Battle of Quebec a success for America

Sorry, but I was using social system as "socioeconomic system". A society of yeomen farmers with a fantastic standard of living, at least in terms of diet, does not seem analogous to Latin America in most ways.

Well, Catholic; pyramidal social structure; very low literacy; economy based on agriculture and extraction, with few artisans and no industry; attempt to create a republic despite no tradition of democracy or self-rule.

ISTM I'm saying purple is sort of bluish, and you're saying "purple is not blue".


I am still waiting, BTW, for which one of the founding fathers leads the "The Quebecers are Catholic!" charge.

...um. It's not actually a short list.

John Jay: opposed letting Catholic priests back into New York (they'd been banned since 1691) or allowing Mass to be said publicly. Tried to add a clause to New York State's Constitution prohibiting Catholics from serving the state in any capacity unless they first swore an oath rejecting the authority of the Pope. When this failed, he introduced a watered-down version:

"XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil."

Note well those last four words; they were Jay's, and quite deliberately targetted at Catholics.

Alexander Hamilton: wrote several ferocious anti-Catholic screeds in 1774-5 in the wake of the Quebec Act, claiming the King was trying to force Popery (or, at least tolerance of it) on the colonies. "Does not your blood run cold to think that an English Parliament should pass an Act for the establishment of arbitrary power and Popery in such an extensive country? [...] Your loves, your property, your religion are all at stake."

In fairness to Hamilton, this seems to have been political opportunism rather than bigotry -- by the middle Revolutionary years he had abandoned his anti-Catholic positions, and AFAIK he never went back to them. Still, it's an ugly and suggestive episode.

Roger Sherman: repeatedly stated that Catholics could not be loyal to the Patriot cause, tried to have them banned from serving in the Continental Army, wouldn't allow them in his house. (N.B., Sherman was a Gospel theologian, and one of the older Founders.)

Or the whole first Continental Congress. Check out its Message to the People of Great Britain, protesting the Quebec Act:

"That we think the Legislature of Great-Britain is not authorized by the constitution to establish a religion, fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets, or, to erect an arbitrary form of government, in any quarter of the globe. These rights, we, as well as you, deem sacred. And yet sacred as they are, they have, with many others been repeatedly and flagrantly violated.

[...]


"[T]he dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices, that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to Administration, so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasion, be fit instruments in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the same state of slavery with themselves.

"Nor can we suppress our astonishment, that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion [Catholicism] that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world."

-- Authors John Jay, Richard Henry Lee, and William Livingston.

Now, the anti-Catholicism of the early Revolution got considerably moderated by (1) the need to woo American Catholics, (2) the failed attempt to get Quebec on side, and (3) the alliance with France.

But that doesn't mean it magically disappeared after 1778. And if there'd been a serious prospect of Quebec joining the union, I think it's reasonable to assume it would have flared up again, at least to some extent.


Doug M.
 
Canada wouldnt be part of the U.S

The US tried that in the war of 1812, there was to much land in America to colonize, it's allways been a stupid fantasy to make Canada part of the U.S.
 

General Zod

Banned
In fairness to Hamilton, this seems to have been political opportunism rather than bigotry -- by the middle Revolutionary years he had abandoned his anti-Catholic positions, and AFAIK he never went back to them. Still, it's an ugly and suggestive episode.

Which indicates nothing since it was indeed political expediency to stir up public opinion against the British. Besides, what made 13 colonies' WASP mad about the Quebec Act was that it appeared to give Quebecois preferential right of settlement in the Ohio valley. In other word, it was anger about unfair access to land & resources, not because Westminster had lifted discrimination off Quebec Catholics' backs.


"[T]he dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices, that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to Administration, so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasion, be fit instruments in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the same state of slavery with themselves."

In other words, reading between the lines: We won't let you settle the Quebecois' grievances, but not our own, and so use divide and impera stategy to keep us down, nor let them have a prefential right to colonize our natural direction of expansion. Anti-Catholicism is just an excuse here: had the British used say Protestant German or Scottish or Dutch settlers in much the same way, the 13 colonies would have protested with different words, but just the same vehemently.

Now, the anti-Catholicism of the early Revolution got considerably moderated by (1) the need to woo American Catholics, (2) the failed attempt to get Quebec on side, and (3) the alliance with France.

Nice for you to acknowledge this all-important point.
;):p:D

Now, these factors would have become even rather more important and influential had the Patriots managed to actually seize control of Quebec and wooed substantial numbers of Quebecois to support or at least acquiesce to their cause. Such political expediency would have caused the Patriot leadership to shut down forcefully unreasoning anti-Catholic bigots during the war, and the experience of seeing Quebecois helping their cause for almost ten years would have greately diminished Anti-Quebecois prejudice in the 13 colonies after the war (a "they are quirky and different, but they are still good patriots and neighbors" sentiment). Quebec has much more to gain from joining the other 13 (actually most likely a Patriot Quebec causes the British to lose the Maritimes as well, either during the ARW or at the peace table, so Nova Scotia as well would join the original colonies; Ontario and Rupert's Land are surely lost to the British) colonies in the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitutional Convention. Given the above political atmosphere, the Framers would have relatively little trouble writing a couple of key bits in the Constitution that would make the Quebecois feel quite at home in the USA: say something that explicitly guarantees their right to create a state Established Church and make both English & French official state languages. They don't need anything else, since the Constitution already gives very very ample margins of autonomy to states in domestic affairs.

