HIST2236H - Podcast Assignment

In this episode of Canadian DNA, the hosts discuss the Great 1837 Rebellion of Upper Canada and whether William Lyne McKenzie was a great leader. They provide a timeline of events leading up to the rebellion, including McKenzie's newspaper criticizing the British government and his decision to rebel. They analyze McKenzie's speech on reform, noting his emotional language and tendency to go from 0-60. They question McKenzie's claim of being a British Loyalist despite his criticisms of the government. They also mention his failed attempt to join a Freemason chapter and his lack of follow-through on the rebellion and his autobiography. Overall, they conclude that McKenzie's actions do not warrant the title of a great leader. Welcome to Canadian DNA, where two Trent University history students discuss events in our own Canadian backyard. Today, we'll be discussing the Great 1837 Rebellion of Upper Canada. More specifically, we want to answer the question, was William I McKenzie a great leader? Throughout this episode, we will focus on events during the rebellion and use the works of historians to piece together a timeline that proves William Lyne McKenzie was an ideal leader. My name is Dylan, and this is Ashley. Before we get ahead of ourselves, let's start from the beginning. So let us begin before the rebellion is even an idea. William Lyne McKenzie was born March 12th of 1795 in Springfield, Dundee. The only child of Daniel McKenzie and Elizabeth Chalmers Lee McKenzie. McKenzie's political career began in 1824 and held drastic weight until 1838. Arguably, McKenzie was most active during the post-Napoleonic despotism. It was McKenzie's passion and desire for change and radicalism that brought him into the political spotlight. The Upper Canadian Rebellion was primarily incited by William Lyne McKenzie, although pinpointing the exact date of its inception remains a challenge. An approximate estimation stands as the closest approximation we can gather. Extensive research has allowed us to construct a reliable timeline of the rebellion's events. Before engaging in the rebellion and his tenure in office, McKenzie authored a newspaper titled The Colonial Advocate. Through this platform, he frequently criticized the oppression of the British government. While the newspaper initially garnered limited attention, its significance escalated in the fall of 1837. Consequently, McKenzie's decision to rebel was likely conceptualized in like the autumn or summer of that year at the earliest. This hypothesis gained support from McKenzie's actions in October of 1837, when he convened an informal meeting with the notable individuals, including John Dole in Toronto. During this gathering, McKenzie expressed concerns about the British government withdrawing soldiers from the province. This prompted his idea to storm the city hall, aiming to acquire the muskets that were stored inside. He also proposed enlisting the support of farmers and axemen, deeming them more prepared for battle than ordinary civilians. Dr. T.D. Morris, however, opposed this plan, denouncing it as treason, and withdrew his support. Undeterred, McKenzie pursued his cause, meeting the following day with fellow reformer Dr. John Roth. Unlike most, Roth typically kept to himself and remained unaligned with other factions involved in rebellion. Despite McKenzie's persuasive rhetoric, Roth initially hesitated in supporting the plan, but ultimately acquiesced. Although the specific conversation details were undocumented, it is believed that McKenzie referenced the impending rebellion in Lower Canada, instilling enough confidence in Roth to align himself with the overarching plan. Now that the scene is set, we want to turn your attention away from a chronological timeline and focus on pinpoint events. Famously, William Lyon McKenzie gave a speech on reform on January 22nd of 1831. This speech pinpointed out the wrongdoings of the British government and the colonies. The speech contains heavy and emotional language, almost as if this was his way of alluding to a personal vendetta towards the clergy reserves. An example of this is when McKenzie says to the speaker, We, Mr. Speaker, remain inactive. While so glorious an example is set before us in Europe, I trust not. McKenzie is creating the idea that the government is setting poor examples and beginning to introduce corruption. While this would seem to be a stance of good leadership, we want to note that this is early on in the speech and McKenzie goes on this 0-60 tangent, which proves that Mr. McKenzie is speaking to his government based off of his raw emotions. McKenzie turns this view to the fact that the elective government is bottomed and founded off of corruption, then referring to the council as species of tyranny. McKenzie states that the government is over-educated and that leads to wrongdoings, which is notably a display of sensationalist behaviors. This extensive emotion displayed by McKenzie in a formal setting could be an entire episode of its own, quite frankly. Ashley, you're talking about speaking of raw emotions and that's what you're doing right