Talk:George Brown (Canadian politician)

Request
Can somebody validate this information and include it somewhere in this page? I feel that if I do it, I will be persecuted by Angelique.lol

On October 27, 1864, after the signing of the confederative pact, George Brown, founder of the Toronto Globe and one of the Fathers of the Confederation, wrote a note to his wife while packing his things before leaving for Toronto: "All right... Constitution adopted - a most creditable document - a complete reform of all the excesses and injustice we have complained of: Is it not wonderful? French Canadianism entirely extinguished." -- Mathieugp 19:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * PAC, George Brown Papers, George Brown to Anne Brown, 27 October, 1864. Cited in:
 * The Transatlantic Persuasion, p. 381
 * The Lawmakers, p. 321
 * Dixie & the Dominion, p. 124-125
 * Constitutional Odyssey, p. 33
 * Federalism in Canada and Australia, p. 145
 * The Road to Confederation, p. 182
 * etc.
 * It would seem this quote is found to be interesting not only to francophone Quebecers... -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem this quote is found to be interesting not only to francophone Quebecers... -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * : It is one of those quotes when, taken out of context, can be used to mean more than it seems. It is referred to also in Richard Gwyn's recent biography of John A. Macdonald (p. 319).  Gwyn explains it as "(He meant by this that French Quebecers would no longer be able to intervene in the politics of English Ontarians.)"  Gwyn doesn't deny that Brown was generally "anti-French-Canadian"  and gives numerous examples of Brown's anti-French-Canadian stances.  As the population of Canada West grew and surpassed the population of Canada East, Brown (and other Reformers) felt that the then current constitutional structure giving equal representation to each section of the province was 'unfair' (although there hadn't been complaints when it had worked to advantage Canada West before) as the French speaking representatives from Canada East often held a balance of power and could influence political decisions.  This sense of being "controlled" by the French-Canadian element in the legislature really rankled Brown, whereas Macdonald seems to have simply accepted it as a fact of political life in Canada, and relied heavily on support from Canada East in order to govern.  An earlier editorial in the Globe (Brown's newspaper) had called for the division of the colony into its two parts, to benefit "Ontario" obviously, by detaching it from  Canadien control, but also to satisfy "Quebec" as it would then have "a position of comparative independence".  So it may be that Gwyn is correct in thinking that Brown's quote had more to do with getting Ontario free of Quebec influence rather than thinking that it meant that he actually thought that Confederation had "extinguished" French Canadians. Including the quote in the article without a heap of context might do the article a disservice.  On the other hand, there should be some mention of George Brown's positions regarding the influence of French Canadians on the affairs of Canada West, as they were pertinent and are verifiable.  The article as written is a bit too sweet on Brown, who was an important but complex figure who held some opinions (anti-Catholic; anti-French-influence) that should be discussed.  The article also doesn't mention his wife, Anne, who has been called the "mother of Confederation".    Gwyn notes her influence in toning down Brown's more extreme views after they met in 1862(p. 272)  which allowed him to join the Macdonald-Cartier coalition, bringing his Reformer and Grit supporters into the mix.  If they hadn't met and she hadn't persuaded him to stop ranting about 'French domination', Confederation might never have been possible. Corlyon (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did also read the passage where Gwyn claims that Brown meant that "French Quebecers would no longer be able to intervene in the politics of English Ontarians". However, I do not know on what this assertion is founded. Maybe something else in his correspondence, but I cannot say. I am willing to let myself be convinced upon reading whatever evidence might be the cause of this conclusion. I must however admit that it seems unlikely to me... Why would he mean only Ontario? The Province of Canada was then ruled based on the principle of the double majority which precisely prevented Quebecers from interfering in Ontarian affairs and vice versa. The new constitution was concerned with the whole of British North America, not just the former Canadas. It is true on the other hand that parties where intermingling and winning elections involved considering the public opinion of both provinces. This is where the annoying influence of the Catholic clergy might have come in. ;-) --Mathieugp (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Gwyn's assertion is given without a lot of back up. I suspect that if one read Brown's correspondence in its entirety, or combed through the newspapers of the era, a more precise meaning of the term 'French-Canadianism' might be discernible which would be helpfu.  If he meant what Gwyn believes he meant, then it would be an unhappy injustice to him to use the quote to support an idea that he really didn't intend.  (Not that he wasn't obviously anti-French-Canadian, which makes the whole thing the more confusing).  As far as the double majority goes, wasn't part of the problem precisely that to get anything through one needed the 'double majority' of a majority of the members of the section affected AND a majority of the members overall?  Perhaps I'm mistaken as my understanding of 'Canadian' politics of the era isn't profound.  I did find this quote from a book by Jeremy Webber "Reimagining Canada":  "Laws were often limited to one of the former colonies, and when enacted, were frequently submitted to a double majority (a majority of members of the legislature and of all members from constitutencies in the unit affected)" p. 203   And I found this on the Encyclopédie canadienne:  "Au Parlement, les Canadiens français votent en faveur de projets de lois élargissant les droits des écoles catholiques subventionnées par l'État dans le Canada-Ouest."  which would have been something that would have made Protestant Brown very, very mad.  : ).  But as I am no expert on Brown or on politics of this era, I will look to see if I can find something more definitive.  I do think the article may be a bit of puff piece as written and a more critical examination of this gentleman is needed. Corlyon (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Height
This link says he was only 6'4", so I have removed the height edit saying he was 6'7" until this can be reconciled or resolved. Fawcett5 23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Could Brown have stayed in government?
Was it at all possibe for Brown to some way stay in government???

