Americans captures Quebec in 1775... now what?

[Strategos' Risk]

Maybe a kind of "sister republic" gets established? Allied to the United States but not annexed into it in the same way Vermont was initially its own country.

The Americans would want to limit it to just the lands east of the Ottawa River though.

I love this thread because it really digs into an indie Quebec's socioeconomic structure, arguing that it'll be similar to Latin America:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=113528

 

[Lusitania]

I love this thread because it really digs into an indie Quebec's socioeconomic structure, arguing that it'll be similar to Latin America:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=113528

Yes it does show that Quebec as part of the uS would alter it considerably. One thing most people got wrong was to assume other Catholics immigrating to Quebec or other french speaking states would speak English. Why would people assume that? The French in Quebec adopted thousands of Irish orphans and these children learned to speak french. So a family or two arrive and the people will learn the language of the land which in thatvplace is french. This continues with the next imigrants.

 

[Matteo]

In an Alternate Scenario, the Americans wins the Battle of Quebec, and holds onto what they have until the end of the War. But during the Revolution, what would they do with the Land?

Also if the Americans did capture the entirety of Quebec, it would look like this after the war:
View attachment 406550

You need very different initial conditions than OTL to have your POD happen.

OTL, the American insurgents were just unable to keep Quebec, if they ever had taken it. It was a logistic nightmare to keep it.

Just consider the Washington-La Fayette talks. Even the French, with much higher means and better logistics, considered it extremely difficult to go for Quebec and so did not undertake this move.

So to have your POD occur, you need the American insurgents to be so much more powerful than OTL that they will be able to wipe the British out alone, without needing French, Spanish and Dutch participation in the ARW.

As to what happens, the French Canadians will either proclaim their independence or there will probably be a general uprising if the Americans don’t accept them to be independant in OTL north east Canada.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Yes it does show that Quebec as part of the uS would alter it considerably. One thing most people got wrong was to assume other Catholics immigrating to Quebec or other french speaking states would speak English. Why would people assume that? The French in Quebec adopted thousands of Irish orphans and these children learned to speak french. So a family or two arrive and the people will learn the language of the land which in thatvplace is french. This continues with the next imigrants.

What? No. That thread, specifically Doug M.'s insightful posts, are about what if Quebec (Libre) became a sister republic alongside the U.S., and how it would develop, similarly to the Latin American former colonies.

His starting post follows:

It's certainly a plausible WI -- OTL, Arnold's campaign came pretty close to succeeding.

Two threshold questions arise:

1) Will the Quebecois join the Revolution?

Probably, but it's not clear how enthusiastic they'll be. The British treated them well enough. I suspect they'd declare independence, but not contribute much to the "common" cause. (Note that Arnold was authorized to offer the Quebecois equal status with the other 13 colonies.)

2) Would independent Quebec survive the Revolutionary War?

That's much less clear. Quebec was in a bad strategic position; the British controlled the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, and could move troops inland at will. Quebec City has a superb defensive position, but the rest of the province is quite vulnerable.

The question then becomes, would the British try to recover Quebec? After all, they do have other things going on. Still, one suspects they would. It's a vast province, and symbolically important as the biggest single spoil of the last successful war.

Note that, whether they do or don't, the RW jumps the tracks in a big way. There's no Saratoga. Some other battle may take its place, of course... but both sides will be moving troops in very different directions than iOTL. Still, IMO the most likely outcome is that the British recover Quebec but the Americans end up winning their war anyhow. Both US and Canadian history will proceed rather differently thereafter.

But say Quebec Libre makes it out of the war: either the Brits decide not to attack, or the expedition's commanding officer is one of /those/ generals, or they just roll snake-eyes. Whatever. Now what?

Well, I think it's likely that QL joins the Articles of Confederation. Why not? It's a loose federation, and they'll still have plenty of autonomy.

But by 1787 the wheels are visibly coming off the AoC. So there'll probably be a Constitutional Convention, much as iOTL. And now things get hinky and ginchy. Do the Quebecois even join? Or do they simply secede? I have trouble seeing much enthusiasm in Montreal for a More Perfect Union with the much more populous Anglo states.

Other hand, if Quebec stays in, this TL's Constitution may be very different from ours. (Just to give one minor example, Quebec most definitely has an Established Church.)