Eg. there's the bit I wrote in my signature piece, which convers just a TL like this one:

The Rights protected by the constitutions of the several States, including their domestic institutions and privileges, are not to be infringed by this Constitution or any law of the United States, provided that no State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or of expression, nor the trial by jury in criminal cases nor shall any Statedeprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

But that doesn't mean it magically disappeared after 1778. And if there'd been a serious prospect of Quebec joining the union, I think it's reasonable to assume it would have flared up again, at least to some extent.

This does not mean such prejudice, given the social and political factors discussed above, had any realistic chance to swell to such numbers and importance as to wreck the union between AmeriQuebec and the other 14 states in the USA framework.
 
Now, these factors would have become even rather more important and influential had the Patriots managed to actually seize control of Quebec and wooed substantial numbers of Quebecois to support or at least acquiesce to their cause.

But that's the tricky part, isn't it? Conquering Quebec would have been tough to do given the resources available to them and virtually impossible to pull off without getting Quebec City as well.

Convincing the French that the 13 colonies had their best interests in heart would have been even tougher. Some words on a document isn't going to convince them --they will have to see ironclad proof that they won't be screwed over.
 

General Zod

Banned
But that's the tricky part, isn't it? Conquering Quebec would have been tough to do given the resources available to them and virtually impossible to pull off without getting Quebec City as well.

True, but I'm arguing the military feasibility of it. I'm a political AH buff, not an armchair AH strategist. ;) I'm argumenting against those who think unreasoning and uncontrollable WASP prejudice would lead the 13 colonies purposefully to screw the opportunity of achieving a lasting union with Quebec after the victory.

Convincing the French that the 13 colonies had their best interests in heart would have been even tougher. Some words on a document isn't going to convince them --they will have to see ironclad proof that they won't be screwed over.

This is why I support Britain not passing giving the Quebecois any significant relief in the Quebec Act as the best PoD to ensure AmeriCanada. This way, Quebecois would have an obvious advantage to side with the Patriots.

Any way, what kind of "ironclad proof" were you thinking of ? The kind of Constitutional guarantee combined with American federalism I've posted would adequately suffice after 1787, and the Articles of Confederation were sufficiently loose (and ineffectual) to prevent any anti-Quebecois exploitation betwen 1783 and 1787. What guarantees do you think tehy would need during the ARW ?
 
This is why I support Britain not passing giving the Quebecois any significant relief in the Quebec Act as the best PoD to ensure AmeriCanada. This way, Quebecois would have an obvious advantage to side with the Patriots.

But without the passing of the Quebec Act, we end up with a delayed ACW, so we end up back in a 'chicken and the egg' scenario. :p

Any way, what kind of "ironclad proof" were you thinking of ? The kind of Constitutional guarantee combined with American federalism I've posted would adequately suffice after 1787, and the Articles of Confederation were sufficiently loose (and ineffectual) to prevent any anti-Quebecois exploitation betwen 1783 and 1787. What guarantees do you think tehy would need during the ARW ?

Some very serious evidence that their religion and language will be protected, for starters. You can debate whether or not anti-Catholicism was real or not but the perception that it existed in the 13 colonies was certainly there. As a Canadian who grew up in Quebec I can pretty much guarantee you that the 13 colonies saying to the Quebecois that they'll give protection isn't going to be sufficient -- they are going to need something more than words on a piece of paper, so to speak. What that is, I honestly don't know but it's going to be a tough sale.

And getting Quebec in by conquering it is just going to really piss the French off -- they tolerated the Brits only because the Brits were smart enough not to do too many things to piss them off. Replacing the old masters with a whole new set of masters after they've just had the old guys 'broken in' so to speak is going to be another tough sale. And the anglos in Quebec (not that there were that many pre-ACW though) will be totally against the idea in any rate.

Not saying it's impossible -- just really, really tough to do no matter what method is used.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
But without the passing of the Quebec Act, we end up with a delayed ACW, so we end up back in a 'chicken and the egg' scenario. :p

ARW. American Revolutionary War. Washington & Redcoats. ACW is the American Civil War. Lee & Grant. :p;)

Very arguable, and widely subject to nullifying butterflies. All the main grievances of the Patriots would remain on the floor, and they would be even bolder if a PO Quebec joins the first Continental Congress. The Quebec Act was just icing on the Patriot casus belli cake.

Some very serious evidence that their religion and language will be protected, for starters.

