Best time for the USA to get Canada?

[Mac Gregor]

Hey everyone,

The two attempts to conquer Canada in OTL (The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812) didn't work. I have been wondering when was the best time for the United States to theoretically conquer Canada? By best time I mean at what point before 1900 would the USA be strong enough to conquer Canada without the British Navy and Army thoroughly destroying the eastern seaboard.

 

[Elfwine]

Hey everyone,

The two attempts to conquer Canada in OTL (The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812) didn't work. I have been wondering when was the best time for the United States to theoretically conquer Canada? By best time I mean at what point before 1900 would the USA be strong enough to conquer Canada without the British Navy and Army thoroughly destroying the eastern seaboard.

I would not want to bet it would be even at the end of the century.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Hey everyone,

The two attempts to conquer Canada in OTL (The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812) didn't work. I have been wondering when was the best time for the United States to theoretically conquer Canada? By best time I mean at what point before 1900 would the USA be strong enough to conquer Canada without the British Navy and Army thoroughly destroying the eastern seaboard.

They could have supported the Nova Scotian rebels during the Revolution. In fact later on George Washington said that this was his "greatest regret"

 

[Socrates]

They could have supported the Nova Scotian rebels during the Revolution. In fact later on George Washington said that this was his "greatest regret"

Even if you got Nova Scotia and Quebec to join the revolution, I think it highly unlikely Quebec would have joined the United States, so it doesn't help get the unified North America I assume the poster is after. You probably want to wait until there are a lot more Anglos in Quebec which could force the place into union.

The easiest way to do this is probably to have British repression in Canada somehow so the Canadian revolt of 1837 is heavier, then the USA is not dealing with a hostile population. An independent Canada from that point is extremely likely to be a Texas situation.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Again, the problem with my ancestors and the Revolution...
Simple thing; the deep anti-french, anti-'papists' feelings shown by many americans by then.

Between the Colonials and the British Rule (who saw a pragmatic opportunity...)....

 

[Badshah]

Again, the problem with my ancestors and the Revolution...
Simple thing; the deep anti-french, anti-'papists' feelings shown by many americans by then.

Between the Colonials and the British Rule (who saw a pragmatic opportunity...)....

Indeed. A large cause of the Revolution was in fact the British treating Quebec quite nicely after acquiring it from France, making the 13 Colonies a little jealous and frankly, pissed.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Indeed. A large cause of the Revolution was in fact the British treating Quebec quite nicely after acquiring it from France, making the 13 Colonies a little jealous and frankly, pissed.

But it exist since much longer, as the Colonies and New France where opposed.

 

[Eurofed]

This board's clichè of the ARW patriots hating their fellow Canadian colonists' guts is besides way annoying, horrendously exaggerated.

1) There was a sizable Catholic minority within the 13 Colonies that enjoyed full civil and political rights political equality: there are signatures of Catholics on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Conversely, there is not *one* documentary evidence of a significant political drive during the creation of the USA to deny Catholics full equality, either at the state or federal level. As for French language, back then it was the second language of culture for educated American elites. There is a distinct lack of Protestant mobs during the ARW howling for the blood of Catholics.

2) The leaders of the American Revolution were quite eager to bring Canada onboard, as proved by the invitation letters they sent to the Quebecois during the ARW, and the pre-approval for membership of Canada in the Articles of Confederation.

3) The one and only thing that the Patriots were (mightly) pissed off about the Quebec Act, is that by carving up the trans-Allegheny territory to Quebec, London was closing it off to settlers from the 13 colonies.

Would the presence of Canadian representatives at the Constititutional Convention made things a bit more complex ? Yes. But the reasonable concerns of the Quebecois for protection of their religion and language from federal interference were fairly easy to address in practice (it would not take more than a couple extra clausles in the Constitution that would actually cost the other states very little to write in) and otherwise, 1787 federalism already granted an overwhelming degree of autonomy to a community that was the majority in a state. As long as the Quebecois would not go out of their way to harass local Protestant or English-speaking minorities, widespread respect for states' rights would ensure Quebec a cozy place within the American system. Apart from cultural and religious peculiarities, the interests of Quebec would actually align with the ones of some among the other 13 states on most other issues. To settle the concerns of Quebecois about integration in the USA would actually be quite easy in comparison to the compromises that were necessary at the CC between small and large states, and between free and slaveowning states.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The later history, like with irishes and italians make me doubtfull..