Again, I think the most likely outcome is that Quebec peacefully secedes from the Confederation when the rest of the country joins the United States. And I think it would be peaceful; the country was profoundly war-weary in the 1780s, and the concept of "Union" hardly existed yet.

Mind, this sets an example for future secession. It also means the map of North America looks rather different. The northeast corner of the continent is still British, and the Hudson's Bay Company will still be trying to claim the far northwest. What's now western Canada will eventually be the subject of a three-cornered dispute. My best guess is that Britain still manages to claim the modern Yukon Territory, while Quebec expands into most of what's now Ontario (though the US may grab the southern "tongue" east of Lake Huron) and Manitoba. The Pacific Coast, who knows.

If Quebec stays in, then at least there's none of this nonsense about having a Senate that's fair and balanced between free and slave. Quebec throws that out of whack from the start, and then it probably spawns a second and then a third Francophone state in the north. Quebecois would not be abolitionists, but they'd find the southern slave system deeply alien, and would have no interest in supporting it.

Assimilation, hmm. Probably not in Quebec itself. But there'd be some interesting mixing in the new western states. I suspect there'd be more movement south than north -- Quebec has more land, but it's /cold/ -- so by the mid-19th century there'd be Francophone minorities in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.

Politically, the francophones would be natural Jeffersonian Democrats. I doubt John Adams even has one presidential term in this TL.

At this point the knockon effects really explode. The floor is open...


Doug M.

The way he argues it, maybe Quebec might even join the early U.S. ... but it's either too different to stay once the Constitution is drafted, or it staying would cause the Constitution to go differently from OTL, with all of the knock-on effects that entails.

 

[Lusitania]

What? No. That thread, specifically Doug M.'s insightful posts, are about what if Quebec (Libre) became a sister republic alongside the U.S., and how it would develop, similarly to the Latin American former colonies.

His starting post follows:



The way he argues it, maybe Quebec might even join the early U.S. ... but it's either too different to stay once the Constitution is drafted, or it staying would cause the Constitution to go differently from OTL, with all of the knock-on effects that entails.

That’s what I stated that a USA that included Quebec would result in a different USA altogether. This was the same reasoning in snothervthreat I participated last month. What I found most difficult to comprehend was that too many people believed that a Quebec in the USA would suddenly become English speaking and Protestants make up the majority of the population.

So either Quebec become a neutral independent country with expanded borders iOTL or it joins USA if the rest of the former colonies can accommodate its demands. It was argued that Quebec would side with those arguing for articles of confederation instead of the iOTL constitution. The reason is that the articles would allow it to protect itself and preserve its uniqueness.

 

[Wolttaire]

How big was it was it confined to the Quebec to what we think of as Quebec or was it different

 

[phil03]

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.

In the very same quote he said he want them incorporated to the United States... and my point was that annexation of the Saint-Lawrence Valley remained an important strategic objective for the US until 1814.

And I would argue that, yes, absence of discussion about an independent Qc republic is very much evidence when one compare it to actual evidences of pursuit of an annexation to the United States. The OP doesn't ask what the americans should have done had they won in 1775 but rather what they would have done and for that one need to look at the acts and words of peoples who would have been there and would have had the power to make the decisions.

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???

Thank you, tough color me doubtfull on this one as it contradict much of what is commonly tought on the matter. Stats can, who I tend to deem more reliable then anyone else as far as Canada historical population is concerned, give a 90K for everything from Newfoundland to Ontario in 1775. (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm).

The overall mistake you make here is to essentially gave the Quebeccers (the name is an anachronism but I'd still use for simplicity sake) a far more politically active role then they ever played during this era. As stated before, most of the population essentially stayed in the sidelines during the invasion and they're is a difference between taking a side between two outside powers taking a swing at each other and launching a general uprising by yourselves to make yourself independant. The type of political consciousness and nationalism needed to give such a thing a chance of happening only appeared a few decades down the line in Quebec and even then, the Patriot Rebellions pettered out. Hence my point, unless the americans do something utterly stupid to antagonise Quebecers the rising you're talking about simply isn't gonna happen.

