The apparent claims of alcohol intake being beneficial to some people and groups are evident in Peter DeLottinville’s 1981/82 writing of Joe Beef of Montreal and the 2006 publication of John A. Macdonald and the Bottle by Ged Martin. Based on the Canadian societies of the mid-nineteenth century, the ideologies of both writings seem to point out a single factor: alcohol can sometimes benefit a person and in others, promote a group. By extension, after reading both texts, rather than encounter the expected demerits of “the bottle” in a politician’s life, or the social evils of taverns, the exact opposite happens since the subjects prevail until the very end amidst much drinking. Notably, while Martin has to deal with a character that consistently came to the brink of social and political ruin, DeLottinville has an easier time as his focus is on a man who does not consume the brew but certainly benefits from it through a beer business. Now, the fact that alcohol formed the grounds on which Canadian societies grounded all evil is also present. Nonetheless, the notable fact does not seem to deter the high-ranking politician and the low-status tavern keeper from a lucrative career and fruitful business respectively. Thus said, the representation of John A. Macdonald and Charles McKiernan suggest that contrary to the temperance ideologies of the nineteenth century Canada, there were some benefits to alcohol consumption: the drink helped a politician cope with personal problems and equipped a seller with enough information and resources to aid the needy.
Foremost, Joe Beef of Montreal revolves around the connection between the working-class cultures of workers, who sought minimum wage occupations at the dockyards of the waterfront district of Montreal, and Charles McKiernan’s tavern. Apparently, after serving in the British Army, McKiernan rejoined society with two new additions to his person: the attitude of a sergeant and the nickname Joe Beef, hence the inn’s name. Now, as one would expect with a deeply religious and socially stratified community, the presence of a bar that harbored the “lowest and most depraved human beings” did not sit well with the residents of Montreal. Subsequently, concerns over the city’s social order created rifts between McKiernan and not only the religious factions of the city but also those belonging to the middle class of the region. Except for the immediate benefactors of the tavern, it was as though all the residents were against the mechanisms of the Inn, its owner, and customers. However, contrary to the picture that the anti-tavern sentiments promoted, Joe Beef’s story depicts an entirely different character. First, the immediate disparity between Joe Beef’s humble establishment and the typical bars that littered Montreal at the time was the apparent multi-purpose nature of the former. A significant number of the “casual [laborers] and the poor of Montreal” regarded the bar as one would a home and a leisure spot. According to DeLottinville’s text, the structure had forty wooden sofas that the patrons would often use as beds when they lacked accommodation or were simply too broke to bother with finding better lodgings. Secondly, the relations between tavern owner and customers evolved into one of mutual dependency whereas the customers remained loyal while he went about providing “social services” whenever the need arose. From turning the inn into a makeshift hospital for the injured to providing loaves, tea, and soup during labor strikes, the relationship between McKiernan and the alcohol consuming dockworkers went beyond the tavern. Finally, no matter the efforts made by the religious faction, the church gained the reputation of a “religious institution without Christianity” while the bar maintained its status as a refuge for those in need until Charles McKiernan’s death in 1889. For more than two decades, the man’s canteen had done more right than the church itself, and it was from beer sales.
