of Soviet Communism. In Canada and Mexico, the late 20th century world historical struggle between modern and Global freedom is also advanced in the clash between Kant and Hegel: This almighty clash between sophistry and philosophy plays out in the realm of modern Canadian and Mexican politics and economics in the power struggles between political parties, as the Left versus the Right. In the New World, the 20th century world historical struggle between modern and Global freedom is therefore also advanced in the warfare of Kantians and Hegelians.

In Canada the 20th century modern European power struggles involve the political and economic strife between the Conservative and Liberal parties, which also means the strife between English and French Canada, which begins in earnest with the Government of Wilfrid Laurier and ends with the Empire of Paul Desmarais, the Québec Regime in Ottawa, 1968–2006. Henceforth the financial, commercial and industrial development of Canada follows the path of Absolute freedom as Americanism, the rise of Global rational political and economic order in the world, the supremacy of Washington in the 21st century.

The rational conception of Canada arises from the downfall of Canadian Liberalism and European modernity: The rise and fall of the Québec Regime in Ottawa as the birth of the Canadocentric Polity, as the political and economic realm of American finance, commerce and industry in Canada, is therefore of some interest with regards to the rise of Americanism in world history. Americanism is the world historical refutation of Wilfrid Laurier’s Political Liberalism, among other things, because Global rational political and economic order overcomes modern European Machiavellism in universal history. Wherefore?

Wilfrid Laurier used to place himself squarely in the camp of modern capitalism and the Industrial revolution, the tradition of classic Whig Liberalism of the Constitutional Monarchism of the British Empire, in order to win votes in English Canada, to gain political power, and to enrich himself, his family members and the Québec Regime based on mortal corruption, namely modern European political and economic irrationalism:

“For those who are educated, our French training naturally leads us to the study of modern liberty, not in the classic land of liberty, not in the History of old England, but amongst the nations of continental Europe, amongst the nations that are allied to us in blood or in religion. And, unfortunately, the history of liberty is written there in characters of blood, in the most heart–rending pages of the history of the human race … It is true that there exists, in Europe, in France, in Italy and in Germany, a class of men who call themselves liberals, but who are liberal but in name, and who are the most dangerous of men. They are not Liberals they are Revolutionists. Their principles carry them so far that they aspire to nothing less than the destruction of modern society.”⁵

Wilfrid Laurier draws his political distinction (for he deals with Political Liberalism and not merely Liberalism) between classic Liberalism and modern revolutionism from the influential geographical and historiographical division between Old England and Continental Europe; this is his version of the influential distinction between the Industrial revolution and the French revolution, which is also the world historical groundwork of the clash between so–called classic liberalism and modern socialism, namely the struggle at various stages between constitutional monarchism and republicanism in the political and economic realm of modern European history. Laurier places himself on the side of Old England, because in Continental Europe, “the history of liberty is written there in characters of blood, in the most heart–rending pages of the history of the human race.” Laurier thus distances himself from the “most dangerous of men,” the Revolutionists whose “principles carry them so far that they aspire to nothing less than the destruction of modern society.” But Wilfrid Laurier’s historiographical and geographical distinction, as such, does not correspond to the conception of modern European Liberalism in Lord Acton and other big thinkers of the 19th century, which is at once both political and economic.

Wilfrid Laurier draws the above distinction between Old England and Continental Europe in order to justify his conception of Political Liberalism, which is sophistry devised to win him votes: What he means exactly by the phrase “Political Liberalism,” as opposed to mere Liberalism, we cannot determine with precision, for he advances no formal definition of his meaning of “Political Liberalism,” apart from two citations from English writers in which the phrase does not appear. Yet he praises Political Liberty to high–heaven, without ever elucidating exactly what this phrase means in his vocabulary which is so new and superior, in contradistinction to its usage by his adversaries the Conservatives, who also preach the virtues of political, as well as economic, freedom. Laurier undoubtedly means by Political Liberalism the policies of the Liberal Party, as controlled by himself, and therefore Political Liberalism in his vocabulary simply means “Political Liberalism is whatever political policy that Wilfrid Laurier wants as the Leader of the Liberal Party.” What exactly these policies entail in political and economic terms, Laurier does not elucidate: But the modern conception of the Whig Liberalism of the Constitutional Monarchism of the British Empire, the bedrock of the Industrial revolution, entails very definite political and economic policies.

To the charge that Political Liberalism in Laurier’s vocabulary simply means “whatever political policy the Leader of the Liberal Party upholds,” my detractors will undoubtedly respond that the policies of the Liberal Party were and are today determined (to some very important degree) by the party members. But upon the most vital question of all, and upon which all others depend, Liberal Party members have no say whatsoever, namely, Who will greatly benefit financially, commercially and industrially from the implementation of Liberal policies? This was nearly always the case, so far as the known historical records are concerned, time and time again, under the Empire of Paul Desmarais, the Québec Regime in Ottawa, 1968–2006. The fundamental question of Liberal politics and economics in Canada, was (and still is) determined behind closed doors by a handful of powerful individuals and their backers. Detractors who reject this fact should be honest and endeavour to stand in the way of such so–called anti–democratic behavior, — in the name of Liberty. Those who do and have done so, will quickly discover that they are systematically and ruthlessly sidelined from the Party, and sometimes even suffer greater troubles. Of course, my detractors will not be so forthcoming because they earn their bread and butter by pretending the “anti–democratic” behavior of which their leaders are accused is a falsehood: The business of my detractors is to attract new adherents and supporters who are less knowledgeable in the ways of their corrupt politics.

We do not condemn the fact that sometimes, some very important political and economic determinations are made behind closed doors by a handful of very powerful individuals and their backers, so long as the determinations are products of rational political and economic order: We condemn all determinations made behind closed doors by a handful of powerful individuals and their backers, which result in political and economic irrationalism, which is very “anti–democratic” behavior. But the debate over whether democratic policies are determined to some very important degree by party members, especially in the case of the Empire of Paul Desmarais, but also in the case of Wilfrid Laurier’s Government, is but a smokescreen created to distract attention away from the crux of the issue, which is the world historical distinction between reason and unreason in Canadian politics and economics. We will see Wilfrid Laurier’s position with regards to this question.

Since we cannot discover the precise meaning of Laurier’s Political Liberalism, but only the inexact meaning which makes it synonymous with whatever behooves his Liberal Party, we will examine what he means by Liberalism alone. There is some merit in this method for Laurier himself lends credence to our interpretation:

“I have accepted the invitation to come here to explain the doctrines of the liberal party, and what is the exact meaning of the Word ‘Liberalism,’ as understood by the Liberals of Quebec.”⁶

Laurier holds that his conception of Liberalism is based on a division found in the historical writings of Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay, Baron of Rothley:

“‘Everywhere there is a class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reason that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings. We find also, everywhere, another class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences attending improvements, and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement’ … on one side those who attach themselves to everything that is ancient, and on the other side those who are always ready to reform.”⁷

Liberals are a class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences attending improvements, and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement; those who are always ready to reform. This definition or conception of “Liberals” is no elucidation of the doctrine of Liberalism and therefore a fortiori no elucidation of “Political Liberalism.” What exactly is the sanguine hope and the bold speculation of Liberalism? What exactly is the nature of Liberal reforms? According to the passage from Macaulay, without the rational conception of right found in the Magna Carta, Papineau and his disciples, the mass murders and terrorists who followed in his wake, are defined by Laurier as “Liberals.”

Wilfrid Laurier is not a conservative, but a Liberal: “I am, as I have already said, a Liberal. I am one of those who believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop.”⁸ Conservatives undoubtedly believe that in all human affairs there are no abuses to reform, no new horizons to discover, and no new forces to develop? Conservatives perhaps believe that in some human affairs there are no abuses to reform, no new horizons to discover, and no new forces to develop?

Wilfrid Laurier advances no evidence or argument that all Liberals believe that “in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop,” according to his interpretation of the passage from Macaulay. “[Liberals are] sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences attending improvements, and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement,” means that “all Liberals believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop”? Why exactly does Wilfrid Laurier interpret Macaulay’s words in this manner? Laurier advances no rational argument, the conclusion of which is, therefore Macaulay means that all Liberals believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop. Laurier merely cites a few lines of poetry from Tennyson.

According to Laurier’s so–called clear definition of a “Liberal” (which he maintains comes from Macaulay, the genealogy of which he never proves), it therefore follows that conservatives undoubtedly believe that in all human affairs there are no abuses to reform, no new horizons to discover, and no new forces to develop? Conservatives perhaps believe that in some human affairs there are no abuses to reform, no new horizons to discover, and no new forces to develop? This is surely not the doctrine of conservatism found in the citation of Macaulay: “[Conservatives] cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reason that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings.” Macaulay says very clearly that conservatives consent to innovation with many misgivings and forebodings: Therefore, according to Macaulay, all conservatives “believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop.” Macaulay holds that all conservatives consent to innovation with many misgivings and forebodings, because he clearly states, “everywhere there is a class of men.” We can therefore only ponder upon the rationality of Wilfrid Laurier’s conception of Political Liberalism with great astonishment, as philologists wildly speculate upon the ancient and oracular utterances of a Hermes Trismegistus! But we are in 1877! The antediluvian mindset of Wilfrid Laurier is more at home in the age of Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau, when compared to an American thinker like Woodrow Wilson, whose thought is of an entirely different caliber.

If Wilfrid Laurier means only that some Liberals believe that “in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop,” because a Liberal is “sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences attending improvements, and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement,” then what becomes of Macaulay’s distinction found in the citation above?

For in such a case, Laurier is both a Liberal and conservative, in contradistinction to the meaning Macaulay gives to his division between Liberalism and Conservatism. Macaulay says very clearly that all conservatives consent to innovation with many misgivings and forebodings: Therefore, according to Macaulay, all conservatives “believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop.” In such a case, Laurier means some Liberals believe that “in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop,” and a conservative is also “one of those who believe that in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop,” except that all conservatives “consent to innovation with many misgivings and forebodings.” In other words, all Liberals do not “consent to innovation with many misgivings and forebodings.” According to Macaulay’s distinction all conservatives believe that “in all human affairs there are abuses to reform, new horizons to discover, and new forces to develop,” because all “[conservatives] cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reason that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings,” since all conservatives consent to innovation with “many misgivings and forebodings.”

According to Laurier’s unfounded interpretation of Macaulay (if a bona fide interpretation it really is), there exists the Liberal and the Conservative principle:

“You will see together those who are attracted by the charm of novelty, and you will see together those who are attracted by the charm of habit. You will see on one side those who attach themselves to everything that is ancient, and on the other side those who are always ready to reform.”⁹

This distinction of Wilfrid Laurier is obviously a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation, if advanced as a principle of the Whig doctrine of Macaulay found in the citation advanced by Laurier. According to Macaulay, conservatives attach themselves to everything that is ancient and conservatives are always ready to reform, but always with “many misgivings and forebodings,” because conservatives consent to innovation with “many misgivings and forebodings,” since “[conservatives] cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reason that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings,” since all conservatives consent to innovation with “many misgivings and forebodings.”

Wilfrid Laurier’s distinction between “those who are attracted by the charm of novelty,” and “those who are attracted by the charm of habit,” combined with the distinction between “those who attach themselves to everything that is ancient” and “those who are always ready to reform,” are principles found in the French revolution, as the difference between the supporters of the ancien régime and the Jacobins, as well as the republicans of the mountain and plain. The Whig political conceptions of the Industrial revolution in England and the Constitutional Monarchy of the British Empire, which are profoundly political and economic, are utterly alien to Laurier’s Gallocentric mind in 1877: Political Liberalism is sophistry founded upon the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, designed to win support for Wilfrid Laurier.

The Ancien Régime Versus Whigs

Wilfrid Laurier bases his sophistry of Political Liberalism upon a politically irreconcilable division he draws between Liberals and Conservatives in Québec, which he passes–off as a rational distinction borrowed from Macaulay, but which is actually derived from the Jacobins and the French Revolution, and which is later enshrined in the Code Napoléon as the fountainhead of European Bonapartism. Macaulay’s distinction between liberals and conservatives is reconcilable:

“In the sentiments of both classes there is something to approve.”¹⁰

What exactly is there to approve in the British liberals and conservatives according to Macaulay? The tradition of political and economic liberty found in the Magna Carta, the rational foundation of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, is what reconciles the fratricidal strife of British politicians into a harmonious unity. The pseudo–Whig principle of Wilfrid Laurier permits of no such reconciliation, but leads directly to Bonapartism and the centralization of government power in the hands of autocracy defined by common language and culture. The common language and culture of Wilfrid Laurier’s Political Liberalism is French Chauvinism, which in practical terms means the Québécocracy always gets the Lion’s Share from the treasury. And this is exactly what has happened under the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, namely, the Quiet Revolution.

Wilfrid Laurier’s “Political Liberalism” and his Napoléonic and French revolutionary distinction between Liberalism and Conservatism, which is not found in Macaulay, but which is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the latter’s words, will nevertheless save francophone Canadians:

“I am so impressed with the importance to the liberal party of clearly defining its position before public opinion in this Province … this demonstration is neither useless nor untimely … it is neither useless nor untimely to clearly define our position.”¹¹

What demonstration? What clear definition? Are Wilfrid Laurier’s so–called definitions really and truly clear definitions, or merely his own utterances that he dresses up in the guise of dictionary meanings? We should not be so harsh on old Wilfrid: Undoubtedly his “clear definitions” of Political Liberalism really and truly are definitions of his vocabulary, lifted from the Wilfrid Laurier Dictionary of Politics. Unfortunately this book (undoubtedly a rather slim volume) was never published and therefore we cannot judge the sanity of its contents. Of course, what exactly Laurier means by the word “demonstration” must also fall victim, mutatis mutandis, to the same objection, for he has advanced no rational argument in favor of his so–called interpretation of Whig Liberalism, unless poetry and mythology fall under the category of logical inference.

What salvation drives this conversion?

“For a great many of my fellow citizens, the liberal party is a party composed of men holding perverse doctrines, with dangerous tendencies, and knowingly and deliberately progressing towards revolution. I know that in the opinion of a portion of our fellow countrymen, the liberal party is made up of men of good intentions, perhaps, but not the less dupes and victims of their principles, by which they are unconsciously, but fatally led to revolution. I know that for yet another portion, not the least numerous, Liberalism is a new form of evil, in other words a heresy, carrying with it its own condemnation. I know all this, and it is because I do so that I consented to appear before you.”¹²

Wilfrid Laurier’s clear definition and demonstration (which are unclear and non–demonstrative) of his Political Liberalism are designed to prove that (1) the Liberal Party is not a party composed of men holding perverse doctrines, with dangerous tendencies, and knowingly and deliberately progressing towards revolution; (2) the Liberal Party is not made up of men of good intentions who are the dupes and victims of their (false) principles, by which they are unconsciously, but fatally led to revolution; (3) Liberalism is not a new form of evil, in other words a heresy, carrying with it its own condemnation.

What are the fruits of Laurier’s “proof” of Political Liberalism?

“When we have stated our principles as they stand to day, we shall have effected a double purpose; the first of which will be to rally to our standard all lovers of liberty, all those, who, before as well as after 1837, worked for responsible government or the government of the people by the people, and who, when once this form of government was established, separated themselves from us through apprehension that we might really be, that which we were represented to be, and for fear that the realization of the ideas that were attributed to us should cause the destruction of the government which they had worked so hard to establish. The second result will be to force our real enemies, who are all enemies of liberty, more or less disguised, to appeal no more against us to the prejudices or fears of the people, but to appear openly before them, as we do, and explain their ideas and their acts. And then when the question will be solely fought upon that of principle, when deeds will be considered according to the thoughts that inspired them, and thoughts will be considered according to their proper value, when there will be no more fear of accepting that which is good and rejecting the evil.”¹³

The fruits of Laurier’s proof of Political Liberalism, according to himself, are threefold: (1) To rally to Laurier’s standard all lovers of liberty, all those, who, before as well as after 1837, worked for responsible government or the government of the people by the people, and who, when once this form of government was established, separated themselves from Political Liberalism through apprehension that it might really be that which it is represented to be, for fear that the realization of the ideas that are attributed to Political Liberalism should cause the destruction of the government which they had worked so hard to establish; (2) to force Laurier’s real enemies, who are all enemies of liberty, more or less disguised, to appeal no more against Political Liberalism to the prejudices or fears of the people, but to appear openly before them, as Laurier does, and explain their ideas and their acts; (3) to solely fight the question based upon principle, so that deeds will be considered according to the thoughts that inspired them; so that thoughts will be considered according to their proper value; and so that there will be no more fear of accepting that which is good and rejecting the evil.