 

[GameBawesome]

How big was it was it confined to the Quebec to what we think of as Quebec or was it different

remember that map I posted, that was technically Quebec during 1775. It was part of Lower Canada, and would become big later

 

[Lusitania]

In the very same quote he said he want them incorporated to the United States... and my point was that annexation of the Saint-Lawrence Valley remained an important strategic objective for the US until 1814.

And I would argue that, yes, absence of discussion about an independent Qc republic is very much evidence when one compare it to actual evidences of pursuit of an annexation to the United States. The OP doesn't ask what the americans should have done had they won in 1775 but rather what they would have done and for that one need to look at the acts and words of peoples who would have been there and would have had the power to make the decisions.



Thank you, tough color me doubtfull on this one as it contradict much of what is commonly tought on the matter. Stats can, who I tend to deem more reliable then anyone else as far as Canada historical population is concerned, give a 90K for everything from Newfoundland to Ontario in 1775. (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm).

The overall mistake you make here is to essentially gave the Quebeccers (the name is an anachronism but I'd still use for simplicity sake) a far more politically active role then they ever played during this era. As stated before, most of the population essentially stayed in the sidelines during the invasion and they're is a difference between taking a side between two outside powers taking a swing at each other and launching a general uprising by yourselves to make yourself independant. The type of political consciousness and nationalism needed to give such a thing a chance of happening only appeared a few decades down the line in Quebec and even then, the Patriot Rebellions pettered out. Hence my point, unless the americans do something utterly stupid to antagonise Quebecers the rising you're talking about simply isn't gonna happen.

As for population data from all I read the french were in a midsts of a population boom from 1780-1800 and its population did increase considerably much faster than in last. Also Ontario and New Brunswick basically empty of Europeans. So you had Quebec, few thousand in PEI. The only major English settlement in 1775 was Halifax area.

Now for political awakening, the “peasants” were controlled by the church and the elites who were allied with the church. So when I said the french did this or wanted that is really the elites and church who would be telling the people all the “nice” or “bad” things the English Protestants were doing. So if the Protestants move against the church and elites they had the ability due to their control and influence be able to galvanize the uneducated peasants to act and move in certain direction.

IOTL the church and elites worked to suppress the people because it suited them. To keep them in Quebec since there was a concerted effort discrimination against Catholics outside Quebec. It could just as easily work to make them be more anti -Anglo. If the church wanting to expand its influence and power told all farmers that half their children should move Ontario to help the Quebec people and true church expand they could.

We also need to remember that over 250,000 Québécois emigrated to New England in the early 19th century to work in the growing industry there. A lot of those would be hAppy to move to new farms in the expanded Quebec.

 

[phil03]

As for population data from all I read the french were in a midsts of a population boom from 1780-1800 and its population did increase considerably much faster than in last.

Now for political awakening, the “peasants” were controlled by the church and the elites who were allied with the church. So when I saw the french did this or wanted that is really the elites and church who would be telling the people all the “nice” or “bad” things the English Protestants were doing. So if the Protestants move against the church and elites they due to their control and influence be able to galvanize the uneducated peasants to act and move in certain direction.

IOTL the church and elites worked to suppress the people because it suited them. It could just as easily work to make them be more anti -Anglo. If the church wanting to expand its influence and power told all farmers that half their children should move Ontario to help the Quebec people and true church expand they could.

They where but the boom only started, or at least truly gathered as much steam as it did, post-conquest, because the church pushed it as a way to prevent assimilation and preserve its own power in fact. That was only 12 or 16 years ago, depending on wheter you count from the Plains of Abraham or from the official scession of Canada in the Treaty of Paris. By that point they where maybe 70-75K settlers or descendant of settlers in the Saint-Lawrence valley. The navity rate of french-canadians during this era was phenomenal but not THAT phenomenal.

And yes, the church and the gentry where key but the gentry was precisely the type of people who had yet to develop the kind of national and political consciousness that would come latter. We are quite far from the era of Papineau and Lafontaine here. As for the church, they remained practical and as long as you didn't disturb their power too much they aren't gonna move. As long as the americans prove to be at least as practical as the brits, and I don't see why it would be otherwise, they aren't gonna oppose them directly.

As stated before, so long as whatever government the americans put in place after taking Québec don't do anything exceedingly stupid ods are they won't meet much internal opposition.

