Challenge: Balkanised Canada without the US gettin' any

^Title^

The Quebec idea is to cliché. Spice it up whatever ya got and see if there is anyway to cut Big Ol' Canada like a pie cooked for four (or more). (If this offends any Canadians, lo siento) Oh, and try not to let Big Fat America get any land pies; Uncle Sam is being too naughty for the past few years.
 
Thanks, but no thanks

The USA wouldn't want Canadian provinces. Even by an overwhelming (>90%) provincial referendum. I can foresee a National [fill-in provincial name here] Liberation Front setting off bombs soon enough, even though they'd represent only having the support of 0.0001% (maybe 30 people nationwide:rolleyes:, and 3 active members:p).

The American and Canadian People have evolved into far too different "races", psychologically over the centuries.:cool: We wouldn't mesh. Imagine Canadians having to deal with the Tea Party.:mad:
 
No Confederation, with either no or a significantly gutted Constitution Act of 1867 would be the easiest. Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and Newfoundland & Labrador would be independent, as well as British Columbia later on, and I assume that the rest of western Canada could be split between Ontario and British Columbia. You'd probably see these states in some of sort of alliance, and probably a single customs union, but with little desire to integrate.
 
And maybe, as extra spice, an independent Inuit State. Or are they too subsistence-driven and diffused to form a coherent government, etc.?
 
No Confederation, with either no or a significantly gutted Constitution Act of 1867 would be the easiest. Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and Newfoundland & Labrador would be independent, as well as British Columbia later on, and I assume that the rest of western Canada could be split between Ontario and British Columbia. You'd probably see these states in some of sort of alliance, and probably a single customs union, but with little desire to integrate.
How could the Confederation be prevented, or the Constitution act be 'gutted'? Also what do you mean by gutted specifically?
And maybe, as extra spice, an independent Inuit State. Or are they too subsistence-driven and diffused to form a coherent government, etc.?
Or a free Metis state. :)
 
The USA wouldn't want Canadian provinces. Even by an overwhelming (>90%) provincial referendum. I can foresee a National [fill-in provincial name here] Liberation Front setting off bombs soon enough, even though they'd represent only having the support of 0.0001% (maybe 30 people nationwide:rolleyes:, and 3 active members:p).

The American and Canadian People have evolved into far too different "races", psychologically over the centuries.:cool: We wouldn't mesh. Imagine Canadians having to deal with the Tea Party.:mad:

The Tea Party arguably originated in Canada; they were called the Reform Party before supplanting the Progressive Conservatives and merging with them to form the Conservative Party.
 
How could the Confederation be prevented,

I actually have a TL in the dusty part of my diskdrive:

--------------------------

- 1864: The Charlottetown conference was called by the Maritime colonies with the object of forming a "Maritime Union" of new brunswwick, nova scotia and prince edward island the idea being of cutting cost linked infrastructure by pooling their resources and be in a better position to negotiate as a block. The conference's purpose was changed when representatives of the province of United Canada, who had requested to attend as observers, proposed an enlarged union that would include all of British North America. Newfoundland asked to attend but sent its request too late to be included. The conference, dominated by the canadian delegates, end with an agreement to meet in Quebec City a month hence to discuss the project of confederation further. The opinion in the Maritimes is divided with some seeing the benefit of being linked to the much larger canadian economy and military resources while other fear becoming junior partners to the canadians.

The Quebec Conference ends with the release of the 72 resolution describing the framework for confederation.

- 1865: The Atlantic Provinces population proved unimpressed with the Quebec Resolutions. The legislatures of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia reject them outright while the Premier of New Brunswick decide to go for an election which he loses instead of approving them. The 3 provinces begins once more discussing the Maritime Union project which would be a legislative rather then federative union.

- 1866: Undetered by the events in the maritimes, Canadian Premier Macdonald tables 15 resolutions in the assembly regarding a potential confederation. While most are passed with minor or no modifications, a sticking point arise over the rights of religious minorities in regard to education. Langevin, the solicitor general, propose to establish 2 superintendants in the future province of lower canada, one each for the protestants and catholics. Representative Bell from Canada east proposed the same for his province but a debate explode when other members refuse to agree, stating that the catholics of upper canada had no historical claim to such rights.

Pressure was put on Bell to withdraw his bill but representatives from canada east, seeing this as a snub, threaten to vote against Langevin's bill if there is to be no reciprocity. Macdonald and Cartier at first suggest to remove both but are then faced with Minister Galt threathening to resign if the rights of protestants in the future province of lower canada will not be protected by law. It is then suggested that the question be put on hold for a debate at a later date but a majority of representatives refuse to continue sitting until the matter is settled. Clearly at a deadlock and unable to continue with the work of the chamber, the event is seen as a motion of non-confidence, forcing new elections.

