logo
Spurred to action by Trump's trade war, I bought Calixa Lavallée's sword

Spurred to action by Trump's trade war, I bought Calixa Lavallée's sword

Globe and Mail22-05-2025

Keith Johnston is a music historian and writer based in Saint-Hyacinthe, Que. He has contributed to academic publications and also works for Létourneau Organs, which builds pipe organs in Quebec for clients around the globe.
To prepare myself for Donald Trump's trade war, I decided to buy Calixa Lavallée's sword.
Well, one caveat – it isn't a sword that personally belonged to the man who wrote our national anthem (I'm fairly certain). But it appears to have been made for the Massachusetts-based organization of which Lavallée was a prominent member – an organization that agitated for an American takeover of Canada in the late 19th century.
By way of explanation, I live in Saint-Hyacinthe, Que., where from my window I can hear the yowl of the Yamaska River as it falls over the weir in the centre of town. Local legend (and a charming children's book) has it that 145 years ago this spring, musician and composer Calixa Lavallée sat by the river's edge and heard in the mighty waters the opening strains of what would become O Canada. Likely too romantic to be true, the story was promoted (if not invented), a century ago by a local historian and renaissance man, Monsignor Charles-Philippe Choquette.
'If one listens closely, a trained ear might just catch, in the majesty of that symphony, the echo of the Yamaska's murmurs joined to the ringing tone of its picturesque falls,' Choquette wrote in 1929.
Lavallée did return frequently to the region of his youth (he was raised in nearby Verchères, Que.) for concerts, but no records indicate that he was in Saint-Hyacinthe in the spring of 1880, when Choquette's tale would place him there. But there's considerably better evidence for what Lavallée actually did next. After the summer of 1880, during which he debuted O Canada and worked as a teacher, he angrily quit Canada (potentially in response to financial difficulties, though accounts differ), moved to Massachusetts and, when not composing or performing, crusaded for Canada to become what would have been the 39th state.
'Lavallée was a thorough-going American,' his close friend, Henry F. Miller, Jr. (son of the eponymous piano maker), was quoted as saying in an obituary published by the American journal Freund's Music and Drama following Lavallée's death from tuberculosis in 1891. Miller recalled Lavallée joining the Union Army as a band musician for the 4th Rhode Island infantry regiment during the American Civil War.
Aside from his U.S. military service, Miller was particularly struck by a speech Lavallée had given a few years before his death to an organization known as the Ligue des Patriotes. Established in 1885, the Fall River, Mass.,-based group provided mutual aid and acted as a kind of expatriate benevolent society for francophones who had come to Fall River seeking economic opportunity, as well as freedom from 'Orangeism and Anglo-Saxon hatred,' as Dr. Valmore St-Germain, a physician and prominent member, put it to The Boston Globe. As an active member, Lavallée wrote a tune for the Ligue every bit as rousing as O Canada, called Restons Français (Let's Stay French). In his speeches to the Ligue, however, his contributions were more nakedly political: 'He urged the annexation of Canada to the United States,' Miller recalled.
I do hope that the sword I purchased was with a member of the Ligue during one of Lavallée's rousing speeches – a silent witness to some seditious talk. It's not entirely clear why the Ligue made swords for its members, though the group did take part in parades and marches that called for militaristic dress – a popular trend in the 19th century (it's quite a dainty thing, as far as swords go).
Talk of annexation among the members of the Ligue heated up in 1890, a year before Lavallée's death, when future U.S. president William McKinley, then a congressman, proposed a bill that would wildly increase tariffs on goods coming in from Canada.
The Ligue invited a member of Quebec's National Assembly, Alfred Girard, to speak to the group in August, 1890, two months before McKinley's bill would go into effect on Oct. 1. Girard warned of the 'ruination of Canada' and cautioned that Canadian companies could go bankrupt for want of a market for their goods. Dr. St-Germain gave a speech in reply, in which he contended that America would happily welcome Canada as part of the United States.
'This speech provoked the wildest enthusiasm,' a report in The Boston Globe recounted.
But McKinley's dreams of American protectionism, and Lavallée's dream for the annexation of Canada, were not to be. Though McKinley would later win the presidency and implement a protectionist foreign policy, his first attempt at tariffs cost the Republicans the House of Representatives (and McKinley his own seat) in the U.S. election of November, 1890.
Lavallée's own fortunes took a turn for the worse as well. In poor health, he convalesced at the home of Dr. St-Germain in the fall of 1890 and died in January, 1891, never having achieved his American dream. The Freund's obituary remembered him as 'a musician peculiarly devoted to the best interests of his art, and especially free from mere personal considerations,' which is as nice a way as any to say that he died poor.
Today's tariffs – whether temporary or here to stay – are forecasted to bring more economic pain. But perhaps Lavallée still has something to offer. His tune was the inspiration for Adolphe-Basile Routhier's original French lyrics for O Canada, including this stirring middle couplet: 'Car ton bras sait porter l'épée/ Il sait porter la croix!' ('For your arm knows how to wield the sword/ It knows how to bear the cross.')
Take heart, Canada. We've been here before and can bear this economic cross together. Plus, I've got the sword.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says

CTV News

timean hour ago

  • CTV News

New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says

Pro-Palestine protesters and pro-Israel protesters face off at a demonstration at a synagogue in Thornhill, Ont., Thursday, March 7, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' Bussières McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' With files from Anja Karadeglia This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe

National Post

time2 hours ago

  • National Post

'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe

There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Article content Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Article content Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Article content Article content Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. Article content He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Article content Article content Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. Article content Article content In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. Article content Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store