¹ Many of the leaders of the patriotes had connexions with the United States beyond the fact of their exile after the rebellions failed. Dr Coté received his medical degree from the University of Vermont in 1832. Robert Nelson received honorary M.A. degrees from Vermont in 1837 and Dartmouth in 1831 and held an appointment at the University of Vermont Medical College, which later granted him an honorary degree. See Link, Eugene P., ‘Vermont Physicians and the Canadian Rebellion of 1837’, Vermont History, 37 (Summer, 1969), 178–9Google Scholar. T. S. Brown grew up in Middlebury, and Dr O'Callaghan practised medicine in Albany from 1837 to 1841, thereafter devoting full time to editing documents in New York history, including eleven volumes in the series entitled Documents Relating to Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany, 1853–1861).Google Scholar

² The first major work on the causes of the 1837 rebellion, the famous Report issued by Lord Durham after his missions to the Canadas, found it, in his often-quoted phrase, ‘a struggle not of principles, but of races’, precipitated by ‘the remains of an ancient civilization’, possessing ‘no history and no literature’ (Lucas, C. P., ed., Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America [Oxford, 1912], vol. 2, pp. 16, 291 and 294)Google Scholar. Partially in an attempt to answer Durham's charges, the first nationalist interpretation, F. X. Garneau's classic History of Canada (Montreal, 1862)Google Scholar, reinforced the role of racial conflict. Other work such as DeCelles, Alfred D.Louis-Joseph Papineau (Toronto, 1910)Google Scholar has echoed Garneau. The most blatantly nationalist (and largely undocumented) treatment, labelling the English-Canadians villains who ‘considéraient le pays et les Canadiens comme un vaste champs d'exploitation et de gain matériel’, was Filteau, Gerard's Histoire Des Patriotes, 3 vols. (Montreal, 1938–1942), 1, 33Google Scholar.

In great contrast to the nationalists, the work of scholars such as Helen Taft Manning in The Revolt of French Canada 1800–1835 (New York, 1962)Google Scholar presented a much more balanced political narrative and along with Lower, A. R. M. (Canadians in the Making, Toronto, 1958)Google Scholar and others pointed out the weakness of monolithically political interpretations. Clark, S. D. in Movements of Political Protest in Canada 1640–1840 (Toronto, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar enthusiastically linked Canadian and United States experiences, especially the influence of the frontier. Mason Wade's chapters concerning the events prior to the rebellion in his comprehensive history, The French Canadians, 1760–1845 (New York, 1955)Google Scholar, still remain a sound political synthesis, while at the same time incorporating many social and economic factors. Schull, Joseph's recent popular account, Rebellion, The Rising in French Canada 1837 (Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar has not replaced the earlier work. A balanced French Canadian point of view is in the prefatory summary by Felix Leclerc in Fauteaux, A.'s Patriotes de 1837–38 (Montreal, 1950)Google Scholar. Creighton, D. G. in ‘The Struggle for Financial Control in Lower Canada, 1818–1831’, Canadian Historical Review, 12 (03, 1931)Google Scholar, ‘The Economic Background of the Rebellions of Eighteen Thirty-Seven’, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 3 (August, 1937)Google Scholar, and his classic The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence (Toronto, 1937)Google Scholar, with a jaundiced eye toward the French, developed an economic interpretation that viewed the rebellion as rhe result of increasing antagonism between ‘agrarianism and commercialism, between feudal and frontier agriculture and the commercial state’ (‘Economic Background’, p. 235Google Scholar) in a period of instability. Jones, R. L., ‘French Canadian Agriculture in the St. Lawrence Valley, 1815–1850’, Agricultural History, 16 (07, 1942)Google Scholar and Ouellet, Fernand and Hamelin, Jean, ‘La Crise Agricole dans le Bas-Canada, 1802–1837’, Canadian Historical Association Annual Report, 1962, pp. 17–23Google Scholar, discuss the agricultural problems and suggest their role in precipitating events.

Fernand Ouellet, presently the most active student of the rebellions, has viewed them as the products of complex and inter-related social and economic forces. An accepted authority on Papineau (Louis-Joseph papineau; A Divided Soul, Canadian Historical Society Booklet No. 11, Ottawa, 1964)Google Scholar, he has raised many important questions and attempted the answers to some of them in his important Histoire Economique Et Sociale du Québec 1760–1850 (Montreal, 1966)Google Scholar. Parker, W. H., ‘A New Look at Unrest in Lower Canada in the 1830s’, Canadian Historical Review, 40 (09, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, complementing Ouellet's work, pointed out the explosive potential of the pent-up energy in French Canadian society, led by an over-supply of priests, notaries, lawyers and physicians, frustrated in their ambitions and thwarted in commercial pursuits.

