Not so long ago, we explored the music of Russia. Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881) was the leader of The Five. The Five were composers who attempted to write music that was distinctly Russian. Mussorgsky had befriended architect and artist Viktor Hartmann who died of an aneurysm when he was 39. It was a shock for Mussorgsky. According to critic Vladimir Stasov, Viktor Hartmann gave two pictures to Mussorgsky, one of which was a sketch of the “Great Gate of Kiev.” The two pictures inspired Modest Mussorgsky, who composed Pictures at an Exhibition, a suite of ten pieces for the piano divided by promenades and written in 1874. The tenth and final piece of the suite is based on Hartmann’s the “Great Gate of Kiev.” (Kiev is Kyiv)
Pictures at an Exhibition is Modest Mussorgsky’s most famous composition. We seldom hear the piano suite because it must be performed by a virtuoso pianist. Remember that the ringing of bells is a characteristic of the music of Russia and Ukraine.
Vladimir Stasov’s portrait by Ilya Repin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Saint Petersburg governor at the Kremlin (Image: SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)
Hartmann’s Kyiv is now being destroyed by Vladimir Putin; I cannot believe what I am seeing. This is madness on the part of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and if I could close the sky over Ukraine, I would. Vladimir Putin is the architect of this massacre. The flying zone is an open gate because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, which, ironically, gives Putin the freedom to destroy a country. As for the United States, it is burying Manifest Destiny.
It could be that Putin remembers times that will never return. Russia was once so large that it was called “toutes les Russies,” all the Russias.
At what cost will Ukraine survive this insane invasion?
The remains of 182 children have been found in British Columbia. The school was a Catholic Residential School. A total of 1,148 bodies have been found during the month of June.
This is the message I received:
J’ai pensé que vous seriez intéressé par cet article que j’ai trouvé sur MSN : Une autre communauté autochtone de C.-B. dit avoir découvert des restes humains (http://a.msn.com/01/fr-ca/AALCWls?ocid=se)
I added a Conclusion to my last post. It reads:
“The native depicted in the image at the top of this post does not look powerless. As for Benjamin West’s native, he is a ‘Noble savage.’ Did Canada need the Indian Act? Canada Day, a celebration of Confederation, is fast approaching. But Confederation led to the creation of Indian Reserves and Residential Schools. Moreover, Quebec became the only Canadian province where the language of instruction could be French or English. The British Empire was at its zenith.”
Imperialism is very much to blame. Cecil Rhodes wanted to paint the world red, the colour of the British Empire. So, I suspect the architects of Confederation also wished to paint Canada red. Besides, they feared Manifest Destiny, an American form of imperialism. Manifest Destiny alone invited the federation of Canadian provinces and the purchase of Rupert’s Land. Unfortunately, unity dictated uniformity. To this end, Amerindians were to be stripped of their identity. The events that followed Confederation were brutal and genocidal. The French could not leave Quebec. Why?
I suspect more bodies will be found. However, the comforting thought is that other Canadians will help pull Amerindians out of this nightmare. They are in schock, but so are other Canadians. As you know, I have Amerindian ancestry. In the early years of New France’s history, its motherland was slow in sending women across the Atlantic. “Survival” is the keyword in Canadian literature, in both French and English. Margaret Atwood‘s book, entitled Survival (1972), is insightful and it has remained popular and informative reading.
We are returning to Les Anciens Canadiens where the myth of the Noble savage is well and alive. We will read The Good Gentleman, Chapter IX, Le Bon Gentilhomme, Chapitre X. In Les Anciens Canadiens, monsieur d’Egmont depicts Amerindians as more civilized than the white.
American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze‘s famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history.” (Caption and photo credit: Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia). See also the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Bequest of Sara Carr Upton.
Manifest Destiny
First Description
We have already covered the subject of “Manifest Destiny.” I used one of two descriptions provided by Wikipedia in its entry on “Manifest Destiny.” According to William E. Weeks, Manifest Destiny has the following themes:[i]
the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
The second description, Robert J. Miller‘s, seems an invitation to settle Louisiana, the territory bought from France in 1803 for 15 million dollars. Its three themes are:
The special virtues of the American people and their institutions;
America’s mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America;
An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty.[ii]
Therefore, neither doctrine is particularly edifying. The past, i.e. two to three hundred years of “discovery,” was rationalized by the Doctrine of Discovery, but “discovery” could not be repeated, except by Americans whose “irresistible destiny” was to stretch their boundaries all the way to the Pacific Ocean and, possibly, to the British territories located north of the 49th parallel, the future Canada.
