How Did Cartier Contribute To Society

Within the realm of history, a source of evidence is essential in order to differentiate the fact from fiction. This is why a primary source is so vital! Because, a primary source provides the reader with direct evidence of an event or a speech; giving them a better understanding of the material. The only problem is: these sources do not provide the full facts, leaving the readers with a plethora of questions. Don’t get me wrong though, the readers should be asking a lot of questions! Because, with all of those questions, the reader can be engaged with the content in order to find some concrete evidence.

Confederation itself was an incredible display of Canadian compromise and tolerance. George Brown (1867) congratulated Canada on confederation, impressed with the Canadian's ability to compromise between two separate peoples, the French and English, who have vastly different religions, cultures, laws, and languages, something European countries like Holland and Belgium, Austria and Hungary, and Russia and Poland have been historically unable to accomplish successfully. The Constitution specifically protects important French aspects including freedom of religion, language guarantees in Quebec, and French civil law.

So that leaves question as to how it was that Robespierre transformed from a man who believed in a government for the people to nearly becoming a tyrant himself. To understand this, one must understand the circumstances which arose in France during the late eighteenth century that forced him to take action. The driving problem throughout, however; was essentially the monarchy. The regime of Louis XVI could hardly be considered that of a tyrant, but nevertheless his inability to properly govern his country led to frustration and anger among the people of France. Robespierre shared this sentiment in his speech, stating that “a nation is truly corrupted when, having by degrees lost its character and its liberty, it passes from democracy to aristocracy or to monarchy; that is the decrepitude and death of the body politic....” This also hints at Robespierre’s earlier ideologies concerned with Rousseau as he does make reference to the need for a nation to have a democratic system. Louis XVI was a failing king, and even long before the National Convention had come into power much of France vowed to see the monarchy abolished. By 1791 it had become increasingly clear that Louis was no longer fit to govern – a moment marked by his attempted flight to Varennes. This cost the king his credibility and he effectively ‘died’

On the contrary, Cartier was determined and believe in himself that he could make it through this journey without dieing and hoping to find a new path too gold and spices. Although in the end Cartier did not find a new path too gold and spices, he sailed many new parts of north america like Gaspè in which he met an Iroquois chief and made many valuable trades with this chief. Cartier also raised a 9 foot cross in the honor of his king while he was in Gaspè. These two pieces of evidence prove that Cartier was a determined explorer. In the end of his magnificent years of sailing Cartier was a very determined explorer who knew he could get anything done.

People know Robespierre’s role in the French Revolution, but do they know about his personal life? Maximilien Robespierre was born in 1758 in the old province of Artois, France. He was born into a family of lawyers (Reil and Wilson). His father worked for the Council of Artois (Reil and Wilson), so Robespierre was familiar with politics and government at a young age. Robespierre also had a brother, Augustin, and two sister. At an early age he distinguished himself as a student showing great potential. While in school he studied the writings of the Enlightenment which would greatly influence him for years to come. In 1781 (Reil and Wilson), he attained a degree in law and soon after he represented the Third Estate which was the French bourgeoisie and the working class of France before the French Revolution had occurred. He was now on his way to being head of France but he still had some obstacles set before him.

Canada was rushed into Confederation way too soon and has had problems due to this. Although through these past hundred fifty years, Canada has survived and is still going strong. Confederation started on July 1st, 1867 when three British Colonies came together to become four provinces. Although Canada went through Confederation, it is not a confederate association; it is a federal state which is not the supposed meaning of Confederation. Canada has evolved majorly since Confederation back in 1867.

This essay will explain why Samuel de Champlain was a better leader than Jacques Cartier. “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other,” said U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain were two French explorers who were the best of the best at what they did. Both men tried to tame the wild snowy beast that we now know as Canada. Both men were greatly respected explorers and leaders: one came to Canada tasked with finding routes through Canada to Asia, and the other man came to establish the fur trade. The debate about who was the better leader is still going on until today, but this essay will try and show that the best leader was Samuel de Champlain.

As one can see, his ideas of religious freedom and the government is what brought about the French Revolution, which has affected France up to this very day because they no longer have a royal absolutist government like they once had.