³ Vermont Watchman (Woodstock), 29 January 1838.Google Scholar

⁴ Vermont Patriot, 27 December 1837.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘A Look at Gosford and the Tories’, Vermont Mercury, 8 December 1837.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., 29 December 1837.

⁷ Marryat, Captain Frederick, Diary in America, ed. Zanger, Jules (Bloomington, Indiana, 1960), p. 168Google Scholar. Marryat, the popular English novelist, referred specifically to the editor of the St Albans Messenger.

⁸ Bell, Andrew, Men and Things in America (2nd ed., Southampton, 1862), pp. 114–5Google Scholar. Bell travelled in the United States and Canada in 1838.

⁹ While the fight at St Denis raged, patriotes had mutilated the body of Lieutenant George ‘Jock’ Weir, who had been taken prisoner the previous night. This unhappy incident and the years of antipathy as exemplified by the frequent riots between patriotes and loyalists in the streets of Montreal before the rebellion lent a particularly nasty overtone to the affair.

¹⁰ Public Archives of Canada (hereafter PAC), S, vol. 391, p. 58. From Wells, H., Postmaster of Henryville, Lower Canada; 6 December 1837.Google Scholar

¹¹ Communications between imperial forces in Canada and Federal troops in Vermont and New York seem to have been cordial and close. General Wool, commander of a small United States Army force, wrote to Lord Colborne on 3 March 1838: ‘I have the honor to inform you that Doctors Nelson and Coté… surrendered themselves to me with all their forces, cannon, small arms, and ammunition’. PAC, Co. 42, vol. 280, enclosure #5 (microfilm). In writing to the Colonial Secretary, Lord Glenelg, Colborne refers to intelligence gained from General Wool's aide-de-camp, Captain Smith, and a Mr. Cody, brother of a United States Marshal.

¹² One of the most interesting and detailed accounts of the activities of the Lower Canadian rebels in the United States is a voluntary deposition given by a state prisoner at the Montreal prison in November 1838, an extract of which is published in translation in Report of the State Trials Before a General Court Martial Held at Montreal in 1838–9 Exhibiting A Complete History of the Late Rebellion in Lower Canada (Montreal, 1839), vol. 2, appendix 13, pp. 548–61Google Scholar. Though the deposition is anonymous and the circumstances surrounding its recording not clear, most major details are corroborated by other documents, thus backing its credibility.

¹³ Ibid., p. 548.

¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 548–9.

¹⁵ PAC, S., vol. 391, p. 5; and Burlington Free Press, 8 December 1837 and 5 January 1838.Google Scholar

¹⁶ PAC, S., vol. 395, pp. 104–5, Memorial of Elkins, Harvey E., 29 March 1838Google Scholar; and PAC, RG4, B37, vol. 1, pp. 21–4, Deposition of Humphrey Faller, who noted that ‘Liquor was offered to all who would take it’.

¹⁷ State Trials, vol. 2, p. 549.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 549 and 557; and Catlin MSS, Wilbur Collection, Bailey Library, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, Robert Nelson to Alec Catlin, St Albans, 11 October 1838 and Charles Bryant to Alec Catlin, 13 January 1839.

¹⁹ State Trials, vol. 2, p. 549.Google Scholar

²⁰ Burlington Free Press, 5 January 1838.Google Scholar

²¹ Burlington Free Press, 26 January 1838Google Scholar; and Hemenway, Abby M., ed., Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Claremont, N.H. 1877), v, 374.Google Scholar

²² James Marsh MSS, Wilbur Collection, Bailey Library, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont (photocopy).

²³ Marryat, , Diary in America, p. 167.Google Scholar

²⁴ James Marsh MSS (hereafter JMC), Wilbur Collection, Bailey Library, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont (photocopy).

²⁵ Vermont Mercury, 29 December 1837.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘Young Men's Meeting in Middlebury’ Vermont North Star, 6 January 1838.Google Scholar

²⁷ JMC, James Marsh to David Read, 11 January 1838.

