Hrm. That's the problem I've been having right there - I haven't gotten into explicitly Canadian sources on the invasion. That's very helpful, thanks.
And interesting. Did any individuals stand out, among those who turned on the British? On this list they go!
James Livingston and Moses Hazen stand out by far as the men who turned on the British. Hazen is perhaps the most interesting since he has a badass name, but also because he had previous served in the British Army in the capture of Quebec.
My thinking was that the province looked to Quebec to a degree. It was not an easy city to take, and as you say everyone knew they could expect a counterattack in the spring. So taking the city would be suggestive of a certain plausibility of American success, while failing to take the city (and languishing embarrassingly in front of it, wracked by smallpox) would naturally have been taken as an indication that the Anglo-American presence was going to be quite temporary.
That says to me that however much a spring victory could have been the decisive turning point, the capture of Quebec would still have been a significant one.
Capturing Quebec probably would have been a good start, but I do believe that the Americans would still have to win in the spring. Driving the British off is one thing, keeping them away is another entirely.
If the Continentals can show the Canadiens that they are capable of both defeating the British and defending the local population from British return. That would also give them time to smooth over more of the problems with the locals and negotiate more concrete deals.
What do you have in mind?
To my mind one of the biggest changes would be organizing something more than an ad hoc expedition, which had more concrete political leadership and actually thought to bring some hard currency. In OTL one of the biggest grievances was that the Americans were actually basically paying in worthless paper money and I.O.U's to the populace while requisitioning an enormous amount of supplies.
Fixing that would be an enormous step forward.
Perhaps, but I suspect it would be a non-starter just based on the Franco-American political issues. The French might support independence, but getting the place back for themselves would end their new American relationship on about a bad a not as possible.
Of course, just because they start out independent doesn't mean they never consider joining the United States. Canada could join the Revolution, and then the country half a century later. Probably not, but it would be interesting.
Well the Canadien population themselves would probably be most comfortable with a return to monarchal French rule. This is going to be only about 15-20 years after the Conquest after all, and the French crown has quite a bit of leverage with the Continental Congress considering all the men and materials they supplied for their independence. It may simply be seen as a way to pay back the French support. I imagine there would be some contention about borders, but in the long run that would end up largely theoretical.