What use is this fruit, apart from the corrupt accumulation of capital? The Laurier berry must be a rather sweet and delightful fruit? Who are these men holding perverse doctrines, with dangerous tendencies, knowingly and deliberately progressing towards revolution? Who are these men of good intentions, nonetheless dupes and victims of their principles, by which they are unconsciously, but fatally led to revolution? Why, they follow in the footsteps of mass murders and terrorists like Wolfred Nelson and Louis–Joseph Papineau!

Laurier’s sophistical doctrine of Political Liberalism is therefore also an exculpation of Louis–Joesph Papineau and the murderous terrorists of 1837–1838. For what reason this political exculpation? As we shall see, Laurier rehabilitates and promotes the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right in the guise of classic British Whig Liberalism. In this endeavour he is not alone, for modern sophists in the 20th century will even endeavour to associate The Constitution of the United States of America with the “principles” of the the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, through their espousal of Lockeanism and inexact historiography, to greatly enrich themselves and their backers, especially in Europe, while other fellow travelers undoubtedly sought to blunt the spread of Marxism in the New World during the Cold War.¹⁴

In his defense of the mass murderers and terrorists of 1837, Wilfrid Laurier advances sophistical historiography:

“Forty years ago the country was in a state of feverish excitement, and agitation which in a few months later, culminated in rebellion. The British Crown was upheld in the country, but by powder and shot. And yet what did our forefathers demand? Nothing else than our present institutions.”¹⁵

Massacre and bloodletting (powder and shot) upheld the British Crown in Canada, according to the sophistical historiography of Wilfrid Laurier: The mass murderers and terrorists who followed Louis–Joseph Papineau (because they demanded nothing else than present Canadian institutions) were really classic British Whig Liberals in search of Liberty!

In other words, according to the sophistical historiography of Wilfrid Laurier, the British Monarch was a bloodthirsty tyrant who massacred and murdered Whig Liberals of the British Empire, because the Crown of England trampled upon Liberty in Canada!

Why is Wilfrid Laurier a sophistical historiographer? The modern conception of the Whig Liberalism of the Constitutional Monarchism of the British Empire, is the bedrock of the Industrial revolution: Wilfrid Laurier’s political distinction between classic Liberalism and modern revolutionism drawn from the influential geographical and historiographical division between Old England and Continental Europe, his version of the influential distinction between the Industrial revolution and the French revolution, therefore breaks down. According to the sophistical historiography of Wilfrid Laurier, massacre and bloodletting (powder and shot) upheld the British Crown in Canada: Nonetheless, Wilfrid Laurier places himself on the side of Old England, because in Continental Europe, “the history of liberty is written there in characters of blood, in the most heart–rending pages of the history of the human race.” Laurier, who distances himself from the “most dangerous of men,” the revolutionists whose “principles carry them so far that they aspire to nothing less than the destruction of modern society,” because “amongst the nations of continental Europe, amongst the nations that are allied to us in blood or in religion … the history of liberty is written there in characters of blood, in the most heart–rending pages of the history of the human race.” Nevertheless Laurier maintains that the “British Crown was upheld in the country … by powder and shot.”

Wilfrid Laurier, the sophistical political historian, maintains that in the classic land of Liberty, the history of liberty is written in characters of blood, since the British Monarch was a bloodthirsty tyrant who massacred and murdered Whig Liberals of the British Empire, because the Crown of England trampled upon Liberty in Canada. Laurier: “What did our forefathers demand? Nothing else than our present institutions.” They demanded, says Laurier, classic Liberty.

Therefore Wilfrid Laurier’s version of the political and historical distinction between classic Liberalism and modern revolutionism, based upon the influential geographical and historiographical division between Old England and Continental Europe, his version of the influential historical distinction between the Industrial revolution and the French revolution, is self–contradictory and therefore sophistical.

Thus Laurier does not distinguish Liberty in the tradition of classic Whig Liberalism versus the French revolution, but holds that the Industrial and French revolutions are in some essential sense the same thing: He therefore does not really draw a scientific historical distinction between the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right and the rational conception of right found in the Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States of America. Wilfrid Laurier is therefore a modern European irrationalist.

After the collapse of modern Europe and its reconstruction upon the foundations of Americanism, we American philosophers draw this rational historical distinction with great ease: It is a very natural growth of the American mind, which is the ultimate fountainhead of all political and economic rationality in the world of today.

The very root of the tradition of Liberalism in French Canada is therefore profoundly corrupted by modern European unreason, namely the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: From where else comes the political and economic cause of financial, commercial and industrial retardation and degeneration in Canada? We know the traditional answer to that question according to the Québec Regime in Ottawa, found in the pages of Cité Libre: Uncle Sam and Yankee Imperialism are the culprit! In the world of today, however, this foolishness does not hold water, because our minds are liberated from the enslavement of the media empire of Paul Desmarais and so–called Canadian culture.¹⁶

What exactly does Laurier have to say about Louis–Joseph Papineau?

“Mr. Lafontaine had accepted the system established in 1841; when Mr. Papineau returned from exile he attacked the new order of things with his great eloquence and all the elevation of his thought. I will not here introduce a comparison between the respective legal ideas of these two great men. Both loved their country ardently, and passionately; both devoted their lives to it; both, by different means had no other end in view than to serve it; both were disinterested and honest. Let us remain contented and satisfied with these memories and seek not to find out who was right or who was wrong.”¹⁷

According to Wilfrid Laurier, Louis–Joseph Papineau the leader of the Great Terror (la Grande terreur) of 1837 (1) possessed great eloquence and elevated thought; (2) he was a great man with legal ideas; (3) he loved his country ardently and passionately; (4) he devoted his life to his country; (5) he had no other end in view than to serve his country; (6) he was disinterested and honest. Wilfrid Laurier defends the leader of the mass murderers and terrorists of 1837! Not only does Wilfrid Laurier defend Louis–Joseph Papineau, but he turns a blind-eye to mass murder and terrorism:

“Let us … seek not to find out who was right or who was wrong.”¹⁸

Obviously, Laurier avoids any discussion of the question of right or wrong in the civil war because an arrest warrant was issued against Louis–Joseph Papineau and his henchmen for high treason:

“His excellency laid before the board the official communication from the attorney general, stating, that warrants had been issued [16 November 1837] for the apprehension of Louis Joseph Papineau, and twenty–six others, for high treason … [Papineau’s] master spirit has guided the course of the Assembly down to the latest period.”¹⁹

Police detachments were sent out to arrest Papineau and his henchman for high treason: A police detachment en route was subsequently ambushed in a shootout by his henchmen, and the chief of the detachment, a Lieutenant–Colonel Moodie, was fatally shot and died soon thereafter:

“Several guns were fired by the insurgents [terrorists], and Colonel Moodie fell from his horse, exclaiming: ‘I am shot―I am a dead man.’ He had received a mortal wound … This, then, was the first blood spilled in the Upper Canadian Rebellion, and it was shed by the insurgents.”²⁰

The Lieutenant Weir was taken prisoner by Papineau’s gang of murderers and terrorists:

“[Lieutenant Weir] was mercilessly shot, sabred, hacked, and stabbed, as though he had been a mad dog, and not a pinioned and defenceless human being; and when the wretched man, maimed and bleeding from numerous wounds, sought shelter beneath the cart, he was dragged forth and foully murdered in the presence of a crowd of spectators. No more savage act marks the whole annals of Canada. And yet, one of the barbarous villains who perpetrated it, was subsequently acquitted, at Montreal, by a perjured jury of his countrymen.”²¹

Wilfrid Laurier skirts the question of whether mass murderer and terrorism are right or wrong, — in the name of sophistical historiography, what Laurier names his “memories.” Wilfrid Laurier, however, cannot evade the inescapable truth of exact historiography and 20th century world history: Whosoever leads mass murderers and terrorists is himself a mass murderer and terrorist:

“The whole initiative [the Great Terror] came from Papineau. I was his assistant, his subaltern, and not his superior. I acted entirely in obedience to his orders and to his suggestions.”²²

These are the words of Wolfred Nelson, commander of bloodthirsty gangs that engaged in violence, pillage and mass murder during the Great Terror of 1837. What does Alfred Duclos DeCelles, one of the biggest historiasters and propagandists of the first Québec Regime in Ottawa, make of the murder and terror of 1837?

“Men no longer controlled events; events rather swept away those who sought to control them, and guns were soon to go off spontaneously, so to speak, as though some mysterious hand discharged them … Leibnitz was right in saying: Homo homini lupus … From 1820 to 1887, he [Papineau] stood forth [as] the grandest figure in our history. His was a life of glory during that period, a glory purchased by endless sacrifices, — a life immolated to a great cause which he upheld unflinchingly with small hope of final victory.”²³

According to Alfred (Jean–Baptiste–Alfred?) Duclos DeCelles, the mass murderer and terrorist Louis–Joseph Papineau, and his henchmen, during the Great Terror of 1837, no longer controlled the events because events swept away those who sought to control them, and the guns were soon to go off spontaneously, as though some mysterious hand discharged them. Guns go off spontaneously, discharged by some mysterious hand? Obviously such nonsense holds no water in the public opinion courthouse of today: Dear Society, with all heartfelt regrets, your citizens were slaughtered in the Great Terror because some mysterious hand spontaneously discharged bombs and guns!

According to DeCelles, a propagandist of Wilfrid Laurier’s Québec Regime in Ottawa, the mass murder and terrorism of 1837 came from some mysterious hand: Leibnitz was right in saying that humankind are animals. Nevertheless, says DeCelles, Papineau stood forth as the grandest figure in Canadian history; his was a life of glory during that period, a glory purchased by endless sacrifices.

Papineau stood forth as the grandest figure in Canadian history and his was a life of glory, a glory purchased by endless sacrifices? Louis–Joseph Papineau, originator of the Great Terror, was nothing more than a loudmouth and a gutless coward:

“[Papineau] since his flight from Montreal had lurked at St. Denis. Here he remained as Nelson’s guest till the appearance of the troops, when, instead of leading his misguided followers like a brave man, and showing them that he could fight as well as talk, he abandoned them in the moment of danger, and fled to Yamaska on the St. Hyacinthe river, whence he subsequently made his way into the United States. No excuses — no sophistry can palliate this act. No consideration should have made him desert his friends at such a time. Had he gallantly stood his ground, and borne himself like a man, the circumstance would have atoned in the opinion of posterity for much of his folly, whereas, the fact of his cowardly flight must stamp him with enduring ignominy.”²⁴

Timothée Kimber (1797–1856): “I affirm on my word of honor that Dr. Wolfred Nelson left his house at precisely six o’clock on the morning of 23 November 1837 to battle the Government troops which were said to be located at about a league and a half from the village of St. Denis. Dr. Nelson did not return to his home until after the battle ended, which was about half–past four that afternoon. Consequently, it is a falsehood to say that Dr. Nelson ordered Mr. Papineau at nine o’clock that morning to leave for St. Hyacinthe. We were all ignorant of the escape route upon which Papineau fled. Needless to say, the flight of Papineau greatly demoralized a large number of our fighters: We needed Papineau at our side, to deal with the gathering storm.”²⁵

Horace Nelson: “In the middle of November 1837 Louis–Joseph Papineau of the city of Montréal sought refuge in the house of my father, Doctor Wolfred Nelson, in St. Denis, and afterwards left on the 23rd of the same month, under the following circumstances: On the morning of that day, between five and six o’clock, Doctor Nelson discovered that a military detachment was marching on St. Denis; my father gave orders to his followers, and leaving the house under my charge, went, accompanied by some persons, to attack the enemy party a few minutes before six o’clock. Louis Joseph Papineau and Dr. O’Callaghan, also of Montréal, were much alarmed at the unexpected arrival of the troops; as I entered their room, I saw the fear and anxiety that were painted on their faces; they walked here and there with their hats on their heads, dressed in their overcoats; I said a few words and withdrew to give some orders. My father, on leaving these two men, had strictly enjoined them not to surrender, and he told them that they would be warned well enough in advance, in order to make a safe retreat, in case a retreat would be considered suitable. I received my orders, around a quarter to nine, to go to the house of St. Germain, and, with my good friend John Chumard, to take the direction of a body of young men. Papineau was locked in his room … Between eleven o’clock and noon I returned to my father’s house, and was surprised to learn that the two gentlemen had fled. My father, the Doctor, had ordered Papineau not to leave, and told him that he was perfectly safe. I hereby affirm that Louis Antoine Dessaulles, the nephew of Papineau, was not at my father’s house on 23 November 1837 and I did not see him anywhere on that day.”²⁶

François St. Germain: “I prepared the horse of Doctor Nelson and he joined his men for the operation on the 23 November 1837. The Doctor then sent his horse home (he himself did not return from the attack until nightfall). Around that time, Louis–Joseph Papineau wanted Doctor Nelson’s horse: I resisted his endeavour, but gave him another horse, also belonging to the Doctor, which Papineau accepted, and upon which the Doctor O’Callaghan rode. Louis–Joseph Papineau obtained the horse of Mister Baptiste Mignault: Thereupon both Papineau and the Doctor departed from St. Denis. Papineau himself had been the guest of Doctor Nelson for some days, and although at the time I had no idea where Papineau and O’Callaghan went, I later learned they had journeyed to St. Hyacinthe. During the period in question, I was Doctor Nelson’s aide de camp, but I swear upon my grave that I never once saw Louis Antoine Dessaulles at St. Denis on that fateful day.”²⁷

Papineau stood forth as the grandest figure in Canadian history and his was a life of glory, a glory purchased by endless sacrifices? Louis–Joseph Papineau, originator of the Great Terror of 1837–1838, which destroyed many lives on both sides of the clash, was nothing more than a loudmouth and a gutless coward.

Propagandists and historiasters, flabby minds like Wilfrid Laurier, who portray Papineau and his henchmen as Liberals and patriots, but not as mass murderers and terrorists, have succumbed to the fatal disease of modern European political and economic irrationalism. Whosoever leads mass murderers and terrorists is himself a mass murderer and terrorist. We do not hold that Papineau and his henchmen were unpatriotic: Indeed, by all accounts they were very patriotic mass murderers and terrorists.

Wilfrid Laurier and other sophists, in their defense of Louis–Joseph Papineau, therefore uphold the bloody practice of mass murder and terrorism in politics. Thus we have entered into the realm of modern European political and economic irrationalism, and the Machiavellism of the 20th century, (which has been systematically and ruthlessly uprooted in Canada over the years, thanks to the American Superpower).

Have no fear, dear citizens, the inferior ruling classes of the earth have their work cut out for them! The Canadian Liberal mythology and poetry of Wilfrid Laurier will save Canada and the Canadian people from the likes of Napoléon Bonaparte, and the other bloodthirsty cut–throats of this world (and this in accordance with the path Wilfrid Laurier and Canadian Liberalism envisioned, although the journey leads to their immolation):

“If a people wish to remain free, they must, like Argus, have a hundred eyes and ever be on the watch. If they sleep, if they become weak, each moment of indolence involves the loss of some portion of their rights. An eternal, unceasing vigilance is the price which must be paid for the inestimable boon of liberty. Now, constitutional government is adapted even to a greater extent than a republic to the exercise of this necessary vigilance.”²⁸

Constitutional government, according to Laurier’s conception of it, will save us from the likes of Louis–Joseph Papineau and Napoléon Bonaparte: Constitutional government in Canada under the rule of the British Empire certainly protected many Canadians from the bloody autocracy of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right. Constitutional government in France did not protect the French and Europeans from Bonapartism and the bloodthirsty autocracy of Napoléon and Napoléon III.

But Wilfrid is a very subtle thinker, a very “brilliant logician,”²⁹ and he will have none of this: “From the moment the people have the right to vote and possess a responsible government, they have the full measure of their liberty.”³⁰ The full measure of our liberty, the right to vote and responsible government, will save us from the enslavement of a Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao! The Weimar Republic must have been a very irresponsible government indeed! What good is Liberty that paves the road to serfdom?

