A Brief History of the Writing (and Re-Writing) of Canadian National History By Jennifer Hamel A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in The College of Graduate Studies and Research (Department of History, University of Saskatchewan) University of Saskatchewan 24 July 2009 © Jennifer Leigh Hamel, 2009. All Rights Reserved. i Permission to Use In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Arts Degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying, publication, or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of History University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A5 ii Abstract Canadian historians periodically reassess the state of their craft, including their role as conveyors of the past to the Canadian public. With each review since the late 1960s, some Canadian historians have attempted to distance the profession from the work of those scholars labelled “national historians.” Three of the most prominent of these national historians were Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton, whose work was once popular among both professional historians and the general population. Drawing primarily upon reviews of their monographs, this thesis tracks the changing status of national history within English-Canadian historiography since 1945 by examining how Canadian historians have received the work and assessed the careers of Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton. National history can be broadly defined as the history of a specific nation, more typically, a nation-state. While the specific characteristics of national history have, like other types of history, changed over time, Canadian national history in the decades following the end of the Second World War used strong scholarship and clear, readable prose to communicate a specific vision of Canada to the general public. While Lower, Creighton, and Morton applied differing interpretations to their historical research, they all employed these components of national history within their work. After the Canadian Centennial, a new cohort of baby boomer historians brought a different set of values to their understanding of history, and the interpretations so widely acclaimed during the 1950s and early 1960s failed to persuade this new generation of Canadian historians. The lasting reputation of each of these three national historians has been highly dependent on whether each scholar’s preferred interpretation aligns with the new values held by the iii new generation of Canadian historians. While W.L. Morton’s western perspective fit in well with the regional concerns of the 1980s, and Arthur Lower retained a reputation as an early innovator of social history, Donald Creighton’s career has been remembered for the strident opinions of his later life, especially regarding the growth of Quebec nationalism and the increasing influence of the United States within Canadian national affairs. It is Creighton’s diminished reputation among English Canadian historians that is most commonly linked to the moniker of “national history.” As the gap between the postwar understanding of Canada and the post-Beatles vision for Canada continued to widen throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Canadian historical community, on the whole, continued to equate all national history with the reactionary reputation of an aging Donald Creighton. While this simplistic view provides convenient shorthand for the genre of national history, it fails to appreciate both the substantial contributions of national historians to Canadian historiography and the widespread influence of their work on the reading Canadian public. iv Table of Contents Permission to Use i Abstract ii Table of Contents iv Acknowledgements v Dedication vi Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Origins of National History in Canada 14 Chapter Two: Writing for the Public 26 Chapter Three: Canadian National History in a Decade of Uncertainty 51 Chapter Four: National History in Decline 87 Chapter Five: Reputation and Commemoration 115 Conclusion 152 Bibliography 165 List of Figures Figure 1 163 Figure 2 164 v Acknowledgements This thesis has been a long time in the making and many people have contributed to its (eventual) completion. I would firstly like to acknowledge the history faculty at the University of Saskatchewan, and in particular Dr. Dave DeBrou, my late advisor whose untimely passing was a great loss. It was under his guidance that I began to refine my thoughts on this subject. My deep thanks to my current advisor, Dr. Jim Miller, for his patience, his incisive comments, and his gracious encouragement. His willingness to consider my queries and engage with my research in the midst of his busy schedule ensured that I remained focussed on my arguments and research in the midst of life’s chaos. Without the groundbreaking scholarship of Carl Berger and Donald Wright, this thesis would be much the poorer. On a number of occasions, Donald Wright assisted me in finding sources and in providing feedback in the early stages of my research. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Ken Coates, whose passion for history has a tendency to rub off on everyone he meets. Finishing this thesis is not my achievement alone. My family has borne the brunt of my academic efforts, putting up with a preoccupied mother and wife who was not always available to fully engage with family life. Benno was born just over a year after I began my MA, and now he is able to ask me himself, “Mommy, when will you be finished your thesis?” This thesis was his sibling for years before his sister, Cate, was born, and it is to him I dedicate this work. I am indebted to the many friends and family who helped to care for Benno and Cate while I trudged ahead through research and writing. Special thanks go to my parents, Tom and Diane Hamel, my sister, Laura, my brother, Jeff, and my friends Geraldine Jordan and Cyndi McCarthy. Their generosity is overwhelming. My husband, Darren Friesen, is probably more excited about me finishing my thesis than I am. His inquisitive mind and constant questioning (“What do you think of what you are reading” has been a constant refrain); his encouragement and editorial skills have been a driving factor in my finishing this degree. Without him I would have stagnated, and very likely would not have completed anything past the first chapter. Not only is he my husband and my best friend, he is my colleague, and for that I am so thankful. Jennifer Hamel February 2009 vi Dedication For Benno Thomas, my blessed son. 1 Introduction: In the fall of 1991, historian Michael Bliss delivered a paper entitled “Privatizing the Mind: The Sundering of Canadian History, the Sundering of Canada” as his contribution to the University of Toronto History Department’s 100th Anniversary celebrations. Written for the Creighton Centennial Lecture, commemorating the career of historian Donald Creighton, Bliss’ paper re-examined “the parallel relationship between the disintegration of Canadian history as a unified discipline, on the one hand, and, on the other, the withering of a sense of community in Canada which I believe partially underlies our current constitutional and political malaise.”1 Later published in the Journal of Canadian Studies as an independent article, Bliss’ lecture recommended that Canadian historians should once again concern themselves with transmitting Canadian history to Canadians. Despite Bliss’ careful qualification of his remarks, stating that “[a]bove all, I am not advocating the limited, restricted sense of Canada as a public community that was implicit, often explicit, in the national history written by Creighton, Lower, Underhill, and the other past masters,”2 his comments met with a flurry of criticism, both immediately following Bliss’ lecture at the University of Toronto,3 and in subsequent issues of the Journal of Canadian Studies. The controversy surrounding Bliss’ remarks revealed a deep divide within the Canadian historical profession over the place of national history in Canadian 1 This paper was delivered as part of the University of Toronto History Department’s 100th Anniversary Celebrations. The full text of it appeared in the Winter 1991-92 issue of the Journal of Canadian Studies. See Michael Bliss, “Privatizing the Mind: The Sundering of Canadian History, the Sundering of Canada,” Journal of Canadian Studies 26 (4) (Winter 1991-92): 5. 2 Ibid., 16. 3 Richard White, a former graduate student of Bliss’, recalls the negative reaction to the Creighton lecture in his article on Michael Bliss; see Richard White, “Inspiration as Instruction: Michael Bliss as Graduate Advisor, 1989-1994” in Essays in Honour of Michael Bliss, ed. E.A. Heaman