 

[Lusitania]

They where but the boom only started, or at least truly gathered as much steam as it did, post-conquest, because the church pushed it as a way to prevent assimilation and preserve its own power in fact. That was only 12 or 16 years ago, depending on wheter you count from the Plains of Abraham or from the official scession of Canada in the Treaty of Paris. By that point they where maybe 70-75K settlers or descendant of settlers in the Saint-Lawrence valley. The navity rate of french-canadians during this era was phenomenal but not THAT phenomenal.

And yes, the church and the gentry where key but the gentry was precisely the type of people who had yet to develop the kind of national and political consciousness that would come latter. We are quite far from the era of Papineau and Lafontaine here. As for the church, they remained practical and as long as you didn't disturb their power too much they aren't gonna move. As long as the americans prove to be at least as practical as the brits, and I don't see why it would be otherwise, they aren't gonna oppose them directly.

As stated before, so long as whatever government the americans put in place after taking Québec don't do anything exceedingly stupid ods are they won't meet much internal opposition.

But the idea that the Americans were going to put a government in place is the problem with American an greatness mentality. There was no reason that french church and elites would throw themselves with the rebels and the US had no means to enforce their will on the Québécois.

So all arguments are that Quebec either joins as equal partner in the US which means greater say in their affairs to be conducted in french and greater protection to to church. As many have indicated that would go against the English speaking people and elites of the other rebelling colonies. In the period of post ARW there was no national army or navy to enforce occupation or suppress the french people.

By awakening the church and elites apetite for power theybeould not just be content to be pawns again. So either grant them freedom or make them equal partners in confederation and all that entails.

 

[phil03]

But the idea that the Americans were going to put a government in place is the problem with American an greatness mentality. There was no reason that french church and elites would throw themselves with the rebels and the US had no means to enforce their will on the Québécois.

So all arguments are that Quebec either joins as equal partner in the US which means greater say in their affairs to be conducted in french and greater protection to to church. As many have indicated that would go against the English speaking people and elites of the other rebelling colonies. In the period of post ARW there was no national army or navy to enforce occupation or suppress the french people.

By awakening the church and elites apetite for power theybeould not just be content to be pawns again. So either grant them freedom or make them equal partners in confederation and all that entails.

They don't need to, merely to not work actively against the colonists and unless the US give them a good reason to do they won't. Therefore, they're won't be any need to have a big army to enforce, as you put it, american rule. Provide it isn't too unpleasant and that both France and the UK are not actively trying to maintain or restore a presence in the region to the local powers that be it will simply be accepted and that would be that. Basically, if they get through the war without the Brits either retaking Quebec or doing better then OTL on other fronts by a large enough margin to abandon it they're won't be much to threaten american presence there.

At the risk of repeating myself, you're vision of the Saint-Lawrence valley and its inhabitants as an actual entity with a strong identity that would actively revolt if it isn't given what it want is anachronistic in that era. At this point it neither has the means to stand by itself nor perceive itself as a society separate from the rest of the world that should have its own government. That will change but progressively and latter. The Patriot Rebellions are a good seven decades down the line in OTL.

Mind you, somewhere down the line I could easily see it become a state with characteristics making it very distinct from the rest of the US, and might even develop an independance movement in its mist, but either an equal partner inside the newlyfounded US or a separate republic, even a puppet one, simply don't fit the situation at hand for the period we're talking about.

 

[Lusitania]

They don't need to, merely to not work actively against the colonists and unless the US give them a good reason to do they won't. Therefore, they're won't be any need to have a big army to enforce, as you put it, american rule. Provide it isn't too unpleasant and that both France and the UK are not actively trying to maintain or restore a presence in the region to the local powers that be it will simply be accepted and that would be that.

At the risk of repeating myself, you're vision of the Saint-Lawrence and its inhabitants as an actual entity with a strong identity that would actively revolt if it isn't given what it want is anachronistic in that era. At this point it neither has the means to stand by itself nor perceive itself as a society separate from the rest of the world that should have its own government. That will change but progressively and latter. The Patriot Rebellions are a good seven decades down the line.

