Americans captures Quebec in 1775... now what?

[King Nazar]

Again, you're dead wrong as far as american intentions during the War of 1812 where concerned. Many openly spoke of annexing the Saint-Lawrence valley, Jefferson saying that the fact that the waters of the Mississipi and the Saint-Lawrence mixed in some spots was a sign of destiny that both great rivers where to be rulled by the same people being only one example among many. I have yet to see any sources advocating for an american pupet state in Canada coming from the US in that era.

The American Army actually lead three drives to Montreal, with the intent to go for Quebec afterward, during the War of 1812. Two of them pettered out quickly, sure, but that doesn't change the mindset behind them. The most serious one, in 1813, could have easily succeeded had it not been for two heavy american defeats at Chateauguay and Chrisler's Farm.

The 1813 drive to Montréal is pretty pertinent to the matter at hand too since it happened after the disastrous British defeat at the Thames, who would have allowed the americans to secure Upper Canada relatively easily had they concentrated their attention directly to it. Going for Montréal instead only make sense if you have design on Lower Canada as well.

As for american ambitions toward Canada during the American Revolution, be that as it may but that doesn't change the fact that Canada was openly spoked about as a possible 14th state and that Franklin did attempt to get the whole package, not just the future Upper Canada, during the negociations in Paris, tough he quickly understood it wasn't gonna happen.

Jefferson said many things. He also prophesied a sister Republic to the United States on the Pacific Coast called Cascadia. I don't think his words will necessarily translate into national policy. Regardless, all I'm saying is that I think that initially the Americans will probably set up a provisional government and that integrating that government into the Union is not a certainty and the Americans may decide to just leave it as a semi independent ally. And even then I'm not ruling out the possibility of a future annexation if say the fledgling Republic were to default on its debt and it asks to join the Union provided that the Federal Government assume the debt ...

As far as the War of 1812 is concerned, after the Battle of the Thames the British still held naval dominance in the Great Lakes and that made the logistics of the US invasion of Upper Canada quite difficult. The attempted invasions of Montreal were done with the intent to secure Lake Ontario.

 

[Lusitania]

I think the most likely scenario is that if they won the battle and were nice to Montreal we see Quebec be part of Britain and Montrol be part of the us and be one of the founding colonies including New Brunswick and as Quebec go frustrated with the larger military presence due to the USA in a easy position to sweep the area and we will see the Quebec violates more and more causing a revolt to found a greater Quebec or to join the USA but with more autonomy due to fear by the British to lose their last colony in mainland Northamerica

Ok I think people are not reading the post by other posters. Let’s set some basic facts out.
1) The rebels did not have enough soldiers to capture Quebec without french joining.
2) if you look at map you will see that Quebec City is most important city in Quebec since it controls acess to st Laurence. Without capturing Quebec City Americans have no chance of winning in Quebec.
3) New Brunswick is almost empty and not part of the equation.
4) Quebec can only be conquered without french rebellion with a much larger American army. So if your scenario you need to double or triple number of troops invading Quebec. But be aware you need to identify how America is going to handle a hostile 100,000 to150,000 population that is catholic and speaks french with need to be occupying force.

 

[Lusitania]

Jefferson said many things. He also prophesied a sister Republic to the United States on the Pacific Coast called Cascadia. I don't think his words will necessarily translate into national policy. Regardless, all I'm saying is that I think that initially the Americans will probably set up a provisional government and that integrating that government into the Union is not a certainty and the Americans may decide to just leave it as a semi independent ally. And even then I'm not ruling out the possibility of a future annexation if say the fledgling Republic were to default on its debt and it asks to join the Union provided that the Federal Government assume the debt ...

As far as the War of 1812 is concerned, after the Battle of the Thames the British still held naval dominance in the Great Lakes and that made the logistics of the US invasion of Upper Canada quite difficult. The attempted invasions of Montreal were done with the intent to secure Lake Ontario.

