Extract of letter from Lanctot to Doughty describing an air raid in London, while on a mission to collect Canadian War artifacts. January 2018.
Note from Stephanie: Hello everyone and welcome to the first of our 3-part series, based on a panel presentation given this past spring at the Canadian Historical Association annual conference in Regina, SK! I was really pleased to present on a fantastic panel with four amazing colleagues, Michelle Desveaux of the University of Saskatchewan, Erin Spinney of Oxford University, and Katherine MacDonald of the University of New Brunswick (and moderated by our own Andrea Eidinger!) The panel focused on how archives and archival methods influenced the history we write, and covered a number of different topics and eras, from the seventeenth century to the twentieth. Over the next few weeks we’ll be posting three of the four papers from our panel on the blog; unfortunately Katherine couldn’t join us this time, but maybe we’ll see something from her in this space sometime soon. We’re starting the series with Michelle Desveaux’s paper on the development of the National Archives. Next week Erin Spinney will be here with her paper on eighteenth century nurses in the British marine forces, and I’ll be ending the series with my work on finding Huguenots in the PRDH. Enjoy!
The early twentieth century was a time when Canada as a nation state was still quite young and Confederation was considered to be somewhat vulnerable. Academics and bureaucrats alike believed this vulnerability could be overcome with a national history – one that could unite a divided people and bring about a stronger country. With the development of the National Archives (1) – corresponding, through no accident, with the tenure of Arthur Doughty as Dominion Archivist (1906-1935) – we see three elements converge: the desire for national unity, the belief in history as cure, and the conviction that government should facilitate both (so Canadian). For this blog post I’m going to share with you the aspect of my CHA presentation that focuses on efforts of early twentieth century historians and their colleagues at the National Archives to promote unity between English- and French-speaking Canadians. My focus on this time of development comes from my interest in national historical consciousness and how concepts of Canadian history might be institutionalized within bodies such as Canada’s National Archives. By building, organizing, and expanding the institution with the intention of promoting a certain idea of Canadian identity, the Archives become not only a depository for the country’s historical and governmental records, but a site of commemoration.
Canada’s “European Background”
Example of the plaques used by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, 1923
Historians of the era believed that patriotism could be promoted by tapping into Canadians’ love of their countries of origin. In the minds of these (mostly) men, Canada was a country comprised of European settlers. While this definition excluded First Nations as well non-European immigrants, the way it was defined also excluded most settlers who did not come from France or Britain (and “Britain” mostly meant England). The development of this definition of Canadian patriotism is most clearly demonstrated by the development of the plaques of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The imagery they chose for commemorations of Canadian progress, such as the thistle, the shamrock, the lily, and the leek, represented “the races from which Canadians are descended” – the English, Scottish, Irish, French, and Welsh peoples. (2) The knowledge of the great histories of Britain and France, and the belief of Canada as a descendant nation of both these powers, instilled in the history community a belief that Canada, too, would have a glorious history, yet to be written, and in many ways, yet to happen.
Referring to the “European,” rather than “English and French,” aspect of Canada’s past was quite deliberate. In the history of Canada, France and England were old foes and their union under the Dominion of Canada was therefore a naturally shaky one. But there was also a conviction that, if told properly, Canadian history could celebrate the contributions of both nations to the development of Canada. In the mid-1920s, for instance, George Wrong presented a paper entitled, “The Two Races in Canada,” which promoted the conviction that Canadian unity was not only possible, but natural, and asserted that the deep past of European history teaches us that English and French are really one race. By accepting this assertion, accusations of English conquest and majority rule over the French could be superseded. Wrong was convinced that as the French and English had common ancestors, it was possible to produce a united Canadian nation “from the two elements which reflect the richest culture of Europe.” (3)
European Copying Program
At the same time that historians and government figures were looking for a way to promote national sentiment through history, the Archives was engaged in programs that demonstrate, in practice, that historical consciousness focused on a European background, on national unity, and on patriotism.
