Uncategorized

Oligarchical despotism

by

“Most of our large banks have operations in the United States…“

How many American banks have operations in Canada?

How many American telecom players operate in Canada?

How many American dairy producers have access to the Canadian market or vice versa?

How is political power concentrated in Canada versus the American system?

What are the barriers to entry in the Canadian market versus the American market?

How competitive is the Canadian market versus the American market?

Oligarchical despotism is a form of governance characterized by a small group of powerful individuals or families, known as an oligarchy, who hold effective control over a society or state. In this system, the ruling elite often exercises despotic or tyrannical power, often serving their own interests at the expense of the broader population.

— The Family Compact, a network of influential individuals in Upper Canada during the early to mid-1800s, epitomized oligarchical despotism. These loyalists monopolized political, economic, and social power and set the stage for the framework that would govern Canadian society in the future. Their control extended over legislative, bureaucratic, and judicial realms, stifling democratic reform and responsible government.

Originating from political appointments made to unelected branches of government — something Canadian subjects certainly witness in abundance today — they upheld a hierarchical class structure favoring their interests. The Family Compact, characterized by close relations and preferential treatment, enforced loyalist ideology and resisted democratic influence.

Contrasting this historical oligarchical dominance to today, the top 87 wealthiest Canadian families each hold thousands of times more wealth than an average family. This concentration of wealth surpasses that of the bottom 12 million Canadians combined, highlighting the persistence of oligarchical structures albeit in a modern economic context.

COVID further exacerbated this gap, with Canadian billionaires growing their wealth by 51% since the pandemic began, while at the same time those in the bottom half of the income distribution saw their average total income decline by nearly 7%. Such disparity underscores a system wherein a select few maintain immense economic power to the detriment of the majority.

Key features of oligarchical despotism include:

Concentration of Power: Power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or families who control key institutions of the state, such as government, military, and economy. This concentration enables the ruling elite to make decisions unilaterally and without accountability.

— The Prime Minister and the Cabinet wield significant power in Canada’s political system, often at the expense of parliamentary oversight. This can lead to accusations of executive dominance and a lack of accountability. That the current office holder is part of a political dynasty of unilateral operators certainly doesn’t detract from the optics of tyranny. The Senate and many other facets of Canadian governance exist primarily as bastions of patronage.

The Prime Minister possesses certain prerogative powers, such as the authority to dissolve Parliament and call elections, as well as the power to appoint senators, judges, and thousands of other key officials including the head of state that supposedly restrains his office, all without the advice and consent of parliament.

Limited Political Participation: Oligarchical despotism typically restricts political participation and representation to a select few, excluding the majority from meaningful involvement. Elections, if they exist, may be manipulated to ensure the continued dominance of the ruling elite.

— Canada’s unilateral executive appointments, lack of direct election for the executive, absence of term limits, and executive control over election timing reduce citizens’ influence over government composition and policies. Without direct election, citizens have limited control over the executive, potentially leading to prolonged incumbency and a lack of fresh perspectives.

Executive control over election timing raises fairness concerns. Absence of subnational constitutions limits citizen rights assertion and subnational government accountability. Limited electoral choice further restricts citizen influence. These characteristics indicate a political system with limited citizen participation, input, and influence, raising concerns about democratic legitimacy, representation, and accountability across various government levels.

Suppression of Dissent: Opposition is often met with repression, censorship, or violence. Freedom of speech, assembly, and association may be severely curtailed to prevent challenges to the status quo.

— The court ruling on the government’s use of emergency powers to suppress the “Freedom Convoy” protests found it unreasonable and a violation of Charter rights, indicating governmental overreach. Prime Minister Trudeau’s use of emergency powers, including protester arrests and bank account freezes, coupled with plans to appeal the ruling, suggests a tendency to quash political dissent through legal avenues.

Additionally, Bill C-63’s proposal for civil penalties for hate speech, alongside existing criminal laws, not to mention its ex-post-facto provisions raises free speech concerns, potentially leading to self-censorship and stifling legitimate discourse. The history of misuse of hate speech complaints by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), yet another body unilaterally appointed by the executive, highlights the risk of further suppression of dissent and infringement on free speech for political purposes. Financial incentives for complaints and subjective interpretations of hate speech exacerbate worries about curtailing free expression and association.

Corruption and Cronyism: Oligarchical despotism is characterized by widespread corruption and cronyism, where opportunities are reserved for those with ties to the ruling elite.

— With so many examples to choose from it’s hard to know where to begin on this front, but the SNC-Lavalin affair is as good as any. The RCMP’s investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair faced obstacles due to limited access to crucial information, notably cabinet confidences, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s alleged attempt to influence legal matters undermines judicial independence and may serve political or corporate interests unfairly.

Partisan influences, evidenced by the adjournment of the parliamentary committee meeting, hinder accountability efforts and perpetuate a culture of impunity. The RCMP’s handling of the investigation, constrained by restricted information and perceived superficial examination, calls into question the integrity of law enforcement agencies. This situation highlights how corruption and cronyism thrive through opaque decision-making, political interference in legal proceedings, and the prioritization of partisan agendas over justice and accountability.

Suppression of Economic Freedom: Oligarchical despotism involves heavy government intervention in the economy, restricting economic freedom.

— Canada’s supply management system for egg, poultry, and dairy products illustrates the limitations on economic freedom through various factors. Price fixing and control hinder market responsiveness, leading to higher consumer prices and reduced choice. Protectionist measures shield domestic producers, stifling competition and innovation while maintaining incumbents’ dominance.

Regulatory capture by industry stakeholders perpetuates the system, disadvantaging consumers. The system’s inequitable impact disproportionately affects lower-income households, contradicting social welfare goals. Despite criticism, bipartisan political support and vested interests impede reform efforts, hindering market-oriented approaches. Overall, the system restricts economic freedom, distorts price signals, and perpetuates inefficiencies, detrimentally affecting consumers and societal welfare.

Distorted Price Signals: Price signals may be distorted due to government manipulation, leading to inefficient resource allocation.

— Canada’s single-payer health system, acting as a monopoly, distorts price signals by eliminating market competition. With the government as the sole insurer and controller of healthcare financing, there’s no competitive pressure on providers to innovate or control costs, while at the same time, many provinces sink a third of their budgets or more into financing them.