Sorry but I hate to bust your bubble. Either Quebec becomes independent or joins the US freely with all that entails. The US is not in a position to occupy and suppress 160,000+ people. It has no national army is broke. Not possible

 

[King Nazar]

Ok I think people are not reading the post by other posters. Let’s set some basic facts out.
1) The rebels did not have enough soldiers to capture Quebec with french joining.
2) if you look at map you will see that Quebec City is most important city in Quebec since it controls acess to st Laurence. Without capturing Quebec City Americans have no chance of winning in Quebec.
3) New Brunswick is almost empty and not part of the equation.
4) Quebec can only be conquered with french rebellion with a much larger American army. So if your scenario you need to double or triple number of troops invading Quebec. But be aware you need to identify how America is going to handle a hostile 100,000 to150,000 population that is catholic and speaks french with need to be occupying force.

This is all true, especially the last bit. The Rebel army in Quebec will probably be composed of local French Canadians. So you'll have an armed French Canadian army with interests that may not always align with the Anglo-American rebels.

 

[Lusitania]

This is all true, especially the last bit. The Rebel army in Quebec will probably be composed of local French Canadians. So you'll have an armed French Canadian army with interests that may not always align with the Anglo-American rebels.

Yes so the french join the rebellion and Quebec will be controlled by a french militia. Just like every other state. There was no army from New York occupying Georgia. The same here. Therefore with a 14 colonies now in rebellion we have to consider all the implications of french being one of the official languages and constitution also written in french and that catholic religion needs guarantees. This all means that USA is different, constitution is different since it will need to provide assurances to Quebec. Otherwise I’d you argue that the USA is the same and constitution is the same then that is not possible unless you have a magic wand to make it happen.

 

[Lusitania]

So you'll have an armed French Canadian army with interests that may not always align with the Anglo-American rebels.

This was why in previous threads we discussed Quebec joining with southern vote to make state rights more powerful and federal government weaker.

 

[phil03]

Jefferson said many things. He also prophesied a sister Republic to the United States on the Pacific Coast called Cascadia. I don't think his words will necessarily translate into national policy. Regardless, all I'm saying is that I think that initially the Americans will probably set up a provisional government and that integrating that government into the Union is not a certainty and the Americans may decide to just leave it as a semi independent ally. And even then I'm not ruling out the possibility of a future annexation if say the fledgling Republic were to default on its debt and it asks to join the Union provided that the Federal Government assume the debt ...

As far as the War of 1812 is concerned, after the Battle of the Thames the British still held naval dominance in the Great Lakes and that made the logistics of the US invasion of Upper Canada quite difficult. The attempted invasions of Montreal were done with the intent to secure Lake Ontario.

Jefferson is, as mentionned, one famous example among others. For 1812 you can also take the words of future vice-president Richard Mentor Johnson who said

I shall never die contented until I see England's expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated into the United States

or those of another congressman, John Harper

the Author of Nature Himself had marked our limits in the south, by the Gulf of Mexico and on the north, by the regions of eternal frost

Now that's just what I could find on the top of my hat with a quick search to wiki but I've yet to read anything support the idea that a puppet government in the Saint-Lawrence valley was ever considered.

As for the idea that a British domination of the Great Lake made an attack upon Upper Canada hard its also not supported by the fact on the ground: since the american victory at Lake Erié the american dominated everything west of Lake Ontario on water and could invade Upper Canada as they, indeed, did it in the lead up to the Battle of the Thames.

As for a provisional government, ods are its gonna be a purely short term thing, simply designed to keep order and other day to day tasks. Not the provisional government of a separate republic. Of course, different groups in Quebec will have their say as to the new order of things that would come out of the result of the war but the fact remain that the very idea of independance simply didn't exist in Canada during this period.

Ok I think people are not reading the post by other posters. Let’s set some basic facts out.
1) The rebels did not have enough soldiers to capture Quebec without french joining.
2) if you look at map you will see that Quebec City is most important city in Quebec since it controls acess to st Laurence. Without capturing Quebec City Americans have no chance of winning in Quebec.
3) New Brunswick is almost empty and not part of the equation.
4) Quebec can only be conquered without french rebellion with a much larger American army. So if your scenario you need to double or triple number of troops invading Quebec. But be aware you need to identify how America is going to handle a hostile 100,000 to150,000 population that is catholic and speaks french with need to be occupying force.

