Although Men had varying views on confederation, they had an overall positive experience. The positivity of their experience can be attributed to the fact that they had voting rights and were allowed to attend meetings. They were able to have their perspective heard and votes were cast, representing the beliefs of the majority. Men in favour of confederation, saw unity as an opportunity to construct a new government and have the country grow economically. The author in this article communicates the delegate’s goals for confederation and uses Charlottetown and Quebec conferences to support their point of view. This perspective is further supported when the author explains conversations and concepts surrounding confederation meetings, leading to the final decision for the colonies to accept confederation. The author shows biased towards the men, because s/he does not explore the other perspectives of people affected by confederation. There is no mention in the article about how the Indigenous people, black people or women may have felt about confederation. The author only communicates information on the delegates involved in the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. Similarly, the author focuses only on the perspective of those men in favour of confederation. There were many colonies that were opposed to this venture. This source is a good secondary source, because it informs you on what the had delegates planned to do with confederation and what the government had learnt during the confederation process.
Women during confederation did not have a positive experience with confederation. They did not have rights to vote and weren’t allowed to be a part of the government. The women were expected to act “womanly” and commit themselves to their husband’s work by hosting social events. Some wives didn’t enjoy hosting events and would rather be with the other women. The confederation was positive for some women as it allowed them to find husbands at the ballroom dances and get out of the house. The author throughout the article communicates the women’s impact on confederation. They used the politicians wives and family like Anne Brown, Luce Cuvillier, Lady Anges and Lord Dufferin as evidence to support their viewpoints. The author had used the letters sent between them and their husbands to find more information on the ladies influence and what was happening during the confederation process. The author has a neutral standpoint s/he states more facts about the women’s perspective, but also states the men’s perspective. The author gives examples of how the men thought the women were being treated greatly, while the women saw it in a different point of view. This source shows you that women didn’t have the same rights as men. It gives you a idea of how the government was run in the past and how even without power women still had an influence on confederation. The authors involved a lot of primary sources in their article, allowing the reader to understand a greater picture and thus making the article a more reliable/trustworthy source.
The authors of these sources do not believe that confederation was a positive impact on the Indigenous peoples. The Indigenous were not involved in the determination of confederation. More specifically, politicians did not allow for an Indigenous representative in their Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. The authors communicate throughout their articles, that the Indigenous peoples were displeased with this exclusion. They state the Indigenous peoples position with government's decisions. This is evident when the authors use the Quebec and the Charlottetown meetings as a examples of the government excluding the Indigenous peoples. The government would not allow for an Indigenous representative in their meetings. The authors in their articles state the information about the Indigenous peoples mistreatment without defending the government, which causes me to believe that they are biased towards the Indigenous peoples. Europeans formed treaties in the attempt to take control of the Indigenous peoples and their lands. The treaties were made to enforce a European objective of assimilation. Their goal was to “remove the savage” from the Indigenous peoples to make them more “civil”. The authors share with how powerless the Indigenous peoples were against the government. They used a primary source of the delegates title page for their meetings to help explain the Indigenous peoples position. The Indigenous peoples were not allowed to vote unless they gave up their Aboriginal status. These secondary sources help give you an idea of the Indigenous peoples mistreatment and inequality before, after and during confederation. It shows us that confederation was not a positive experience for everyone and that we should acknowledge what was done unjustly, thus we improving our country and government.