Alternate America - if Canada joined early on

Not necessarily so. George III was a staunch ultra-Protestant that had no time for giving the Catholics any slack, and he wielded a substantial amount of influence and patronage in the 1770s Commons. It only takes the right butterfly (say, a incident between Canadiens and the British colonial administration that leads to a riot) to piss off the British in passing a Quebec Act that would be as oppressive on the Canadiens as the rest of the Intolerable Acts were on the other 13 colonies. If this happens, it becomes very likely that Canada shall side of its own will with the Patriot movement, join the Continental Congress, and fight the ARW together.

George III was pragmatic. After all, he passed the Quebec Act OTL, despite his Protestant feelings, because he needed allies against the American Rebels. If there was an incident, George III would have grit his teeth but done nothing. He wanted to keep the American colonies more than uphold his ultra-Protestant stance.

The American Rebels, OTOH, were stupid enough the bite the hand that fed them. When Rochambeau's French army was in the 13 Colonies, he received harrassment from the American Rebels, who refused him lodgings, charged him exhorbitant money for provisions and so on, despite the fact that his army was the only credible threat to the British instead of the ragtag Rebel army led by the overrated George Washington. Can you guess why Rochabeau and his army was harrassed? It was because he was a Papist and French. Even after Rochambeau basically won Yorktown for the Rebel side, he continued to be harrassed. At one point after Yorktown, he was arrested by a Rebel sheriff demanding that he pay an exorbitant sum for lodgings or be sent to jail. George Washington had to send in dragoons to rescue him so that he wouldn't end up in jail. So, the American Rebels were just as much ultra-Protestant as George III, unlike what you say.



The experience of fighting the ARW together would foster strong feelings of brotherhood between Canada and the 13 colonies.

I doubt it. The Americans don't do gratitude very well. After all, they displayed no gratitude to the British for kicking out the French in the Seven Years War, and they displayed no gratitude to the French for kicking out the British in the American Revolution twenty years later. Their anti-Papist and anit-French feelings would overide any gratitude they just maybe might feel.

Not really. France had no real urge to recover Quebec after 1763, it was a closed deal to them. They would make no difficulty to Canada becoming a part of the USA.

No. France did not want the USA to dominate the whole North American continent. During the American Revolution, they were willing to ensure that North America be divided between the Americans and British. That way, it ensured that the British and Americans remain enemies, weakening the British. France wanted Canada (which were populated wholy by New France colonists at the time) to remain British because it would force the British, the weaker power in North America, to play nice to the New France colonists in order to resist the new-born and agressive United States. As long as the British and Americans remain enemies, the New France colonists were safe which was what France wanted. If either the Americans or British ended up dominating the North American continent, nothing would then stop them, being anti-Papist and anti-Catholic that they were, from assimilating the New France colonists. France refused to aid the American Rebels in conquering Canada after Yorktown for this very reason. Very smart.

But they are. It is called the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which give much better rights than the QA. You are challenged to show the part where it discriminates against Catholics and French-speakers.

You are challenged to demonstrate whether the Americans would have been willing to honour what a piece of pâper written by elites says. There was no reason for the New France colonists to trust in the goodwill of the Americans any more than the British.
 
Riiiiiiiiiight. That's why there's what, at least 500,000 Franco-Ontarians today?

As a side note, have you even BEEN to Northern, Western or Eastern Ontario? There's French people everywhere. The only areas truly removed from the French Sphere are those in Southern Ontario where British and American influence had always been highest. Your argument doesn't hold its weight historically.

I am not getting into another argument with you about about your so-wonderful Canada. I will just say this:There are about 4% of francophones in the population of Ontario today according to Statistics Canada. There was a lot more in the past before the British and Orangemen got going about their business. In comparision, there are 7% of francophones in the tiny state of Louisiana today which makes Louisiana better off for francophones in the unilingual USA instead of Ontario in the so-called bilingual Canada. Therefore, you can shove the myth that there are French people everywhere in Ontario or anywhere else in North America except in Quebec.
 