Alas, Wilfrid Laurier draws no rational distinction between responsible and irresponsible government, which involves rigorously distinguishing political corruption. Wilfrid Laurier has no conception of responsible government because he has no conception of political corruption. Wilfrid Laurier does have a mythological and poetic view (a phantasm) of the difference between responsible government versus political corruption: “[The People] must, like Argus, have a hundred eyes and ever be on the watch. If they sleep, if they become weak, each moment of indolence involves the loss of some portion of their rights.”³¹

Wilfrid Laurier draws no rational distinction between corrupt and uncorrupt government: Responsible government, which protects from the loss of some portion of rights, according to the phanstasms of Wilfrid Laurier, has a hundred eyes always watching everybody: This is also a fair description of totalitarianism as found in the scatology of modern irrationalism. What therefore is responsible government? Responsible government, according to Wilfrid Laurier, is therefore the power that protects the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: Political corruption, according to Wilfrid Laurier in 1877, is therefore whatever erodes autocracy founded on popular consent.

From whence comes autocracy founded on popular consent, the origin of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right?

“This is our definition of right: The fountainhead of justice, the foundation of the rationality of human action, from the point of view of the just and the unjust. This definition, as the complete and exact description of what right is, would itself have to be defined: It is necessary to elucidate the rationality governing human actions, as the fountainhead of justice. This problem we shall avoid by saying the solution is philosophical and therefore beyond the purview of jurisprudence.”³²

Indeed, it is necessary to elucidate that which the modern irrationalists name, in their various terminological disguises, the rationality governing human actions, the fountainhead of all justice according to the dispensers of modern freedom, and the origin of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, the bastion of autocracy founded on popular consent:

“We propose a comparison between the doctrine of Machiavelli, as it emerges from the Prince, and the doctrine of absolutism, which we shall endeavor to discern, not from one or another of the theorists who were its champions, but from all of them … the absolutist doctrines, in their application, lead rulers to the same results as the doctrines of Machiavelli … Machiavellism and absolutism are derived from analogous historical situations. This is the first essential point of our parallel. The historical situation inspires Machiavelli with the idea of ​​the legitimacy of every means aimed at the achievement of public interest and the salvation of the State … those who were able to study Napoléon Bonaparte very closely tell us that he was a very powerful ruler who saw the spilling of blood (sang des hommes répandu) as perhaps the greatest remedy of political medicine … The Prince of Machiavelli and the doctrines of absolutism were born of the same sentiment of profound patriotism, at times and in countries where a powerful sovereign was necessary to put an end to the disorder and turmoil of the day, the causes of national distress … Machiavelli reveals himself as an immoral patriot who wants to save the State, even though his conception of government appears as a policy that is respectful of political freedoms and that is aimed at the happiness of the people.”³³

Machiavellism and absolutism (autocracy not founded on popular consent) are derived from analogous historical situations; The Prince of Machiavelli and the doctrines of absolutism were born of the same sentiment of profound patriotism, at times and in countries where a powerful sovereign was necessary to put an end to the disorder and turmoil of the day, the causes of national distress; Machiavelli reveals himself as an immoral patriot who wants to save the State, even though his conception of government appears as a policy that is respectful of political freedoms and that is aimed at the happiness of the people; the absolutist doctrines, in their application, lead rulers to the same results as the doctrines of Machiavelli: The spilling of blood is the greatest remedy of political medicine.

Autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, is Machiavellism?

“[Rulers] cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion … [rulers] must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if necessitated.”³⁴

What is Machiavellism? Rulers and lawmakers must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if necessitated. Wherefore?

“Many have been and are of opinion that worldly events are so governed by fortune and by God, that men cannot by their prudence change them, and that on the contrary there is no remedy whatever, and for this they may judge it to be useless to toil much about them, but let things be ruled by chance … Our freewill may not be altogether extinguished, I think it may be true that fortune is the ruler of half our actions, but that she allows the other half or a little less to be governed by us. I would compare her to an impetuous river that, when turbulent, inundates the plains, ruins trees and buildings, removes earth from this side and places it on the other; every one flies before it, and everything yields to its fury without being able to oppose it.”³⁵

In other words, intelligent rulers and lawmakers are very savvy political and economic rapists:

“Fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force; and it can be seen that she lets herself be overcome by these rather than by those who proceed coldly. And therefore, like a woman, she is a friend to the young, because they are less cautious, fiercer, and master her with greater audacity.”³⁶

Machiavellism: Intelligent rulers and lawmakers are very savvy political and economic rapists; they cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion; they must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if necessitated; the arena of politics and economics is a woman, and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force, and to master her with great audacity.

Is this not the modus operandi of Napoléon Bonaparte? Napoléon was a very powerful ruler who saw the spilling of blood as perhaps the greatest remedy of political medicine: The Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right was born of the same sentiment as Machiavellism, at a time and in a country where a powerful sovereign was necessary to put an end to the disorder and turmoil of the day, the causes of national distress. Wherefore? The Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right is Machiavellism.

From whence comes autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, namely Machiavellism?

“These principalities … are upheld by higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, I will abstain from speaking of them; for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them … if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change … God will not do everything, in order not to deprive us of freewill.”³⁷

Higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, are exalted and maintained by God, the very highest power. Higher causation and rationality is the realm of the highest power, and is beyond the reach of humanity, civilization, and the rationality of political and economic order. What are the rational determinations of the highest power? We must abstain from speaking of them, for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them: The highest power of Machiavellism is the Absolute of Kant and the modern irrationalists. The highest power governing human actions, the fountainhead of all justice according to the Machiavellians, the dispensers of modern freedom, is Unknowable: The fountainhead of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right is modern unreason.

The “rationality governing human actions, the fountainhead of justice,” according to Machiavelli, his delusion of rationality and human reason, is modern unreason, the basis of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: Autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, therefore comes from the modern sophistry of Kant, Hume, Leibniz and Locke and then ultimately from Machiavelli. Machiavellism, autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, is modern unreason in the world historical arena of European politics and economics.

This autocracy founded on popular consent, this Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, this modern unreason in the world historical arena of European politics and economics, where is this Machiavellism found in Wilfrid Laurier’s “Political Liberalism”?

“Even Wilfrid Laurier’s backers will not deny that he suffers from weakness, which during his long career has resulted in very despicable actions: Even Laurier’s more moderate opponents know, on the other hand, that his public life is reprehensible in the extreme. History will surely condemn the cold intellect and actions of this man whose political opportunism flows directly from the despicable sophisms of Signor Machiavelli, at least according to the judgement of exact historiography: Wilfrid Laurier’s corrupt politics are based upon The Prince of Machiavelli, the little treatise of deception wherein the famous Florentine has popularized for the use of crooked politicians the art of staying in power for a long time.”³⁸

Wilfrid Laurier’s political opportunism flows directly from the despicable sophisms of Machiavelli, and his Political Liberalism is based upon The Prince?

Laurier attacks the Conservatives, but upon what rational basis, no determination can be made, unless the following citation constitutes a sound political argument in favor of Laurier’s undefined Political Liberalism:

“If Mr. Cartier were to return to this world again he would not recognize his party. Mr. Cartier was devoted to the principles of the English constitution. Those of his old followers who are leaders to–day, openly oppose the principles of the English constitution as a concession to what they call the spirit of evil. They understand neither their country nor the age in which they live. All these ideas are derived from the reactionists of France; as the ideas of the liberals of 1848 were based upon those of the revolutionists of France. They become enthusiastic on Don Carlos and the Count de Chambord, as the liberals were enthusiastic on Louis Blanc and Ledru Rollin. They cried Vive le Roy, long live the King, as the liberals cried Vive la Republique. In speaking of Don Carlos and of the Count de Chambord they affectedly called them His Majesty King Charles VII., His Majesty King Henri V., as the liberals in speaking of Napoleon, called him Mr. Louis Bonaparte. I certainly have too much respect for the opinion of my opponents to insult them, but I reproach them with an ignorance of this country and of the age they live in. I accuse them of judging of the political situation of this country, not by what is going on here, but by what is taking place in France. I charge them with endeavoring to introduce here ideas which are inapplicable to our state of society. I accuse them of laboriously endeavoring and unfortunately too affectively to drag down religion to the level of a political question. It is the habit of our adversaries to accuse us liberals of irreligion. I am not here to parade my religious principles, but I proclaim that I have too much respect for the faith in which I was born ever to make it the foundation of a political organization.”³⁹

If only Mr. Cartier were able to return to this world again today, he could tell us if he would not recognize his party in the day of Wilfrid Laurier. Cartier could also tell us whether those of his old followers who were leaders in Laurier’s day, whether or not they openly opposed the principles of the English constitution as a concession to what they called the spirit of evil. Unfortunately dead men advance no political refutations.

What are the Constitutional crimes of Wilfrid Laurier’s conservative enemies? They cried Vive le Roy, long live the King, as the liberals cried Vive la Republique. In speaking of Don Carlos and of the Count de Chambord they affectedly called them His Majesty King Charles VII., His Majesty King Henri V., as the liberals in speaking of Napoleon, called him Mr. Louis Bonaparte.

With regards to who exactly committed these grave political crimes against the Constitution, and the circumstances involved in their perpetration, Wilfrid Laurier is silent.

What are the terrible political consequences of conservative etiquette in Canada? Conservatives are ignorant of this country and of the age they live in. Conservatives judge the political situation of this country, not by what is going on here, but by what is taking place in France. Conservatives endeavor to introduce here ideas which are inapplicable to our state of society. What are the names of these very dangerous conservative political criminals? Wilfrid Laurier is silent.

We are certain of one thing: These excessively polite Conservatives or Tories, unlike the young Liberals of 1848, did not espouse the cause of Louis–Joseph Papineau, and they most certainly did not follow the road of mass murder and terrorism.⁴⁰

Wilfrid Laurier, with his undefined and undetermined conception of “Political Liberalism,” somehow based upon his distinction between old England and Continental Europe, thus places himself in the camp of those leaders who seek to preserve capitalism (modern society) from revolutionism and the “most dangerous of men” of Europe, France, Italy and Germany.⁴¹ But Louis Bonaparte (Napoléon III) in his conception of Liberalism, and he is no political and economic friend of classic liberty, also opposes the “most dangerous of men” of Europe, France, Italy and Germany. Does Wilfrid Laurier (1841–1919) therefore really and truly belong in the camp of the classic liberalism and modern capitalism of the Industrial revolution, otherwise, does he belong in the camp of financial, commercial and industrial retardation and degeneration, like Napoléon III?

Karl Marx the most dangerous revolutionary of the age lived out his days in England. Wilfrid Laurier ignores this historical fact, evident even in his own time, during the last half of the 19th century: In the rising revolt of the masses there are very famous anarchists and revolutionists in Great Britain and the English–speaking world, whose influence is working to destroy modern European society, and who are themselves the “most dangerous of men,” otherwise at least as dangerous as the modern revolutionists of Europe, France, Italy and Germany. Even in 1877 these men and women are making their presence felt in the very bowels of the great powers of the Western world, in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Vienna and Moscow.

Thus Laurier’s political conception of modern liberty, his proof of his so–called Whig Liberalism, based on the geographical and historical distinction between the “classic land of liberty” and the “nations of Continental Europe” is specious and therefore merely verbal: Wilfrid Laurier’s conception of Liberalism does not rule out Bonapartism and the Imperial Liberalism of Napoléon III (1852–1870), which is certainly not the classical liberalism of the Industrial revolution, but is “autocracy founded on popular consent,” and which is not contradictory to the 20th century autocracy found in the dictatorship of the proletariat, namely the power of the people and tyranny of the masses.⁴² Wilfrid Laurier does not rigorously distinguish between right and unright, and therefore he does not turn his back upon the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right.

Perhaps our contemporary Bonapartists of the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, which is now a Bombardier ruling class, the camp of financial, commercial and industrial retardation and degeneration in Canada, prefer to place Laurier’s Liberalism (and themselves) in the camp of Gambetta and Clemenceau?

Surprise of all surprises, Wilfrid Laurier bases his own specious and verbal distinctions upon the modern irrationalism of the dangerous revolutionaries that he condemns:

“As long as man is what he is, as long as the immortal soul dwells in the mortal body, so long shall its desires be beyond its means, its actions can never equal its conceptions.”⁴³

Which “it” does Laurier mean, the immortal soul versus the mortal body or both the immortal soul and the mortal body? Insofar as its actions can never equal its conceptions, the result is the same: Actions can never equal conceptions. And in the fashion of the modern European irrationalists (Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Kant), Wilfrid Laurier advances no rational argument in favor of his sophistry, but reverts to mythology and poetry: “[Mankind] is the true Sysiphus of the fable, its completed work has ever to be recommenced.”⁴⁴

Wilfrid Laurier therefore means by “Political Liberalism” what is usually meant by the “philosophy” of Liberalism in the works of British thinkers like Lord Acton, but which in Laurier’s case is sheer sophistry. Therefore, either Wilfrid Laurier is in the camp of dangerous revolutionists, otherwise he is in the camp of Bonapartism and the Imperial Liberalism of Napoléon III: Instead of the camp of the Industrial revolution and the tradition of classic Whig Liberalism of the Constitutional Monarchism of the British Empire, Wilfrid Laurier is on the side of the French revolution, unless the followers of Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Kant are the philosophical progenitors of rational political and economic order in modern European history. The political and economic history of the British Empire and the rise of Globalism tells a very different tale, at least according to the Idea of exact historiography and world history. Thus Wilfrid Laurier’s distinctions are not only verbal and specious, but also sophistical.

We know the true political and economic colors of Wilfrid Laurier: When faced with the stark choice of preserving modern society and Old England, convulsed by the contagion of irrationalism and revolutionism, unchained by the Great War, Wilfrid Laurier sided in the end with those men like Louis Riel whose “principles carry them so far that they aspire to nothing less than the destruction of modern society.”⁴⁵ From Papineau to Louis Riel and Wilfrid Laurier, and from thence onward to Bourassa and Vallières, via the epigones (Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin), is evidenced the same modern European unreason in Canada: Beside them rides the bloodthirsty horseman, the tyrant, the ghastly reaper, and the streets are awash in the blood of the Grande Terreur. Canadian Liberalism, as the backbone of the Québécocracy, is the political and economic terrorism of the White Gold ruling class.

Wilfrid Laurier is therefore no Cartesian but rather a Neo–Kantian:

“We unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we never reach. We dream of the highest good.”⁴⁶

The philosophy of Cartesius teaches the very opposite: “Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo … ea enim est natura nostrae mentis, ut generales propostiones ex particularium cognitione efformet.”⁴⁷

We surmise that Wilfrid Laurier propounds his philosophical sophistry under the guise of “Political Liberalism,” which he then secretly equates with his own policies, as those of the Liberal Party, controlled by himself: Because the enunciation of political policies founded upon sound philosophical principles will necessarily lead him into the realm of economics: The enunciation of such Liberal political and economic policies, which will earn him votes at home, will also lead him into contradiction with his sophistical distinction between Old England and Continental Europe, which will then lose him votes outside Québec. But Liberalism as a conception cannot avoid the categories of philosophy versus sophistry: Laurier’s modern European ship is burst asunder on the sophistical distinction between reason and unreason in world history.

Instead of giving his voters rational political and economic policies, Laurier gives them his politico–theologico–religious distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism, itself based upon his division between Gallicanism and Ultramontanism, which involves dividing rural and urban Québéckers, thereby stealing votes away from his adversaries the conservatives: The essence of Laurier’s “Political Liberalism,” as Machiavellism, is therefore modern European religious hatred and strife.

From the seedbed of Canadian Liberalism therefore comes no rational political and economic order, but only the Bonapartism of “autocracy founded on popular consent,” the dictatorship of the proletariat, namely the power of the people and the tyranny of the masses: Modern unreason in the world historical arena of European politics and economics in Canada.