²⁸ North Star [Danville], 6 January 1838.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid., 20 January 1838.

³⁰ Burlington Free Press, 5 January 1838.Google Scholar

³¹ Vermont Mercury, 22 December 1838Google Scholar. The closest thing to a transatlantic menace was reported in the Burlington Free Press, 2 February 1838Google Scholar: ‘Three armed tories came across the line at Highgate last Thursday; what their object was we do not learn’.

³² PAC, S., vol. 391, p. 252, Memorial from E. T. Stoddart, Preventive Officer, Stanstead, Lower Canada, in which he claims his low pay does not compensate for the risks the job has come to involve.

³³ Ibid., vol. 392–1, p. 18, James Pritchard to Lord Gosford, East Sherington, Lower Canada, 3 November 1837.

³⁴ 2 November 1837.

³⁵ 28 November 1837.

³⁶ 12 January 1838.

³⁷ PAC, CO 42, vol. 274, p. 136 (microfilm) and Quebec Mercury, 21 December 1838. Historians have also generally accepted the view that American support for the patriotes comes from the lower classes. The leading student of the issue, Corey, A. B., Crisis of 1830–1842Google Scholar maintains that the noise was made by Americans in general and Vermonters in particular ‘the greater part of whom belonged to the inarticulate masses’, and suggests therefore ‘the meetings fell into the hands of the more conservative elements of society’, which ‘gave the meetings, as a rule, an atmosphere of respectability’ (pp. 29 and 33). Corey does not explain why the ‘inarticulate, if noisy, masses’, as he calls them a second time, elected conservatives as their leaders, or, more to the point, why the same conservatives took the initiative in calling and organizing the public meetings in the first place. Corey might be correct in asserting that the leaders ‘discouraged’ any ‘overt actions’, but this does not necessarily mean, as he suggests, that the leaders were more conservative than their fellow townsmen, who, inarticulate and blind, dumbly turned leadership over to their betters.

³⁸ North Star, January, 1838Google Scholar; and Walton, E. P. (ed.), Walton's Vermont Register and Almanac, 1837 (Montpelier, 1837), p. 125.Google Scholar

³⁹ Vermont Mercury, 29 December 1837Google Scholar; and Walton's Register, 1837, pp. 91, 92, 124 and 125.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Vermont Mercury, 29 December 1837Google Scholar. A similar pattern existed for meetings at Danville (25 January 1838), Ludlow, (10 January 1838)Google Scholar, and Royalton, (10 January 1838)Google Scholar, where justices of peace, a town clerk, church deacons, selectmen, postmasters, doctors, lawyers and others made up the leadership. See Walton's Register, 1837, pp. 78, 79, 88, 94, 114 and 115Google Scholar; North Star, February 1838Google Scholar; and Vermont Mercury, 26 January 1838Google Scholar. The socio-economic composition of the leadership presents a number of interesting features that deserve more intensive research. There is a close occupational similarity between the leaders of the public meetings in Vermont and the patriote leadership, which was dominated by doctors, lawyers, notaries (comparable to a justice of peace in Vermont) and politicians. In many cases those most active in the Vermont meetings, if not local notables themselves, were related to the most prominent figures in the town. The number of federal employees involved is striking.

⁴¹ Catlin MSS, Butler, O. W. to Catlin, Alexander, 11 March 1839.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., DrNelson, Robert to Catlin, Alexander, Albans, St, 11 October 1838Google Scholar; Demaray, to Catlin, Alexander, Albans, St, 29 June 1838Google Scholar; and Bryant, Charles G. to Catlin, Alexander, Albans, St, 13 January 1839Google Scholar and Burlington, , 6 May 1838.Google Scholar

⁴³ Burlington Free Press, 2 March 1838Google Scholar. Ignoring, as did most other British officials, that there had been little contact, spiritual or otherwise, between France and her former colony on the St Lawrence since the French Revolution, Lord Gosford thought that French officers had been imported to aid the rebels. See PAC, CO. 42, vol. 274. Gosford to Glenelg, 6 November, 1837 (microfilm).

⁴⁴ State Trials, 11, p. 549.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 549–50.

⁴⁶ Burlington Free Press, 15 December 1837.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Vermont Watchman, 12 February 1838.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 15 December 1837.

⁴⁹ Marryat, , Diary in America, p. 167.Google Scholar