The Influence of American Civil War on the Founding of Canada

1867 when the dominion of Canada was established, the federal fathers headed by MacDonald tried to build the dominion of Canada into a centralized federal country in view of the lessons of the American Civil War and the supremacy of state power, so the British North America Act (BNAA) showed a trend of strengthening the central power everywhere. However, the defects of the bill itself, the federal western development policy and the internal and external situation faced by Canada at the end of 19 made the Dominion gradually deviate from the original track and tilt towards decentralization, thus preparing a suitable hotbed for the breeding of regionalism in the west.

First of all, the Canadian Constitution of 1867 has many defects and loopholes in favor of decentralization. Political scientist White believes that all conflicts between the central and local governments in Canada can be found in the Constitution [2]. First, the federal constitution claims to establish a "constitution consistent with the British constitution in principle" in order to avoid the lesson that American state power is supreme. However, it takes the form of federalism, and the language of the provisions on the separation of powers between the central and local governments is vague, and the two powers owned by local governments are not clear, so that these two paragraphs can be extended at will according to the needs of the later interpreters. Because in a country, few affairs have nothing to do with "property and citizenship" and "local affairs". These two clauses, like the "reserved power" that the federal government takes arbitrary actions for "peace, order and good governance", become the de facto "local reserved power". In this way, from federal decentralization to parallel reservation, "the inevitable result is the voice of provincial sovereignty and provincial authoritarianism" [3]. Secondly, this bill does not stipulate the amendment procedure, which leads to the endless debate between the province and the central government on the issue of constitutional amendment, laying the groundwork for future disputes between the province and the federal government. Third, the Canadian Constitution stipulates that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom is its highest interpretation and appeal body. When it comes to federal and provincial disputes, the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Region has no final ruling power. However, the judges of the Judicial Committee took a position of supporting the provincial power doctrine. "There is no doubt that during most of its existence in Canada, the Judicial Committee was inclined to support the provincial government when fulfilling its obligation to interpret the Constitution" [4]. Among them, two judges, Watkin and Haldane, suppressed the Federation and connived at the provincial power during their tenure. Therefore, some people think that "in the United States, a loose Federation was United by Marshall's judgment; However, in Canada, a close alliance was broken up by Watkin and Haldane "[5].

Secondly, the defects of the "national policy" promoted by MacDonald's Conservative government are the direct reasons for the rise of western localism. Ethnic policy is the general name of a series of policies pursued by MacDonald's Conservative government in order to realize the dream of an independent country. Including protecting tariffs, building the Pacific Railway, and developing the western region by immigrants. Its purpose is to establish a maritime independent country across the North American continent, which means not only political independence, but also economic independence: to develop trade between the eastern, central and western regions and between provinces and establish a unified domestic market; Establish its own independent economic system, promote the industrialization of the central region through tariff protection, and promote the national development through the development of the western region.

However, while the national policy promotes the development of the western region, it seriously ignores the regional interests of the western region, which makes the region pay a price disproportionate to its interests in national construction and causes people's dissatisfaction. First, in this new economic system with ethnic policy as the guiding ideology, the western region has been pushed to a special marginal position. Politically, compared with other provinces, the west is in a second-rate subordinate and semi-colonial position. In order to build the Pacific Railway and attract immigrants to settle down, the Federation stipulated that 1870 the land and other natural resources in Manitoba province, which joined the Federation, should be owned by the Federation. At the same time, the northwest region that has not yet been built is completely under the leadership of the Federation. The provinces of the Federation are artificially divided into two classes, and the grassland area is in a similar "semi-colonial" position in the Federation. Economically, the national policy has made the west lose the initiative of development and become the agricultural edge of the eastern industrial center. Sir Thabo, MacDonald's railway minister, once said a sad sentence that impressed the west: "Is it necessary to sacrifice local interests for the sake of national interests?" I said, if necessary, yes! [6] It is this belief that local interests can be sacrificed for national interests that makes the western region "the blueprint for development is completely formulated by Taihua" [7]. The funds and technology needed for the development of this region are provided by the central region centered on Montreal and Toronto. The west has become the agricultural edge of the eastern industrial center. Second, the Canadian Pacific Railway, as an executive tool of western countries' policies, has also infringed on the actual interests of the region. The Pacific Railway has made outstanding contributions to national construction and the development of the western region, but its series of policies that ignore the local interests in the western region make this region regarded as a tool for exploitation and rule in the eastern region. What makes the west most dissatisfied is the so-called "reasonable discrimination" freight rate policy implemented by the railway. The railway believes: "If you are forced to operate a loss-making or highly competitive section, you must make up for the deficit by charging high prices to non-competitive sections." [8] According to this principle, the freight it charges to the west is more than twice as much as that to the east at the same distance, which makes the freight alone account for 1/3 of the farmers' wheat price. This is another important factor that leads to western dissatisfaction. The west believes that the monopoly of railways not only caused the above-mentioned tariff discrimination, but also prevented the west from developing trade with the United States, and also hindered the opening and industrialization of the western land. Therefore, opposing railway monopoly is a common voice in the west. Third, although theoretically protecting tariffs can enhance the strength of the whole country, and the temporary sacrifice of the periphery can be compensated from the long-term gains, the tariff law of 1879 has obvious tendency, which is intended to promote the industrialization of the central region and develop east-west trade. The tax rate on manufactured goods and farm tools necessary in the western region has been raised to 25%-35%, while the raw materials needed for industrial development in the central region are only 5%, and some of them are even completely tax-free. In this way, the development of the western region is in a subordinate position compared with the industrialization of the central region. Farmers have to sell their products at low prices, accept high-quality and cheap industrial products in the east, and cannot get close to the American market. According to modern scholars' research, every farmer in the west has to pay more tariffs every year when purchasing goods 100- 130 yuan [9].

In addition, the rise of authoritarianism in Canadian provinces at the end of 19 also provided an excuse for the western region to demand more power. After the foundation of the Federation, Joseph Howe of Nova Scotia set off a movement to quit the Federation, and finally got 1, 186, 800 yuan's debt allowance and 82,500 annual financial aid from the Federation. This set a bad precedent for the province to reach out to the Federation for local interests and strive for "better treatment". Since then, provinces have followed suit and demanded money and power from the central authorities under various pretexts. Soon after, Ontario and Quebec, as the pillars of the Federation, also challenged the authority of the federal central government. Movat, the Prime Minister of Ontario, put forward the "federal contract theory" and advocated provincial power, becoming the "father of provincial power doctrine" in Canadian history. 1887, at the initiative of Quebec, the first inter-provincial conference was held in Quebec city, and all provinces jointly challenged the Federation, demanding that "measures should be taken as soon as possible to enable the imperial parliament to pass the bill amending the British North America Act" [10]. The development of eastern localism undoubtedly encourages and connives at western localism.

In a word, the loopholes and defects of the federal constitution provide some possibilities for the birth of Canadian localism. The federal policy of developing the west is the direct cause of the rise of localism in the west, and the provincial power movement in the east undoubtedly played a role in fanning the flames of localism in the west. These, together with the general economic crisis at the end of 19, prepared a hotbed for the outbreak of various discontent in the west.