Draft of Arthur Doughty’s Annual Report
The first was the copying program in England and France, the two so-called “founding nations” of Canada. Put in place by Arthur Doughty’s predecessor, Douglas Brymner, with little financial or human resources, this program was extended and formalized with Doughty’s appointment. Doughty asserted that “[t]o understand aright the wonderful story of the French regime these papers or copies of them are necessary.” Similarly, under British rule documentation returned to Britain with the governors at the end of their tenure; these also needed to be copied or obtained and brought back home to Canada. (4) Though Brymner had focused his staff’s efforts on history since the conquest of Quebec, Doughty, adhering to the unifying view of Canadian history that celebrated the achievements of both “founding nations” enlarged the scope of the program to copy earlier documents including those of New France.
Disseminating Original Sources
Once the documents were obtained, they still needed to be shared with Canadian historians who could then write their national histories. The Archives thus established a publishing program with the creation of the Historical Publications Board. It was the duty of this board to select from the Archives for editing and publication, “such historical materials as, in the interest of historical science, and development of a national spirit, should be committed to print.” (5)
Weighing the importance of historical accuracy with the desire for national unity was a delicate balancing act. Correspondence between the Archives’ staff and historians show their concerns with promoting a fair but positive portrayal of French Canadians. There are several examples of this, but one that stands out is a letter marked “private” sent from Doughty to H.P. Biggar, who was working on a report being published by the Historical Documents Publications Board, “Precursors of Cartier.” Doughty expressed worry about the report’s possible reception among Francophones. He related to Biggar that, “Mr. Roy is taking exception to the introduction to your report…and M. Poirier to whom it was shown says ‘there will be a cry against the Archives if it is allowed to go out as an official publication.’ He maintains that Cabot was not the discoverer of Canada, that it was Cartier, etc., etc.” Doughty went on to say that “Of course we cannot please all the Frenchmen,” (!) and obviously the rigours of the historical method must be observed, but that Biggar should be expecting to hear about the issue after the upcoming meeting of the Publications Board. (6)
Promoting French Canadian History
Communications between the Archives staff also reflect concern with national unity. In a series of letters from 1920, for example, Archives employee William Smith encouraged members of the historical community to treat French subject matter and history written by French Canadians with the same consideration and diligence with which they approached other aspects of Canadian history. He corresponded with William Stewart Wallace of the Canadian Historical Review, inquiring as to why the journal did not publish more French articles written by French Canadian historians, emphasizing that there were “several scholars whose work would adorn the pages of any review.” (7) He also advised against the appointment of a certain Miss Kellogg for the job of editing the Perrault correspondence, stating that she had not the background to take on the task and that “[i]n our view this work should be done by some person closer to the scene, preferably a French Canadian, who could sympathize with, even if he did not share the views of … that day.” (8) Smith even went so far as to criticize the work of a prominent member of the historical community, Archibald MacMechan, for “overlook[ing] the steadying qualities of the French Canadians in our national life,” noting that his latest article had “caused some comment among the French.” (9)
War Trophies Mission
The Canadian Archives in this period are spoken of as a multi-dimensional “power center of Canadian history.” (10) In addition to documents, the Archives made a concerted effort to acquire portraits, signatures, pieces of art, maps, and objects connected with significant periods in Canadian history. This approach to archival work was formalized with the Archives Act of 1912, drawn up by Sir Robert Borden, which “made it one of the duties of the Archivist to acquire historical material of every kind and nature that would illustrate the story of Canada.” (11)
This multi-faceted aspect of the Archives allowed for the creation of a unique program during the First World War in which representatives were permitted to travel overseas and visit the various fronts during the war to assess, preserve, and collect both war records and war “trophies.” On 10 April, 1917, Major Arthur Doughty (later promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel), Lieutenant-Colonel William Wood, and Captain Gustave Lanctot were placed on the General List, attached to the Public Archives Department, and appointed to a “Canadian Special Mission.” The Order in Council creating this mission instructed “[a]ll persons connected with the Canadian Services in the United Kingdom or on the continent of Europe … [to] … give the gentlemen named above every facility necessary for the accomplishment of the task entrusted to them by the Government of Canada.” (12) This order made official activities in which the Archives staff were already engaging. Correspondence between Lanctot and Doughty recount the former’s collection of pamphlets and posters, among other examples of material culture relating to the war, at least two years before the act of the Privy Council.