-G
 * If Confederation hadn't happened, then the trend of Canada West electing more reformers might have occurred. In that case, there might have been a situation in which they could form a coalition with the Rouges. But as it was, he and Dorian didn't command enough of a majority to maintain a government. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved Comment from Aritcle
Moved this comment by 24.235.58.152 from article to here:

"George Brown did indeed die on may 10 1880 and NOT on may 9." KenWalker | Talk 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Brown in favour of an elected or appointed Senate ?
The Paragraph on the Quebec Conference doesn't make sense. The first sentence says "Brown argued strongly in favour of an elected Senate.", but later it says "He believed that Canada's system of government should adhere to the British 'mixed government' model where the appointed Senate could be a check on the democratically elected House of Commons." It looks to me like the first sentence is just wrong, but I'm no historian... 216.23.136.226 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Brown was against electing the Senate (see: Careless)-- he basically thought that Upper Houses are elitist by nature and ought to be dignified, not effective. Stevecudmore 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody validate this information and include it somewhere in this page? I feel that if I do it, I will be persecuted by Angelique.

On October 27, 1864, after the signing of the confederative pact, George Brown, founder of the Toronto Globe and one of the Fathers of the Confederation, wrote a note to his wife while packing his things before leaving for Toronto: "All right... Constitution adopted - a most creditable document - a complete reform of all the excesses and injustice we have complained of: Is it not wonderful? French Canadianism entirely extinguished." -- Mathieugp 19:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Height
This link says he was only 6'4", so I have removed the height edit saying he was 6'7" until this can be reconciled or resolved. Fawcett5 23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Could Brown have stayed in government?
Was it at all possibe for Brown to some way stay in government???

-G

Death
Why dont they mention that he was shot by a disgruntled worker and killed?

New Brunswick Connection
I have an article suggesting that George Brown was originially born in New Brunswick (Back Bay/Mascarene, NB). His father was John Brown, who was born in Conn. The family was of scottish roots. How much truth is there in this article? I will post a link to the actual article shortly. Jhazon (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's George Wilson?
Did I miss something? In the section about the grave of George Brown's wife, it says her grave also commemorates George Wilson. WTF? Peter Jedicke (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What impacts did he have on canada?
I really do not know I'm doing research Popo1w3 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)