This lack of market dynamics can lead to arbitrary pricing decisions, inefficiencies, and limited patient choice. Patient outcomes are dead last among ‘developed’ countries on a wide variety of metrics while at the same time adverse effects and malpractice affect 1 in 4 users over their lifetime and remains the third leading cause of death.

Without the feedback mechanism of competitive pricing, resources may be misallocated, leading to underinvestment in certain areas and overutilization in others. As a result, the system may struggle to adapt to changing healthcare needs and advances in medical technology, impacting both quality of care and cost-effectiveness.

Rent-Seeking Behavior: The concentration of power creates opportunities for rent-seeking behavior, diverting resources away from productive uses.

— Rent-seeking behavior in the Canadian economy is evident in various forms, hindering innovation and economic growth. Canada’s sluggish GDP growth, coupled with stalled productivity, reflects a persistent lack of innovation and weak competitiveness. Instead of fostering a competitive environment, government policies often cater to specific industries through regulations, tariffs, and subsidies, shielding them from competition. This reliance on government protection fosters a business environment where firms seek favors rather than competing on merit.

Consequently, Canada experiences a loss of business dynamism, with fewer new firms entering the market and leading corporations losing global competitiveness. To address this, Canada needs to reevaluate its public policies, prioritizing competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship over rent-seeking behavior and protectionism. Such a shift is essential for fostering economic growth and ensuring long-term prosperity.

Barriers to Entry: Oligarchical despotism erects barriers to entry in the marketplace, protecting incumbent firms and stifling competition.

— Barriers to entry in the Canadian economy are substantial, with the country ranking high in terms of regulations and restrictions on foreign investment. The OECD’s Product Market Regulation and FDI restrictiveness indices highlight Canada’s position as one of the most regulated and restrictive economies. These barriers include limitations on foreign businesses, state-owned monopolies, and explicit regulations limiting competition.

Industries such as air transportation, telecommunications, and agriculture face significant restrictions, hindering competition and innovation. Conservative estimates suggest that over one-third of the Canadian economy is shielded from competition, suppressing incentives for productivity and innovation. Removing these barriers could significantly enhance productivity growth and improve living standards for Canadians.

The deliberate increase in immigration levels by the current government amidst the pandemic, despite housing market constraints, benefited specific groups, particularly those involved in housing investment, while exacerbating socioeconomic challenges. Homeowners, leveraging their properties through reverse mortgages, reap profits, consolidating wealth and power while working-class families are displaced and young individuals remain unable to afford homeownership.

Such policies reflect a manipulation of governmental policy for self-interest, fostering corruption and collusion. By exploiting vulnerable populations and widening socioeconomic gaps, this underscores the oligarchical nature of Canadian governance, wherein a select elite perpetuates its dominance at the expense of the well-being of the populace, using a pandemic in order to solidify power and tilt the scales towards their favor.

Canada’s reliance on unchecked immigration and temporary foreign workers has not only exploited vulnerable workers but has depressed wages for low-skilled workers, amplifying the wealth chasm between the affluent and the working class. The prioritization of business interests over worker welfare has eroded governmental accountability, shielding elites from scrutiny.

Ill-planned immigration has served to exacerbate urbanization and housing crises, reinforcing policies favoring corporate interests over social cohesion, neglecting immigrant and citizen welfare alike.

The prevalence of oligarchical despotism in Canada, characterized by concentrated power, limited political participation, suppression of dissent, corruption, and economic restrictions, has profound implications for the nation’s governance, economy and future. Historical precedents, such as the Family Compact, illustrate the enduring nature of elite control, regardless of supposed partisan involvement, over Canadian society and institutions.

Contemporary manifestations of oligarchical dominance, exemplified by the concentration of wealth among a select few, further exacerbate socioeconomic disparities, particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The manipulation of governmental powers, as seen in policies favoring specific groups at the expense of the broader populace, underscores the oligarchical nature of Canadian governance.

Moreover, the distortion of market forces through monopolistic privileges enjoyed by entities like crown corporations and the healthcare system impedes competition and innovation, hindering economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. Barriers to entry in the marketplace, rent-seeking behavior, and distorted price signals perpetuate inefficiencies and stifle entrepreneurial spirit.

The maple syrup is sweet, but it’s all aboot where you live, who you know and who you’re related to. Since 1867 Canada exists, not as a country, but as a proprietary colony — an exercise in racketeering vis a vis the American market — created primarily to serve as a protection racket for the benefit of a handful of oligarchical interests, to insulate them from any ‘dangers’ a broader competitive marketplace might present.

Ultimately, oligarchical despotism contradicts the principles of a free market economy, where voluntary exchange, competition, and individual freedom are paramount. Instead of fostering prosperity for all, it consolidates wealth and power in the hands of a privileged few, perpetuating socioeconomic inequalities and hampering the well-being of the broader population. Thus, addressing these systemic issues is crucial for ensuring a more prosperous future for Canadians.

“Fed Chair Powell delivers remarks at the Washington Forum on the Canadian economy”, April 16, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/live/QqwuXkUUJwc

Securities And Exchange Commission: Annual Report Of Province Of Nova Scotia, 1997

by

An interesting document for a number of reasons. What stood out to me most of all was the proviso regarding Quebec secession. The specter of Quebec separation clearly did a number on the other provinces, who had to decide what they would do in such a scenario. Perhaps this is especially true of the Atlantic provinces, who would be cut off from the rest of Canada, and who might not have the resources and economy to survive on their own. Then there’s Quebec’s generally expansionist stance both physically, culturally and ideologically within Canada over the years, which seems to come in fits and starts.

Most recently, you can see it at work in a logo put forth by the Bloc Quebecois.

“Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet addressed supporters of Quebec’s federal sovereignty party on Sunday, speaking at a podium adorned with a map that removed the border between Quebec and Labrador, making it look as if it were all Quebec.”

bloc

This kind of taunting continues, recently more overt. To be sure, this messaging isn’t by accident.

Screenshot 2024 04 07 113006

Quebec separation is an issue which comes up time and again, and if current polling holds true into the future, might present itself yet again as the impetus for serious constitutional change for points to the east.

“As a province of Canada, Nova Scotia could be affected by political events in another province. For instance, on September 7, 1995, the Government of Quebec presented a Bill to the National Assembly entitled An Act respecting the future of Quebec (the “Act”) that included, among others, provisions authorizing the National Assembly to proclaim the sovereignty of Quebec. The Act was to be enacted only following a favorable vote in a referendum. Such a referendum was held on October 30, 1995. The results were 49.4% in favor and 50.6% against.