So Manifest Destiny, a term coined by columnist John O’Sullivan in 1845, is perhaps best defined using William E. Weeks , except that Weeks’ three themes make “Manifest Destiny” more or less consistent with the notion of American Exceptionalism.
Alexis de Tocqueville was the first to use the word “exception” with respect to America. For Tocqueville, American democracy was different from other democracies, but he did not suggest that it was superior to other democracies. On the contrary, other democracies were not to emulate democracy in America.
In his Democracy in America (1835 and 1840), Alexis de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859; aged 53 [tuberculosis]) wrote that “a thousand special causes… have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects[:]”
“The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one. Their strictly Puritanical origin, their exclusively commercial habits, even the country they inhabit, which seems to divert their minds from the pursuit of science, literature, and the arts, the proximity of Europe, which allows them to neglect these pursuits without relapsing into barbarism, a thousand special causes, of which I have only been able to point out the most important, have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects. His passions, his wants, his education, and everything about him seem to unite in drawing the native of the United States earthward; his religion alone bids him turn, from time to time, a transient and distracted glance to heaven. Let us cease, then, to view all democratic nations under the example of the American people.” (See American Exceptionalism, Wikipedia.)
If one adheres to the notion of American Exceptionalism, the President of the United States can, theoretically, invade sovereign countries and effect strikes against other countries. Exceptionalism is a deeply-rooted notion that empowers America. However, it also constitutes a threat to US citizens. The United States remains a superpower, but is it America’s duty to protect the entire world, making itself an intruder, but also placing a terrible burden on the war-weary shoulders of its citizens? Not long ago, President Obama was considering a military strike against Syria, which may have been catastrophic.
The Annexation of Texas and the Oregon Country
At any rate, if we step back, the concept “Manifest Destiny” was used not only to colonize Louisiana, but also to annex Texas (1845). Louisiana had been claimed by France and sold to the United States. It was not annexed. Yet, it was inhabited by Amerindians whose displacement is a great tragedy and who were killed quite wantonly as Americans pushed their boundary all the way to the Pacific Ocean, led by God.
Manifest Destiny also legitimized the annexation of the Oregon Country, the Pacific Northwest, a disputed territory until the Oregon Treaty, signed on 15 June 1846 in Washington DC. Under the terms of the Oregon Treaty, territory located north of the 49th parallel became British as did Vancouver Island in its entirety. So this is how the West was won, a rather sad chapter in the history of the United States. Sad, because of the displacement of Amerindians. However, as we will see, in the days of “Manifest Destiny,” slavery, formerly a right, morally and legally, was becoming a wrong.
Although Exceptionalism served to legitimize the Annexation of the Republic of Texas (1845), it led to the Mexican-American War of 1846. It also served to justify the annexation of the Oregon Country. However, problems arose with respect to the possible annexation of Mexico. On the one hand, nineteenth-century ideology could not allow slavery. But, on the other hand, did the US want to welcome Mexicans, many of whom were métissés, half-breeds. One can dictate away slavery, but not racism.
Manifest Destiny threatened to expand slavery and was therefore rejected by prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant and most Whigs and Republicans [today’s Democrats]). (See Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia.) Moreover “[b]y 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.” But what of Métis?
On 4 January 1848, in a speech to Congress, Senator John C. Calhoun (18 March 1782 – 31 March 1850) of South Carolina expressed considerable racism.[iv] Slavery was useful as slaves provided cheap labour. The loss of slaves would literally impoverish slave owners, usually owners of plantations. Mexicans would not be slaves, but they would not be altogether human. Let us quote Senator John C. Calhoun:
“We have never dreamt [sic] of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged … that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.” (See Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia.)