George III was pragmatic. After all, he passed the Quebec Act OTL, despite his Protestant feelings, because he needed allies against the American Rebels. If there was an incident, George III would have grit his teeth but done nothing. He wanted to keep the American colonies more than uphold his ultra-Protestant stance.

No he needed to solidify his hold on Canada, and in the 13 colonies he needed to get them to pay their fair share. George III did a poor job of selling it and co-opting the colonial elites for the purposes of his "Intolerable" Acts.

The American Rebels, OTOH, were stupid enough the bite the hand that fed them. When Rochambeau's French army was in the 13 Colonies, he received harrassment from the American Rebels, who refused him lodgings, charged him exhorbitant money for provisions and so on, despite the fact that his army was the only credible threat to the British instead of the ragtag Rebel army led by the overrated George Washington. Can you guess why Rochabeau and his army was harrassed? It was because he was a Papist and French. Even after Rochambeau basically won Yorktown for the Rebel side, he continued to be harrassed. At one point after Yorktown, he was arrested by a Rebel sheriff demanding that he pay an exorbitant sum for lodgings or be sent to jail. George Washington had to send in dragoons to rescue him so that he wouldn't end up in jail. So, the American Rebels were just as much ultra-Protestant as George III, unlike what you say.

The case of "exorbitant sums" is something to consider more carefully than you are. Rochambeau paid in hard currency so it would seem extreme to him esp. considering European Armies were used to taking what they wanted and not paying for it. The fact that he paid at all is laudable. As for that "ragtag" army, That army beat the best army in the world at Saratoga, Germantown, Trenton, Cowpens, Charleston 1782, and dozens more without French help. The French force was IIRC 10,000 strong and the US was 15,000 maybe more at the end. So your off base. As for your story, never heard it before so I can't comment.

I don't argue with the "ultra"-protestant feelings of the 13 colonies, being founded by Puritans and such. Many state govts had rules against Catholics. In the 1740s Ben Franklin wrote an Ant-German Anti-Catholic Diatribe; which he later regretted but if the most tolerant of our founders could do it the average citzenry did as well.

Your assessment of Yorktown sucks. The French fleet beat the Brits off shore and thus closed the supply line to Yorktown and forced the surrender of Cornwallis. De Rochambeau OTOH was just as effective as Washington was. They encircled Yorktown on land and starved them out.

I doubt it. The Americans don't do gratitude very well. After all, they displayed no gratitude to the British for kicking out the French in the Seven Years War, and they displayed no gratitude to the French for kicking out the British in the American Revolution twenty years later. Their anti-Papist and anit-French feelings would overide any gratitude they just maybe might feel.

Ohh please, both sides used each other (America Spain-France). I don't think no taxation without representation is such a bad proposal. The French and Spanish got to spit in England's eye and the colonists got "freedom." The French had no intention of allowing the Americans to control the continent. As they supported Spanish claims to the Mississippi and it required a seperate treaty to even allow the Americans access to the river.

No. France did not want the USA to dominate the whole North American continent. During the American Revolution, they were willing to ensure that North America be divided between the Americans and British. That way, it ensured that the British and Americans remain enemies, weakening the British. .

Ok here is a problem, Britain and America didn't remain enemies. The Jay Treaty of 1796 assured this. The British Fleet enforced the Monroe Doctrine. I am sure France didn't want an American superpower but they didn't want England to control the continent either. I think Vergennes hedged his bet and hoped that Francophiles like Jefferson dominated political thought. As soon as Impressment came along in the late 1790s and the Quasi war with france in the Adams' term, this school of thought was dead.

France wanted Canada (which were populated wholy by New France colonists at the time) to remain British because it would force the British, the weaker power in North America, to play nice to the New France colonists in order to resist the new-born and agressive United States. As long as the British and Americans remain enemies, the New France colonists were safe which was what France wanted. If either the Americans or British ended up dominating the North American continent, nothing would then stop them, being anti-Papist and anti-Catholic that they were, from assimilating the New France colonists. France refused to aid the American Rebels in conquering Canada after Yorktown for this very reason. Very smart.

