Explore the vast range of titles available.

In explaining why the British North American provinces united in 1867, historians have tended to see Confederation as a logical response to the internal and external challenges of the 1860s. With some ambiguity, they have also attributed a major role to the British imperial factor in forcing the Maritime provinces to accept their predestined place in the Canadian nation. In Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837-1867, Ged Martin offers a sceptical review of claims that Confederation answered all the problems facing the provinces, and examines in detail British perceptions of Canada and ideas about its future. The major British contribution to the coming of Confederation is to be found not in the aftermath of the Quebec conference, where the imperial role was mainly one of bluff and exhortation, but prior to 1864, in a vague consensus among opinion-formers that the provinces would one day unite. Faced with an inescapable need to secure legislation at Westminster for a new political structure, British North American politicians found they could work within the context of a metropolitan preference for intercolonial union.

By nature, human beings seek to make sense of their past. Paradoxically, true historical explanation is ultimately impossible. Historians never have complete evidence from the past, nor is their methodology rigorous enough to prove causal links. Although it cannot be proven that 'A caused B,' by redefining the agenda of historical discourse, scholars can locate events in time and place history once again at the heart of intellectual activity. In Past Futures , Ged Martin advocates examining the decisions that people take, most of which are not the result of a 'process,' but are reached intuitively. Subsequent rationalizations that constitute historical evidence simply mislead. All historians can do is to locate them in time, to explain not why a decision was taken, but why then? To illustrate, Martin asks a number of questions: What is a 'long time' in history? Are we close to the past or remote from it? Is democracy a recent experiment, or proof of our arrival at the end of a journey through time? Can we engage in a historical dialogue with the past without making clear our own ethical standpoints? Although explanation is ultimately impossible, humankind can make sense of its location in time through the concept of 'significance,' a device for highlighting events and aspects of the past. In so doing, Martin suggests a radical new approach to historical discourse.

Ged Martin offers a sceptical review of claims that Confederation answered all the problems facing the provinces, and examines in detail British perceptions of Canada and ideas about its future.

Many Canadians recall John A. Macdonald as a politician with an alcohol problem. This view of a key architect of Confederation affects perceptions of national identity and inhibits biographical analysis. Macdonald had a serious but intermittent drink problem for 20 years from 1856. It is unhelpful to relate this to the medical concept of “alcoholism,” although he was a recurrent binge drinker; however, he was not consistently drunk. Recognition of his problem underlines the ability that enabled him to survive politically. A secure marriage plus growing public disapproval of inebriation in the 1870s probably explain his changed behaviour.

The Charlottetown Conference of September 1864 set Confederation in motion. The meeting brought together delegates from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to discuss the union of their three provinces.