1) Certainly hard to achieve but not impossible. You would probably the combined effects of a few small POD's before the battle but it is possible.
2) True,
3) Also true
4) That's probably the truly problematic one, as stated before I don't where you get your numbers for the Quebec population but they don't fit any sources I've seen. The idea that Quebecers (or rather Canadiens to not be anachronistic) where universally hostile to the americans is also eronous. To be sure, they had more opponents then partisans but most remained on the sidelines and even among those who did help the brits many did mainly because of the forced requisition occuring just before the Battle of Québec.

Generally speaking I tend to be pretty sceptical of the scenarios involving american annexation of Canada, especially those where it happen far too smoothly to be realistic, but 1775 was probably THE best occasion the americans ever had in that regard by quite a margin.

 

[King Nazar]

Jefferson is, as mentionned, one famous example among others. For 1812 you can also take the words of future vice-president Richard Mentor Johnson who said or those of another congressman, John Harper Now that's just what I could find on the top of my hat with a quick search to wiki but I've yet to read anything support the idea that a puppet government in the Saint-Lawrence valley was ever considered.

As for the idea that a British domination of the Great Lake made an attack upon Upper Canada hard its also not supported by the fact on the ground: since the american victory at Lake Erié the american dominated everything west of Lake Ontario on water and could invade Upper Canada as they, indeed, did it in the lead up to the Battle of the Thames.

As for a provisional government, ods are its gonna be a purely short term thing, simply designed to keep order and other day to day tasks. Not the provisional government of a separate republic. Of course, different groups in Quebec will have their say as to the new order of things that would come out of the result of the war but the fact remain that the very idea of independance simply didn't exist in Canada during this period.

Not to be pedantic but in the scenario where America annexes Upper Canada and puppetizes Lower Canada, Richard Johnson's desire would be met since Britain would be evicted out of mainland North America except for the HBC and the Maritimes. John Harper's time as a Congressman was far from our initial PoD and thus by his time we'd be dealing with a very different strategic situation. The reason why no puppet government on the St Lawrence was ever considered was because historically there was no significant French Canadian support for overthrowing the British at the time of the Revolution and there was no "Provisional Government of Free Quebec." ITTL things are obviously different so citing the lack of American discussion IOTL about an independent Quebec Republic is not really evidence.

The Battle of Lake Erie won the Americans Lake Erie, not Lake Ontario and the vital base of Kingston from which the British could continue to hold and defend Upper Canada.

If the Americans set up a Provisional Government and if they want this government to survive, it will need the support of the Quebecois themselves and American authority will quickly give way to local supporters and rebel leaders. As I said there is a lot of time between the establishment of this government in 1775 and the signing of the Constitution in 1789 so a lot can happen ITTL.

 

[Lusitania]

Jefferson is, as mentionned, one famous example among others. For 1812 you can also take the words of future vice-president Richard Mentor Johnson who said or those of another congressman, John Harper Now that's just what I could find on the top of my hat with a quick search to wiki but I've yet to read anything support the idea that a puppet government in the Saint-Lawrence valley was ever considered.

As for the idea that a British domination of the Great Lake made an attack upon Upper Canada hard its also not supported by the fact on the ground: since the american victory at Lake Erié the american dominated everything west of Lake Ontario on water and could invade Upper Canada as they, indeed, did it in the lead up to the Battle of the Thames.

As for a provisional government, ods are its gonna be a purely short term thing, simply designed to keep order and other day to day tasks. Not the provisional government of a separate republic. Of course, different groups in Quebec will have their say as to the new order of things that would come out of the result of the war but the fact remain that the very idea of independance simply didn't exist in Canada during this period.