Given the degree—the debt-ceiling crisis—to which extremist Republicans opposed and still oppose the Affordable Care Act: sabotage! Given also that, according to the Washington Times, not only has the NSA been listening on the conversations of friends of the United States, but it appears it has also used German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s mobile telephone to spy on President Obama, it could be that the lofty ideals expressed in the US Declaration of Independence have not been attained. One also wonders whether or not the Civil War is over.
“It seems straight out of a grade-B movie, but it has been happening for the past 11 years: The National Security Agency (NSA) has been using Mrs. Merkel as an instrument to spy on the president of the United States. We now know that the NSA has been listening to and recording her cellphone calls since 2002.” Read more:
American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze’s famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) (please click on the picture to enlarge it)
John L. O’Sullivan as he appeared on the cover of Harper’s Weekly in November 1874. O’Sullivan was then attending a conference in Geneva that sought to create a process of international arbitration in order to prevent wars.
In the middle of the nineteen century a concept developed that supported the notion that the US had the right to expand and that expansion was “prearranged by Heaven.”[i] The term “Manifest Destiny” was coined by John L. O’Sullivan (15 November 1813 – 24 March 1895), in the July–August 1845 issue of the Democratic Review. In an article entitled Annexation, O’Sullivan advocated the annexation of Texas and, later, he would also advocate the annexation of the Oregon Country.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Americans used “Manifest Destiny” to justify expansion, at any cost, beyond Louisiana Territory.
And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.*
John O’Sullivan was also an advocate of States’ Rights. It was his view that “the presidency had become too powerful and that states’ rights needed to be protected against encroachment by the central government.” (Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia)
The Indian Removal Act (1830)
What stood in the way of “Manifest Destiny” was slavery. John Quincy Adams (11 July 1767 – 23 February 1848), the sixth President of the United States (1825–1829), had adhered to the notion of “Manifest Destiny,” but he opposed expanding slavery. Andrew Jackson (15 March 1767 – 8 June 1845), his successor, was a slave-owner who supported slavery and played a role in the Indian removal. The Indian Removal Act (1830)[ii] was signed into law on 26 May 1830 and forced thousands of Indians living East of the Mississippi River to relocate West of the Mississippi River to Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory.
(please click on the picture to enlarge it)
The Indian Removal Act
The Divine Right of Kings
“Manifest Destiny” reminds me of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. In the mind of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (born 25 Sept. 1627, Dijon, Fr.—died 12 April 1704, Paris), arguably the most eloquent preacher in the history of France, kings were accountable to God only.
According to Wikipedia “[t]he belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and later by Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.”[iii]
The Fathers of Confederation meeting in Charlottetown in 1864
Although the British had secured the northern part of the Oregon country,[i] fear of American expansionism, as expressed in the Manifest Destiny, remained the chief motivation for Britain to unite the provinces of its North-American colonies. Its two British colonies in what had been the Oregon Country were amalgamated in 1866 as the United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. Moreover, in 1870, the Province of Canada bought land formerly owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company. So, finally, “British Columbia, was enticed to join the new confederation in 1871, but only with the promise that a transcontinental railway be built within 10 years to physically link east and west.”[ii]
“The Canadian Pacific Railway Company was incorporated February 16, 1881, with George Stephen as its first president.” Building a railway through ranges of mountains was well-nigh impossible but “[t]his incredible engineering feat was completed on Nov.7, 1885 – six years ahead of schedule – when the last spike was driven at Craigellachie, B.C.”[iii] (The Fenians were there.)
The Provinces, territories and Yukon entering into Confederation
Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta & Newfoundland
Manitoba joined in 1870, followed by British Columbia, in 1871, bringing the number of provinces of the Dominion of Canada to six (6). Prince Edward Island (7) joined on July 1, 1887, Saskatchewan and Alberta, on September 1905 (8 & 9). However, the tenth province, Newfoundland, now Newfoundland and Labrador, did not join until 1949 (10), under Joseph Roberts “Joey” Smallwood, PC, CC (December 24, 1900 – December 17, 1991), Newfoundland’s first Premier.
The Northwest Territories and Yukon
As for the Northwest Territories and Yukon, the rest of what would constitute the Dominion of Canada, they entered into Confederation respectively in 1870 (the Northwest Territories) and, the Yukon, in 1898.