In the mindset of Wilfrid Laurier there is a world historical clash between monarchism and republicanism, as the passage from subjective to objective freedom and beyond, in the strife between modern and universal Liberty, unleashed by the rational conception of right found in The Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States of America, in the rise of Global rational political and economic order in the world: The bonds of modernity are come undone in universal history. From Wifrid Laurier’s outdated and backwards conceptions comes the demise of the old Québec Regime in Ottawa and the rise of Americanism, until the advent of Louis Saint Laurent. In turn the Empire of Paul Desmarais will utterly sweep–away European modernity in Canada, in the name of European modernity! and will thereby ultimately destroy its own political and economic foundations in world history. The seeds of the Canadocentric Polity are sown: The world historical fruit of the political and economic sphere of American finance, commerce and industry in Canada is ripe upon the vine.

From Papineau comes two modern European movements in the history of Franco–Canadian civilization: From the early Papineau comes the tradition leading from the upheavals of 1837 to Louis Riel, through the 20th century from Bourassa to Pierre Vallières and René Lévesque, which seeks to make the French revolution into the British Empire. From the later Papineau comes the tradition leading from 1848 to Wilfrid Laurier and Louis St. Laurent, and from thence to Pierre Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin, and which seeks to make the British Empire into the French revolution. These principle traditions intermingle at times, otherwise separate, depending upon the problems of the day that they confront, in order to maintain their ever–diminishing power. In this they are in no wise especial, as the Left confronts the Right in 20th century world history. For the problems which they confront are their problems, dependent upon their inadequacies in the face of world transition. The inferior ruling classes are ultimately powerless to control or halt the advancement of the world: The inexorable rise of Americanism is the transition of civilization and humanity to a much higher level of freedom (rationality) in universal history.

The political liberalism of Wilfrid Laurier is therefore sublated in the world historical rise of Americanism, which is the political and economic conception of American Idealism, deeply rooted in Pure Hegelianism:

“Admirers of Hegel are accustomed to refer to the first edition [Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline], as having most of the author’s freshness and power … in America, no one can look back a few years, without observing that the whole tone of our public men has changed, and that the phrases, ‘progress,’ ‘necessary development,’ and ‘God in history,’ occur with marked frequency.”⁴⁸

What exactly is Americanism as the political and economic doctrine of American Idealism? The correct answer to this question first requires some knowledge of the rational connexion between American Idealism and Pure Hegelianism.

The modern blindness towards the truly real and the really true conception of the past hundred years of world history, requires coming to terms with Hegel: One must first abandon the corrupt Hegelianism of modernity. How is this achieved? Corrupt Hegelianism holds no sway in the world of today, and for very good reason: The modern European political and economic conditions within which it arose and multiplied have vanished from the earth as a stage of world history. The worn–out distinction between rationalism and empiricism inherited from Kant, and which makes Plato into the enemy of Aristotle, is transcended in the American world of today: The worn–out distinction between rationalism and empiricism inherited from Kant, with which is affected the reconciliation of both Kantianism and Hegelianism in the name of modern European unreason, is transcended in the American world of today.

After a half–century of the Québec Régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, modern European political and economic irrationalism is no longer alien to many English–speaking Canadians. But in the world of today, modernity is replaced by Americanism, which is the refutation of modern unreason in the world historical realm of Global rational political and economic order: In Canada the modern irrationalists are passing–away.

We unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we are reaching: We conceive of the highest good.

ENDNOTES

1. Bernard Bosanquet, editor, “Editor’s Preface,” The Impossibility of Social Democracy, Being a Supplement to “The Quintessence of Socialism,” Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schäffle, 4th German edition, A.C. Morant, translator, London, 1911, ix. [Italics added]

2. Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” Québec, 1877, 11. [Italics added]

See: “Vous êtes [Joseph–Adolphe Chapleau] en ce moment l’incarnation d’une politique que je condamne et qui s’est clairement inspirée des théories de Machiavel … et du sanguinaire despotisme de Napoléon.”
Ernest Tremblay, Riel: Reponse à Monsieur J.A. Chapleau, St–Hyacinthe, Des Presses à Vapeur de “l’Union,” 1885, 80.

3. “J’avais toujours regardé Kant non–seulement comme une très–forte tête, mais comme le métaphysicien le plus rapproché de la philosophie positive … le pas le plus positif et le plus distinct que j’ai fait après lui, me semble seulement d’avoir découverte la loi du passage des idées humaines par les trois états théologique, métaphysique, et scientifique, loi qui me semble être la base dont Kant a conseillé l’exécution.” [Italics added]

Auguste Comte (10 December 1824) in Friedrich Maximilian Müller, translator, “Translator’s Preface,” Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication, Immanuel Kant, vol. 1, London, 1881, xxi: “‘J’ai lu et relu avec un plaisir infini le petit traité de Kant (Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht, 1784); il est prodigieux pour I’époque, et même, si je I’avais connu six ou sept ans plus tot, il m’aurait épargné de la peine. Je suis charmé que vous I’ayez traduit, il peut très–efficacement contribuer à préparer les esprits à la philosophie positive. La conception générale ou au moins la méthode y est encore métaphysique, mais les détails montrent à chaque instant I’esprit positif. J’avais toujours regardé Kant non–seulement comme une très–forte tête, mais comme le métaphysicien le plus rapproché de la philosophie positive … Pour moi, je ne me trouve jusqu’à present, après cette lecture, d’autre valeur que celle d’avoir systématisé et arrêté la conception ébauchée par Kant à mon insu, ce que je dois surtout à I’éducation scientifique; et même le pas le plus positif et le plus distinct que j’ai fait après lui, me semble seulement d’avoir découverte la loi du passage des idées humaines par les trois états théologique, métaphysique, et scientifique, loi qui me semble être la base dont Kant à conseillé l’exécution. Je rends grâce aujourd’hui à mon défaut d’érudition; car si mon travail, tel qu’il est maintenant, avait été précédé chez moi par I’étude du traité de Kant, il aurait, à mes propres yeux, beaucoup perdu de sa valeur.’ See Auguste Comte, par É. Littré, Paris, 1864, p. 154; Lettre de Comte à M. d’Eichthal, 10 Déc. 1824.”

4. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York, 1994, 806–808.

See: “The publication of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason marks one of the two key events after which we may take nineteenth–century philosophy to begin. The other event is the French Revolution, of which many people saw Kant’s philosophy, with its emphasis on autonomy, as the theoretical correlate. ‘Nineteenth–century’ philosophy … thus actually begins in the later 1780s and the 1790s, in response to Kant’s Critical philosophy and the French Revolution.”
Alison Stone, editor, “Introduction: Philosophy in the Nineteenth–Century,” The Edinburgh Critical History of Nineteenth–Century Philosophy, Howard Caygill & David Webb, general editors, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2011, 1–12; 1.

See also: “The Republican Constitution is, thus, the only one which arises out of the idea of the Original Compact upon which all the rightful legislation of a people is founded … the Republican Constitution is the only one which perfectly corresponds to the Rights of Man.”
Immanuel Kant in Kant’s Principles of Politics Including His Essay on Perpetual Peace: A Contribution to Political Science, William Hastie, editor & translator, Edinburgh, 1891, 89–116. [Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, 1795]

See also: “The Republican Constitution is not to be confounded with the Democratic Constitution … of the three forms of the State, a Democracy, in the proper sense of the word, is necessarily a despotism; because it establishes an Executive power in which All resolve about, and, it may be, also against, any One who is not in accord with it; and consequently the All who thus resolve are really not all; which is a contradiction of the Universal Will with itself and with liberty.”
Immanuel Kant, Ibidem, 91–92.

See also: “The conception of a noumenon is problematical … the conception of a noumenon is therefore not the conception of an object, but merely a problematical conception … my existence cannot be considered as an inference from the proposition, ‘I think,’ as Descartes maintained.”
Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason,” Great Books of the Western World: Kant, John Miller Dow Meiklejohn, translator & Robert Maynard Hutchins, editor in chief, Chicago, 1960, 106–106–127.

See finally: “The concept of the noumenon is problematical … the concept of the noumenon is not therefore the concept of an object, but only a problem … the so–called syllogism of Cartesius, cogito, ergo sum, is in reality tautological.”
Immanuel Kant, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication, vol. 2, Friedrich Maximilian Müller, translator, London, 1881, 249–250–308.

5. Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” Québec, 1877, 6–16.

6. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 1.

7. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 8–10.

See: “The recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on which the Houses met again is one of the most remarkable epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. In one sense, indeed, the distinction which then became obvious had always existed, and always must exist. For it has its origin in diversities of temper, of understanding, and of interest, which are found in all societies, and which will be found till the human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite directions by the charm of habit and by the charm of novelty. Not only in politics, but in literature, in art, in science, in [90] surgery and mechanics, in navigation and agriculture, nay, even in mathematics, we find this distinction. Everywhere there is a class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reasons that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings. We find also everywhere another class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences which attend improvements, and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement. In the sentiments of both classes there is something to approve. But of both the best specimens will be found not far from the common frontier. The extreme section of one class consists of bigoted dotards: The extreme section of the other consists of shallow and reckless empirics.”

Thomas James Babington Macaulay (Baron of Rothley), Macaulay’s History Chapter 1: A Brief History of England From the Earliest Times to 1660, With Biography, Critical Opinions, and Explanatory Notes, New York, Maynard, Merrill, & Company, 1895, 89–90.

8. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 10.

9. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem.

10. Thomas James Babington Macaulay (Baron of Rothley), Macaulay’s History Chapter 1: A Brief History of England From the Earliest Times to 1660, With Biography, Critical Opinions, and Explanatory Notes, New York, Maynard, Merrill, & Company, 1895, 90.

11. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 1–2.

12. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 1–2.

13. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 3.

14. See: “In France, the unjust social and political conditions of the time were criticized by a group of philosophers known as the philosophes. This group, which included Diderot, Rousseau, and Voltaire, greatly influenced the leaders of the French Revolution. The philosophes and, more importantly, Locke also influenced the leaders of the American Revolution.”
William Thomas Jones, “Age of Reason,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 3, 1971, 130a–130b, 130b.

See: “[Luther] symbolizes the split within Christianity between Protestants and Roman Catholics. This split has affected the political and cultural development of every nation in Europe and North and South America.”
Jaroslav Pelikan, “Martin Luther, 1483–1546,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 12, 1971, 458–459, 459.

See: “Some of the democratic ideas of the Puritans finally won a place for themselves after many years of oppression, persecution, a civil war, and a period of political and religious dictatorship.”
Wyndham Mason Southgate (1910–1998), “Puritan,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, 1971, 803–804, 803.

15. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 27–28.

16. We know all about the cut–throat ruling classes: Half one’s life is surrendered in payouts to autocracy founded on popular consent, and for what bargain? For most people this means less than a decade of retirement because they never receive the proper medical attention they deserve when they need it the most. In other words, they are legally murdered.

What happens to their fat pensions? The cash is used to fill the budgetary deficits created by the criminal ruling classes! This means creating a surplus: The pension cash is “invested” in the business interests (monopolies, cartels and trusts) of the backers of the corrupt politicians! In other words, their pensions are legally stolen. Only in a very politically and economically retarded nation is mortal corruption synonymous with prosperity and growth. This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

That the average Canadian lives to be (say) x years old, according to the Québécocrat statisticians in Ottawa, means merely that some Canadians (born in say 1950) live to be x years old: Their exact quantity and location, remains a very closely guarded Québec Regime secret, like the historical archives of Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin.

Half of one’s life is surrendered in payouts to autocracy founded on popular consent, for less than a decade of retirement because most people never get the proper medical attention they deserve when they need it the most. They are legally murdered. The remainder of their fat pensions is legally stolen by corrupt politicians and their cronies, and used to fill the budgetary deficits created by the criminal ruling class: This applies to a very great number of Canadians, judging from research of the obituaries from newspaper archives, admittedly somewhat incomplete, between 1980 and 2010.

17. Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” Québec, 1877, 20.

18. Laurier, Ibidem.

19. Henry Samuel Chapman, An Impartial and Authentic Account of the Civil War in the Canadas; With Ample Details of the Immediate Causes and Progress Thereof, From the Commencement to Its Final Conclusion; Preceded by an Introduction Containing a Faithful Exposition of the More Remote Causes of the Present Disastrous State of Affairs in Those Colonies; the Whole to be Followed by a Complete and Highly Interesting General Account of the Provinces & Their Inhabitants, 2 vols., London, 1838, 14–16.

20. John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, vol. 2, Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885, 55.

See: “Bidwell had laid before the Assembly a letter written by Louis Joseph Papineau, Speaker of the Lower Canada Assembly, wherein the great agitator had given utterance to sentiments which, read in the light of subsequent events, cannot be construed otherwise than as treasonable.”
John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, vol. 1, Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885, 321.

See: “Several members of the [322] Reform party had publicly spoken enthusiastically of M. Papineau, and had even gone so far as to express approbation of his most indiscreet and objectionable language. This circumstance was now urged to show that the objects of the anti–Executive party in both Provinces were identical. There was no attempt to discriminate between constitutional Reformers of the Baldwin stamp and advanced Radicals like Mackenzie. All were included in one sweeping verdict as ‘disloyal’ persons, against whom it was necessary for right–minded citizens to organize in self–defence … [360] Reformers in the cities and towns were beginning to bestir themselves. Toronto was the headquarters of the Reform party of Upper Canada, and it was natural that the adherents of that party throughout the Province generally should contemplate their proceedings with interest. As yet the idea of an armed rising against the Government had not been seriously hinted at among the Reformers of the capital. Profound sympathy, however, was felt and expressed among them for the Lower Canadians, who made no secret of their determination to rebel in case certain resolutions adopted by the British Parliament, at the instance of the Ministry, were acted upon. These resolutions had been adopted in consequence of the Lower Canadian Assembly’s persistent refusal to grant supplies. They authorized the seizure of certain funds in the hands of the Provincial Receiver–General, and the application of them to the general purposes of the Provincial government. Papineau and his adherents had been maddened by this proceeding, and were actively engaged in preparations for an outbreak. The Upper Canadian Reformers warmly sympathized with their neighbours and passed resolutions condemnatory of the obnoxious resolutions. On the 5th of July, Mackenzie, in the Constitution, reviewed the state of affairs in the Lower Province with exceeding boldness. He discussed the probability of an outbreak there, and the chances of success, very clearly indicating his own opinion in the affirmative as to both contingencies. Other Reform papers expressed strong opinions in favour of Papineau’s side of the quarrel, but, with the exception of the Constitution none of them ventured to predict and hope for the success of the rebel arms … [364] Towards the end of July a number of leading Radical assembled at Elliott’s for the purpose of discussing the draft of a written Declaration, which was intended to embody the platform of the local members of the party. It reads very much like a cautious parody on the Declaration of Independence of the United States, upon which it was evidently modelled. It set forth the principal grievances of which the Reform party complained; declared that the time had arrived for the assertion of rights and the redress of wrongs; and expressed the warmest admiration of Papineau and his compatriots for their opposition to the British Government. It further expressed the opinion that the Reformers of Upper Canada were bound to make common cause with their fellow–citizens in the Lower Province; and to render their cooperation more effectual it recommended that public meetings should be held and political associations organized throughout the country. Finally, it recommended that a convention of delegates should be held at Toronto to consider the political situation, ‘with authority to its members to appoint commissioners to meet others to be named on behalf of Lower Canada and any of the other colonies, armed with suitable powers as a congress to seek an effectual remedy for the grievances of the colonists’ … [367] John Elliott, a Toronto scrivener, who was also Assistant Clerk of the City Council, was requested to continue to act as Secretary–in–Ordinary and Mackenzie to act as ‘Agent and Corresponding Secretary.’ Both of these requests were assented to. A resolution, doubtless adopted in emulation of similar resolutions at meetings held under Papineau’s auspices in Lower Canada, pledged the members to abstain as far as possible ‘from the consumption of articles coming from beyond sea, or paying duties.’ A sort of rider to this was moved by Mackenzie, and adopted by the meeting: ‘That the right of obtaining articles of luxury or necessity in the cheapest market, is inherent in the people, who only consent to the imposition of duties for the creation of revenues with the express understanding that the revenues so raised from them shall be devoted to the necessary expenses of Government, and appointed by the people’s representatives; and therefore, when the contract is broken by an Executive or any foreign authority, the people are released from their engagement, and are no longer under any moral obligation to contribute to or aid in the collection of such revenues.’ On Wednesday, the 2nd of August, the Declaration was published in full, together with the names of the committee, in The Correspondent and Advocate, and in Mackenzie’s Constitution. Each of these papers also published a report of the proceedings at the meeting. The part assigned to Mackenzie―that of ‘Agent and Corresponding Secretary’―was an important one, and involved him in the necessity of giving up all his time and energies to the cause. In so far as his abilities enabled him to do so, he was to virtually play the same part in Upper Canada that had long been enacted by Papineau in the Lower [368] Province … He did not succeed in arousing such a feeling in the west as Papineau did in the east. He had not Papineau’s marvelous Gallic eloquence, nor were the farmers of Upper Canada composed of such inflammable material as the habitans of the Lower Province. But Mackenzie, when thoroughly aroused, as he now was, had considerable power to move the masses, and he exerted himself to this end as he had never done before … [370] A trusted emissary―Jesse Lloyd of Lloydtown―acted as a medium of communication between the Radical leaders in the two Provinces, and passed to and fro from time to time with despatches and intelligence between Papineau and Mackenzie. By this and other means the Lower Canadian leaders were from first to last kept promptly informed of the progress of the movement in the Upper Province.”
John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, vol. 1, Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885, 321–370.

