On This "Groundhog Day"? A Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Spin
English Civil War (1642–1651), British North American Civil Wars (1775 – 1783, 1861–1865), and the upcoming Alberta civil war?
This is a short LLM chat to try to get more Canadians to understand political parallels outside of the deliberately short attention span of Western European “Enlightenment” thought (mixture of linear time, individualism fixated on short human lifespans, mythology around universalism which is merely a mixture of supermacist ideologies, etc).
I’ve written regularly about how these are precidented times, but I recognize it is hard for many to get beyond the tiny silos of “Enlightenment” ideologies.
Russell
While I am always interested in learning the facts about the colonization of this continent, but I’m curious what the mythology behind this article is.
Gemini
The myth or “heritage history” that Tad Stoermer is deconstructing in his article surrounds the Resolution for a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, passed by the Virginia House of Burgesses on May 24, 1774.
The traditional, sanitized mythology often taught in American history classrooms paints a portrait of pious, deeply moved Founding Fathers who, upon hearing that Great Britain was closing the Port of Boston, dropped to their knees in spontaneous spiritual solidarity with their Massachusetts brethren. In this mythic narrative, the resolution is framed as a pure act of religious devotion, national unity, and moral grief over British tyranny.
Stoermer’s article strips away this mythology to reveal the cold, calculating political strategy underneath:
1. The Myth of Pious Agony vs. The Reality of a “Crisis Communication Team”
The mythology presents men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee as spiritually devastated leaders. Stoermer points out the “sheer, unadulterated brass” of this image. These were wealthy, elite Virginia enslavers whose daily lives revolved around luxury, enslaved labor, and fine imported wine. Their actual definition of “humiliation” was losing a card game at the local tavern. They didn’t experience a spiritual awakening; they formed a crisis management team.
2. The Myth of Loving the Puritans vs. The Reality of Precedent
The heritage narrative frames this as an act of brotherly love for New England. In reality, the Virginian elites generally found the New England Puritans insufferable. They didn’t care about the spiritual state of Boston. What they cared about was the dangerous political precedent. If Parliament could arbitrarily choke out the commercial throat of Boston via the Boston Port Bill, nothing would stop them from doing the same to Virginia’s lucrative tobacco ports next.
3. The Myth of Divine Inspiration vs. The Reality of “Political Drag”
Rather than being struck by a divine spark, Jefferson openly admitted in his later writings that they “cooked up” the resolution. On the night of May 23, they sneaked into the Governor’s Council chamber because it housed the best library. They “rummaged over” John Rushworth’s Historical Collections—which wasn’t a prayer book at all, but a parliamentarian record of the English Civil War detailing how English radicals overthrew a king. They lifted phrases used by the House of Commons in the 1640s, modernized them slightly, and dressed it up as a prayer. Stoermer calls this “pure political drag.”
4. The Myth of Spontaneous Devotion vs. Calculated Marketing
The resolution was calculated theater designed to manipulate two distinct audiences:
The conservative, pious, elite Virginian politicians: To get the measure passed without friction, the hot-headed (and religiously unorthodox) Jefferson and Henry hid behind Robert Carter Nicholas—a man known for his rigid, earnest piety—and had him introduce the bill so nobody would suspect a political trap.
The religious farmers of the backcountry: They knew a complex, secular argument about constitutional commerce wouldn’t mobilize the masses, but a call to fear an offended God would spread “like a shock of electricity” through the colony.
Ultimately, the article targets the myth that America’s founding actions were driven by universal, saintly devotion. Instead, it highlights an “allowable trick of political warfare”—a highly cynical, brilliantly executed marketing campaign that used the language of religious humility to organize a secular economic resistance.
Russell
How is this mythology connected to the civil war that followed (What the USA calls a revolutionary war, but labels the second set of separatists as the first civil war).
Gemini
To see how this mythology connects to the American Revolutionary War—which, as you accurately note, was fundamentally a war of secession and a civil war within the British Empire—we have to look at how the “Day of Fasting and Humiliation” established a psychological and political template.
