Fate of Canada in an "America wins Quebec" scenario

[Shackel]

Alright, let's just say that Guy gets captured in the first battle in Canada(which he nearly was) during the ARW. As a result, Quebec is not prepared well enough for the Americans. America takes Quebec, and the population soon starts turning somewhat revolutionary(but it would be more like Georgia or a southern state).

That's the premise. Not perfect, not deep, but that's the type of situation. Now, with that said, here's the question:

How would Canada shape out? I mean, access would suddenly be much more restricted, and, even then, America just got key ports and a large amount of good land.

Would Britain try harder to gain Alaska to balance it out, or would Canada simply fall into America's hands through some sort of "Ontario Purchase"?

[Sift Green]

Is this supposed to be the revolutionary war, or the war of 1812?

[Shackel]

Originally Posted by Sift Green

Is this supposed to be the revolutionary war, or the war of 1812?

Revolutionary. I will clarfiy.

[Plumber]

IC: What's Canada?

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Plumber

IC: What's Canada?

IC: It's that huge state to the north of New England, southwest of the British colony of Newfoundland. You know - the one that's litigating another language-rights case every other year.

OOC: Quebec was known as Canada for a long while.

On topic: I think the US would've gotten Ontario as well; the British probably would've kept western Canada, the Hudson's Bay region, and part of Oregon. The Loyalists would've settled somewhere, though - maybe the Martime provinces, but maybe some other colony (South Africa? )

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Evan

IC: It's that huge state to the north of New England, southwest of the British colony of Newfoundland. You know - the one that's litigating another language-rights case every other year.

OOC: Quebec was known as Canada for a long while.

On topic: I think the US would've gotten Ontario as well; the British probably would've kept western Canada, the Hudson's Bay region, and part of Oregon. The Loyalists would've settled somewhere, though - maybe the Martime provinces, but maybe some other colony (South Africa? )

Um...do I need to summon back Zyzzyva from the dark netherworld of Maths to point out that at the time of the American Revolutionary War, there was no English-speaking Canada?

[Mirza Khan]

Originally Posted by Thande

Um...do I need to summon back Zyzzyva from the dark netherworld of Maths to point out that at the time of the American Revolutionary War, there was no English-speaking Canada?

This. Pre-Revolutionary war Ontario and New Brunswick were very sparsely populated expanses of wilderness-once the St. Lawrence Valley falls, the few British outposts in Ontario can be written off.

If America captures Quebec in 1775, then the entire course of the Revolutionary War is essentially butterflied-troop movements and supply considerations would be completely different. But lets assume, as you seem to be, that 1) America wins and 2)Britain fails to retake Quebec.

In that case, I think its quite likely that the Treaty of Paris might see the entire mainland eastern seaboard of North America handed over to the US. In this case, where the loyalists go would be problematic-Newfoundland is possible, but I doubt it would be big enough for all of them. South Africa is still Dutch at this point. Britain will still own the Hudson's bay company lands and the Oregon/British Columbia area, but the former is useless for anything but fur hunting, and as to the latter, the logistics of getting the entire loyalist population around Cape Horn and up the west coasts of South and North America are going to be a bitch (plus, I'm not even sure it was fully explored at that time). Its quite possible that a large amount of loyalists might wind up staying in the US, which could affect US politics in unpredictable ways.

Beyond that, I think French Catholic Quebec will have a very hard time fitting into English Protestant America, and it will likely be a source of tension. Couple that with a large population of remaining loyalists, and the United States might have a much more...interesting political history ahead of it.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Beyond that, I think French Catholic Quebec will have a very hard time fitting into English Protestant America, and it will likely be a source of tension. Couple that with a large population of remaining loyalists, and the United States might have a much more...interesting political history ahead of it.

We had Catholics at the time you know. There were even some at the Continental Congress.

[Beedok]

Considering what happened in the Seven Years war I predict that the Americans get stuck in the city all winter, half starved and then get beaten by the Canadiens who had been off on a training montage all winter and are back with a vegeance.

[Condottiere]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

We had Catholics at the time you know. There were even some at the Continental Congress.

*Cough* Maryland *Cough*

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Beyond that, I think French Catholic Quebec will have a very hard time fitting into English Protestant America, and it will likely be a source of tension. Couple that with a large population of remaining loyalists, and the United States might have a much more...interesting political history ahead of it.

The expectation that French-speaking Catholic and English-speaking Protestant colonists are bound to clash if joined in the USA is actually greatly exaggerated on these boards. It might happen, but it is much less likely than expected, for various reasons:

A) There was a significant Catholic minority within the 13 colonies, and it coexisted with the Protestant majority with little notable strife, members of the community were elected to the Continental Congress. American Catholics got full civil and political rights in the federal and state constitutions with little trouble. One would be sorely challenged to find calls for legal discrimination of Catholics in the extremely well-documented development and ratification process of the US Constitution.

B) The Founding Fathers wanted Canada to join the American Revolution, as documented by the appeals to this effect they made to the province, and its pre-approval for membership in the Articles of Confederation.

