“An odd ‘freedom struggle’ that sends 60,000 people fleeing to Canada for their lives.”


Yes, Canada has their own view of our American Revolution.  Tristin Hopper of the National Post has a few issues with it.

  1. The colonists were fighting “one of the world’s most democratic nations.” (“Democratic” is a bit strong here. How about “liberty-loving” instead?)
  2.  The war, however, did involve an “autocratic tyrant: Louis XVI, King of France.
  3.  American colonists sparked the French and Indian War and then refused to pay for it.
  4. Canada tried to recognize native American land and “respect” Catholics, but these efforts were deemed “intolerable.”
  5. The American revolutionaries had a “pretty serious terrorism problem.”
  6. America’s “struggle for liberty” resulted in between 60,000 and 80,000 refugees to Canada.

See how Hopper unpacks these points here.


5 thoughts on ““An odd ‘freedom struggle’ that sends 60,000 people fleeing to Canada for their lives.”

  1. I, too, would recommend Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock. I read an ARC of it last academic year and found it useful for supplementing my US History class.


  2. Unfortunately many in the US have a perverse view of their own history, thanks to an educational system which generally prefers to indoctrinate students as opposed to educating them. When politicians, political priorities, or subjective beliefs govern what education looks like, indoctrination replaces fundamental and empirically proven educational principles. The consequence is an ignorant populace who is easily manipulated and dominated. The tensions we see in the US, and in many jurisdictions around our world prove that the controllers have been successful generally; so far. But as we are also seeing, sooner or later the physical and financial slaves, when they have had enough, ultimately decide that emancipation is preferable to slavery. And that tipping point is achieved sooner or later; history shows that people will not be denied, sooner or later.


  3. Wow. Seems like one of the local public libraries already has acquired “Scars of Independence.” I have put a hold on the book and hope to be able to read it soon. Thanks for the tips.


  4. Ross: The article mentions Hoock’s book. That might be a place to start. I am currently reading Mark Lender’s history of the Battle of Monmouth Court House (1778). He is very sensitive to the local violence as well. I am working on a history of the American Revolution in New Jersey and finding a lot of local violence.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It was a very good article. I posted it on my Facebook page and got an awful lot of pushback regarding the following paragraph. Is it really true? Wasn’t there a lot more political violence involved in securing independence from Britain than the author of the article is acknowledging? Does anyone know of any good books, articles, or other sources of information that might better enable these claims to be checked out?

    “Britain, only the U.S. and Ireland chose to do it violently

    “Roughly 60 independent countries around the world were once counted as British colonies or mandates. Of those, only the United States and the Republic of Ireland gained their independence as a direct result of political violence. Compare that to Spain, which violently resisted the departure of almost every one of its overseas colonies. Great Britain wasn’t afraid to get its hands dirty in colonial affairs, but London could be convinced to tolerate a colony’s peaceful transition to independence — particularly when said colony was filled with white English-speakers. Which is to say that if Americans truly wanted freedom, there were lots more options on the table than simply taking a shot at the first redcoat.”


Comments are closed.