1) Certainly hard to achieve but not impossible. You would probably the combined effects of a few small POD's before the battle but it is possible.
2) True,
3) Also true
4) That's probably the truly problematic one, as stated before I don't where you get your numbers for the Quebec population but they don't fit any sources I've seen. The idea that Quebecers (or rather Canadiens to not be anachronistic) where universally hostile to the americans is also eronous. To be sure, they had more opponents then partisans but most remained on the sidelines and even among those who did help the brits many did mainly because of the forced requisition occuring just before the Battle of Québec.

Generally speaking I tend to be pretty sceptical of the scenarios involving american annexation of Canada, especially those where it happen far too smoothly to be realistic, but 1775 was probably THE best occasion the americans ever had in that regard by quite a margin.

okay for population here is a link, oh yeah its in French
https://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/fr/article/province-de-quebec-1763-1791/

As for capturing Quebec without the French people the Americans be treated as invaders and thus would be forced to fight the French. Therefore the French let the Americans defeat the British by the smallest of margins then attack the invaders. Quebec can only be in rebellion if the French people side with the Americans, otherwise the Americans either starve and die of disease or the they become invaders.

So yes the Americans can invade and conquer Quebec and then what???

 

[Lusitania]

Not to be pedantic but in the scenario where America annexes Upper Canada and puppetizes Lower Canada, Richard Johnson's desire would be met since Britain would be evicted out of mainland North America except for the HBC and the Maritimes. John Harper's time as a Congressman was far from our initial PoD and thus by his time we'd be dealing with a very different strategic situation. The reason why no puppet government on the St Lawrence was ever considered was because historically there was no significant French Canadian support for overthrowing the British at the time of the Revolution and there was no "Provisional Government of Free Quebec." ITTL things are obviously different so citing the lack of American discussion IOTL about an independent Quebec Republic is not really evidence.

The Battle of Lake Erie won the Americans Lake Erie, not Lake Ontario and the vital base of Kingston from which the British could continue to hold and defend Upper Canada.

If the Americans set up a Provisional Government and if they want this government to survive, it will need the support of the Quebecois themselves and American authority will quickly give way to local supporters and rebel leaders. As I said there is a lot of time between the establishment of this government in 1775 and the signing of the Constitution in 1789 so a lot can happen ITTL.

Unfortunately the premise of the USA being able to set up puppet Quebec is that the USA has a national military that is able to enforce its will on Quebec. Well I am sorry to burst the "Grand American" bubble but the USA had 0 chance of doing that after independence. There was no national army or navy able to suppress 160,000+ hostile French speaking Catholics. The American government was bankrupt. The Quebec would align themselves with France and throw the oppressive Americans out.

 

[King Nazar]

Unfortunately the premise of the USA being able to set up puppet Quebec is that the USA has a national military that is able to enforce its will on Quebec. Well I am sorry to burst the "Grand American" bubble but the USA had 0 chance of doing that after independence. There was no national army or navy able to suppress 160,000+ hostile French speaking Catholics. The American government was bankrupt. The Quebec would align themselves with France and throw the oppressive Americans out.

I should clarify that when I am talking about a Quebec puppet state, what I really mean is an independent Quebec Republic east of the Ottawa river that is independent and sovereign but closely aligned to the United States. Over the course of the century this independent Quebec republic will fall more and more into America’s orbit. Not necessarily annexed but essentially reduced to a kind of satellite state.

 

[Lusitania]

I should clarify that when I am talking about a Quebec puppet state, what I really mean is an independent Quebec Republic east of the Ottawa river that is independent and sovereign but closely aligned to the United States. Over the course of the century this independent Quebec republic will fall more and more into America’s orbit. Not necessarily annexed but essentially reduced to a kind of satellite state.