C) The US Constitution already gives pretty much all the political autonomy and civil rights an American Quebec state may want, in addition the Canadiens may ask for guarantees about their religion and language that are no big deal to add to the Constitution (e.g. no national religion or language).

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

In that case, I think its quite likely that the Treaty of Paris might see the entire mainland eastern seaboard of North America handed over to the US. In this case, where the loyalists go would be problematic-Newfoundland is possible, but I doubt it would be big enough for all of them. South Africa is still Dutch at this point. Britain will still own the Hudson's bay company lands and the Oregon/British Columbia area, but the former is useless for anything but fur hunting, and as to the latter, the logistics of getting the entire loyalist population around Cape Horn and up the west coasts of South and North America are going to be a bitch (plus, I'm not even sure it was fully explored at that time). Its quite possible that a large amount of loyalists might wind up staying in the US, which could affect US politics in unpredictable ways.

If Quebec/Ontario and Nova Scotia go to America in the Peace of Paris, then it is pretty sure that the Loyalists won't relocate anywhere else in North America except Newfoundland (but as you point out, the island is not big enough for all of them, although some may cetainly go there). As you point out, Rupert's Land and Colombia-Oregon are far too inhospitable and remote to be a feasible resettlement area. Nor are the Loyalists any more likely to stay in the USA, because the Patriots are not going to be any more forgiving than OTL (quite the contrary, since TTL American Revolution won a more decisive victory than OTL), nor suitable potential resettlement places are lacking outside North America. For one thing, Australia is a suitable location.

Alternatively or in addition, Britain and the Netherlands were at war during 1780-1784. If Britain finds itself in want of a resettlement place for the Loyalists, it can easily make a more concerned effort to seize and keep the Cape Colony during that war or get it at the peace table.

Some Loyalists may also go to Newfoundland and Ireland.

As it concerns the OP question about the fate of Rupert's Land and Columbia-Oregon if Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia go to America in 1774-1815, it is pretty much sure that those lands shall be absorbed by the USA sooner or later. Without Middle Canada and access to the Great Lakes, they are far too difficult for Britain to defend against American penetration or invasion, US economic interests and settlers shall soon become dominant, while Britain shall lack the Loyalist and Quebecois settler pool to colonize them (and Quebec shall become one extra sizable pool of American settlers). Once the fur trade declines, their value to the British Empire shall become ever more marginal and not worth defending, while they shall keep a significant value for US agricultural colonization and economic interests. Sooner or later, they shall be gained by America, either by peaceful purchase or by war.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

The expectation that French-speaking Catholic and English-speaking Protestant colonists are bound to clash if joined in the USA is actually greatly exaggerated on these boards. It might happen, but it is much less likely than expected, for various reasons:
C) The US Constitution already gives pretty much all the political autonomy and civil rights an American Quebec state may want, in addition the Canadiens may ask for guarantees about their religion and language that are no big deal to add to the Constitution (e.g. no national religion or language).

Rather than giving all these messy freedoms and rights to Quebecois Catholics, I always assumed that the natural balance of power in the State of Canada / Cabeck would be the status quo-domination by English-speaking Protestants. Sure there would be French-speaking farmers, merchants, and Catholic clergy, but there were Germans in other colonies and their existence didn't threaten the balance of power. So all that the Americans need is a good stock of Anglo-Canadians willing to shift their loyalty to the nascent republic, and boom! No need to figure out the messy issues of religious tolerance and multilingualism.

[Reddog794]

The only point I would raise is, how would the taking of Quebec give them Nova Scotia? It is not an easy trek, Montreal or Quebec City to Halifax, there is a string of forts along the Chignecto Isthmus. Even the march there, which is not fun on modern highways, would be hard, as the only people in those areas were Mi'kmaq or Maliseet.

I just want to know how the US, got one of the Empires main Naval Bases in the Americas, without a shot.

[danwild6]

Actually its possible Halifax could be taken at the beginning of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of...can_Revolution

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Reddog794

The only point I would raise is, how would the taking of Quebec give them Nova Scotia? It is not an easy trek, Montreal or Quebec City to Halifax, there is a string of forts along the Chignecto Isthmus. Even the march there, which is not fun on modern highways, would be hard, as the only people in those areas were Mi'kmaq or Maliseet.

I just want to know how the US, got one of the Empires main Naval Bases in the Americas, without a shot.

This is the real problem. America takes it, but the population is not supportive. Then the British show up, drive them out.

The end?

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by rcduggan

Rather than giving all these messy freedoms and rights to Quebecois Catholics (...) No need to figure out the messy issues of religious tolerance and multilingualism.

The French-speaking Catholics are essentially going to get those freedoms and rights as the natural extension of the ones the English-speaking Protestants are giving to themselves. When the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and ratified, there was like zero significant support to make an exception to US freedoms in order to discriminate Catholics. The same is going to happen if there is a sizable bunch of them nested in one state, Quebec. They can have normal states' rights (which in 1789 meant a helluva lot of autonomy) and First Amendment guarantees without threatening the Protestant hegemony in the other states in the foreseeable future. As for multilingualism, French was the language of culture in the 18th century, so the Quebecois are going to get it with little fuss (although it's more like to happen by the First Amendment forbidding a national church and language, and federal bilingualism being established by statute and precedent. There are going to be English and French versions of the Declaration of Independence, if Quebec goes Patriot before it, and/or of the US Constitution, quite possibly on the same parchments).