21. John M’Mullen, The History of Canada: From Its First Discovery to the Present Time, Brockville, John M’Mullen, Publisher, 1855, 397.

See: “The Habitants had abused their temporary power by driving the loyalists from their homes, burning their barns and houses, and plundering them of their cattle and provisions.”
John M’Mullen, The History of Canada: From Its First Discovery to the Present Time, Brockville, John M’Mullen, Publisher, 1855, 407.

22. Wolfred Nelson (1849) in Alfred Duclos DeCelles (1843–1925), The Makers of Canada: Papineau and Cartier, Toronto, Morang & Co., Limited, 1910, 145.

See: “It is but fair to state that when Nelson made this declaration (in 1849) he had quarrelled with his former friend.”
Alfred Duclos DeCelles, Ibidem, 145.

That Wolfred Nelson “had quarrelled with his former friend” in no way entails that therefore it is not the case that “the whole initiative [the Rebellion] came from Papineau.” Wherefore? That Wolfred Nelson “had quarrelled with his former friend” in no way entails that therefore the contents of Wolfred Nelson’s Declaration of 1849 are false, namely that his statement that “the whole initiative [the Rebellion] came from Papineau” is false. Not all quarrellers are liars because some quarrellers are honest. Not all liars are quarrellers. Philosophers are quarrellers, while sophists are liars.

The argument required is: Wolfred Nelson “had quarrelled with his former friend,” and Wolfred Nelson was a liar, therefore his statement that “the whole initiative [the Rebellion] came from Papineau” is false. The missing premise, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos DeCelles does not supply.

That Wolfred Nelson “had quarrelled with his former friend,” as the basis of an historical argument, entails only that his statement in the Declaration of 1849 that “the whole initiative [the Rebellion] came from Papineau,” either might or might not be false.

Of course, it is not the business of exact historiography and world history to advance rational historical proofs of whatever might or might not be, or whatever might or might not have been.

Does the 1849 Declaration of Wolfred Nelson, himself a very important historical figure of the Rebellion of 1837, contradict the historical fact that Louis–Joseph Papineau was indeed the recognized leader of the radical and revolutionary faction in French Canada? Not at all. We conclude therefore that the 1849 Declaration of Wolfred Nelson does not contradict the historical facts. Since the 1849 Declaration does not contradict the historical facts, it is reliable historical evidence.

See: “Papineau and his adherents … were actively engaged in preparations for an outbreak.”
John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, vol. 1, Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885, 360.

See: “Colborne was kept tolerably well informed as to the proceedings of Papineau and the other fomenters of revolt.”
John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, vol. 1, Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885, 377.

See: “Papineau set out for St. Hyacinthe; and the authorities who had so long been dozing and indifferent, suddenly, at last awoke with staring eyes which magnified and distorted out of all proportion every object offered to their vision, and made up their minds that the popular leader had set out to organize an armed revolt. Thereupon, without further reflection, they charged Papineau and O’Callaghan with high treason, and took out warrants for their arrest. This was going too fast and too far … Men no longer controlled events; events rather swept away those who sought to control them, and guns were soon to go off spontaneously, so to speak, as though some mysterious hand discharged them … Leibnitz was right in saying: Homo homini lupus … From 1820 to 1887, he stood forth the grandest figure in our history. His was a life of glory during
that period, a glory purchased by endless sacrifices,―a life immolated to a great cause which he upheld unflinchingly with small hope of final victory.”
Alfred (Jean–Baptiste–Alfred?) Duclos DeCelles, The Makers of Canada: Papineau and Cartier, Toronto, 1910, 127–128–128–141–187.

See: “[Papineau] vous declarez le Gouvernement britannique dechu de tous ses droits sur le Canada, ‘parce qu’il a commencé la guerre contre des populations qui ne l’avaient pas provoqué, à qui elle n’avait pas été conseillée.’ Cette assertion est fortement en contradiction avec l’assurance que vous donnez: ‘Que vous songeates toute votre vie à affranchir votre patrie de la domination britannique.’ Si telle fut votre pensée incessante, personne ne pourra croire qu’elle ne fut accolée et fortifiée avec des idées accessoires à sa réalisation: Ou vous étiez un grand enfant, qui s’imaginait que les peuples s’emancipent sans lutte ni sans commotions sanguinaires, ou vous étiez un homme fait, en état de reflechir sur les conséquences d’une separation de la mere patrie, sur les élémens qui peuvent seuls amener une liberté qui ne se fonde ordinairement que sur le renversement d’un trone et par conséquent sur des …”
Charles Clément Sabrevois de Bleury, Réfutation de l’écrit de Louis Joseph Papineau, ex–orateur de la Chambre d’Assemblée du Bas–Canada, intitulé Histoire de l’insurrection du Canada, publiée dans le recueil hebdomadaire la Revue du progrès, imprimée à Paris, Montréal, 1839, 8.

23. Alfred Duclos DeCelles, The Makers of Canada: Papineau and Cartier, Toronto, 1910, 128–141–187.

24. John M’Mullen, The History of Canada: From Its First Discovery to the Present Time, Brockville, John M’Mullen, Publisher, 1855, 396–397.

See: “Posterity must stigmatise the Canadian rebellion as a causeless one. All the injuries sought to be redressed could have been removed by constitutional agitation.”
John M’Mullen, The History of Canada: From Its First Discovery to the Present Time, Brockville, John M’Mullen, Publisher, 1855, 407.

25. “Chambly, 19 août 1848

J’affirme sur mon honneur, que le Dr. Nelson a laissé sa maison à six heures précises, A.M. le 23 novembre 1837, pour aller au devant des troupes que l’on disait être à environ une lieue et demie du village de St. Denis. Et qu’il n’a reparu chez lui qu’après le combat fini, et cela vers les quatre heures et demie P.M.

En conséquence, il est faux qu’il ait dit à Mr. Papineau à neuf heures A.M. de s’en aller a St. Hyacinthe.

Nous étions tous ignorants du chemin qu’il [Papineau] a tenu. Son absence [Papineau] a causé beaucoup de découragement parmi un grand nombre de combattants. Nous eussions désiré l’avoir au milieu de nous, pour organiser les mesures ultérieures.
T. Kimber.”
Anonyme, Resumé impartial de la discussion Papineau–Nelson sur les évènements de Saint–Denis en 1837, Montréal, Inconnu, Novembre 1848, 10.

26. “État de New–York, Comté de Clinton,

Je, soussigné, Horrace Nelson, Dr. en médecine, résidant à Platsburg, étant dumont assermenté, dépose et dit:

Que Louis Joseph Papineau de la ville de Montréal a, vers le milieu de novembre 1837, cherché refuge dans la maison de mon père le Dr. Wolfred Nelson, à St. Denis, et l’a quitté le 23 du même mois, sous les circonstances suivantes:

La matin du du jour, entre cinq et six heures, le Dr. Nelson eut vent qu’un detachement de troupes marchait sur St. Denis; — Mon père donna des ordres à quelques amis, et laissant la maison sous mes charges, alla, accompagné de queques personnes, reconnaître le parti ennemi, quelques minutes avant six heures; le dit Louis Joseph Papineau, et le Dr. O’Callaghan aussi de Montréal, furent beaucoup alarmés do l’arrivée inattendue des troupes; — en entrant dans leur chambre, je m’apperçus que la crainte et l’anxiété étaient peintes sur leurs figures; — ils marchaient ça et là avec leurs chapeaux sur la tete et leurs surtouts sur le corps; — je leur dis quelques mots et me retirai pour donner quelques ordres; mon père, en laissant ces deux personnes, leur avait strictement enjoint DE NE PAS S’ABSENTER, qu’on les avertirait assez à tems pour qu’ils pussent faire une retraite sûre, dans le cas où la retraite serait jugée convenable; à neuf heures moins un quart, je reçus ordre de me rendre à la maison de Mme. [12] St. Germain et, de concert avec mon brave ami John Chumard, de prendre la direction d’un corps de jeunes gens; Mr. Papineau était enfermé à clef dans sa chambre, et le soin de la maison confié à l’homme de confiance du Dr. Nelson, Frs. St. Germain:

Entre onze heures et midi, je retournai à la maison de mon père et je fus surpris de voir que les deux messieurs avaient fui.

J’ai entendu dire plus d’une fois à un étudiant en médecine sous mon père que Papineau l’avait envoyé s’informer du Dr. Nelson si lui Mr. Papineau devait quitter le village et que le Dr. lui avait enjoint de ne pas s’éloigner, qu’il était en parfaite sureté. Je dis de plus que Louis Antoine Dessaulles, neveu de Papineau, n’est pas venu à la maison de mon père le 23 novembre 1837, je ne l’ai pas vu ce jour là.

Le Dr. Wolfred Nelson quitta sa maison avant six heures du matin et ne revint lorsque l’engagement fut terminé, c’est à dire vers quatre heures de l’après–midi.
Horace Nelson M.D.
Assermenté devant moi ce sixième jour de novembre 1848.
L. Stilton
Juge de Comté pour le Comté de Clinton, N.Y.”
Anonyme, Resumé impartial de la discussion Papineau–Nelson sur les évènements de Saint–Denis en 1837, Montréal, Inconnu, Novembre 1848, 11–12.

27. “St. Denis, 28 octobre 1848

En présence des témoins soussignés, je déclare et affirme ce qui suit:

Je me rappelle parfaitement que de bon matin, jeudi, le 23 de nov. 1837, le Dr. Nelson m’a fait seller sa jument et est parti pour aller au devant des troupes. Il a renvoyé sa jument chez lui peu de tems après, et n’est pas revenu lui–même à sa demeure que le soir. Au commencement de la bataille, Mr. Papineau a demandé le cheval du Dr. Nelson. Je le lui refusai mais je lui livrai un autre cheval, aussi appartenant au Dr. et sur ce cheval le Dr. O’Callaghan monta. Mr. Papineau prit le cheval de Mr. Baptiste Mignault, et ils partirent tous deux. Il y avait plusieurs jours que Mr. Papineau était en la demeure du Dr. Nelson, je ne savais alors où ils allaient, mais j’ai appris depuis qu’ils étaient rendus à St. Hyacinthe. Je déclare n’avoir pas vu Mr. Dessaulles à St. Denis ce jour là. J’étais dans ce tems, l’homme de confiance du Dr. Nelson.
François St. Germain
François Jalbert, J.B. Gadbois. Témoins.”
Anonyme, Resumé impartial de la discussion Papineau–Nelson sur les évènements de Saint–Denis en 1837, Montréal, Inconnu, Novembre 1848, 11.

See finally: “Montréal, 10 octobre 1848

Mr. L’Éditeur,

Appelé aujourd’hui à Montréal, comme membre du Bureau Médical, la hasard a fait tomber entre mes mains le journal l’Avenir du 7 du courant, où j’ai vu mon nom cité, comme ayant été témoin d’une conversation qui aurait eu lieu entre le Dr. Wolfred Nelson, le Dr. O’Callaghan, Mr. L.J. Papineau et Mr. L.A. Dessaulles, à St. Denis, en la maison du Dr. Nelson, le 23 novembre 1837, à NEUF heures du matin, et cette citation est FAITE PAR AFFIDAVIT SOUS SERMENT!!

Je déclare avoir vu maintes fois Mr. L.A. Dessaulles, en différents endroits du District, avant, pendant et après l’année 1837, mais jamais je n’ai vu, ni rencontré à ma connaissance, le susdit L.A. Dessaulles en la paroisse de St. Denis.

J’ai laissé la maison du Dr. Nelson peu après six heures du matin, le 23 novembre 1837, quelques minutes après le Dr. lui–même. Et nous ne sommes retournés en sa demeure QUE LE SOIR après l’engagement fini. Par conséquent, il est de toute impossibilité que le Dr. Nelson et M. Dessaulles AIENT EU UNE ENTREVUE CE JOUR LA A NEUF HEURES du matin. Si Mr. L.A. Dessaulles fût venu ce jour–là, à St. Denis, il est de toute nécessité, vu la part que je prenais aux affaires, que sa présence au dit lieu N’AURAIT PU M’ECHAPPER. Les occupations que nous avions à NEUF heures A.M., étaient de nature à ne point laisser de temps aux conversations.
T. Kimber.”
Anonyme, Resumé impartial de la discussion Papineau–Nelson sur les évènements de Saint–Denis en 1837, Montréal, Inconnu, Novembre 1848, 10.

28. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 9.

29. See: “Mr. Laurier’s brilliant logic, should be enough to convince every honest and unprejudiced citizen that the reform party does not in any way desire to deprive the church of its rights, but that on the contrary, it has always endeavored to secure to it the full exercise thereof.”
Anonymous, “Remarks of the Press: Le National,” Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” By Wilfrid Laurier, Québec, 1877, 36–38.

30. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 9.

31. Laurier, Ibidem.

32. Pierre–Basile Mignault, “Introduction doctrinale et historique,” Le Droit civil canadien basé sur les “Répétitions écrites sur le code civil” de Frédéric Mourlon avec revue de la jurisprudence de nos tribunaux: Contenant une introduction doctrinale et historique, le titre préliminaire du code civil et les titres de la jouissance et de la privation des droits civils, des actes de l’état civil, du domicile, des absents et du mariage, Tome 1, Montréal, Whiteford & Théoret, Éditeurs Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1895, 1–57, 2: “Le droit n’est pas l’oeuvre des hommes: Les législateurs humains ne le créent point. C’est un principe antérieur et préexistant, général, absolu, imprescriptible et invariable, parce qu’il tire sa source de la nature même de l’homme, qui ne change jamais. On le définit: Le fondement ou la raison première de la justice, le principe dirigeant des actions humaines, au point de vue du juste et de l’injuste. Cette définition, pour être complète et indiquer d’une manière exacte ce que c’est que le droit, aurait elle–même besoin d’être définie: Il faudrait, en effet, préciser ce principe dirigeant des actions humaines, cette raison première de toute justice. Mais la solution de ce problème est étrangère à l’objet de nos études, elle appartient aux philosophes plutôt qu’aux jurisconsultes … La jurisprudence est la connaissance acquise du droit.”

See: “Kant’s doctrines are destructively opposed to Catholicism. His teaching has been condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. His great work, ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ was placed on the Index, 11th June, 1827. Inconsistent with Catholic teaching are (1) Kant’s Metaphysical Agnosticism, which declares his ignorance of all things as they really are; (2) his Moral Dogmatism which declares the supremacy of will over reason, thereby making blind will without the guidance of reason the rule of action; (3) his giving to religious dogma merely a symbolic signification; (4) diametrically opposed to scholastic teaching and the common sense of mankind is Kant’s theory of knowledge which makes mind and thought the measure of reality rather than making reality the measure of mind and thought. Kant maintains that things are so because we must think them so, not that we must think them so because they are really so independently of our thinking them. The reversal of the order of thought and reality, Kant calls his ‘Copernican Revolution’ in his theory of knowledge.”
Michael Joseph Mahony, History of Modern Thought, New York, Fordham University Press, 1933, 166.

See also: “J’ai comparé les nations aux individus, je vais continuer à le faire.”
Pierre–Basile Mignault, L’Administration de la justice sous la domination française: Conférence faite devant l’Union Catholique, le 9 février 1879, Montréal, 1879, 119.