Your premise still lacks in credibility. A free Quebec might be initially aligned or friendly with the USA but would not necessarily be anymore dependent on the USA than Canada was or is. Secondly a Free Quebec would not be limited by Ottawa River since it had more claim to the land both in New Brunswick and present day Ontario than the USA. I think it presumptuous of people to think that in 1873 an independent Quebec not demand "Greater Quebec". The USA can say no and even try to enforce its will by force but that simply shows the people of Quebec that the USA is no friend just a big bully and hostile nation.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Your premise still lacks in credibility. A free Quebec might be initially aligned or friendly with the USA but would not necessarily be anymore dependent on the USA than Canada was or is. Secondly a Free Quebec would not be limited by Ottawa River since it had more claim to the land both in New Brunswick and present day Ontario than the USA. I think it presumptuous of people to think that in 1873 an independent Quebec not demand "Greater Quebec". The USA can say no and even try to enforce its will by force but that simply shows the people of Quebec that the USA is no friend just a big bully and hostile nation.

The question is; how much immigration/westward expansion pressure is an independent Quebec going to draw? Just how much they're going to be claiming in the West depends alot on just how many French-speaking Catholic folk you get migrating into the area vs. Anglo-Protestants.

 

[King Nazar]

Your premise still lacks in credibility. A free Quebec might be initially aligned or friendly with the USA but would not necessarily be anymore dependent on the USA than Canada was or is. Secondly a Free Quebec would not be limited by Ottawa River since it had more claim to the land both in New Brunswick and present day Ontario than the USA. I think it presumptuous of people to think that in 1873 an independent Quebec not demand "Greater Quebec". The USA can say no and even try to enforce its will by force but that simply shows the people of Quebec that the USA is no friend just a big bully and hostile nation.

If Quebec wants to keep its independence without the grace of the United States it will need European allies. The only likely allies will be Britain and France. An alliance with them would eliminate any chance of expanding into the remnants of BNA in the Maritimes or the HBC. Quebec, due to geography, economics and demographics will be aligned to the United States or it will be annexed outright.

 

[sloreck]

A few points.
1. While there was anti-Catholic feeling in the colonies, don't forget that Maryland was heavily Catholic, and the USA formally renounced religious tests and state religion in 1789. This is in contradistinction to the UK with a state religion, and Catholic (and other) religious disabilities.
2. If the Americans take the St Lawrence Valley, whether or not there is an independent Quebec (east of the Lakes) this cuts off the UK from the rest of Canada west of Quebec. They can still hold the Maritimes, and the situation in the far west may be fuzzier (OTLs British Columbia, and +/- the space west of the Rockies and east of the BC ranges) but there is nobody there now (hardly anybody). The lodgement of HBC is not suitable for significant control by the UK.
3. The territory east of the Lakes to the mouth of the St Lawrence is large enough the Quebecois won't feel hemmed in, and frankly over time Quebec will be heavily tied economically to the (much larger) USA.

 

[Lusitania]

If Quebec wants to keep its independence without the grace of the United States it will need European allies. The only likely allies will be Britain and France. An alliance with them would eliminate any chance of expanding into the remnants of BNA in the Maritimes or the HBC. Quebec, due to geography, economics and demographics will be aligned to the United States or it will be annexed outright.

Annexed with what American army. The US Federal government had no money and no army able to occupy and suppress Quebec. The policy of any Quebec government would be friendly relations with the USA but that does not mean the USA the overlord. Proper negotiations would need to take place to properly define its borders. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI would still be British. So it would be in the USA interest that Quebec get as large amount of New Brunswick (Part of Nova Scotia at the time of ARW) to limit BNA. A compromise about the southern border would also be accommodated unless you are envisioning a USA that is imperial oppressor. I think American leaders would seen a neutral Quebec to the north as a better alternative to an British presence. Also expansion into the Hydson Bay is not on the table till the middle of the 19th century.

 

[Lusitania]

A few points.
1. While there was anti-Catholic feeling in the colonies, don't forget that Maryland was heavily Catholic, and the USA formally renounced religious tests and state religion in 1789. This is in contradistinction to the UK with a state religion, and Catholic (and other) religious disabilities.
2. If the Americans take the St Lawrence Valley, whether or not there is an independent Quebec (east of the Lakes) this cuts off the UK from the rest of Canada west of Quebec. They can still hold the Maritimes, and the situation in the far west may be fuzzier (OTLs British Columbia, and +/- the space west of the Rockies and east of the BC ranges) but there is nobody there now (hardly anybody). The lodgement of HBC is not suitable for significant control by the UK.
3. The territory east of the Lakes to the mouth of the St Lawrence is large enough the Quebecois won't feel hemmed in, and frankly over time Quebec will be heavily tied economically to the (much larger) USA.