Mind you, somewhere down the line I could easily see it become a state with characteristics making it very distinct from the rest of the US, and might even develop an independance movement in its mist, but either an equal partner inside the newlyfounded US or a separate republic, even a puppet one, simply don't fit the situation at hand for the period we're talking about.

But why would the french Quebec people simply as you say be good sheep and be willing to be dominated by the Americans. What makes Americans think they the only people who are enlightened. The Quebec elites and church had just been provided by British a very nice arrangement. So Americans decide to invade and conquer Quebec and like good sheep they just accept that. Don’t be so patronizing and realize the uS had no soldier and no army, none to force the Quebec to do anything. Why would the Québécois accept that?

Please provide us with something more than a American Wank.

 

[phil03]

But why would the french Quebec people simply as you say be good sheep and be willing to be dominated by the Americans. What makes Americans think they the only people who are enlightened. The Quebec elites and church had just been provided by British a very nice arrangement. So Americans decide to invade and conquer Quebec and like good sheep they just accept that. Don’t be so patronizing and realize the uS had no soldier and no army, none to force the Quebec to do anything. Why would the Québécois accept that?

Please provide us with something more than a American Wank.

Because they accepted the same kind of domination by Britain without much complaints until about 30 years latter (the Parti Canadien was founded in 1806). What you describe as a very nice arrangement mainly consisted in not touching the social position of the church and the gentry as well as freedom of religion for all and some guarantees concerning the use of civil law in private matters, the administration was still very much staffed by colonial officers and a handfull of local protestants, only one before the invasion did the very idea of a catholic holding some kind of public office became possible, and the garrisons kept in the area in that era in peacetime where always small in number. Providing that the americans are willing to be at least as accomodating, and signs from OTL's tended to point in that direction, I don't see why they should react any differently. Hell, even the handfull of pro-american individuals they would put in position of power would be an improvement in term of franco-catholic influence in government compared to the situation beforehand, in the short-run at least.

As for the accusation of creating an American Wank, the very premise of the OP is to have the americans win a battle where the deck was heavily stacked against them and where a victory would have had rather important strategic benefits for them so it kind of come with the territory. I would also say that the idea of an independent Quebec republic or of a Quebec being an equal partner to the degree you put it is a far bigger wank for them then imagining it being asorbed by the US at this point is history would be for the americans.

 

[Lusitania]

Because they accepted the same kind of domination by Britain and not lifted a finger. What you describe as a very nice arrangement mainly consisted in not touching the social position of the church and the gentry, the government was still very much staffed by colonial officers and a handfull of local protestants and the garrisons kept in the area in that era where always small in number. Providing that the americans are willing to be at least as accomodating, and signs from OTL's tended to point in that direction, I don't see why they should react any differently. Hell, even the handfull of pro-american individuals they would put in position of power would be an improvement in term of franco-catholic influence in government compared to the situation beforehand.

As for the accusation of creating an American Wank, the very premise of the OP is to have the americans win a battle where the deck was heavily stacked against them and where a victory would have had rather important strategic benefits for them so it kind of come with the territory.

Yes the Americans did win the battle because the french rise up and assist the Americans só the Americans repay that friendship with oppression. But you forget that the British had a navy and army to enforce the Québécois conquest. What and how the Americans going to do to enforce their opression. The US government was bankrupt and yet you still say they going to occupy the friend they betrayed.

You also forget or ignore that once you take the genie out of bottle you cannot put it back. So after decade of British occupation the Americans convince the Québécois to rise up then suddenly the same people going back to being sheep. Shit that the biggest piece of crap I ever heard. They would seize it and demand their own place at the table. But no the Americans no want them unless they convert en mass to evangelical Christians and speak English another example of American elites and wank.

 

[phil03]

Yes the Americans did win the battle because the french rise up and assist the Americans só the Americans repay that friendship with oppression. But you forget that the British had a navy and army to enforce the Québécois conquest. What and how the Americans going to do to enforce their opression. The US government was bankrupt and yet you still say they going to occupy the friend they betrayed.

You also forget or ignore that once you take the genie out of bottle you cannot put it back. So after decade of British occupation the Americans convince the Québécois to rise up then suddenly the same people going back to being sheep. Shit that the biggest piece of crap I ever heard. They would seize it and demand their own place at the table. But no the Americans go t want them unless they convert en mass to evangelical Christians and speak English another example of American elites and wank.