[Eurofed]

As it concerns Nova Scotia, if Quebec goes Patriot, it may do so as well in two ways:

a) If Quebec joins the American Revolution in 1774-75 (out of PoDs involving the Quebec Act and/or Guy Carleton), Nova Scotia may easily follow its example out of political butterflies.

b) Having support from Quebec, Jonathan Eddy's attempt to conquer Nova Scotia in 1776 may easily turn successful. Even if he may fail to conquer Halifax, he would grab the rest of the province. Without Halifax, the bulk of NS was not so hostile to the Revolution that it would fail to turn Patriot and set up its representation in the Continental Congress once under American control. Halifax may stay British up to the end, but this all but surely leads to NS being given to America in the Peace of Paris.

[Grimm Reaper]

danwild6, nothing in the article supports that claim.

[Claudius]

On the question of where the Loyalists go;

1) Once the AR is over and won, the political passions of the revolution are likely to die down. The Whiggish Founders, Washington, Adams, et al., would likely have seen continued strife and civil war as counterproductive to the forging of a new union and done their best to stop it. The firebrands like Patrick Henry were not in much of a position to do much in opposition.

2) I suspect that the length and duration of the AR will be altered significantly.Assuming the Quebecois threw in their lot with the AR, significant British forces would be siphoned off for actions there that did not occur IOTL, altering tactics, strategy and commanders on the English side unpredictably. On the US side, Bedadict Arnold might have remained a heroic figure.

3) At the Treaty of Paris, or its analog, the British negotiators might well have pressed for special provisions for Loyalists, particularly those who had fought for the King. Perhaps land west of the mountains in OTLs Old Northwest might have become a place to dump the unwanted Tories.

4) Those Tories that stayed where they were in places like New York, the Hudson Valley or Philadelphia might evolve into a vocal hard conservative bloc supportive of the policies of men like Hamilton and later on the core of opposition to men like Jackson and Van Buren (if either rose to power in this TL

5) The whole issue of US/French relations will be forever altered in France's favor

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Claudius

1) Once the AR is over and won, the political passions of the revolution are likely to die down. The Whiggish Founders, Washington, Adams, et al., would likely have seen continued strife and civil war as counterproductive to the forging of a new union and done their best to stop it. The firebrands like Patrick Henry were not in much of a position to do much in opposition.

Which continued strife and civil war ? IOTL the Loyalists were evicted with little of that, and the Founders showed little inclination and be merciful to a defeated fifth column. ITTL the Patriots have won an even more decisive victory, and liberated all of mainland BNA. They have even less reason to give a break to the Loyalists than OTL.

2) I suspect that the length and duration of the AR will be altered significantly.Assuming the Quebecois threw in their lot with the AR, significant British forces would be siphoned off for actions there that did not occur IOTL, altering tactics, strategy and commanders on the English side unpredictably. On the US side, Bedadict Arnold might have remained a heroic figure.

Whatever butterfly arises, it is going to lean in the favor of the Patriots and against Britain, which shall throw the Loyalists even more deeply in hot water.

3) At the Treaty of Paris, or its analog, the British negotiators might well have pressed for special provisions for Loyalists, particularly those who had fought for the King. Perhaps land west of the mountains in OTLs Old Northwest might have become a place to dump the unwanted Tories.

Frankly, the suggestion is ridiculous. The Patriots have fought this war, among other things, to ensure as much as possible of a free rein in North America for American colonization. They would slit their throats rather than allow an hostile Loyalist haven on their border when they have just kicked the Redcoats off the rest of the continent (once America controls settled Canada, Rupert's Land essentially exists at its mercy).

The Continental Congress won't concede Britain one inch more about the Loyalists than the worthless promises it put on paper IOTL. Britain by the time of the Peace of Paris is war-weary, the Parliament is in open revolt against the war party, and certainly it is not going to continue the war to get a big deal for the Loyalists, since IOTL it did nothing of the sort when the Patriots evicted the Loyalists, even more so if it suffered a more decisive defeat than OTL.

Besides, the British Empire is big, there is plenty of other unsettled places (Australia, the Cape, Newfoundland) to resettle the Loyalists with much less trouble. It costs Britain less to secure the Cape Colony at the peace table and resettle the Loyalists there if they don't want to send them to Australia, then vainly trying to convince the Patriots to let them stay anywhere in North America.

The whole reason for Canada to exist was America's failure to get the settled Canadian colonies in 1774-1815. If it happens, Canada is stillborn, period. The Patriots won't let the Loyalists stay anywhere within their reach, and the rest of North America too wild and remote to go, or in the hands of other victorious powers. The British Empire can stand without it.