Op-Ed Articles

Plains of Abraham Re-enactment Cancelled

France was given the choice of keeping either New France or its Caribbean island colony Guadeloupe, and chose the latter to retain one of its sources of sugar" after the Seven Years War in 1763.  Guadeloupe was an island involved with the Rum trade which at the time, was equivalent to a country like Kuwait having oil today.  Guadeloupe is comprised of 300 sq miles. The French could not decide if they wanted New France back or Guadeloupe. The British military then spent 6 months working on the problem, and opted to give Guadeloupe back to France and to keep Quebec and the east coast of what became Canada.  I would say that France abandoned their New France colony, plain and simply.  The facts speak for themselves.. Remember that the British took Acadia (East coast of Canada) away from France in the early 1700's (Queen Anne's War) but the French kept what became Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island. In 1745 the French completed a huge fortress called Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island and it was captured by the British in 1745 during the War of Austrian Succession and returned to the French in 1748 at the end of that war. Again during the Seven Years War in 1758, the British captured Louisbourg and in 1760 to avoid it being given back to the French again, the victors blew up the fort.  During the early and mid 18th century, Canada was no great jewel and France really never did commit to allowing it's colony to flourish.  The British wanted it more and were willing to make more out of it like they did with their 13 colonies to the south.

Mickey Moulder

 As we all know, on September 13, 1759, the army of General James Wolfe defeated, in battle, that of the Marquis de Montcalm, on the Plains of Abraham.

New France had been under attack by overwhelming British forces for several years by that point. Given that France's government had chosen not to make retention of New France a priority, whereas the British government had made eliminating New France a very high priority, a French victory on September 13, 1759 probably wouldn't have made much difference to the eventual outcome of the war. The British had suffered several bad defeats earlier in the war, but had continued with an ever-greater effort to work towards the capture of Canada. New France suffered a catastrophic defeat on the Plains of Abraham, but if not there on that day, it would have still happened some other day, somewhere else along the front lines. Wolfe's army was not even the largest force deployed in the campaign of 1759 by the British.

The treaty that ended the Seven Year's War was not one imposed by victors who had totally crushed the losers. Although the British had clearly come out on top in the war zones outside of Europe, various territories were traded back to France. France chose to make no effort to get Canada back. France had other priorities.

Now, 250 years later, a re-enactment of the events of September 13, 1759, was scheduled to be held on the Plains of Abraham.

Re-enactments are not everyone's cup of tea. Looking at North America, only a small portion of the population bothers to attend re-enactments. However, they are popular enough to justify staging them.

A group in Quebec, however, was not happy about a re-enactment of September 13, 1759. Although, from their comments, it seems doubtful that any of these separatists really know much about what a re-enactment actually entails, they are still angry. They feel they are being picked on. That they are having sand kicked in their face. They are being reminded that they were beaten, that their culture was inferior, because they lost a war. They were conquered. It is not a pleasant memory for them.

In fact, it is a memory that they are dedicated to erasing. Or at least, "setting right". They want to set up New France again. They want to reverse the events that happened as a result of September 13, 1759. Because this is their goal, they see the Canadian government's backing of the re-enactment as "propaganda" – a not so subtle message from the Feds that Quebeckers (or, to be specific, "true" French Quebeckers) are inferior. The Feds are apparently trying to tell them that they were conquered, that they can't make a go of it, because they were beaten in 1759.

All the generations of Quebeckers after 1759 who participated in the building of the Canada of 2009 were, apparently, just a bunch of suckers, saps, and sell-outs. All that matters is setting right the great wrong that history dished out to them on September 13, 1759. Watching a re-enactment of that humiliation is the very last thing they want to do.

In a free society, when you don't want to participate in an activity, you don't. It's really a very simple choice. Do you like going to baseball games? Then get yourself some tickets! Don't like going to baseball games? So, don't. Do you think fighting cancer is important? Then donate to the Cancer Society. Do you think heart problems are more important? Well, donate to the Heart and Stroke Society instead.

Most people in North America had no intention of going to Quebec to watch a re-enactment of the battle of September 13, 1759. Most people couldn't care a less what happened that day. Other people think re-enactments are stupid and pointless. Others might have had matters they considered more important to attend to. There are all sorts of reasons why lots and lots of people were not going to attend. 

However, some people like re-enactments. Some people wanted to attend.

Unlike other re-enactments world-wide, however, the Plains of Abraham event has had to be canceled.

The real issue here is not just that some people disliked the idea of this re-enactment. After all, nobody was forcing them to go and watch it, just like people are not forced to go and watch any of the hundreds of other re-enactments of events from a wide range of time eras that are held across the world in any given year.

The real issue is, that this particular re-enactment had to be canceled because a relatively small group of persons issued threats to disrupt it. Threats of protest and even threats of violence. Would they have carried through on those threats? I guess we'll never know.

In a free and democratic society, one would think it would be totally unacceptable for any group to issue threats of violence. One would think that no democratic government would cave to threats of this nature.

Welcome to Canada, 2009.

These people are pathetic, whining, self-centered, myopic, lawbreakers. Their dream of somehow turning the clock back 250 years is in fact far more hopeless than the situation in 1759 facing the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of New France.

It seems they don't know this, however. And they're entitled to their opinions, however idiotic the rest of us might find them. So, let them wallow in their angst, says I.

When they break the law, though, they need to be punished - like any other member of our society who chooses to become a *criminal*. Until they actually cross that line, they're just shooting their mouths off - like usual.

What is truly inexcusable in a democracy, is that a small minority of people who publicly state they will break the law if they don't get their way are able to deep-six a perfectly legal project that another group of citizens - and probably a far larger group - supports.

It seems to me that the "authorities" who have chosen to cave to these threats are the "suckers, saps, and sell-outs" in this situation.

Jim Yaworsky

Top of page