now, okay? That could be a good idea for another episode, but that's not the idea for this episode. For the interest of time, we should conclude this section by stating that while initially appearing as a critique indicative of a leader addressing social issues, it is essential to note the abrupt shift in tone and the intensity in which McKenzie conveys his discontent. Speech unfolds with emotional fervor, showcasing a leader who relies heavily on sentiment rather than a measured and strategic approach. McKenzie's assertion that the government sets poor examples and fosters corruption, although valid in some respects, is presented early in the speech, demonstrating a tendency to go from 0-60. You're right, Dylan, but his characterization of the elective government as corrupt and the council as a species of tyranny reflects sensationalist behaviors. Moreover, McKenzie's claim that the government is overeducated, leading to wrongdoing, further highlights his tendencies towards emotional rhetoric. This emotion, while impactful in expressing discontent, raises questions about McKenzie's effectiveness as a leader, suggesting a leadership style is driven more by passion than strategic governance. But, even after the extensive and, quite frankly, harsh takes McKenzie makes during his speech, he still considers himself a British Loyalist? McKenzie made crazy statements about how Britain was running Canada and essentially dragged their name and system through the mud, but he still thought of himself as a Loyalist? I frankly think not, and he says he's doing what's best for his country. McKenzie and the colonial advocate struggled to gain traction until he started these direct attacks on the government and his paper. This led him to continue this style of writing on these topics and the vacant crown in the clergy reserves, poor roads, bridges, political patronage, and lack of schools. I think that he would come to Britain and every part of the system and create this sense that they were doing the wrong thing, but still tried to consider himself a British Loyalist. I, personally, think not. You know, Ashley, this guy doesn't sound like a Loyalist to me. The things that you said are very contradictory, but they're not the only contradictory things that surround William Lyon McKenzie. Something usually either skimmed over or completely removed from history on Octavian is that he, as self-proclaimed outsider, tried to join a Freemason chapter in York. He was rejected, however, mostly due to his positions and ideas he frequently posted in his paper. Regardless of whether he was rejected or not, why would an outsider like himself wish to be a part of the in-crown, which is yet again another contradictory statement, and it's very contradictory to the traditional stance of his we see written about. The whole reason Ashley and I chose William Lyon McKenzie was because we were not sure if he was such a great leader and worthy of the praise he got as a major historical figure. For what, we asked? The rebellion he started with all these people's wishes of responsible government failed. You can say he planted the seeds for eventual rebellion, but this action does not warrant the title of some great leader. He wrote many letters and published them as a colonial advocate like his speech, and his letters that he sent gained traction with prominent political figures. The letters he wrote to people included things like how he is disgusted by the government but then writes, I do not wish to ruin the feelings of many noble and worthy men and women like me who call Upper Canada their home. He seems to be unhappy, but almost passive about the issue. There are many British loyalists in Upper Canada. He was going to hurt someone's feelings, and he was passionate enough to try to incite a rebellion. Some speak louder than words, and I hear McKenzie's words loud and clear. He didn't care about anyone's feelings. Some guy who was a merchant and a traveler before the colonial advocate thinks that it qualifies him to foresee political matters? William Lyon McKenzie was saying whatever needed to be said to anyone who would lend an ear to spread his message of distance and distrust towards England. I can honestly say that right now you're probably thinking that these sound like qualities that would make a good leader passionate, cunning, and worldly and ruthless. We see this through the way that McKenzie very frequently would speak his mind and create traction, which we would agree with if he had follow through. Very shortly after McKenzie's groundbreaking speech on reform, which people love to cling to, rightfully so, and this was a defining moment for his leadership, but he left. He went to the United States right after dropping the speech on the hot topic that was reform, and this unfortunately is not the first time McKenzie has lacked follow through. The autobiography McKenzie was dying to write in his later years, he never finished. It may seem unrelated, but the circumstances cannot help but look similar. In both cases, he had put a lot of thought into both, even laying out portions of the groundwork, like getting support