In 1996, the Government of Canada, by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”), asked the court to determine the legality of a unilateral secession of the Province of Quebec from Canada, either under the Canadian Constitution or international law. On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Province of Quebec did not have the unilateral right of secession, and that any proposal to secede authorized by a clear majority in response to a clear question in the referendum should be construed as a proposal to amend the Constitution, which would require negotiations. These negotiations would have to deal with a wide array of issues, such as the interest of the other provinces, the Federal Government, the Province of Quebec, and the rights of all Canadians both within and outside the Province of Quebec, and specifically, the rights of minorities, including Aboriginal peoples.”

Province of Nova Scotia, 2017. “FORM 18-K For Foreign Government and Political Subdivisions Thereof SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ANNUAL REPORT Of PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA CANADA (Name of Registrant) Date of end of last fiscal year: March 31, 2017” https://novascotia.ca/finance/PDFs/Form-18-K-2017.pdf

“On the Nature of Sovereignty”

by

I don’t agree with Webster’s conclusion, that the Constitution isn’t a compact between sovereign states, but I do certainly agree with his feelings in terms of the unsuitability of monarchy and European forms of governance anywhere on this continent—that the source of all political power is the people, that it is they who bestow sovereignty on State governments and through them, the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Nation itself, which is its safeguard.

Daniel Webster Photograph edited

“Mr. President, the nature of sovereignty or sovereign power has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion, as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated. But I confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and illustrations drawn from that topic. The sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic.

No such thing is known in North America. Our governments are all limited. In Europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the state of the sovereign. It comprises his rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers.

But with us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign; and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such powers as they please.

None of these governments is sovereign, in the European sense of the word, all being restrained by written constitutions. It seems to me, therefore, that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain the relations existing between the general government and the several State governments according to those ideas of sovereignty which prevail under systems essentially different from our own.” —Daniel Webster

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7600/7600-h/7600-h.htm#07

https://www.facebook.com/groups/novascotiastatehood/permalink/1591482674957221

Legitimacy, or otherwise, of the BNA

by

Is the BNA illegitimate? Let these facts speak for themselves.

  1. The members of the Legislative Assembly elected in 1863 were only authorized to legislate under the Colonial Constitution and had no authority to make significant changes to it without first obtaining the people’s consent through a vote.
  2. The resolution of April 10, 1867, which preceded the enactment of the British North America Act, was the only authority possessed by the delegates who procured the Act, and it did not empower them to arrange a federal union without including Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
  3. The delegation was not legally constituted, as it did not have equal representation from each colony as required by the resolution.
  4. The delegates did not ensure just provision for the rights and interests of Nova Scotia, as mandated by the resolution, and the proposed union would deprive Nova Scotians of their rights, liberty, and independence, furthermore it would expose them to arbitrary and excessive taxation, by a Legislature over which they can have no adequate control.
  5. The scheme of confederation was never submitted to the people of Nova Scotia for their approval before it came into effect, which the resolutions argue is essential for its constitutionality.
  6. The resolutions express dissatisfaction with the way Confederation was forced upon Nova Scotia without their consent and against their will.
  7. The people of Nova Scotia expressed loyalty to the Queen and her government but requested the repeal of the British North America Act as it pertains to Nova Scotia and asked for the revocation of the Queen’s Proclamation regarding Confederation.

Wilkins examines the unique constitutional situation of Nova Scotia, which was granted a constitution by King George II, further developed by his successors on the English throne. Despite its effectiveness, the constitution had some deficiencies, notably the lack of a court for impeaching and punishing political offenders.

He expresses a preference for Nova Scotia’s constitution, molded after British monarchy, which he sees as superior despite acknowledging the United States’ constitutional craftsmanship. The speaker then shifts focus to contrasting Confederation with Canada, which he finds “hateful and detestable”. He argues that joining the United States would afford Nova Scotia more freedom and self-governance than being part of Canada’s oligarchical system.

He highlights the loss of Nova Scotia’s freedom under the British North America Act, which gives Canada extensive power to tax Nova Scotia arbitrarily. He criticizes the lack of control Nova Scotia has over Canada’s legislature, with only 19 out of 253 members representing Nova Scotia at the time, since dwindling to 11 out of 338 members.

He concludes by asserting Nova Scotia’s right to preserve its own constitution, which he claims belongs to the people of Nova Scotia and cannot be taken away by the Parliament of England. He argues that Nova Scotia has never been legally confederated with Canada and asserts that it is up to Nova Scotia to decide its future regarding Confederation.

“Speeches delivered by Hon. Martin I. Wilkins, (attorney general) in the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, session 1868, on resolutions relative to repeal of the “British North America Act, 1867”. Wilkins, Martin I. (Martin Isaac), 1804-1881. https://archive.org/details/cihm_23507

Sovereign Citizens

by

Be alert when you hear “sovereign citizen”, it’s a very specific term that both the RCMP and FBI used to identify those who wish to operate outside the mechanisms of the state.

To them, it refers to those who believe “courts have no jurisdiction over people, that the use of certain procedures (such as writing specific phrases on bills they do not want to pay) or loopholes can make one immune to government laws and regulations.” They create their own identification cards, their own States or nation states, they refuse to file taxes and generally don’t feel they are bound to any laws.

As with most things, there is a nugget of truth in the idea, at least in Canada.

In my opinion, agents of the state use this term purposefully in order to conflate “Sovereign citizens” with “Popular Sovereignty”, the idea that “the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy”, in other words, the basis for all political power in the United States. It’s otherwise known as the “consent of the governed”, the same referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

Obviously that isn’t the case in Canada, never has been the case, and never will be the case under such a system as “constitutional monarchy”.

From the start Canada has been an imposition, it has operated as an inversion of the concept of popular sovereignty where “the people” are subjects, not involved in drafting, ratifying or implementing the constitution, where the laws are imposed by a caste of operators with a very specific set of political ideas (adherence to the “the crown” which they have now ruled is synonymous with the Canadian state, even though all the links that previously conveyed royal prerogative still exist), where the legitimization of villeinage and socage as “citizenship” appears to be the priority.

The arbitrary and ad hoc nature of “Canadian ‘democracy'” is best understood through those earlier feudal implementations, not through the American meaning and understanding of “democracy” or a republic, since we are still in a very real sense held as chattel under an 18th century British Whig interpretation of “representation”. It is the crown that is represented, not the people, the perfection of democracy is to be found in the total insulation of the people from political power, not in their participation.