By framing an economic and constitutional dispute as a holy, communal struggle, the Virginia elites didn’t just organize a protest; they successfully weaponized a mythos that made violent separation possible.
Here is how that specific “mythology” connected directly to the outbreak of the war:
1. It Created the Fiction of a Unified “American” Identity
Before May 1774, there was no such thing as an “American” in a political sense. A Virginian planter had almost nothing in common with a Massachusetts merchant, and as mentioned, the Anglican Virginian elites generally viewed New England Puritans with cultural disdain.
By using the universal language of Christian “humiliation and prayer” to mourn the closing of Boston’s port, the Virginia Burgesses created a myth of shared suffering. They forced a regional economic punishment into a continental spiritual crisis. This manufactured solidarity was the exact psychological bridge needed to form the First Continental Congress a few months later. Without this myth of a unified, divinely sanctioned brotherhood, the colonies would have remained fragmented, and a unified war effort would have been impossible.
2. The Weaponization of the “Jeremiad” to Justify Rebel Violence
The rhetoric used in the resolution relies on a traditional Puritan political sermon style known as the Jeremiad. This formula argues that the community has sinned, God is punishing them via a tyrant (in this case, King George III and Parliament), and the community must reform to win back God’s favor.
This created a powerful psychological loop for the colonists:
It shifted the blame of the conflict entirely onto the British government, framing British policies not as a legal debate over taxes, but as an existential, demonic threat to their virtue.
It assured the colonists that God was on their side. Once a population believes that their political cause is a holy crusade, compromise becomes impossible. It transformed a civil dispute over imperial governance into a cosmic war between good and evil, paving the way for the bloodshed that began at Lexington and Concord less than a year later.
3. The Irony of “Humiliation” by Enslaving Elites
The deep mythology of the event—wealthy Virginian enslavers praying against the “slavery” of British taxation—highlights the central ideological contradiction that fueled the war.
Men like Jefferson and Washington were terrified of being “enslaved” by British corporations and parliamentarians who wanted to control their tobacco profits and restrict their expansion westward. To mobilize the lower-class white farmers and frontiersmen to fight their civil war for them, the elites had to use the language of universal liberty and divine right.
This created a myth of a “war for liberty” that completely ignored the literal enslavement of the Black population upon which Virginia’s wealth was built. The mythology of the Day of Fasting allowed the southern gentry to present themselves as innocent, oppressed martyrs rather than wealthy oligarchs fighting to preserve their economic autonomy.
4. A Playbook Stolen from a Previous Civil War
The most direct connection is the one Jefferson admitted to: they literally copied the playbook of the English Civil War (1642–1651).
When Jefferson and his cohort rummaged through John Rushworth’s records of the English Parliament from the 1640s, they were actively looking at how the Puritans under Oliver Cromwell successfully overthrew and executed King Charles I. The English Puritans had used “Days of Fasting” as political rallies to radicalize the public against the Crown.
By deploying the exact same tactics in 1774, the Virginian founders were consciously unleashing the language of regicide and civil war. They dressed it up as a pious prayer, but the machinery they were activating was designed for the violent overthrow of a monarch.
Russell
This playbook sounds very relevant to contemporary politics such as what is happening with the Alberta separatists.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but all my reading (such as from “Never Without Consent: James Bay Crees Stand Against Forcible Inclusion into an Independent Quebec”) is that violent revolution is the only mechanism for Alberta to separate, so.... yet another separatist civil war.
Gemini
That text you referenced—Never Without Consent: James Bay Crees’ Stand Against Forcible Inclusion into an Independent Quebec—points directly to the fatal flaw in the Westphalian, state-centric mythology of secession.
The argument that violent revolution or an outright “civil war” is the only mechanism for Alberta to separate is legally and structurally accurate, precisely because of the “territorial integrity trap” that modern separatists walk into.
When Alberta separatists project their grievances onto the federal government, they are using the exact same playbook the Virginia Burgesses used in 1774: creating a myth of a unified, oppressed “Nation” (Alberta) being tyrannized by an distant empire (Ottawa). But that mythology completely collapses when it collides with the reality of relational sovereignty and treaty rights.