The Fenians or Irish Republican Brotherhood
Fenians
There was reluctance to join Confederation on the part of the three Atlantic provinces: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, once called collectively Nova Scotia. They simply had no need, a crucial factor, to enter into a partnership with British Provinces to the West. Quebec stood to regain its Lower Canada, which was important motivation.
However the initial reluctance on the part of the Atlantic provinces was overcome when, as mentioned above, US expansionism became a threat to Britain’s colonies in North America. However, threats did not emanate from believers in the Manifest Destiny, but from Fenians who were attempting to invade the British colonies north of the 49th parallel.
Fenianism
The first threats from the US had little to do with the expansionist Monroe Doctrine. On the contrary, attempts to invade lands north of the border were made by Fenians, an Irish Brotherhood: the Fenian Brotherhood devoted to building an independent Irish Republic (Irish Republican Brotherhood: IRB).
In Britain, the Fenians were promoting trade unionism as well as armed revolution to further their goals. Consequently, Fenians, were poor candidates for American citizenship. Yet, they found their way across the Atlantic to the US. The US branch of the Fenian Brotherhood, was founded by John O’Mahony and Michael Doheny,[iii] the author of the Felon’s Track, a Gutenberg Project EBook (simply click on the title: Felon’s Track to read). As well, the Great Irish potato famine (1845 and 1852) had led to massive emigration to the United States and to Canada, but I do not think the Irish Potato Famine refugees can be associated to Fenianism. They arrived in North America between 1845 and 1852.
In Canada, the Fenians first attacked the Missisquoi County, in the Loyalist Eastern Townships, the area of Canada where I live. But other Fenian targets were Campobello Island, New Brunswick (United Empire Loyalist country), which they attacked in April 1866, and the current Ontario. In the current Ontario, about a thousand Fenians crossed the Niagara River on 1st June 1866 under Colonel John O’Neill. The Fenians then attacked the future western provinces of burgeoning Canada all the way to the Pacific Ocean.
In Ottawa, Patrick James Whelan was hanged, perhaps too hastily, for the murder of Thomas D’Arcy Etienne Hughes McGee, PC, (13 April 1825 – 7 April 1868 ). D’Arcy McGee was an Irish nationalist, but he was also one of the Fathers of Confederation, which had just been achieved.
In other words, the Fenians raids played a significant role in bringing about Confederation, as did the Oregon Treaty of 1849. So, aggressiveness on the part of the United States was to be feared by Britain’s colony to the north of the United States.
Nineteenth-Century Nationalism
However, we do see signs of the times in the actions of the Fenians. After the Congress of Vienna (September, 1814 to June, 1815), nationalism grew considerably in Europe leading to the various revolution of 1848 and, ultimately, to World War I. Michael Doheny took part in the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848.[iv]
In fact, European nationalism had also fuelled French-Canadian nationalism. When Lord Durham suggested the Union of Upper and Lower Canada and the assimilation of French-speaking Canadians, he inadvertently gave great impetus to French-Canadian nationalism, which, as mentioned above, helps understand why French-speaking Canadian leaders, living in what would be the Province of Quebec, supported Confederation.
Conclusion, but to be followed
So a threat from the US, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, or the Fenians, led to Atlantic Canada’s willingness to join the Confederation. Under Confederation the Atlantic provinces gained muscle. Newfoundland, however, was beyond the grasp of Fenians. Other provinces would join after 1867. Provinces joined Confederation because there was something to be gained. In the case of British Columbia the construction of a railway would be condition and a need.
—ooo—
I will pause here in order to talk about the Red River Rebellion and the yet to be understood the life and execution of Louis Riel, the member of Parliament for Provencher (Manitoba) and the “father of Manitoba.”
____________________
[i] Under the terms of the Oregon Treaty of 1849, Britain ceded it claims to ownership of land south of the 49th parallel. But it kept Vancouver Island and coastal islands as well as Vancouver.
Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861)
American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze‘s famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history. (Wikipedia: Manifest Destiny)
We will now see Canada moving quickly from the Act of Union (1840-1841) to Confederation (1867). Why this sudden rush?