Kennedy had some problems. The *60s*.

A MASSIVE influx of catholics and frenches may change things.. creating a fear of 'getting drowned'... (even if by comparing to the Colonies, our ancestors have whimpy numbers..)

 

[Eurofed]

The later history, like with irishes and italians make me doubtfull..

Later history means nothing. The problems that Irish and Italian immigrants met were but one more manifestation of an eternal social phenomenon, the nativist panic that large numbers of immigrants generate. Usually some kind of difference is picked as an excuse for discrimination, but it is a codeword for "we don't want large number of dirt-poor new folks to settle in and mess our job market". If it had been large number of dirt-poor Protestant immigrants, some other excuse would have been picked for nativist panic.

Kennedy had some problems. The *60s*.

Which *significant* problems whatsoever ? It was essentially treated like a non-issue by the mainstream public.

Now, we may easily say that the first Black President has had some significant problems. But I utterly failed to notice the existence of a movement to deny that Kennedy was a natural-born citizen or somesuch.

A MASSIVE influx of catholics and frenches may change things.. creating a fear of 'getting drowned'... (even if by comparing to the Colonies, our ancestors have whimpy numbers..)

Massive influx of Catholic and French-speaking settlers in the 1780 ? From where ? Some may come to American Quebec during the French Revolution, but their numbers are certainly not going to be massive.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Still, I think you severly understimate the legacy of the fights with frenchmen and their indian allies, and the feelings against 'popery'....

They may succeed and win over pragmatism and Lumières ideas.

 

[Badshah]

But it exist since much longer, as the Colonies and New France where opposed.

Exactly. How would you feel if your dad gave your bike to your enemy?

 

[Eurofed]

Still, I think you severly understimate the legacy of the fights with frenchmen and their indian allies,

The 18th century wars were quite limited in character and consequences on the population at large, and did not left behind a legacy of hatred.

and the feelings against 'popery'....

Again, I cling to historical evidence. The Federal and state US Constitutions gave full equality to Catholics, and there is *no* evidence in the well-documented history of the American Revolution and the creation of the USA for a significant political drive to deny or reverse it. Catholics were elected to the Continental Congress and the Constitutonal Convention without a fuss. The Founding Fathers wanted Canada to join the 13 Colonies, and went out of their way to seek it.

Early Americans passionately argued about a number of things concerning the set-up of their new nation, but making Catholics second-class citizens is conspicously absent from the historical record. Until someone digs out contrary proof, I'm not going to accept that anti-Catholic feelings would be a significant barrier to Canada joining the ARW and the aborning USA.

It did not happen simply because, just as London picked all the right things to do and piss the 13 Colonies off at a key moment, it did pick all the right things to appease the Quebecois at the same moment. Had the Quebec Act been shaped by the same bullheadedness that informed the Intolerable Acts, the Stars and Stripes would flow in Montreal and Toronto today.

They may succeed and win over pragmatism and Lumières ideas.

Hardly believable. The leaders of the American Revolution were soaked with Enlightenment thinking and were always very mindful of the need to keep mob rule and its passions and prejudices at bay.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

And anyway, it was AT THE VERY LEAST what the leaders of Canadiens feared, and guessed. A rising hostility to them.

It was enough to make them refuse this potential trap danger, and kept the cold pragmatic links with Britain.

Better the evil you know...

 

[Eurofed]

And anyway, it was AT THE VERY LEAST what the leaders of Canadiens feared, and guessed. A rising hostility to them.

It was enough to make them refuse this potential trap danger, and kept the cold pragmatic links with Britain.

Better the evil you know...

Not really. The main factor in keeping Quebec content with British rule was that with the Quebec Act, London appeased the Canadiens with most of the concessions (short of self-rule) they were seeking at the time. They didn't revolt because Britain appeased them. It was not really about preferring the evil they knew. They simply were not pissed off about British rule enough to join the Revolution en masse.

The paranoid siege mentality of French-Canadians is a later phenomenon (hello, BQ linguistic discrimination).