See finally: “France has the greatest laws and jurisprudence in the world … regardless of its perversity, the Napoléonic Code is actually the most beautiful and grandiose achievement of the almighty Napoléon Bonaparte … Napoléon Bonaparte, who uplifted himself, by which means no one has ever determined, to the heights of conceptual power in his knowledge of the greatest problems of jurisprudence and legislation, often participated in the deliberations of the Judicial Council. Napoléon’s great genius, his profound method and penetrating insight, always astonished the members of the judiciary.” Pierre–Basile Mignault, Le Droit civil canadien basé sur les “Répétitions écrites sur le code civil” de Frédéric Mourlon avec revue de la jurisprudence de nos tribunaux: Contenant une introduction doctrinale et historique, le titre préliminaire du code civil et les titres de la jouissance et de la privation des droits civils, des actes de l’état civil, du domicile, des absents et du mariage, Tome 1, Montréal, Whiteford & Théoret, Éditeurs Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1895, v–v–36: “Aucun pays ne possède une littérature légale comparable à celle de la France … Ce code [Code Napoléon], malgré ses défauts, est aujourd’hui le plus beau titre de gloire du grand homme [Napoléon Bonaparte] dont il porte le nom … Napoléon, qui s’est élevé, on ne sait comment, jusqu’à l’intelligence des problèmes les plus ardus du droit et de la législation, pris souvent part aux discussions du Conseil. Il y déploya toujours une clarté, une méthode, et quelquefois une profondeur de vues, qui furent pour tout le monde un sujet d’étonnement.”

33. Louis Couzinet, “Le Prince” de Machiavel et la théorie de l’absolutisme, Paris, 1910, xix–xxi–xxvii–136–349–352: “Nous nous proposons un rapprochement, une comparaison, entre la doctrine de Machiavel, telle qu’elle ressort du Prince, et la doctrine de l’absolutisme, que nous essayerons de dégager, non pas de tel ou tel des théoriciens qui en furent les champions; mais de l’ensemble de ces théoriciens … les doctrines absolutistes, dans leur application, conduisent les princes aux mêmes résultats que les doctrines de Machiavel … Machiavélisme et absolutisme sont issus de situations historiques analogues. C’est là un premier point essentiel de notre parallèle. Cette situation inspire à Machiavel l’idée de la légitimité de tous les moyens destinés à atteindre un but d’intérêt public et à réaliser le salut de l’État … Tous ceux qui ont pu étudier Napoléon l de près, nous disent qu’il y avait en lui le Napoléon homme d’État, qui voyait dans le sang des hommes répandu un des grands remèdes de la médecine politique … Le Prince de Machiavel et les doctrines de l’absolutisme sont nés d’un même sentiment profond de patriotisme, à des époques et dans des pays où un souverain puissant était nécessaire pour faire cesser, sous sa domination, les désordres et la désunion, causes de la détresse nationale … Machiavel nous apparaît comme un patriote sans scrupule lorsqu’il s’agit de sauver l’État. Dans sa conception du gouvernement il se révèle à nous comme un politique soucieux du bonheur du peuple et respectueux de sa liberté.”

34. Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, Oxford, Humphrey Milford, 1921, 71.

35. Machiavelli, Ibidem, 99–100.

36. Machiavelli, Ibidem, 102.

37. Machiavelli, Ibidem, 44–44–101–105.

38. Léonidas Émile Beauchesne, Machiavel Laurier: Nuda Veritas, Montréal, Inconnu, 1911, 1: “Les partisans de M. Laurier ne nieront pas qu’il a ses côtés faibles et que, dans sa longue carrière, il a commis des actes répréhensibles. Ses adversaires les plus modérés savent, d’un autre côté, que sa vie publique est condamnable à presque tous les points de vue. L’histoire jugera sévèrement cet homme trop froid dont l’opportunisme procède directement des théories exécrables du signor Machiavel. S’il faut en juger par ses actes. M. Laurier a dû souvent consulter Le Prince ce petit traité de fourberie où le célèbre Florentin a vulgarisé pour l’usage des politiciens sans principes l’art de se maintenir au timon des affaires.”

39. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 20–21.

40. According to Alfred Duclos DeCelles (1896) there is no difference between the United States of America and the erstwhile French Empire of Napoléon Bonaparte, since both are equally corrupt: DeCelles draws no rational distinction between mere corruption and mortal corruption.

See: “Hélas, l’histoire des dernières années témoigne que la corruption a autant ses coudées franches sous le régime des assemblées que sous celui d’un Napoléon ou d’un tzar, et que cent ou deux cents députés abusent du pouvoir aussi aisément qu’un despote pour enrichir leurs amis. Sous l’administration de Harrison, le total des pensions payées aux survivants de la guerre s’est élevé de 40,000,000!”
Alfred Duclos DeCelles, Les États–Unis: Origine — Institutions — Développement, Ottawa, 1896, 413.

41. See: “In its religious and general philosophic views Social Democracy ranges itself as an advance on religious Liberalism, as, in fact, the extreme outpost of Individualism, of so–called Rationalism, Subjectivism, Criticism. Its philosophy is in reality the offspring of the subjective speculation of Hegel. Three important Socialists were followers of this philosopher’s school, Marx, Lassalle, and Proudhon. Even a superficial acquaintance with Hegel’s teachings makes it clear that his system of philosophy lends itself very readily to Socialism. Hegelianism, with its dialectical spinning out of phenomena from the logical categories of human reason, its so–called ‘Speculative Panlogism,’ is at once restlessly analytic and arbitrarily synthetic in its conception of the universe. This is exactly what Socialism needs: Searching analysis and violent reconstruction according to subjective impressions at the sovereign will of the individual reason. The spirit of this philosophy is the very spirit of Social Democratic Collectivism. But the grass has long grown upon the grave of Hegelianism, as of the whole range of speculative philosophy. Its contradictions, its arrogance, its conception of the human mind as the mirror of the universe out of whose images and reflections the sum of all things may be made up, all this, all in fact that is characteristic of ‘speculative philosophy,’ has been forever overthrown and set aside. But, for all this, it has done much to aid Socialism, and intellectually to pave the way for it.”
Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schäffle, The Impossibility of Social Democracy, Being a Supplement to “The Quintessence of Socialism,” 4th German edition, A.C. Morant, translator & Bernard Bosanquet, editor, London, 1911, 24–25.

See also: “[Schäffle’s] account of the true purposes and effects of improved public education and the like in this connection enforces a much needed distinction. I could wish that he had not elsewhere endangered this distinction by countenancing the ridiculous fallacy that derives Socialism from the idealism of Hegel. This fallacy rests on the very confusion of which he points out the danger — the confusion between distinct tendencies which bear a certain external resemblance. If, however, this confusion of external tendencies should ever be replaced, as it might be, by a fusion of essential ideas, Socialism would have become a new thing, and would probably show itself in forms analogous to those of the author’s Positivism or Social Policy, which ought in fairness to be judged on its merits … At present there is hardly any sign that Socialists understand the ideas which, in as far as they claim descent from Hegel, they profess to inherit.”
Bernard Bosanquet, editor, “Editor’s Preface,” The Impossibility of Social Democracy, Being a Supplement to “The Quintessence of Socialism,” Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schäffle, 4th German edition, A.C. Morant, translator, London, 1911, viii–ix.

See also: “The absolute [of Hegel] became a stumbling–block to Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and other members of the ‘Left.’ They rejected as an illegitimate interpolation the eternal subject of development, and, instead of one continuing God as the subject of all the predicates by which in the logic the absolute is defined, assumed only a series of ideas, products of philosophic activity. They denied the theological value of the logical forms — the development of these forms being in their opinion due to the human thinker, not to a self–revealing absolute. Thus they made man the creator of the absolute. But with this modification on the system another necessarily followed; a mere logical series could not create nature. And thus the material universe became the real starting–point. Thought became only the result of organic conditions — subjective and human.”
William Wallace 1844–1897, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, vol. 13, New York, 1911, 205.

See also: “[Those] theistic Hegelians who maintain the personality of God in a world beyond our sphere, must, for consistency’s sake, deny that God is cognizable. But how then can they remain in the (Hegelian) school?”
Karl Ludwig Michelet in Anonymous, “Johann Karl Friedrich Rosenkranz: The Life of Hegel,” The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 20.4(October, 1848): 585.

See also: “[Hegel] was a thoroughly anti–critical, anti–revolutionary philosopher … Hegel’s teaching had been taken up by the Left in a one–sided and abstract way; and the great majority of people always prefer what one can become fanatical about, and this is never anything but what is abstract.”
Johann Eduard Erdmann 1805–1892, A History of Philosophy: German Philosophy Since Hegel, 4th German edition, vol. 3, London, 1899, 66–81.

See also: “The unfolded totality of the Hegelian school may be pictured in a brief compend. With the pseudo–Hegelians (Fichte, jun., Weisse, Branis &c.,) perception under the form of faith or experience, is the sole source of positive religious truth. On the extreme right of the Hegelian school, perception, (as with Hinrichs) is the absolute criterion of the results found by means of logical thinking; while Goschel gives it still a decisive voice in all religious affairs. Schaller, Erdmann, and Gabler, who form the pure right side, allow to religious perception a consultative vote, which however, like a good ruler with his subjects, they never leave unrespected. Rosenkranz, who ushers in the centre, proceeds for the most part in accordance with the voice of perception, but in some cases rejects it. In Marheineke, the perception is the witness, who can only speak respecting the fact, while the question of law or right can only be decided by speculative thinking. On the left of the centre, (that taken by Vatke, Snellmann and Michelet) the perception is a true–hearted servant, who must subject herself obediently to reason as mistress. Strauss, on the left side, makes her a slave, while with Feuerbach and Bauer she appears verily as a paria.”
Karl Ludwig Michelet (1842) in John Daniel Morell, Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd edition, 1 volume edition, New York, 1848, 481. [1846]

See finally: “Hegel writes as though he were divided from Kant by a mighty gulf … The Absolute as Absolute stands revealed, but not as an object perceived.”
Richard Burdon (Viscount Haldane), “Hegel,” The Contemporary Review, 67(February, 1895): 237–242.

42. See: “The guiding principle of Bonapartism was autocracy founded on popular consent, safeguarding [modern European] social order and social equality.”

Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, Oxford, 1908, 120.

See finally: “There is no mystery about the origins of Bonapartism. It is the child of Napoléon Bonaparte and the French Revolution … the strong executive founded upon the plebiscite which was to be the pillar of Bonapartism; and [Napoléon] had come to the conclusion that legislative assemblies should be merely supervisory, that they should have no power to change the constitution or to interfere with the executive … This is not the place for a detailed examination of the principles of Napoléonic law. It is well, however, to notice that the civil code alone was drawn up during the Consulate, that it is nearer both in time and spirit to the revolutionary law than are the codes which were compiled in a more perfunctory manner under the darker shadows of imperial despotism … in the codes, in the common system of administration, the foundations of a modern Italy were laid. And here the memory of Napoléon was not easily forgotten … The French nation, being consulted for the third time, for the third time by an overwhelming majority ratified its belief in Bonapartism … The guiding principle of Bonapartism was autocracy founded on popular consent, safeguarding [modern European] social order and social equality.”
Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, Oxford, 1908, 7–22–39–55–87–120.

43. Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” Québec, 1877, 11.

44. Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 11.

45. Laurier, Ibidem, 16.

46. Laurier, Ibidem, 11.

See: “Our souls are immortal, but our means are limited. We unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we never reach. We dream of the highest good, but secure only the better. Hardly have we reached the limits we have yearned after, when we discover new horizons, which we have never dreamed of. We rush towards them, and when they have been reached in their turn, we find others which lead us on further and further. Thus shall it be as long as man is what he is, as long as the immortal soul dwells in the mortal body, so long shall its desires be beyond its means, its actions can never equal its conceptions. He is the true Sysiphus of the fable, its completed work has ever to be recommenced.”
Wilfrid Laurier, Ibidem, 11.

47. Renatus Cartesius, “Secundæ Responsiones,” Œuvres de Descartes: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, vol. 7, Charles Adam & Paul Tannery, éditeurs, Paris, 1904, 140–141.

48. Anonymous, “Karl Rosenkranz: The Life of Hegel,” The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 20.4(October, 1848): 575–586.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED

Bernard Bosanquet, editor, “Editor’s Preface,” The Impossibility of Social Democracy, Being a Supplement to “The Quintessence of Socialism,” Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schäffle, 4th German edition, A.C. Morant, translator, (London: George Allen & Company, Ltd., 1911), vii–ix.

Renatus Cartesius, “Secundæ Responsiones,” Œuvres de Descartes: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, vol. 7, Charles Adam & Paul Tannery, éditeurs, (Paris: Léopold Cerf, 1904), 128–159.

Louis Couzinet, “Le Prince” de Machiavel et la théorie de l’absolutisme, (Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Arthur Rousseau, Éditeur, 1910).

Alfred Duclos DeCelles (Jean–Baptiste–Alfred? 1843–1925), The Makers of Canada: Papineau and Cartier, (Toronto: Morang & Co., Limited, 1910).

John Charles Dent, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, 2 vols., (Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885).

Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, (Oxford: Oxford Univerisity Press, 1908).

William Hastie, “Translator’s Introduction,” Kant’s Principles of Politics Including His Essay on Perpetual Peace: A Contribution to Political Science, William Hastie, editor & translator, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891), vii–xliv.

Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” (Québec: The Morning Chronicle, 1877).

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, 1921).

John M’Mullen, “Chapters 20–21: Rebellions of 1837–1838,” The History of Canada: From Its First Discovery to the Present Time, (Brockville: John M’Mullen, Publisher, 1855), 381–407.

Friedrich Maximilian Müller, translator, “Translator’s Preface,” Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication, Immanuel Kant, vol. 1, (London: Macmillan, 1881), v–lxii.

Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schäffle, The Impossibility of Social Democracy, Being a Supplement to “The Quintessence of Socialism,” 4th German edition, A.C. Morant, translator & Bernard Bosanquet, editor, (London: George Allen & Company, Ltd., 1911).

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY: THE GREAT TERROR OF 1837–1838

Acheson, Archibald, Charles Edward Grey and George Gipps, “Reports of Commissioners on Grievances Complained of in Lower Canada: Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 20th February, 1837,” Parliamentary Papers, 24(1837): 3–416.

Ajzenstat, Janet, The Political Thought of Lord Durham, (Montréal: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1988).

Anonymous, Les Patriotes de Saint–Marc–sur–Richelieu, 1837–1987, (Saint–Marc–sur–Richelieu: Commission du 150e anniversaire des patriotes de Saint– Marc–sur–Richelieu, 1987).

Anonymous, Saint–Denis fête ses patriotes, (Saint Denis, 1987).

Anonymous, Les patriotes, 145 ans après: Programme–souvenir de la fête des patriotes, St. Charles, St. Denis, 21 novembre 1982, Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu? Comité de la fête des patriotes, (St. Charles et St. Denis, 1982).

Anonymous, Patriotes, espoir d’une nation: Programme de la fête des patriotes, St. Charles et St. Denis, 21 et 22 novembre 1981, (Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu: Comité de la fête des patriotes, St. Charles et St. Denis, 1981).

Anonymous, Patriotes pourquoi? Programme souvenir 1979 de la fête des Patriotes 1837–1838 à St. Charles et St. Denis, (Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu, 1979).

Anonymous, First report of the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Losses Occasioned by the Troubles during the Years 1837 and 1838, and into the Damages Arising Therefrom, (Montréal: Lovell & Gibson, 1846).

Anonymous, “The Execution in Canada,” The United States Democratic Review, 5.15(March 1839): ?

Anonymous, Copies or extracts of correspondence relative to the affairs of British North America: Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be printed, 11 February 1839, (London, 1839).

Anonymous, “History of the Recent Insurrection in the Canadas–Part First,” The United States Democratic Review, 4.3(March–June 1838): ?

Anonymous, “History of the Recent Insurrection in the Canadas–Part Second,” The United States Democratic Review, 4.3(March–June 1838): ?

Anonymous, Ordinances passed in the first session of the Special Council for the Affairs of Lower Canada, Montreal, 1838, (Montreal: Printed by Andrew H. Armour and Hew Ramsay, 1838).