Manifest Destiny
In 1845, John L. O’Sullivan(15 November 1813 – 24 March 1895), a journalist, coined the term “Manifest Destiny” in an article published in the Democratic Review. In this article, he favoured the annexation of Texas, not so much for the purpose of territorial expansion as for moral reasons. In the same article, he also promoted the annexation of the Oregon Country.
The term Oregon Country referred to the ownership of Pacific Northwest. It included Fort Vancouver, Fort Victoria and other forts which Simon Fraser (North West Company [NWC]) and other fur-traders and explorers had travelled. The northern part of what was called the Oregon Country and later the Columbia district had been reached by land with the help of voyageurs and Amerindians, andthe Hudson’s Bay Company owned part of that land which it used for fur-trading purposes. On the map below, one can see the “disputed area.”
The Oregon Country
(please click on the map to enlarge it)
The Monroe Doctrine
Under James Monroe (28 April 1758 – 4 July 1831) and John Quincy Adams (11 July 1767 – 23 February 1848), the author of the Monroe Doctrine (2 December 1823), and perhaps emboldened by the Louisiana Purchase (1803), some Americans started to believe that they were destined, as quoted above, “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man.” In particular, Americans were to go Westward.
In 1811, John Quincy Adams(11 July 1767 – 23 February 1848), who would be the sixth President of the United States (1625 -1629), wrote to his father that:
The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.
Canada’s position
Such an ideology may have been perceived as an impediment to British expansion Westward and, eventually, to Confederation, which would unite Canada’s provinces. Sir Alexander Mackenzie was the first European to cross North America north of Mexico. Credit is also due American-born Canadian explorer Simon Fraser (20 May 1776 – 18 August 1862 [NWC]). He had travelled down the Fraser river and reached the Pacific. The British were therefore in the Oregon Country and had claims to the territory.
“resolved standing boundary issues between the two nations, and allowed for joint occupation and settlement of the Oregon Country, known to the British and in Canadian history as the Columbia District of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and including the southern portion of its sister for district New Caledonia.” (Wikipedia: Treaty of 1818)
The Hudson’s Bay Company had not been in a hurry to see this territory settled. However, there were US settlers arriving in the Oregon Country. As a result, in 1841, James Sinclair, of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), took Red River Colony settlers west from Fort Garry. This was an attempt to retain Columbia District as part of British North America. He chose to guide twenty-three families to the Columbia district. The group consisted of one hundred twenty-one people.
“Most of the families were of mixed-race (Métis) and were headed by men who were well-known to Sinclair and who were capable hunters, well-suited to living off the land; while on the trail and as pioneers in Oregon Country.” (Wikipedia: James Sinclair)
It was a brave effort on Sinclair’s part, but only Métis were able to make so difficult and lenghty a journey as could his Métis families. At any rate, eight years later, in 1849, under the terms of the Oregon Treaty, Britain “ceded all claims to land south of the 49th parallel” to the United States, except for Vancouver Island and little coastal islands that became the Colony of Vancouver Island.
In short, one could now settle in the United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, but how could one get there? One obstacle, the Monroe Doctrine, had been circumvented, but another obstacle remained: getting across the Rocky Mountains: 800-km wide.
When Confederation was achieved, in 1867, the border remained unchanged and Canada now extended from sea to sea. However, travelling from sea to sea or moving to what is now British Columbia was well-nigh impossible. The Panama Canal had not been built. Building started in 1880 but was not completed until 1914. You might remember that John Jacob Astor (The American Fur Trade Company) asked Gabriel Franchère, to take voyageurs from New York City to Fort Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia river, on the Tonquin. They travelled around Cape Horn (c. 1811). Canada would need a railway so settlers could reach the West Coast.
—ooo—
Let me pause by stating that the Fathers of Confederation knew about the Monroe Doctrine and that they did fear active expansionism on the part of the US. In fact, I do not fully understand why the United States let the northern part of the Oregon Country go to Britain and ultimately to Canada. Obviously, there was good will on the part of both parties and I believe that eventually both parties were winners, except that the disputed land was being taken from Amerindians.
American westward expansion is idealized in 
Micheline's Blog 