How about the Francophilia of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe???? Jefferson loved France and the French. I think French designs on Canada were dead by the 1780s. There were Jacobins clubs founded in the 1790s. I don't know what History books you are reading but this belief that France was looking out for the Quebecois is wrong. If they were they would have demanded the Britsh cede Canada to France in 1783. The fact is the French weren't the swing factor in the ARW the British got tired of fighting so they lost. THE FRENCH DID NOT WIN.

You are challenged to demonstrate whether the Americans would have been willing to honour what a piece of pâper written by elites says. There was no reason for the New France colonists to trust in the goodwill of the Americans any more than the British.

Seperation of Church and State is one of our basic freedoms and Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Thats how.
 
Ok here is a problem, Britain and America didn't remain enemies. The Jay Treaty of 1796 assured this. The British Fleet enforced the Monroe Doctrine.

The Jay treaty and the enforcement of the Monroe Dcotrine just happened to serve both sides but overall they remained adversairies and nearly went to war several times apart from the American Revolutionary War and War of 1812. It was only around WW1 that the British and Americans could hang around together comfortably.


How about the Francophilia of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe???? Jefferson loved France and the French. I think French designs on Canada were dead by the 1780s. There were Jacobins clubs founded in the 1790s.

Jefferson was francophile as long as it suited him. He was willing to go to war against France to get Louisiana before he found out he could just buy it. After he got Louisiana, Jefferson called for the assilimation of the inhabitants of Louisiana, demanding that they speak English instead of French. Some francophile.

I
don't know what History books you are reading but this belief that France was looking out for the Quebecois is wrong. If they were they would have demanded the Britsh cede Canada to France in 1783.

If France took back Quebec, the Americans would be up in arms and allied with the British to take Quebec. It would be a repeat of what happened in the Seven Years War. In such a scenario, France could not win with the manpower and sea power against it. So it did the best it could in the interests of Quebec.

France's original plan was to use the American Rebellion in North America, to kick the British out of the Carribean. If that had happened, the lost of revenues from the Carribean would have severely weakened Britain and made it difficult for it to maintain such a dominant navy on the high seas. This would leave room for a better sharing of the seas for other powers instead of the British monopolizing the sea. The French could hence compete better in the future since having access to the seas is important. Unfortunately, despite what you say, the American Rebels were doing such a laughably poor and incompetant job against the British and losing the war so France was forced to intervene directly to aid them instead of just continuing to send them money and supplies. They could easily have ignored Rebel pleas for help and continued with its original plan, along with Spain, to kick out the British from the Carribean. Letting the British have the Rebels,(and by consequence the assimilation of the New France colonists) is a good option for France as long as the British can be kicked out of the Carribean. Whether the decision to help out the Rebels (and by consequence the New France colonists) was wise for French interests is up to debate, but as a Québécois, I appreciate that they thought about their New France colonists.

The fact is the French weren't the swing factor in the ARW the British got tired of fighting so they lost. THE FRENCH DID NOT WIN.

Considering that French primary objectives was the independence of the United States and the division of North America into the Americans and British, and considering that all this was not possible without French army and navy, I would say that the French won. The Americans would not have been able to kick out the British without French aid. For you to suggest that France was not the swing factor is laughable.




Seperation of Church and State is one of our basic freedoms and Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Thats how.

That is what the piece of paper says, but did the average American absolutely believe it and apply the principle to everyone or only when it suited them and did not cover Papists?
 
Seperation of Church and State is one of our basic freedoms and Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Thats how.
Not really. Or rather, it is enshrined in Federal law only and didn't affect the individual states, let alone towns.

Note that Massachusetts had an Established Church until ~1830. So OFFICIAL discrimination against e.g. Catholics was perfectly possible, and unofficial discrimination happened all the time.

As for Ontario, that wasn't Francophones being converted/expelled/exterminated (much), what it was was a tiny population being swamped by massive immigration.

