Canada Under American Rule

[Lusitania]

And?

He stated that US has no chance of capturing and keeping Quebec and Atlantic Canada in war of 1812. But people kept arguing that the US could of and we continued to explain in GREAT detail what the circumstances of the US were and what the size of both US and Quebec population and their distrust and animosity. We have demonstrated that US with its militia were in no position to conquer and most importantly occupy Quebec, We even showed how history provided real examples of how minorities rights been trampled on. But for some reason none of this matters. What the heck we suppose to do. If someone wants to post some hocus pocus fantasy thread then do so in the SAB. I trying to keep this civil manner and not argue for sake of arguing but to provide real historical context to my answers and post which from the likes and comments from lots of people I have done so.

So since the original author of the thread has now stated that Quebec and Atlantic Canada not part of US captures rest of Canada, leave at that.

 

[Socrates]

New York City was enormous before the Erie Canal was built and I don't know how much of a difference a lack of the Canal would make.

It was enormous because even without the canal, it was the easiest way into the non-state interior areas. In a united North America, the St Lawrence valley would be.

 

[Wendell]

Louisiana is a different kettle of fish for many reasons. Having said that, let's put it this way (and think of it as a yes, I agree with you):
*Quebec the town (later Quebec City in English and (la Ville du) Québec in French: Depends on the area; in some cases it would as Francophone or bilingual as Montreal, and in other cases, such as the Old City, it would basically be its own universe
*Quebec the province: Did not exist as a concept until the late 1860s (the preferred terminology was some variation of Canada), but if the province was internally divided in a different Quebec the region would probably cover what are now the eastern and northeastern areas of the province (i.e. the Gaspésie, the Beauce, metro Québec, the Lower North Shore). This area can still remain reasonably Francophone, without a doubt. As you get towards the Montréal area, that is where you start having problems with maintaining French given the dominance of English in the city; rural areas and small towns may retain more Francophones but that would only add to its marginalization.

C'est vrai.Consider Pennsylvania, where, at independence and in decades subsequent, English was spoken in the cities, and the local German variety in the countryside. Or, the Hudson Valley, which was still largely Dutch-speaking during President Van Buren's childhood after independence was won and recognized. Indeed, the president himself spoke Dutch as a child.

We keep repeating that you are putting the cart before the horse. First we need to try and incorporate Quebec into the US and the two and only opportunities if we call it that was the ARW and the war of 1812. In both scenarios we have large Francophone population that was hostile to the US colonies or the US country for fear they would loose their status they had at the time. It both cases we also dealing with huge distance between New England / New York and Quebec with the fastest being by ship around Atlantic Canada. Arguing about railway which was only built after 1840s is irrelevant to the discussion. For the US would of had to subdue a hostile population for 20-50 years before. An action it had no means to do so, for the US had no federal army capable of doing so. If you have doubts please read US early history. Secondly the US at that time could not of stopped one of the English speaking colonies or states from not joining or leaving the union. So it had no ability to force the French or for that matter the English speaking people who were ANTI US too.

I actually think that the real last chance to get (eastern) Canada is the 1860's, and that there are chances before then under alternate circumstances.

The issue about English settlers choosing to settle in Quebec on Midwest and even Ontario must also be taken into account for why would English move to an area that was hostile or very French and catholic when they move to an area where they form the majority. Also please realize the size of population 80,000 1783 and 200,000 by 1820. Not something easy to subdue.

Population dynamics change. The prevalence of Spanish in contemporary Miami does not stop non-Hispanophone peoples from moving there. Likewise, the dominance of Neomexicano did not stop the settlement of New Mexico. Likewise, the Mississippi Delta, which was solidly francophone for much on the nineteenth century, or early Dutch settlement in New York and later Michigan, or German settlement in Pennsylvania, the Ohio Valley and the Upper Plains. During the 1880 election campaign, James Garfield fielded questions asked in German by local farmers.

 

[Lusitania]

C'est vrai.Consider Pennsylvania, where, at independence and in decades subsequent, English was spoken in the cities, and the local German variety in the countryside. Or, the Hudson Valley, which was still largely Dutch-speaking during President Van Buren's childhood after independence was won and recognized. Indeed, the president himself spoke Dutch as a child.

I actually think that the real last chance to get (eastern) Canada is the 1860's, and that there are chances before then under alternate circumstances.

Population dynamics change. The prevalence of Spanish in contemporary Miami does not stop non-Hispanophone peoples from moving there. Likewise, the dominance of Neomexicano did not stop the settlement of New Mexico. Likewise, the Mississippi Delta, which was solidly francophone for much on the nineteenth century, or early Dutch settlement in New York and later Michigan, or German settlement in Pennsylvania, the Ohio Valley and the Upper Plains. During the 1880 election campaign, James Garfield fielded questions asked in German by local farmers.

The difference you have mentioned in both cases one being Spanish Americana and other being German American involved the US either acquiring land with small number of Spanish settlers or emigrants who have decided for one reason or other to emigrate to the US. In 1860 after ACW the US would be invading and having to occupy British North American with over 3 million British and French people. How would the US be able to do so, if the people are hostile and resist? Not easily. Now if the people accept joining the US fine but Canada in 1860 was almost entirely made up "British" or French Canadian and US was in midst's of stripping the French in Louisiana of their rights. Not the right message you be sending to French Canadians.

 

[NotedCoyote]

I actually think that the real last chance to get (eastern) Canada is the 1860's, and that there are chances before then under alternate circumstances.