So, in terms of the mechanics of the state, those “sovereign citizens” are on to something, in that Canada operates as if it were a proprietary colony, not as a “democracy” or nation state as we have all been told exists, in order to completely delegitimize the individual in terms of political power.

I don’t say this to suggest anyone refuses to file taxes, though tax protest movements are a legitimate way to thumb your nose at the legitimacy of the state. I don’t suggest anyone should believe those who say the courts have no jurisdiction, since you will find out in short order their sovereignty is absolute.

What I am saying is that there’s a purposeful sleight of hand used to confuse these two terms and the underlying concepts are key to understanding the road to serfdom, which no other nation on Earth might encapsulate better than “Canada”. The breadcrumb trail is there once you start pulling back the clumsy carpentry that’s been holding it together since 1867.

“The Canadian political system iceberg explained”

by

Well, nice dig at the outset of this video with the “communicated quite poorly” and the playful poke at the end about grasping the intricacies of the Canadian political system. Not sure what to think aboot that.

It’s striking how insistent JJ is on denying any royal connections, while Canada has conveniently left intact all the pre-existing links that historically conveyed royal authority, except for Quebec, which recently ousted its Lieutenant Governor. And then there’s the sly reference to “translating” the King or Queen into the role of Prime Minister…

The disallowance power of the LG was wielded extensively, over 100 times, and one can only wonder if it still lurks in the background, much like other royal prerogatives, quietly nullifying laws behind the scenes, leaving us to witness only a law dying on the order paper.

All these “polite fictions” and convolutions he mentions (privy council, Governor General, Prime Minister, Cabinet, Governor in Council) certainly do pile up. Kudos to him for addressing bilingualism, though he overlooked the fact that the Supreme Court is one of those mandatory bilingual institutions.

The notion of “super protected” rights to travel across the country brought a hearty laugh, especially recalling when Nova Scotia, during COVID, prohibited movement beyond “municipalities,” sometimes even within them, let alone throughout the province or the country. “Super protected rights,” indeed. No laws, no Section 1 or Section 33 applications were required. Is this an example of the charter of disallowance in action?

Props to JJ for highlighting the extensive powers of the executive and the dubious legitimacy of any standards set by the so-called “Westminster Parliament,” a misnomer if there ever was one. Also, the tangled web of constitutional complexities arising from a constitution that nobody can fully grasp, encompassing not only a multitude of documents and royal directive but also abstract “ideas” (as mentioned around the 49:00 mark).

The observation that Trudeau’s “de-colonization” efforts actually reinforce existing colonial structures is a valid one that seems to elude him. It’s almost as if he’s playing a game in these videos, framing discussions of Canada’s constitutional legitimacy as exclusively leftist or as an indigenous-only concern, while simultaneously marginalizing the PPC as far-right “anti-immigration,” which isn’t entirely fair if their focus is on “mass immigration,” a distinct issue altogether.

Thankfully, I’m not beholden to being a “professional Canadian political commentator,” allowing me to express my conviction that Canada is an absurdly tangled mess, tailor-made for perpetuating despotism and tyranny, a charade from top to bottom, suited for those who choose to remain subservient to a foreign crown while pretending they’re a legitimately sovereign country.

But does it have to be this way forever? That’s the lingering question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9LrjU5n63g

Petition of the inhabitants of Nova Scotia

by

The Petition of the Inhabitants of Nova Scotia Humbly Sheweth:

That the Province of Nova Scotia is one of the oldest Colonies of Great Britain, and one of the nearest to the Mother Country. That when the American Revolution separated thirteen English Colonies from the Crown, Nova Scotia stood true to her allegiance, and furnished a home for the Loyalists who sacrificed their property and their prospects in the American States’ for the sake of British connection. That, ever since, during the political agitations which have disturbed this Continent,— especially during the War of 1812, and the Canadian Rebellions of 1837-8,— Nova Scotia has been steadfast in her loyalty; and that when the neighbouring Province of New Brunswick was menaced from the American side in 1839. the Legislature of Nova Scotia unanimously placed the whole revenues and resources of the country at the disposal of the Lieutenant-Governor for the defense of the British flag upon the frontier. That this people have discharged, in other respects, the duties of British subjects to the satisfaction of the Crown.

They have sent representatives to the Provincial Parliament since 1758, for a quarter of a century have enjoyed Responsible Government in as full and ample a measure as have their fellow-subjects in the most favoured parts of the Empire, and have preserved from degeneracy and abuse their Constitutional rights and free institutions. That the people of this Province, from their Maritime position, have developed the pursuits of Shipbuilding, Navigation, Commerce, and Fishing, into prosperous activity. Their agricultural resources are rich and varied, while the vast mineral wealth which underlies the whole area of the country is a special guarantee of its future prosperity under favourable political conditions. The gold mines of Nova Scotia, without rising to the character of dazzling lotteries to attract a promiscuous or disorderly population from abroad, have proved steadily remunerative of a regular department of native industry, and a profitable investment for foreign capital. The great iron mines, already discovered, give earnest, in connection with its coal fields, of manufacturing capabilities not inferior to those of any country of similar extent. It has the thickest coal seams in the world, and their area is extensive, affording fairground for the presumption, that for the purposes of peace or way Nova Scotia’s continued connection with Great Britain would prove of mutual advantage.

Possessed of these resources, the people desire closer relations with the Mother Country, in order to be able to enjoy more largely the benefits, as well as share more fully the responsibilities, of the Empire; and already the Province has enrolled 60,000 efficient Militia and Volunteers to assist in the maintenance of British power on this Continent, and sends to sea 440,000 tons of shipping, built and owned within the Province, bearing the flag of England, and manned by more than 20,000 seamen. That Nova Scotia has no controversies with the Mother Country, the other Provinces, or with the population of the neighboring United States; and highly prizes the privileges, so long enjoyed, of regulating her own Tariffs, and conducting trade, but lightly burthened, with the British Islands and Colonies in all parts of the world and with Foreign Countries.

That the people of Nova Scotia are prepared to entertain any propositions by which (preserving to them the Institutions they now have, and the privileges they enjoy) greater facilities tor commercial and social intercourse with other States and Provinces may be secured, and they are willing, whenever their own coasts and harbors are safe, to aid Her Majesty’s forces to preserve from aggression the Provinces in the rear.