As stated beforehand, its hard but they're is other POD's to make the american win at Quebec. As for forced mass convertion and assimilation to the english language that's exactly the kind of stuff that would, indeed, provoke a rising but that we have absolutely nothing from OTL indicating that the americans would do. Quebec would have most likely been made into a state down the line and been able to keep its distinct character for the forseable future, I don't think anybody would deny that. They're is, however, a pretty important gap between that and either forming an independent state or being treated as an equal partner when Qc didn't even have a twentieth of the population of the 13 colonies at the time. Hell, even the partisans of the US in Qc didn't have that as an objective.

All that won't necessitate any of the massive occupation you seem to imagine. A British recovery of Quebec is, of course, possible. I was merely working on the assumption they wouldn't as if they did it would more or less bring things back to a situation close to OTL.

 

[Lusitania]

As stated beforehand, its hard but they're is other POD's to make the american win at Quebec. As for forced mass convertion and assimilation to the english language that's exactly the kind of stupid stuff that would, indeed, provoke a rising but that we have absolutely nothing from OTL indicating that the americans would do. Quebec would have most likely been made into a state down the line and been able to keep its distinct character for the forseable future, I don't think anybody would deny that. They're is, however, a pretty important gap between that and either forming an independent state or being treated as an equal partner when Qc didn't even have a twentieth of the population of the 13 colonies at the time. Hell, even the partisans of the US in Qc didn't have that as an objective.

All that won't necessitate any of the massive occupation you seem to imagine.

But when we say equal partner we not talking about equal to all the other colonies together but as an equal to each and everyone of them. But according to you no they not qualify for that. Shit they start off as secound class citizen. Heck they not even citizens they something between a slavery and English speaking American. When they become enlighten we will let them become a state. You either make them equal from beginning or cut them loose as separate country. Your argument is that they not ready for statehood and need to be guided by the enlightened and wise English Americans is nothing more than Bunch of garbage wrapped up in a nice bow.

Listen I keep saying that USA occupying Quebec after the war a bunch of hogwash the Americans did not have the whereabouts to occupy and enforce that. Either Quebec is a 14 state with proper guraratees for its unique language and religion which then fundamentally changes the way confederation happens or goes it own way.

If the US does attempt to suppress the Quebec people by denying them the rights of statehood or independent the supposed Quebec illiterate rabble you refer to would get support from other catholic countries and arms to liberate them from American oppression. Heck they may even conspire with British to expel the American invaders while the war still on.

The ARW was accomplished due to a national military force that due to state pressures and bankrupt federal government was forced to be disbanded. Heck the government never even had the money to pay the back wages owed the troops who fought the British do where it going to have the money to pay for an occupying army. Not going to happen.

 

[phil03]

But when we say equal partner we not talking about equal to all the other colonies together but as an equal to each and everyone of them. But according to you no they not qualify for that. Shit they start off as secound class citizen. Heck they not even citizens they something between a slavery and English speaking American. When they become enlighten we will let them become a state. You either make them equal from beginning or cut them loose as separate country. Your argument is that they not ready for statehood and need to be guided by the enlightened and wise English Americans is nothing more than Bunch of garbage wrapped up in a nice bow.

Listen I keep saying that USA occupying Quebec after the war a bunch of hogwash the Americans did not have the whereabouts to occupy and enforce that. Either Quebec is a 14 state with proper guraratees for its unique language and religion which then fundamentally changes the way confederation happens or goes it own way.

If the US does attempt to suppress the Quebec people by denying them the rights of statehood or independent the supposed Quebec illiterate rabble you refer to would get support from other catholic countries and arms to liberate them from American oppression. Heck they may even conspire with British to expel the American invaders while the war still on.

The ARW was accomplished due to a national military force that due to state pressures and bankrupt federal government was forced to be disbanded. Heck the government never even had the money to pay the back wages owed the troops who fought the British do where it going to have the money to pay for an occupying army. Not going to happen.

Being the fourteenth state is a possibility, tough I tend to go with being a territory for at least a small ammount of time as a more probable scenario, with its own specifities respected is definitely possibility but things like the US as a whole being bilingual, as you mentionned earlier on, is simply not gonna happen for the same reason an independent republic is not viable: Quebec doesn't have the demographic weight and economic weight at this point of history for it.