In 1810, Louisiana was Francophone, Ontario wasn't.

If you want a better example of Canadian violation of rights (and even the local constitution), look to Manitoba - that's a much better case for you.:(
 

Larrikin

Banned
1812

Taking and holding Canada in 1812 is not going to happen, even if taking it succeeds.

They weren't going to get it in 1812, more like '13 or '14. Then, as soon as England finishes with the short Corsican they are going to land on the USA like a landslide. They won't set out to conquer and hold the USA, they'll just raze every city on the coast until US forces withdraw from Canada.

Just imagine the US Army of 1812-15 facing Wellington and his Peninsular veteran divisions, backed by the full force of the RN.

They only option is for some nice and sneaky political work during the War for a Free Ride and getting the Canadian Provinces to join in.
 
I am not getting into another argument with you about about your so-wonderful Canada.

You just did and yes, it is a very wonderful country.

I will just say this:There are about 4% of francophones in the population of Ontario today according to Statistics Canada. There was a lot more in the past before the British and Orangemen got going about their business. In comparision, there are 7% of francophones in the tiny state of Louisiana today which makes Louisiana better off for francophones in the unilingual USA instead of Ontario in the so-called bilingual Canada. Therefore, you can shove the myth that there are French people everywhere in Ontario or anywhere else in North America except in Quebec.

Skewed data on your side. Seven percent of the population in Louisiana equals 308,756 rounded to the next highest whole number. In Ontario, four percent translates to 526,000 exactly according to population estimates. Even with a lower percentage of population claiming French ancestry, Ontario still wins out. Your argument is flawed. As if you actually think being a Francophone in Canada is so bad. :rolleyes:

Therefore, YOU can shove the myth that it's so bad for you guys in Canada. It's because of ignorant whiners like you that mon Grandpere left Quebec in the 60's.

And to clarify, I never said they were all across Canada. In fact, the only truly bilingual areas of Canada is the "Bilingual Belt" stretching from New Brunswick west into eastern and northern Ontario near the Quebec border areas and also along the St. Lawrence.

P.S. Despite what you think, there ARE Francophones across this country of ours in every province although there aren't a lot of them outside of Quebec which is understandably the hub.
 
You just did and yes, it is a very wonderful country.



Skewed data on your side. Seven percent of the population in Louisiana equals 308,756 rounded to the next highest whole number. In Ontario, four percent translates to 526,000 exactly according to population estimates. Even with a lower percentage of population claiming French ancestry, Ontario still wins out. Your argument is flawed. As if you actually think being a Francophone in Canada is so bad. :rolleyes:

You are the one employing skewed data if you are using absolute numbers to support your arguments. In absolute numbers, there are 1.6 million francophones in the United States but only 1 million of them in Canada sans Quebec. So there are more francophones in the unilingual USA than there is in bilingual Canada.

P.S. Despite what you think, there ARE Francophones across this country of ours in every province although there aren't a lot of them outside of Quebec which is understandably the hub.

In an earlier post, you were saying that there are francophones everywhere in Canada. Yet, here, you are admitting that there are not a lot of them. Only in Quebec is there enough of them.

You are full of it. You can shove the myth that there are francophones everywhere in Canada and that they are doing well. You just admitted it.
 
Mike, I would like to direct your attention to Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and his cousin, Daniel Carroll who was one of five men who signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Notably, both of these eminent men were Catholic, and Daniel's brother John was the first Catholic bishop and Archbishop in the US.
 
Mike, I would like to direct your attention to Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and his cousin, Daniel Carroll who was one of five men who signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Notably, both of these eminent men were Catholic, and Daniel's brother John was the first Catholic bishop and Archbishop in the US.