1) While 1 of 13 states did tolerate Catholics they were persecuted and suppressed by other states. It was easier for a Jew to have the right to vote and to be an elected official than a Catholic. George Washington had to stop anti-Catholic attacks within the continental army. So it existed at time of the ARW and actually became worse. Not federally of course but state wise.
2) Yes as I stated in previous posts on this thread.
3) If Quebec was given land north of the Great Lakes and New Brunswick (Acadia) it would allow it to stretch its wings and not feel oppressed. THe USA would have secured its northern shores and limited BNS to the Maritime. When HBC is bought Quebec get the land north of it while USA get the prairies.

 

[King Nazar]

Annexed with what American army. The US Federal government had no money and no army able to occupy and suppress Quebec. The policy of any Quebec government would be friendly relations with the USA but that does not mean the USA the overlord. Proper negotiations would need to take place to properly define its borders. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI would still be British. So it would be in the USA interest that Quebec get as large amount of New Brunswick (Part of Nova Scotia at the time of ARW) to limit BNA. A compromise about the southern border would also be accommodated unless you are envisioning a USA that is imperial oppressor. I think American leaders would seen a neutral Quebec to the north as a better alternative to an British presence. Also expansion into the Hydson Bay is not on the table till the middle of the 19th century.

The army the United States will be building later on in the century. Quebec will be aligned to the US from independence onward and as the US gets stronger over the course of the century the two will stay aligned but the US will be the dominant partner in the relationship.

I don't think the border for New Brunswick will be all that different than OTL. The British still hold the advantage in the Maritimes thanks to their naval dominance and the fact that the wooded interior is populated by British aligned tribes. As more time passes its unlikely that the US will go to war with Britain over the issue in New Brunswick as all sides will see the advantage of peaceful trade relations.

What happens with the HBC is anyone's guess though. Its possible the British sell the entire thing to the Americans once the fur trade goes into decline. The US might offer Quebec a slice if its feeling nice.

 

[Lusitania]

The question is; how much immigration/westward expansion pressure is an independent Quebec going to draw? Just how much they're going to be claiming in the West depends alot on just how many French-speaking Catholic folk you get migrating into the area vs. Anglo-Protestants.

The French Canadians were growing at a very fast rate, plus an independent Quebec could draw on Irish, French fleeing the revolution and even Italians/Catholic Germans to feed its population. At time of the ARW the Americans had the Ohio Valley and all lands south of the great lakes to settle. So how things progress depends on how migration flow. The QUebec government could offer all the sons whowanted to farm free land in Ontario to fill up the area

 

[Lusitania]

The army the United States will be building later on in the century. Quebec will be aligned to the US from independence onward and as the US gets stronger over the course of the century the two will stay aligned but the US will be the dominant partner in the relationship.

I don't think the border for New Brunswick will be all that different than OTL. The British still hold the advantage in the Maritimes thanks to their naval dominance and the fact that the wooded interior is populated by British aligned tribes. As more time passes its unlikely that the US will go to war with Britain over the issue in New Brunswick as all sides will see the advantage of peaceful trade relations.

What happens with the HBC is anyone's guess though. Its possible the British sell the entire thing to the Americans once the fur trade goes into decline. The US might offer Quebec a slice if its feeling nice.

We are talking about the time period of 1780-1800 first. Lets establish borders, relationships and so forth. Without a proper base talking about the 19th century is just fantasy. As for New Brunswick that would depend on the negotiations which would be happening in Europe. At that time the status of Quebec would not be known and the negotiators would be trying to increase the amount of land the rebel colonies get and reduce British control. It would be latter that negotiations on Quebec joining collapse and an Independent Neutral Quebec emerge.