ISABELLA MACDONALD
Hugh Macdonald’s family emigrated from Scotland arriving in Quebec City in 1820. His wife Helen along with oldest son John Alexander age five, oldest sister Margaret (Moll), James, and the youngest sister Louisa (Lou) located in Kingston Upper Canada. Macdonald in 1843 in his late 20’s journeyed to visit his cousins in England. John A. was warmly impressed by one thirty three year old Isabella Clark. He talked her into coming to Kingston that same year and they were married in September. The Macdonald’s had only two years of pleasure. During his marriage he endured the job-like blows of having a wife who quickly became an invalid with only two joys. A deeply loved son John A. Junior who sadly died an infant, and a second son Hugh John who worked in Macdonald’s law office before moving to Winnipeg to follow his father in politics becoming Manitoba’s Premiere in 1900. John A. never lost his innate optimism or his zest for life. He never despaired, and he never complained. Sadly fate has other plans. Less than than two years after John and Isabella were married, and one year after he became a member of the legislature, John A. wrote on July 11 1845 a distraught letter to Isabella’s sister Margaret Green who now lived in Georgia. My Dear Sister,” Macdonald began, “Isabella has been ill—very ill—with one of her severest attacks. She is now just recovering and I hope has thrown off for the time her terrible disease. Still, this is not certain, and at all events it has left her in the usual state of prostration that follows every attack.” Clearly this was not the first “attack” Isabella had suffered. “It may be days—nay weeks—before she has rallied sufficiently to attempt any journey. What to say or do, I know not.” The doctors only solution for Isabella was to prescribe addictive opium for her pain. But throughout their years of marriage John A. stayed a loyal husband until Isabella’s death December 28 1857. Macdonald remained single for ten years. |
|
All Macdonald’s voters just called him “John A”. He had a photographic memory for names and an endearing wit.
Reference Authors - Richard Gwyn, Patrice Dutil, John Boyko, Tom Flanagan, Christopher Alcantara, Andre Le Dressay,
* Did Senator Sinclair find that The Truth and Reconciliation Committee were guilty of “Confirmation Bias”?
* Did Senator Sinclair hear testimony from residential school students that had a positive a experience?
* Did Sinclair and the TRC take into consideration the fact that residential schools were started by and run by Canadian Churches and most Indigenous children did not attend school or attended schools on their reserves not RI schools?
*Should the Canadian Federal government adopt UNDRIP? This UN Declaration is non-biding and Canada has the final say as to its legitimacy.
* Senator Sinclair’s son, an educated professor and reporter, believes reconciliation may also involve reparations and restitution too. Will Canada agree to this financial burden or future restrictions that will be created if UNDRIP is adopted?
Louis Riel - Canada’s Enemy
Riel didn’t ‘Father’ Confederation; he ‘fought’ those who did. In comparison with the constructive minds of his generation, Riel was an anomaly. Since he was certainly not a hero to everyone, in no case should we commemorate his misdeeds by erecting a statue of him on Parliament Hill. That would be an insult to the memory of the soldiers who fought and died fighting Riel’s army and defending the cherished rights we associate with that same Parliament Hill. No person advocating or engaging in armed rebellion against Canada’s democratic processes should be so honoured. To do so would be to elevate anarchy and civil disobedience to statesmanship. In short, Riel did not have the full support of his people, let alone Rupert’s Land that he needed to create his own territory. Instead, he used arms and force, those ancient non-democratic methods, resulting in death and terror. He was accordingly confronted by force for his crimes, lost and hung.
So by revising History, you are not condemning Louis Riel you are condemning Canada, he fought against those who made Canada, and for that alone, for being a bump on the road of what Canada is today, Louis Riel deserved the death of hangings and more, in the end Louis Riel broke every part of the Criminal Code subsection Treason and high treason except for causing bodily harm to her Majesty. In final conclusion to make Louis Riel innocent is making our government guilty and they did not break any single law in Riel’s lifetime so Riel is indeed guilty of treason.
Riel’s lawyer wanted him to plead insanity to spare his life. Riel a following in his Catholic tradition preferred to be hung and hopefully achieve martyrdom.
Manitoba has continued to support Riel as a hero and not as the murderer and rebellion leader against Canada.
Reference Authors - Richard Gwyn, Patrice Dutil, John Boyko, Tom Flanagan, Christopher Alcantara, Andre Le Dressay,
* Did Senator Sinclair find that The Truth and Reconciliation Committee were guilty of “Confirmation Bias”?
* Did Senator Sinclair hear testimony from residential school students that had a positive a experience?
* Did Sinclair and the TRC take into consideration the fact that residential schools were started by and run by Canadian Churches and most Indigenous children did not attend school or attended schools on their reserves not RI schools?
*Should the Canadian Federal government adopt UNDRIP? This UN Declaration is non-biding and Canada has the final say as to its legitimacy.
* Senator Sinclair’s son, an educated professor and reporter, believes reconciliation may also involve reparations and restitution too. Will Canada agree to this financial burden or future restrictions that will be created if UNDRIP is adopted?
Louis Riel - Canada’s Enemy
Riel didn’t ‘Father’ Confederation; he ‘fought’ those who did. In comparison with the constructive minds of his generation, Riel was an anomaly. Since he was certainly not a hero to everyone, in no case should we commemorate his misdeeds by erecting a statue of him on Parliament Hill. That would be an insult to the memory of the soldiers who fought and died fighting Riel’s army and defending the cherished rights we associate with that same Parliament Hill. No person advocating or engaging in armed rebellion against Canada’s democratic processes should be so honoured. To do so would be to elevate anarchy and civil disobedience to statesmanship. In short, Riel did not have the full support of his people, let alone Rupert’s Land that he needed to create his own territory. Instead, he used arms and force, those ancient non-democratic methods, resulting in death and terror. He was accordingly confronted by force for his crimes, lost and hung.
So by revising History, you are not condemning Louis Riel you are condemning Canada, he fought against those who made Canada, and for that alone, for being a bump on the road of what Canada is today, Louis Riel deserved the death of hangings and more, in the end Louis Riel broke every part of the Criminal Code subsection Treason and high treason except for causing bodily harm to her Majesty. In final conclusion to make Louis Riel innocent is making our government guilty and they did not break any single law in Riel’s lifetime so Riel is indeed guilty of treason.
Riel’s lawyer wanted him to plead insanity to spare his life. Riel a following in his Catholic tradition preferred to be hung and hopefully achieve martyrdom.
Manitoba has continued to support Riel as a hero and not as the murderer and rebellion leader against Canada.