Anonymous, “The Canada Question,” The United States Democratic Review, 1.2(January 1838): ?

Anonymous, La Reine vs. Nicolas et alia: Accusés d’avoir mis à mort, le 27 novembre 1837, pendant l’insurrection, le nommé Joseph Armand, dit Chartrand, l’un des volontaires au service de sa Majesté, stationés [sic] à St. Jean, cités pour répondre à cette accusation devant le tribunal ayant juridiction criminelle, dans ce district, le 6 aôut 1838, et acquittés par le jury, le 7 août 1838, (Montréal: Frs. Lemaitre, 1838).

Anonymous, House of Assembly of Lower Canada. Journals of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada (1793–1837), (Quebec: John Neilson, ?).

Anonymous, Legislative Council of Lower Canada: Journals of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada (1802–1837), (Quebec: John Neilson, ?)

Anonymous, List of the public meetings held in Lower Canada between May and November 1837 (resolutions, reports, addresses), (?).

Anonymous, Programme–souvenir: Saint–Charles–sur–Richelieu, le dimanche, 19 septembre 1937: Hommage aux Patriotes de 1837 à Montebello, en octobre 1937, (Montréal: L’Action patriotique, 1937).

Anonymous, Select Committee on the Affairs of Lower Canada. Lower Canada Copy of the Minutes of the Evidence Taken Before the Select Committee Appointed in the Year 1834 on the Affairs of Lower Canada, (London: British House of Commons, 11 March 1837).

Anonymous, Procès politique, la reine vs. Nicolas et al. accusés d’avoir mis à mort le 27 novembre 1837, pendant l’insurrection le nommé Joseph Armand dit Chartrand, l’un des volontaires au service de sa majesté stationés à St. Jean: Cités pour répondre à cette accusation devant le tribunal ayant juridiction criminelle, dans ce district le 6 août 1838 et acquittés par le jury le 7 août 1838, (Montréal: imprimé et publié par Frs. Lemaître, ?)

Anonymous, Souvenir des fêtes du centenaire de 1837 à St–Denis–sur–Richelieu, P.Q., Canada, 28–29 août 1937, (Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu: Comité d’organisation des fêtes du centenaire des patriotes de 1837 à St. Denis, 1937).

Anonymous, Special Council of Lower Canada. Journals of the Special Council of Lower Canada, (Montreal: A.H. Armour and H. Ramsay, ?).

Anonymous, Montreal Constitutional Association (1837): Address of the Constitutional Association of the City of Montreal to the Inhabitants of the Sister Colonies, (Montreal, 1837).

Anonymous, Petition from Lower Canada With Explanatory Remarks, (London: William Clowes, 1835).

Anonymous, Select Committee on the Affairs of Lower Canada (1834). Report from Select Committee on Lower Canada, London: British House of Commons, (?).

Anonymous, House of Assembly of Lower Canada (1834): The Ninety–Two Resolutions, Quebec, (?).

Anonymous, Select Committee on the Civil Government of Canada (1828): Report from the Select Committee on the Civil Government of Canada, House of Commons, (?).

Anonymous, Speech of Louis J. Papineau, Esqr., on the Hustings, at the Opening of the Election For the West Ward of the City of Montreal, on the 11th of August, 1827, and His Reply to Peter McGill Esqr., Translated From the French, to Which Are Added the Speech of His Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor in Chief, &c., to the House of Assembly on Proroguing the Provincial Parliament, 7th March 1827, and the Address of Certain Members to Their Constituents in Consequence of the Speech, &c., (Montreal: Printed By Ludger Duvernay, at the Office of the Canadian Spectator, 1827).

Aubin, Georges, Papineau en exil à Paris: Dictionnaire, tome 1, (Trois–Pistoles: Éditions Trois–Pistoles, 2007).

Aubin, Georges, Papineau en exil à Paris: Lettres reçues, 1839–1845, tome 2, (Trois–Pistoles: Éditions Trois–Pistoles, 2007).

Aubin, Georges, Papineau en exil à Paris: Drame rue de Provence, tome 3, (Trois–Pistoles: Éditions Trois–Pistoles, 2007).

Aubin, Georges, Amédée Papineau: Journal d’un Fils de la Liberté, 1838–1855, (Sillery: Septentrion, 2007).

Aubin, Georges and Renée Blanchet, collab. Marla Arbach, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Lettres à divers correspondants, 1810–1845, tome 1, (Montréal: Les Éditions Varia, 2006).

Aubin, Georges and Renée Blanchet, collab. Marla Arbach, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Lettres à divers correspondants, 1845–1871, tome 2, (Montréal: Les Éditions Varia, 2006).

Aubin, Georges and Renée Blanchet, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Lettres à ses enfants, 1825–1854, tome 1, (Montréal: Les Éditions Varia, 2004).

Aubin, Georges et Renée Blanchet, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Lettres à ses enfants, 1855–1871, Tome 2, (Montréal: Les Éditions Varia, 2004).

Aubin, Georges, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Cette fatale Union: Adresses, discours et manifestes 1847–1848, (Montréal: Lux éditeur, 2003).

Aubin, Georges and Renée Blanchet, Rosalie Papineau–Dessaulles: Correspondance, 1805–1854, (Montréal: Éditions Varia, 2001).

Aubin, Georges, Au Pied–du–Courant: Lettres des prisonniers politiques de 1837–1839, (Montréal: Comeau & Nadeau, 2000).

Aubin, Georges et Renée Blanchet, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Lettres à Julie, (Québec: Archives nationales du Québec, 2000).

Aubin, Georges, Louis–Hippolyte La Fontaine: Journal de voyage en Europe, 1837–1838, (Sillery: Septentrion, 1999).

Aubin, Georges, Louis Perrault: Lettres d’un patriote réfugié au Vermont, 1837–1839, (Montréal: Éditions du Méridien, 1999).

Aubin, Georges, Robert Nelson: Déclaration d’indépendance et autres écrits, 1832–1848, Michel de Lorimier et Renée Andrewes, traducteurs, (Montréal: Comeau & Nadeau, 1998).

Aubin, Georges, editeur, Wolfred Nelson: Écrits d’un patriote, 1812–1842, (Montréal: Comeau & Nadeau, 1998).

Aubin, Georges, François–Maurice Lepailleur: Journal d’un patriote exilé en Australie, 1839–1845, (Sillery: Septentrion, 1996).

Aubin, Georges, editeur, Siméon Marchesseault: Lettres à Judith: Correspondance d’un patriote exilé, (Sillery: Septentrion, 1996).

Aubin, Georges, Jean–Philippe Boucher–Belleville: Journal d’un patriote, 1837–1838, (Montréal: Guérin littérature, 1992).

Beauchamp, Lionel et Jean–René Thuot, Les patriotes de Saint–Roch–de–l’Achigan: Idées libérales et agitation politique entre 1830 et 1860, (Saint–Roch–de–l’Achigan: Société d’histoire de Saint–Roch–de–l’Achigan, 2004).

Beaugrand–Champagne, Denyse (1990). Les mouvements patriote et loyal dans les comtés de Missisquoi, Shefford et Stanstead, 1834–1837, Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, (master thesis in history)

Bellemare, George, Saint–Charles 1837 et la survie d’un peuple menacé, (Montréal: Guérin, 2005).

Bentham, Jeremy, Canada: Emancipate Your Colonies! An Unpublished Argument, (London: Effingham Wilson, 1838).

Bergevin, Henri, Les Patriotes exilés en Australie en 1839, (Joliette: Société nationale des Québécois de Lanaudière, 1989).

Bernard, Jean–Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837–1838: Les patriotes du Bas–Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, (Montréal: Boréal Express, 1983).

Bernard, Philippe, Amury Girod: Un Suisse chez les Patriotes du Bas–Canada, (Sillery: Septentrion, 2001).

Blanchet, Renée, Julie Papineau: Une femme patriote: Correspondance, 1823–1862, (Sillery: Septentrion, 1997).

Boileau, Gilles, Étienne Chartier, curé de Saint–Benoît, patriote et rebelle, (Montréal: Éditions du Méridien, 1999).

Boileau, Gilles, 1837 et les patriotes de Deux–Montagnes: Les voix de la mémoire, (Montréal: Méridien, 1998).

Boissery, Beverly Dawn, A Deep Sense of Wrong: The Treason Trials, and Transportation to New South Wales of Lower Canadian Rebels after the 1838 Rebellion, (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995).

Boissery, Beverly Dawn, The Patriote Convicts: A Study of the 1838 Rebellion in Lower Canada and the Transportation of Some Participants to New South Wales, 2 vols., (doctoral thesis in Philosophy) (1977).

Borthwick, John Douglas, History of the Montreal prison from A.D. 1784 to A.D. 1886: Containing a complete record of the Troubles of 1837–1838, burning of the Parliament buildings in 1849, the St. Alban’s raiders, 1864, the two Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870 …, (Montreal: A. Periard, bookseller, publisher and importer, 1866).

Borthwick, John Douglas, Rébellion de 37–38: Précis complet de cette période, rôle d’honneur ou liste complète des patriotes détenus dans les prisons de Montréal en 1837, 1838, 1839, date et lieux des arrestations et autres détails intéressants et inédits sur ce sujet, (Montréal: Imprimerie du “Cultivateur,” L.J. Tarte & frère, props., 1898).

Bouchette, Robert Shore Milnes, Mémoires de Robert–S.–M. Bouchette, 1805–1840, recueillis par son fils Errol Bouchette et annotés par A.–D. Decelles, (Montréal: la Cie de publication de la Revue canadienne, 1903).

Bouthillier, Élise, Chevalier de Lorimier: Défenseur de la liberté, (Montréal: XYZ, 2007).

Bolduc, Marc (1997). Les élections générales de 1834 (Bas–Canada) et les élections générales de 1841 (Ancien Bas–Canada): Continuités et ruptures, Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, (master thesis in history)

Bradshaw, Frederick, Self–Government in Canada, and How it was Achieved: The Story of Lord Durham’s Report, (London: P.S. King, 1903).

Brougham, Henry, Dissentient Opinion of Lord Brougham on John Russell’s Ten Resolutions, (1837).

Brown, Thomas Storrow, 1837: My Connection With It, (Quebec: Raoul Renault, Publisher, 1898).

Brown, Thomas Storrow, Adresse des Fils de la liberté de Montréal aux jeunes gens des colonies de l’Amérique du Nord, (Montreal, 1837).

Buckner, Philip Alfred, The Transition to Responsible Government: British Policy in British , North America, 1815–1850, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985).

Burroughs, Peter, The Canadian Crisis and the British Colonial Policy, 1828–1849, (Toronto: Macmillan, 1972).

Carrier, Louis–Napoléon, Les événements de 1837–1838: Esquisse historique de l’insurrection du Bas–Canada, (Québec: Imprimerie de l’Evénement, 1877).

Chapman, Henry Samuel (1803–1881), An Impartial and Authentic Account of the Civil War in the Canadas; With Ample Details of the Immediate Causes and Progress Thereof, From the Commencement to Its Final Conclusion; Preceded by an Introduction Containing a Faithful Exposition of the More Remote Causes of the Present Disastrous State of Affairs in Those Colonies; the Whole to be Followed by a Complete and Highly Interesting General Account of the Provinces & Their Inhabitants, 2 vols., (London: J. Saunders Jun., 1838).

Chapman, Henry Samuel (1835). Petition from Lower Canada, with Explanatory Remarks, London: Printed by William Clowes,

Cherrier, André–Romuald, Procès de Joseph N. Cardinal, et autres, auquel on a joint la requête argumentative en faveur des prisonniers, et plusieurs autres documents précieux, &c., (Montréal: John Lovell, imprimeur, 1839).

Cherrier, André–Romuald, Trial of Joseph N. Cardinal, and Others, to Which Are Added, the Argumentative Petition in Favour of the Prisoners, and Several Other Precious Documents, &c., (Montreal: John Lovell, Printer, 1839).

Circé–Côté, Ève, Papineau, son influence sur la pensée canadienne: Essai de psychologie historique, (Montréal: R.A. Regnault & Cie, 1924).

Clément, Micheline, Le discours patriote: Égalitarisme agraire ou projet de démocratie de petits producteurs, history thesis, (Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, 1984).

Colborne, John, Report of the State Trials Before a General Court Martial Held at Montreal in 1838–1839: Exhibiting a Complete History of the Late Rebellion in Lower Canada, 2 vols., (Montreal: Armour and Ramsay, 1839).

David, Laurent–Olivier, L’Honorable Louis–Joseph Papineau, (Montréal: Typographie Geo. E. Desbarats, 1872).

David, Laurent–Olivier, Les Patriotes de 1837–1838, (Montréal: Eusèbe Senécal & fils, Imprimeurs–Éditeurs, 1884).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Laurier et son temps, (Montréal: Librairie Beauchemin Limitée, 1920).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, The “Patriotes” of ’37: A Chronicle of the Lower Canadian Rebellion, translated by Stewart Wallace, (Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Co., 1916).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Lafontaine et son temps, (1907).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Cartier et son temps, (1907).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Papineau: 1786–1871, (Montréal: Librairie Beauchemin, 1905).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Les constitutions du Canada: Étude politique, (Ottawa: J. Hope & Son, 1901). [1900]

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, A la conquete de la liberté en français au Canada, (Lévis: Pierre–Georges, Roy Éditeur, 1898).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Les États–Unis: Origine ―Institutions ―Développement, (Ottawa: Unknown, 1896).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, Papineau: Extraits de sa correspondance intime, (Montreal: Typ. Gebhardt–Berthiaume, 1891).

DeCelles, Jean–Baptiste–Alfred Duclos, La Crise du regime parlementaire, (Montréal: Imprimerie Générale, 1887).

Dent, John Charles, The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, 2 vols., (Toronto, C. Blackett Robinson, 1885).

Desbiens, Marie–Frédérique et Jean–François Nadeau, Chevalier de Lorimier, 15 février 1839: Lettres d’un patriote condamné à mort, (Montréal: Comeau & Nadeau, 2001).

Desjardins, Pierre (2003). Le mouvement patriote à la Pointe–aux–Trembles, 1834–1846, Montréal: Atelier d’histoire de la Pointe–aux–Trembles,

Du Bled, Victor, “Une ancienne colonie française,” La Revue des Deux Mondes, (1885): 424–460.

Dubois, Emile (1937). Le Feu de la Rivière–du–Chêne: étude historique sur le mouvement insurrectionnel de 1837 au nord de Montréal, Québec,

Du Cap, Louis (2008). Bock: Biographie historique de Charles–Guillaume Bouc, 1795–1861, Piedmont: L. Du Cap,

Ducharme, Léandre, Journal d’un exilé politique aux terres australes, (Montréal: Imprimé par F. Cinq–Mars, Bureau de l’Aurore, 1845).

Dufresne, Françoise (198?) Douze pendus au Pied–du–Courant: Conférence prononcée devant les membres de la Société de généalogie canadienne–française à Montréal, Montréal?

Duncan, Stuart Mackay (1965). The Military suppression of the rebellions of 1837–1838. University of Western Ontario, (master’s thesis)

Elliot, Thomas Frederick, The Canadian Controversy; Its Origin, Nature, and Merits, (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1838).

Éthier, Joseph Arthur Calixte (1905?) Conférence sur Chénier donnée par J.A.C. Étheir, député des Deux–Montagnes, sous les auspices du Club Chénier, le 29 janvier 1905, Hochelaga, de Montréal, Maisonneuve: Imp. J.A. Caron,

Fabre, Hector (1856). Esquisse biographique sur Chevalier de Lorimier, Montréal: de l’imprimerie du “Pays,” 1856,

Faubert, Michel (2003). Liste des patriotes prisonniers, 1837–1838–1839–1840,

Fauteux, Aegidius (1950). Patriotes de 1837–1838, Montréal: Les Editions des Dix,

Filteau, Gérard, Histoire des Patriotes, (Montréal: Septentrion, 2003).

Finnegan, Mary (1982). The Irish–French Alliance in Lower Canada, 1822–1835. Université Concordia, (master’s thesis).

Gilley, C.T. (1943). The Constitutional Act of 1791, a Study of the Causes of the Canadian Revolution of 1837, University of Colorado (master’s thesis)

Globensky, Charles Auguste Maximilien, La Rébellion de 1837 à Saint–Eustache: Précédé d’un exposé de la situation politique du Bas–Canada depuis la cession, (Québec: Imprimerie A. Coté et Cie, 1883).