In the maritimes, the canadian tumult only exacerbate the people's negative view in regard to confederation. The locals fear that the difficulty in reaching a compromise is indicative of the instability facing the federation and that if a compromise could be reached, it might give too much power to the catholics. Maritime politicians continue with the idea of a union without canada when they meet to discuss the matter at the Fredericton Conference. Having agreed on the type of union wanted, an official petition is sent to the colonial ministry for advices on how to proceed next.

Back in Canada, the elections, despite including a number of parties and independants, is reduced to a contest between 2 camps: the pro and the anti confederationists with the later garnering the most seats. The leaders of the pro side try in vain to assemble a new coalition by promising compromises but it's the other side that manage to assemble one first. Dubbed the "Unholy Alliance" by its detractors due to the diametricaly opposed opinions of its members except on the subject of confederation, this new coalition offers the governor to form a government. Knowing that given the majority the government might move to disolve United Canada, the governor stall for time. Before anything is decided, the pro side sends a delegation to London in a last ditch attempt at saving the confederation ideal. Getting wind of this, the coalition sends one of their own.

The pro-confederation delegation met the colonial authorities first, their revised proposal was for a federation of 2 provinces (canada-east and canada-west) which could, in time, merge with the maritime union. This proposal was originaly met positively but some had reservation as to its stability considering the fracas over education. The anti-confederation group played on those fears and insinuating the posibility of an uprising and even annexion by the USA if it went through, they proposed instead the creation of 2 completely separate entities with responsible government which would at the very least satisfy the moderates. After much discussion, it was this proposal that was eventualy accepted.

A formal meeting, the London Conference, was called to hash out the exact organisation of the new north american polities which resulted in the British North America Declaration.

- 1867: After passing through the parliement and receiving royal assent, Toronto, Laurentia, the Maritime Union and Newfoundland became sovereign Dominions within the British Empire.
 
The USA wouldn't want Canadian provinces. Even by an overwhelming (>90%) provincial referendum. I can foresee a National [fill-in provincial name here] Liberation Front setting off bombs soon enough, even though they'd represent only having the support of 0.0001% (maybe 30 people nationwide:rolleyes:, and 3 active members:p).

The American and Canadian People have evolved into far too different "races", psychologically over the centuries.:cool: We wouldn't mesh. Imagine Canadians having to deal with the Tea Party.:mad:

I'm not sure why the U.S. wouldn't want parts of Canada. Canada has a lot of natural resources and a developed economy with a high standard of living . . . why would that be undesirable for the U.S.? I don't see your terrorist scenario being likely, and even if it were, it'd be suppressed pretty quickly, I'd imagine.

Now, as to whether Canadians would accept becoming Americans, that's a tougher one. Right now I don't think too many would be interested, but if their country were to split apart and the alternatives were to have the provinces become independent, American annexation might be more acceptable.
 
The USA wouldn't want Canadian provinces. Even by an overwhelming (>90%) provincial referendum. I can foresee a National [fill-in provincial name here] Liberation Front setting off bombs soon enough, even though they'd represent only having the support of 0.0001% (maybe 30 people nationwide:rolleyes:, and 3 active members:p).

The American and Canadian People have evolved into far too different "races", psychologically over the centuries.:cool: We wouldn't mesh. Imagine Canadians having to deal with the Tea Party.:mad:

I imagine the Tea Party would go over just fine in Alberta. Like the USA, Canada is very regionally diverse, politically and culturally speaking. The western coastal strip, from directly south of Alaska all the way down to LA, is noticably more 'progressive'/'left wing' than the national average in either the USA or Canada. But inland BC, most of Alberta and southern Saskatchewan are notably more 'conservative'/'right wing' than the national average in either the USA or Canada... much like inland Washington and Oregon, as well as Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas...

I'd say that the USA and Canada parts of the so-called "left coast" have more in common with each other than with the more conservative inland regions... on either side of the border. Likewise, I'd say Alberta and Montana have more in common with each other than they have in common with with that progressive western coastal strip.

So, about the American and Canadian People having evolved into different "races"... I'd have to disagree. Attitudes vary wildly by region. With no knowledge of anything, and just getting info from anonymized political and cultural questionaires, I think most people would conclude that Alberta and Montana were part of the same country, while placing Vancouver and Seattle in another country altogether.

(Apologies; I have strayed from the main point of the discussion.)
 
Last edited:
I imagine the Tea Party would go over just fine in Alberta. Like the USA, Canada is very regionally diverse, politically and culturally speaking. The western coastal strip, from directly south of Alaska all the way down to LA, is noticably more 'progressive'/'left wing' than the national average in either the USA or Canada. But inland BC, most of Alberta and southern Saskatchewan are notably more 'conservative'/'right wing' than the national average in either the USA or Canada... much like inland Washington and Oregon, as well as Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas...