The 1860s seem a poor time for a number of reasons. It's no coincidence that it was in 1867 that Canada confederated. In the early part of the decade, the Civil War means that the US has its hands full. On top of that, a combination of the Civil War, the Alaska Purchase and a number of alarmingly expansionist speeches in the US Senate meant that Canadians were more concerned than they had been in decades that the US might attempt a forceful annexation. Confederation was driven, in large part, by a desire to stay separate from the United States (the Civil War, for example, was seen in a lot of the British Empire as proof that republicanism was dangerous). As has already been pointed out, the Quebecois will also by that time be looking with alarm at what's being done to the French in Louisiana.

So if not willingly, could the US have done it by force? Militarily, occupying Upper and Lower Canada, and probably much of the Maritimes, would have been within the power of the United States Army after the Civil War. It wouldn't have been easy, because the population would have been resistant and the terrain is poorly suited for campaigning, but it could have been done. The real question is if they could hold it and if they could get the politicians to support it. Canadians worried at the time of confederation that the British wouldn't commit blood and treasure to defending them from the United States, which was part of the motivation for forming a single country that would better be able to resist an invasion, but I have my doubts that the UK's pride would stomach such brazen aggression by the United States. The Royal Navy at the time was still dominant in the Atlantic, and could have crippled the US economically. I'm also not sure how hungry the American people would be for starting a major war so soon after the casualties suffered in the Civil War.

As for chances between 1812 and 1860, they run into the issue that any change that would make America more hostile enough to risk war with the UK over Canada is going to be met with a similar response from the UK. Canada was neglected, ignored and poorly defended throughout most of the 19th century precisely because the UK's positive relations with the US meant that it had no need to commit major forces to fortify the region against invasion. Bad relations would also have meant less British immigration and less British investment in the US, which means our alternate and more aggressive US would be somewhat weaker and facing a somewhat more prepared Canada, possibly even a Canada that confederated early. And the further back you go, the greater the disparity in power between the US and the UK grows. There are probably circumstances under which the US could have taken eastern Canada anyway, but in almost every case, you have to ask why they would be willing to suffer the catastrophic economic consequences of a war with the UK to do so.

 

[Wendell]

The difference you have mentioned in both cases one being Spanish Americana and other being German American involved the US either acquiring land with small number of Spanish settlers or emigrants who have decided for one reason or other to emigrate to the US. In 1860 after ACW the US would be invading and having to occupy British North American with over 3 million British and French people. How would the US be able to do so, if the people are hostile and resist? Not easily. Now if the people accept joining the US fine but Canada in 1860 was almost entirely made up "British" or French Canadian and US was in midst's of stripping the French in Louisiana of their rights. Not the right message you be sending to French Canadians.

Canada as you well know was merely a province or two, not a singular overarching political entity with a fully fleshed out national identity. Confederation did not come until after the U.S. civil war. British North America was a hodgepodge of woodsmen, farmers, fur traders, and Indians with little more than a river basin (the St. Lawrence) and a peninsula (the maritime provinces) containing any city of significance. Yes, there were firm British loyalists. Yes, there were Quebeckers accepting of, even enthused by, British rule. But there were also people who were uncommitted, people who wanted freedom from Britain, and people whose vision of freedom was the Texas path to entry into the United States. Confederation happened as a response to all of these. If Britain was confident in its position on the North American continent, by bother with any sort of consolidation at all?

 

[Lusitania]

Canada as you well know was merely a province or two, not a singular overarching political entity with a fully fleshed out national identity. Confederation did not come until after the U.S. civil war. British North America was a hodgepodge of woodsmen, farmers, fur traders, and Indians with little more than a river basin (the St. Lawrence) and a peninsula (the maritime provinces) containing any city of significance. Yes, there were firm British loyalists. Yes, there were Quebeckers accepting of, even enthused by, British rule. But there were also people who were uncommitted, people who wanted freedom from Britain, and people whose vision of freedom was the Texas path to entry into the United States. Confederation happened as a response to all of these. If Britain was confident in its position on the North American continent, by bother with any sort of consolidation at all?

Yes but there were 3.5 million frontiersmen

 

[Wendell]

Yes but there were 3.5 million frontiersmen

You earlier said 3 million total population, no?

 

[Lusitania]

You earlier said 3 million total population, no?

1867 population was 3.5 million so 1860 3.0 yes

 

[Lusitania]

1867 population was 3.5 million so 1860 3.0 yes

Of course 1860 be perfect time to try and seize Canada and loose confederate

 

[Wendell]

1867 population was 3.5 million so 1860 3.0 yes

So, how does that dispute my post?

 

[Lusitania]

So, how does that dispute my post?

That it was not just frontiersmen

 

[Wendell]

That it was not just frontiersmen

Did I say just frontiersman? Pretty sure I indicated other groups too....

 

[Lusitania]

Did I say just frontiersman? Pretty sure I indicated other groups too....

But it was most settled people in town villages and not frontiersmen by 1860.

 

[Wendell]

But it was most settled people in town villages and not frontiersmen by 1860.

"Most" is anything more than half, no?

 

[Lusitania]

Funny thing this is the zombie thread for we had America conquer during ARW then when we said impossible then war of 1812 and we said not Quebec or Atlantic Canada and had repeated replies the author of thread changed first post to agree. Now for some reason we discussing 1860 when US in midsts of fight for its life trying to march north. I don’t get it

 

[Lusitania]

"Most" is anything more than half, no?

Not even close less few hundred thousand more than 3 million people living in settled areas.

 

[Lusitania]

Not even close less few hundred thousand more than 3 million people living in settled areas.

We even had railways and canals not frontier country

 

[Wendell]

Not even close less few hundred thousand more than 3 million people living in settled areas.

And by this time multiple U.S. states could count inhabitants in the millions if I recall correctly.

 

[Wendell]

We even had railways and canals not frontier country

So did the U.S. But we've been told repeatedly in this thread that such infrastructure is irrelevant, so....