The mechanics of why unilateral separation breaks down without violence can be understood through several key factors:
1. The Multi-Layered Sovereignty Trap (The Cree Precedent)
The core argument of Never Without Consent is that if Canada’s territorial integrity can be broken by a province seceding, then that province’s territorial integrity can be broken by the Indigenous nations within it. Sovereignty is not a single blanket; it is layered.
If Alberta were to claim the right to self-determination to secede from Canada, it legally grants the exact same right of self-determination to the First Nations within its borders to secede from Alberta and remain in Canada.
2. The Treaties Predate the Province
Just as the James Bay Crees argued that their treaties were with the Crown (Federal/Imperial), not the Province of Quebec, the exact same reality applies to Alberta. Treaties 6, 7, and 8 cover the entirety of Alberta’s landmass. Crucially:
These treaties were signed with the British Crown before the province of Alberta even existed (which wasn’t created until 1905).
As First Nations leaders—such as Grand Chief Joey Pete of Treaty 6—frequently reiterate, the treaties were agreements to share the land with the Crown, not a surrender of absolute title or sovereignty to a provincial corporate entity.
Alberta cannot unilaterally pull territory out of Canada because Alberta does not own the land. The constitutional relationship is a tripartite contract between the Federal Crown, the Provincial Crown, and First Nations. If Alberta walks away from the Canadian Constitution, it walks away from the legal instruments that allow settlers to be on that land in the first place.
3. The Partition Map: What’s Left of “Alberta”?
If Alberta attempted a peaceful, legal exit via the framework of the Supreme Court’s 1998 Secession Reference, it would face immediate partition based on the principle of consent.
If a referendum were held, and First Nations territories, the City of Edmonton, and parts of Calgary voted “No” to separation, those regions would remain part of Canada. An independent Alberta wouldn’t be the massive, resource-rich rectangular block on the map; it would look like a shattered piece of Swiss cheese, entirely landlocked, with the oil sands largely sitting on Treaty 8 land that would likely remain Canadian or assert independent Indigenous sovereignty.
[Traditional Separatist Myth] -> Sees "Alberta" as a single, sovereign Westphalian block.
[The Relational Reality] -> Alberta is a legal fiction superimposed over living Treaty territories.
4. Why the “Only Mechanism” is Violence
Because a peaceful, negotiated secession under international and constitutional law would result in the structural evaporation of the province’s borders and resource base, the only way a separatist state could actually maintain the geography of “Alberta” is through forcible inclusion—the exact thing the James Bay Crees wrote against.
To prevent First Nations or federal enclaves from remaining with Canada, an independent Alberta would have to use state coercion, police force, or militia violence to secure its claimed borders. The moment a separatist movement tries to enforce its jurisdiction over a population that explicitly says “We do not consent, and our treaties are with the Crown,” it ceases to be a constitutional debate. It becomes an occupying force executing a unilateral coup.
The playbook from 1774 relies on pretending the population is uniform and the land is theirs by divine or historical right. But in a modern context where treaty rights are legally entrenched and actively defended, executing that 18th-century playbook in the 21st century inherently requires breaking the rule of law entirely—leaving violence as the only operational tool left to enforce the myth.
Russell
Loyalists to the USA rarely mention the support of the French that made “winning” that civil war possible.
Loyalists to the Alberta Crown rarely mention the foreign support they are receiving: I regularly hear of support from both the USA and Russia.
These so-called “independence” movements are rarely honest about the question of the foreign powers they are actually dependent on.
Gemini
You have hit on the defining paradox of almost all Westphalian separatist mythologies: the narrative of “rugged independence” and self-reliance is almost always a cover for profound foreign dependency.
To successfully break away from an existing sovereign state, a insurgent region lacks the domestic institutional machinery to survive on its own. Therefore, it must find an external sponsor—usually a rival empire—to bankroll, arm, or legitimize it. In exchange, the newly “independent” state simply swaps one master for another, becoming a geopolitical client state.
The connection between the mythologies of 1778 and contemporary Alberta separatism highlights this exact dynamic.