Over 70% of albertans support same sex marriage. Support for socialized medicine is also in the majority, as is support for progressive taxation, and government intervention in social policy. The conservative portions of Canada are well to the left of the corresponding conservative portions of the US. Actual Communists have been elected in the prairies, and social democratic ideals are mainstream. There are many cultural differences between Canada and America that would make the tea party DOA here.
 
Over 70% of albertans support same sex marriage. Support for socialized medicine is also in the majority, as is support for progressive taxation, and government intervention in social policy. The conservative portions of Canada are well to the left of the corresponding conservative portions of the US. Actual Communists have been elected in the prairies, and social democratic ideals are mainstream. There are many cultural differences between Canada and America that would make the tea party DOA here.

Agreed. What constitutes "Conservative" in Canada strikes me as middle-of-the-road Democratic Party more than anything else. Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, not Joe Lieberman, certainly any Republican publicly labelled a "RINO".
 
Discussing whether or not Canadians would be ok with us annexing them, while always fun (personally, I'd argue that there are so few of them, we could just drown them with migrants from the lower 48 and dominate), isn't really what the OP was asking for.

But really, a failed Confederation is probably the easiest. With, e.g. *British Columbia, *Quebec, *Ontario and *Newfoundland/Maritimes as separate dominions, later evolving into separate states.
 
If Quebec joined the American Revolution, and became an independent republic afterwards, that could be the beginning of a balkanized Canada, especially if parts of Canada managed to successfully rebel against Britain later (maybe with American/Quebecois assistance). I was already thinking about this for a sort-of-kind-of-not-really TL about a North American Union:

-Quebec (1776): OTL+Newfoundland & Labrador
-Ontario (1834): OTL+Rupert's Land
-Cascadia (1908): OTL British Columbia+Western Canada


Edit: Nova Scotia and the Maritimes would go to the US in this scenario.
 
If Quebec joined the American Revolution, and became an independent republic afterwards, that could be the beginning of a balkanized Canada, especially if parts of Canada managed to successfully rebel against Britain later (maybe with American/Quebecois assistance). I was already thinking about this for a sort-of-kind-of-not-really TL about a North American Union:

-Quebec (1776): OTL+Newfoundland & Labrador
-Ontario (1834): OTL+Rupert's Land
-Cascadia (1908): OTL British Columbia+Western Canada


Edit: Nova Scotia and the Maritimes would go to the US in this scenario.

IDK. The main reason the British held on to Canada (beyond overwhelming military forces, of course) was the staunch loyalty shown by Roman Catholic French-Canadians. Major General (later Lord Dorester) Sir Guy Carleton, though perhaps no great military genius, was an extremely able statesman who was able to quickly grasp the circumstances on the ground. Namely, Yankee (and sadly, some Anglo-Canadian) anti-Catholic bigotry (IIRC some 500 Anglo-Canadians for a brief time rallied to the American invaders:() causing most of the Canadian populace to be repelled by their attitudes (and causing the French Canadians to rally to the British cause in droves:cool:).

For Quebec to rally to the American Rebellion you'd have to have a very poor British colonial policy towards Quebec (not after the Quebec Act!). The opposite was true. Even as London seemed to be doing their all to infuriate the Americans, their policies toward the Quebecois were extremely positive from the French-Canadians' POV. The anti-Catholic bigotry of the Americans only made things worse in terms of getting Quebec to come over to their side.

So short of the Colonies having much greater levels of Roman Catholic immigration into New England and New York State (which would make them very different places considering how they were mostly heavily populated in the aftermath of the Restoration), Quebec is staying with the British Empire. Of their VERY willing choice, I might add.:):cool:
 
IDK. The main reason the British held on to Canada (beyond overwhelming military forces, of course) was the staunch loyalty shown by Roman Catholic French-Canadians. Major General (later Lord Dorester) Sir Guy Carleton, though perhaps no great military genius, was an extremely able statesman who was able to quickly grasp the circumstances on the ground. Namely, Yankee (and sadly, some Anglo-Canadian) anti-Catholic bigotry (IIRC some 500 Anglo-Canadians for a brief time rallied to the American invaders:() causing most of the Canadian populace to be repelled by their attitudes (and causing the French Canadians to rally to the British cause in droves:cool:).

For Quebec to rally to the American Rebellion you'd have to have a very poor British colonial policy towards Quebec (not after the Quebec Act!). The opposite was true. Even as London seemed to be doing their all to infuriate the Americans, their policies toward the Quebecois were extremely positive from the French-Canadians' POV. The anti-Catholic bigotry of the Americans only made things worse in terms of getting Quebec to come over to their side.