That they view with profound distrust and apprehension schemes, recently propounded, by which it is proposed to transfer to the people of Canada the control of the Government, Legislation and Revenues, of this loyal and happy Province, and they venture respectfully to crave from your honorable House justice and protection.

That the Province of Canada lies as far from Nova Scotia as Austria docs from England, and there exists no reason why a people who live at such a distance, with whom we have but little commerce, who have invested no capital in our country, who are unable to protect it, and are themselves shut off from ocean navigation by frost for five months of the year, should control our Legislation and Government.

That in 1864 the Government of Nova Scotia, without any authority from the Legislature, and without any evidence of the consent of the people, sent delegates to Canada to arrange in secret conference at Quebec a political union between the various Provinces, That these delegates concealed the result of their conference from the people until it became incidentally made public in another Province, and that, to this hour, they have never unfolded portions of the Scheme, having the most essential relation to the peculiar interests and local government of Nova Scotia subsequent to Confederation.

That the scheme, when at last made public, was received with great dissatisfaction in Nova Scotia, that the opposition to it has been constantly on the increase, and has been intensified by the conduct of the government and the delegates, who now propose to call in the aid of Your Honorable House, to assist them to overthrow, by an arbitrary exercise of power, free Institutions enjoyed for a century, and never abused.

That the objections of the people to the proposed Confederation Scheme affect not merely minor local details but the radical principles of the plan. The people cannot recognize the necessity for change in their present tranquil, prosperous and free condition. They cannot believe that the proposed Confederation with the distant Colony of Canada will prove of any practical benefit, either for defense or trade; while, from the past history of that country, its sectional troubles, and its eccentric political management and financial embarrassments, they have great reason to fear that Confederation would be to them a most disastrous change, retarding their progress, and rendering their prolonged connection with the Crown precarious if not impossible. Forming, as she does now, a portion of the Empire, Nova Scotia is already Confederated with fifty other States and Provinces, enjoys free trade with two hundred and fifty millions of people, living under one flag, and owning the authority of one Sovereign. She has no desire to part with her self-control, or to narrow her commercial privileges by placing herself under the dominion of a sister Colony, with an exposed frontier, frost-bound for a third of the year, and with no Navy to defend the Maritime Provinces when her ports are open.

The Scheme of Government framed at Quebec is unlike any other that History shows to have been successful. It secures neither the consolidation, dignity and independent power of Monarchy, nor the checks and guards which ensure to the smaller states self-government, and controlling influence over the Federal authorities, in the neighboring Republic. By adopting the Federal principle sectionalism in the five Provinces is perpetuated; by the timid and imperfect mode in which that principle is applied, the people, whose minds have been unsettled by this crude experiment, may be driven to draw contrasts, and nourish aspirations of which adventurous and powerful neighbors will not be slow to take advantage ; and the people of Nova Scotia have no desire to peril the integrity of the Empire, with the blessings they now enjoy, or to try now experiments, which may complicate foreign relations, and yet add no real strength to the Provinces it is proposed to combine.

The people object also to the financial arrangements as especially burthensome and unfair to this Province. Having long enjoyed the control and benefitted by the expenditure of their own revenues, they cannot approve a scheme that will wrest the greater part of these from their hands, to keep up costly and cumbrous Federal machinery, and to meet the liabilities of Canada.

For many years the commercial policy of Nova Scotia has been essentially different from that of Canada. The latter country, partly from necessity arising out of financial embarrassments, and partly as an indirect premium on her own manufactures, has adopted a tariff varying from 20 to 30%, on imported goods. Almost surrounded as Nova Scotia is by the ocean, her people are favourably situated for enjoying free commercial intercourse with every section of the British Empire, and with those foreign countries open to her commerce by the enlightened [)policy of the Parent State; of this privilege she has availed herself, by imitating, as far as local circumstances would permit, the liberal and free trade policy of the Mother Country — 10%, being the ad valorem duty collected under the Nova Scotia tariff on goods imported into the Province. The proposed scheme of union will give Canada, by her large preponderance in the Legislature, the power to shape the tariff for the whole Confederacy according to her inland ideas and necessities, so as to levy the same onerous duties on British goods imparted into Nova Scotia as are now exacted by Canada.

That since the Confederation scheme has been announced, there have been special parliamentary elections in three out of the eighteen counties of this Province, and in all three it has been condemned at the polls.

That in 1865 the scheme was condemned at nearly every public meeting hold by the delegates to discuss it, and numerous petitions against its adoption were presented to the Provincial Parliament, and only one in its favor, until the leader of the government declared the measure to be “impracticable”.

That at the opening of the late Session no reference to Confederation was made in the speech of the Lieutenant Governor, and down to a late period the people of Nova Scotia were led to believe that the scheme had been abandoned. A Resolution was introduced toward the close of the Session, clothing the government with power to appoint Delegates, who, in connection with Delegates from the other Provinces, are to frame a scheme of Government, to which it is proposed to ask the sanction of your Honorable House before it has been submitted to the Legislature that it may annihilate, or to the people, whose legal and constitutional rights and powers it may transfer or circumscribe.

The undersigned, menaced by a measure that may be revolutionary repose implicit confidence in the protection of the Imperial Parliament. They deny the authority of their own Legislature, invested with limited powers for a definite term, to deprive them of rights earned by their ancestry by the most painful sacrifices, wisely exercised and never abused for more than a century, and which they had no legitimate authority to alienate or break down. They believe that any scheme of Government, framed by a Committee of Delegates and forced upon the Provinces without their revision or approval, would generate widespread dissatisfaction among a loyal and contented people; who will not fail to reflect, that no change can be made in the constitution of any of the neighboring States which has not first been approved by the electors; and that important measures, affecting Imperial policy or institutions, are rarely attempted till they have been submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people whose interests they are to affect.