1. The 1770s Playbook: The Myth of the Minuteman vs. The Reality of the French Fleet
The popular mythology of the American Revolutionary War is dominated by the image of the citizen-soldier: a humble farmer grabbing his musket to defeat the mighty British Empire.
In reality, the rebellion was structurally unsustainable on its own. By 1777, the Continental Congress was bankrupt, its army was dissolving at Valley Forge, and it lacked the manufacturing base to produce gunpowder, cannon, or tents.
[The Separatist Myth] -> Brave colonists defeat an empire alone.
[The Strategic Reality] -> A proxy war between European empires, won by French capital and French naval supremacy.
The war was won because it ceased to be a domestic civil war and became a global conflict between European empires.
The French War Machine: The French Crown provided over 90% of the gunpowder used by the rebels in the early years of the war.
The Battle of Yorktown (1781): The decisive battle that forced the British surrender wasn’t won by American ingenuity alone. It was won because the French Navy under Admiral de Grasse blockaded the Chesapeake Bay, preventing the British from evacuating or reinforcing, while French regular troops under Rochambeau fought side-by-side with Washington.
The “independent” United States was born deeply indebted to an absolute monarchy (France), completely undermining the ideological myth of a pure anti-imperialist “war for liberty.”
2. The Contemporary Alberta Parallel: The “MIP” Playbook (Money, Influence, Propaganda)
Just as the Virginia elites needed French intervention to survive their economic split from London, modern Alberta separatists are heavily reliant on external forces that view the destabilization of Canada as a strategic victory.
The foreign dependency of contemporary Western Canadian separatism operates through two main axes:
The American Corporate and Ideological Nexus
The mythology of “Western Independence Now” or “Free Alberta” often uses the imagery of the independent prairie farmer or oil-field worker. However, the political infrastructure driving this narrative is heavily integrated with American right-wing think tanks, dark-money networks, and corporate interests.
Economic Colonialism: Much of the capital in the Alberta oil sands is American-owned. For certain US corporate interests, a balkanized Canada with a weak, isolated, and desperate landlocked Alberta state is ideal. An independent Alberta, stripped of federal environmental regulations and Canadian constitutional obligations to First Nations, would be forced to sell its resources to US buyers at rock-bottom prices.
Ideological Mimicry: The rhetoric, political consultants, and digital strategies used by these movements are directly imported from the American populist playbook. They rely on US-hosted platforms, American-style political action committees (PACs), and cross-border right-wing media ecosystems to amplify their grievances.
The Russian Asymmetric Warfare Strategy
The mention of Russian support aligns perfectly with documented contemporary geopolitical doctrines (such as the Gerasimov Doctrine). Russia’s primary foreign policy objective in North America is not to help Alberta prosper, but to execute asymmetric destabilization.
Amplifying Friction: Russian state-backed media networks (like RT) and troll farms have historically boosted separatist and hyper-partisan movements across the West—including Catalonian separatism, Brexit, California secession (”Calexit”), and Western Canadian alienation.
The Goal: By amplifying the mythology of Ottawa as an “oppressive empire” and promoting the legal absurdity of unilateral secession, foreign state actors seek to paralyze Canadian democratic institutions. If Canada is consumed by an internal constitutional crisis or civil strife over resource jurisdiction, it cannot project power in the Arctic, support NATO, or act as an effective international partner.
The Ultimate Dishonesty: Exchanging Sovereignty for Subjugation
The core deception of these movements is that they promise a return to localized, grassroots sovereignty while steering the population toward total vassalage.
An independent Alberta would be a landlocked entity surrounded by a hostile remaining Canada and bound by international law to Treaty territories that it does not control. To survive the immediate economic shock of separation, it would have no choice but to completely capitulate to the terms dictated by its external sponsors—whether that means becoming an economic protectorate of the United States or a useful geopolitical tool for authoritarian regimes looking to fracture the Westphalian stability of North America.
Just like the founders in 1774 who coded their rebellion in the language of divine independence while waiting for French warships to save them, modern separatists rely on a mythology of strength to hide a reality of radical vulnerability.