So short of the Colonies having much greater levels of Roman Catholic immigration into New England and New York State (which would make them very different places considering how they were mostly heavily populated in the aftermath of the Restoration), Quebec is staying with the British Empire. Of their VERY willing choice, I might add.:):cool:

I agree. To make Quebec rebel against the British Empire, you would need a PoD at least a few years before the Revolution, if not earlier. I was thinking that the PoD could be during the 7YW. Maybe Britain faces a much tougher fight against France than it did in OTL, which inclines the British government to treat the Canadiens worse?

Edit: And even in this scenario, Quebec would have no intention of joining the anti-Catholic WASPS that made up 80% of the early US.
 
Last edited:
I agree. To make Quebec rebel against the British Empire, you would need a PoD at least a few years before the Revolution, if not earlier. I was thinking that the PoD could be during the 7YW. Maybe Britain faces a much tougher fight against France than it did in OTL, which inclines the British government to treat the Canadiens worse?

Not sure what you mean here. First, I wouldn't exactly say that Britain had an easy fight for North America in OTL. The British and French fought four wars on the continent, intermittently from 1689 to 1763, before British prevailed - and even then, the British had to fight France's tribal allies for several more years. Moreover, during the last conflict, the British ethnically cleansed the colony of Acadia (now Nova Scotia) of its French settlers, so they didn't have a sterling record when it came to their treatment of conquered subjects.

The Treaty of Paris of 1763, however, required Britain to tolerate Roman Catholicism in Canada. That was a critical point. If France had not insisted upon that provision in the negotiations, it's likely that Britain would have treated the Canadiens far more harshly. After all, at this time, Catholics had no rights whatsoever in Britain itself, and very little in Ireland as well. If the Canadiens aren't protected by the terms of that treaty, an anti-British revolt becomes considerably more likely.

Another hurdle, though, was the fact that the conflict had gone on so long, creating considerable enmity between the Canadiens and the American colonials. The Canadiens had been fighting the New Englanders for generations, so how could they realistically choose to suddenly cast in their lot with them?
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean here. First, I wouldn't exactly say that Britain had an easy fight for North America in OTL. The British and French fought four wars on the continent, intermittently from 1689 to 1763, before British prevailed - and even then, the British had to fight France's tribal allies for several more years. Moreover, during the last conflict, the British ethnically cleansed the colony of Acadia (now Nova Scotia) of its French settlers, so they didn't have a sterling record when it came to their treatment of conquered subjects.

The Treaty of Paris of 1763, however, required Britain to tolerate Roman Catholicism in Canada. That was a critical point. If France had not insisted upon that provision in the negotiations, it's likely that Britain would have treated the Canadiens far more harshly. After all, at this time, Catholics had no rights whatsoever in Britain itself, and very little in Ireland as well. If the Canadiens aren't protected by the terms of that treaty, an anti-British revolt becomes considerably more likely.

Another hurdle, though, was the fact that the conflict had gone on so long, creating considerable enmity between the Canadiens and the American colonials. The Canadiens had been fighting the New Englanders for generations, so how could they realistically choose to suddenly cast in their lot with them?

I didn't know about the Treaty of Paris provision, but it sounds like a good potential PoD to make Quebec rebel.

The Canadiens wouldn't necessarily be casting their lot in with the Americans, they would just be fighting for independence at the same time, as a separate nation. Maybe Quebec could rebel after France gets involved?
 
Edit: And even in this scenario, Quebec would have no intention of joining the anti-Catholic WASPS that made up 80% of the early US.

WI: Quebec rebels but doesn't join? That is, it gets its independence from Britain but doesn't participate in the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

If the Brits were harsher on Canadiens there'd be cause to rebel, and I could see the Americans accepting an independent Quebec as a way to break up British control in the north and provide a safe haven for Catholics in North America so they don't come to the US.

The question I have is: could an independent, mildly US-aligned Quebec survive from 1776 to ATL's present day?

EDIT: What Cthulhu said.
 
Last edited:
WI: Quebec rebels but doesn't join? That is, it gets its independence from Britain but doesn't participate in the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

If the Brits were harsher on Canadiens there'd be cause to rebel, and I could see the Americans accepting an independent Quebec as a way to break up British control in the north and provide a safe haven for Catholics in North America so they don't come to the US.

The question I have is: could an independent, mildly US-aligned Quebec survive from 1776 to ATL's present day?

Right, that was the scenario I was proposing: Quebec declares independence as the Republic of Canada (or Quebec, not really sure what they called themselves in those days), and is immediately recognized by the United States as an independent republic.
 
Top