Talk:Upper Canada Rebellion

Robert Goulay?

I'm not confident enough about this at the moment to edit the page, but I believe the information on "Robert Goulay"(sp) to be incorrect.

The following links lead me to believe that a "Robert Gourlay" of Scotland was expelled from Canada in 1819 (not 1804):

• A brief bio from SceneandHeard.ca
• A discussion of his statistical work
• English translation of the above: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://pages.infinit.net/prevost/robert_gourlay.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522robert%2Bgourlay%2522%2Bscotland%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

Note also a biography of Mr. Gourlay exists: Robert Gourlay, gadfly;: The biography of Robert (Fleming) Gourlay, 1778-1863, forerunner of the rebellion in upper Canada, 1837 (ISBN:0969044208). -John R. Daily (03:46, 15 July 2004)

Since no one has leapt to the defense of the information, I'm pulling it. Original text:

As far back as 1804, a Scottish pollster named Robert Goulay became a political martyr when the British government expelled him from the colony, for fear that he was stirring up Republican sentiment over the issue of Crown reserves.

-John R. Daily (04:40, 19 July 2004)

Mackenzie

I'm a new user, so sorry if this comment is bad form. I didn't want to change anything in the article- but it bugs me that it says that Mackenzie was arrested due to the Neutrality Act- an act, which according to the page it links to, is not put in place until some 100 years later.

The article on Mackenzie says that he was arrested due to the Caroline incident- which is explained in another article again.

I also expected this article to say something about the fact Mackenzie eventually returned to Canada and to politics as a part of his Reform party, which eventually formed part of the Liberal party... but that's just because I like looking at the big picture and putting things into perspective.

All of this information is already on wikipedia, it's just a matter of getting it organized. --Matthew Kelly 04:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Act

As has been stated above, the Neutrality Act linked to cannot be the correct Act or Treaty in question, since it takes place 100 years later. Someone in the know, please come up with the correct information or wikilink.... Isoxyl 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Casualties

The text "and inflicted heavy casualties upon them. In less than half an hour the confrontation was over" is a bit misleading considering what we today would consider "heavy casualties". I've seen other pages on the web state that the rebels only suffered "a number of dead and wounded" and that they fled after only a few minutes of battle. The "Confrontation at Montgomery's Tavern" page shows only 3 dead and 5 wounded in the Rebels, and 1 dead and 5 wounded in the Militia. CraigWyllie 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti democratic British?

Not sure how true this is "Although the British had originally hoped that an orderly settlement in Upper Canada would inspire the former American colonies to abandon their democratic form of government, demographic realities intervened. . Can we have some references?

Does a republic exist without holding territory?

That seems to be the crux of the present back-and-forthing. Any group can claim to be the republic of what-have-you but absent territory held, it seems of little more import than any other group of cranks. While territory is held, a fair argument could be made that then that group can claim to be the republic of what-have-you but once that territory is lost/abandoned, that claim is extinguished and they return to being a group of cranks.  Natty10000 | Natter  13:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Article organization

It might be better to have three major sections Political, Military and Aftermath and sort the subsections that way. The current strictly chronological sorting is confusing and implies group influence in locations where they probably weren't active. Rmhermen (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir F

The article applies the general amount of whitewashing of Sir Francis Bond Head (history is written by the victors). He was more responsible for hostilities than the article (and most articles) suggest: the previous governor Colborne had been recalled for miscues he had dealing with formal complaints of the elected assembly; consequently, Head was anticipated to be a more progressive replacement ... he proved to be the opposite. In any case he was wholly unqualified for the job: he gained his knighthood by demonstrating his dexterity with a gaucho lasso to the king but otherwise had no qualifications as a politician, bureaucrat or military leader; no one was more surprised than he when he received the offer; he even complained about the low salary he would receive as a consequence of his minimal qualifications; it is speculated that the post was intended for another Head and that his appointment was a mistake. Never having governed and being given nothing more than a brief instruction from the colonial office and a copy of version 7 of the colonial complaints document, he assumed an essentially dictatorial role. His own writings reveal a prejudicial attitude towards lower class citizens and country folk which he was not shy on expressing. The icing on the cake was likely when he actively participated in the election and vote rigging in several pro-reform ridings and then prevented legal electoral review; one must wonder why he did any of this since he paid no attention to the wishes of the elected assembly; as the article notes, he barely listened to his family compact laden executive council (who possessed a modicum of decency) and even ignored instructions from England. Perhaps the difficulty started when an excitable short man (Mackenzie) greeted him on arrival, an equally diminutive person, with a long exposition on what needed to be done - Francis Bond Head never wanted or needed to be told what to do by anyone. Gerald RW (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald RW (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The battles of Toronto (i.e. two)