Greenwood, Frank Murray and Barry Wright, editors, (2002). Canadian State Trials: Rebellion and Invasion in the Canadas, 1837–1839, vol.
2, (Toronto: The Osgoode Society and University of Toronto Press, 2002).

Greenwood, Frank Murray (1980). Land of a Thousand Sorrows: The Australian Prison Journal 1840–1842 of the Exiled Canadien Patriote François–Maurice Lepailleur, Translated and edited by F. Murray Greenwood, (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980).

Greer, Allan, The Patriots and the People: The Rebellion of 1837 in Rural Lower Canada, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993).

Greer, Allan, Habitants et patriotes: La rébellion de 1837 dans les campagnes du Bas–Canada, Christiane Teasdale traductrice, (Montréal: Boréal, 1997).

Groulx, Lionel, Une heure avec l’abbé Groulx à propos des Patriotes de ’37: L’actualité, (Montréal: Éditions des Jeunesses patriotes, 1937).

Hamel, Solange, Les patriotes oubliés de la Montérégie, 1837, (Saint–Alphonse–de–Granby: Éditions de la Paix, 2003).

Hare, John and Renée Landry (1999). Hypolite Lanctot. Souvenirs d’un patriote exilé en Australie, 1838–1845, Sillery: Septentrion,

Hare, John, Les Patriotes, 1830–1839: Textes, (Ottawa: Éditions Libération, 1971).

Hume, Joseph, The Celebrated Letter of Joseph Hume, Esq., M.P., to William Lyon Mackenzie, Esq., Mayor of Toronto, Declaratory of a Design to “Free These Provinces from the Baneful Domination of the Mother Country!” (Toronto: G.P. Bull, 1834).

Ippersiel, Fernand, Les Cousins ennemis: Louis–Joseph Papineau et Jean–Jacques Lartigue: Essai, (Montréal: Guérin littérature, 1990).

Jalbert, François (1839). La Reine vs Jalbert, accusé du meurtre du lieutenant Weir du 32e Régiment de Sa Majesté. Procès politique, (Montréal: F. Cinq–Mars, )

Kinchen, Oscar Arvle (1956). The Rise and Fall of the Patriot Hunters, (Toronto: Burns and Maceachern, ).

Knowles E.C. (1929). The English Philosophical Radicals and Lower Canada, 1800–1835, McGill University (master’s thesis)

Labonté, François, Alias Anthony St. John: Les Patriotes canadiens aux États–Unis: Décembre 1837–mai 1838: Première partie, (Sainte–Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004)

Lacoursière, Jacques et Denis Vaugeois (ed.) (1987). Courte histoire des patriotes de 1837–1838: synthèse, Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu: Comité de la fête des patriotes Saint–Charles & Saint–Denis,

Lacoursière, Jacques & Denis Vaugeois, editeurs, Les troubles de 1837–1838, 2 vols., (Montréal: Fides, 1969).

Lafontaine, Louis–Hippolyte, Les deux girouettes ou l’Hypocrisie démasquée, (Montréal: Imprimerie de la Minerve, 1834).

Lalonde, Charles Henri (1937?). Album–souvenir: Hommage des citoyens du comté des Deux–Montagnes aux patriotes de 1837, à Saint–Eustache, 10 octobre 1937, Québec,

Lambert, Pierre, Les Patriotes de Beloeil: Le mouvement patriote, les insurrections de 1837–1838 et les paroissiens de Beloeil, (Sillery: Septentrion, 1994).

Lambton, John George, Charles Buller & Edward Gibbon Wakefield, Rapport de Lord Durham: Haut–Commissaire de Sa Majesté, etc. etc., sur les affaires de l’Amérique septentrionale britannique, (Montréal: L’Ami du peuple, 1839).

Lambton, John George, Charles Buller, Edward Gibbon Wakefield (1839). The Report and Despatches of the Earl of Durham, Her Majesty’s High Commissioner and Governor–General of British North America, London: Ridgways, Piccadilly,

Lamonde, Yvan & Claude Larin, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Un demi–siècle de combats: Interventions publiques, (Montréal: Éditions Fides, 1998).

Laporte, Gilles. “Bibliographie: Recherche dans la banque documentaire,” Les Patriotes de 1837

Laporte, Gilles, Patriotes et Loyaux: Leadership régional et mobilisation politique en 1837 et 1838, (Sillery: Septentrion, 2004).

Laporte, Gilles, “Historiographie,” Les Patriotes de 1837–1838, (recensions, reviews),

Laporte, Gilles (1987). Le radical britannique Chapman et le Bas–Canada: 1832–1839, Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, (master thesis in history)

Lartigue, Jean–Jacques (1992). Premier mandement à l’occasion des Troubles de 1837 (24 octobre 1837); Second mandement à l’occasion des Troubles de 1837 (8 janvier 1838), Saint–Jacques: Éditions du Pot de fer,

Lovett, William (1837). The Address of the London Working Men’s Association to the People of Canada, England

Mackaness, Georges (1949). François–Xavier Prieur. Notes of a Convict of 1838, Sydney: D.S. Ford, Translated and annotated by Georges Mackaness

Mackaness, Georges, Léandre Ducharme: Journal of a Political Exile in Australia, (Sydney: D.S. Ford Printer, 1944).

Mackay, Julien S., Notaires et patriotes, 1837–1838, (Sillery: Septentrion, 2006).

Maguire, Thomas, Doctrine de l’Eglise catholique d’Irlande et de celle du Canada sur la révolte: Recueil de pièces constatant l’uniformité de cette doctrine dans les deux pays et sa conformité avec celle de l’Eglise universelle, (Québec: imprimée par W. Neilson, imprimeur–libraire, 1838).

Mann, Michael, A Particular Duty: The Canadian Rebellions 1837–1839, (Salisbury, Wiltshire: Michael Russel Publishing, 1986).

Manning, Helen Taft, The Revolt of French Canada, 1800–1835. A Chapter in the History of the British Commonwealth, (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1962).

Marconnay, Hyacinthe Leblanc de, La petite clique dévoilée, quelques explications sur les manœuvres dirigées contre la minorité patriote qui prit part au vote sur les subsides dans la session de 1835–1836, plus particulièrement contre C.C. Sabrevois de Bleury, (Rome, N.Y., 1836).

Matthieu Sossoyan, “Les Iroquois de Khanawake et de Kanesatake et les rébellions de 1837–1838,” Bulletin d’histoire politique 12.1(2003): 107–115

Messier, Alain (2002). Dictionnaire encyclopédique et historique des patriotes (1837–1838), Montréal: Guérin,

Mill, John Stuart, “Radical Party and Canada: Lord Durham and the Canadians,” London and Westminster Review, 6 & 28(January, 1838): 502–533.

Mondelet, Dominique (1835). Traité sur la politique coloniale du Bas–Canada: Divisé en deux parties: Opposition dans la [sic] gouvernement, license de la presse, Conseil législatif par voie d’élection: Réflexions sur l’état actuel du pays, Bas–Canada: Chez l’Auteur,

Morison, John Lyle, British Supremacy and Canadian Self–Government, 1839–1854, (Toronto: S. B. Gundy, 1919).

Mousseau, Joseph–Alfred, Lecture publique sur Cardinal et Duquet, victimes de 37–38: prononcée lors du 2nd anniversaire de la fondation de l’Institut canadien–français, le 16 mai 1860, (Montréal: Des presses de Plinguet & cie, 1860).

Neate, Charles, A Plain Statement of the Quarrel with Canada: In Which Is Considered Who First Infringed the Constitution of the Colony, (London: James Ridgway and Sons, 1838).

Nelson, Robert (1838). Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada, United States

Nelson, Robert (1838). Address to the people of Canada, United States

Ormsby, William, Charles Grey: Crisis in the Canadas, 1838–1839: The Grey Journals and Letters, (Toronto: MacMillan, 1964).

Ouellet, Fernand, Papineau: Textes choisis et présentés par …, (Québec: Les Presses universitaires Laval, 1958).

Papineau, Louis–Joseph, Histoire de l’insurrection du Canada, (Montréal: Éditions Leméac, 1968).

Papineau, Louis–Joseph and John Neilson, Letter from L.J. Papineau and J. Neilson, Esqs., Addressed to His Majesty’s Under Secretary of State on the Subject of the Proposed Union of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, (London: Printed by William Clowes, Northumberland–court, 1823).

Papineau, Louis–Joseph, “Histoire de la résistance du Canada au gouvernement anglais,” Revue du Progrès, 1(1 mai, 1839): 436–453.

Papineau, Louis–Joseph, Les 92 résolutions de l’Assemblée législative du Bas–Canada, (Quebec: House of Assembly, 1834).

Parent, Francine, Les Patriotes de Châteauguay (1838), (Montréal: Université de Montréal (master thesis in history) 1984).

Paulin, Marguerite, Louis–Joseph Papineau: Le grand tribun, le pacifiste, (Montréal: XYZ éditeur, 2000).

Perrier, Onil, 25 ans au service des patriotes et du patrimoine: L’histoire du comité de la fête des patriotes de Saint–Charles et Saint–Denis devenu la Société d’histoire des Riches–Lieux, 1978–2003, (Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu: La Société d’histoire / Montréal: Éditions Histoire Québec, 2003).

Perrier, Onil, Les Québécoises de 1837–1838, (LaSalle: Éditions idg, 2007).

Poutré, Félix, Échappé de la potence: Souvenirs d’un prisonnier d’état canadien en 1838, (Montréal: E. Senécal, 1862).

Prieur, François–Xavier, Notes d’un condamné politique de 1838, (Montréal: Librairie Saint–Joseph, Cadieux & Derome, 1884).

Reeves–Morache, Marcelle (19??). Joseph Duquette, patriote et martyr, Montréal: Editions A. St–Martin: Société nationale populaire du Québec,

Reeves–Morache, Marcelle, Les Québécoises de 1837–1838, (Montréal: Éditions A. Saint–Martin: Société nationale populaire du Québec, 1975).

Rheault, Marcel J., & Georges Aubin, Médecins et patriotes, 1837–1838, (Québec: Éditions du Septentrion, 2006).

Richard, Jean–Baptiste, Les Événements de 1837 à Saint–Denis–sur–Richelieu, (Saint–Hyacinthe: Société d’histoire régionale de Saint–Hyacinthe, 1938).

Richard, Béatrice. “Les Rébellions de 1837–1838,” Bibliographie, la guerre et le Québec, Chaire Hector-Fabre d’histoire du Québec de l’UQAM (inventory, imprimés, studies, articles, thesis) Bibliography of Louis–Joseph Papineau

Robertson, William and J. Guthrie Scott (1836). Address of the Constitutional Association of Montreal to the Inhabitants of British America, Montreal,

Rochon, Paul, _Les derniers patriotes: Les exilés de 1840 vous parlent, (Montréal: Éditions du Taureau, 1993).

Rochon, Paul, 1837: La petite histoire des Patriotes, (Montréal: Éditions du Taureau, 1987).

Rochon, Paul, 1838: L’histoire oubliée des Patriotes, (Montréal: Éditions du Taureau, 1987).

Rochon, Paul, 1839: La lente agonie des patriotes, (Montréal: Éditions du Taureau, 1989).

Roebuck, John Arthur (1834). Debate in the House of Commons, on the 15th April, 1834, on Mr. Roebuck’s Motion for “a Select Committee to inquire the means of remedying the evils which exist in the form of the governments now existing in Upper and Lower Canada,”

Roebuck, John Arthur (1835). The Canadas and Their Grievances,

Roebuck, John Arthur (1836). Existing Difficulties in the Government of the Canadas, London: Printed by C. and W. Reynell,

Roebuck, John Arthur et alia, The Canadian Portfolio, London: Charles Fox, 1838, (5 issues)

Roebuck, John Arthur (1849). The Colonies of England: A Plan for the Government of Portion of Our Colonial Possessions,

Roebuck, John Arthur (1835). Remarks on the Proposed Union of the Canadas, published in the year 1822, Quebec,

Rolph, John, “Review of Mackenzie’s Publications on the Revolt Before Toronto, in Upper Canada,” The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion, By John Charles Dent, vol. 2, (Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson, 1885), 333–351.

Royal, Joseph, Biographie de l’Hon. D.B. Viger, (Montréal: Imprimée par J.A. Plinguet, 187?).

Rumilly, Robert, Papineau, (Montréal: Éditions Bernard Valiquette, 1944).

Russell, John, Résolutions que Lord John Russell entend soumettre, à un comité de toute la Chambre, relativement aux affaires du Canada, (London: House of Commons, 1837).

Russell, John, Resolutions intended to be proposed by Lord John Russell, in a committee of the whole house, relative to the affairs of Canada, (London: House of Commons, 1837).

Ryerson, Stanley Bréhaut, Unequal Union: Confederation and the Roots of Conflict in the Canadas, 1815–1873, (Toronto: Progress Books, 1968).

Sabrevois de Bleury, Charles Clément, Réfutation de l’écrit de Louis Joseph Papineau, ex–orateur de la Chambre d’Assemblée du Bas–Canada, intitulé Histoire de l’insurrection du Canada, publiée dans le recueil hebdomadaire la Revue du progrès, imprimée à Paris, (Montréal: Imprimerie de John Lovell, 1839).

Saint–Pierre, Thelesphore, The Americans and Canada in 1837–1838: Authentic Documents, (Montréal: A.P. Pigeon, 1897).

Schull, Joseph, Rebellion: The Rising in French Canada 1837, (Toronto: Macmillan, 1971).

Schull, Joseph, Rébellion: Le soulèvement patriote de 1837 au Bas–Canada, Dominique Clift & Claude Frappier, traducteurs, (Montréal: Éditions Québec Amérique, 1997).

Séguin, Robert–Lionel, Le Mouvement insurrectionnel dans la presqu’île de Vaudreuil, 1837–1838, (Montréal: Librairie Ducharme limitée, 1955).

Senior, Elinor Kyte, Redcoats and Patriotes: The Rebellions in Lower Canada, 1837–1838, (Ontario: Canada’s Wings, Inc., 1985).

Senior, Elinor Kyte, Les habits rouges et les patriotes, (Montréal: VLB, 1997).

Sossoyan, Matthieu (1999). The Kahnawake Iroquois and the Lower–Canadian Rebellions, 1837–1838, Montréal: McGill University, (master thesis in anthropology)

Staton, Frances M., The Rebellion of 1837–1838: A Bibliography of the Sources of Information in the Public Reference Library of the City of Toronto, (Toronto: Public Library of Toronto, 1924).

Theller, Edward Alexander, Canada in 1837–1838, Showing, by Historical Facts, the Causes of the Late Attempted Revolution, and of its Failure; the Present Condition of the People, and Their Future Prospects, Together with the Personal Adventures of the Author, and Others Who Were Connected With the Revolution, 2 vols., (Philadelphia: Henry F. Anners; New York: J. & H.G. Langley, 1841).

Thom, Adam, Remarks on the Petition of the Convention, and on the Petition of the Constitutionalists, (Montréal: The Herald Office, 1835).

Thom, Adam, Anti–Gallic Letters: Addressed to His Excellency, the Earl of Gosford, Governor–in–Chief of the Canadas, (Montréal: The Herald Office, 1836).

Thorbum, Mark (1996). The 1838–1839 Courts Martial of Patriotes in Lower Canada: Were They Constitutional? University of British Columbia, (master’s thesis)

Tiffany, Orrin Edward, The Relations of the United States to the Canadian Rebellion of 1837–1838, (Toronto: Coles Publications, 1980).

Verney, Jack, O’Callaghan: The Making and Unmaking of a Rebel, (Montréal: McGill–Queen’s Press, 1994).

Young, Gilbert Ainslie, The Canadian Question, (London: J. Ridgway and Sons,1839).

©2017–2018 Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism Versus Wilfrid Laurier and Liberalism. All rights reserved. This work is only for MEDIUM and the MEDIUM CORPORATION and its users: Users are not permitted to mount this writing on any network servers. No part of this writing may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the author, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web.

We wish to thank our benefactors over the years for their goodwill: Humanity benefits greatly from the rise of Americanism in the world.