Your petitioners therefore pray that Your Right Honorable House will be pleased to defer all action in favour of Confederation in the Imperial Parliament until the people of Nova Scotia shall have exercised and enjoyed their Constitutional privilege to express their opinions at the polls, or that Your Honorable House may be pleased to direct that a Special Committee shall inquire into all the features of the proposed scheme of Confederation, as it is likely to affect the several Provinces in their relations to each other and to the Mother Country; or that the people of Nova Scotia be permitted to appear by counsel at the Bar of Your Honorable House to defend their interests and Institutions. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

The Petition of the Inhabitants of Nova Scotia Humbly Sheweth: That the Province of Nova Scotia Is One of the Oldest Colonies of Great Britain .. [S.l.: s.n., 1865?] https://hdl.handle.net/2027/aeu.ark:/13960/t6tx4hq48

Sorting “Natives” from “Indians”: Interrogating Historic Burials in the Catholic Burying Ground on the Dartmouth Common (1835-1865)

by

This essay examines the narratives presented in “The Story of Dartmouth” concerning the Mi’kmaq allegedly buried at the Catholic Cemetery on Geary Street, near Alderney Drive, within the Dartmouth Common.

I concur with the author’s assertion that critical thinking about the sources and potential impacts of “Indian stories” is essential. This principle extends beyond indigenous narratives to encompass historical accounts in general.

In Canada, many efforts termed “decolonized” paradoxically perpetuate colonization, reinforcing a framework where sovereignty is solely vested in a foreign crown and its representatives, marginalizing the popular sovereignty of those labeled citizens but effectively treated as subjects. This dynamic is especially poignant for indigenous communities, who often face restrictions on meaningful self-governance, subject to oversight by inherently colonial institutions such as the RCMP, operating under the auspices of the Dominion government in Ottawa.

The acknowledgment of an RCMP officer providing insights into “stolen histories” is noteworthy in itself. The irony of relying on a member of a federal paramilitary organization, historically tasked with displacing indigenous peoples to facilitate colonization, as an authority on stolen histories is not lost on me.

No doubt there are aspects of Martin’s work in the Story of Dartmouth based on little more than legend and lore — he admits as much throughout, relying on the stories of various “old timers” in order to build a more complete picture of what would otherwise remain undocumented, time out of memory. Nova Scotia as a province, let alone its municipal parts, had no archives as such until the late 1920s, many documents have since been lost and primary sources can be difficult to pin down.

If anything I see Martin’s Story of Dartmouth, printed not for profit but to record as much of the memory of his hometown as possible, as his way to fight back against a kind of totalitarian wave happening at the time. With so many of the hallmarks of a totalitarian wave from my perspective that match the current one, it led to a kind of epiphany for me in terms of how I relate not only to “old timers” and “history” but also our present circumstances.

“Was the book cover, the claim to [Mi’kmaq] burials in his book, and the inscription on the monument the result of confirmation bias on his part? It certainly seems so, but we may never know for sure because he never fully disclosed what inspired him to invest such effort into the story of indigenous burials. Surely, it was not only for tourism purposes and there were not enough copies of The Story of Dartmouth published to make a huge profit by telling the story, if that was a goal. While some will say he told an indigenous story that he had not lived, I suggest he lived the story through his own imagination and writing and inspired others to do the same”.

I suggest Martin grew up at a time, in the shadow of “Confederation”, wherein the relationship of the Mi’kmaq and other Nova Scotians changed significantly, as did the relationships between the colonies themselves.

That there was only one Indian Residential school in all the Maritimes compared to the dozens in the Provinces to the west, some instituted before Confederation, is one indication. That the singular Shubenacadie school was constructed almost immediately after Nova Scotia’s Legislative Council (Senate) was dissolved in the late 1920s in what appears to have been another intense period of Canadian Colonization, and not only as it concerns indigenous people, is another.

Martin makes note throughout The Story of Dartmouth of the many skeletons found in what is now downtown Dartmouth, during various excavations and construction projects, no doubt, at least in my mind, that some of these must have been Mi’kmaq. That one of these sites, near five corners at Portland Street and Prince Albert Road, also happened to be the site of the first “massacre” of early settlers might help explain the conduct of the Mi’kmaq at the time, had it been the burial ground of their ancestors.

Martin also notes the extent to which the Mi’kmaq were part of “Dartmouth Society”, in many cases it seems to have been little more than a process of pushing them progressively further out of town, as land became more valuable. On the other hand, previous to Confederation there are stories like that of the Toneys, specifically Peter, who it is asserted was “a leader of the Mi’kmaq at Dartmouth”. That he participated in canoe races and harbor regattas, that he was “a winner in one of these contests” and that “the part of Hawthorne Street between Prince Albert Road and the Canal stream used to be called Toney Street after this well-known Dartmouth family of that vicinity” seems to indicate that at one time there was at least the inklings of a kindred spirit between Mi’kmaq and other Dartmouthians, among other scattered fragments that relate to other groups.

Canadian confederation seems to have brought about a degeneration in this regard, no doubt spurred on by the great Canadian land grab, which must have hit the Mi’kmaq especially hard, having survived the initial colonization only to have to suffer another.

Although I don’t necessarily agree with the framework or all of the assertions contained within, I appreciate the sensitivity towards the topic of history, indigenous or otherwise. I believe interrogating one’s biases is always a useful exercise, perhaps especially when it comes to the ideological frame.

Whether the intent of the author was to delegitimize The Story of Dartmouth as a source, I’m not sure, but they’ve engaged in a rigorous examination of many historical records and created a valuable addition to what is a very narrow field, scholarship on the topic of Dartmouth — to which I’m sure Martin would be pleased to see is occupying a new generation of scholars and historians, no matter their perspective.

“This research disrupts a colonial narrative about settlers and hundreds of “Indians” inscribed on a monument as part of a non-indigenous tourism scheme to raise money and clean up the abandoned Catholic Burying Ground on the Dartmouth Common. Many Natives of Ireland and others, not Natives of North America, are identified by a detailed analysis of handwritten death records and other sources. They were all but forgotten when the municipality took control of the cemetery in 1975 without a copy of the church records. This left a gap in public memory that allowed variations of an “old Indian burial ground” narrative to evolve from burials in the ground (1962) to burials in a mound (2010). The findings are relevant to the national project of Truth and Reconciliation and serve as a cautionary tale about the importance of seeking truth before reconciliation. This research will be of interest to Irish researchers and descendants of those who died; residents of Halifax Regional Municipality who own the cemetery in trust; government administrators, planners, and surveyors; Catholic organizations in control of historic records; and to social, legal and indigenous researchers who grapple with constructed “Indian” identities as a way of decolonizing the story of Canada.”