The research in this proposal primarily focuses on the rebellions that took place in both upper and Lower Canada during 1838. The time line of this proposal will include events prior to the actual rebellions as they are significant to the understanding of the causes of these uprisings. In 1837 and 1838, insurrections against the British colonial government arose in Lower and Upper Canada. Moderates hoped to reform the political system, while radicals yearned for a restructuring of both administration and society (Read , 19-21). During this time period an economic crisis had swept both Upper and Lower Canada. In Lower Canada many French habitants were suffering from famine and the accumulation of huge debts due to poor harvests. In Upper

In the early 1870s American traders came from America into the Northwest of Canada and they were causing troubles for the Canadian government. While most Canadian traders were under the control of

Although Riel never took his seat in Parliament, he encompassed the characteristics of a leader. A man named Thomas Scott was the reason why there was controversy about Riel taking his seat. On March 4th 1870, Thomas Scott, an anti-Catholic man from Northern Ireland was executed for being guilty of defying the authority of the Provisional Government and fighting with guards. This was partly because Louis Riel didn’t defend Scott. This controversy sparked a feud between the English and French citizens of central Canada. Riel justified his decision not to defend Scott by saying, “We must make Canada respect us.” He wanted to prove his power and capability to control the situation. In March of 1872, it was strongly advised by Prime Minister John A Macdonald that Louis Riel go into voluntary exile in Minnesota. This was to relieve the tension between Quebec and Ontario, where Riel was both seen as a hero and condemned as a murderer. Despite being a fugitive, in October 1873, Riel was elected to Parliament in a by-election, although never took his seat because of his fear of being arrested for murder. In February of 1874, after John A Macdonald’s government resigned, Louis Riel was re-elected, but soon to be expelled from Parliament before taking his seat. Again in September 1874, for a third time, Riel was re-elected, but delays taking his seat and yet again expelled

The published letter of the king’s reasoning for departure also served the public with rage, and, “equally significant for the future of the Revolution was the dramatic change in attitude toward the king…everything was transformed by the king’s flight.” (Tackett, 101) People in the streets of Paris were throwing out their portraits of the royal family and were seeing the king, the one they praised a week ago, as a deserter and conspirator to their newly-formed and praised government. The use of rumor and newspapers by members of The Cordelier Club also helped spread certain radical ideals in which prompted the idea of turning France into a republic, and of dissembling the monarchy and the king altogether. It was this power in the streets of Paris that would soon grow with every day after the king fled, as, “Outside the Legislative Assembly, however, the more radical revolutionaries had managed to hold the loyalty of most of the provincial club network, giving them a powerful propaganda tool.” (Popkin, 58) The National Assembly was still strong in its number of members favorable of this new constitutional monarchy, but it was in the streets and with the people that the actual aspect of the Revolution was shifting. Members of the National Assembly were getting restless

Timothy Tackett’s book When the King Took Flight focuses on arguably the most consequential event in the French Revolution. King Louis XVI and his family’s attempt to escape France would influence an atmosphere of violence that would only continue to worsen. King Louis XVI regretted signing and accepting the Civil Constitution of the Clergy earlier in July 1790. Deciding to flee the country he assumed that through foreign intervention or negotiating he could change parts of the constitution he disagreed with. However he would be recognized and captured in Varennes. The king underestimated the true meaning and appeal of the revolution (87). His misunderstanding of the revolution led the way for the destruction of kingship and the monarchy itself. This decision had given power to the sans-culottes and the idea of a republic. While the kings flight to Varennes had many unintended consequences it serves as a crucial turning point for the revolution.

The Royal Family of France’s attempted escape on June 20th, 1791 made many people very unhappy with the King. The mob, ever ready to exercise the uncontrolled Rights of Men, made a mock parade of the King’s Arms in the market places, and, dashing them and the figure of a crown to the ground, they trampled upon them, crying out, “Since the King has abandoned what he owed to his high situation, let us trample upon the ensigns of royalty” (Ascherson 48)! The Royal Family not only lost many of its followers through their attempted escape, but also because King Louis XVI kept making bad decisions, ones that had no benefit to France or its people. The people wanted someone who would lead them into a revolution and change France for the better, not because they wanted the power, but because they believed in France and wanted it to become a great nation. That man was Robespierre, who after the flight of the King followed the Jacobin club in its move toward republicanism. He called for universal male suffrage and the end of property qualifications for voting and office holding (Blumberg 290). Robespierre wanted to make France a republic, a government for the people and by the people, a country where everyone had the freedoms and rights they deserved. In January of 1793, Robespierre voted on whether or not he thought that King Louis should be executed for his actions. At the Convention on the trial

Before the French Revolution Louis XVI was in power, but in due time his old regime of absolute monarchy was brought down. Some people were in favor of this revolution wanting equality and some were not. One person who was in favor of this desire for equality and change was