In John A. Macdonald and the Bottle, Martin informs readers on why he believes that his subject was not an alcoholic but a man with so many problems that required the occasional drink to handle. Martin reckons that for one to recognize the drinking habits of the politician as problematic, he or she would also have to “underline his ascendancy in Canadian politics” as Macdonald reached the peak of his political career amidst reports of constant intoxication. To that end, three main points go on to prove that MacDonald did not suffer from alcoholism. First, when medical researchers coined the term “alcoholic” in 1891, Macdonald’s life was expiring as he died that same year. Thus, there was no time to observe his person and determine whether he met the criteria of being an alcoholic or not; notably, historians tend to overlook the given fact and would deem themselves knowledgeable enough about the subject. Martin offers caution and advises every researcher to “tread carefully” when handling the area under discussion. Next, even if there was time to analyze Macdonald’s behavior and determine the connection to alcoholism, the precise definition of the term eliminates any possibilities of success. In the description of chronic alcoholism, “mental or physical damage” appear as a necessary precursor to a definite diagnosis of the condition. However, if the successful political life of Macdonald is anything to go by, his mind and body were in such good shape that the man was in office until he turned seventy-six. Thirdly, reporters of the time overlooked a crucial factor while investigating and publishing stories on John A. Macdonald: he was a depressed man. The death of his son in 1848, his first wife in 1857, and his mother in 1862 marked the gradual yet palpable growth of Macdonald’s dependency on alcohol. With the given facts in mind, it seems improbable that the prominent political figure was a chronic drinker. Perhaps he merely required alcohol to cope with the mentioned deaths and the stresses of government issues. After all, his last years as a politician saw him achieve more than his counterparts could. For example, while he was the “architect of [Canada's] Confederation,” his absence during crucial debates concerning a Militia Bill in May 1862 cost the government profoundly as the opponents won that particular exchange. Meanwhile, throughout the years, the Globe newspaper kept close checks on Macdonald but predominantly reported ill-suited news about the man. In one incident, the paper accused Macdonald of being in “such a state of intoxication,” that telegrams remained unanswered and official duties unmoving as the politician focused more on his liquor. Hence, and with the given facts in mind, it is evident that the Globe’s antics, targeted Macdonald out of malice but just as in the case of his rivals, could not taint his political prowess. Again, alcohol intake assumes a positive light as the propelling factor behind a politician’s career.
Evidently, the two authors show some accord in the role of taverns and alcohol in their respective works; however, Peter DeLottinville uses better evidence while Ged Martin takes a biased stand in his argument. About DeLottinville’s representation of Joe Beef, it is safe to argue that the incorporation of witness accounts and that of documents from the era give more weight to the author’s thesis and supportive arguments. For example, there are illustrations in the article and they shed more light on the mechanisms of the tavern and its people. The fact that the drawings date back to the years in which Joe Beef’s bar was open adds more merit to DeLottinville’s work. Meanwhile, Martin appears to attack his sources of information. Where he does not come up with a defensive argument, the man incorporates too many references that render a large percentage of the document a mere replica of multiple combined works. On that note, the mentioned bias stems from the fact that he makes constant excuses for Macdonald. In the case of Joe Beef, the writer has no problem in bringing out the subject of his work as the hero among the helpless individuals of his community only because the man was selling the liquor. However, Macdonald’s heroic traits depend on multiple technicalities that do not succeed in making plausible arguments since he did love his alcohol. For instance, the case of Globe newspapers unfairly attacking Macdonald would be stronger if a police report or court proceedings accompanied them; otherwise, it is as though the politician accepted his fate or even agreed with the journalists’ analysis of his traits. Extensively, the amount of effort Martin puts into covering the evidently alcoholic mannerisms of Macdonald make him a biased author with no foundations on which he could prove alcohol aided the latter man in any way. Given, grief could sometimes call for drunkenness but that excuse cannot protect an individual indefinitely, and that is what Martin has to accept.
Conclusively, based on this paper’s exploration of the two articles, Peter DeLottinville provides the best read on the possible advantages of alcohol consumption in Canadian history and the accompanying tavern culture of the same. Perhaps the publicity of Macdonald’s life and the expectations of the government and the public render the politician incapable of his duties. Either way, taverns defined the last half of the nineteenth century Canada as combinations of the two documents provides the ideal explanation to the given claim. Macdonald proves that government officials were not immune to the potent drink and at the same time captures the emergence of bars in the first quarter of the mentioned time. Extensively, Joe Beef takes over in the last quarter and provides evidence to the reality of alcohol as an important to the people regardless of their economic and social statuses. Once combined, the two writings capture the outcomes of industrialization and immigration that came with Canada's independence.
Bibliography
DeLottinville, Peter. "Joe Beef of Montreal: Working-Class Culture and the Tavern,1869-1889." Labour/ Le Travailleur 8, no. 9 (1981/82): 9-40.
Martin, Ged. "John A. Macdonald and the Bottle." Journal of Canadian Studies, 2006: 1-10.