Sutherland, Heather. “Sorting “Natives” from “Indians”: Interrogating Historic Burials in the Catholic Burying Ground on the Dartmouth Common (1835-1865)”, Masters Thesis, 2018. Saint Mary’s University. https://library2.smu.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/01/28112/Sutherland_Heather_MASTERS_2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

“A peep at the western world; being an account of a visit to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada, and the United States”

by

“Now the “gridiron” is a square box-like structure, situated about midships, in close proximity to the engines, and which being closed in at the top and sides, affords shelter from the wind, and to a great extent, from the heavy seas shipped in bad weather. In the centre is the capstan, which often serves as an impromptu table, and the sides or walls area series of wooden shutters, which fasten tightly into a groove, so that one or more can readily be removed to suit the weather and the convenience of the passengers. From this it can easily be imagined that, at night, the “gridiron” was the snug retreat of those who indulged in “the fragrant weed,” or who were disposed to conviviality. For myself, I shall always remember with pleasurable feelings those agreeable evenings spent on the bosom of the Atlantic in the gridiron aforesaid.”

“It was towards eight o’clock in the evening of the 4th May (and just twelve days from the time of our leaving Liverpool) when we distinguished the lights to guide vessels in their approach to Halifax, and at exactly ten o’clock p.m. we dropped our anchor in Chebuctoo harbour. We bade farewell to those passengers proceeding by the “Niagara” on to Boston, and were not long before we disembarked, and after a hasty inspection of our luggage by the officer appointed to that duty, I proceeded in a dingy and mournful specimen of a hackney coach to the “Acadian Hotel,” my future residence during my stay in Halifax. Halifax, the principal naval station of British North America, is situated in 44° 40″ N. latitude, and 63° 38” W. longitude. It is a quaint old city, unlike any I had ever seen before, and does not certainly present the appearance of having been in English hands for more than a century. It is the capital of the province of Nova Scotia, originally Acadia, and was formerly a French possession. The province was called Acadia after a simple unobtrusive hardy little flower of that name which grows wild in the country—the land which inspired Longfellow, who has shed a romantic interest over it! Nos etiam in Acadia. I knew and felt that I was in Acadia, so I was induced early one fine morning to ramble through the forest in the neighbourhood of Halifax in search of one of these plants, now become so very rare, and was gratified by collecting a very fine specimen in full bloom. The leaf is not unlike that of a small rose plant, whilst the flower itself partakes of the violet species. It is a curious fact associated with this plant that it is not to be found in any other province of the western continent. The wild flowers of Acadia are most abundant, and are indeed a peculiar feature of the province. The roadside is fringed with white, pink, and purple, and wild strawberries blossoming, whiten in their starry settlements every bit of turf. In the swamps too is long green needle grass, surmounted with snowy tufts; clusters of purple laurel blossoms as they are called (though not at all like our laurels) shoot up from beside the grey rocks and boulders which lie thickly and loosely about. The ditches too are bedecked with numbers of pitcher plants which, lifting their veined and mottled vases brimming with water, invite the wood birds to drink and perch upon their thick rims. Here, again, is seen the buckthorn in blossom; there, on the turf, the scarlet partridge berry. Small shrubs of wild cherry trees also abound, and beneath shining tropical-looking leaves the fragrant may-flower modestly hides; and meadow-sweet, not less fragrant because less beautiful, pours its aroma into the fresh air. And above all and around all are the evergreens, the murmuring pines and the hemlocks, the rampikes, the grey-beards of the forest primæval, and the spicy breath of resinous balsams. This is Acadia! “This is Arcadia—this the land, That weary souls have sighed for; This is Arcadia—this the land Heroic souls have died for; Yet, strange to tell, this promised land Has never been applied for!”

“But to resume my narrative. Nova Scotia continued in the hands of the French until the year 1713, when it was ceded to the English by one of the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht. From this date little or no progress had been made in the settlement of that part of it now known as Nova Scotia; neglect and indifference seem to have been manifested by the home government towards the colony, and gave rise to the natural inference by the French that England was either unaware of the real value of her new possession, or, if alive to its importance, did not exhibit any interest in retaining it. Accordingly they resolved to regain it by clever diplomacy, ofttimes superior to physical force. Their first step was to assert with boldness and pertinacity that “Acadia” comprised the peninsula only, and that the remainder of the territory across the bay of Fundy was still their possession.—* This* dexterous manœuvre, however, did not succeed, for the people settled in Massachussets took alarm at this unexpected claim, and at once urged the attention of the mother country to the matter, pointing out that its admission would supply the French with a formidable frontier, and would be productive of disastrous results to the peace and safety of the British North American possessions. This earnest and well-timed remonstrance roused the English government from its apathy and stimulated it to action, for it appears that plans were immediately devised for “confirming and extending “the dominion of the Crown of England in Acadia, “by constituting communities, diffusing the benefits “of population, and improving the fisheries on the “coast,” and submitted to the president of the “Board of Trade and Plantations.” This functionary was that acute statesman the Earl of Halifax, who ardently approved of the scheme, and obtained the sanction of the legislature for its developement. Public notices were issued stating that encouragement would be given to all officers and private soldiers of the army to settle in Nova Scotia. Now as several thousands of troops had been but recently disembodied from the standing army, the invitation was readily accepted it appears by 3760 persons, who, with their families were entered for embarkation, and the House of Commons voted the munificent sum of forty thousand pounds to defray the expences of their emigration. The Honourable Edward Cornwallis was appointed Governor of the colony, and accompanied the expedition, which took its departure in May 1749, and after a voyage of about six weeks arrived in Chebuctoo Harbour. (The old chronicle says the colony was founded on the 8th day of June, 1749, and is considered the natal day of Halifax).”

“It can readily be imagined that nature in her noblest aspect was here presented to the eye. The shores of the capacious harbour were covered with the dark rich verdure of the spruce and the fir, interspersed with the lighter and more attractive foliage of the larch, the maple, and the beech, thus completely concealing from view the huge masses of granite which were strewed over the soil, and which proved almost insurmountable obstacles to the cultivation of the land. Upon landing, the important question was discussed as to the most elegible site for founding a town, and as the spot first selected turned out unsuitable, that now known as Halifax was ultimately determined upon. It was named Halifax in honor of the noble Earl under whose auspices it may be said the expedition was fitted out. Previously to the landing of the new-comers, the Governor deemed it proper to organize a civil council, and, under his nomination, six members of His Majesty’s Council for the Province of Nova Scotia were appointed. The prospects of the inexperienced emigrant were not of the most cheering nature, though here indeed was “the forest primaeval, the murmuring pines and the hemlocks” enough to arouse the most sanguine expectations, yet, underneath this umbrageous canopy, as we have already shewn, lay hidden the source of bitter disappointment, heightened because of their sudden transition from a land populous and highly cultivated—alike the abode of wealth and civilization. The reader will have observed that the expedition reached its destination in the height of summer, and although it was supplied with provisions sufficient to sustain them for several months, it behoved the emigrants to use every exertion to protect themselves from the severity of the approaching winter. This was accomplished by the erection of wooden huts and the enclosing of the settlement. At this time there were, inclusive of soldiers, nearly five thousand souls within the palisade. Having so far attempted a brief account of the foundation of the settlement, I will proceed to notice more especially the city of Halifax, its harbour, and surrounding scenery.