The article muddles up the battles completely: first there were two or more exactly skirmishes. By Tuesday (one day after the intended time for the rebellion), 800 men were mustered at Montgomery's tavern. Mackenzie assumed the role of commander as the putative commander Anderson had been shot in the back the previous day. They began the march down Yonge Street but were halted along the way by a party of truce from the city; they exchanged terms; when the offer of truce was later rescinded, the march continued into the dark. When they came to the toll gate, they were ambushed by Sheriff Jarvis and 27 men concealed in Wm Sharpe's vegetable patch next to the road (in contradiction of Head's orders): they fired one volley and then scattered; riflemen in the leading rank returned fire and then dropped to the ground to allow the second rank to fire (one who didn't was shot); this was the point where in the dark confusion reigned with inexperienced ranks imagining the worst initiated a disorganized retreat though Lount and some riflemen remained until they established that the opposing force had already fled the scene. After this, militia arrived from Hamilton under McNab, militia from Niagara and FitzGibbon pulled together a local militia. On the other side, ~400 reinforcements arrived while an equal number deserted. The rebels were awaiting the arrival of experienced military Colonel van Egmond on Thursday. In the meantime, Mackenzie intercepted the mail stage, allegedly to interrupt communications. By Wednesday night, both sides attended to some strategic planning (better late than never!); some ungentlemanly discord between McNab and FitzGibbon as to who should lead while Bond Head flip-flopped between one and the other: this was rather silly when FitzGibbon was a full colonel with much battle experience and McNab was merely a militia cadet during his only service; however, Sir F had a pet theory that unorganized militia was preferable to conventional military. FitzGibbon did prepare a written provisional order of march on spec; however, it is unknown whether it was implemented. What the rebels discussed was largely pointless since Anderson was dead and van Egmond had yet to appear. On Thursday, things finally got underway: the government had by then gathered ~1200 men to the rebel 900 (less than 700 armed); van Egmond put in an appearance by 8 AM (and had breakfast). 60 riflemen were dispatched to create a diversion by burning the Don River bridge; meanwhile, after more delay and obfuscation by Head, government forces began marching up Yonge complete with a brass band with detachments accompanying off to the east and west of Yonge. ~150 rebels went south and set up an ambuscade in a woods on a rise to the west of Yonge and a smaller group took up positions in partly cleared fields to the east. The rebels held off the advancing main column for about 1/2 hour until the western flanking force engaged them at which point they began to fall back. At this point the two cannon moved up and lobbed a few cannon balls at the retreating troupes and Montgomery's tavern where ~200 unarmed folks had gathered; then the rebels scattered. With the matter settled, Sir Francis rode up and, having contributed nothing thus far, decided to have the tavern burned. Subsequently he ordered a farm house, Gibson's, to be torched before promptly racing home for tea. Gerald RW (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is commonly stated (naively) that Jarvis and his men ran away which misunderstands the function of a picket as had been set out by FitzGibbon comprising Jarvis and some trained militia: their function was to deter enemy advance detachments if any, harry enemy advances and notify the main body of exact locations and nature of approaching forces; they may very well have run if only to provide intelligence as quickly as possible. While FitzGibbon was well known for reconnoitering in person, in this instance he was expressly forbidden to do so by Head but exploited a loop-hole in the instruction by deploying Jarvis. Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The main body was lead by FitzGibbon (McNab eventually backed down and Head reluctantly made the correct choice). In FitzGibbon's own words "you will please me by always having my name printed with a capital G". One of the wings was lead by Garrett. Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The delay until Thursday due to Head's dithering and indecision (which drove FitzGibbon to distraction) was somewhat beneficial as the government force was able to obtain a second cannon and were able to issue some of the arms and munitions in the government store in spite of Head's opposition. Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The stores of arms and munitions consigned to the city hall comprised some 6000 stands of muskets and munitions. This is sometimes described as militia armament but was likely regular army Fort York stock: FitzGibbon's trained militia company was limited to 70 men equal to/constrained by the number of arms provided for the local militia. FitzGibbon wanted to mount a full all day guard instead of just two night-time sentries but was denied by Head who eventually wanted militia to hand-carry the vast stock to the parliament buildings and, then sensing difficulty, to his home where his servants would protect them; neither happened. One can understand the main objective of the rebels since during the day this large supply of arms would be freely available in an unguarded public building. Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Since cannon fire was directed at Montgomery's tavern and a few hundred unarmed persons in the vicinity, while it did have an effect, it was mostly not of much tactical importance. It should be noted that the fact that the cannon were supplied with cannon balls as opposed to grape and canister shot there was no real attempt to provide a tactical function, although they shot the heck out of a stand of trees and punched out one of Montgomery's windows. In open combat, cannon balls are more of a psychological weapon, considering casualty relative to effort. Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not known whether FitzGibbon's marching orders were implemented as written (when it was not clear who would lead until very nearly the get-go). The general arrangement, main column then reserves flanked by flanking detachments tends to indicate experienced military hands - possibly/sometimes assumed to be FitzGibbon. The poor deployment of cannon is a possible indicator since FitzGibbon was unused to staging cannon and he had a penchant for minimizing bloodshed where possible and was very familiar with the effects of properly charged field pieces (e.g. 1 grape cluster + 1 canister). Gerald RW (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Caroline Affair

This affair gets short shrift, especially from the Canadian perspective. McNab had forces cross into US territory and after a skirmish in which one American was killed and several wounded, the Caroline was set on fire and sent down the river. This was a substantial violation of the Treaty of Ghent and other agreements. Americans were not amused and many called for war. President Van Buren managed to cool things off but the adventure of the Republic of Canada on Navy Island was over. Eventually, the Americans negotiated a financial settlement. McNab was punished for bringing the two countries close to war by being knighted. Gerald RW (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Canada Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802152431/http://www.ontariotimemachine.ca/books/battle_of_toronto/index.html to http://www.ontariotimemachine.ca/books/battle_of_toronto/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Patriot War"

This term doesn't appear in Kilbourn, and I've never seen it in British or Canadian sources. Is it a purely American term? If so, that fact should be noted. Humpster (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)