As stated previously, a rising like you describe is profoundly unlikely and doesn't fit the political climate in Quebec at the time. A legislative assembly of any kind only happened in 1791 in OTL and revendications for some kind of autonomy only began to be heard in Lower Canada in the early 19th century and only boiled to a point of ebulition by the 1830's. Basically, british rule at the time was very much direct rule and it didn't provoke much contestations. Unless american direct rule prove to be far more opressive, and they're is no OTL factors to make us believe so, they're is no reason why the answer to it from the population would be so drastically different.

I suppose I would have to ask you the following: why do you believe american governance would be so drastically different from british one?

 

[Lusitania]

Being the fourteenth state is a possibility, tough I tend to go with being a territory for at least a small ammount of time as a more probable scenario, with its own specifities respected is definitely possibility but things like the US as a whole being bilingual, as you mentionned earlier on, is simply not gonna happen for the same reason an independent republic is not viable: Quebec doesn't have the demographic weight and economic weight at this point of history for it.

As stated previously, a rising like you describe is profoundly unlikely and doesn't fit the political climate in Quebec at the time. A legislative assembly of any kind only happened in 1791 in OTL and revendications for some kind of autonomy only began to be heard in Lower Canada in the early 19th century. Basically, british rule at the time was very much direct rule and it didn't provoke much contestations. Unless american direct rule prove to be far more opressive, and they're is no OTL factors to make us believe so, they're is no reason why the answer to it from the population would be so drastically different.

I suppose I would have to ask you the following: why do you believe american governance would be so drastically different from british one?

But why would quebec be second class citizens or not even that but residents? Is it because they are french and catholic. Yes because of racism and hatred by many against Catholics.

You still seem to think the US has the ability to make Quebec second class people. Only reason they not sold in slavery I guess is because not not African I guess.

The country would not be bilingual but accomadatuons would need to be made to the language and religion in auebecabd any other french catholic future states. This would change us constitution. Many of the other posters in the many other similar threads have stated that us be more similar to articles of confederation insteadbon ioyl constitution.

You state repeatedly that the Québécois had no sense of nation well I counter neither did over 50% of the people in the other rebellion colonies. It was the rousing and speeches of those committed to the cause that swayed them. Well I got news we had those type of people in Quebec also. It was not only a trait found in English speaking part of North America.

 

[phil03]

But why would quebec be second class citizens or not even that but residents? Is it because they are french and catholic. Yes because of racism and hatred by many against Catholics.

You still seem to think the US has the ability to make Quebec second class people. Only reason they not sold in slavery I guess is because not not African I guess.

The country would not be bilingual but accomadatuons would need to be made to the language and religion in auebecabd any other french catholic future states. This would change us constitution. Many of the other posters in the many other similar threads have stated that us be more similar to articles of confederation insteadbon ioyl constitution.

You state repeatedly that the Québécois had no sense of nation well I counter neither did over 50% of the people in the other rebellion colonies. It was the rousing and speeches of those committed to the cause that swayed them. Well I got news we had those type of people in Quebec also. It was not only a trait found in English speaking part of North America.

They wouldn't be more second class citizens then the american settlers in the territories would be, or that they where under the Brits. Except for the original 13 Colonies everyone else had to go through the usual admission process afterwards and I don't see Qc would be different. The American Revolution didn't just happen out of the blue, they had a strong tradition of relative self-governance and autonomy that eventually lead to a clash with colonial authorities as they developed a sense of distinctivness from the metropolis just when they became more and more self-reliant.

A similar process would, indeed, end up producing a similar situation and speeches by Papineau and the like would have echo's to those made by many of the founding fathers but things have simply not reached that point by the 1770's. Simple as that. To pursue the paralel, when the 13 Colonies where less then a 100K they're wasn't much talk of rebellions there either.

As for the US Constitution, I could see things like the catholic tithes and civil law for private matters being enshrined in Quebec territorial and then state law (religious freedom was already there OTL) and such turning out to be a precedent in the long run but guarantees for future franco-catholic states is most likely a bridge too far IMO.