What about Quebecois leaders being acknowledged a significant role in the Patriot movement ? Say another Continental Army, under Quebecois leadership ?

As a Canadian who grew up in Quebec I can pretty much guarantee you that the 13 colonies saying to the Quebecois that they'll give protection isn't going to be sufficient -- they are going to need something more than words on a piece of paper, so to speak. What that is, I honestly don't know but it's going to be a tough sale.

With all due respect, I think your experience would need to be adjusted to fit the PoD. It is quite reasonable to assume that a Quebec enjoying two centuries of the very ample latitude of self government that US Constution allows, including ATL explicit protection of state guarantees for language and religion (again as long as the Quebecois don't try to discriminate Anglos or Protestants, it would be fine with the rest of the USA: states' rights and all that) would butterfly away the nasty siege mentality that spawned the linguistic Nazism of the PQ.

And getting Quebec in by conquering it is just going to really piss the French off -- they tolerated the Brits only because the Brits were smart enough not to do too many things to piss them off. Replacing the old masters with a whole new set of masters after they've just had the old guys 'broken in' so to speak is going to be another tough sale. And the anglos in Quebec (not that there were that many pre-ACW though) will be totally against the idea in any rate.

True, to a degree (that's why I favor no QA as PoD for Americanada). But if the Patriots don't screw up Iraq-style, and don't PO the French during their ARW presence, a few years of US self-rule would show up as infinitely superior to London's colonial whims, and from there, things would go downhill.
 
Last edited:
Which indicates nothing since it was indeed political expediency to stir up public opinion against the British. .

...so?

Think it through. In 1774-5 we saw a sudden surge of anti-Catholic activity and rhetoric. You're right to say that this was opportunistic, but nonetheless it was drawing on a deep well of pre-existing anti-Catholicism.

13 years later, the anti-Federalists are looking for any means at hand to fend off ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Catholicism is probably a little weaker in 1788 than in 1775, but not by much.

So... why would the antis /not/ raise this?



This does not mean such prejudice, given the social and political factors discussed above, had any realistic chance to swell to such numbers and importance as to wreck the union between AmeriQuebec and the other 14 states in the USA framework.

Possibly we're talking past each other? Because I haven't said that anti-Catholic prejudice would (necessarily) wreck the union. I have said that it would be a significant issue, and would further complicate the job of the drafters.


Doug M.
 

General Zod

Banned
Think it through. In 1774-5 we saw a sudden surge of anti-Catholic activity and rhetoric. You're right to say that this was opportunistic, but nonetheless it was drawing on a deep well of pre-existing anti-Catholicism.

13 years later, the anti-Federalists are looking for any means at hand to fend off ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Catholicism is probably a little weaker in 1788 than in 1775, but not by much.

So... why would the antis /not/ raise this?

Oh, they would, they would. It's just that I expect this to be a relatively minor and peripheral weapon in their rethotic, since any but the most prejudiced minds, ultimately would realize that what special guarantees the Quebecois won for their religion and language, they would be used in their own state mainly (granted, someone might have the farisightedness to raise a scare about future Catholic immigraiton, but since Congress calls the shots here, there are valid counterpoints here, too). And AmeriQuebec would not have a dominant role in federal government by any means. According to my research for the Ameriwank constitution,

"but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of Newfoundland shall be entitled to choose one, Quebec four, Nova Scotia one, New Hampshire three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three."

Quebec is not a trivial state, but shall not calling the shots on WASP states by any means. Their votes shall be valuable in early Congress and Electoral College, nut no more than NJ.

The issue of theri statehood shall be but a footnote in the raging ratification battle about the bill of Rights.

Possibly we're talking past each other? Because I haven't said that anti-Catholic prejudice would (necessarily) wreck the union. I have said that it would be a significant issue, and would further complicate the job of the drafters.

Maybe we have been talking a litte apst each other, sorry on my part. :p Maybe I get just a little defensive when I have to defend PoDs like this, against the howling fury of the Balkanization-wankers. ;) and you got a little scattering fire.

Now, I think it would a significant but rather minor issue, since the kind of guarantees that the Quebecois would seek merge nicely enough with the more general issue of states' rights. I expect the point to raised more during the ratification debate than during the CC itself. Rather than hardcore explicit anti-Catholic prejudice, I expect the Framers to debate how the guarantees Quebec seeks abotu state rights would not be exploited to oppress minorities (ie. Anglo and Protestants) within the state. And the same point to be raised during the ratification debate.

As such, I do expect the net outcome to be OTL Madison's failed amendment that incorporated part of BoR against the states, to be written in the Constitution, either in the original documents or as an addition to the BoR. As a matter of fact, this wouls be significantly beneficial to the uSA, if incorporation of civil rights would begin in the 1780s.

As a matter of fact, again, this issue may unleash a chain of thought in the Convention that leads to write all or most of the BoR in the original constitution, including Madison's partial incorporation, which would quite steal the thunder from the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate.
 
Top