I still find it hard to believe that the average American would have honoured an agreement that was written by elites. As the example of Rochambeau and his French Army shows, the 13 Colonies/United States at the time was fervently anti-Papist and anti-French. The Carrolls may have been Catholic but they were probably in the minority and so, they were tolerated. A State of New France, Quebec or such state under an explicitly Catholic and French majority and control would not have been tolerated as easily by the American Rebels as the Carrolls were. The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and other such documents were not as sacrosanct back then as they are now among Americans. The New France colonists would not have trusted them at their word and they would be right not to.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I still find it hard to believe that the average American would have honoured an agreement that was written by elites.

Do you really have any idea of how much the Bill of Rights liberties were held dear by the people at large, even back then ? They were almost replicated verbatim from analogous guarantees in all the State Constitutions, the absence of a BoR was the main objection that was risen to the ratification of the Constitution. There was NO significant popular opinion backing that could be found in the extant historical records for denying full freedom of religion or civil rights to Catholics and French-speakers.

As the example of Rochambeau and his French Army shows, the 13 Colonies/United States at the time was fervently anti-Papist and anti-French.

Under all reasonable standards, the uncontested election of minority members for a significant position in a constituent assembly tends to be a far more reliable evidence of the public's feelings towards that minority than an isolated event of xenophobic assholeness against an ally, which could have got many different, unrelated causes. Isolated incidents do not write history.

The Carrolls may have been Catholic but they were probably in the minority and so, they were tolerated. A State of New France, Quebec or such state under an explicitly Catholic and French majority and control would not have been tolerated as easily by the American Rebels as the Carrolls were.

It is very, very hard to see why the average American should feel any differently towards their Catholic neighbors in Virginia or in Canada. States' rights were very dearly felt back then, as there were BoR liberties, so the right of Canadiens to enjoy them in the state(s) where they were the vast majority was to be plainly accepted by pretty much everyone.

The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and other such documents were not as sacrosanct back then as they are now among Americans.

The ideals they expressed to a very large degree already were.

The New France colonists would not have trusted them at their word and they would be right not to.

This is just an arbitrary a priori assumption. You have provided no decent evidence that your farfetched claims of strong 1780s American popular will to deny Catohlics or French-speakers equal civil rights ever actually existed. On the contrary, the historical record is overwhelmingly against your claims, as NO decent evidence exists that the Bill of Rights or the ideals that they enshrine were not meant as equally valid for Catholics or French-speakers.
 
Last edited:
I still find it hard to believe that the average American would have honoured an agreement that was written by elites. As the example of Rochambeau and his French Army shows, the 13 Colonies/United States at the time was fervently anti-Papist and anti-French. The Carrolls may have been Catholic but they were probably in the minority and so, they were tolerated. A State of New France, Quebec or such state under an explicitly Catholic and French majority and control would not have been tolerated as easily by the American Rebels as the Carrolls were. The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and other such documents were not as sacrosanct back then as they are now among Americans. The New France colonists would not have trusted them at their word and they would be right not to.

You will also note that Charles Carroll was one of the two first Senators from Maryland.

Also, Daniel Carroll wasn't the only Catholic who signed the Constitution. Thomas Fitzsimons, from Penn., did as well. He was a prominent member of the Continental Congress, of America under the Articles of Confederation, and Represented Penn. in the House until his party collapsed.


Also, a lack of a Bill of Rights was the biggest objection people had of the Constitution. So while the documents might not have been as sacrosanct back then, they were certainly held in high esteem.

Also, back then States Rights meant something. Fear of the British was the main thing keeping the Union together and only dangerous radicals cared a fig about what people did in the next state over.



Edit: Also, who are these "Americans" you speak of? Back then there were no "Americans". There were Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, South Carolinians, etc, but no Americans.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Also, who are these "Americans" you speak of? Back then there were no "Americans". There were Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, South Carolinians, etc, but no Americans.

I speak of all of them. They were called Americans when they became independent up to today.
 
I speak of all of them. They were called Americans when they became independent up to today.

My point is that they did not think of themselves as Americans. They identified themselves by their state, and were suspicious of people from other states. Your average New York Farmer had about the same opinion of someone from South Carolina as he did of someone from France.
 
Top