A Canadian Revolution

This idea was brought up in the post-1900 forum and I thought I'd give it a run.

WI, in the late 19th century, instead of allowing Canada to slowly take steps towards eventual independence, Britain straightforwardly disallows it? This leads to pro-independence groups springing up around the country, and the US begins to secretly fund and arm such organizations.

Could a Canadian revolution, with covert American backing, succeed? What effects would it have on North America and Britain?
 
The only one that could potentially work would be the Patriote rebellion, but that would probably be a bit awkward for the US.
 
There were a few in the 1830s. They failed, and as far as I know, didn't get a whole lot of support in Upper Canada. Wasn't there a scuffle in Toronto, though?
 
Yeah, there was a Canadian Rebellion in 1837, led by a game named William Lyon Mackenzie. Basically, it didn't garner enough support to pose any "real" threat to the British, and it was mostly over farming land, as opposed to rights and stuff. The Lower Canada Rebellion took place just a bit before the upper, and was over the French feeling alienated by the British. They actually managed to score a victory over the British, but weren't again supported by all the people.

The British would have to supress the government quite alot, or there'd have to be a coinciding American intervention for there to be any chance for rebellions like these to be successful (but you have to remember America was not the superpower it is today, and it would have to basically be a repeat of the War of 1812 + American support).

I'm sure you could easily get a revolt going in Québec though, the British played their cards well there for the most part (allowing Frenchmen to participate in the government, etc.) but in its early history there was tons of animosity within the two provinces.

edit* I see you have written covert American backing. I think supplying them with arms and such would be a good idea, however it would take volunteer brigades or the actual support of the Americans to take Canada back. An interesting point in American history is during/after the American Civil War, many Canadians feared the Americans would invade; and many hoped they would, as the standing American army was huge in comparison to the minute milita and British garrison forces in Canada. If Britain gave any reason for a Canadian invasion, there is a good chance America could gain control of the region. However, this would result in them probably becoming part of the United States, and not independent republics.
 
How do you mean in the 19th century Canada takes steps to eventual independance?
I can't recall that happening until the 20th century.
 
This idea was brought up in the post-1900 forum and I thought I'd give it a run.

WI, in the late 19th century, instead of allowing Canada to slowly take steps towards eventual independence, Britain straightforwardly disallows it? This leads to pro-independence groups springing up around the country, and the US begins to secretly fund and arm such organizations.

Could a Canadian revolution, with covert American backing, succeed? What effects would it have on North America and Britain?
A Canadian revolution in this time frame would probably lead to union with the USA. But since a goodly portion of the American Loyalists decamped to (future) Canada after the ARW, you'd need some serious political/cultural fall-out to get them to split with the home country.

How do you mean in the 19th century Canada takes steps to eventual independance?
I can't recall that happening until the 20th century.
Confederation was in 1867, which is why Canada is 141 years old this year. Culturally, it has been said that the idea of 'Canada' was formed at Vimy Ridge in WWI, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a distinct political identity in the 1800's.
 
Confederation was in 1867, which is why Canada is 141 years old this year. Culturally, it has been said that the idea of 'Canada' was formed at Vimy Ridge in WWI, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a distinct political identity in the 1800's.

That wasn't a move towards independance though, it just consolodated the already self-governing colonies into one larger super-colony.
 
Confederation was in 1867, which is why Canada is 141 years old this year. Culturally, it has been said that the idea of 'Canada' was formed at Vimy Ridge in WWI, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a distinct political identity in the 1800's.

The same is often said with Australia and the Gallipoli campaign. As for the question at hand provided that the loyalists could be neutralised somehow, the Candian provinces would join the US if a rebellion happened at any time probably up until the American Civil War.
 
The same is often said with Australia and the Gallipoli campaign. As for the question at hand provided that the loyalists could be neutralised somehow, the Candian provinces would join the US if a rebellion happened at any time probably up until the American Civil War.

Provided the Loyalists could be neutralized, of course. The 1812 War pretty much gavalnized the whole 'we can't trust the Yanks so let's become our own country' idea that was bouncing around, so that's going to be a tall order. Not impossible, mind you -- just really, really hard.
 
Provided the Loyalists could be neutralized, of course. The 1812 War pretty much gavalnized the whole 'we can't trust the Yanks so let's become our own country' idea that was bouncing around, so that's going to be a tall order. Not impossible, mind you -- just really, really hard.

The War of 1812 is not one of my strongpoints in history I must admit.
 
Provided the Loyalists could be neutralized, of course. The 1812 War pretty much gavalnized the whole 'we can't trust the Yanks so let's become our own country' idea that was bouncing around, so that's going to be a tall order. Not impossible, mind you -- just really, really hard.

The War of 1812 is not one of my strongpoints in history I must admit.

It was more the ACW that was the catalyst for Canadian Confederation - "Look, those scary neighbours to the south have lots of guns and soldiers now".
 
That wasn't a move towards independance though, it just consolodated the already self-governing colonies into one larger super-colony.

I disagree - it was the first steps towards independence. If not then, what would you consider as the beginning? The repatriation of the British North America Act? I think you'd find very few Canadians that would say we were a British dependency until the 1980's.
 
I disagree - it was the first steps towards independence. If not then, what would you consider as the beginning? The repatriation of the British North America Act? I think you'd find very few Canadians that would say we were a British dependency until the 1980's.

WWI is the catalyst, anything prior were small incremental steps along the path to asserting greater Canadian independence from the Empire. A separate signature on the Treaty of Versailles and a seat in the LofN culminating in independence in all but name in '32 with Statute of Westminster.

1812 though is the key trigger though in preventing assimilation into the American milieu.

Absent that there is no bad blood between BNA/USA and probably greater settlement from the US in UC leading to a stronger revolt n the '30's perhaps, but it would still take US intervention to bring about Independence then and that would be disadvantageous to the US.
 
This idea was brought up in the post-1900 forum and I thought I'd give it a run.

WI, in the late 19th century, instead of allowing Canada to slowly take steps towards eventual independence, Britain straightforwardly disallows it? This leads to pro-independence groups springing up around the country, and the US begins to secretly fund and arm such organizations.

Could a Canadian revolution, with covert American backing, succeed? What effects would it have on North America and Britain?

WWI is the catalyst, anything prior were small incremental steps along the path to asserting greater Canadian independence from the Empire. A separate signature on the Treaty of Versailles and a seat in the LofN culminating in independence in all but name in '32 with Statute of Westminster.

1812 though is the key trigger though in preventing assimilation into the American milieu.

Absent that there is no bad blood between BNA/USA and probably greater settlement from the US in UC leading to a stronger revolt n the '30's perhaps, but it would still take US intervention to bring about Independence then and that would be disadvantageous to the US.
I think you talked yourself out of a point...

I disagree that 1812 was the only bad blood - the ARW caused a lot of bad feeling, with Loyalists resettling in UC. What with that, the natural border of the Great Lakes, and plenty of prime farmland in the Ohio Valley I don't see a lot of migration from the States to UC.
 
I disagree - it was the first steps towards independence. If not then, what would you consider as the beginning? The repatriation of the British North America Act? I think you'd find very few Canadians that would say we were a British dependency until the 1980's.

Westminister in the 30s was the final 'Canada is definatly independant' (the 80s one was just tying up the official bits and minor issues)
I don't claim to be a expert here but the creation of Canada really doesn't seem to have made for any more independance for Canada contrary to popular belief. The colonies were already governing themselves with Britain handling foreign policy, much the same as with Canada but on a more local scale.
 
Top