The streets are all formed at right angles, the principal one running north and south of the town, whilst the houses are mostly of wood, and the churches are principally built of the same material, the appearance of which at once attracts the attention of the stranger. The streets generally are paved with wood planks with wood kerbs, while some are left entirely in their primitive state. Just fancy a wood pavement! The population is computed at 30,000, or thereabouts, and it is remarkable that little or no increase has taken place for the past half century, which is accounted for by the absence of that tide of emigration which flows into other parts of the world, there being in this locality no attraction for the emigrant, or at present any highway to the inland states. The inhabitants may be divided into three classes; first, those of Irish and Scotch descent; secondly, those of German and Dutch extraction (the offshoots of the original settlers); and, thirdly, the black people], which latter are either runaway slaves or their offspring. These latter occupy a position at the extreme north of the town, which is commonly designated the Black Settlement, and have their own distinct places of worship and sable pastors. The city and its suburbs extend over two miles in length, north and south, whilst it is barely half a mile in width at any point. By the original plan for the formation of the streets there were eight, of which two only reached the southern and three the northern extremities of the town; fifteen others intersected these at right angles. Within the last fifteen or twenty years others have been added from time to time by private individuals, in the division, subdivision, and sale of land lying outside the town.”

“There is also the pleasant little village of Dartmouth, situate opposite to Halifax on the other side of the harbour, with which there is communication by means of two steam floating bridges, which ply regularly across from the north and south ferries. It is a fashionable resort of the Halifax people, there being in the vicinity some very pleasant walks.”

“In a commercial point of view, Halifax has very little to boast of, though from its position as a port it is in my humble opinion destined in a short time to become a great commercial mart, and the highroad to our Canadian possessions. Looking at the map I was much struck with the advantages that of necessity must have accrued to its commerce if years ago the “blue noses” had constructed a line of railway direct to Quebec, for from the proximity of Halifax to England as compared with any port in the United States, it does not require any amount of shrewdness to detect that as a consequence of this, coupled with the facilities of inland communication by rail, the whole trade of Canada would flow through Halifax instead of as at present being very nearly monopolised by our Yankee neighbours. If my prognostication respecting Halifax be not realised, it will be simply owing to the lethargy of the “Halligonians,” as they call themselves; but in Halifax I observed that though its inhabitants are industrious and careful as a people, with plenty of capital, they are utterly wanting in enterprise. The responsibility of laying down lines of railway must not be thrown entirely upon government, because it is certainly the duty and the interest of the inhabitants to bring before the legislature the advantages, commercial or otherwise, that would arise from their scheme being sanctioned. It has been the case with all railroads in the United Kingdom, that they have been planned, brought before the House of Commons, and eventually carried out by private enterprise. Though the NovaScotians have undoubtedly lost a commercial revenue by inattention to their own interests in this respect, let me hope that they will not fail to carry out the line of railroad I have suggested before the opportunity be irretrievably lost.”

“Nova Scotia is divided into 18 counties, named (in worthy imitation) after counties or cities in old England. These counties send each two, three, four, or five members to represent them in the House of Assembly, which consists of 54 members, elected every four years, on the principle of universal suffrage. I may mention, en passant , that this mode of election is but of recent introduction amongst them, and as I happened whilst at Halifax to witness the spectacle of a general election, it will perhaps be as well if I say a few words on the practical working of this measure. Before doing so I will explain that the political affairs of the province are delegated to the legislative council, composed of 22 members, and the house of assembly before referred to. The members of the legislative council are styled “honourable” by courtesy, a title retained by them during life.

Now touching universal or manhood suffrage, a question the advisability of which is so much agitated at home by a certain class of politicians, I do not hesitate to aver that I never viewed it in a favourable light, because it throws into the hands of the majority—the lower classes—a preponderating influence which, whilst it is unfair to the minority, the possessors of every description of property, may be used to overthrow the most useful measures, and to favour intrigue of the most venal nature, this, be it remembered, at the expense of those most interested in the prosperity of the country. Nevertheless, not having before had an opportunity of seeing universal suffrage practically developed, I felt considerable interest in watching narrowly the progress of the election, because it would afford me a chance of testing whether the opinion I had formed was erroneous or not. The only qualifications necessary to entitle one to a vote are twenty-one years of age (no qualification at all), and a residence of five years in the province, either of which are easily evaded, because the fraud is difficult and troublesome to detect. During the day I visited, in company with a friend, every polling place in the city, and I am sure that numbers of youths (whose boyish appearance clearly indicated that they had not attained the age of twenty-one) were allowed to vote with impunity. Again, I was assured by inhabitants of the place who were in a position to know, that many voted not only as they should have done, at one booth, but again recorded their vote in another district. Though doubtless there are other means of successfully practising deception, I think I have clearly shewn the gross abuses of a system which I never wish to see introduced at home. The entire population of Nova Scotia is about 224,000; of this number about 80,000 are Roman Catholics.

“Bidding adieu to mine host of the Acadian, I left Halifax, and proceeded to Windsor, a pretty little town situate at the confluence of the rivers St. Croix and Avon, and distant from Halifax 45 miles. The communication is by railway, though the rate of travelling (15 miles an hour, including stoppages) is by no means satisfactory to one accustomed to the trains at home. The carriages on this line I observed were constructed in the United States. Why could they not be made in Nova Scotia? The plain answer is because the people in that province (as I have before hinted) have not the energy and enterprise to make for themselves what is so readily obtainable from their cousins of the stars and stripes.”

John Russell Smith. A peep at the western world; being an account of a visit to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada, and the United States, London, 1863. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbtn.10310/

Page 1 of 8
1 2 3 4 … 8