for the rebellion and the foundation had been dug for his book. He also told everyone and their mother about this book in the same way he told anyone who would listen to his speech. What do we know about how the rebellion and this autobiography turned out? Well, Dylan, they both ended up being incomplete projects of McKenzie's fruition. I'm not one to knock effort. I can positively say McKenzie had a bright mind, an idea man, if you will. That, however, is not what we are here to argue about today. McKenzie was not a good leader, and his lack of follow through is just a prime example of his qualities that do not constitute a leader. At his core, he was truly a journalist, a politician at most, and only if you want to go that far. He was just out of his depth, and at the end of the day, in both cases of the autobiography and the speech, he lacked persistence to complete what he initially stated out in his goals. A less notable but relevant event is the McKenzie role of controversy. For context, in December of 1837, McKenzie began the reform in an attempt at what we now refer to as responsible government. This inevitably failed to overthrow the current government. Rolfe was never reported to be working directly with McKenzie, claiming that he had done associate himself with the little editor's increasingly frenetic course. This is coming from a man who once kind of agreed with McKenzie, but he realized that this frenetic course was not the way he wanted to go. McKenzie argued that Rolfe agreed to be the executive, but Rolfe firmly denied this. Often, McKenzie would make crass choices, and not even consult nor include Rolfe but claim that John Rolfe was in support. We do know that this could be just argued as hearsay, Rolfe's word against McKenzie's, but this still proves that McKenzie was crass. Politicians did not want to be associated with William Lyon McKenzie, and even if Rolfe was lying or did agree or be consulted, it still speaks volume to the simple fact of the matter that Rolfe was willing to consistently lie to avoid association and then even admit or agree to work alongside McKenzie. Clearly Rolfe did not like McKenzie. John Rolfe described McKenzie as weary, always in motion, an antagonist, and withered by any strong current. In the current times of the rebellion, it was theorized that McKenzie was an unideal leader. Those who were arguing for reform were even questioning McKenzie's ability to finish the job he ever so strongly wrote about. This is because those claims were words, not actions. Actually, another example of McKenzie proving our point that he was an unideal leader was his ability for lack thereof of planning. McKenzie would have had smooth sailing to achieve responsible government by forcing the governor, who had just sent more people to lower Canada, meaning there are going to be fewer people in upper Canada to resist. You know Dylan, I remember reading Mark Harris explaining that McKenzie and fellow radicals did plot direct action in 1837. Exactly, right? We know that, and we know that the governor transferred more troops to deal with the lower Canadian revolt, and due to this fact, McKenzie wanted to try to organize a plan. Even with everything in McKenzie's favor, he still could not get the job done. He still couldn't seal the deal. Through the December, due to lack of coordination, it failed. And who is the center of this coordination? I don't even need to say it. It's William Lyle McKenzie. His plans for the rebellion, his plans for an assault in the rebellion, and even his own personal projects, they were all failures, or they didn't even end up being completed. McKenzie is nothing short of a bright man, however, in terms of actually accomplishing things that he includes others in, or gets their hopes up in, he never seems to pull through. Even with his own autobiography, it was widely believed that at the time of his death, the work was nearly completed, but this again was not as true as he had written nothing. So to end things off, Bill and I are truly not trying to knock William Lyle McKenzie as a Canadian figure in his introduction of the idea of responsible government. We just think that his plans were lackluster. He was not a good leader, and even so, the reason we have responsible government, or even had that idea, is not something we believe to credit McKenzie for. As you've heard throughout this podcast, it is because of his awful leadership, along with his disorganization, it created this cocktail of disaster. Most importantly, however, because he was just a journalist at the end of the day. Bill and I think he is an important figure, but to call him a great Canadian leader is just out of the question. His overall lack of leadership and qualities show he was just not built to lead the Upper Canadian Rebellion of 1838. Anyways, that's the end of our first episode. We just want to thank you for listening to our podcast. We hope you enjoyed this episode, and now know a little bit more about your Canadian DNA. And we just want to give a special shout out to our father podcast, 1867 and All That, shot by Christopher Dummett, streaming on all platforms.