For the purposes of the Archives, this Special Mission would allow for the accurate retelling of the history of Canadian involvement in what was turning out to be a significant event in world history. The collection of personal stories, records, and artifacts would all recount the glorious history Canadian troops of all backgrounds were currently acting out, thus uniting them in their shared battle. (Never mind that the war itself was not popular in Quebec.) It was a role that was taken quite seriously and was not without its dangers. In a letter to Doughty, Captain Lanctot related:
Oh! by the way, the guns are booming, the shells whistling and even the machine guns rattling over our heads just now. A little air-raid is in progress. For your sets I walked about the streets, in the hope of picking up some pieces of shells. I had no luck, though two people picked twenty-five yards from me a cap and a nose-ring of a shell. They refused to let me have them. Ah! very selfish. (13)
This is so far removed from the stereotypical image of the solitary archivist sitting among their dusty reams of paper! It demonstrates the firm conviction that there was a history playing out – one in which Canadians were involved – that needed to be recorded.
Although the projects and programming of the Archives in the early twentieth century were only one aspect of the work the historical community was doing to promote national sentiment and unity, it was pivotal to all the other projects. In addition to the CHA, the Royal Society, the Champlain Society, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, and other historically-focused organizations, large and small, devoted part of their energies to the development of national pride and unity through history. The inaugural presidential address of the Canadian Historical Association, for example, referred to the new body as a “patriotic agenc[y].” (14) But the Archives, as the authoritative source of historical records, was central to all of these, and worked toward the common goal of “bringing into more perfect harmony the two great races that constitutes the Canadian people.” (15)
Michelle Desveaux is a PhD candidate in history at the University of Saskatchewan studying Canadian national historical consciousness. Her dissertation uses academic, public, and personal histories to examine what happens when Indigenous and Canadian histories meet. She has previously published “Twenty-First Century Indigenous Historiography: Twenty-Two Books That Need to be Read,” with Patrick Chassé, Glenn Iceton, Anne Janhunen, and Omeasoo Wāhpāsiw in a special edition of the Canadian Journal of History.
Notes:
(1) The official name of the National Archives – now known as Library and Archives Canada – has changed multiple times over the years. For simplicity’s sake, I refer to the institution as the Archives, occasionally the National Archives or the Canadian Archives. They are all one and the same.
(2) Description of standard commemorative plaque, LAC RG42 Volume 326, “57781”
(3) George Wrong, “The Two Races in Canada,” Report of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Historical Association 4, no.1 (1925): 21-27.
(4) Arthur Doughty, Draft of Report, LAC MG30 D143 Volume 2, “Doughty, Sir Arthur G.”
(5) Memo on the function of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, LAC RG37 Volume 303, “PAC History”
(6) Arthur Doughty to H.P. Biggar, 21 January 1922, LAC RG37 Volume 500, “Doughty, Sir Arthur George, January-April 1911.”
(7) William Smith to W.S. Wallace, 9 November, 1920; Wallace to Smith, 10 November, 1920 LAC RG37 Volume 298, “Canadian Historical Review.”
(8) Smith to Wallace, 4 December, 1920, LAC RG37 Volume 298, “Canadian Historical Review.”
(9) Smith to Wallace, 31 December, 1920, LAC RG37 Volume 298, “Canadian Historical Review.”
(10) George Wrong, quoted in Lawrence Burpee to Arthur Doughty, 14 May, 1924 LAC RG 37 Volume 2222 “L.J. Burpee 1907-1924.”
(11) LAC MG30 D143, Volume 2 “Doughty, Sir Arthur G.”
(12) Order in Council, 10 April, 1917, LAC RG37 Volume 301 “Gustave Lanctot.”
(13) Lanctot to Doughty, 28 January, 1918, London, LAC RG37 Volume 301 “Gustave Lanctot”
(14) Lawrence Burpee, “The Annual Meeting of May the Eighteenth at the Victoria Memorial Museum, Ottawa.
Thanks for joining us for the first installment of our CHA panel series! We hope you enjoyed it. If you did, please consider sharing it on the social media platform of your choice! And don’t forget to check back on Sunday for our regular Canadian History Roundup. See you then!
Leave a Reply