You should really stop mixing up historical periods. 1670s rabidly anti-Catholic England is not 1770s much more tolerant America, nativist panic about 1840s Irish or 1890s Italian immigrants does not concern 1770s French long-settled colonists, and 1770s Canadiens are not the 1970s ones in full grip of siege mentality.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

And this is kinda what I means.

Ahem. it's PQ, and this is no language police crud and all, cut the fear mongering.

You don't know a lot on my peoples, and it show, sorry. Who mix up historic stuff and cultural ideas?

 

[Eurofed]

Ahem. it's PQ, and this is no language police crud and all, cut the fear mongering.

Admittedly, it was the PQ (a slip of one letter, sorry) that passed the so-called Charter of the French Language, which, according to everything I read about it, stands as a rather nasty piece of linguistic discrimination for English-speaker minorities.

 

[Socrates]

This board's clichè of the ARW patriots hating their fellow Canadian colonists' guts is besides way annoying, horrendously exaggerated.

The issue is not one so much for the dominant English Protestants. The issues would be on the Quebec side not wanting to join.

Would the presence of Canadian representatives at the Constititutional Convention made things a bit more complex ? Yes. But the reasonable concerns of the Quebecois for protection of their religion and language from federal interference were fairly easy to address in practice.

I think you are looking back with an anachronistic view of how much people would trust the written commitment of religious protection from people that have previously denounced them as "slaves". Just look at how things like the Edict of Nantes was revoked as soon as the govt was powerful enough to do it.

I actually think the English colonies would uphold protections for Quebec, but Quebec, used to French autocracy and very scared after what had happened in Acadia (with colonial support), would just not risk it.

Apart from cultural and religious peculiarities, the interests of Quebec would actually align with the ones of some among the other 13 states on most other issues.

Cultural and religious issues are not "peculiarities", they are fundamental to people's identity in this period. How many times in history, have people of a particular culture, joined a state with people of another culture when they have reasonable prospects of their own independence? The two peoples may have shared interests, but these interests can be worked on by being friendly independent states.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Admittedly, it was the PQ (a slip of one letter, sorry) that passed the so-called Charter of the French Language, which, according to everything I read about it, stands as a rather nasty piece of linguistic discrimination for English-speaker minorities.

No discrimination. Defence of a local minority's language. English is in no way threatened. Frankly. Federalists defend this law fiercely as well.

Stop listening to such thrivel. We threat anglophones actually VERY well. Better than the francophones out of Quebec at least, francophones of Louisiana, britishes did to welshes, etc...

if this was so inical, Québec Solidaire, our 'goddamn accursed commie hippies' (which I vote for) would fight it, believe me.

 

[Eurofed]

The issue is not one so much for the dominant English Protestants. The issues would be on the Quebec side not wanting to join.

Fighting a lengthy revolutionary war together can go an helluva way far towards building up brotherhood and trust. There are not just religious and linguistic differences. There are also political affinities borne out of being part of the same Revolution and brotherhood-in-arms forged on the battlefield. Ethnic-cultural differences are not the only potential building blocks of national consciousness or foiunding myths.

I think you are looking back with an anachronistic view of how much people would trust the written commitment of religious protection from people that have previously denounced them as "slaves". Just look at how things like the Edict of Nantes was revoked as soon as the govt was powerful enough to do it.

The Revocation of Edict of Nantes was a century before. Now, who's being anachronistic ?

I actually think the English colonies would uphold protections for Quebec, but Quebec, used to French autocracy and very scared after what had happened in Acadia (with colonial support), would just not risk it.

The British did it, not an independent America.

The two peoples may have shared interests, but these interests can be worked on by being friendly independent states.

The early US Constitution, not to mention the Articles of Confederation, would give an helluva amount of autonomy to Canadian states, that amounted to pretty much self-rule in almost all domestic matters, short of monetary and fiscal policy (areas where say Canadian farmers and Middle Atlantic ones, Montreal and New York traders, seigneurs and Southern gentry are going to be in better agreement rather than different groups on either side of the cultural divide). Political union would serve certain interests (e.g. trade, infrastructure development, colonial expansion, military protection) better than a simple alliance. Nationalism is not such an all-powerful and overwhelming force as you imply.